Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I'd like to call the September 8th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Tonight on the agenda, we have one public hearing, six letters of recommendation, three information reports, one new correspondence item, and one site development plan recommendation. Can I get a roll call of commission members, please? Commissioner Boren.

Commissioner Helfrey.

Here.

Commissioner Gettinger. Commissioner Clayton. Here. Commissioner Depler. Here. Mr. Jackson?

Here.

Commissioner Rubis? Here. Chair Beatty? Here. Councilmember Marshall? Mayor Garitano?

Here. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Can I get an approval of the minutes from August 3rd, please?

I'll make that motion to approve.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Helfrey, seconded by Commissioner Clayton. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Does the Department of Planning have any opening comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, just a couple. First of all, to Ms. Wheeler, thank you for being here tonight to serve as our attorney for the purposes of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And secondly, those who attended the open house from the Planning and Zoning Commission, thank you very much. We appreciated your attendance. We didn't have as many people as we hoped, but those that did come certainly were able to talk to you as commission members and others that participated in the master plan update. So thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. We'll open it up for public comment session. So if you're here for anything other than our one public hearing, now is your time to speak. And if you would like, please go to the back and fill out a speaker card and give it to Mr. Newberry right here. And he will call you when it is your turn. Mr. Newberry?

Mr. Chair, at the moment, we have one speaker card for the public comment session, and it's Mr. Phillips.

Good evening. Joe Phillips. I'm with pyro signs. I met with you all last month and I was just here just in case there were any further questions regarding our proposal that you all looked at last month.

Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the department doesn't have any additional speaker cards. I know we had some folks come in right towards the beginning of the meeting.

So I don't see any filling any out. And if you, If anyone on Zoom would like to speak, now is your chance to raise your hand. And not seeing any hands being raised, so we will move on to our public hearing. 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 October, 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 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 at tonight's hearing. So we have PZ 1426, Mr. Newberry.

Thank you. PZ14-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, Care of Department of Planning, Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri, 63040. A request for the Planning and Zoning Commission's review and action on the 2026 update of the City of Wildwood's Master Plan. The upstated Master Plan has been under review by the Master Plan Citizen Oversight Group beginning in January 2025, and its members have acted favorably on this draft and are submitting it for consideration herein. The master plan establishes goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of the environment, application of planning techniques for land use and development purposes, allocation of community resources and services, prioritization of multimodal transportation and infrastructure improvements, and provision of public space and recreational amenities, along with economic development and business retention. Along with these goals, objectives, and policies, the master plan establishes types and densities slash intensities of land use, For each parcel of ground within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the city of Wildwood via its conceptual land use categories map, the charter of the city of Wildwood requires this plan be reviewed and updated every 10 years and was last completed in 2016, all wards. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, thank you for your attention tonight to this very important topic. Many of you, as you know, have been participating over the last 18 months in the citizen oversight group that was charged by the mayor and city council to oversee the update of the city's master plan. As referenced on the title page, this particular update is the fourth update. that has occurred. The original master plan was approved in February 1996. The first revision occurred in 2006. The second was 2016, and then again tonight is the third, and we begin the process that will ultimately lead to a decision and action on the part of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the master plan, and then forwarding that decision and action to City Council. As you know, the group that led the update process was large. There were 23 members appointed. The 23 members were intended to represent all of Wildwood, whether it be the rural area, the suburban area, town center, etc. It was also intended to represent the business community, along with the development interests that would be interested, so to speak, here in the city of Wildwood. Additionally, all of the citizen members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were appointed. The intent of that appointment is to ensure that as members of the commission and the primary enforcer of the plan, the intent is to have you integral into the update process and know the components of it, the discussions that occurred and ultimately the decisions. Along with the eight citizen members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were eight at-large citizen members. And then finally, two city council liaisons. Again, the structure or the components of that update group was intended to represent all of Wildwood and all of its interest and all of its concerns. Those that participated in the meeting certainly feel, I hope, that that was achieved with this group. As many of you know, the process was lengthy. It took 18 months. That 18 months equated to 24 total meetings. And out of the total meetings is the document that's before you. At the Citizen Oversight Group meeting on August 25th, a motion was made by the members to accept the final draft and forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its consideration and action. I do want to draw a distinction here. I keep mentioning action. Under state statute, Chapter 89, the Planning and Zoning Commission actually adopts the master plan. It is one of the few things that you do that the city council doesn't. The city council receives the adopted plan for consideration as endorsement and ratification. And an integral part is in the city's charter, the conceptual land use categories map becomes the land use map of the city of Wildwood. And under the charter, the city council cannot approve a zoning that's inconsistent with the conceptual land use categories map. We made it law, so to speak. So it was a lengthy process, but one I think that was necessary to ensure that the updated plan well represented the successes, the shortcomings, the concerns, the emerging issues, and trends. As part of the plan, there is information about the planning history of the city, which includes all of the components of the elements. There are six elements, environmental, planning, community services, transportation, open space and recreation, and economic development. The seventh element, so to speak, is the land use component. Also, the group decided to change the format somewhat, and we added the history of the incorporation to ensure that there is a link between why there is a Wildwood and why it is so important in this area of St. Louis County. The core components of the master plan are the elements. All of the elements have associated goals, objectives, and policies. And each one of those were reviewed by the citizen oversight group, discussed thoroughly, and motions made on changes, deletions, or additions. And as you can see, there were quite a few additions made to the six elements. Key components of those additions relate to accessibility for all demographics, all abilities. Night sky, the dark sky, protections, noise mitigations along major arterial roadway corridors. Things that stayed unchanged, protection of the rural area, preserving the environment from degradation and retaining businesses whenever possible through efforts of the city. The land use component was the last of the major discussion points that the citizen oversight group held. Five properties were considered. Of those five, adjustments were made to four. I say that the Valley Road site, which was identified as site B, the land use component did not change, but the citizen oversight group made recommendations regarding low density, no extension of stub streets and the use of the planned residential development overlay district as part of it to minimize site disturbance and to protect the environment thereafter there are information about the policy advisors and then the appendices the appendices tonight only have the maps that were recommended by the citizen oversight group By the time this particular master plan returns to you, all of the appendices will have been added for your review before an action, your first action is requested. And the department will conclude with just the process. Tonight is the required public hearing on the master plan in October. The department will prepare a recommendation for the consideration of the planning and zoning commission. That recommendation will carry along a request for action. If action is taken, then a month later in November, the draft letter of recommendation will be before the commission for final action and adoption of the plan. Thereafter, the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be forwarded to City Council for its public hearing, and then legislation will be introduced for its endorsement and ratification. The intent is to have the process complete by the end of this year, 2026. And if all goes well, that timeline can be achieved. Suffice to say that the department lamented at a couple of our meetings about the length of the process and the imposition it placed on the volunteer members of the group. And I also said in the email I sent out over the weekend to all of the group members, I think we've come up with the best plan so far. It highlights the strengths of Wildwood and the things that continue to make it a great place to live, work, and play. It identifies those things that we need to do better over the next 10 years to preserve those qualities that make people move to Wildwood and often stay here for many, many years, if not generationally. So again, congratulations to the members of the commission that participated and to the group members, many of whom aren't here tonight, that worked diligently to create what I believe is a very good plan an updated plan and one that will serve the city well for the next 10 years with that mr chair i'll close the department's presentation and accept any comments or questions from the commission members at this time thank you mr vunich commissioner jackson

Well, I guess I can speak on behalf of everyone. Thank you for the kudos to us. But I think the important thing is your guidance with your team and the kudos back to you. This is your fourth one? Yes, sir. Just got 10 more years for the fifth one. Anyway, I just think your staff and everything, you and Travis and the whole team were just unbelievable. And I just wanted to recognize that.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. And thank you. And obviously, Robin, Melanie, and Travis were integral parts. But we also had assistance from Debbie Ward and Julie Stone. And we did consult others outside the realm of what you all saw as group members, just to make sure we were on the right track on certain issues. So this particular success had many, many authors, but I think it lay squarely at the feet of the Citizen Oversight Group. It would have been easy to call it quits after a year, because that's what was promised in terms of a timeline. She hung in there an additional six months. And as you recall, as we started 2026, we were meeting twice a month to catch up. And that was in the dead of winter when it gets dark at five o'clock and you showed up with a good attitude and you participated. And there's nothing more that we could ask this department of planning staff than what you did. So thank you.

And thank you for mentioning the names. It's unintentional. I left not only and everyone else also. Thank you.

Well, I have to because they were just, they did so much to make the process manageable, given all the other things that going on in the city during that 18 month period. They were great. Commissioner Helfrich.

So, you know, we could, I would also like to just echo what he said and also say that I was honored to work with such a wide variety of people and opinions from the city. It was nice that we all didn't agree, you know, with everything locked up. We got to flesh out a lot of stuff. And so I learned a lot and I'm grateful to have served with all those people. I do have one question. And that is in the appendices where it says maps. Is this the group of maps that we're talking about putting in there? I think we would be remiss if we don't have a town center map in there. Because that's part of Wildwood. So I would respectfully request that we add the town center map in there as well. Thank you.

Ms. Helfrey, I believe that was a request of the group that we missed. So thanks for reminding us. And we'll certainly add that to the selection of maps that's already before you.

All right. I think we have some speaker cards.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chair, if you're ready. The first speaker is Ms. McCutcheon.

Good evening, everyone. I'm talking to the choir. I realize that.

To keep it consistent, name and address.

Okay. Sorry. Deborah Smith McCutcheon, Ward 5. I know I'm talking to the choir. I appreciate, you know, you guys not only are commissioners, but taking the time to participate in the master plan update, which you all know is our governing document. And it was nice to work with everybody who was really concerned, did their due diligence. And I think we have a great plan. I also have to say thank you to the Department of Planning. A lot of effort and time and a lot of guidance that is very appreciated came from them all. I do have one concern as a part of the master plan, and that is site E. That is where a business would like to put a warehouse in front of their current portion or their current building of their development. That is right at 109 Ann Clayton Road. It's across from Lafayette High School. It's across from Babler. It's next to St. Albans. And then there is a 10 vacant lot that abuts to Dartmouth subdivision. And so my concern was, and as you all meet before, but I thought I'd give it one last shot. I'm really concerned about having a warehouse right there on that corner for a lot of reasons, which you heard, but I don't think that is a appropriate structure to have sitting right on 109 across my high school, so close to other schools. And then my other big concern is that 10-acre vacant lot kind of diagonal across from the current business. Even though this is a master plan change and it would be harder for someone to put commercial on that 10 acres, it's not impossible. So I'd really appreciated it if you take one more look at that. And as you all know, because you're the ones who do the rules for the commission, they could have done the same thing. They could come up here with, ask for a master plan change. I mean, a zoning change. I don't think this is really an... appropriate request for a master plan change. And again, I just appreciate it. If you take one more look at that, I feel that strongly about it. I'm sure the people who live around there feel strongly about it. And again, it's not so much all of the requests that that businessman has made, but the warehouse I think would be very negative addition to our community. Thank you.

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

I want to thank all of you. My name is Teresa Clark, and I'm Ward 1. And I want to thank you for all that you do. 5. Cindy's on there 6 that have been on the the meetings with us have stayed in endured because we needed your your help and your assistance and your ideas coming from the PNC commission. much of what I was gonna say was already been said by Director Venetiany so eloquently, much more than I could say. And we just appreciate their guidance through all of the things we were doing and keeping us on track through meetings and getting us out at a decent time every meeting. These master plans, iterations that we've gone through just you know there's the original this one is the original that's only half of it that I brought then the 2006 and the 2016 And tonight's master plan that we're going to look at, the update. And as well, the plan of intent. And these documents, I brought them with me just to say, you know, we need to read these documents and thoroughly know what they say so we can see the changes that's happened over the years. So many times we get the comment, Well, that wasn't the plan from the original plan. But if we don't know what the original plan was, we can't really address that. So I just want to encourage and encourage not only this group, but the council to make sure that we know what this says before we start making answers to comments that are made in the city. I do have one request. from your group. And that is that after looking at all of this, if you would consider developing and implementing a plan of achievability and accountability, some kind of a plan so that we take this master plan And we address it as missed how free had mentioned in our last meeting about needing to face things off of this plan this is our this is our foundation and so to take it in and instead of having a project come in and say oh how does this project that our plan. We need to have a way to achieve all of the goals that are in this. And so start with the goal and go from that. Know that we have addressed all of the goals, regardless if there was a project happened to come up to fit one or maybe all the goals, but maybe we would have some slipping through the cracks. So I would highly suggest that we come up with a, a plan to implement that has achievability, accountability, whether it's departments or commissions or boards or committees that work on specific things. And I think that that information is already pretty available. We just need to put it together in the economic development part of the staff. And the one that I really wanted to mention, but Mr. Vunich, he had already mentioned it, was memorializing the overlay of the homes that can be clustered in certain properties to have more of a... three-acre development-wide density instead of only three-acre lot size, as was in the plan of intent. So to preserve the land as much as we can, because sometimes having three-acre plots in a large development will not preserve the environment as much as clustering on ridges and dams Just to avoid disturbing steep slopes and waterways, mature woodlands. 30 seconds. The restrictive soils and just to cluster them. And thank you very much.

All right. Thank you for your comments.

Mr chair, the department has not received any additional speaker cards for this public hearing, but we do have some folks here on zoom. So if we want to just give them an opportunity to raise their hand, to speak on the master plan update.

I'm not seeing any.

Mr. Vinnich? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the commission, just a couple of items before we conclude tonight. First, certainly the city has always taken pride in the fact that this particular plan, the master plan, and all others are not necessarily plans that just sit on a bookshelf and are occasionally pulled off that bookshelf to be looked at. The city, as you know, particularly the master plan for the Planning and Zoning Commission is one we use each and every month to justify decisions or recommendations and actions relative to land use, allocation of resources, all the things that we do here as the commission to make Wildwood a better place. And so that department takes particular pride in the fact that we actually use the plans that we ask you to update each and every 10 years and spend a great deal of time on. Saying that, Ms. Clark does make a very good point in terms of achievability and accountability. I think it is important that there is some type of yardstick that's used to ensure that we are truly being stewards of the plan and using it for its intended purpose. As you know, if you've been on the commission any length of time, the Department of Planning, at least at year, not yearly intervals, but every three to five years, gives an update on the master plan and how collectively we are all doing and implementing the goals, objectives, and policies. So we've been doing that, but again, it could be anywhere from two to three times over the course of the 10-year period. So certainly, if there's no objection, the department will investigate this achievability and accountability component and see if we can do something that's manageable and certainly add some feet to the plan itself. Regarding Ms. McCutcheon's comment, certainly we know that during the discussion of that particular site, Site E, that she had a strong opinion regarding the warehouse. And the department will investigate, again, the warehouse component and have a response for you as part of its information report with recommendation. and the department would conclude by just for the purposes of the record entering into that record the city's charter which was referenced as part of its conceptual land use categories map the adopted master plan which was utilized as the basis for our update and many many components of it are represented in the updated version and Missouri revised statute chapter 89, which gives the authority for the master plan and the commission's action regarding the master plan at the conclusion of the process. And with that, Mr. Chair, again, Mr. Newberry and I are available for any comments or questions regarding any of the public speaker's comments. Anything else that's come to mind? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vinnich.

Any further discussion? Thank you. If there's nothing else, a motion to close the public hearing? All right, motion by Commissioner Rubis, second by Commissioner Clayton. Any discussion? All right, seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton? Yes. Commissioner Diplor? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Chair Beatty? Yes. Mayor Garitano?

Yes.

Thank you.

I guess that didn't actually need to be a roll call, did it? Sorry. All right. So that closes our public hearing. Next on the agenda, PZ 10-26, Mr. Newberry.

PZ 10-26 Rockwood School District Care of Piro Sign Inc. 1818 Old State Road, Unit M, Barnhart, Missouri 63012. A request for a conditional use permit CUP in the NU Non-Urban Residence District for a 68.7 acre tract of land that is located on the north side of Babler Park Drive State Route BA, east of its intersection with Pond Road, Rockwood Valley Middle School. Street Address 1220 Babler Park Drive, St. Louis County Locator Numbers. number two one w two three zero zero six two proposed use a permanent electronic message center emc ie sign to be operated in association with the existing middle school with accessory uses ward three all right thank you mr newberry mr vinnich thank you again mr chair mr chair and members of the planning and zoning commission

As you know, the city recently adopted regulations relating to electronic message centers, a new type of sign not previously allowed in the city of Wildwood for its first 30 plus years. This type of sign brings with it potential for writing communication to passersby or occupants of the property. And it also presents challenges, as we know, from poor applications in many areas of St. Louis County. Poor applications are identified by too bright of signs, too many animations, too many transitions, etc., etc. Since the adoption of the legislation for electronic message centers, the city has granted two conditional use permits for these types of signs. The first was for the Monarch Fire Protection District, which is located on Wild Horse Creek Road and Netherton Road. The sign is at their newest fire station here in the city of Wildwood. That particular circumstance was interesting in the fact that the electronic message center had been constructed as part of the original development of the property and remained off while the discussion carried forward by the Planning and Signing Commission and City Council relative to the new regulations that are in place. The most recent action was the granting of a conditional use permit for Lafayette High School, which is located at the intersection of Clayton Road and State Route 109. So this is the 3rd application and it's important to note that as part of the discussion on the regulations that were ultimately put in place by City Council, the key component, the first item is that any of these signs require a conditional use permit and that conditional use permit gives the authority to the Planning and Signing Commission to differentiate between locations and sign characteristics so as to ensure that for whatever purpose, if there is a sign electronic message center that doesn't work, there is a proviso to ensure it isn't installed. I mentioned that because tonight, in this particular instance, this request for electronic message center at Rockwood Valley Middle School is being recommended to be denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The department believes that this particular location is very different than the first two that have been considered. I would note that the differences are very, very clear to it in that it is a large lot residential area. There are no other uses in the vicinity. This particular area, this location, I should say, is also on State Route BA, a low-traveled road versus what we've seen in the other two locations. We'll also note that this is a middle school, not a high school. The level of activities associated with high schools and middle schools are very different. There's no football team. There's no basketball team. There's no cheerleaders, so to speak. All those things that we've been told that are essential to the high school or the fire district may not exist with a middle school. And the department continues to advocate that with social media, websites, email, all of the things that are available that weren't available 20 years ago The use of signage, at least for certain types of activities, seems less and less imperative when there are other options that go to the individual, whether it be their laptop, home computer, smartphone, etc. The department just believes, regardless of the protections that have been put in place, which are substantial by the city, that at this particular location, which is a very dark sky area, Anything that the city would do in terms of an electronic message center would be a problem. And that problem in the department's mind is justification for it not to support a recommendation that's favorable to the commission. So tonight, you have a recommendation that does not support the request before you. After a motion and second, the department will be available to respond to any questions or comments regarding its information report with recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Discussion or a motion? Commissioner Urbis?

Based upon what you just said and the department's determination Is there any way, or what would have to change in order for this to be acceptable?

That's a very good question, Mr. Rubis, and one I've asked myself a couple of times since the department prepared a report and published it. Certainly, we have the lighting values, as you recall, East of Route 109, there's a certain level of lighting that's accessible. West of Route 109, it's much, much lower for the intended purpose of preserving dark sky. We have restrictions that I believe are very comprehensive and to some, restrictive. So to answer your question, I think the city's done everything it can. I just believe in this particular instance, we're putting an electronic message center in a large single-family area for one user. And although that user is a middle school, which has probably a substantial population of parents, teachers, staff, and students, I just see it as a disservice to those people that have purchased large lots, built homes and expect to have privacy, dark sky and the things that we associate our rural areas with here in Wildwood.

Thank you. Hypothetically, if one of the other two middle schools, LaSalle or Wildwood came forward with the same request, Are you at liberty to say whether you would feel that we should approve or deny either of those locations?

I don't feel I'm in a position to make that determination without a submittal in front of me and available to the department. Okay.

That's fair. I just thought I would ask because I apologize. They're all in the well, Wildwood's in the town center, but it's west of 109. The other one is in a three acre area, but it's on 109, which has similar traffic volumes to what we approved for the fire station.

There are differentiating factors between this particular location, Rockwood Valley, and the other two. And if proposals are submitted, we'll certainly look at those characteristics. All right, Commissioner Halfrey.

So I have two questions. Number one, How does this proposal compare to what they have now? The sign that they have now, how does the brightness of the light compare and the hours of operation? That's my first question. My second question is, if we deny this one, are we then required to deny others? I guess my question is, How can we allow one and not others? So that's two questions.

Certainly. Well, I think in the regulations associated with conditional use permits and their procedures that are applied, the burden of complying to the four criteria actually isn't on the city. We don't have to justify those four criteria. That's the responsibility of the applicant petitioner. And so from the perspective of the department, that puts the shoe on a whole different foot. Oftentimes when we're doing rezoning, If we take a stance that's contrary to, let's say, a set of regulations or a planning document, we have to justify that based upon specific criteria, characteristics, et cetera. So the conditional use permit process is different than, let's say, the rezoning components. Ms. Wheeler may want to opine on that as well. given that it is a legal question to a certain degree as well. And I certainly would defer to her opinion as part of the response to your question.

I would say with the CUP standards, they can be applied in different ways to different situations, if that makes sense.

In terms of comparison, Rockwood Valley Middle School was approved by St. Louis County. It was done at the same time as LaSalle Springs Middle School. Both of the schools were done almost in lockstep, 1993. If you take a look at the changeable copy signs at LaSalle Springs Middle School and Rockwood Valley Middle School, they look like they're 30 years or more in age. they are changeable copy they're generally on a brick bay they're on a base concrete they're brick signs typically and for the most part they're dark lettering on a white background which our outdoor lighting requirements don't even allow anymore remember our outdoor lighting requirements say dark background with light lettering again The light background puts off more light. The dark background, opaque, blocks it. In my opinion, dark backgrounds with light lettering achieve the same end. Would the new sign be an improvement in terms of aesthetics? Certainly. But again, I fall back on if this area is where you individually all live, you move there to be on a large plot,

in the tree um and just don't Hey. Oh. Looks like we're back.

Still not able to hear everything, Travis.

The audio is very choppy. You know. So very happy. Thank you. Thank you. You know, there's

I think, Travis, it's coming in much better now. The video is clearer. All right. Thank you, Mayor. And we can hear you better now.

The audio is still a little choppy.

The video is clear, though.

Okay. This is better. There we go.

Try testing it again, say a few words.

They'll chop.

Cindy, are you getting it from your end or is it also choppy there?

It's definitely choppy here. I can hear you fine, but I can't hear from the dais at all.

Yeah. My mom said, Oh.

would that screw you up, John?

Well, it's hard to reschedule this meeting and pay for an application or a visual form. All day. Do you have a date? Do you have a date?

Do you have a date?

Right now, I'm not that person at all. That's again, September 23rd.

Coming in when city council is on, what time does that meeting start, 6.30?

They start work session at 5.30 p.m. And they go directly from work session to the regular session.

Is it a summertime now?

Sorry. Yeah, the audio is coming in great. The video is off, but the audio is working better now.

We'll try now with the video.

How's the sound?

Sound is excellent. There is no video, but I'll take sound over video if we have to.

Yeah, I would say the audio is probably more important.

Yeah.

We may have an issue, though, with the roll call because the audio may not suffice. We still would need a video.

Oh, good point. Is it a sunshine issue because we advertise that it's open to Zoom and YouTube and then it doesn't work?

Is that what the sunshine issue would be? Roll call votes do require the video to be turned on, but voice votes do not require it as long as we have audio.

Pardon me?

I'm sorry, if we have a quorum here, then we don't need necessarily the video on for the vote, only if we need Mayor Garitano and Ms. Stapler to vote. Is that correct?

Certainly, that's correct.

Yeah, for the boys' vote. But yeah, I mean, I would proceed. I mean, that's the way the Missouri Senate is. You only hear them through audio. So again, if you want to proceed with continuing the discussion, we'll certainly take audio so we can hear it.

Again, I think the concern of Ms. Wheeler, our city attorney, is that the public then won't know the vote.

If there's no video, the people won't know our vote?

Well, again, it's just a little complicated.

Well, if it's a roll call, though, then they should know if we have the audio going fine. I think that should be fine. If people online can hear now, if we can get the video going, that's ideal. But if we have the audio going, I think we're good to go.

OK. Because I was under the impression that the video is needed for the online participants.

Yeah. So again, to be clear, If the video is not functioning, but everyone can hear and a vote is requested, Mayor Garitano and Commission Member Depler will not count toward that.

They'll count.

Actually, we can probably put our video on and you can see us, right? Yes. So then that's the online people. We can put our video on and there's a roll call. Then we should be okay. We can count.

Then I think we can proceed.

Till the next turtle.

Okay, so I believe we have one yes vote so far. Yeah, let's just start from scratch to make it clear. Commissioner Helfrey.

Sorry, if you don't mind, can you please take the motion again?

Yeah, the motion is to accept the department's recommendation that we deny the permit for the sign.

Commissioner Helfrey? Yes. Commissioner Clayton? Yes. Commissioner Depler?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Chair Beatty?

Yes. Councilmember Marshall?

Yes. And Mayor Garitano? Yes.

Thank you for your patience. Motion carries. Apologies for the delay and the motion passes. Next on the agenda, PZ7, 7A, and 7B-26. Mr. Newberry.

PZ7-26, 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 23U110063, Property Address 16701, Manchester Road, which is Zone C8, Planned Commercial District, St. Louis County, Action from 1999. 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 a parcel of ground that is currently identified in the C8 planned commercial district, town center workplace district to the R6A 4,000 square foot residence district with a planned residential development overlay district PRD associated with 7B. All being in association with a parcel of ground that is 12.17 acres in size and generally located on the north side of Manchester Road. Across from Old Fairway Drive, St. Louis County, located at number 23U-110063, property address 16701 Manchester Road. Proposed use, 39 attached single-family dwellings and clusters of two and three units with associated street and pedestrian networks, along with public rights-of-way dedications and improvements, stormwater management facilities, and required public spaces, all located in Ward 8.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich?

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, before I begin the department's presentation on the draft letter of recommendation, I would note that as part of tonight's discussion, a letter from the engineer of record, Dave Volz, was placed at your seats and I believe forwarded to you during the afternoon via email. I would note that the department received this particular letter on September 8, today, at approximately 1.15 PM. Noting of this particular letter is important because in the letter there are four items associated with attachment B, the conditions that are called into question. The first relates to building facades and what constitutes a corner lot. The second relates to the access and roadway improvements, specifically the roundabout and the desire to have an understanding relative to the cost or the imposition of the requirement onto the developer of the property. The third relates to the traffic generation assessment fee and a request have that fee placed toward the roundabout cost. And then finally, clarification that the pocket park and the original roadbed of historic Route 66 will be under public ownership at some point in the future. Certainly, the department would note that it's difficult to make changes at this stage. And if the Planning and Zoning Commission acts on the draft letter of recommendation, Without these changes, obviously, then the city council will be asked to make those changes or consideration of those changes as part of its process. It's unfortunate, but again, from the department's perspective, it's not in a position with approximately three hours to give you input relative to these items that have been identified by the petitioner. So the choices before you tonight are to proceed forward with the draft letter of recommendation, not responding to the items, or in the department's opinion, postpone action on this item until the October meeting. Yeah.

Mayor Garitano?

Yeah, I was going to ask the department. I mean, I don't think I saw anything that expressed that we had an urgency and I believe then the petitioner would probably rather have a response or answer to the questions and comments that they provided. So if there's no objection by the department, then I think it just may make sense to postpone it so that the department has a full chance to review the letter and provide that feedback. I would concur, so I'll make that motion for postpone to the next meeting.

All right. All right. Motion to postpone by Mayor Garitano, second by Commissioner Hrubis, Commissioner Helfrey. Any discussion? Councilman Marshall?

So are we going to postpone both PZ726 and PZ7A and B? One is the zoning and the other is the actual development.

They were advertised collectively as a single request. They are three separate requests, but collectively for the purposes of the discussion and preparation of reports and recommendations, a single item. And so a postponement would be, from the department's perspective, need to include all three.

I didn't hear, was that a comment of amending the motion to include all of them?

Oh, to include 7 and 7A, 7B-26, the rezoning. And you're good?

Yeah, I'm good with that. If the second's fine with it, then we can do it that way.

And you're good with that, Commissioner Rubis? Yeah. All right.

And before the vote is called, I do want to note that Oftentimes, the city is criticized because we don't move fast enough on certain actions. So just so you know, as commission members, we hold a public hearing. There's a month's time between the public hearing and the department's preparation of a recommendation. There is a month's additional time, in this case, five weeks between the action of the commission on the information report and the draft letter of recommendation. It isn't like you often hear, well, I got the report on Friday afternoon. No, these conditions have been in place for five weeks. The postponement is essential in the department's opinion because assigning the TGA based upon the request of the petitioner is contrary to general practice. The TGA is deposited in one of two funds, east or west, and the city council makes the determination where those monies go. It's certainly a reasonable request, but it's one that needs to be not just done on the fly tonight. Thank you.

I understand. So all those in favor of postponing, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Aye.

Any abstain? All right. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. So PZ11-26 and PZ12-26, Mr. Runich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. PZ11-26, 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 twenty four v forty two zero zero six five street address one seven zero five two 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. This particular lot is located in Ward 8. And the second component, PZ 12-26, Corvert Corsair Building, Inc., profit-sharing plan, 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 0.95 acres. 0296 Street Address 17058 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. This lot is located also in Ward 8. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I'm not able to share a slide to show you where the properties are located, but these requests are regarding a requested change in zoning for the two lots that were just described into the record before you tonight as a draft letter of recommendation that reflects the action of the committee from its, or excuse me, the commission from its August 3rd meeting, which was to recommend approval for the change in zoning. Again, that was just read into the record. The two lots located on Manchester Road are both legal but non-conforming lots given their size and having the NU non-urban zoning district designation. The request here is to change the zoning from the NU to the R3 10,000 square foot residence district to accommodate the sale of the property for two new home sites here in the town center. So again, before you tonight is the draft letter of recommendation that...

All over the place.

Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to approve the city's recommendation for both of these.

Second. All right, so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All right, seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Rubis?

Yes.

Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton.

Yes.

Commissioner Doppler.

Yes.

Chair Beatty. Yes. Council Member Marshall. Yes. And Mayor Garitano.

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Next on the agenda, PZ25-97, Mr. Vrnich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Request for withdrawal by applicant. A response to a site development plan, SDP submittal regarding a telecommunication facility that is located upon a 115-acre parcel of ground, the Marinist Retreat Center, being on the east side of State Route 109 across from Alt Road. Locator number 26V310045, street address 4000, State Route 109. Conditional use permit, CUP, in the NU non-urban resident district, which seeks and allows to replace a set of existing antenna with new types on the telecommunications tower and facility authorized by PZ25-97 Sprint Spectrum LP Marinus Retreat Center. thereby allowing the exterior arrays to extend over seven feet in lieu of the required 18 inches from the tower structure itself. The city's chapter 430 of its municipal code regulations for the placement of wireless facilities and wireless support structures sets forth stand thresholds regarding substantial modifications to existing wireless support structures, which are exceeded in this submissal causing a need for a new public hearing. This particular property is located in Ward 6. Thank you, Mr. Vinnich. Mr. Newberry.

Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, this request was made upon this telecommunication facility, given it was determined to be a major modification. A public hearing was held and a recommendation was provided by the department and voted on by the commission at its August 3rd meeting. Since that time, the department is in receipt of an email from the petitioner's representative at Crown Castle requesting that the matter be removed from, or which on, excuse me, from the Planning and Zoning Commission's active agenda. No reason is provided in the email. It's simply a request for the withdrawal and stating that the carrier, T-Mobile, no longer wants to proceed forward with this request. With that, the department is seeking a motion and second and vote to withdraw the request, and that is without prejudice, which means that if there are any future modifications within the next 12 months, they could come back with another request.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Commissioner Halfrey?

I will make a motion to approve that without prejudice.

Is there a second? Sure, second. All right. So motion and second by Commissioner Helfrich, Commissioner Jackson. Any discussion? All right. Do we need roll call vote on this? OK. Roll call vote.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Commissioner Dupler?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes. Council Member Marshall? Yes. And Mayor Garitano? Yes.

Thank you. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Let's see here. Next on the agenda, PZ 13-26.

Mr. Newberry. Thank you. PZ 13-26, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, Care of Department of Planning 16860, Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. I request for the consideration of the dissolution of the City of Wildwood's Architecture Review Board, ARB, by deleting in its entirety Chapter 415.220. architectural review board requirements of the code of ordinances while also evaluating other certain changes to chapter 415.030 definitions and also inclusive of chapter 415.380 miscellaneous regulations of the same code of ordinances specifically relative to section i2 items a through e architectural review in all zoning districts accompanying these previously described items is the determination of alternative review processes and standards for architectural elevations and actions within the city of wildwood all wards Thank you, Mr. Newberry.

Mr. Vinnich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department of Planning has prepared for your consideration tonight its information report and recommendation regarding changes to the Architectural Review Board regulations. as is referenced in the report and identified at the public hearing on august sixth the city of walwood has had an architectural review board since approximately nineteen ninety seven it was a key recommendation of andres duany the national consultant that worked on the city's town center plan The consultant, Andres Duany, noted that given the architectural guidelines, complexity and number, a architectural review board was essential to their interpretation and application to achieve the outcome of the desired plan. Over the years, the number of architects that have served on the board has been steady. But recently, with term limits now established for volunteers, the number of to the qualifications or membership on that board to include landscape architects, engineers, urban planners. Still, despite those changes, difficulty obtaining qualified representatives for the review board remained difficult. More recently, there was a desire to engage residents, or excuse me, architects that were not residents with at least one of the three-member board now being a resident and architect. That never came to fruition, and shortly thereafter, the City Council held discussions about the number of boards, commissions, committees, ad hoc groups, task forces, etc., wanting to pare those down to the essential number and using sunset provisions for those special groups, etc. Ultimately, the City Council approved the devolution of the architectural view board and its place. The engagement of some groups is the Department of Planning and the City Council in this function. Tonight for you are the draft regulations to achieve that outcome. As you can see, there is a lot of reference in the architectural view board for the city. And the Planning and Zoning Commission becomes the of those duties and responsibilities. Our provisions that the process, who would need a consultant, an architectural consultant to assist in the process. the planning would be to an initiative and see importance in the development, often architectural requirements. Submit those changes to the applicant. The applicant resubmits and the resubmittal is sent to the consulting architect. Consulting architect provides comments, if any. Those comments are addressed and ultimately that set of drawings is presented to the commission for action. Thereafter, with an action, it goes to city council for receipt and filing. That is the changes that are presented to you tonight in the form of this particular report with recommendation. The department would acknowledge that it puts a great deal of responsibility upon the Planning and Zoning Commission in many ways. but the department feels the consultant process will address those technical issues that need to be addressed. And the others between the department of planning, planning and zoning commission and city council will also be addressed appropriately to ensure that the building is aesthetically appropriate, compliant to the architectural guidelines of town center and functions and is safe. And with that tonight, the department is presenting a favorable recommendation on the changes presented in the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vunich. Commissioner Helfrey.

I will make a motion to approve. I just have one question just for my own clarification though. In here, when you go through all of these reports, Where you give all the steps in here, the powers and duties, the planning zoning commission. Are those the planning zoning bylaws? Are those the changes to the planning zoning bylaws?

Yes. Ultimately, what Mr. Newberry and I will do with the assistance of the city attorney, we'll present you some revisions to your current bylaws to reflect the new responsibilities of this role.

Okay, thank you. Did I make a motion? I did make a motion right to approve. Yes.

Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Rubis. All right. Any discussion? Thank you. All right. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis? Yes. Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton? Yes. Commissioner Depler?

Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes. Council Member Marshall?

Yes.

Mayor Garitano?

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries. Thank you. All right. PZ626-26A and B. Mr. Newberry? Yes.

PZ 6-26A, City of Wildwood Planning and Zoning Commission, Care of Department of Planning, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. Request for the change in the zoning district designations of three properties from the NU Non-Urban Residence District to the C8 Land Commercial District with conditional use permits, CUP. which would then accommodate drive-thru facilities in conjunction with their authorized and permitted uses northeast and southeast corners of State Route 109 at the 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 23V121426. 24V-430097, 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, and PZ6-26B. 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-through facilities in conjunction with their authorized and permitted uses. Southwest corner of State Route 109, the intersection of Main Street and Southwest corner of the intersection of State Route 100 and Manchester Road. Street addresses 2431 and 2601 Highway 109. Sorry, lost my place. And 17120 Manchester Road, St. Louis County. Locator numbers 23V110, 022, 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 a grouping of applicable types of them. Boards 1 and 8.

Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Mr. Vunich?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Department has prepared for your consideration tonight its information report with recommendation regarding these four properties that are being considered for the potential of drive-through facilities in association with certain uses, including quick-serve restaurants. The Department would note that this particular matter was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in an April 6, 2026 public hearing. Prior to that public hearing, this particular consideration had been before the Economic Development Committee of City Council, eight members of the 16-member City Council, and had been before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council regarding changes to the regulating plan to identify 10 properties as part of a sub-district in association with the workplace district. I emphasize those steps to ensure that the Planning and Zoning Commission and others in attendance know that this particular item originated via the Economic Development Committee in its charge to support businesses both in terms of retention and development. Then to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to identify potential properties suitable for the sub-district designation, which would accommodate drive-through facilities. And then finally, this pre-zoning to allow the property owners to offer what would be an incentive in terms of the timing typically associated with a process of this nature. In the report, the department identifies that this particular consideration, drive-through facilities with certain uses, including quick serve restaurants, has been before this body on multiple occasions. It is something that has become more focused since the pandemic. And during the pandemic, many of us, including some of the Planning and Zoning Commission members, heard from residents about the inconvenience of the lack of quick-serve restaurants with drive-thru facilities and what it meant when you have children in the car in climate weather, etc. The locations that have been chosen have not been accidental. These locations in many ways were designed with the intent to have an intense use associated with them and protect the properties around them. So these are not just one size fits all. These were properties that have for many years been anticipated to accommodate workplace district type activities. As part of the favorable recommendation relative to these first four, two being at the intersection of Main Street and Route 109, the east side, one being on the frontage of Route 109 at Main Street on the west side, and then the northwest corner of Route 109 and Manchester Road. A set of conditions have been developed. These conditions contain the requirements for the location of the drive-through facility, the speaker box, the menu board, landscaping, berms, other protections, traffic studies to ensure the queuing and stacking is appropriate. And I think most importantly, to ensure that there is no pop-up quick serve restaurant with drive-through facility Although the zoning and the conditions associated with the zoning are in place, the site development plan would require a public hearing and allow comments on the site development plan and a process to ensure that if the site development plan isn't appropriate, doesn't meet not only the spirit but the intent of the condition, there is a proviso for the commission to deny. The department has tried to create a set of conditions that address the concerns of residents in Main Street Crossing, Canbury, and the future reserve at Wildwood, but also recognize that these properties are along State Route 109, our second highest traveled arterial roadway in the city. They are somewhat separated from nearby residential by not only lot size, but distance. And that in this particular instance, the residents that have spoken over the course of a number of years believe that quick serve restaurants or certain uses with drive-through facilities can be a component of our town center. So tonight, there is a favorable information report before you with a corresponding recommendation. And after motion and second, the department will be glad to try to address any of your concerns, questions, or comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Virnage. Commissioner Halfrey?

I guess I'm going to let somebody else make a motion first. I have a lot of questions I want to ask, so I don't really want to make a motion before I have my questions answered. So I'll let somebody else make a motion, and then I'm going to get the road running.

Well, I would defer to Ms. Wheeler if there's a motion to discuss or if there's just an allowance for discussion.

Can I make a motion to discuss? Okay, that's what I'd like to do, please.

All right. Is there a second?

I'll second it. All right. So we got a motion and a second to discuss. Do we need a voice vote? All right. Voice vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain. Thank you. Commissioner Humphrey.

Okay. So we have lots of notes. First of all, I would like to say thank you to Ms. Clark for mentioning once again, in her talk tonight, she said something, she said that wasn't in the plan and that you should look at the past documents. And I agree. I think I did that with this. I think that I listened to all of the people in both sides of the aisle and all of this. And so I have a lot of questions because I think that Wildwood has changed over the years and needs and uses have changed. But I also think that we owe it to the homeowners to do our due diligence. And so when I went through this document and I was looking at it, I made a bunch of notes on it. So for example, it says in here, First of all, this is a zoning change with a CUP. So just because we're zoning it with the zoning change doesn't automatically mean anybody gets a drive-thru. It means they have to have a CUP and it has to be approved to have a drive-thru, correct?

That's not correct. This particular action, based upon direction from our Economic Development Committee, is to proceed forward with the change in zoning, if applicable. the amendment of the zoning that's in place, if applicable, and the conditional use permits to be granted.

Okay, so, all right, I need to understand this more because I don't understand this. We're saying that we're going to change the zoning to automatically grant a drive-through, and then where does the CUP come into place?

The proposal before you is to change the zoning of the property to correspond to the new subdistrict, Workplace 100-109. And the CUP would be granted to accommodate drive-thru facilities with a range of uses, including quick-serve restaurants.

I understand that. But I guess my question is, they have to have a CUP to have a drive-thru. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, that's what I want to make sure. So they have to have the CUP, which allows the city to be much more restrictive and govern them much more tightly, the CUP does.

I've always likened it to you've got a pair of britches. Now you've got not only a belt, but a set of suspenders.

Okay. Okay. So then I want to go through a couple of these things that I have questions on. Okay. On the permitted uses, I read them all. On number 13, you say professional offices, but not medical or dental. And why is that?

The rationale is that In the current regulating plan of Town Center, medical and dental offices are primarily, I should say solely, in the downtown district. And in many ways, they have the same characteristics as a quick serve restaurant. There's appointments, there's a lot of turnover, and there's traffic associated with them. So from that perspective, we could certainly consider that.

Okay, so those were said no because of essentially traffic. Okay. In here, it does not specify that no automotive car washes.

I apologize.

Yes.

We actually include those. There's two sets of professional offices. Professional offices including medical and dental and professional offices not medical or dental.

Oh, okay. Then I regret that. I apologize. Okay.

So we accommodate both types.

Got it. Okay. Thank you for correcting me on that because I couldn't wrap my head around that. In here, it does not prohibit any car washes or gas stations in here. And so my concern is where it says stores and shops for retail purposes, that doesn't necessarily preclude car washes and gas stations. And so how would we do that if this passed?

If you review the regulating plan, vehicle service, vehicle repair generally are limited to the downtown district.

Including car washes?

Well, we don't specifically call out car washes. We allowed them as part of Phillips 66 and Amoco BP as accessory to the primary use, but again, The intent is not to have car washes associated with this particular action on the four properties.

So I guess my question is, is there any way, as this is written right now, that on the lots that we're talking about, somebody could get in a car wash or a gas station?

We could certainly, as we do in other instances, identify the permitted uses accepting these specific types. That way we send a clear message. Don't consider these uses regardless what the ordinance says.

Okay, so I would say that those, I, as part of my motion at the end of all this, I would say that I would like that added that at any time that car washes, gas stations are not allowed on those lots. Okay, then we go to lot characteristics and building requirements. I'm just gonna kind of repeat the obvious on some of them just to make sure that everybody understands and we're all on the same page. These lots cannot be divided, correct?

That's correct, Dean.

The buildings have to front 109, not Main Street or any other street. They all have to front 109.

Yes, the major arterial where there is already a level of sound or noise that is higher than Main Street or the surrounding properties.

OK, on letter E, it says there are no loading docks allowed within the boundaries. So that brings up a question for me. If you have a restaurant that gets food service deliveries, they have to have deliveries. And so if they were going to be allowed deliveries, I don't know what the noise is. Well, is it at 7 a.m. or 7.30 a.m.? Because I know the guys that mow in my neighborhood, they come really early. So if this were to pass, would we be able to say that, because somewhere in here it says the hours of 6 a.m. would be business hours. And could we say that they could not have any deliveries or any such thing before the noise ordinance law, whatever that is, 7 a.m., 7.30 a.m.?

Certainly. We've done that on other occasions relative to commercial development in town center.

Okay. F says none of these buildings can be over one foot, one story in height. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boonage. I'm going to skip down to the drive-thru requirements. And it says the menu board and speaker along the properties date route 109 frontages. So could you please explain that?

Well, the intent is to put the noise generator, in this instance, the menu board with speaker toward, again, the major arterial, not toward Main Street, not toward the residential areas. So we want all of our collective noise generators facing the major arterial.

So the order, the menu, the order board would be at 109.

Right. So... The back of the menu board would face Route 109, or depending on design, it could face Route 109 menu board. It just depends on how they design it. But the intent is to have Route 109, the drive-through lane with menu board and speaker, then the building. And the building acts as a mitigation tool for sound.

So I'm thinking ahead here, like I said, I've read all this, and I'm guessing that if somebody wanted to build a business there, they'd give you some blowback and say, well, they won't be able to hear the orders because of the traffic on 109. And so how would we address that?

I would say it's easier for them to address the noise than to have the noise addressed to the neighbors.

Okay, thank you. Buffering. Right, exactly. Okay, it says we have to provide an escape lane so that if they take too long, people can get out of the lane without having to drive over a curb.

Correct.

Okay. Okay, the city's outdoor lighting requirements. So if I read that later on in there, it says they shall not operate after 10 a.m., And 10 p.m., I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. 10 p.m. And they may not open earlier than 6 a.m. seven days a week.

That's correct. And I reviewed other hours of operation of nearby theaters. Quick-serve restaurants with drive-thru facilities, it's a mixed bag. Some stay open late night, much later. Some most don't open earlier. And so the thought was those going to work could get a cup of coffee or a donut, whatever the situation. But by 10 a.m., everything shut down. Generally speaking, most people, if they've gone to bed earlier than that, it's not too earlier than that and certainly not after.

So one of the reasons that I ask about that is because, well, there's actually two reasons. One is no deliveries before 7 a.m. and things go off at 10 p.m. because my guess is that as soon as somebody says, well, I want to put in whatever my business is here and I could get all these clients from the football games at Eureka and Lafayette, but 10 p.m. is too early for me. I'd like to petition you to stay open later. If it says 10 p.m., it's 10 p.m. Is that correct?

As far as I'm concerned, our county police department certainly can enforce that.

Okay, thank you. And then in somebody's email, they said, one of the people that live in the area, they said, what about the hours for the parking lot lights? So if the business has to close at 10 and their lights have to go up at 10, do the parking lot lights go off at 10?

Actually, our outdoor lighting requirements accommodate a 10.30 p.m. shutoff. And so the idea would be is that 30 minutes between the closure of the business and the lights going off in the parking lot, they could lock up, get to their cars and leave the site.

OK, so 1030 p.m. is the latest for the parking lot light point of order real quick.

Grant, maybe things have changed in the 30 years since I worked at McDonald's, but it generally took us an hour to close.

And I appreciate that. But like I say, if you want to add it to 11 o'clock for the parking lot lighting, that that's your call. Our outdoor lighting requirements say 1030.

So if they do that, though, so okay. All right. Not get sidetracked here. Okay. Okay, let me go to my front now. Okay, so There was a concern about light and noise pollution. And I spoke with a couple of people and I mentioned that in the area of Hilton Head, South Carolina, when you drive down those roads, you do not see their shopping centers, you do not see their restaurants, you do not see anything because they have landscaped completely around all of those buildings and lots. on four sides. And so if we decided that we were going to allow this, could we require landscaping on all four sides that was a multi-layered landscaping that would essentially shield the homeowners and property owners around from the business?

Certainly, I think the commission has the authority to make a condition. That would require landscaping, multi-layer, around all four sides of the lot itself in proximity to the building. The only caveat to that would be, as you know, at the access point, we have site distance triangles, so there's certain restrictions on the height of landscaping there. But it's all about safety, making sure people can see entering and exiting the business location.

Okay. And then I have two more questions. And this one, I think it's pretty important. It says, what about the walking pathways? There were a couple of people that addressed that in their emails and they said, what about the pathways for walking? um along i guess 109 and since i i looked and i can't i don't see where the walkway is there there's paths along 109 and main street so how do we address that for the people that use those all the time and now we're we're gonna i guess my question is people would turn into off of 109 they would turn right into main street and they would go where to turn into these businesses Would they turn left into the business or right? Let's do the left one for this story.

There's two outlots on either side of Main Street at Route 109. So you would come out of the roundabout and either make a left or a right, depending on what lot or lots are developed. Pedestrian safety is a key. It's something we think a lot about here in Wildwood. Mr. Marshall can attest that we've added flashing beacons in many of our crosswalks. Certainly, that's an option here. But there's only so much a city can do. A driver's a driver, and they're in the car. I'm not quite sure what the expectation might be. Do we add a traffic hump as part of the crosswalk, which immediately would cause the driver to slow? The fire district doesn't like those. They claim it impedes response time. And I think I'd like to defer to Mr. Brown, our director of public work, to see if he has a much, much better answer than what I just gave you.

Well, I would like to hear what Mr. Brown has to say, because I think that's a pretty important element to all this, because that walking pathway, bike pathway is used quite a bit by a lot of people, not just the people that live there. And if we are now going to make four, if we're considering making four commercial lots there, especially with another 150 houses going in across the street, that we'd have, you know, for the commercial lots on one side, on the east side, and two commercial lots on the west side. And the people that live in these neighborhoods here use it. The people that are far away use it to get to Rockwood's Reservation and all of those places. And then these extra 150 homes. So there's got to be a way that we, in my opinion, it's the world according to Vicki, in my opinion, that we can address this walking path to make it safe for people

uh for the citizens especially coming off of a roundabout so mr brown i defer to you well i think it's difficult to assess that question quite honestly at this point i guess i was going to suggest that that might be part of the traffic study that's done is to evaluate that issue maybe and that um I would expect in some cases it would not be a concern whatsoever, but there could be a location where it was of greater concern. But if it was part of the traffic study to evaluate potential conflicts with pedestrians or bikes on frontage trails or sidewalks along the frontage of the development, that could be looked at.

reading my opinion, reading those comments, they were wanting to make sure that those walkways would stay. And I would say yes. And beyond that, I don't know that it's that much different than crossing the sidewalks along Manchester to any of those businesses that operate along Old Manchester. We have a full sidewalk there and

Well, the differentiation the Department of Planning would make is that the roundabout is a free flow traffic control, meaning that at Taylor Road and Route 100, there's traffic signals with pedestrian signals and there's protected areas for the pedestrian once they get into the intersection. And Mr. Brown is correct. We are requiring a traffic impact study be provided by any developer of any of the four lots. And we could certainly integrate into that, as Mr. Brown mentioned, the pedestrian component.

Well, I would like to, you know, one of the comments that was made was they were worried about the risk of pedestrian accidents due to distracted drivers. And, you know, I don't ask my husband if I'm a good driver or not, but I think I'm a good driver. And I will say that I do see people on the roundabouts get a little confused sometimes. And so I don't think that that's an unrealistic concern. because there's a lot going on there. You've got a roundabout, you've got a turn and two, and now you're asking to have possibly, you know, on one side of the road, two commercial activities. And so I just think that we ought to have an answer for that. That's my opinion.

Well, certainly we would as part of a proposal that's submitted and the site development plan is provided. They also have to provide, as referenced in the proposed conditions, the stormwater management plan, a geotechnical report, stormwater pollution prevention plan, a phase one, and a traffic impact study. So we're going to have a lot of information as part of the site development plan before we move forward. Again, I just don't know a simple solution. cars and pedestrians there are conflicts and unless we do a pedestrian bridge or a tunnel it's incumbent on both parties to basically be defensive in their actions, meaning the driver drives defensively and the pedestrian walks defensively, knowing that they're coming to an intersection. But we'll certainly ask the experts, Mr. Brown being one of them, and the firm that does the traffic impact study if this moves forward, to ensure that we've done everything we can to minimize the risk.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Okay.

Mr. Jackson.

Okay. I don't know if this is as much a question as statements. So. This we're attracting fast food restaurants by doing this. We share a tax revenue pool. What is it, a mile, two miles to Hardee's and some of the others right down the street? We get the same cut. They get the same cut, even if we place them here. Okay, that's one. A lot of effort's been made to make the town center beautiful. Can you imagine the Golden Arch is sitting up over the town center because they want you to see it? Or Hardee's or any of the other others. So then the congested traffic area with the roundabouts. Look, kids, Big Ben, Parliament. We've all seen the movie, right? When he gets caught in there. I want to get my burger. Okay. And again, back to work. Why are we attracting this beautiful area? Why are we attracting fast food? They get it a mile or two down the road. We get the same tax cut again. So from my perspective, I'll just make the statement. I see no reason to change the position. which was no from other PNZs well before me. And I think once while I've been on the PNZ, we said no during my tenure. Okay, multiple. My position will be no. It would be hard to get me to change my mind. I'll just make that very crystal clear. Thanks. That's my statement questions and whatever.

And I saw Mr. Lee's hand up at one point. I think he can address the tax issue.

Thank you. With the chair's permission.

Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Lee.

Thank you. Just wanted to add a little note there. And yes, you are correct that if we were to add it in, it would contribute to the St. Louis County pool tax. The city would then get a distribution that is similar to if there was a Hardee's down the street, we do get the same percentage. One thing I want to call out though, is that within a, we are a pool B city, the city of Wells pool B city. We are very close to the threshold where we would actually be making more than what, putting more into the pool than what we'd be getting back. So if that were to occur and the more businesses that come in that are able to generate a decent sales tax revenue, the higher likelihood that we actually would be getting a higher percentage of the cost that comes back. 2018 change in state statute made it so reallocation had to occur when they collect those sales tax distributions. So the more business one city generates, the more business, not business, but the more revenue one will get from that tax distribution. So that's just one piece. The other side I just want to point out is just as a general rule, we also have a half cent capital improvement sales tax that is levied across the city. So if any fast food restaurant or anything along those lines, or even if it was You know, a Dunkin Donuts or something along those lines. Any purchase that's made at that that facility would go to that half cent capital improvement sales tax. That money is used. We generate about three million dollars per year from that revenue source. And we use it to pretty much leverage against grant funding within the federal government, but others as well. That said, that makes up all of the money that the city really has to go after its capital needs each year. So any money that can be added to that pool is most definitely a benefit, and it will help invest in our future and accomplish a lot of the goals that was mentioned earlier in the master plan update and our most recent published document. The other one I'd point out... just from a more specific standpoint, is the utility tax revenue. So if you have a vacant piece of land, it's not generating any revenue in the sense that there's not a utility tax receipt that's occurring there. When you add in and when you look at the, you know, let's just say four different land uses that could potentially go in at any given parcel based on land use, the lowest use is obviously agricultural because there is no utility hooked up. As you go up the chain, residential is the least impact where you're going to be getting the least amount of revenue. The city does levy a 5% gross receipts tax on electric, gas, water, etc. And as you go up the chain, office centers would be the next step of getting the most out of that property for utility taxes. And then the next stand up, and actually the highest that you can do in the commercial arena, is one that is powering a a quick service restaurant. So there's a couple different sources that we'd be able to generate some individual income from if these were to be added. So I just wanted to add that slight component there. And then just the other thing too of when we've done surveys in the past with the residents and what kind of started this conversation, especially at the Economic Development Committee, was just the fact that every time we ask residents what's missing within the town center, what do they need, a lot of families, it seems, especially when reading the open-ended comments, a lot of families seem to say that, hey, I really do want to spend my dollars locally here in Wildwood, but There aren't really many options for me to do so, especially when I have kids. I'm taking them home from soccer practice and I'm trying to pick up a quick bite beforehand. So that that just adding that in the majority of residents said what's missing in town center. It's some type of place to pick up food. And then more specifically, they've said that it's food that they can get quickly so they can get home. So just a little bit of context, but more than happy to answer any other questions and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Since he responded to my thing. So we changed this, and then you're going to go recruit? You're going to recruit businesses? I mean, fast foods and data centers, let's go recruit them. I mean, all right. Well, again, I don't support the fast food industry in Wildwood. I don't see a difference in taxes. Anyway, it's my opinion. I'm just one vote.

And that's why you're there. We want to hear your opinion.

Still don't believe we have a motion on the.

Yeah, well, yeah. Have you got any more questions? No, I'm done. No, Vicky.

No, sir. I went through my thing. That was enough, I thought.

Go ahead. The BP and the Phillips station, when are they required to shut their lights off? At 1030?

In principle, yes. Do they? Probably not. It's not something that gets enforced regularly. If we receive a complaint, as we do for most code enforcement issues, we address it then.

So that would open up a bag of worms where we're telling the restaurant to shut their lights off and not the gas stations.

Well, certainly, uneven enforcement is never the goal of the city. But remember, we basically have two code enforcement officers for 14,000 properties. So it's difficult. They work a standard business day, meaning from about 7 AM to 3 PM. So suffice to say, there are some limitations in what we can enforce. We depend on the business or the property owner to basically want to comply. They're the law.

And I don't believe that the gas stations have limits on their hours of operation. I know they aren't open 24 hours anymore, but I'm pretty sure they pre-pandemic, or maybe I'm going back further than that, but I'm pretty sure they both used to be open all night.

I'd be surprised. The BPM code predates Wildwood, but we did amend that C8 district ordinance. I don't believe that the department nor commission or city council has approved a 24-hour-a-day operation. Oh, really? And our business code, our business regulations in the municipal code, I think actually prohibit it. Oh, okay. I'd have to check individual ordinances.

Yeah, because I know the Phillips 66. I pay more attention to the Phillips 66 than the BP for whatever reason. But I could have sworn when I used to be on night shift, I'd filled up there at 2 or 3 a.m. And you may well be. But that's also going back over 20 years at this point.

And again, I can only, my recollection is that 24-hour operation of any commercial entity is very, very difficult because it creates a whole lot of other problems than just for surrounding property owners. The police department would weigh in and tell you that not many good things happen after midnight and before 6 a.m.,

okay i'll but to your point if we're limiting these to 10 p.m wildwood pub and grill up the street is able to be open till 1 a.m., I believe.

Yeah, they sell liquor, and so the state licensing requires liquor sales to conclude at 1.30 a.m., unless you're in a designated entertainment district, then you can go to 3 a.m. We have none of those.

Yeah, no, and I'm not saying they're open all night, but I'm saying they have later hours than we would potentially be putting on. these properties.

And again, from Wildwood Pub and Grill's perspective, it's not in close proximity to residential as the locations we're discussing now are. But again, I think as a collective group, the commission, We have a woman in our master plan that talks about economic development. If you want to restrict business so much that none want to come, that's your prerogative. But I think Mr. Lee and others in the Department of Planning, including myself, are hearing from our Economic Development Committee and City Council, we need business. We want business. Because residents tell us in surveys and other ways that They're tired of traveling to Chesterfield or Eureka or Ellisville on Manchester Road or Baldwin.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. My son will kill me if I vote this down.

If you want to basically tell Wildwood Pub and Grill you can't sell liquor after 10 p.m., great. Let City Council pass it.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'll tell you what will happen. They'll go out of business.

Yeah, and believe me, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying... My point is that we're limiting these.

In the opinion of the department, we're talking about quick serve restaurants on a certain number of parcels. Parcels that, for the most part, were platted well before anybody lived near them for these purposes. So You know, is Wildwood Pub and Grill a bad thing? Is BP Amoco a bad thing? Is Phillips 66 a bad thing? I don't know. They complied with the master plan. They complied with the town center plan. They met the requirements of the site-specific ordinance, and we authorized them. Do they always follow every letter of the law? Some don't, some do. That's why we have enforcement. I think we're clouding the issue with, can we enforce what we're asking? Nine times out of 10, yes. That 10th time, we'll get to it and we'll eventually get compliance, I can assure you.

And just to make myself clear, I wasn't saying that we should limit the gas stations and Wildwood Pub and Grill further. My point was that we're limiting these too much. Because my thought was they had less restrictive ordinances than what we're putting here.

They may well have. But again, they are at different locations. The two gas stations, the C stores, convenience stores with gas pumps and car wash, are at the interchange of two state arterial roadways. One built to interstate standards at that location.

Yeah. Okay. Did you have anything else? Yes. Okay.

Sorry. I think we have a contradiction when we say put the message boards on the 109 side and put the front of the building on the 109 side you're running cars across the front of the building people that's how they egress and ingress i i don't know how you actually

The front of the building would be facing toward Main Street, the way most of the quick serve restaurants with drive-thrus are designed.

So a person would enter from the Main Street side to the building?

And they would go along the side of the building, wrap around the rear of the building, and then come in on the Route 109 side of the building. and access the menu board and speaker, and then drive across the front to leave the building.

OK. I think we've tried to take care of all the people concerned, the economic development concerned, the residents concerned. I think Ms. Helfrey brought up a lot of good points that we can put in the plan. As far as landscaping goes, I believe with the double buffer in the back between the residents and any development there. In front of the building, I don't think shielding it from 109 would make any difference. I mean, I don't think they would want to spend money to do that. But I don't know of any other way to kind of satisfy, you know, everybody concerned except to split the baby.

I guess I'll- I'm not calling you Solomon.

All right, Councilman Marshall. I,

I just find it amazing that we're looking at what we can do to help develop the city with the multiple types of businesses that are there. I could probably name you 10 restaurants that the city doesn't have in them right now. because we had a perception that that's not what we wanted so it's not real far to look at chick-fil-a look at culver's all these restaurants but everybody can well i don't want that in my backyard but guess what when they moved in those lots were already developed there 109 is the biggest and the busiest street that we have so for us to try to think we're going to please everybody It's never going to happen. And I could give you the people who are unhappy with Wildwood Pub and we could give you people who are unhappy with the fire station being there. So it's not hard to find people like that. But I also believe our role should be in creating an opportunity for businesses to come in. They're not going to run a restaurant all night long if there's no business there. They're not going to get deliveries when they can't open up the doors to do that. They're not going to turn every light out and end up with an area that they have to have additional security in. So I just think there's so much that we could nickel and dime it all together. We don't have anybody knocking on the door saying, hey, I'd really like to invest, you know, $300,000 and see if I can make something working Wildwood. So I know that we have all the provisions in there. I know that we can work through it. but it is on state road. There are sidewalks there. I do believe there's even a tunnel underneath the trail. So the idea of how people, I don't think we need to worry about getting across the roundabout. They could walk up and come through the tunnel underneath. So, I mean, we're so close to being able to create an environment that where could we have businesses come in that would be successful and not ones that come in and close down in six months or The corporation says, well, if you're not going to allow the blue roof, we're going to go less than a half a mile down the street and put a very successful restaurant in. Right now, they're in Eureka. Right now, they're in Ellisville. And I don't think that our expectations are ungodly, but I do believe that there are a whole lot of people who would like, and again, COVID changed everything. Restaurants now do probably 40% of their businesses carry out. And they don't have a drive-through. So, I mean, they have to be able to change the way they're doing it too. So I would just hope that we go forward in looking at how can we create an environment that businesses would like to do business in Wildwood and would like to be able to take care of the needs of those residents that live in the area. So just my two cents word.

All right. Commissioner Halfrey.

Thank you, Chair Beatty. Okay, so here's my position. Back when we had the master plan update, how many years ago that was, I said I thought we needed drive-throughs. And I was voted down. And so my concern is that if we don't do something and make some decision on this, that somebody is going to go around us. And this is our opportunity to make the restrictions and take into consideration the things that we do and don't want. And I think this is going to be our best opportunity to protect the homeowners and property owners in the surrounding area and the citizens of Wildwood. So I am going to make a recommendation and I'm going to make my recommendation with some changes to what's been presented tonight. And so I wrote some down, but we'll see if we can't get it all. So my motion is going to approve to be to approve. the zoning change as long as a CUP is required for any drive-through. With the following changes to the Amendment B that we have here, I would like it put in there that there is no auto sales, gas stations, car washes allowed. under the lot characteristics and building requirements. Number B says currently that the building shall front state 109. And then we were just told a second ago that the buildings actually will state Main Street. So I would like to have that corrected. As far as the loading docks or the hours of operation, I would like it in there that no, nothing can happen before whatever it is, 7 or 7.30, whatever time the sound is. And that if the lighting thing says 10 o'clock, then the lights should be up at 10 o'clock. And so if the business closes at 10 o'clock, You know, I don't have a problem with them having to leave one or two parking lot lights on for security purposes. I lived in Wildwood directly across from Lafayette High School. And every Friday night in football season, those lights lit up the whole neighborhood. And it was OK because it was just temporary. And so if they have to leave a light on for security, that's different than having the whole place lit up. I'm going to disagree with Mr. Jackson, and that is that I believe that a CUP, when handled correctly, will not allow the golden arches to be lit up out like the night sky. They'll have to conform to our rules if they want to go there if we have it codified. um i would like it to say no liquor sales because you just mentioned uh that liquor sales those places could stay over open later so if we say no liquor sales now we won't have to deal with that later um and then the last thing is the multi-layer of uh landscaping And when I say multilayer, my request is that we don't say, yeah, you can go in and plant some azaleas along your property and call it a day. When I say multilayer, I mean multiple heights, some evergreen in there, so that at any given time of the year, the people that live in those neighborhoods surrounding it can see some pretty landscape and be a little bit buffered from the sound. and the lighting in the business and the landscape lighting, hours of operation, no to cars, liquor sales, the front of business. Did I miss anything? I don't think so. So all of those changes, that's my recommendation to approve this with the caveat that to approve this recommendation so that drive-throughs are only allowed with CUPs and then all of those things that I just suggested be put into place.

Mayor Garitano.

Yeah, I'll just provide my thoughts on this. And I do like where Vicki is going with this. The only thing is it's, in my opinion, there's a lot of details that need to be baked out. And again, I like where Vicki is going with it. But it's hard until we know what's in front of us. So for me, it's just my opinion of what I said previously when this topic came up. that I'd rather wait to see what is presented and then make a decision. And I had a similar position like that years ago with even a property on Manchester Road, a Corvette Corsair property that had been approved many, many years ago, but never fully developed. I just felt that You know, the renewals that we were providing on that plan that had been approved just kind of had run out. And I felt that, you know, we just have to wait and see what's in front of us because things can change. You know, Commissioner Jackson. I think I understand the spirit of his comments. So, you know, not all drive-thrus are bad. There are drive-thrus that I think would be appropriate in Wildwood. And we do have quite a number of them already. If I recall, I think we had maybe 11 or so, when you think of the various uses, banks, the bread company, Starbucks, car washes, and others. But there's probably some types of businesses that could have a respectable drive-through, just as I would use as an example, Starbucks. But, you know, there are businesses too that we probably would not desire to have in Wildwood that have drive-thrus. So I'm just kind of, you know, more interested in when I have a plan or I have something in front of me to be able to make a decision rather than go ahead again. That's my opinion, but wanted to share that with you.

All right, thank you.

So I've heard the term, there's surveys. Survey has been done, surveys. I remember when we did solar, it was on the website. We got the results. There's no surveys in the packet that I can see what the questions were asked. Do we have access to those?

Mr. Lange can respond. Yes, we can most definitely provide that. We did a general survey to the public. I believe it was 2023, and then we had a follow-up survey, I believe, in 2024, but we can most definitely bring that survey back to the... Mr. Boonish, can we go ahead? I'll get the results over to you, and then we can share those with the commission via email.

Wasn't that a question the last time we did the town center update plan?

Yes. Master plan.

Oh, I didn't. All right. We're still looking for a second to Commissioner half freeze. Motion.

I just, I would mind, second, I just don't think we should be trying to tell restaurants that may want to drive through that they can sell no liquor. So I have a real problem with that one, but I think that they have to apply for that themselves. So, but any, we're looking for a restaurant. It's just not only going to be drive-through where people can actually go in and sit down. It's what I think we're talking about here. So I just have a real problem with restricting it for a business not to have the ability to sell liquor. Not that they would ever sell it through the drive-thru, but I think when you put that many restrictions, it just kind of makes it extremely hard to do. So I don't think McDonald's is.

Right. We aren't in Europe. Yeah. So.

Mr. Chair, there's no second motion if there's a lack of a second.

All right. Any other motions?

Mr. Chair, the department would respectfully request a motion to postpone.

Mr. Marshall, if I said, if I took away the liquor restriction, would you second this?

I'd even be fine if you said liquor restrictions on the drive-through portion of the restaurant. I'm okay with that. I just, yes, that would be perfect. I would second it. I think the department would do an outstanding job with any development that would come through. I don't know that it should be our purview nor council to tell people from this appointment that you can't have something that might be very viable for their business.

So the reason I suggested the liquor was because of the hours that I understood that if they have liquor, provide liquor, they can stay open later. Did I misunderstand that, Mr. Vunich?

I think you may have because we are limiting good news.

Yeah, like good news. The site-specific ordinance sets the hours of operation, not the state of Missouri.

So if I took away the liquor restriction, they still could not stay open till 1 a.m. Is that what I'm understanding, sir?

The site says 10 p.m. is closing. That's closing time.

Okay, then I'll take that off of my motion.

I'm happy to second that. All right. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I would just say I would love to see the surveys before I made a voted or possibly since it was 23, I think Mr. Lee said. Was it 23, the last one?

23 and 26.

Is everyone educated on how our tax system works and the pools that they can just, we're going to get the same cut going down the street, all that. I think people understood that. I'd like to see a new survey. That's my comment. I'm ready to vote whenever.

Yeah, just as a point of order, we get all of the capital improvement sales tax and we get all of the electrical sales tax, correct?

Correct.

Utility tax, yeah.

Yes, thank you. That would be correct. We would get the pool tax distribution, which would be pretty null. At the end of the day, they'd probably generate approximately $50,000, $40,000 to $50,000. Then we'd have to get that distributed, so we're adding to the pool. But we could most likely look at the half-cent capital improvement sales tax if it's successful. I could see that generating upwards of $40,000 annually to the city. The gross receipts would probably be more to $5,000 to $10,000. So you're looking at a total of about $50,000 annually contributed just from those two tax sources alone. But we can most definitely share. I'm actually opening up the survey here, and we can most definitely share all that information with the commission as well, these surveys we've taken.

Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Marshall. I just wanted to comment. This did come from the standing economic development. So there were eight council members who felt that this was important for revenue and for the development. So it's just not driven off that survey. It's driven off the subcommittee dealing with business developments in the city. And that's how it came to us from here. It came from that subcommittee of the council.

Thank you. And yeah, Mr. Lee, you're pulling up those numbers, correct?

Yes, and I do have one 2022 and more than happy to share that with the Commission tonight if everyone would. I can share some of the data here. This was a 2020 survey looking for the other one and we'll have that shortly. But when we asked and this was the specific question, it was more so just generalities of what people want to see in town center. It said what types of businesses, community services or other amenities are missing in the city of Wildwood? And there was an option, a slider, if you will, that would go from strongly agree to strongly disagree. And the top response was dining. And that dining was 47.33% suggested that they strongly agreed. And then somewhat agreed was 29.68%. And then neutral on the subject was 13.5. There was only 6.55% plus 2.94% that said they did not think that there was enough dining in. They thought there was too much dining in Wildwood. And that was out of the total of 752 responses for this survey. So I'll summarize that. It was almost 50% said strongly agree and another 30% said somewhat agree.

So did it ask fast food, not just dining?

So we did have this one. That's the one I'm looking for. We had the next survey we did actually broke it out from just dining to quick service as well, because that was actually some feedback we got in the open-ended portion of the survey that requested that to be broken out. So looking for that right now, and I might be able to pull it in just a second.

One moment.

I'm waiting for him to pull up the other survey since we put him on it.

If you'd like to continue, I'm still working to pull it up. Yeah, I'm having trouble with one that has the QSR versus just normal dining. But I'll be looking at talking.

Okay. Commissioner Humphrey, did you have something?

I'm just going to ask Mr. Brunette. She don't happen to have the results for that survey for the master plan at hand. Because this isn't just, if this zoning goes through, it's not just zoning for fast food. It's for any number one of any of those uses that we listed, but we can, but it gives us the power to restrict or regulate them much more if they haven't dragged through with the CUP.

That was the principle behind it.

How long of a renewal period would you anticipate for the CUP for the first five years of their existence?

As you know, Mr. Rubis, the Planning and Zoning Commission does establish renewal periods. What I will tell you is The telecommunications industry tolerates it. I suspect if you place it on a business like a quick serve restaurant, they would probably not come to Wildwood. just because they're investing millions of dollars on the knowledge that there may be only a five-year window and we may revoke the conditional use permit. Now, we would only revoke the conditional use permit based upon evidence that they are not complying or creating a nuisance for the neighborhood. But again, like I say, We're trying to balance protecting residents and creating a safe and functional environment along our roadways against economic development and revenue generation. And I know it's a difficult balance. That's why I'm saying if there's still questions in everyone's mind and the survey would help to alleviate them, a motion to postpone is a primary motion.

I get a sense of pass. I mean, you're the chair.

I mean, we have the motion in a second. So I guess we'll go ahead and vote on it and see what happens. So roll call vote. Commissioner Clayton?

No. Commissioner Depler? No.

So there's no way we can postpone this until we get the appropriate information that everybody's been asking for.

We could if someone made the motion.

I thought that was kind of the motion that Mayor Garitano had made previously. Oh.

No, no, no, I did not make that. But right now there's there's a vote in progress. So we have to.

Yeah, I mean, we can I we could postpone it after the if the if the vote fails, we can then postpone.

Is that right? Yes.

Proceed with the vote. Yeah. Commissioner Jackson. No. Commissioner Rubis. Yes. Commissioner Helfrey.

Yes.

Chair Beatty. Yes. Council Member Marshall.

Yes.

Mayor Garitano. No.

No.

I believe that's five to three. Oh, five to three. So do we need six?

Since this is not the final recommendation, I believe a simple majority allows the information report to be converted to the draft letter of recommendation. But the letter of recommendation will need a majority of all 10 members. Okay. And let's have Ms. Wheeler verify.

Can you repeat that, please? Can you repeat that, please?

Since this is just a motion on the information report, not the final letter of recommendation, a simple majority, we carry it forward. But at the time the letter of recommendation is prepared for final action, you'll need six as a minimum of the 10 members.

I have to look in the code to confirm real quick.

This point of art. The information report, we voted it to be passed on to the city council.

Not yet.

Mr. Robbins, what the vote just did is authorize the information report prepared by the Department of Planning to be converted to the letter of recommendation for your final action in a month.

All right, PZ for dash 98. Mr. vintage.

Thank you, sir.

which is dated June 22nd, 2026, regarding PC4-98 AT&T Wireless Services Inc. and seeks the planning and certain commissions review and action regarding a component of the existing conditional use permit, CUP, that governs this 90-foot monopole telecommunications tower related equipment shelter This tower and shelter are located on the east side of Joe's Way, north of Valley Road, street address 2028 Joe's Way, St. Louis County, locator number 20U540317, any non-urban resident district with a conditional use permit, CUP, thereby authorizing its annual renewal. This particular tower and property is located in Ward 2.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, before you tonight is a request to renew the conditional use permit for this telecommunication facility. The facility has been in place or was approved in 1998, and after the first five years of its existence, has gone through annual renewals every year based on its compliance with the conditional use permit. Again, the petitioner is requesting that the permit be renewed again for an additional year. As part of this, the department's report conducted a site visit and found the site to be in good condition. And the department is recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the requested renewal for an additional year for this telecommunication facility. And without the ability to present, I did want to point out that in the report, there were some photographs of the site from the previous week. So do you have any questions? The department's available to address them.

Thank you, Mr. Dunbar, Commissioner Helfrey.

I make a motion to approve.

All right. So motion by Commissioner Helfrey, seconded by Commissioner Rubis. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote.

Commissioner Deppler?

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson?

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis?

Yes.

Commissioner Helfrey?

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton?

Yes.

Chair Beatty? Yes. Councilmember Marshall? Yes. And Mayor Garitano?

Yes. Thank you.

next on the agenda uh site development plan for the reserve at st alban mr vunich thank you mr chair a recommendation regarding the plan for a large lot single family subdivision to be here after known as the reserve at st albans subdivision nu non-urban resident district and fpmu floodplain non-urban resident district south side of state highway t west of state route one hundred street addresses one eight six zero four and one eight seven zero zero saint albans road st louis county locator numbers twenty four x forty four zero one excuse me zero zero one four and twenty four y six four zero zero two two which authorizes the proposed fourteen three acre lots in association with the necessary private roadway improvements to access them and required stormwater management facilities along with a sanitary sewer waiver all upon this approximately fifty five acre tract of land this tract of land is located in

Thank you Mr. Vinnich.

Mr. Dunbar. Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Before you tonight is a recommendation report regarding a preliminary plat for a large lot subdivision that is parent tract of land is 55 acres in area. The proposed number of lots is 14 lots ranging in size from 3 acres to 4.72 acres at the largest. As was mentioned in the description, proposed subdivision has gone through a waiver request for the sanitary sewer plant requirement and each of it was approved by the planning is that the waiver was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow for individual household systems for each of the lots. The department would note that as part of that waiver, the number of lots was was set at the the 14 months that are before you tonight. Just some characteristics of the site, the access to the 14 lots will be provided via a private drive with 2 access points on the state highway. T. And then, as as part of that, the discussion of the site plan subcommittee in August related to the landscaping requirement along the frontage of the private lot, or excuse me, the private street and the lots themselves onto highway T. And that is. Included in the preliminary plot is some cross sections provided by the engineer record. The site is the development of the site is. proposed at having 100% tree preservation and limited disturbance there. Did want to note that the proposed potable water being provided is via private wells on the individual lots. And then another component of the proposal is an area of common ground that's in the center location of the overall site. It's a 1.31 acre common ground area where the cluster mailboxes are proposed to be located with some parking to provide access to those mailboxes. As part of the analysis in the report, well, first, the department would just want to acknowledge that adding the addition of these 14 lots in this location will create a change to the area. It is currently an agricultural field that's been farmed for many, many years. However, the proposed large lot subdivision is in compliance with the non-urban residence district and the subdivision and development regulations. The density is four homes fewer than what would be allowed on the 55-acre tract of land. And the report emphasizes the need to ensure that the landscaping that's being proposed along the frontage of the site between the state highway, the private drive, and the homes themselves is addressed in a satisfactory manner to provide that screen. And with that, the department is recommending approval. based on the direction of the site plan subcommittee from its August meeting of this preliminary plot. And if there are any questions, the department's available to address them. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Newberry. Discussion or a motion?

I'll make a motion. We approve.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Rubis. Second by Commissioner Clayton. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, roll call vote. Commissioner Helfrey.

Yes.

Commissioner Clayton.

Yes.

Commissioner Doppler.

Yes.

Commissioner Jackson.

Yes.

Commissioner Rubis. Yes. Chair Beatty. Yes. Councilmember Marshall. Yes. And Mayor Garitano.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries. Thank you. And only went 40 minutes over. All right. That appears to be it. So motion to adjourn. Motion by Commissioner Rubis, second by Commissioner Helfrey. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?