Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

July 6th meeting of the site plan subcommittee to order. Can I get a roll call of commission members, please?

Commissioner Bourne. Here. Commissioner Helfrey.

Here.

Commissioner Gettinger. Commissioner Clayton. Commissioner Deppler. Commissioner Jackson. Commissioner Rubis. Chair Beatty. Here. Council Member Marshall. Present. And Mayor Garitano.

Thank you. So tonight on the agenda, we are going to discuss the site plan for Bendix States. And Mr. Vunic, do you have any opening comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, and thank you. First of all, to the Commission members and Councilmember Marshall, thank you for attending tonight. We do appreciate it. We haven't had a Site Plan Subcommittee meeting in quite a bit of time, so I know it's a bit of an inconvenience, particularly right after the holiday. So again, thank you. Tonight, the Site Plan Subcommittee is being presented the preliminary information relating to bendick estates this name may sound familiar to all of you because just recently the developer whaling custom homes had submitted a request for a waiver to the centralized wastewater treatment plant that waiver request was processed through much of twenty twenty six and ultimately the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the waiver based upon a strenuous set of conditions and city council concurred and passed a resolution So again, somewhat familiar, not the first time you're seeing the design, but certainly since that discussion of the waiver of the treatment plant, there has been a lot of additional information requested by the city and ultimately provided by the developer and the developers engineer. In your packet tonight, you do have a significant amount of information, and the department likes to just go through it so you know what you've got, and if there's something missing, Mr. Whalen, who's in attendance, and the department, and then get that information for you. The first item is a response from Terra Design. Terra Design is the firm that the engineer of record works with. That letter is a response to comments that were submitted from the departments of planning and public works regarding the submittal, the preliminary flat. Attached to that are letters or emails that were required of the city to the developer relative to utility service. And I think it's important to note that this particular site will be served by public water, gas, electric, and as part of the city's initiative by Speed Internet. AT&T typically comes along with all of those as well. So the only utility that is not available, public utility, is sanitary sewer. And again, we've talked about the treatment plant waiver and individual household systems on each of the lots. So you have utility letters relative to this particular project. Along with the utility letters, you have a design from Spire that will provide natural gas to the site. In association with that information, you have the natural resource protection standard delineation report. outside town center, this is a standard requirement completed by SCI, which is one of the approved firms to complete this type of analysis and attached to that analysis as an appendix is the information we received as part of the discussion on the wastewater treatment plant waiver. I think a key element of all of this too is the report from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources relative to the site, minimum lot sizes, et cetera. And as you know, at that time, the state recommended no lot be less than three acres in size. Finally, there is a set of plans associated with this particular project, that set of plans. is in the 11 by 17 format. And as you can see, it includes a number of notes, existing conditions, the site plan, natural resource protection standard analysis and plan, the grading plan, profiles, details, site distance information and then, as we go further into it, the stormwater management components. And then the SWPPP plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan. And then finally the landscape plan, which is a component of the tree stand delineation and tree preservation plan. Collectively, this is the packet that's been submitted for consideration tonight by the site plan subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission. To provide you some background, then the department will yield the podium to Mr. Whalen, the developer of the site. This is a 51-acre property. It is not a single 51-acre tract of land, pardon, parcel ground, but it is several properties that form that 51-acre tract of land. Proposed on that 51 acres is 15, three plus acre lots, and those lots will be used for single family detached dwelling. I think it's important to note that design is consistent with the zoning district designation of the property, the NU, non-urban resident district, and consistent with the master plan's designation of the property, non-urban residential area. As was already mentioned, this particular development subdivision has a waiver to the centralized wastewater treatment plant. So you will not see an area set aside or such, whether it be an easement or common ground, but each lot will have a system for service. Stormwater management is proposed through a system of onsite or on-lot components, as well as several areas that are intended to accumulate water before discharging offsite. Those are typically represented by the rectangles and the riprap areas at the end of pipe. Public space is addressed via a trail easement that is to be provided along Christie Road. That trail easement is an integral part of a future trail system that would extend from Manchester Road, Pond Road, Christie Road, south into Rockwoods Reservation. Many, many years ago, the city acquired an easement in a portion of Rockwoods Reservation that was not yet under state ownership. It was a 40-acre parcel of ground. And ultimately, the Missouri Department of Conservation purchased it. But the city does have an easement through that. So collectively, as time goes on, and that time may take a bit, the collection of easements hopefully will connect, create another access through the south to that MDC property. Certainly, that would be a welcome addition to the trail network here in the city of Wilderway. All told, public space equates to approximately 24,000 square feet and consistent with the ratio required by the zoning ordinance and the public space requirements contained therein. I think it's important to note that as was discussed during the waiver request to the centralized wastewater treatment plant, a desire on the part of the commission members was to minimize the extent of disturbance on site. And through the natural resource protection standards analysis, 18 acres is required to be preserved. At minimum, 32 acres will be preserved. So not double the amount, but very close to that. The disturbance, as you can see, will be for the road system, which will meet the city's rural roadway standards. and the housing locations themselves on each of the 15 lots. Now saying that, as you know, two existing dwellings are located on the property and they are to be retained. And so from the perspective of the department, there'll be some disturbance in association with them for the roadway installation, but primarily on those two lots, what exists now is generally to stay. Yes, ma'am.

Which are those 2 lots. Mister finish.

Let me find it here. And if you look under existing conditions. It doesn't show up well Mister will. Lots 1 and 7 and thanks to the assist the development. Tonight also on Zoom is our Director of Public Works. And before I conclude, I would offer him an opportunity to comment on any of the components of the plan that are of particular interest. But as I have mentioned, from many of the requirements, The plan, the design that you see before you tonight is compliant to them. The department would conclude with a discussion relating to the tree stand delineation and the tree preservation plan. In this particular instance, the tree stand delineation identified 22 grand trees to be removed. Grand trees can be removed, but there is a restoration requirement. And as I mentioned in my opening comments, the landscape plan is a component of that tree preservation plan. And as you can see, the department recommended that street trees be the principal mitigation or restoration component. And those street trees consist of maples, oaks, and some honey locusts. All of those are generally about two and a half inch caliper trees, so not the smaller types, but certainly enough to create somewhat of an immediate impact upon installation. Those line the private street that is proposed to serve the 15 lots, and then there is additional landscaping in the cul-de-sac island, which we require. Obviously, grand trees are important to the city. The mitigation of them can be very expensive. And in this particular instance, as you can see, adds quite a bit of canopy coverage to the site. The department believe that creating a tree line street or aesthetics shade. Was appropriate instead of placing them on individual lots or elsewhere on the site. The department would conclude by noting that again. There is a substantial level of compliance with the submittal as presented tonight. But with Mr. Brown's comments and then any questions or comments from the commission, the department will be seeking direction at the conclusion of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich.

Again, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Brown has anything to add, I would respectfully request it at this time.

Mr. Brown?

Thank you. I don't have anything in particular relative to this development at this time, but if there's any questions of the department, I'll do my best to address them. Thank you.

Any questions from the commission? Go ahead.

Might as well make it count since I'm here, huh? So are there sidewalks?

There are no sidewalks planned interior. And as I mentioned, there is a trail easement that is planned. The department did have a lengthy discussion with the developer about potentially building the trail from this site out to Manchester Road. It's an offsite improvement. It's a substantial distance. And ultimately, there was no tool to make that work, such as the traffic generation assessment fee. So we'll escrow the trail construction cost along the frontage and hold that for future purposes.

Okay, so when you say along the frontage, help me out, what does that mean?

So if Mr. Newberry could go... So the overall tract of land... is served by Christie Road. And so when I speak of frontage, that's the area that the two lots above the city's public street. So that's the frontage. There'll be an easement established there. And then as part of that, a trail is required. And that trail will be escrowed for future construction.

So there's no sidewalks on the street, so then there won't be any problems for the street treat?

No, there'll be no... There'll be no trip hazards formed by the routes taking over. And in large lots, single family subdivisions, we have required at times trails, but for the most part, not interior to the site. What we've typically heard over the years is that people buy three plus acre lots for privacy. And since it's a private street, We'd have to create a public easement. And so it gets a little complicated and it certainly isn't necessarily what we see in the rest of the rural area. But along Christie Road, the public street, we certainly do eventually want some kind of pedestrian facility.

So because it's a private street, there's no sidewalks, there's no public space then, correct? Correct.

Well, the trail easement is public space. And then under our public space requirements, any phase two stormwater improvements can be credited toward the public space. And that's something we did many years ago when they were implemented. And we found them to be fairly onerous in terms of how we how we develop property, not only here in Wildwood, but relatively in the St. Louis area. Meaning that by the time you take land area out for stormwater improvements, utility locations, right of way, pedestrian facilities, and then now public space, it gets kind of onerous in terms of what's available to use at the end of the process. And so our feeling was, is the phase two stormwater regulations were so important to us to protect our watersheds, they were deserving of some special accommodations. And that's what we did through the public space.

And then I have one more question. The two existing houses, lots one and lot seven, those houses sit back on their lots away from the street, which I think is wonderful. But my only question is, if one of these septic systems on either side of those lots were to fail, would it cause those two homes, because they're sitting back, any issues?

Well, certainly the drainage pattern could affect those existing homes in that way and as well as with stormwater. My explanation will be that due to the natural resource protection standards and the city trying to minimize site disturbance, we actually pushed the homes as close to the road as we can. And as you can see, that's why they're kind of lined up along that 50-foot front yard setback. and not necessarily push back on the lots or set on the lots in an irregular pattern. I don't know if that's good or bad. Ultimately, as I say, out of a 51 acre site, we'll have 32 acres preserved for perpetuity and 100% protected. That was valued many years ago and I believe still is by our city.

And I understand that. That's not what I'm asking. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

No, you were.

But I'm going to use my house just as an example. You know, the way the land rolls, when the builder built the houses up for me, he opted to give them flat lots, which smoothed the flow of the water, which... Brown trees and move water and affected my yard. Right. And so my question is, is there a way to grade the lots on either side of 1 and 7? So that if there was a septic. Problem on those lots that it would not affect those 2 houses that were sitting further back. Does that make sense?

Certainly does. Okay. From a grading standpoint, anything can be done. whether it be through the manipulation of the property or the use of engineered solutions like retaining walls. But I would probably defer this question to Mr. Whalen and Mr. Brown to answer.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Go ahead, Mr. Whalen. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Helfrey, Mr. Chair, Councilmember Marshall. Lot 1... is a pretty small house and it actually sits really close to Christie. So I would not consider there to be any potential downhill flow from lot one towards lot two. It's the only lot that that could be affected by. And lot seven, does sit back off the road, but it's higher. So the drainage pattern, the highest point in the development is between lots, let's just say lots five and six. The high point's at seven. So that's the break. That's where the water starts going in two different directions. Five and six are very, very, very flat, very flat. So we will be grading those lots to manage stormwater to get it, uh, to the road to that high point and then we'll break at the high point and run to the stormwater management facilities. I personally wouldn't be concerned about that knowing the grades. The other matter that we're doing just a little different here, it was the department's requirement for us to escrow money with every house. I think you probably remember this because I think you voted for it, so thank you. for the maintenance of the septic systems. And we're gonna have one contractor performing the service. So if something happens, the HOA is going to be managing that and it will be dealt with quickly. But from a grading standpoint, I think we're in good shape.

Okay, and what is that? It looks like a drainage way at the back of lot 14. Is that what I'm seeing?

That is what you are seeing. So the earth... And it's so deceiving. I could ask my engineer, Mr. Vonderheide, to comment on this. The road separates the high point of the property, which is actually the north, lot one, okay, from lots 14 and 15. So we are going to put a culvert in between lots one and two, close to the property line. We're going to run it under the road. pipe it, and then it will dissipate. It's a collective storm water that builds up from those two lots. It will dissipate to that rock blanket, okay? It's not a ton of water. It's just getting the water to be able to move under the road. In fact, if you ever drove out there now, you would see that the homeowners or the property owners have similar types of culverts out there. They raised the road years ago. So I could ask Mr. Vonderheide if you wanted a little bit more technical information on that, but you just think of lots one and two being higher than 14 and 15. We just want to be able to get that water that runs towards the road, underneath the road, so it can dissipate.

I got that. So at the back of lot 14, they're just going to have a big rock bed in their backyard?

Actually, there's a... really nice tree cover. And it's kind of, it's hard to see in this plan, but we're kind of weaving it around the trees that's there. So it really won't be visible from lot 15 or lot 14. In fact, our client who is hopefully going to purchase lot 14 if he if we get this fruit uh he's a side farmer big side farmer and uh he thought lot 14 was he was the first one to offer to get on our reservation list so it it'll look nice he won't it won't be something that jumps out at you am i reading it right it looks like there's kind of a small ridge going between across like the middle of 15 um A little bit, a little bit. So are you talking about the grading lines that are on lot 15? Yeah, I'm just looking at this map break. Yeah.

L1.

Yep. Very slight. Very, very, very slight.

And then you're culverting under that ridge, it looks like, on 14.

Yeah, so again, 1 and 2, that's the higher point. We're culverting underneath the road.

Yeah.

And that will go, it will break about right past the house, that underground pipe, and then we will fan out that rock blanket. Okay.

Will it cause mosquitoes?

I sure hope not. I would be more worried about... this is not, it's so nice and flat that, you know, this was a farm for 50 years. So we're going to have to make sure we hold the houses at the right elevations, get that water to run away and go where it's supposed to go. Um, there are mosquitoes there now. I can tell you that. Yeah. Uh, but it, it does, um, the Bendick family, um, they've owned it for, going on 100 years. He was the owner of Kirkwood Animal Hospital, which is still in business today. So it was a pretty good working farm. There's one pond area that's pretty mosquito-y, but that's going to go away after we grade this out. Thank you. You are welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, any questions? All good. Thank you, sir.

I do have a question for Mr. Vunich, going back to the public space. Yeah, go ahead.

And Joe, I don't think you and I actually, this is, again, Commissioner Helfer, you brought up. We are, so this is a little unusual. We were able to get public water here, okay? And there's a new fire code as of 2024 that if there are hydrants, at the, we have to expand the road to 26 feet. So the rural roadway requirement is 20 in Wildwood, which is like my West Eden development.

Is that 20 minimum or maximum?

Minimum. Okay. Yeah, minimum. But it's most of the subdivisions like recently approved or whatever i if they're going to be fire hydrants then the requirement for metro west will be 26. so it's going to be a little wider for walking you know walking the dog and and whatnot then say my west eden development over off melrose and and 100 which is still at 20.

Well, then, so that brings me, when I was reading this stuff at home, I saw something about water pressure. And I think it said that it's requested like over a thousand, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, whatever the letters are. And then, but it said that you're only going to have 450 or is that a different?

Well, that's a great, thank you for giving me the opportunity.

I was working on it.

So there's, there are two issues. There's low.

Yeah.

and there's pressure, okay, different. So the 1500 number, and this is about a two or three year old code, is from the fire district. Metro West requires 1500 gallons per minute if we were to do a development in Town Center, like the one we're proposing for west eden in the in the absence of it we're so far away from 1500 gallon per minute that's a flow amount not a pressure amount um it's a million dollars and five years of trying to get easements and so on and so forth to get the fire flow in this area up to 1500 gallons per minute.

It's only at 450, right? Is that what I read?

So yes, but 450 gallons per minute can still get normal household water pressure for taking a shower, washing your dishes and whatnot. We can size the pipes. This will have an eight inch ductile iron water main and the pipes and the way the fittings work and all that 450 gallons per minute can get you 60 PSI in your house, which is normal. We put regulators in houses to make sure the pressure doesn't go over those because it hurts appliances and whatnot. So the fire department granted us approved. Missouri American water is fine with 450 gallons per minute. Just needs to be approved by the fire department. And we've been working with the fire marshal for six months. And he finally came back and said, hey, look, we want you to build this. We want the hydrants. We want them spaced the way we would normally do it. We want the ductile iron infrastructure in there because someday, just like the trail, he goes, When water gets here somehow, some way, like that parcel across the street that's owned by the junior college, some development in the future makes that 1,500 gallon per minute more attainable. He wants the infrastructure in the development to be able to handle that. So it's, you know, because in the absence of that, our... we could have got a waiver from him and just had wells. Uh, but the, when there's wells, there is no hydrant, you know? So at a minimum or 50, they can fill up their tanker trucks. They can, you know, with the houses being far as far away from each other as they are, they're not worried about this house hitting the next house on fire. So he wrote a pretty lengthy letter about it. Um, and, uh, You know, one of the family owners of the property was former fire chief of Metro West. So we feel pretty comfortable that this is reasonable. Otherwise, we would have just done wells. The cost of the water infrastructure and the wells is really about the same. But with that water infrastructure in there, when the pressure is available, or the, forgive me, when the fire flow, the amount of water is available in the future, that infrastructure will be there. And Fire Marshal Hafer proved that. So was that helpful?

Yeah, thanks for explaining that, because that was in my notes that I forgot to ask.

Thank you for bringing that up.

All right. So going back to my question, you brought up the public space and is like, I don't remember, maybe I missed it, but like in West Eden is, did they have public space requirements on that one too? Yes. What was that just the, what was the public space there?

Well, West Eden was unusual in at least one regard to the department. It was a 66-acre tract of land. 22 acres of that was dedicated to common ground.

Oh, so it's just the common ground.

Right, and under our code. 50% of privately held common ground can be used towards public space. So 11 acres easily met the requirement for, I believe, the 12 home sites. And it's unusual because it's just a substantial amount of common grounders set aside on a 66-acre tract of land. Now, saying that, it's heavily wooded. It has topographic relief, pretty substantial. But it's just a nice set aside that works real well out in that area of Wildwood, Mill Roads Road, and Route 100.

So in more rural areas, the public space is more semi-public, I guess?

Yes. In rural areas, we try to focus our public space on stormwater management to protect the watersheds and trails, quite frankly, to make that connection of trails along the public streets so we can get to the major park holdings. And that's been the focus for many years.

Yeah, because this is the first I've been, I don't know, maybe I've seen it on old maps, but I wasn't aware that you were trying to run down Christie to get to Rockwoods.

Many, many years ago, as they say. The family that owned the 40-acre tract that was surrounded by Rockwood's reservation contacted the department, our city attorney, and said, we'd like the dedicated easement because we're getting to the point where we're going to put the property up for sale. But we want to make sure that if in the future a trail can be made from Christie Road south to the reservation, this particular site isn't blocking it.

So is that property, if you go into the Southern Christie Road to that house at the end of it, is it that property?

No, it's actually, it used to be located in the middle of that northern half of Rockwoods Reservation. Some of the older maps may show it. I don't know. As I say, it was more of recent times that the Department of Conservation purchased it. I think like We had an old master plan. It's like a donut hole. That's how obvious it is.

Yeah. This is getting way off topic, but I've always been curious about like Christy off of Banchester and then Christy off 109, but they don't connect at all.

They don't. What we hope and what we found is that when we approach the Missouri Department of Conservation, they've been willing to accommodate additional natural surface trails if the city's willing to construct them and maintain them. So as I say, we're just hopeful that we'll get that opportunity at some point in the future.

I'm reach out to Gore.

And I do have a comment relative to the fire district. Certainly, we're not obliged to adhere to the fire code. So the 26 foot wide pavement is an argument that we've had for years and years with the fire marshals. Typically, what happens is the fire marshals, the districts will say we won't issue permits. We say we want this because it generates less stormwater. It's more consistent with the level of use and the level of services. It's more aesthetically pleasing. And in our opinion, narrower streets, slow traffic. So there's two immovable forces kind of bumped in the middle and the developers caught. Mr. Marshall, remember this happened at Homestead. Fisher-Frichtal was at wit's end because Monarch Fire Protection District insisted that the major street off of Brigger Road be 33 feet in width. And it looks like a runway in unsuitable development because the development doesn't need a 33-foot wide road. But Fisher-Frichtal made a plea to city council, somebody's got to give, and in this particular instance, we did. Although the fire marshal may tell Mr. Whalen, you've got to do this and you've got to do that, we're not obliged.

So he's putting 20 foot wide streets, is that correct? Yeah, 20 foot wide.

We could say, that's great what the fire district is saying, but 20 foot's our standard. And hydrants, well, that's fine too, but we can also go to Wells.

So why does the hydrants increase the street width?

Staging the fire vehicles next to the hydrants and still maintaining a lane so that another vehicle can pass, whether it's an ambulance, a rescue vehicle, etc.,

Whereas if there were no hydrants, the fire truck could park anywhere, I guess.

For the most part, 20 feet would accommodate it. Remember, my understanding is a fire truck with its mirrors extended to the greatest extent is 8 feet 10 inches in width. And so a 20-foot wide, that's them parking right on the edge of pavement service, which probably isn't going to happen. That's why we want to keep a little bit of accommodation with the 20 foot with 26 takes the margin of error out of all of it. And we've generally been acceptable to that because it also allows parking on one side of the street. And for special events, even in large lot areas, a little parking on the street never hurt. Right.

I'm thinking of a state sale off to Hart Farm where, yeah, getting back there was interesting.

Yeah, it can be. And some of the streets, obviously long before Wildwood in the rural areas, the large lot, single family subdivision, they're 12 feet, 14 feet. There's a The county standard was you create a 50 foot wide private roadway easement, bring grassy grass. And what you built inside of that was really up to the developer. And so you have gravel, rock, asphalt, concrete, a mix, and you have all kinds of streetwood. We've tried to standardize it with the rural roadway standards, which is 20 feet. Thank you. Certainly.

So are you looking for approval or denial or whatever we decide to do?

The department is respectfully requesting a motion to proceed forward with a favorable recommendation at the August meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

I will make that recommendation.

I will second it.

Great. So we have a motion. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Boren, Mayor Garitano?

Done for me.

Thanks. All right. Seeing none, I guess voice vote's okay. Yes, sir. All right. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. And again, from the Department of Planning's perspective, thanks for attending tonight and allowing the Site Plan Subcommittee to proceed forward with the review of the plan set. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that motion to adjourn. To be right for the next 18 minutes. All right. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Any abstain? All right.

I'd like to call this July 6 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Tonight on the agenda, we have five public hearings, two letters of recommendation, two information reports, and one other item. Can I get a roll call of commission members, please?

Commissioner Boren?

Here.

Commissioner Helfrey?

Here.

Commissioner Gettinger? here via Zoom. Commissioner Clayton, Commissioner Deppler.

Here.

Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Rubis, Chair Beatty.

Here.

Council Member Marshall. Mayor Garitano. Here.

Thank you. Thank you. Can I get an approval of the minutes from June 1st, please?

No.

Motion by Councilman Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Helfrey. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? I'm abstaining since I was not here.

Thank you.

All right. Does the Department of Planning have any open comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, a couple. First of all, I'd like to welcome Ms. Wheeler again. She is standing in for Mr. Young, our city attorney. So thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. And secondly, this afternoon, Tom Lee, our city administrator, advised me that there had been a problem with the posting of the agenda for tonight's meeting. It was posted in the vestibule and it was available on our website via the agenda center. the entirety of the time from Friday to tonight. But unfortunately, it appears that if you were to go on to the homepage of our website, click on the calendar, then go to Planning and Zoning Commission. The agenda that was available for tonight's regular session was the same as the Site Plan Subcommittee. Mr. Lee corrected that today, but again, I do want to make note of it, and if individuals that were interested in any of the particular items tonight, could not access the agenda and did not go to the agenda center to find it. I do apologize. But again, it was posted at all of the locations. There was just the one area of concern. Tonight, what does that mean? Well, the public hearings themselves, there'll be no action. And in terms of the letters of recommendation and the information report, certainly if the commission feels that adequate time was not provided. due to the agenda not being appropriately posted under the calendar feature, then we can postpone and proceed to the next meeting in August. So the department does extend its apologies. Legally, I do not believe you're required to postpone, but if you feel it is in the best interest of the process to, certainly the department will understand and we'll get everything squared away for the August meeting of the commission. Is there any questions regarding that item? I'd be glad to try to answer them at this time.

Sorry. My only question would be, so on the information reports, there will still be another vote next meeting anyway on those, correct?

Yes. As you know, our process requires two actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first is on the information report that's prepared by the department to the commission. That's the first vote. The second vote is when, after action by the commission, that report is converted to commission authorship. And then that is what ultimately is presented to the city council. And that's the second vote.

So perhaps if we... So the letters of recommendation, those are the only two where the final vote would be tonight.

That's correct. But I know that the information reports relating to quick serve restaurants or drive-through facilities had drawn the most attention of the information on tonight's agenda. And so if people didn't have an opportunity over the weekend to review it, Certainly the department feels bad about that, and that's why it is identified that if a postponement is appropriate, after we hear public comment or at any stage in tonight's meeting process, the department would certainly understand.

Mayor Garitano?

Yeah, I was going to ask Director Voonage if there is a state requirement, because I've noticed when I look at agendas of neighboring cities, they don't include the attachments online. They just put the main agenda without any further reports, which seeing that, I was wondering, you know, if... the um you know that i think director voyage mentioned that there's no requirement for us but we always take that extra step above a lot of other cities putting that information out there making it easy for residents to find but you know that's not the case i think when you look at some of the other agendas that are published in other cities

Mr. Mayor, I would defer to Ms. Wheeler, but as I say, we always do the extra step. The only requirement in our code is to advertise the public hearings. Everything else that we do in terms of postings, signs on the sites, et cetera, after that is due to the fact the city council and past mayors, including yourself, Mayor Garitano, has always wanted more information available, not less. Ms. Wheeler?

Yeah, I would agree with that. As long as the agenda was posted online in the agenda center 24 hours ahead of time, it was posted at City Hall legally under the Sunshine Law. I don't think there is likely an issue, but I would agree with everything that's been said so far.

And again, Mr. Chair, my point is, if somebody wanted to look at the reports, and particularly the one on the drive-through facilities, and went to the calendar, clicked on the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, they didn't get the right agenda through the weekend. It's there now. Commissioner Helfrich?

So I see a lot of people here, and so I'm wondering, can we go ahead and do the public hearings and do anything that's a first run-through, but maybe not the second vote?

Certainly.

Or address that at that moment.

Certainly, and that's... You have complete discretion as the commission. Even if we had posted it right and you felt that this isn't right yet, so to speak, you could postpone, and we'd be back in August or September or whatever date that might be. But certainly... We can go through the public comment. As you know, other than the public hearings, any of the other items on the agenda, comments have to be provided from the public as part of the next section on the agenda.

So I would say we continue on.

Okay. Thank you.

That's good.

So we'll go into public comment. As a reminder, if you're here to speak on one of the public hearings, now is not the time. But if you're here for one of the other agenda items, now would be the time to speak. If you would like to speak, bring a comment card up to Mr. Newberry here, and he will add you to the list of speakers. And we'll go through the list as he calls your name.

And again, Mr. Chair, just as a reminder, any individual representing a group, such as a trustee for a homeless association, is allowed up to five minutes. Individuals are given three minutes.

Correct. Mr. Chair, the department has not received any speaker cards for the public comment session, but I know some folks have walked in. Give them some time to maybe get it filled out.

Hi, I'm Debbie Donaldson.

I live in Canbury. I got an interesting article today that happened to come into my email. And it's about a community that this article is titled, Not Loving It, Why a New McDonald's is Sending Shockwaves Through a Small Community. It's in New York State. It had a lot of interesting data to it. I love data. At the June hearing, residents lined up to oppose it, citing traffic, emergency vehicle access, and the safety of proposed right turn only entrance and exit. Being a person who lives on Canberry Lane in Canberry, that is what we are concerned about, not only in Canberry, but in Main Street Crossing. I use the traffic circles on a daily basis, and I can tell you I have been hit on the traffic circle, and I was nearly hit the other day. by a very, very aggressive dump truck. And I wouldn't have won. So it's scary. And we have kids riding e-scooters and e-bikes and so on and so forth. Unpredictable. They haven't reached a decision on the development yet, but the fight speaks to a bigger question for any homeowner whose neighborhood is about to change. When a new commercial development moves in, what does it add to an area? And what does it take away? And do the people living nearby have a right to worry about what it means for their home's value, not just their day to day? And we will have a change in our day to day. And a person was cited as saying, when is enough enough? We should be working to keep people engaged in nature, not the other way around. As anyone knows, fast food is not the healthiest option. There was a piece the other night on the news about kids and obesity. Fast food is significantly adding to obesity. And they're on e-bikes, not getting the exercise they need to be on, and scooters. So does Wildwood really want to contribute to that? Commercial proximity comes up constantly with buyers. A Trader Joe's or a coffee shop nearby is often a selling point, while a drive-thru, gas station, or anything that generates heavy traffic tends to give buyers pause, especially in a residential area. The difference is the setting. A 24-hour drive-thru abutting a quiet residential street is very different than the same business in a town center already built for that kind of activity. In a downtown area, residents chose that level of action. You didn't choose to live near that sort of activity. You won't be happy if it decides to move in nearby. It's rarely the use itself buyers object to. It's the noise, headlights, and traffic that come with it. A National Academies of Sciences review of property value studies found that home values fall an average of about 0.4% for every additional decibel of road traffic noise. That kind of noise adds up on a high volume corner. That's not a real estate study. That's from the National Academies of Sciences. Work says she's had buyers ask directly where anything is being built nearby before they'll make an offer. Not because of resale math, but because it shapes daily life in the home. And a commercial proposal near a listing isn't something a seller can keep quiet. That is true, has to be disclosed. On the seller side, a pending commercial proposal near a listing is something we have to disclose. It can affect negotiations or cause a buyer to walk. A project that hasn't broken ground and may never get approved can still cost them at the negotiating table. I negotiate real estate contracts all the time. I talk someone into checking out a data center. They didn't buy because of a data center that was less than a mile away. It wasn't disclosed. It's not under disclosures yet, but it will be. The fight is bigger than a single corner. When a commercial use moves into a non-commercial area, it tends to shift the neighborhood and set a marker for the next proposal. One minute. Once you follow one use in, it's hard to argue against the next. That's my fear and my neighbor's fear. It's never about just one building. It's about the precedent it says. Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Mr. Chair, again, aside from Ms. Donaldson, the department has not received any speaker cards here in the room. We do have a few on Zoom, at least one of which I know is here for a public hearing.

All right, we'll give him a minute to see if any raise hands pop up.

Sure, miss bush has just submitted a card to speak.

Hello.

I'm krista bush and I live at 25 away clear lane in the camberry neighborhood. I did submit an email to PNZ in early May. I do hope that you received it. It basically discussed my concerns for the rezoning for drive-thrus at the 109 Main Street lots. And I did want to add a couple things tonight. I know that there's a plan to do a traffic survey for that area. I'm hoping that that's still going to happen to determine whether or not it's safe to put drive-through businesses on those two lots, flanking the roundabout there at Main Street. And any information about when that's going to happen and What the results are if they can be shared with residents when that's available I'm asking that that be done because we're all very interested to hear What a traffic survey would say about the safety of of this proposal Also, I know it's been brought up that there was a survey that went out to Wildwood residents about the types of restaurants that they would like to see in Wildwood. The only survey I'm aware of, I did see on Facebook about six months ago, and I read through all the comments. There were 250 on there at the time I read it. Only five of those comments talked about wanting drive-thrus. The rest of the comments were a host of other types of restaurants that were desired. Things like family friendly, more affordable, more variety, High end. One minute. So... If that information is available, I would like that survey to be shared with residents as well. At this point, I feel that those of us who live in Canberra and Main Street are very worried about primarily the safety before anything else, the safety of this proposal, putting drive-throughs in that location without proper road infrastructure. It doesn't seem like common sense to many of us. And we're trying to make that known to PNZ as well as Wildwood City Council when we have that opportunity. I hope you're hearing us. I know Joe Garitano says all the time that you listen to your residents. And I really hope you're listening to us because for those of us that live there, We are very worried before anything else that there isn't going to be proper road infrastructure to support this, either for cars entering and leaving or for pedestrians that use those trails to walk every day. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, I have not received any speaker cards.

All right.

And no one has raised their hands. So we will end the public comment there and go into our 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 August 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 in attendance at City Hall tonight wanting to speak should fill out a speaker's card 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.cityofwildwood.com. The Commission would like to thank you for your cooperation and participation in tonight's hearings. All right. Let's see here. Mr. Vunich, PZ7-26.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first set of proposals for public hearing tonight is PZ 7-26, Route 66 Villas, care of KB Capstone Homes, 2646 State Route 109, Suite 100B, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change to the Town Center Regulating Plan from the Workplace District Designation to the Neighborhood General District Designation for a 12.17% acre parcel of ground generally located on the north side of manchester road across from old fairway drive st louis county locator number twenty three eleven zero zero six three property address one six seven zero one manchester road which is on c a planned commercial district st louis county action from nineteen ninety one this particular property is located in ward eight the companion The proposal is PZ7A and 7B, 26, Route 66 Villas, care of KB Capstone Homes, 2646, State Route 109, Suite 100B, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change in zoning district designation for the proposal of ground that is currently identified in the C8 Plan Commercial District, Town Center Workplace District, to the r six a four thousand square foot resident district with a planned residential development overlay district p r d which is seven b all being in association with a parcel of ground that is twelve point one seven acres in size and generally located on the north side of manchester road across from old fairway drive st louis county locator number twenty three u eleven zero zero six three property address one six seven zero one manchester road proposed use thirty nine attached single family dwellings in clusters of two and three units with associated street and pedestrian networks along with private public right-of-way dedication and improvements stormwater management facilities, and required public spaces. Again, this property is located in Ward 8. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Mr. Newberry?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. As is typical for a public hearing, the department has prepared a relatively brief slideshow presentation with some exhibits as well as photographs of the subject site. The first is just an aerial image depicting where the property is located. We've referred to this property as the Wedge property in past, so that strikes a bell. The next is just a closer view of the property. And then here is a plan sheet that shows the proposed development. And then next will be a series of photographs. This next series of photographs will be taken at this general intersection, Old Fairway Drive and Manchester Road. And it's standing directly across where the proposed entrance to the eastern portion of the site is proposed. This is standing at that location on the south side of the street looking to the west. This is standing at that same location looking to the east. And this is standing at that same location looking directly to the north. It shows the vegetated area that is the frontage of the subject site along most of Manchester Road. Next is standing on the north side of the street looking towards the south. This is Old Fairway Drive, again from the proposed entrance to the eastern portion of the development. This series of photos, the two photos on each slide here, both of the photos are looking in the same direction. This is looking towards the west. One show depicts more the frontage along Manchester Road on the south side of the road. The other is attempting to depict the subject site's frontage onto Manchester Road looking into the west. And a similar set of photographs here. And then the next series of photographs are taken at the area with the red star that shows the area of an entrance to the western portion of the site. This is standing at the general location and looking to the west along Manchester Road. This photograph is standing in that same location and looking to the east. And then we got a couple of photographs from just the internal of the site to the site's frontage on to State Route 100 and the trail system that's along there as well. First photo is looking towards the west. Beyond this fence and downgrade from this fence is the city's trail system that runs along State Route 100. And then the next photograph, it gives you an idea of this is the pedestrian bridge, the easternmost pedestrian bridge across State Route 100, again, standing on the subject site at its northern boundary. And then the next series of photographs are regarding the site has a portion of historic Route 66 roadbed on the site, which will be a component of the discussion and an ultimate recommendation from the department. This red box kind of depicts the general area of where that is through the site. The next set of photographs were not taken by me or during this time of season because it's hard to get back there. But I just wanted to show a couple of photographs we had of the roadbed that's in question. The department would consider it a historic asset. Just a few photographs of that. I believe the petitioner will provide some additional details on that as well. wanted to give you an idea of that component of of the of the development um at the public hearing and then that concludes the department's presentation mr chair and mr chair the um petitioner's representative has um provided a presentation that they would like to share with the commission thank you mr newberry would the petitioner like to come forward all right

Okay. Well, good evening. My name is David Volz. I'm with Volz Engineering, and our address is 10849 Indian Head Industrial Boulevard in Olivet. And with me tonight is Tom Cummings. He's with Blue Onyx Development, and they are the developers of the site. And again, what we're seeking is rezoning and approval of a preliminary development plan for this 12.2-acre site that's located on the north side of Manchester Road, and it's basically across from the Cherry Hills entrance, which Travis pointed out. The site's currently zoned C8, old C8 from St. Louis County back in 1991, apparently. And what we're seeking is an R6A and neighborhood general in the town center. And I know everyone's pretty familiar with the site, but I'm going to show you a different aerial. And from this aerial, you just want to highlight a few things. So Manchester Road's on the south, and you can see the road across there, old Fairwood. The Chinooks is on the right-hand side. And a couple features I really want to point out is the blue line that goes north-south, that is a creek that runs through the site. And it actually drains underneath. It flows north, and it drains underneath Highway 100 to the north. And then the white line, which I highlighted there, is the historic Route 66. And that's what remains of that road. And then the line that's next to it, the green one that you see there, that's actually an Ameren line. It's a power line overhead that actually crosses Highway 101. just north of the property as well. So there is the highway, and then there's a power line next to it. And you can see the pedestrian bridge where it crosses Highway 100, and then you know that that trail goes along that thing. So really, this site, and what I wanted to point out in this slide, is really three separate, almost three separate developments from an engineer's point of view. Because you have the area, if we're not going to disturb the creek, and we're not going to disturb the road, you have the area west of the creek, You have the area between the creek and Route 66. And then you have the area from Route 66 to the east, which actually has the entrance in the middle of it. So really, it's three separate things that we're trying to develop here. So historic Route 66. When I first started on this project, I greatly underappreciated the value of this. And through Joe Boonage's help, he asked me to look into it. So I walked the thing several times. I took a bunch of photographs of it. And this really is a historic thing that needs to be saved. My research, I could only find like five other concrete sections of Route 66 that exist today. There's only like five others. And most of them are old highways that became Route 66. So they might be like a single lane. But this is a double lane section. It's 24 feet wide, although... To be honest with you, a good part of it is covered with debris, so I couldn't really see it all. But it appears to be a 24-foot section with a center lane. So that section of highway built like that was built between 1926 and 1932 is when that section was built like that. So that's very, very unusual. There's not very many things like it. And from my understanding, people would actually travel to come see this. That's how unusual it is. So... My family, when my father bought or started our company, he bought another surveying company called Elverine Surveying Company, which is actually the oldest one in the area. They started work in 1882, I believe. Whenever the county was formed, that's when this company started because he was the original county surveyor. So I thought I would look through and see if he had any historic information about this. And I actually found this survey right here. And I wish I had a pointer so I could point this out. But you can see Manchester Road going kind of north, south. That's actually this section. And this plat was done in 1932, I believe, or 1938. And this actually dedicated a piece of right-of-way, which is called New Manchester, on the south side. That is why this piece of pavement is still there, because somebody had the idea, we want to reroute that, and they basically abandoned that. So throughout the country, all of the original historic road was either torn up or rebuilt over or paved over or rebuilt. But this section was never rebuilt because it was actually relocated in 1938. So I was actually pretty impressed with that. So now I just wanted to show you some of the history of this site. This is a previous plan, which was done about a year ago. And this was a development which was not approved, and we didn't work on it. But three-story building, 77 units, 171 parking spaces, and this one was not approved. So what we did is we drew up a plan, and we took it to the DZRC, which is hard to, it's development of zoning, review and committee. So we took this plan.

It doesn't roll off the tongue very easily.

I know. Neither does DCRC. I had to write it down. But we brought this plan before that committee. And it's a 42-unit plan. And I like the plan. Things I, this is before I really appreciated the highway, but as we looked at this, we were given three points to look at from this plan, from that committee. To preserve all of Route 66, to preserve the trees along Manchester Road, particularly on the southwest corner, which is where actually the good trees are, and also to evaluate whether it would be proper to put another entrance between the Schnucks entrance and our entrance there and see if that would work. So we took that seriously and we looked at it. And so the first thing we looked at was that entrance. And here is a slide that shows you that the two entrances, the Schnucks entrance and our entrance or the one across the street to Cherry Hills, it's about 450 feet. And so we looked at it. I think that sight distance would be a problem. The fire marshal, we asked him about it and he did not request it or suggest it. The best place and the safest place for the entrance is where we have it, and we don't think there's a need for any other entrance, and neither did the fire marshal. But we looked at that and decided that that was not going to be a good thing to do. So then we came up with a second sketch. And we brought this to the staff and talked about it. This sketch, now on this one, what we did is we were able to preserve all of the historic Route 66. So the entire road is preserved on this one. The way we did that is we took that road, and I wish I had a pointer again, but that road that kind of parallels it on the right side, we took that road and moved it to the south side, and we also took two units out of it. And by the way, the petition right now is for 40 units, not 39 units. There was a 39-unit plan, but the one we currently have is a 40-unit plan. Just wanted to say that. What the problem with this, by moving that road to the right side, this caused a huge problem. And it didn't do what the mayor requested by trying to save trees along Manchester Road. In fact, it caused a huge mess at that entrance. And so it ended up, we were basically taking out all the vegetation along Manchester Road. And we had two walls. There was a 20-foot wall, right, where all those units back up to each other. And there was another wall next to historic Route 66. This didn't work out, so we scrapped that, and we thought, okay, let's try and get a better plan. So the next thing we did is we moved the road back to the west side of Route 66, and this actually worked pretty well. Again, we're preserving all of Route 66. We're still down two lots. But the problem with this plan and the difficulty we had was the two lots that the sides face Manchester Road, that caused that you're going to see those and those are close to the road. There's really not any room to do any landscaping. So what our thought was, we would try to do some architectural feature on that side to make that acceptable. but as we talked about it and as tom and i talked about it we decided you know what it's not worth it let's let's move those units so what we did is we did a third plan and we moved units 14 and 15 to the west side of the creek so so that long street we moved those to the west side of the creek and this is what i'm calling the better plan because this is this is a transition that that we walked through to get to this plan This one, again, preserves all around 66. It preserves the frontage along Manchester Road, much of the frontage, and particularly that southern area. We got rid of lot 14 and 15 and moved them to the west side of the creek. And the darker green area, since that area was already going to be disturbed, we actually put a mound of dirt there and put a large berm. So if you looked at that berm, that's actually a 12-foot berm. So Manchester Road is at a 728 elevation. The top of that berm goes up 12 feet, and then you go back down to those units. So you're not going to be able to see the backs of any of those units. In fact, by the time the landscaping is built on top, you're not going to be able to see any of those five units that back up to Manchester Road. With this plan, again, there's 40 lots. There are six buildings that are three unit buildings and those are, you can see them, but there's six units, six buildings that are three unit buildings and 11 of them that are two unit buildings. All the garages are two-car garages, and we left enough room there for a 20-foot driveway, not including the driveway, not including the sidewalk. So everybody will have two parking spaces in their garage. They'll have two parking spaces in their driveway. And between all those units, there's enough room that you could put, where the buildings are separated, you could put two parallel spaces all along there. So there's plenty of room for additional off-street parking, not including the ones in the garage or the driveways. With this plan, there's the north-south road that you saw. We're connecting that to the trail system in the north. We're going to extend it down to Manchester Road. So Route 66 is going to be something that invites people to come through there. It's going to be basically something that people are going to want to come and they're going to want to come see. On this plan, right now, Again, next to the trail, there's a little square that you'll see that's actually a dog park. And the reason we put that in there is because these yards are probably not going to be fenced. And so if you had a dog, this gives you an opportunity to take the dog and let the dog have some run out there. The pavement is 26.1 feet per the fire marshal, which allows us to park on both sides. And we'll talk about the units in a second. So I'm going to talk about the preservation plan. OK. With this new plan, I thought this was a great slide. So the green area right there is the area that's totally undisturbed. And those are the areas where all the good vegetation is and the good trees along the creek and that southwest corner right down there. So that is four acres, which is about a third of the site, which is not going to be disturbed at all. The frontage along Manchester Road, I measured the frontage, and it's about 1,500 feet or so. And 800 feet of it is not going to be disturbed at all. So particularly in the south, the southern end where the nicer trees are, with this plan, we're able to preserve most of what you're going to see. And to be honest with you, the two areas that we're preserving in the northeast Those are pretty barren anyways. It might actually be better to disturb those and put landscaping berms in there, but I'll leave that up to you guys. I think that would be better to probably berm that up and do some landscaping there. So 100% of Route 66 is preserved, 100% of the stream is preserved, 800 feet of Manchester Road is where the best trees are, is undisturbed, and four acres is preserved. So the area where the little pond is on the north side, and including the road going down there, that is what we're calling Route 66 Historic Park, and we want to do this. I think. There it is. So the plan there is to make that a park and make it a nice feature of the site. So this is 1.2 acres. And again, the trail connects to the main northern trail that takes you over the pedestrian bridge. And it goes all the way down to Manchester Road. There's a little retention pond there. We are going to put benches and trash receptacles and things like that there. And the bottom left-hand side, I took that off your website and had AI draw that for me. But that would be a similar thing to what you guys do that we would see putting in there, just a historic sign that kind of marks that. And to be honest with you, as I've learned more about what the city's doing with that, and I realize you own a piece of property down off of Manchester Road, it might be better to put that down in that location next to Manchester road. So people, people realize that because I think you already own a piece of property down there that you have some plans for. So I want to talk about the crossing where, where our road is crossing route 66, the, the, the old historic road. So what's that? You read my mind. Okay. So this is going to be what I'm going to say, an Indy 500 type crossing with the brickyard. So at the Indy, there's one section that they leave the historic road there, and you drive across, and you cross that one section, which is totally undisturbed. So our plan is to build our road to here and our road to here and leave that just like it is. Now, we'll have to demarcate that some way, and maybe we'll put a Route 66 thing down on the pavement or something. I don't know, but... The plan is to not disturb it at all, have our road. And honestly, that causes all kinds of engineering issues to have something in the middle of the road site that you can't touch. But we've done the grading, and we think we can make that work. But that's the plan is to just to leave that undisturbed and make it just a crossing. So I'm going to give you a summary here. One minute. What's that?

Right, Joe.

Okay. I'm just about done here. So the plans on the left, we had this progression of plans, and we got to what I'm calling the better plan, because I feel like we started off with something that probably wasn't feasible and wasn't great, and we worked our way down to this. And with this plan, again, we're preserving all of Route 66, a third of the site, Manchester Road, the trails. We have the historic part. But I just want to point out what this plan costs. So we lost two units by doing this, which I realize that you lose units when you're doing stuff. But we did lose two units. All of this site is cut. There's very little fill on this site anymore because I can't touch this. I can't touch this. I can't do this. And so almost all the site is cut. So there's going to be about 60,000 yards, which is probably a half a million dollar worth of dirt that's going to have to be taken off the site. We added a third detention base in order to do this better plan. And the last thing is, Oh, the way I was able to move lot 14 and 15 to the west side is, I didn't show you that, but I actually flipped the turnaround up there to face towards the creek. And the other thing we did, we took two unit buildings, which are a lot more valuable, and we put, we made some, that's why we have six three-unit buildings. The original plan had no, they were all twos. And now we have three, so we have six units that are much, much less valuable. So with that, I was going to leave it to Tom, but I'm probably only going to give him a minute here. But here's the three villa plans that they're proposing. I don't know anything about the price or the size. You can ask that as a question if you'd like, and we'd be happy to answer your questions.

All right. Thank you for your time. Mr. Venich.

Mr. Chair, if the commission would like to hear about the villas themselves, the chair can authorize some additional time.

Is there interest? All right. Yeah, if Mr. Cummins wants to come talk about the villas a little bit, you're more than welcome.

Sorry, didn't leave you any time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Tom Cummings, 2528 Winterleaf Court, Wildwood, Missouri. I'm here on behalf of Blue Onyx and KB Capstone Homes. The villas that you see in front of you are going to be a product that we've heard from staff and from the community is really needed and wanted in this part of town center. We think it'll be a great compliment to the existing projects and the existing product in the area and provide a solution for downsizers or people who just want to live close to the amenities like retail, shopping, and the walking trails of town center. I do not have any pricing information today, but I can have some by the time we come back next month.

Okay. All right.

Thank you. You're most welcome. Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you for your time. Do we have any comment cards, Mr. Newberry?

Mr. Chair, the department has not received any comment cards for this public hearing. We do have a few on Zoom that I'm monitoring, and I don't see any hand raised at this time. If anybody is attending via Zoom and would like to speak to this request, please use the raise hand feature. Give you a few moments.

Commissioner Helfrich.

Thank you very much for your presentations. Mr. Vunic on the paperwork that we have from the city for the public hearing, the second page that shows the overhead of the land with the creeks drawn on it, it also shows two offshoots. Are those other creeks? And how would those be? I don't need answers now. I'm just throwing these questions out there. It is the third sheet, I believe, Travis. And anyway, so it shows the main creek and then it shows two offshoots. I'm just curious how that will be addressed if those are creeks. And then the other question I had was, well, I think a 12-foot berm is kind of huge. Isn't a one-story house, isn't that like a one-story, it's like 10 feet? I just think a 12 story berm, in my opinion, just not 12 story. It's huge, I think. But anyway, that's just me. And then the third thing is, as far as the Route 66 goes, I think it's commendable that they're trying to save that. And I think it's amazing. One of the things I would question is how, and I'm not looking for answers tonight, I'm just putting these out there, okay, is how when people drive across them and the salt, the trash trucks and the things that affect roads today that probably didn't affect it back when the road was built in 1932, how that will affect that historic part and I'm just wondering if there might be a way obviously everything costs money that maybe you could put a road over that one little section or elevate it in some way over that so those are my comments the water and how the modern day cars will affect that road and the ginormous firm so thank you

All right. Thank you. Mr. Vunic, do you have any thoughts on the Brown?

So certainly those are considerations that will take into account. I would liken the berm to one that was constructed by Claymont Development along Clarkson Road. It's to the north of the intersection of Clarkson Road and Clayton Road. It's a substantial size. It was done in conjunction with the one-acre lots that were planted there and the homes constructed on them. We'll get some photographs of that so you can see what I'm describing. Clarkson Road, east side of Clarkson Road, north of Clayton Road, just past the line's choice.

Mayor Garitano.

Yeah, thank you very much. I do have a couple of comments here. Being a council member for this area for the last 10 years before I became mayor, I've become very familiar from pretty much day one when I became a council member of regarding numerous proposals for this property. We have sat through so many meetings regarding different proposals. We've seen several versions of three, four, even five-story senior housing there with units ranging up to 200. We did see a proposal there where it included three tall buildings over there, again, about probably a couple hundred units. We did see a proposal one time for about 180 units that wanted to be for luxury apartments. I can actually probably show you what that looks like here. Let me see. I'm going to just share my screen, Travis, here. Let me see if this works. Let's see. Are you able to see it or not?

No.

All right. Yeah.

Do you see this image here?

Are you seeing it? Yeah. See, this was proposed at that site. In fact, you see the paragraph right below it. It was a 180 unit luxury complex, apartment complex right there at the intersection of Old Fairway and Manchester. So we have seen a lot of different proposals come through there. And we let me see, is it still broadcasting or did it stop?

No, you're not sharing any.

Okay, great. So to see something like this, I feel like finally somebody has heard because we have always brought up ideas when petitioners have said, well, what would go there? Because they would always come back with these multi-story buildings that would kind of tower over Manchester Road and the enclaves right there, those homes there. We pretty much always try to encourage folks to go down the path of what we do hear a lot of as villas. So it is a bit of a relief. I mean, like, to see something like this is almost a relief of all the different proposals we've seen in the past. uh i like that you've gone through several iterations and improved on this down to the 40 unit version it is a relief that you're asking for this kind of use because i believe uh director voonage mentioned this but this was originally called for commercial on the land use plan i believe it's our workplace district So I do think down zoning it to a residential use with single story villas will be a relief. I do like the fact that you listened regarding preserving as many of the trees along. The frontage on Manchester Road, you know, I see a lot of subdivisions or areas that have built where preserve that. And that berm idea, I think of a lot of subdivisions when you drive down Wild Horse Creek Road that have berms right along Wild Horse Creek Road. And those berms actually serve two purposes. I think it definitely provides privacy for those homes that are in that neighborhood and then also helps provide that barrier with Manchester Road. So it's definitely all good. I think the best thing out of this, because some of these proposals we've seen in the past, They were going to just do away with Route 66. They didn't want anything to do with it. I think the most recent one was like, it's not going to be there. So to hear that you're actually taking a proposal that aligns with what we try to do here at the city and preserve the history and the significance. And as was mentioned, this is one of the very few sections. I think this will be a great amenity for everyone in the community, especially to access the trail that is along 100. Because you've got neighborhoods like the enclaves, the manors at the Meadows at Cherry Hills, the Meadows at Cherry Hills. You've got Lake Chesterfield where, you know, you only have pretty much two ways to get on to the Trail Run 100. And that's from pretty much Taylor Road or by the mobile gas station. So this will provide an extra way with a nice park. So I like where you're going with that. But I would, again, just encourage preserve a lot of the trees that you have along that property as was mentioned. Those along the frontage on Manchester, some of those are probably in great shape. So keep them there. It'll provide a good screening for the folks that would be living in those areas. So I think based on the conversation we had at development and zoning review meeting last A lot of feedback was incorporated, so good to hear it. And I have not had any negative comments at all. I live right by there, so I'd be the first to hear it from folks. But I think after all the years of seeing proposals that have been frightening to people, I think as one person mentioned it, they were kind of relieved that this was pretty low key compared to what we'd seen.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. Is there anything else from the committee? All right. If no one has any other comments, look for a motion to close the public hearing.

I'm sorry. I was trying to raise my hand and wasn't being successful.

Sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Gettinger.

I am curious, given the historic significance of Route 66 and what they was presented, why The city of Wildwood has never looked to develop this area as a park and take full advantage of the historic significance. Is that an economic liability to do that? I feel a little odd that we're having to rely on a residential development to bring the historic significance to light.

Mr. Venich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gattinger, the owner of property has maintained a desire to receive top dollar. We respect that. And for the most part, our city council decided that we could buy more land elsewhere at the same price and add to the park system. So it's more of a natural decision than any other.

Thank you.

Commissioner Helfrey motions to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Marshall. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Public hearing is closed. Thank you. Next on the agenda, PZ 11-26, Mr. Runich.

Mr. Chair, the next item under public hearings was PZ11-26, Covert Corsair Building and Development Incorporated, PO Box 280, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for a change in zoning from the NU non-urban resident district to the R3 10,000 square foot resident district upon a property that is one acre in size, which is located on the east side of West Avenue, south of Manchester Road. Locator number 24V420065, street address 17052 Manchester Road. The subject property is designated neighborhood edge district under the current town center regulating plan. Proposed use, one single family dwelling on the existing legal non-conforming lot. Ward 8.

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

Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the next slideshow presentation I'm going to provide is regarding the property that Mr. Vinnich read into the record, but given the proximity to the next agenda item geographically, which you'll see, there will also be some photographs for the next public hearing item. So don't want to cause confusion, but they're so close together. First is the image of the property.

I was going to ask, do we need to keep these two separate or can we run them together?

If there's no objection from Ms. Wu, I'll read the next item into the record as well.

All right, go ahead, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The third item, it was PC 12-26, Corvette Corsair Building Homesink Public Sharing Plan, Power Box 280, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. A request for a change in zoning. from the NU non-urban resident district to the R3 10,000 square foot resident district upon a property that is 0.95 acres in size, which is located on the east side of West Avenue, south of Manchester Road. Located number 24V420296. Street address 17058 Manchester Road. The subject property is designated neighborhood edge district under the town center regulating, the current town center regulating plan, proposed use on single family dwelling on the existing legal non-conforming lot. This particular property is also located in ward eight.

Thank you, Mr. Rich.

Now go ahead, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this slide that you see here is the first item that was written into the record, 17052 Manchester Road. The next slide depicts this 17058. Again, the second item that was read into the record. It is located at the corner of Manchester Road and West Avenue. The first photograph that you see is standing at the intersection of Manchester Road and West Avenue looking to the south along West Avenue. The road you see is West Avenue. To the right is Good News Brewing, the parking area there. The next photograph is standing at the far end of the lot, looking to the north on West Avenue. You can see on the west side of the road, there are sidewalks, street trees, and streetlights, an improvement as part of a previous development. And onto the right is the subject lot. The next photograph is standing at that same location, again, the far south end of the lot, looking to the south towards what will be the entrance to Ashley Grove subdivision and to Mr. Whalen's project, West Mill, along New College Avenue and then the extension of West Avenue that you've all seen recently. Next series of photographs are pictures of the general location, the frontage onto Manchester Road. This is standing at the corner of West Avenue and Manchester Road, looking to the west. So standing at that same location, looking to the east. And so on your right-hand side of the photograph is the frontage of these two lots being shown here. And then next is standing at the corner lot, 17058, looking to the north, the existing residential. This is standing a little bit farther down the street, looking in the same direction to the north. And the next set of photographs are on the north side of the road, looking to the south. So you can see the white sign that you can see there, that's the public hearing sign for the 17052 property. And then this next photograph is just looking a little bit to the west, and you can see another public hearing sign there, and that's for that corner lot, 17058, that has frontage under West Avenue as well. I think that concludes, yes, that last slide concludes the department's presentation, and the department would note that the petitioner is in attendance and available to present. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Dunbar. Would the petitioner like to come forward?

Mr. Chair, if I may, if Ms. Corsair would like to speak, certainly. The department just wanted to identify a couple key points relating to these two properties. In the descriptions that were read into the record, the advertisements, the department noted that these are existing legal non-conforming lots. As many of you are aware from the Department of Planning's presentations, prior to 1965, the minimum lot area where most of unincorporated St. Louis County, particularly here, what is now Wildwood, was one acre. So that's why these lots, generally speaking, are one acre or less in size. So they predate 1965. So legal, but non-conforming. The practice of the city has been that when a proposal is submitted to build the allowable single-family dwelling, in town center we do rezone the properties to an appropriate district to eliminate the nonconformity associated with the site in this case we're recommending the r three ten thousand square foot resident district We've done this on Center Avenue, East Avenue, and in Lindy Lane, and most recently on portions of Etherton Road. So from a standpoint of consistency relative to the neighborhood edge district, of the town center regulating plan and for the benefit of the use of the properties, the R3 10,000 square foot resident district appears to be the best solution. If there are any questions regarding that information I just provided, department would be glad to address them. Commissioner Helfrich.

So basically this is just cleaning up the paperwork.

Yes, because if the rezoning doesn't occur, Ms. Helfrey, what ends up happening is that we have one acre size lot with three acre size setbacks, meaning a 50-foot front yard setback and 30-foot side and rear yard setbacks, which means ultimately... The property could certainly be used, but it's probably not the best utilization for the types of homes that are popular now in 2026 and beyond. Thank you. Are there any other questions of the commission? Thank you.

OK. Now, come on up if you like.

Thank you. I'm, excuse me, Mary Kay Corsair. There's really nothing I can add. Joe presented the topic perfectly. We are just trying to clean up the paperwork from the old days and conform with the Wildwood land use studies.

Okay. And so do you have plans for homes in the immediate future if this goes through?

We do not. We are just going to be selling the lots.

Okay. And you just think this would make it easier to sell?

Well, I think it's kind of necessary to clean up the paperwork.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Just ask me. I appreciate it.

Okay.

Yeah. Unless anyone has anything else.

All right. Mr. Chair, just a note for the record. We have not received any speaker cards for this public hearing. And I have not seen any hands raised on Zoom. Just didn't want to skip over that part. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Are there any other comments from the online members of the commission? Mayor Garitano?

Thank you. Director Voodage, you said something interesting that we had one acre zoning back in the day, right? Is that correct? Yes. So that three acre per lot rule, that didn't come into... What's that, Joe?

Um...

I don't hear you, Joe. I think you got to talk at the podium.

He said it came into effect in 1965.

Oh. So anyway, I was just having some fun with Joe there because I hear a lot about the three-acre rule outside of town center and often have to remind folks that was Wildwood's rule, which was when it was incorporated.

I do want to claim that I wasn't around in 1948 or 1965 relative to the zoning process.

All right. Well, anyway, I think this is pretty consistent with what we've seen in that area. We saw another parcel of land right by Old Grover Estates where a home was built, and you know we're looking at a home on each parcel so uh i i you know i'm sure that uh it'd be very difficult to argue about the density for one home per lot there so uh there's there's no concerns or questions here all right thank you mayor and i happen to have a friend who lives on one of those non-conforming one acre lots out in the rural area

All right. So we have a motion to close the hearing in a second. All those in favor, or any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Those two public hearings are now closed. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right. Next on the agenda, PZ25-97. Mr. Greenwich?

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. The final public tonight is a response to a site development plan submittal regarding the telecommunications facility that is located upon a 115-acre parcel ground, Marinist Retreat Center, being on the east side of State Route 109 across from Alt Road, located at number 26V-310045, street address 4000, State Route 109. conditional use permit in the nu non-urban resident district which seeks an allowance to replace a set of existing antennae with new types on the telecommunications tower and facility authorized by p z twenty five ninety seven spent spectrum l p marinus retreat center thereby allowing the exterior arrays to extend over seven feet in lieu of the required eighteen inches from the tower structure itself the city's chapter four thirty of its municipal code regulations for the placement of wireless facilities and wireless support structures sets forth thresholds regarding substantial modifications to existing wireless support structures which are exceeded in this submittal causing the need for the new public hearing. This particular property is located in Ward 6. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vranich. Mr. Newberry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Department's slideshow presentation is very brief. The first slide is an image of the telecommunication facility as it is recently. And the next is what's being proposed that was described in the record by Mr. Funich. On the left-hand side is an elevation view drawing of the current elevation, which you just also saw in the photograph. And on the right-hand side is the proposed elevation with the new antenna array that has caused the need for tonight's public hearing. And what you see there with the light blue highlight is the proposed antenna array that extends over the seven feet that was referenced in the description. And again, the current conditional use permit requires that no antenna array extend beyond 18 inches.

Conclude the presentation with that slide.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. So quick question. It's a seven foot radius from the center. is what they're asking for?

My understanding, Mr. Chair, is it will extend greater than 84 inches on either side.

So 14 feet total, Diane. Commissioner Helfrey?

So some time ago, the state of Missouri kind of took away our ability to completely govern these telecommunication towers. And so my question, first and foremost, is, is this within our legal right to say yay or nay to this to begin with?

Well, certainly, Ms. Helfrey, that's a great question, probably better answered in closed session. What I will tell you is, is that recently, The Planning and Zoning Commission was requested by the Department of Planning and City Attorney to review our regulations relating to telecommunications facilities to ensure compatibility with federal guidelines as well as the state statutes in this regard. That update did occur. And one of the key components is a definition relating to substantial modification. In the particular instance, there are, I believe, four requirements or four criteria, two of which are exceeded by this proposal. It's not that the city is denying the proposal. It just triggers a new public hearing.

Does the city have any comments that they want to make on this proposal?

Well, certainly again, I would defer to miss Wheeler if I've said something incorrect relative to the previous update of our regulations and what we're doing tonight.

Thank you. I don't think anything incorrect has been said. Okay. All right.

Mr. Chair, I failed to advise you that the petitioner is a petitioner's representative is attending via zoom. If she wishes to speak,

Okay.

Yeah. If the petitioner's representative would like to say anything, please use the raise hand feature and Mr. Newberry will call you in. Looks like they have. Someone raised their hand. All right. Ms. Peck, feel free to unmute yourself and present your proposal.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, loud and clear.

Good, good. Yes, I'll just have a kind of a brief statement here for our proposal. So I just want to introduce myself. My name is Haley Peck, and I'm representing Crown Castle and T-Mobile as the applicant here regarding this proposed project for the existing wireless facility. at 4000 State Road 109, and we are respectfully requesting approval for T-Mobile's equipment replacement and upgrade work at this facility. The project is intended to enhance broadband connectivity and capacity for T-Mobile at this site. Our scope of work, and again, I'm sorry if this is redundant, as it's already been described, but I'll keep going, including removing the older Sprint and T-Mobile equipment, installing updated T-Mobile antennas, radios, cables, cabinets, and other related support equipment. The drawings also include structural modifications that would be needed to support the upgrades, which is mostly just replacing a section of that tower. and that will make that more structurally safe and sound. The upgrade is needed because, as you might know, wireless networks must be modernized over time to keep pace with how people rely on mobile networks for all different activities, you know, calls work, navigation, emergency communication. Um, so upgrading and utilizing an existing facility, um, would be, you know, least disruptive way to provide the added capacity, um, avoids needing any kind of new tower site, um, elsewhere in the city. Um, we do acknowledge and, um, understand there might be a concern, um, regarding visible, uh, sorry, visual compatibility with the existing structure. as it currently is, and we do take the concern seriously. We do note that on the drawing, there's a statement that any of the new equipment will be painted to match the existing tower finish, and we also recognize that the facility was originally approved. I think it was referred to as a flagless flagpole with flush-mounted antennas. So instead, the current proposal is going to use one platform mounted level antennas for T-Mobile. And this would consolidate the needed equipment into the single location on the tower. So this would actually avoid creating two separate levels of antennas on the tower for T-Mobile and would result in a cleaner and more organized look and more maintainable configuration as well. So for these reasons, we do believe that the approval is appropriate. The project uses existing wireless infrastructure and supports important public communications needs. Crown Castle respectfully requests that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for the proposed equipment replacement and upgrade work and, of course, subject to any reasonable conditions directly related to the proposed work, such as, again, including the painted-to-match finish for the new equipment and modifications. I thank you for your time and consideration and happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Commissioner Helfrey?

I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing.

All right. Is there a second? All right. We have a theme going on tonight. Any discussion on closing the public hearing? All right. Seeing none, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Public hearing is closed. Thank you.

Yeah. Ms. Peck, thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. And that closes our public hearings. Next on the agenda, PZ 8-26, Mr. Vinnich.

Mr. Chair, the letter of recommendation in this regard relates to PC08-26 Rockwood School District, Cara Piro Signs Incorporated, 1818 Old State Road, Unit M, Barhart, Missouri, 63012. A request for a conditional use permit. In the NU non-urban resident district for a 51.2 acre tract of land that is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Route 109 and Clayton Road, Lafayette High School. Street address 17050 Clayton Road, St. Louis County, locator number 22V210215. proposed use a permanent electronic message center, EMC, to be operated in association with the existing secondary school with accessory uses. This particular property is located in Ward 5.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Mr. Newberry?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, before you tonight is the draft letter of recommendation regarding this requested conditional use permit for an electronic message center at Lafayette High School. As a reminder of the steps in the process, we did have a hold of public hearing on June 1st, 2026 regarding this item and consensus was reached that it would be appropriate for the department to present the letter of recommendation at the next meeting in lieu of the typical information report step. And so that is what is before you tonight. In the letter of recommendation, the way it's prepared is for a favorable recommendation for the proposed electronic message center at Lafayette High School. The proposed sign will be replacing an existing channelized letter changeable copy sign with a monument sign with electronic message centers. The favorable recommendations is all based on, and it's important to note that the conditions that are proposed with the favorable recommendation do comply with the recently adopted regulations for electronic message centers. Those things that address the static messages being letters only, the message only changing once every 60 minutes. In this instance, we talk about it. It's been called a curfew by some commission members, but it required time to turn off the electronic message center component of the sign. In this instance, we did try to accommodate the school year for the high school. So the time frame is to be turned off between 10 and 6, generally during the school year. employees are not at the school. Another component of the favorable recommendation is that the sign would be landscape. And I'm going to back up one more. And the sign would also be required to be compliant with the regulations insofar as the proportion of the electronic message center compared to the overall sign face. You may have read in the report that what's being proposed currently isn't compliant, but the way the regulations or the conditions are recommended is that it would be compliant with that 60% area for the electronic message center. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. And then again, as far as process, if this conditional use permit were to be granted and move forward through the city council receiving file, et cetera, the next step in the process would be to have a site development plan in which we would verify that all of the components of the recommended conditions and underlying regulations would be met. So there is another set of reviews that can occur. or that will occur as part of this. And just as part of this favorable recommendation, the department thinks that it's important to emphasize the unique location of this property, a 51.2 acre property that has a The sign is placed to the south of a vacant piece of ground that is used for farm fields. The intersection, excuse me, the sign is placed nearby two signalized intersections, one of which being the intersection of Clayton Road and State Route 109, two major arterial roads that are heavily traveled. And then the other directions that the sign may impact to the east is the Lafayette High School property itself with some residential beyond it. To the south is the school building itself. To the west is the intersection of Clayton Road and State Route 109. And then to the north again is that vacant piece of property. So the department thinks that this location, the proposed specific location of the sign, along with meeting the regulations regarding electronic message centers that have been established, believes that this is an appropriate location for an electronic message center. And to conclude, the draft letter recommendation reflects this information, and the department is sending it to you for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Commissioner Helfrich.

So do we need to have a motion before we discuss?

It's always nice.

Well, then I'll make a motion to accept the city's recommendation. The sign is then changed to come into compliance right with what our recommendation is. Okay. That's my motion.

We have a motion on in a second.

Okay. So here's my question. I'm just curious why, I listened to everything that you said, Travis, about the sign and the placement, but I used to live in Dartmouth. And so as I picture it, I know that it's gonna be that LED light. It is actually gonna face The way it's going to be situated on the road, it is going to be seen by the front of at least one house. I'm just curious why they didn't put it at the corner of 109 and Clayton Road. That doesn't change my emotion. I'm just curious why they didn't do that and put it where their big sign is now that says Lafayette High School. Thank you.

I can certainly try to answer the question. I believe there is a concern about how that existing stone sign was paid for. That sign was a gift from one of the classes that raised money throughout the year. The class had a specific design associated with it. And I think the leadership of Lafayette High School is being respectful of it. the changeable copy sign that Mr. Newberry identified that's been an issue for many years. The employees that have to go out and change the copy complain about having to hold open the covers and the weather and et cetera. So I think more so than anything, they're just trying to preserve that sign that was donated by that particular class.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnage.

All right. Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote. Commissioner Helfrey.

Yes.

Commissioner Gettinger. Looks like he dropped off.

Can I interrupt really quick? Can I just ask that whenever people vote online, they turn their camera on?

Thank you. Yeah. We'll go to Commissioner Deppler.

Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Boren? Yes. Chair Beatty?

Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes. And Mayor Garitano?

Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda, PZ 9-26. Mr. Newberry?

Easy 9 dash 26 city of wildwood planning and zoning commission care of department of planning city hall 1, 6, 8, 6, 0, main street, wildwood, Missouri, 6, 3, 0, 4, 0, request for the review and consideration of the final draft of the wildwood historic preservation plan. This public hearing is being held to collect input on the final draft of the city's historic preservation plan, which can be found at the W. W. W. dot city of wildwood dot com forward slash historic preservation plan. along with a listing of relevant dates of future meetings that have been scheduled to complete the plan's adoption process. This plan will serve to better integrate the city's historic preservation program into the city's master planning efforts, related government processes, and community initiatives. It will provide milestones and a timeline for preservation goals, as well as determine the status of commercial and residential historic properties. This material was produced with the assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund administered by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior of the U.S. Government, and Missouri Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation. All awards.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich?

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, before you tonight is the draft letter of recommendation for final action by the members relative to the city's first historic preservation plan. In the report, the department notes that this particular planning process started in the fall of September 24 with the selection of a consultant to lead the effort moving forward with regards to the development of the plan and associated information january twenty twenty five the consultant began the process of understanding the historic preservation processes of the city over the last approximately thirty years That particular process, gaining information, gaining knowledge, speaking with key stakeholders, took approximately three to four months. Shortly thereafter, the consultant began what I believe is an extensive public outreach process that included public forums, individual meetings, open houses, et cetera, to gain input from those that owned historic assets in Wildwood, appreciated historic assets in wildwood and experts in the field both nationally area wide and locally ultimately the plan was developed and contains eight goals and seventy two strategic actions Those goals have been refined over the course of time by the Historic Preservation Commission to ultimately address not only the key components heard from the public input process, but also the priorities associated with those goals and related strategic actions. Those priorities are referenced by the timelines associated with each of them, short, medium, and long-term. Short term is 0 to 5 years, medium term is 6 to 10 years, and long term is beyond 10 years. The department in the analysis of the goals identify a couple that have medium term start points. Those relate to staffing and efforts relative to promotion. the other six are priorities relative to not only the planning components of the city but economic development components as well all in all the planning and zoning commission i believe has a plan before it that is well founded well reviewed as well as being the first to kind of take historic preservation to a new point relative to the city of bodwin therefore the department of planning is recommending a favorable action regarding the plan document tonight i would note that this particular item is in a draft form for letter of recommendation Given grant components associated with the State Historic Preservation Office of Missouri, we are in a bit of a time crunch to complete it by the fall of this year. If there are any questions or comments regarding the plan, Mr. Newberry and I would be glad to try to answer them after a motion and second is made. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Virich. Mr. Helfrich?

Well so we take our first vote on this in it if if it passes because of the time credit are we able to do the second reading as well tonight.

Ma'am it is in the format for one action and one action only tonight thereafter would go to City Council for public hearing the introduction of legislation and then final passage.

And I make a motion to approve.

All right. And secondly, Councilman Marshall, any discussion? Commissioner Bourne?

Mr. Boonish, can you just walk us through? I don't fully understand what all is in this document. What is changing from where we were prior to this to where we are with this? Especially as it relates to your property owner, how it would affect property owners and anyone who happens to own a piece of property that may have something declared now historic.

That's a very good question, Mr. Boren, and I'll do my best to answer it. A couple of the items I'm going to address first are those that have more of the medium term five to 10 year and beyond window. And those relate to building staff capacity to do more with our historic preservation efforts. Certainly that does not have an impact on individual private property owners And in many instances, I'd like to think that having an additional staff person or more would make us more flexible in responding to requests versus the process we have now, which we're juggling a number of balls. Relative to the website and our outreach, we've always done that, Mr. Boren, from day one. Ever since we began the city's website, we've been trying to basically promote historic preservation, retention of assets. But again, I think it's key to note, the plan does not move from a voluntary preservation approach that the city has had ever since the inception of the Historic Preservation Commission and the ordinance that guides it. So that's two of the six. that would be two of the eight. That leaves six goals to explain. Several of them, Mr. Boren, are more economic development driven. And that is goal one, which talks about enhancing the visitor experience on historic Route 66. and expand heritage tourism opportunities. Not only do we have Route 66, but we have institutions like LaSalle Retreat Center, the Marinist Facility, et cetera. And the idea is they offer a unique look back into time, and they're available and readily accessible to anybody that might want to express an interest, see it, touch it, participate in it. The others relate to the regulatory tools, the site preservation of indigenous or African-American communities, and then finally, engagement methods for improvements to the historic preservation ordinance. I will say that in all instances, the department protected the private property rights and maintain the voluntary nature of our regulations at this time. We as a city cannot move forward with a preservation effort if not with the permission of the property owner itself. The regulatory tools talk more about time, time to basically memorialize an asset that is to be removed, Right now, we have a very short window of 60 days. These recommendations talk about 120 days or doubling it. In terms of the indigenous communities and African-American peoples, we are working with grant programs. And this would formalize more of that process. And then finally, the ordinance standards, again, We're staying with a voluntary approach, talking about memberships, terms, exams along those lines. I hope that explains it, Mr. Boren, but I think at each step of the process, we recognize private property rights are paramount and that historic preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reuse is a very expensive proposition in today's economy.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I'm glad to hear it's still a voluntary program and that we're not taking a heavy-handed approach with property owners.

Certainly not, sir.

Any other discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Mr. Boren? Yes.

Commissioner Helfrey. Yes. Commissioner Gettinger.

Yes.

Commissioner Depler. Yes. Chair Beatty. Yes. Council Member Marshall.

Yes.

Mayor Garitano.

Yes.

Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, um, next on the agenda, PZ, 6 dash, 26, Mr. Newberry.

Easy 6 dash, 26, a city of planning and zoning commission care department of planning 1, 6, 8, 6, 0, is main street while with Missouri 6, 3, 0, 4, 0, request for the change in zoning district designations of 3 properties from the non urban residents district to the C8 plan commercial district with with conditional use permits. which would then accommodate drive-through facilities in conjunction with their authorized and permitted uses northeast and southeast corners of State Route 109 at their intersections with Main Street and northwest corner of the intersection of State Route 109 and Manchester Road. Street addresses 17191 and 17194 Main Street and 2521 Highway 109. St. Louis County locator numbers 23V121417, 23V121426, and two four four three zero zero nine seven town center regulating plan designation work place state one hundred and one o nine district proposed uses all permitted uses of the town center work place district including the allowance for drive-through facilities in association with a grouping of applicable types of them wards one and eight NPZ 6-26B, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, Care of Department of Planning, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. Request to amend the zoning district designations of three properties from the C8 planned commercial district to the amended C8 planned commercial district with conditional use permits, which would then accommodate drive-thru facilities in conjunction with their authorized and permitted uses, southwest corner of State Route 109 at its intersection with Main Street and southwest corner of the intersection of State Route 109 and Manchester Road. Street addresses 2431 and 2601 Highway 109 and 17120 Manchester Road, St. Louis County Locator Numbers 23V110022, 24V430185, and 24V430163. Town Center Regulating Plan Designation Workplace State Route 100 and 109 District Proposed Uses. All permitted uses of the Town Center Workplace District, including the allowance for drive-thru facilities in association with the grouping of applicable types of them, Wards 1 and 8.

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

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I do want to note that this is the particular item where we had a posting issue and that potentially individuals wanting to review the report from the regular session agenda may not have been able to access it until late today. Acknowledging that the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight its information report and recommendation regarding the pre-zoning of four individual sites located or abutting, I should say, State Route 109. These four sites were considered previously as part of a change to the Town Center Regulating Plan that created the workplace subdistrict SR100-109. The intent of the change to the Regulating Plan was to bring greater interest to these individual sites that adjoin Route 109 or Route 100 for future use. These sites have always been intended for commercial development, principally the workplace district of the town center regulating plan. And some of them currently have commercial development associated with them. convenience stores with gas pumps and car washes commercial centers etc and others remain vacant all four of the properties under consideration tonight are vacant at this time As part of that process, a number of steps were set forth that the Department of Planning and the city administrator were advised to proceed forward with in an effort, again, to bring economic vitality to this particular corridor. I would note that This is not a new discussion. We have been talking about drive-through facilities in conjunction with workplace district designated sites since 2007. At no time up until the change in the regulating plan in 2025 has that discussion proceeded forward favorably. Tonight, with the change in the regulating plan, the department is proposing to pre-zone four of these sites. The pre-zoning process was endorsed by the Economic Development Committee of City Council as a way to begin the process of understanding the potential of these four sites. The Economic Development Committee and City Council, upon receipt of the report from the Economic Development Committee, noted that the intent is to provide convenience to residents seeking such services for these types of uses. also prompting more options for new outlots that have existed for many years, particularly along State Route 109. Additionally, limiting these potential allowances to a small number of sites suitable for such. And then finally, ensuring that whatever pre-zoning might occur that the highest set of standards and processes would be in place to guarantee successful utilization and minimization of impacts on surrounding properties so tonight we are at that stage of pre-zoning in the analysis Department first identifies that although there are risks to pre-zoning properties, the city has a number of checks and balances in place relative to its zoning processes, the review processes that follows, and then ultimately the construction of the improvements themselves. These checks and balances are embedded into the ordinance, the proposed ordinance that would govern these four sites through the pre-zoning process. Each of these steps, the checks and balances are intended to ensure compliance to all applicable codes. Additionally, the department notes that with the development of the conditions that are part of attachment B, the department was very careful to address as many of the concerns that were voiced at the public hearing and previous and subsequent meetings thereafter. These conditions are intended to reflect appropriate infrastructure levels, meaning roadways and associated improvements to existing roadways. utility network connections, access and stacking capabilities associated with the site, architectural quality and character of the buildings and structures associated with the sites, noise and odor mitigations, and screening steps. All of these were developed as part of the discussion that the Economic Development Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council undertook when the regulating plan was changed for the total 10 properties. Additionally, the department does acknowledge that pre zoning of vacant sites is new to the city and not typical. However, it is intended to encourage Economic vitality has been mentioned, as well as limited to major arterials under state management. Again, Route 109 and Route 100. The intent would be to create a full-service town center that not only has sit-down restaurants and other activities, but also quick-serve and convenience types usage. The department would also note, I think this is a very important point. These four sites were not necessarily created in a vacuum. These four sites, certainly in many instances, precedes the residential development in their vicinities. These four sites were designed to accommodate commercial use, and much of the planning that went into the ordinances that set aside these sites are now have the site ready for either pre-zoning or the granting of conditional use permits reflect a very careful and appropriate process for such. The pre-planning also includes future traffic studies to ensure that the road system and the access points and stacking areas are sufficient and that stormwater management is a high priority. Again, these sites are not in existence by accident. They are consistent with good planning practice in that they are along a major arterial with high traffic volumes and yet locations, generally speaking, that residential would not necessarily be suitable. The conditions contain a number of items relating to the drive-through facilities and the process that would follow any pre-zoning action. So the department has done its best to cover all of the concerns and still allow a development entity an opportunity for at least considering them for future use. So tonight, the information report is in the appropriate form for discussion and action. And therefore, the department will conclude its presentation and accept any comments, questions, or suggestions thereafter once a motion and second is made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Is there a motion?

Motion by Councilman Marshall.

Is there a second?

Well, I'll second it so we can talk about it.

Thank you, Commissioner Halfrey.

Okay.

All right. Go ahead.

Okay. So first of all, just for clarification, you keep talking about the four lots on the map of numbers. Which four lots are we discussing right now?

We are discussing the lots that are numbered three, four, seven, and eight. So the two that are on the east side of Route 109 at Main Street, Route The lot that is an out lot of the reserve at Wildwood, which is on the west side of Street Route 109 and Main Street. And then the final lot is at the northwest corner of Route 109 and Route 100.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Vinnage. Okay, so lots five and six already essentially have drive-thrus because they're gas stations, correct? Is that correct, Ms. Simms?

Yes, and they have car washes in association with them, which is a drive-thru facility.

Okay, and then 9 and 10, one's a bank.

I don't know what the other one is, but they have a drive-thru facility.

Are they both allowed drive-thrus?

The bank, the financial institution is allowed a drive-thru facility. The adjoining office building is not.

OK. And then one and two, we've decided to not put them in because?

There are some difficult site conditions associated with them, and the department wanted to spend more time understanding them before preparing a recommendation.

OK, thank you. So here's me. This is where I stand on this. First of all, I appreciate everything that the city went through with all of these conditions that they put into play. But I have, and lots three and four are on the side of 109 that there's no homes there right now. So we would be ahead of the horse, so to speak, on that one. My problem comes into play in lots seven and eight that are numbered on this. And that is because both of those lots are right in front of neighborhoods that people already own homes there. They already have they have their life's investment there in those homes, and that is the access street to their neighborhood. And a couple of months ago, those people were here in mass to say, Please don't do this. And I know that our job is planning zoning commissioners is to look at all the facts and look at all of the information. One of the things that I personally had requested was a traffic study because one of the homeowners had said it takes her minutes to get out of that street where the roundabout is right now. And we don't have a traffic study there. We're saying that we'll do that in the future. And so I... I appreciate the time that was put into all this, but I personally don't feel like I can vote in favor of lots seven and eight. Because I don't think that to pre-zone something would be fair to the homeowners that already have their most precious asset right there, unless they know what they're getting. So that's where I stand. I stand no on seven and eight, and yes on three and four. So if they're all together... I'll be a no. I think that we need to do a traffic study. I don't, we were talking earlier. I just don't believe that people know how to drive in those roundabouts anyway. And then to have things back up into that neighborhood, I that's, That's my thoughts, so thank you.

So as someone who uses the street south of there to exit my subdivision, probably 99% of the time, I don't know that I've ever sat there for four minutes. I'm not calling her a liar, but I'm saying that's not my experience. And more often than not, I can leave my subdivision and pull out on 109 almost without stopping. It is a yield sign, so I'm not breaking any laws. So that's my response to that. I kind of think part of the problem with that roundabout at Main Street is that there's not enough traffic on Main. And so people come up 109 and they're not used to people using the sides of that roundabout. And so they don't treat it as the yield sign like they will at 100. possibly an unpopular opinion, but that's kind of the way I feel with the one at Main and the one at Pongrover Loop. I still think not building Taylor Road to Pongrover Loop was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the city. Another possibly unpopular opinion. But those are my comments. And Mr. Brown, I think I saw your hand first, so I'll let you respond.

Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to speak relative to the issue of fabric studies in the roundabout. I think the premise that if anything, the Main Street roundabout has too few vehicles utilizing it rather than too many. It's underutilized, not overutilized. It was designed to accommodate future development of the outlots in the vicinity of that roundabout. That's part and parcel why the city spent money to build that roundabout. frankly so when we when we originally designed it we did a traffic study and that traffic study included future development of those commercial outlaws as well as main street crossing as well as the reserve at a much higher density i would say than it is currently being constructed so that was done prior in the planning leading up to the construction of the main street roundabout so there was a traffic study that was done at that time. And I would also point out, and some of you may remember, and I know Joe does, we did a traffic study in 2018 of the town center itself as part of the master plan or town center plan update. That traffic study, I think that predated the actual construction of the Main Street roundabout. It recommended that roundabout be constructed. It pointed to potential deficiencies at Manchester and 109. So if we have issues with traffic, it's not going to be at Main Street. It'll be at 109 and Manchester Road. That's where the deficiencies will likely occur. So I just wanted to kind of clear that. I would also say I drive that on a daily basis. I go through 109 and Main Street, and I rarely see a car on Main Street. It's underutilized. It's not near its potential capacity at this point in time. On the final point I will make, with the reserve, there will be changes made to the roundabout. So The developer of the reserve is actually opening up an additional lane southbound. So right now we drop a lane southbound at Main Street. There'll be two lanes going south that will merge to one lane. But that modification should help to some degree, I think, improve traffic flow at the Main Street roundabout on 109. I'm happy to address any questions if there are any.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Brown. That's good to know because that is one of my biggest issues that I see going southbound is that people hanging out in the left lane, not trying to merge over to the right at the last minute when they should just do a loop-de-loop around the roundabout and take the L. But Commissioner Gettinger?

I don't have concerns about the traffic. I think that that'll be resolved well enough. But I do share the concern raised earlier about people that are the homeowners. But I also wanted to echo that, that, yes, there aren't homes on the west side of 109 yet. However, there are people who have made financial commitments to buying those homes. under the premise of how they were currently zoned. So I have an issue with that site as well. In fact, out of all the sites shown, I'd be most likely to say one and two would be okay because we're away from the residential developments from a drive-through perspective. I have a problem supporting the other ones as well.

All right. Thank you for your comments.

Mr.

Chair, if I may, the Department of Planning did request from the St. Louis County Police Department Wildwood Precinct to provide an accident report relative to the roundabouts, not only at Main Street and Route 109, but Route 100 and Route 109. It's taken a little longer to pull that together than anticipated, but we will have that so we can address the concerns that it's accident prone. And I believe the information from the police may be able to dispel that as well.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Burnett. Commissioner, go ahead.

What about the noise? I know that Mrs. Donaldson that was here earlier mentioned noise. So one of the things they brought up was the noise from the car washes. Do we know actually how much noise there is? I mean, I realize that Canberra is probably closer to the gas station than the houses on Main Street would be to those two outlets. But I'm just curious, what kind of noise, you know,

Well, first and foremost, under the permitted uses in attachment B, the department removed anything relating to vehicle service. So a car wash. any type of tire repair, any type of vehicle service component would not be authorized on the lots themselves. So the car wash activity is not something that should be of concern to the commission or any of the residents in the vicinity. It's just not an appropriate use for that location. In terms of noise, the department in the attachment with the conditions, required all of the menu boards with speakers to be orientated toward Route 109, which already has a level of noise or sound associated with it. So as it merges with the cars, not necessarily with the residential areas. The conditions also address landscaping, berming, walls, for the purposes of not only aesthetics, but sound mitigation. And again, we're not talking about landscaping only. It's a berm, a solid mass, or a wall, so as to ensure that the perspective of the use sound or noise is minimized. And also in keeping with the direction received from the Economic Development Committee, our city administrator and others, we have put a 10 p.m. closure. So as when most people are heading to bed, there is no activity at any of the facilities at any of these four sites.

10 p.m. seems kind of early for a quick service restaurant.

I checked around. Some are 24 hours, and those are more along the corridor in Ellisville and Baldwin. But the one I chose to kind of emulate is there's a McDonald's in Webster Groves that closes at 11. It's in a core commercial area. I thought 10 p.m. was reasonable.

You're talking about that one in Old Orchard? Yeah.

Okay. Yes, sir.

I mean, I know some of them close at 10, especially since COVID. I'm just thinking. I don't know. I'm a night owl. I like stuff open later. But that's, yeah.

Understood. But I just thought I'd rather err on the side of caution. And if ultimately we find that it's not an issue, the ordinance can be amended.

Councilman Marshall.

Yeah, I guess I've just been around too long. I can't tell you of anybody who's ever built anything new that everybody thought it was the right thing to do. But I can also tell you, well, over all these years, all of the opportunities that were in that area and to have people say, well, we have a house here now. Well, those lots were built. Nobody's building a house down to 109. And those were intended to be commercial lots. And I understand that. what everybody says you know it's what's in your backyard and all that so uh but i was here when we put canberry in and you know those people oh it's just terrible they're right on top of the gas station nothing's going to be that close to what what we're looking at now so i know people aren't happy but when you have you know when we start making decisions on 15 or 20 or 100 people and you got 35 000 people in the city who say why don't we have a drive-through we can get something between now and eureka From an economic standpoint, those are what those locations were for. And COVID changed a lot of stuff. We just thought everybody would walk in. We have all the trails, but people aren't going to walk and take their kids into a restaurant when there's drive-through capabilities within a mile or two each way. So I do understand where the people are coming from. But I think in all honesty, one of the challenges we're going to have is everybody is not going to want it. And as long as we keep thinking that some magic is going to come up, that we're going to bring something in, you know, the people that are investing millions and millions of dollars are trying to invest their money to make business, to make a business profitable. Having put things in there that can't make it, I think that's kind of naive on all of our parts. So I know there are going to be people that are against it. I also believe that as we try to continue to develop and move the city forward it's an important part of what we put in there all the regulations we could certainly come in and correct and and tweak those as we've done for for a long long time but um i just think that somehow some way we need to try to get the type of services that are people are looking for in today's time period than what they were when they were going to walk down the street to the next location thank you

Commissioner, getting there?

Yeah, I want to add to that. So the commentary I've gotten from people in my neighborhood that I've talked about this with is we can't keep the businesses viable. We have a drive-through jack-in-the-box that has been sitting there empty for ages. The Bank of America building is now sitting in the town center with nobody in it with a drive-through. Panera just reduced their hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. So why are we trying to expand a commercial district that isn't showing viability yet. Why don't we get the population density to where we can support it both from a worker perspective as well as from a patron perspective. And that's what I'm hearing from the people that I've talked to about this.

Commissioner Boren.

Yeah, I'd like to second what was said earlier. while I feel for people that are in a vicinity and maybe would be slightly affected by a minor increase in noise, if your home is in striking distance of Highway 109, you already have noise. You already have traffic. Like you said, you already have two gas stations with drive-through washing systems. I'm not sure that we can be held responsible for concerning ourselves with With that, when someone purchased a lot or a home in striking distance of a commercially zoned piece of property, they had to have known at some point in time that was going to be developed. And I would agree that I think the greater good wins out over a few people that might be minorly affected and should have known better to begin with. Regarding the, you know, the location on Old Manchester and the old Jack in a Box, you know, it's a very poorly visible location, right? It's not surprising that no one wants to put investment into that property, it just doesn't have visibility. You know, most of that Schnucks, you know, shopping center set vacant for how long? You know, so, you know, something on 109, I would imagine is going to have a lot higher appeal, a lot higher visibility and traffic by it than something on Old Manchester Road. So just my opinion, but I wouldn't excuse this out of hand just because a few people might be affected.

All right, Commissioner Helfrey, and then I'll come to you, Mayor Garitano. Oh, all right, Mayor.

Yeah, there's a couple of things I do want to just make a comment on just to correct. The city conducted a survey of business occupancy just recently, and City Administrator Lee can speak more to that survey. The business occupancy is at 92%. And in fact, right now, and again, I'm just stating these facts here because there are some things that I think I'm hearing that may not necessarily reflect reality. All commercial restaurant space right now is unavailable. It's either being used as a restaurant or or it is occupied so there's been several mentions of the jack-in-the-box that that property is owned by someone that intends to open a restaurant now that has been going on for some time so we too have been questioning whether the intentions are a top priority for that property owner or not but they own another business, another restaurant in St. Charles County, and they do intend to open it up, although I would probably think, in my opinion, I'd speculate it's probably not their top priority. They've run into some issues in that building there. But, you know, as far as businesses go in the city, I think it's important just to be aware. When you look at the shopping plazas, Village Plaza, right on the north side of 100, there's the one at the corner of Strecker and Clayton Road. There's Wildwood Square, which is where the Wildwood Pub and Grill are. And there's the Dierbergstown Center. And then the, I believe it's Wildwood Crossing, I believe, the one where Schnucks is. There's a couple of plazas that are fully occupied or close. I know the Wildwood Square, Wildwood Pub and Grill, they don't have any vacancy. The Village Plaza on the north side, 100 by West Glen, is pretty close to being fully occupied. I think they only have about one or two storefronts. There's about two empty, plus the Bank of America site and the Dierberg site. And the one over at Schnucks has a few as well, though we have a new business moving in there, Salt House Smiles Dentistry. But every plaza that you see here, the majority of the spaces are occupied. And I tell folks, if you go down the road in Manchester, you will find actually the opposite. You'll find plazas where the majority of spaces are empty. So... There's a perception issue in Wildwood where we have all these vacancies, but between the city survey and then looking at all the buildings that are occupied for professional offices, we're pretty occupied. I just want to make sure folks are aware of that because I think the perception issue is you get some of these locations that are up in front, right in front of you, whether it's the electro savings or the jack-in-the-box locations. and some others. And, you know, they kind of hit you up front and they think, all right, then everything's empty. But when you look at it, there aren't as many out there. So we do have more commercial space coming on the market with the mixed use building that is going to be constructed right at Main and Taylor. And I think that will help because the issue, too, that we hear from business owners are the startup cost and the rents. And so by increasing supply, that should help increase the inventory so that this way the rents can be more in check. Because right now, if you want to come to Wildwood, the rents are a challenge. There's fewer spaces out there. So just want to make sure we put that out there. You know, Thomas Lee can talk more about it, our Economic Development Committee member. is working hard at it. They're adjusting rules when it comes to supporting our businesses. But, you know, just want to make sure, you know, sometimes it's not as bad as I think sometimes people say when you look at the data and you look at, you pause and reflect and look at exactly what's there in each of the plazas.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Lee.

Thank you. And I just wanted to kind of piggyback off what the mayor had said there. A couple things in referencing the report that he had mentioned about the occupancy. Just wanted to point out that back in 2022, when we did a kind of a baseline going through retail and office space throughout the city, we had found and clocked it at about 89%, which was on the lower tier in West County. We recently conducted another survey where we went through every single plaza and every vacant building and also every occupied building within the town center, but also the greater Wildwood area, a few outside of it. And we found that it had grown to about 92%. So that said, that is much more consistent with a lot of the cities in West County, but also is actually from what we've been able to see from some data shared with us is actually peaking a little bit above. So what the mayor is saying is supported by the data. And that was also inclusive of some of the recent closures, unfortunately, like Lucky Dog Central and JV Wellness. But one of the cool things, and there's just a little bit more of a story here. to add in is this resiliency. You had JB Wellness close recently, but now we have a new bakery opening in that same spot within two months of the plaza having to have the switch over. So I wanted to point that first piece out, but also just point out too, some of the work that the Economic Development Committee has been doing along with these efforts to look at these properties. I mean, The main thing is we've worked with the businesses and opened up a kind of a back and forth communication channel to really hear from them. And one of the big things was visibility. And I know this is what the commission has done recently. We've reviewed the not only the lighting, the window signage that was just recently reviewed and it's going to be taken into effect. But not only that, but. Also, the calculation, the wall sign calculation. So I would definitely support what the mayor was saying, that there's been a lot of positive changes. Not only that, with the new apartment complex going in on Taylor of Maine that has 7,200 square foot of retail, with at least whispers that they already have the restaurant here, look to be booked up. We don't know the name of it, but it seems like they're moving in the right direction. So there's a lot of good news. Not only that, the movie theater has been seeing record sales recently. There's a certain movie that is doing very well, and it's forecasting and making investors in theaters, kind of revamping the theater model. So just a few notes, and to the point with... Why the Economic Development Committee was looking at this is really coming down to two factors. One, this is something, you know, 2022 and a 2023 resident survey had indicated that quick service restaurants and just restaurants in general, there needs to be more of them. And Wildwood was a request. but that's where that data is coming from. And then secondly, the other thing is, you know, we have so many, if you look at a map of town center, and I think this could be a great review here at the commission at some point too, when you look at it, there are very few parcels truly remaining for development coming up and into the near future. So When you look at that, you have to ask yourself, where can these things go that could potentially produce revenue for the city as well? Given the fact that the lowest return on a city when you're looking at sales tax revenue, utility tax revenue, your lowest return would be in agricultural property, so no development. Then the next step up would be a light residential use. And then as you go up, it goes to office, commercial, and then high industrial. Given that we don't have the largest industrial area that's up in the northern portion of Wildwood, which if folks did work in an industrial complex or warehouse up there, they're not going to necessarily drive down to town center to do their shopping. These properties that we're looking at and considering here for these drive-through facilities are truly the last properties available that could accommodate a use like this. And with talking with a lot of the brokers that would even potentially look at this, one big thing that they had mentioned to us, And I will preface this with the fact that pre-zoning is not necessarily something that we always do. But the reason why we're doing it is to give some type of certainty to the development community that, hey, we're going to have some strict standards up front. But if you meet those standards, there is a path forward. Because the biggest thing that's come back to us is that, hey, I'm about to spend $500,000 to $700,000 on the engineering and planning phase for whatever development is going to come forth. um just for one of these qsrs and you know if you're going to spend that type of money you know obviously you know if they're not following our what we end up passing or what we would pass then yeah that makes sense but they want to have some type of guarantee that hey If I meet, if I follow the rules, meet all the requirements that there is a path forward and that guarantee will help with the financing and also getting backing from those banks. So just wanted to point those out that it's not just that we're trying to do two things at once. We're trying to build out a component that, you know, office space just it's going to be tough to build there, especially if you look at the map, one of the sites on the one ends on the northwestern portion of Manchester and 109. That site has some serious difficulties with stormwater. You got a creek running right through it. The only type of development that, you know, you're not going to have an office user be able to develop that site and then have a return on that investment. So when you look at some of these, it comes down to a few options. And when you look at what our residents have asked for, the quick service restaurant, it seems to be tied together pretty well in the sense that it seems like there's a development interest there, but also it does seem like something that's answering a resident need. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Helfrich.

Okay. So I appreciate everybody weighing in because I listened to everything everyone said. And I will say in response to you, Mr. Marshall, that I did, in fact, when we had the town center meeting a couple of years ago, right after COVID, I was a huge proponent of drive-thrus. I thought, you know, certainly after COVID, everybody's got to see the necessity of those. And I was on the losing end of that battle. I also think that the properties along Manchester Road that are in the workplace should be the ones that have some drive-thrus as well. But I was shot down on that one too. I just reread some of the things that I was looking at. And I stand by what I said as far as I'm concerned about the noise and the traffic for the homeowners in Main Street. But... I did read, I reread, and sometimes when you read things the first time, you read them with your own slant, and I reread them again, some of the things that were like the permitted uses, and I went back and I read the landscaping. Because these are CUPs, it's not guaranteed drive-through. It is the potential for drive-through. So if we can do our best to ensure that these homes, these homeowners that are there now, are not going to be negatively affected by noise and light and traffic, I think I could get on board with that. I think that the 10 p.m. curfew, I think, also is a huge thing. I think that will help with protecting the homeowners that are there as well. So, yes, thank you very much.

Mayor?

Mayor?

I made my comments before, but I didn't make any related to these sites here and today. When we met the last time, I was not in favor of it because I felt like We were kind of jumping ahead, and I'd rather make a decision knowing exactly what we have in front of us. And I still feel that way. You know, there were a couple of comments today, major and public comment. I think we need to make sure it's very clear. The plan that we had seen, the car wash, McDonald's, that is dead. That is, we're not talking about that anymore. They're gone. I think they got the message. They said that based on feedback they had heard, they were giving it up. They were quitting. So they've moved on. And we've seen other proposals on that site that have come and they've heard the city and then they pretty much run Culver's Dunkin' Donuts, and we kind of know where they all ended up. I think if we could, you know, narrow exactly what is allowed there, and I think maybe the conditional use permit may be it, but I don't know if we're all on the same page. There are probably some uses that I think people are going to be fine with. If a bank came and said, hey, I want to put a bank here. I need a drive-thru because I have a drive-up ATM. I think that people would know, hey, this place shuts down at 5 o'clock. The traffic dies down except for the occasional ATM user. There are probably some other types of commercial uses. We have had a coffee chain that I think expressed some interest in Wildwood, and they've actually been expanding all over St. Louis County. I don't think I've heard about them in a while, so maybe they gave up on us, too. But Exit 11 Coffee, which is a kiosk. You just drive up, get your coffee, and go. I don't know if that kind of use, you know, would be more appealing to the people because, you know, we've heard and it's been mentioned here, this has been known to be commercial for as long as I've been around. But there may be some uses that I think if we can narrow down the definition of and with community input would put the community at ease versus, you know, getting into this. And of course, the first thing we hear is a car wash and a McDonald's, which is probably the most intense, you know, to start off with. So if there's a way to manage that, And then maybe I could buy onto it. Otherwise, you know, I'm still thinking it's better just to see what comes in front of us and then make that decision.

And if exit 11 could come in here, that would be great. Although I'm actually not a fan of their drinks, but they have really good breakfast burritos. Yeah.

And to be for the record, I don't think they were looking at that site. So, you know, before anybody gets any ideas or speculates, they were not, it wasn't that site.

No, I appreciate the comment. Yeah. My son will be sad to hear that the McDonald's plan is dead though. Yeah.

Mayor Garitano. So are you, are you asking the, the, department to look at the permitted uses again before we vote on this?

Well, I'm not sure about how to go about it, but maybe there's a way so that this way we don't have someone that comes with an idea that just is unrealistic. And I know the Development Zoning Review Committee tries to address it that way, but is this another way to kind of take, take advantage of what we're doing just to basically say, certain types of drive throughs or high intensity, you know, businesses that are open late hours, things like that would not be allowed. Mr.

I can start.

Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. varnish.

Mr. Chair and Mayor Garreton, I can certainly work with the rest of the team in the Department of Planning as well as our city administrator and see if there's a way to better refine what is before you tonight.

And maybe there's something, too, that we could say, look, hey, if somebody's going to come through with an idea, it has to be a really high-quality idea, like, you know, the architecture. I know we already defined it, but I think if it's easy to convey to folks to say, hey, If there's something going to go there, it's going to look nice. Like the way you see the Wildwood Hotel, the architecture when you drive into Town Center, and of course all of Town Center. I think folks need to be reassured that whatever's going to go there is going to be of the best quality. And it's not going to be what you see just driving anywhere else down the road. It's going to look different. And I don't, you know, again, we don't know who's interested in there, but I certainly hear the Economic Development Committee that, you know, they're trying to help the city when it comes to that stuff. I just want to make sure we set the tone so that if somebody looks at the site that, you know, if they have an idea that just doesn't work, that they don't, you know, get the impression that it will. And I don't think we're in a hurry to have to do this tonight. I'm not aware of any proposals. So if the department, you know, If we want to just postpone tonight and give the department time open to what Director Voonage wants to do with that.

Well, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee and I had this discussion earlier today. It is an internal discussion, meaning the Department of Planning, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Economic Development Committee are ones that are requesting the consideration. It's not an outside entity, so we do have time. And so given the comments that the department heard tonight and They're very, many of them are very, very good. So the department would respectfully request at this time of postponement to a date no later than September, 2026. So as we can do additional research and refinement.

I'll make that motion chair.

All right. Motion to postpone until September or no later than September, I believe.

Yeah.

and Councilman Marshall seconds it. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

So we have a motion on the floor, though. Do we have to address that?

No, we postponed it. All right. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motions postponed up until two months. And then... Last on the agenda is the committee for the 26, 27 officers. So I think that's on me. So it is that time of year again.

Yes, and typically, Mr. Chair, you've asked for volunteers, but we need at least three. As I recall, Mr. Newberry?

Yeah.

And if we could get three volunteers to consider the officer positions to talk about it, to make a slate of nominations, that'd be great. We have to have the officer selected by August or September, no later than September, as I recall. So, Mr. Chair, it's your turn to twist some arms.

All right. Would anyone like to volunteer for the committee? Commissioner Halfrey is not looking at me, and I think I know why.

Maybe they could just email you, or you could email them and see if you can get somebody to do it that way.

All right. Thank you.

I make a motion to adjourn. And nobody talk about soccer scores.

All right. All right. All right. So we have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.