[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Locations before it. And for making recommendations to the council on those applications. Each individual wishing to address the commission on a specific application must complete and
[0:10] both form. These forms are located in the rear of the room. It is important to speakers place the agenda item number on this form so that an accurate record can be maintained.
[0:20] You are also required to print your name and address and sign this form.
[0:26] When the Chairman asks if anyone is in attendance wishing to speak on the specific application,
[0:31] those wishing to provide comments are required to come forward, provide their name and address
[0:35] and address their comments to the Planings on the Commission.
[0:39] It is important to remember that members of the Planings on the Commission will make a decision
[0:43] on each application and you should direct all comments to the Commission, responding to the
[0:49] waste time and may reduce the impact of your statement. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
[0:55] may question any speaker. This commission will not tolerate verbal outbursts or disruptions
[1:01] from the audience, nor will this commission tolerate verbal or abusive attacks directed at
[1:06] county staff. The structure of the meeting is as follows. The chairman will introduce each project
[1:11] by both name and number, and will then direct the staff of the Planning Division to present the
[1:17] The staff representative will then present a brief overview of the application, the commission may question the staff relative to the project.
[1:27] The chairman will then call the petitioner of the party that submitted the application.
[1:30] The petitioner may call additional individuals generally supporting consultants and is allowed a 10 minute uninterrupted period for presentation of facts surrounding the application.
[1:41] After completion of the presentation of the application, the members of the Commission may ask questions of the petitioner relative to the application, there is no time limit for questions from the Commission.
[1:54] After all questions from the Commission have been heard, the Chairman will ask for any citizens wishing to address the Commission who are in favor of this application to come forward.
[2:04] There will be a total of five minutes allocated for public comment and favor of the application.
[2:09] The Commission may ask questions of any speaker.
[2:12] The time used for speakers to answer questions will not be subtracted from the five minutes
[2:16] allocated for this portion of the hearing.
[2:20] After all questions from the Commission have been heard, the Chairman will ask for any
[2:25] citizens wishing to address the Commission who are opposed to this application to come forward.
[2:31] There will be a total of 20 minutes allocated for public comment and opposition to the
[2:35] application.
[2:36] No one speaker will be allowed to speak for more than three minutes.
[2:41] The Commission may ask questions of any speaker.
[2:43] The time used for speakers to answer questions will not be subtracted from the 20 minutes
[2:47] allocated for this portion of the hearing.
[2:50] Because time is limited, we strongly recommend that speakers be prepared and know the facts
[2:55] regarding the application.
[2:57] We recommend that you avoid repetition.
[2:59] If you are a part of a larger group, we suggest that you designate a spokesperson to provide
[3:03] comments for the group.
[3:04] The Speaker may acknowledge that he or she represents a larger group.
[3:09] This will be the sole public hearing before a public body regarding the application.
[3:15] The petitioner will then have five minutes to respond to issues raised during the comment
[3:19] period.
[3:20] The Commission may further question the petitioner.
[3:23] Time used to respond to questions from the Commission will not count against the time allocation.
[3:30] After closure of the comment period, the Commission will then deliberate on the application.
[3:33] the Commission may direct additional questions to the staff or it may proceed directly to
[3:39] considering the application. The decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be
[3:43] forwarded to the County Council for final action. Final action by the County Council will
[3:48] generally take the form of an ordinance approving the application or a resolution denying the
[3:53] application. In most instances there will be no further public hearing before the County Council.
[3:58] And now call this meeting order, Madam Secretary, we please call roll.
[4:16] Here.
[4:20] Thank you.
[4:22] Is there a motion to approve the agenda?
[4:24] It is important to note that item B and C underneath the considerations has been continued.
[4:30] So your motion would need to reflect the updated or corrected agenda?
[4:34] Is there a motion to approve the agenda?
[4:37] The motion to approve the agenda is amended.
[4:41] I'll second.
[4:44] Commissioner, the sprawl made a motion to approve.
[4:48] I'm sorry, Commissioner Sparks made a motion to approve the amended agenda.
[4:52] It was second by Commissioner Sebert, all in favor.
[4:56] Opposed.
[4:58] The amended agenda passes unanimously.
[5:01] Approval of the minutes for October 9th, 2025.
[5:06] I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.
[5:08] I'm sorry.
[5:10] I'm sorry.
[5:11] I'm sorry.
[5:13] Commissioner Sproul made a motion.
[5:15] Approved the minutes of October 9, 2025.
[5:19] It was second of October, Commissioner Tuggle, all in favour say aye.
[5:22] Opposed?
[5:23] I'm going to talk to that.
[5:24] Thanks.
[5:25] Okay.
[5:26] Approved the minutes for October 9, 2025.
[5:29] It's approved with one vote abstaining.
[5:33] It's worrying in of the witnesses.
[5:38] Good evening, everyone.
[5:39] everybody, once again, thanks for coming out tonight. As I mentioned before the meeting, if you are
[5:45] going to be speaking on the cases that are on the agenda, make sure you grab a speaker slip
[5:52] over here behind me on this little table and fill that out and just keep it with you when you
[5:56] do come up to talk and that's one of these folks right here in front of me. That's number one.
[6:01] Number two, we do need to swear you in your testimony actually becomes part of the record in the
[6:07] respective case that you're speaking on rather than do that individually when you come up we do it all at once here at the beginning of the meeting
[6:14] So if you are going to be speaking or you think you might speak please do go ahead and stand up right now
[6:24] Raise your right hand and the commission secretary will administer the oath
[6:29] Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give us a truth to hold truth and nothing about the truth?
[6:34] If so please say I do
[6:37] Thank you very much you can go ahead and have a seat
[6:39] When it is your turn to talk, you'll again come up to the front, hand that slip to one of these folks here,
[6:46] head on over to that podium in the middle, state your name, state your address, and state that you've been sworn in for the record,
[6:52] and then you can begin your remarks.
[6:56] Thank you, sir, introduction of evidence.
[6:58] Members of the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission.
[7:02] The county would ask that the following exhibits be entered into the record for the cases to be heard by you this evening.
[7:07] They are Exhibit A, the official master plan for Jefferson County, Missouri.
[7:12] The visualized Jefferson County master plan with was adopted this past Monday night and
[7:16] is now in full force, Exhibit B, the code of ordinances of Jefferson County, specifically
[7:21] chapter 400 of that code, that would be the unified development order that was adopted
[7:26] back on April the second 2008, and has been amended a number of times since then.
[7:32] And finally, Exhibit C, which consists of the planning division staff reports with their respective
[7:36] case files.
[7:38] Thank you, sir.
[7:39] Is there a motion to accept the introduction of evidence?
[7:42] I'll make a motion to accept the introduction of evidence.
[7:46] I'll second.
[7:47] Mr. Sparks, I made a motion to accept the introduction of evidence.
[7:52] It was seconded by Commissioner Sebert, Colin Fever.
[7:55] Aye.
[7:55] Opposed?
[7:56] Introduction of evidence is accepted unanimously.
[8:00] Under new business, we have consideration Pb.
[8:03] 2,5, dash, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, request for the variance to do with stormwater and erosion and
[8:12] sediment control.
[8:14] I don't know how do we proceed on this, do we call a petitioner part, or we handle this
[8:19] like everything else?
[8:21] I do understand Mr. Cook to be here, I do not know if the petitioner is here, you should probably
[8:27] call Mr. Cook out first because he would be the staff report, I need to hear from him and
[8:31] call for the petition. And then proceed as you would with anyone for or against.
[8:38] I understand there's no staff comments on this. Oh, he is here. Okay.
[8:45] Okay.
[8:48] Would the petitioner please come forward?
[8:51] I unless you want to hear, unless you want to hear from Mr. Cook first.
[8:54] And again, he is here.
[8:56] Okay, that's fine. Mr. Cook, would you please come forward? We'll get right back to you, sir.
[9:02] I mean, please
[9:12] stay your name, address, and you're a county official, so you know, I have to be sworn correct.
[9:17] Michael Coates, team 299, Community Drive and Festus, and I'm the Stormwater Manager for Jessica.
[9:24] It's pretty hard to hear you, but...
[9:26] I apologize.
[9:27] So, anything you'd like to add or say about this?
[9:33] First of all, good evening commissioners, and one day I promise I will come up to you guys a more proper of a tire.
[9:37] I always get caught in a bad moment, so this came about under a stormwater code's 505,
[9:43] any time there's activity in a protected stream buffer, it requires a variance.
[9:47] If you recall, our division is complaint driven. I don't have the staff, nor do I have to keep
[9:51] abilities of driving around, looking for interactions and we don't. So my office received a couple
[9:56] complaints on this, we sent an inspector out, and I'll put a inspection determined that the
[10:01] property owner was in a protected stream buffer, making improvements without authorization. So
[10:07] that's what a right from this.
[10:08] So what happens is we contact the property owner.
[10:11] We send them a letter, they are in turn,
[10:13] thought, the stream buffer application process.
[10:16] We then take what they submit to us
[10:18] and in your packet, if you look, we now
[10:21] do an engineering analysis to an engineering firm,
[10:24] an inch wish and a logic.
[10:25] They make a recommendation.
[10:27] And I literally pass that on to plain and zoning staff
[10:30] that I believe makes it into your packet.
[10:32] Based upon the environment engineering firm,
[10:35] they are recommending to Nile because the applicant was not detailed or addressed 505.950b
[10:44] questions 3 and 4, basically protecting the stream buffer when the project is completed
[10:49] and also does it go against the UDO and it currently does based upon our stormwater codes.
[10:56] So the other concern is if you read the engineer's report is, this could be jurisdiction of water
[11:01] from the Army Corps of Engineer, which would trigger a 404 and a possible 401, which is in
[11:07] the Engineer's report, our goal overall is to ensure that our property owner is protected,
[11:13] and we keep them out of trouble and work with them to ensure that the project is done to code
[11:17] requirements. Unfortunately right now, during its current situation, it is not meet the 505 code.
[11:32] Would you like to elaborate on the scope of the project, or would you rather save that for the
[11:41] I believe the narrative of the scope was also submitted the application to the commission.
[11:46] However, it seemed like it's just an extension of a covert in the protected stream buffer that could be judged differently.
[11:52] Okay.
[11:54] Questions for Mr. Cook?
[11:57] All right.
[11:57] Thank you, sir.
[11:58] Thank you.
[11:59] There's a petitioner president.
[12:00] Please come forward and state your name.
[12:02] Address and that you have been sworn in.
[12:08] My name is Dan Compton.
[12:09] I'm at 50, it would Barnard, Missouri.
[12:13] I have been sworn on.
[12:15] OK.
[12:18] Can you tell me a little bit about what you got going on?
[12:25] I'd be happy too.
[12:27] I have, and my front yard, a ditch.
[12:32] And it is a runoff ditch, I think.
[12:34] Unbeknownst to me, it is somehow a protected stream
[12:38] in Jefferson County.
[12:42] This ditch derives from the timber, just north of me, from three creeks that come together,
[12:52] three ditches that come together.
[12:54] The water doesn't either originate from another water source.
[12:58] It has run off in the timber.
[13:01] Come to my property over the years, because of the way my house is built on the property, the front
[13:06] in the yard is very steep. I've had over the years a horrible time trying to maintain that
[13:13] portion as I'm talking about a 70 foot piece of property in my two front, 200 foot frontage.
[13:23] And so over the years it's just been a chaotic, bolder, filled, ditch with weeds and everything
[13:33] all sides. I've taken and extended the three-fold call work which by the way was put in
[13:41] other call it was put in when I built the house along the road. So in my mind I didn't know
[13:49] as to anything but it was against a rule. I'm extending that. The flow line of the creek is not
[13:57] I'm in the same flow line, in the same exact direction, all I've done is bed in a three-foot diameter
[14:05] color to extend the one that's there, and graded over that to make a long in the front,
[14:15] which I haven't been able to do for the 37 years I've been there.
[14:20] So, it's done nothing to, I mean, to understand this waterway, it's dry 96% of the time.
[14:33] There's no water in it.
[14:35] Can go now, I couldn't find a cup of water in it.
[14:40] There's, do we get water, yes, in springtime, in multiple days of rain, we'll get water in it.
[14:48] and at times it can flow hard. But also on my property down for, there's a 18 inch covered
[14:54] under a low water bridge that handles that water without any question. 100%.
[15:01] So it's, I haven't done, at least in my mind, anything that's detrimental to the streamer.
[15:08] Only thing I've done is enhanced the property and every neighbor around has thanked me for doing what I've done,
[15:15] because it's beautified the subdivisions.
[15:18] So I'm not trying to take things too personally,
[15:22] but I'm offended by the fact
[15:24] that I can't improve my own property
[15:28] and make the water run the way to ought to.
[15:34] I don't always say about that, except that I feel like
[15:38] I've done what is best for my property
[15:40] and the best for the property values surrounding me.
[15:44] We have in that subdivision, by the way, several homes that have the entire creek stream
[15:54] waterway, covered it through their entire property and talking 200 long stretches of
[16:01] because the way our subdivision is, you have to build close to it.
[16:06] So, there are a number of homes where the creek, the ditch, whatever you want to call it, is completely buried through their entire frontage.
[16:17] I'm buried 75 to 80 feet in front of my 200 foot frontage.
[16:31] I don't know what to say except I think I've done good.
[16:34] And I mean, I have no ambition to do anything that's not done well.
[16:43] I mean, I've been a builder my entire life.
[16:45] I think I kind of get what things should be done.
[16:47] And I do that.
[16:50] I appreciate your consideration for what I think is the good work I've done.
[16:57] Since you have been made aware of the other permits that maybe needed, have you reached
[17:02] to the Army Corps of Engineers of the Department of Natural Resources to ask their
[17:07] opinion or advice. I have not pending what you guys tell me to do.
[17:15] So this is on your
[17:16] driveway. This is in my front lawn. Okay. Is it would it or will it attach to your driveway?
[17:26] No, sorry. No. Okay.
[17:31] Are there other questions for decisions please?
[17:34] So I want to make sure I understood you correctly, so you already did it.
[17:39] Oh, it's done.
[17:40] It's beautiful.
[17:42] And you said that some of the neighbors were happy, but I think Mr. Cook had said that there
[17:46] are a complaint driven.
[17:49] Well, I can clarify that for you.
[17:50] Okay.
[17:50] Please do.
[17:51] And I've never mentioned a name, but the every name or who it has a Nancy.
[18:00] And that's what this is all about.
[18:05] I've known those people for the 37 years I've lived there and I've never had every issue with them, but they quite frankly
[18:12] they don't
[18:14] had no idea
[18:16] why they were calling when Louise is nice as she was when she came out
[18:21] She said that we were burying a structure or someone said we're burying a structure in the creek
[18:28] Your inspector came out and said you're extending a call for this isn't a structure and I of course agreed and
[18:35] I said Louise, you know, I don't know what to do about it.
[18:38] At that point, she told me I'm in a protective waterway,
[18:42] which I didn't realize I had water from property in Barnhart,
[18:45] but evidently I do.
[18:47] So I'm not sure I hope my taxes don't go up because of that.
[18:51] But, well, and I'm trying to make, not make light,
[18:55] but it's, and I'm not saying it's ridiculous.
[18:58] I understand how things are mapped.
[19:00] I understand that, now I understand it's, it's some sort of protected waterway,
[19:05] But it's really not a waterway, it's, I mean, it is a way that water travels, but it is
[19:16] a ditch that someone not knowing what they're talking about and rather than pick up the
[19:23] phone and call me or come and talk to me, call Jefferson County and said, we're, we're
[19:30] bearing God knows what in the creek.
[19:34] Are there any other questions? Do you have any other supporting consultants or anything like that, too?
[19:40] I'm sorry. Do you have any other supporting consultants or anyone that you'd like to have speak?
[19:46] Well, I do have a neighbor here and I could get to that.
[19:51] We'll get to that.
[19:51] All nine of the people that letters were sent to would sign off and integrate with everything that Mr. Johnson would tell you.
[20:00] There's not a person in the subdivision, other than Nancy,
[20:08] that would, and even Nancy would have
[20:10] to agree that I've done nothing but improve our subdivision.
[20:15] Okay.
[20:16] I have a question.
[20:17] I have a question.
[20:20] It just had to be remediated and tore out what kind of financial burden do you think there is?
[20:27] Well, I've spent $25,000 doing, and I don't spend money, I'm not a wealthy man, and I don't spend money needlessly.
[20:34] But I've invested $25,000 to create a much nicer and much nicer part of our subdivision.
[20:41] And to read you out of your probably somewhere to take out and put back, for I don't know what reason that would be.
[20:48] But, you know, I would say $75,000,000 probably.
[20:52] If I could, so you, which at that point, then somebody else can have the house.
[20:59] So you spent all this money, you didn't call anybody, didn't ask anybody, didn't call the county, nothing just did it.
[21:05] I had actually no inclination that I would ever need to do that.
[21:11] And then I wouldn't, there's, there's work that goes on through there.
[21:16] I mean, I would have no reason to call.
[21:18] I'm a, I was a builder every two recent retired in a builder since 1986. I know the importance of build buildings in Jefferson County.
[21:25] I understand the importance of permits when required.
[21:30] I never even gave it a thought because I'm in my front yard and I have, I don't know why I would ever think that maybe I'm in a protected waterway.
[21:44] Other questions?
[21:48] So would you have any issues with bringing this up to code?
[21:52] I'm sorry.
[21:52] Would you have any issues of bringing this up to code?
[21:55] I think everything I've done is, I mean, I don't know how I could have done anything
[22:00] any better.
[22:01] It's a double-walled three-foot cover designed for that.
[22:04] It is fit and all two inch minus and screenings above that to raise grade and then top
[22:09] so that I mean, it's a pretty simple application and, you know, I don't think there's
[22:16] any other way that I could do it, honestly, but Mr. Sebert was your question somewhat geared
[22:23] towards Mr. Cook's email where he talks about if the applicant was to perceive the
[22:30] corporate extension and talked about a re-begetation process.
[22:33] Yes.
[22:34] It's a mitigation efforts to work with storm water to get it to code.
[22:44] Sir, are you aware or if you have spoken Mr. Cook about a re-begetation process?
[22:50] patient plan. I don't talk to Mike about it. Okay. All right. Thank you.
[22:59] Happy to.
[23:02] Other questions?
[23:05] No. Okay. Is it okay if we would bring Mr. Cook up to the podium for a second?
[23:13] If it helps us resolve this, that would be great. I would be hopeful. I wouldn't bring him up here just tonight.
[23:20] But I might.
[23:25] Yeah. Mr. Cook please. Please come back. Are you guys going to be okay staying
[23:29] inside by side,
[23:32] right?
[23:32] Long with Mike's okay. I'm all right. For the first bout tonight.
[23:37] I'll keep my glasses on.
[23:38] Well, sir, sir. We need to set out.
[23:42] This is good.
[23:45] Well, correct, but I mean, I don't know if the commissioner's had any more questions for him.
[23:49] And Mitch, as if Mr. Cook, that's what I mean,
[23:52] if you guys have more questions of the app with me.
[23:54] Are there any other questions for me?
[23:56] I'm not a question, but I know that there was one of the
[23:58] neighbors in the back that wanted to speak.
[23:59] OK, we'll look at that in a second.
[24:02] So we're getting a little off track here.
[24:04] Thank you, sir.
[24:04] We may call you back.
[24:05] OK, thank you.
[24:07] OK, you're up, Mr. Mitch.
[24:08] Mike, the email references that they did not
[24:12] submit a mitigation plan, which I know really
[24:15] points, I think, three and four, and the other
[24:17] answer request address. If the option for the commission tonight would be to continue this
[24:25] and then see if a mitigation plan could be arrived to facilitate this. I assume that would allow
[24:31] the opportunity to deal with the issue whether or not this is actually jurisdictional waterways,
[24:37] which we get a lot. I mean, we have this conversation quite a bit. We do. Yes, sir. It would. First step
[24:45] would be let's determine the jurisdiction by the core
[24:47] for the environmental engineering firm
[24:49] because I want to keep the applicant on a federal trouble
[24:51] because the core can get pretty onry.
[24:54] So I beat step one, step two, as Mr. Bear said,
[24:57] we would work with the applicant on a restoration plan
[24:59] because please remember, I know we joke about things,
[25:03] but this county has stormwater problems.
[25:05] And every person who puts a structure in a covert
[25:07] is a structure, so please understand that.
[25:09] From a public work standpoint, a covert is a structure,
[25:12] even from the engineering standpoint.
[25:13] Every time we choke that creek off and it's not allowed we get stormwater rain and it's in it flash floods
[25:21] We get five inches and two hours think about what we're doing
[25:24] You have a head water and a tail water issue. Nobody has water issues until we get the rain
[25:29] Prime example last time we got four inches of rain my office got four hundred twenty five phone calls
[25:34] 275 were complaints from neighbors who were best friends for 20 years never had a water problem until we have this and I know
[25:42] We try to educate the public, unfortunately though, if you're in St. Louis County, everybody knows you can't touch water.
[25:49] I can go talk to an 80-year-old farmer right now who knows I can't touch a creek because of the clean water act.
[25:54] And U.S. Geology is one of the determines what's called blue line streams.
[25:57] So we are always waiting to work with people because we are firm, believers, and working with people to better use our property.
[26:04] And everybody likes private property rights. However, remember what you do upstream even on a dry creek that we used to call them.
[26:10] and now stormwater event affects those downstream.
[26:14] And if you choke that creek off
[26:16] without hydraulic reviews,
[26:18] creeks do me under, they do move.
[26:20] And next, you know, you got massive erosion.
[26:23] And I promise you, you guys have all heard stories
[26:25] from a little creek that's now four feet wide.
[26:29] And it appears this is a large lot of subdivision.
[26:32] This was probably a stormwater management system
[26:34] that has designed to function this way
[26:36] when you look at how it lays out on the lots
[26:38] on some of the exhibits.
[26:39] and so I would imagine then that would get mapped as you guys have seen those before we've
[26:43] had these a lot of these. And as Mike, as Mr. Cook said, you know, as part of the consideration
[26:50] is it may seem like a minor thing, but as that stormwater moves through there like it's designed
[26:54] to do, any time that gets choked down or repeated, it can have implications. So I think maybe the
[26:59] best bet would be to continue this and allow a few of the issues to be resolved. See if a mitigation
[27:03] plan can come up and entertain this at your next meeting. I mean, that would be my recommendation
[27:07] certainly have the right to do what you want, but it sounded like, hopefully, that would maybe potentially give us an option for a win-win for both sides.
[27:14] And explain on Mr. Barrett's comment, we would definitely work with the applicant, because again,
[27:18] how many stream buffer variants do you, you don't hear many from us?
[27:22] We do our best to work with applicants and we understand the situation, and normally most applicants will work with our division as well,
[27:27] and it's usually very good outcome.
[27:32] In your email, you talk about a re-vegetative plan and live stakes.
[27:40] It seems pretty simple, but would you explain that a little bit?
[27:44] What do you want to do?
[27:45] So a stream buffer is not designed to look like your golf course yard.
[27:49] Everybody wants a nice, beautiful yard, but a stream buffer is designed to allow the water
[27:53] to flow through it from overland rains.
[27:55] It helps clean the water, it helps controls the water, it slows the water down.
[27:58] If we don't have a nice stream buffer protection, velocity increases, and it continues to increase and that's what is called a hydro push or a hydro velocity push.
[28:10] It will literally start eroding the banks.
[28:12] If we, as you know, that was done by the county engineer who chartered the rain, the last five years are rain events have changed.
[28:18] We've gotten more rain, faster storms, more powerful storms.
[28:22] So now our stream buffers are even come more important because we don't do watershed protection here in the county.
[28:27] We're not in the steam. We don't have the tax money. We don't have the revenue. We opted
[28:31] under the DNR permit to do stream buffer protection years ago, and that's what we're in
[28:36] task would doing. So that's what that means. Let's get some vegetation back. Let's once the
[28:40] improvements done, let's get native seed, let's get native grasses growing, let's get something
[28:45] to slow the water down as well with your extending the structure. So we need some velocity control.
[28:50] Normal things that, you know, as a gentleman said in this account, and he's built homes and he
[28:54] and we can work with it, but that's what that means.
[28:59] Okay.
[29:00] Other questions for Mr. Cook?
[29:01] I have a question.
[29:04] Yes.
[29:06] Because we have video, because you talk about complaints and things like that, and people not knowing.
[29:12] And we're in a situation where we don't have a time machine to turn back the clock.
[29:17] Hypothetically speaking, if this individual would have came to storm water and had a concern
[29:23] And said well, you know, is it my front yard? Is it a stream will you guys fix this for me as the county?
[29:30] What kind of if you're putting it out to the masses if anybody in the future has a
[29:35] Concern and decides to Bob the builder it themselves
[29:38] What would you like to say to the people? I guess that would be so thinking that and then end up kind of in the situation
[29:44] So we're now, we're having to kind of roll everything back.
[29:48] The easiest explanation I can give is a five-minute phone call
[29:51] can save a lot of financial heartache and headache,
[29:55] just a quick five-minute phone call.
[29:57] Then we can partner with you.
[29:59] We can work with wait.
[30:00] Trying to do, we can get approved, and we work to the Commission, and it's a project that everybody is happy with. Just a quick five minute phone call.
[30:08] Yeah, my suspicion is that the answer along with that is the Mr. Cook would be here tonight with a coordinated plan that they had already worked on with the gentleman and he'd be here recommending approval subject to that plan as opposed to what he's forced to come in with tonight since there wasn't no communication.
[30:22] That's fair.
[30:24] Yes, sir.
[30:24] Yes, sir.
[30:25] Yes,
[30:28] sir.
[30:29] We'll gladly field phone calls e-mails, we will gladly do on-site visits and we will work
[30:34] with any applicant to ensure that they get to do what they would like to do while we're
[30:37] still protecting the waterway and more importantly, and protecting stormwater from those
[30:41] downstream or upstream.
[30:44] Thank you.
[30:49] Thank you.
[30:49] I know it can't.
[30:51] I was going to say, can I make a motion to continue this if you were.
[30:55] I would not recommend that at this time.
[30:57] I would recommend that.
[30:58] I'm not going to recommend you go forward, Mr. Chairman, and call for anybody who is in favor
[31:02] again.
[31:03] So, I mean, this was no-to-stop for public hearing.
[31:06] I would go through and continue that hearing until it's terminus, and then, at that
[31:11] time, you can call for emotion, whether that's a motion to approve an eye or continue.
[31:15] But I would advise that you, this is no-to-stop for hearing side advice you go ahead and
[31:20] hear from those who are here for and against.
[31:22] Does the petitioner not have an opportunity to ask us to continue this?
[31:28] I mean, he can, but it's a little unorthodox to do that kind of mid-stream, right?
[31:36] I mean, we were already, we're in the mids, I'm sorry, I did not need to make a pun for everyone out there.
[31:42] But I got a good laugh at Mr. Bear here, so buddy, I'm pun not intended aside. I would advise
[31:49] you continue to hearing and make whatever motion you feel appropriate following that.
[31:56] Okay, so we were up to the point, uh, uh, a citizen to be heard that are in favor of the
[32:02] project. Application. Please come forward, State your name? Address, and that you have been sworn in,
[32:07] and there is five minutes allocated for this portion. My name is Barney Johnson. I live a 65
[32:13] of Huntley Woods in the subdivision that's done Dan lives in and I have been sworn in.
[32:19] I've been there for 15 years.
[32:22] We have no erosion problem.
[32:24] That 70 foot of Calvert, he put in, it's a ditch, I mean literally a ditch is all it is.
[32:31] We did not know, he did not know that it was a problem or something like that.
[32:36] We watched him put it in, he put it in like it should be put in, he brought in loads of dirt,
[32:41] level up his front yard. It now is a beautiful green grass. I mean, it just, it comes through
[32:46] our cover through his cover. He extended the cover on down. It goes through another probably
[32:52] eight to ten home before it gets out of our subdivision. I've been here 15 years, there's
[32:57] no erosion whatsoever, that occurs even with a four to five inch rain. Like he said, 95% of the time,
[33:03] it's a ditch about this deep. And it's about this wide. That's all it is. Unless we get a big rain,
[33:10] water doesn't flow. I grew up on a farm in Arkansas, I know what a river is and I know what a
[33:15] creek is. And it's not a river or a creek. Yes, we get run off water from the mountains north of
[33:20] me. It comes through to his property on down out of our subdivision runs in a glazed creek in a
[33:25] Mississippi river. We've never had a problem. And that's why I've just shocked at what he called Nancy
[33:33] turned him in. If she had walked down there and said, Dan, what are you doing? Dan said, I put in
[33:37] The coverage is said, oh, what's ironic about that is she lives on the opposite side of
[33:42] the road, where the coverage is, they're not going to get flooded, you know, they're
[33:47] not in close to it.
[33:49] But the coverage is go from one to the other, I can said, for about 200 feet, about three
[33:54] different neighbors, their whole front yard is a cover through there.
[33:59] And coming in going, there's no erosion.
[34:02] We've not had a problem with erosion whatsoever.
[34:04] I just want to say I hope you would consider leaning like it is because it's not hurting anyone or property.
[34:13] Thank you.
[34:14] Okay.
[34:14] Hang on, sir.
[34:15] Are there anyone I have a question for?
[34:18] Mr. Johnson, please make sure you fill out a slip out right there.
[34:21] And anybody else, please make sure you do a speaker slip before you come up.
[34:26] Just so we can keep things moving at a reasonable pace tonight.
[34:31] Okay.
[34:32] Okay.
[34:32] Thank you.
[34:34] Any other citizen solution to be heard that are in favor of the application?
[34:38] Anyone wishing to be heard that is in favor of the application?
[34:42] Anyone wishing to be heard that is opposed to the application?
[34:46] Anyone wishing to be heard that is opposed to this application?
[34:49] Has a petitioner have anything else they would like to add?
[34:54] Nope.
[34:55] Discussion amongst commissioners or a move for some sort of action?
[35:03] I'm concerned, I'm concerned on the entrance and the exit of the culverts.
[35:09] So, is there, of course, the water is coming in,
[35:16] is it contained or is it thrown in
[35:18] over in the yard?
[35:19] Or is it just staying in that culvert to be without the other hand?
[35:23] Sorry.
[35:24] You follow?
[35:27] Yeah, I understand.
[35:28] Other discussion?
[35:29] I
[35:32] want to make sure that I emphasize that stormwater is a huge issue here in the county and the stormwater
[35:39] manager's role is pretty important and I really hesitate to go against our UDO rules that we have chapter
[35:49] 505. I hesitate to go against that stuff just because somebody wants to. It's not really a pressing
[35:57] need that's shown that it needs to be that a variance is required, it's just wanted.
[36:04] So I want to make sure to point that out, that's not required, it's wanted.
[36:08] Do we violate the UDO just because we want to, not because we need to.
[36:13] So I want to make sure everybody considers that out.
[36:17] I just wanted to add, you know, we've seen cases in which individuals have either
[36:24] not been aware or intentionally ignored stormwater or streamwater buffers and I would be
[36:35] hypocritical if I sat up here and and said that I don't like people just doing
[36:42] what they want to do okay and we've denied things where people taking bulldozers and
[36:47] you know why am I here for a stream buffer there's no stream I bulldozed it and
[36:53] that's their logic.
[36:55] So I would be hypocritical to say that we just let this slide
[36:59] because in the past, and I understand the financial costs
[37:03] would it come with this?
[37:06] But we do have obligations to what the storm water is
[37:11] recommending.
[37:13] And it's not causing any problems now, just like you said.
[37:18] It's not a problem until it is a problem.
[37:20] And without proper review, without people
[37:22] coming out there and doing the the correct work that needs to be done. Unfortunately, it
[37:27] looks great now, but come spring, is it going to be great? I don't have a crystal ball,
[37:34] but I know what people who do that for a living for the stormwater division and pretty much
[37:41] every lie on their expertise for that. Unfortunately, it can be a burden to someone who's already
[37:47] started a project or finished a project. But we do have an obligation to look at what
[37:52] that is required when something like this is brought up, and that's my time on that.
[37:59] So in his case, certain miscades.
[38:02] So everybody that's hoping to tell him that in his field, they're back yard or what
[38:06] a priority order they come have to do the same thing.
[38:13] So one thing I would ask my fellow commissioners to consider is, you could, we could do an approval
[38:20] with conditions, with conditions that the re-vegetation and mitigation plan is put into effect,
[38:26] and that the Missouri DNR and US Army Corps of Engineers are contacted to ensure it's not
[38:31] of what's the right word regulated, jurisdictional waterway under their rules. And obviously,
[38:39] if those conditions couldn't be met, then, you know, that's the same as the disapproval.
[38:44] It's an approval with conditions like like we do a lot in here, but if he chose not to do it or just didn't feel like doing it, there's no come back for it
[38:56] There's no penalty for not following a rule. I think since there's been a complaint
[39:02] There would be a citation or remediation that would have to happen is that correct?
[39:08] I mean, you can speak if you want to ask Mr. Cook where the matter is
[39:12] But, yeah, I presume there's been a notice of violation and then, before it in the usual manner of enforcement.
[39:20] So, you could say that about a lot of other things.
[39:27] I'm not telling you to be facetious.
[39:28] I mean, I don't know.
[39:30] I like rules.
[39:36] Or we could give the petitioner and the county a chance to work together by continuing this.
[39:41] That's why I'm out with it.
[39:43] I like to make the motion to continue it and have them work together and see what they can get.
[39:49] But has the petitioner agreed to continue?
[39:54] It's up to you, he doesn't, I mean, I don't know if he wants a choice.
[39:57] Yeah, if you want to make the motion.
[39:58] I mean, can we make a choice on his behalf?
[40:01] He's taken to you?
[40:01] Yes.
[40:02] Yeah.
[40:03] That doesn't require him to do it.
[40:05] Right.
[40:05] I mean, if somebody can make the motion to continue it,
[40:07] and if it gets a second, then you get to vote on it.
[40:11] So, I don't understand your question.
[40:13] Could it be a time limit?
[40:15] I mean, you should make the motion to next,
[40:18] Yeah, next available meeting, right, which I think that's probably going to be sometime in January.
[40:24] Is that correct?
[40:24] I mean, because we're dealing with the December data already shot.
[40:29] So, but Mr. Sever, I mean, if you want to make your motion more specific to next available meeting.
[40:36] Yes, next available meeting.
[40:39] So the motion is to continue PB25-008 to the first available meeting in January.
[40:50] 2,026 to allow the petitioner and the county an opportunity to work out a plan.
[40:58] Is that correct?
[40:59] Yes.
[41:00] And I'll second that.
[41:01] In Commissioner Sparks second at all in favor.
[41:05] Hi.
[41:05] Okay.
[41:05] Opposed?
[41:06] No.
[41:07] Madam Secretary, we please call roll.
[41:21] Did he share?
[41:22] Yes.
[41:28] Yes.
[41:29] Yes.
[41:33] 7 to 1.
[41:39] PB25-008 will be continued to the first available meeting in January,
[41:45] 2026 so that the petitioner in the county can have an opportunity to get
[41:49] the other work out a plan and that motion passes by a vote of seven years and one
[41:54] day. And Mr. Chair, just for everybody's in the room's
[41:59] edgification, that would be January the 8th of next year, if we have proved
[42:03] scheduled.
[42:06] What would you be must?
[42:09] Okay.
[42:11] Next up, PB25-0012.
[42:18] I assume you're going to do PB25-003 kind of at the same time.
[42:24] Mr. Jump, please proceed.
[42:31] Thank you.
[42:33] As you mentioned, these two cases will be presented together.
[42:40] They are under our code, if you apply for a development plan,
[42:45] you can apply for a preliminary cloud at the same time.
[42:48] And get them approved at the same time.
[42:50] So that's why they're both in front of you tonight.
[42:55] And the bulk of everything is going to be in the development plan.
[42:58] all of the analysis and everything, the primary plants essentially, you know, a preliminary
[43:06] plant.
[43:07] So there's not much different from the two plants.
[43:11] So we'll start with the development plan, and that is case PV-25001-2.
[43:19] The petitioner's request is to rezone subject property about 111.98 acres from single family
[43:26] residential R7 to play in single family residential PR1 and development plan approval for the reserve at the gory blocks.
[43:36] A little bit about the site.
[43:38] It is located at one gory drive. This is a pretty pretty infamous piece of property.
[43:46] I think a lot of people are very familiar with it that have been around the county for quite some time.
[43:52] It is currently Zone Single Family Residential R7 and is in Council District 4.
[44:01] I wrote this before the new master plan got adopted, so under the old master plan it was
[44:08] the primary growth area, but under the new master plan it would probably be the urban area.
[44:14] If I remember correctly on the new map, and it is serviced by the Glazed Creek Public
[44:20] and the Public Water Supplies District C1.
[44:24] It's serviced by the Antonio Fire District
[44:26] and rock-conship ambulance district.
[44:29] It is important to note the part of the property
[44:31] in questions tonight are existing buildings
[44:34] that appear to be vacated,
[44:36] which we'll see a little later in the photos.
[44:41] On your screen here,
[44:44] and kind of outlined is the piece of property.
[44:47] It's approximately 1,800 feet north
[44:50] of the traffic circle,
[44:54] I'm sorry, the distributes traffic to 55 south and further north to stay at Highway M.
[45:00] The main petition includes the main parcel with the applicant acquiring an easement across another parcel that is not part of the rezoning, and on your map there, it's the little tiny leg, if you will, that kind of shoots up towards Marriott Drive that that easement would be across.
[45:19] The application is a request for approval of a rezoning from a single family residential R7 to PR1 along with the development plan to permit the development of single family dwellings and a variety of lot sizes.
[45:37] development includes 299 individual lots across the 118, 111 acres for rough density around 2.67
[45:47] dwelling units in acre. The rezoning is required due to a lot exceeding 99 lots. The lots of
[45:55] requirements proposed in the submitted plans substantially meet most of the requirements of the
[45:59] for the single-family residential R7 district.
[46:04] A little bit about the history of the property.
[46:07] On your map here, you see a yellow outline in a blue outline.
[46:10] Yellow outline is the property in question tonight.
[46:14] The blue outline is the LaGory facility that will remain.
[46:18] Later, when we get into the plan, we'll see their access point to that piece of property.
[46:23] The site has been historically used for an institutional religious use for several decades.
[46:30] The site has employed many people over the years and has been functionally operational up until recently.
[46:36] The site development will only involve the part of the property that is falling a little bit in the disrepair.
[46:41] And there is a large portion of the gallery site, the parcel outline and blue that will remain as far as we know as it is currently used.
[46:50] There is some rather extreme topography, but it is a very big site.
[46:56] It's 111 plus acres.
[46:59] There's about 140 feet elevation change from sort of the southernmost portion to the northern
[47:05] most portion of the property.
[47:07] And that sort of gives you some idea, the topography of the property.
[47:11] public utilities are readily available by the Glaze Creek,
[47:16] Syr District, and Public Water Supply District C1.
[47:21] There is a stream order one that traverses part of the property,
[47:26] that you should be aware of, east from Parked In Way.
[47:34] The surrounding zoning is a mismatch of a lot of different things.
[47:39] You have commercial frontage, primarily on metropolitan.
[47:43] You have similarly dense single family residential R7, style, development, there's the parked in, and then there's the villages of Jefferson.
[47:54] There's one other neighborhood too that can not remember the name of off top of my head that kind of all surround that.
[48:01] So, there is a wide variety of zoning, but it is very similar and in line with what is proposed in this development plan, and you've of course got all of the commercial front and it's a long metro of politics.
[48:22] The submitted in proposed development plan illustrates the development of site with a single
[48:27] family side division across the 111 acres.
[48:30] There are two points of access provided with a primary point of ingress in egress out
[48:35] to Marriott and the secondary point of egress in egress out to Metropolitan.
[48:41] The developer has stated that the access from Marriott is intended to be the primary
[48:46] interns in the development. Some broad just overview highlights of the plan. It's 299 lots,
[48:54] lots range from 7,000 square feet to just over 13,000 square feet. They have stormwater management,
[49:01] stormwater runoff management kind of place throughout the development. So they're kind of thinking
[49:05] about where they're going to do that. You have it to access points. One of much politics and one
[49:11] Marriott, which is required,
[49:13] those two points are the requirement of the UDO.
[49:17] And then you do have a private access.
[49:19] It's kind of hard to see on this plan,
[49:21] but there's a little loop that comes up
[49:23] from the access from Metropolitan, the private access
[49:26] up to the Legory Facilities.
[49:30] And the proposed development will add
[49:33] in this complimentary of the existing neighborhood characteristics,
[49:36] the development of this property fits
[49:37] with the existing areas character.
[49:39] And further solidifies the area
[49:41] as a distinct neighborhood of place exhibiting the necessary primary and secondary uses necessary
[49:46] unify and create a place of character and identity.
[49:52] As any development of this size is required by our code, there was a traffic impact study.
[49:59] I won't die too deep and it's a very long study and they have their traffic engineer here tonight.
[50:05] But they did look at, they actually looked at scoping 2025 conditions in 2035 conditions.
[50:12] and there was a, in summary, there was a recommendation of a right turn lane on metropolitan
[50:19] as well as minor signal timing adjustments. Those charts kind of show you the peak generation
[50:28] and the directions are going in the set and that was also included in your staff report as well.
[50:36] So, diving into the analysis,
[50:42] the broad purpose of the intent of the PR1 district is as follows
[50:49] this poll trait from the UTO, the plan family resident, plan single family residential district
[50:55] is established to provide single family detached wellings at higher densities than R7, which
[51:01] This is not really at a higher density than that.
[51:04] It's just a function of our code that anything over a hundred
[51:07] lots is required to go to this PR1 district,
[51:10] which we'll talk about in a little bit.
[51:13] But it will allow in consideration of providing
[51:15] more usable open space in specific,
[51:17] or specific amenities, which is part of this project,
[51:21] which we'll also talk about in a little bit.
[51:26] These were some elevations that were submitted
[51:29] by the developer for some of the potential housing
[51:32] styles. We picked kind of a smattering of what was sent to us from some bigger homes to
[51:39] some smaller single family detached homes so that was what was submitted to us from the developer.
[51:49] These are some photos from the site. This is the existing LaGory facility on the back part of that property.
[51:58] These are some photos kind of looking at your entranceways. The far left is Metropolitan.
[52:02] the one in the middle is Marriott looking towards Parkton and then the one in the middle there is kind of the entrance back to the lagore facility.
[52:15] These are the sort of general surrounding areas. You've got some commercial frontage.
[52:22] You've got some athletic fields and then you've got a recently developed gas station right on metropolitan there.
[52:30] Let me
[52:36] just second here, I'm sorry.
[52:44] So kind of diving into the analysis of this plan that was submitted to us.
[52:49] There's a few bullet points to hit and I'll expand upon each of these a little bit.
[52:55] The first one is the character of the neighborhood in adjacent properties.
[53:00] In your staff report, there is a line by line item, my thing that we go through when we
[53:07] get these plans and we kind of respond to them in part to like, what did the plan do to meet
[53:14] this, not meet this criteria? This plan meets most of these criteria laid forward by the
[53:20] UDO. The first one in the character of the neighborhood, the proposed rezoning is consistent
[53:26] with and complementary to the character of the neighborhood that is surrounded by single family residential
[53:31] are seven, and the lots in the proposed development all meet that 7,000 square foot minimum
[53:36] in our consistent with the surrounding zoning.
[53:40] There's a mix of commercial zoning and higher intensity residential in the area, and
[53:48] they propose to use adequate facilities and infrastructure to potentially develop the property.
[53:57] The suitability of the property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the applicable zoning district regulations.
[54:04] This is bullet point D. The current, the property is currently zone single-player residential R7. The lots all meet the 7,000 square foot lot minimum established by the UTO.
[54:15] The 299 lock count requires both a traffic study and plan district rezoning.
[54:20] If not for the requirements under section 400, 0.1175 of the UDO, the property would not
[54:26] even need a rezoning petition as it meets the criteria as currently zoned.
[54:32] The effect, the suitability that kind of falls in the suitability of vacancy portion,
[54:37] the property has been in use but many of the structures on the piece that is petition tonight
[54:43] is a bit of an inestated disrepair, the road network and effect on neighboring properties.
[54:53] The proposed use won't present no negative effects as a character of the property nor the developing properties.
[55:01] The traffic study was conducted to mitigate any traffic concerns that's required by the UTO.
[55:06] So it also seeks to mirror the surrounding developments in terms of scale and intensity.
[55:13] The national, I'm sorry, the natural resource conservation,
[55:19] they have to meet our storm
[55:21] water cone, should the property be developed, they are already thinking about those infrastructure
[55:25] components that would address things like runoff and things of that nature.
[55:31] And then economic diversity, the proposed plan provides for a variety of single family housing types that aren't quite frankly seen throughout the county.
[55:48] They have provided us with the elevations and sort of what they're thinking about doing.
[55:52] And there's a, there is a modification for a lot depth with ratios to fit some of the smaller homes on to, which we'll get into in just a little bit, but they are looking at providing a different style of housing and more of a, you know, diverse community on this piece of property.
[56:13] And then finally master plan conformance.
[56:17] Again, this was used, this was analyzed under the old master plan,
[56:21] as the new one was just approved the other night.
[56:24] But in my opinion, after working on the new one and working under the old one,
[56:30] this meets both the criteria of that current, both the old master plan and now the new one.
[56:37] So it is in conformance with master plan.
[56:43] modification request. They have one modification request. They are requesting to
[56:51] exceed the three to one depth with ratio requirement. The petitioner is looking to
[56:57] provide a style of home that fits on a narrower lot. These lots are located on the
[57:02] eastern side of the development and consists of 54 lots. These lots are
[57:07] way that provide a sense of continuity throughout the Southeast
[57:11] and portion of the development.
[57:13] It's important to note that lots still also meet the minimum
[57:15] 7,000 square foot.
[57:18] This allows for a style home to be constructed in a lot while still
[57:20] giving a future owner more yard space on their lot,
[57:23] planning staff, recommends approval.
[57:26] Subject for you can subject to the conditions set forth
[57:28] in the following tree preservation requirements.
[57:34] So there are some additional requirements
[57:36] Once as a result of some of these that of this development that we have kind of looped
[57:44] into your staff report, we want them to do a tree preservation plan and I'm not going
[57:51] to go into all the details on that because it is in your staff report on kind of preserving
[57:57] as much as they can under the guidelines outlined in the staff report.
[58:03] We'd like to see as many mature trees as possible and if they can't, then they should be replaced under those guidelines that we have outlined in the staff report.
[58:15] The minimum lot with, we want to just look at the lots that they are proposing the shorter lots.
[58:22] So we wrote in the staff report, you'll notice that under the other building requirements that it would only be applicable to those lots that they have presented on the plan that are longer and
[58:35] in here, all other lots shall meet a 52 foot minimum lot with.
[58:41] And then finally, the sort of last big amenity requirement,
[58:48] the planning staff would like to see a five-foot sidewalk
[58:53] extension and a berm around the detention and water quality basin,
[58:58] near those smaller skinnier lots, that's your access point,
[59:03] that street A comes out to metropolitan just to give an amenity to the potential future residents
[59:11] of the county so that's part of that so sidewalk and walking trails and then finally
[59:20] we would like to see a pedestrian connection on Marriott that shall be as follows a 12 to 14
[59:27] foot path with a six foot vegetation such separation from the western entrance subject to the review
[59:32] and approval of the Director of Accounting Services at this proves unfeasible than an alternative
[59:37] using utilizing a six-foot sidewalk maybe considered as a suitable replacement if so found
[59:43] by the Director of Accounting Services. So those are the added amenities that we kind of
[59:48] looped into this plan. So our recommendation of that case of PB25-9012 is approval subject to
[1:00:00] While those conditions in your staff report, and then we'll kind of go over the preliminary
[1:00:05] plan as well.
[1:00:11] So PB25013, this is a request for a preliminary plan approval for the reserve at the glory
[1:00:16] bus. Again, it mirrors much of what you just saw, 299 lots that range from 7,000 square
[1:00:24] foot to over 12,000 square foot or motor runoff management and then the two proposed access points
[1:00:30] when at Marriott, won at Metropolitan.
[1:00:34] The lots, quick analysis, the lots, the plats show
[1:00:40] the 299 and lots which would accommodate 299 single family homes. They range from 7,000 square
[1:00:46] foot to over 13,000 square foot. There is no minimum lot, size in the PR one's own district,
[1:00:51] is lots and sizes are approved by plan.
[1:00:54] The proposed subdivision has access point shown
[1:00:57] from much problem to the Marriott,
[1:00:59] the number of access points with these connections
[1:01:01] meets the UDO standard for the development.
[1:01:03] It is important to note the proposed density
[1:01:06] 2.67 units in acre falls well below,
[1:01:10] what is permitted by the UDO for the PR1 district,
[1:01:13] which is 16 it's an acre.
[1:01:14] It also falls below the R7 standard
[1:01:16] of 40 units in acre.
[1:01:17] So that's also important to note as well.
[1:01:23] So, we have recommended conditions, they follow much of what we just went over in the development plan.
[1:01:29] It mirrors it almost, well, it does mirror it exactly.
[1:01:34] That includes those sidewalk walking trails, amenities, true preservation landscape and requirements, traffic study improvements.
[1:01:41] And then the lot size and width only being applicable to those specific lots.
[1:01:47] And then finally, staff recommends a approval of PBT-5-0013 subject to those conditions of approval,
[1:01:55] departmental comments and regulatory requirements.
[1:01:59] And I will be happy to take any questions.
[1:02:01] Questions for staff?
[1:02:08] It is a petition, President.
[1:02:09] Please come forward.
[1:02:11] Thank you.
[1:02:11] Address, and that you have been sworn in.
[1:02:14] And as a reminder, there is ten minutes allocated for this portion for you and any of your
[1:02:19] supporting consultants.
[1:02:26] Good evening, my name is Drew Weber with Hamilton Weber Law firm.
[1:02:30] I have been sworn in and I'm here on behalf of RAL's homes for the reserve at Legory
[1:02:37] Bluffs.
[1:02:38] You could state your address, please.
[1:02:40] Sorry, 200 North Third Street St. Charles, Missouri, 633, 01.
[1:02:45] Thank you.
[1:02:48] The thank you staff for the report is very thorough.
[1:02:50] I will try not to repeat things that were in that report, but if we can go to the next slide
[1:02:55] please. I did want to show this slide again because I think we're so used to looking at preliminary
[1:03:01] plants and development plants that are black and white and have a bunch of lines that are
[1:03:05] maybe not as helpful as a colorized plan like this and a few things I want to point out.
[1:03:11] There are a lot of trees and wooded areas on this side as it currently exists and everything in
[1:03:17] dark green that you see on that plan right there are trees that are going to remain.
[1:03:21] You can see that they predominate around the exterior of the property.
[1:03:26] The idea is to maintain that buffer between this development and the neighboring developments.
[1:03:32] There are some clusters, as well, of trees that will remain interior to the development,
[1:03:38] which will provide some attractive home sites with some privacy, and then the change
[1:03:45] and topography that we heard about in the staff report as well is going to add to some unique
[1:03:50] home sites and conjunction with those wooded areas.
[1:03:54] The, what you might call medium green that you see on there
[1:03:58] are the various common ground in detention basins.
[1:04:01] Those are also spread throughout the development.
[1:04:04] There is quite a lot of common ground in addition
[1:04:07] to the retained trees as well.
[1:04:10] And then the lightest green are the lots
[1:04:13] with the subdivision.
[1:04:15] Next slide, please.
[1:04:19] We don't have to spend much time on this.
[1:04:21] This reiterating what the staff said, why we're seeking
[1:04:24] rezoning is because there's more than 100 lots next slide.
[1:04:29] So I do want to delve into a few of the statistics for this
[1:04:33] development as the staff indicated there are 111.9 acres on this
[1:04:39] property, 299 homes, that comes out to 2.67 homes per acre.
[1:04:45] The minimum lot size will be 7,000 square feet, the maximum lot size is over 14,000 square feet.
[1:04:53] And there's a mix of lots of widths in the subdivision.
[1:04:57] And the staff alluded to this.
[1:04:59] There are 160 homes at 60 feet wide lots, 83 homes at 52 foot wide lots,
[1:05:07] then 56 homes at 40 foot wide lots.
[1:05:10] And the reason is when you have a large subdivision,
[1:05:12] You want that variety of homes if all the lots of the same width all the homes are going to look the same
[1:05:19] It's going to be less aesthetically appealing and again with a typography in this subdivision and the somewhat odd shape of the property too
[1:05:27] It it lends itself well to a wider mix of
[1:05:30] Cottage-style homes two-story dwellings ranch single-family homes as well. Next, please
[1:05:38] There's 39.21 acres of common ground, which is more than 35% of the entire development.
[1:05:46] 27 acres of tree canopy is going to be preserved with this development.
[1:05:52] Existing tree coverage will remain on 101 lots. That's a little more than a third.
[1:05:58] So if you think back to that first colorized site plan I showed you,
[1:06:02] Some of that dark green is going to be in the backyards of 101 lots.
[1:06:09] Now some more than others, some of the longer lots that we heard about earlier,
[1:06:13] some of those are going to have quite a lot of tree coverage, and then some lots will have less
[1:06:17] existing tree coverage. But in addition, there will be 91 lots that are adjacent to common ground.
[1:06:23] Again, we have the common ground spreads throughout the subdivision. In addition to the trees,
[1:06:28] along the exterior, all designed to provide some ample green space and buffer.
[1:06:34] There are sidewalks on both sides of the street, the access points, the staff talked about
[1:06:39] primary, one-off-mary, secondary, off-metre pallet, and I do want to mention for the public
[1:06:45] benefit that there are no access points to existing subdivisions.
[1:06:49] So this subdivision is now going to connect to any of the adjacent existence subdivisions.
[1:06:57] Next, please.
[1:06:58] I put this on here for a comparison.
[1:07:01] So again, right now, the property is on our seven.
[1:07:05] And not to be to dead horse, but we are resounding because there's more than 100 lots.
[1:07:10] But we're compliant with these main R7 standards.
[1:07:14] The minimum, lot size, side yard setback, rear yard setback.
[1:07:18] We have approximately half of what the permissible density is.
[1:07:22] The real modification we're seeking is the lot to with ratio that the staff talked about.
[1:07:27] But with the exception of that requirement, we are by and large
[1:07:31] compliant with the R7 requirements that apply to the
[1:07:35] property right now.
[1:07:36] Next, please.
[1:07:39] I did want to mention this.
[1:07:41] You heard the staff talk about this at the end of their
[1:07:43] report.
[1:07:45] We would request that this condition that there be a five-foot
[1:07:49] sidewalk, shown in red by that particular common ground that
[1:07:54] it not be required, or there may be a condition that we work with staff to figure out the feasibility.
[1:08:00] Because the problem is, the preliminary engineering shows that there would be a three-to-one slope in that area around that detention basin.
[1:08:08] So there's that steep of a slope, not sure that we could actually put a sidewalk in right there.
[1:08:13] That's kind of a minor issue in the scale of the whole development, but we did want to mention that here tonight.
[1:08:20] Next, please.
[1:08:21] And then the traffic.
[1:08:23] Councillor, are you asking for a waiver of the Pyphid Side Walk throughout or just in
[1:08:28] this area?
[1:08:29] Just at the red line shown in that area, thank you.
[1:08:36] The traffic study staff alluded to, so we obtained a traffic study, CBB performed the study
[1:08:43] in the first full week of October that did traffic counts during the work week and during
[1:08:51] school days as well so you could pick up the work traffic in the school traffic. You can see here
[1:08:55] all the intersections that they studied. I'm not going to list them all out, but it's all the
[1:08:59] intersections in the area. And you can see that the vast majority of traffic, not surprisingly,
[1:09:06] is going to head to I-55. In fact, over two thirds of the traffic coming to and from the subdivision
[1:09:14] in the peak hours, going to be heading towards I-55. Then the remainder is going to be heading out to
[1:09:20] other streets that are near the subdivision. Next, please.
[1:09:27] Here's a chart of the peak hours.
[1:09:30] The traffic and the peak hours from the subdivision. I didn't want to note here that when
[1:09:35] the traffic study was performed, we anticipated 317 homes in the subdivision. But as I mentioned
[1:09:42] earlier, there were 299, so we brought it down a little bit. So the traffic estimates actually
[1:09:49] overestimate slightly, but again, you can see here 220 total trips in the peak morning
[1:09:55] hour, 235 during the school dismissal hour, then 280 during the weekday PM peak hour,
[1:10:04] with more than 2-thirds of those head-in-two from I-55.
[1:10:10] Next, please.
[1:10:12] So, in short, we ask for your recommendation for approval of this development, we believe
[1:10:17] this development provides multiple benefits to the county.
[1:10:21] There's unique home sites due to the topography
[1:10:25] and the green space and tree coverage in this area.
[1:10:28] There is ample green space in this development.
[1:10:32] And then there's going to be a variety of hasn'tsack.
[1:10:34] You saw some of the elevations.
[1:10:36] I mean, that's maybe a third of the proposed elevations
[1:10:40] for this development.
[1:10:42] Since it's such a large development,
[1:10:43] there would be a wide variety of elevations
[1:10:46] in different housing styles.
[1:10:48] The, oh, I also want to mention
[1:10:51] that we reached out to the various political subdivisions,
[1:10:53] the school district, fire district, soil and water
[1:10:55] conservation district.
[1:10:57] We got letters back from them, no opposition.
[1:11:01] So to our knowledge, there is no other party
[1:11:03] that hasn't sent a letter in that is opposed.
[1:11:06] So everything referred to as positive so far.
[1:11:09] County staff report recommended approval.
[1:11:11] So again, we'd ask the you recommend approval as well.
[1:11:15] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:11:17] I also have Adam Bear with Riles here to answer questions.
[1:11:21] Sean White was CBB and Mike Faulkner,
[1:11:23] and was Sterling, the Civil Engineering.
[1:11:25] They can answer questions that I may not be able to.
[1:11:28] So I thank you for your time.
[1:11:30] Okay.
[1:11:31] If you have any supporting consultants that have a minute and a half.
[1:11:35] So if there's any of your supporting consultants that would like to say anything.
[1:11:38] I'm not sure they want to say anything.
[1:11:40] But here we go, maybe add it to this.
[1:11:43] Just take a second to introduce myself.
[1:11:45] Adam Bear with Rouss Company, address is 2,200
[1:11:48] bare station, road, ball one, zery, and yes, I've
[1:11:52] been sworn in.
[1:11:53] And just excited for the opportunity here to answer any questions.
[1:11:57] So thanks for the time.
[1:12:01] Any other supporting consultants?
[1:12:03] Nope.
[1:12:04] Questions from staff?
[1:12:05] I'm sorry.
[1:12:06] Questions from commissioners to the petitioner
[1:12:08] or any of his consultants?
[1:12:11] Mr. Chair point in order before we get to questions, maybe I didn't scroll far enough, but was this presentation in the staff packet?
[1:12:18] I don't think so.
[1:12:19] Do we need to accept an end evidence?
[1:12:23] If you're in consider yet, so go ahead and you want to make that motion.
[1:12:27] And do you have, do you have that flash drive we can keep it in?
[1:12:30] I put it on the desktop.
[1:12:32] Thank you.
[1:12:33] Okay. Mr. Chair, move.
[1:12:34] We accept that presentation in the evidence as exhibit D.
[1:12:38] I believe Mr. Kim.
[1:12:40] Is there a second second question Mr. Mr. Metamotion do we accept the PowerPoint presentation in
[1:12:48] Devinence as exhibit D was second by Commissioner.
[1:12:51] Just mail all paper.
[1:12:52] Aye.
[1:12:53] Opposed.
[1:12:55] Exhibit D is accepted into evidence.
[1:12:57] So questions from commissioners to the petitioner or can.
[1:13:02] Good.
[1:13:04] Microphone please.
[1:13:09] There it is.
[1:13:09] So we're getting a lot more of these type of some of these built, so as we're building some areas does not have pools or recreation centers or anything like that.
[1:13:26] Does this have any of that?
[1:13:29] There will not be any sort of community center.
[1:13:33] The amenities in this area are the sidewalks and trails and in the green space.
[1:13:39] other questions. So the conditions of approval, the only one you're wanting to not meet would
[1:13:48] be the sidewalk. Just that small one that's in red on that one side. Okay, thank you.
[1:13:55] But you did mention you were willing to work with staff to try to figure something out there.
[1:14:01] If it's feasible, but if it's not feasible then then there would just be nothing there.
[1:14:08] other questions?
[1:14:11] All right, thank you, sir. Thank you.
[1:14:14] Citizens wishing to be heard there in favor of the project. Anyone wishing to be heard
[1:14:19] that is in favor of the project please come forward. State your name, address, and that
[1:14:24] you have been sworn in. There is five minutes allocated for this motion.
[1:14:35] I'm praying
[1:14:35] in the Catholic Church and your address, please.
[1:14:37] You know, address and as you've been swore.
[1:14:38] 60, 26 forestry, Kimswick, Missouri.
[1:14:43] And I have a great history and a great honor
[1:14:47] to see some of the redemptors here.
[1:14:50] They've been a great asset to the community.
[1:14:52] They used to employ 400 people.
[1:14:54] They're a little less than that now,
[1:14:56] but I'm really happy that this site will...
[1:15:00] He developed for families, and especially from a Catholic church standpoint as a deacon and the church
[1:15:08] of there. We have a lot of senior citizens who raise families in the parish. And when they get
[1:15:16] older, they don't have an option to go find small houses. Most of the time they live like
[1:15:24] do in a two-story house. I know in ten years I'll be looking to not have stairs in my house.
[1:15:31] All my kids are gone. So I'm really happy that this kind of development is coming to the
[1:15:36] community so that older people in our parish boundaries can stay within the parish boundaries.
[1:15:42] So thanks.
[1:15:46] Questions for the
[1:15:50] any other citizens wish to be heard that are in favor of this project.
[1:15:53] Citizens wish to be heard that are in favor of the application.
[1:15:57] So this is wishing to be heard that are opposed to the application.
[1:16:03] Please come forward state your name, address, and that you have been sworn in.
[1:16:07] There is 20 minutes for this portion of the hearing.
[1:16:10] No one speaker will be allowed to speak for more than three minutes.
[1:16:13] My name is Brother Jerry Patton.
[1:16:15] My address is 200 Legori drives.
[1:16:18] Legori Missouri.
[1:16:19] Well, bar and heart Missouri.
[1:16:21] And you have been sworn?
[1:16:22] 212.
[1:16:22] Pardon me?
[1:16:23] And you have been sworn?
[1:16:24] Yes, I have.
[1:16:25] Please forgive me.
[1:16:25] I'm not against it.
[1:16:28] I should have probably got up with the event of the others to speak.
[1:16:32] But I'm just speaking, if you look on this page here,
[1:16:35] and he said that the blue part is the existing risen.
[1:16:39] And that's us, they'll be down to this order.
[1:16:41] There's four of us here.
[1:16:44] And the redemptress, Preason Brothers Catholic Church,
[1:16:48] purchased the property, the whole property in 1947,
[1:16:53] for a publication house.
[1:16:56] And we've downsized the publication house.
[1:16:59] We saw the property on the report.
[1:17:03] But we still have a healthcare center on that property
[1:17:07] and a publication house.
[1:17:09] There was a monastery for the electricity nuns,
[1:17:12] contemplative nuns.
[1:17:13] It's still the place.
[1:17:14] What I'm trying to say is that the place is kind of a
[1:17:17] holy contemplative place where we are now.
[1:17:20] We've got 34 men in a health care, you know, 96 years old is the oldest down to 70s.
[1:17:31] And so they're out walking, I just wondered how this is going to impact us.
[1:17:36] I saw he mentioned that there is going to be some trees, I think, around our border.
[1:17:41] Hopefully there's some kind of buffer between the backyards of these homes and our property,
[1:17:48] Because we have a cemetery there with 365 priests and brothers buried.
[1:17:53] And is that backyard going to be right on our cemetery?
[1:17:57] We've had people come in from some of the neighboring subdivisions and with four wheelers running
[1:18:04] across the property.
[1:18:05] We're just a little concerned, that's all.
[1:18:07] And we just hope that there's some kind of buffer around us and also the drive when we
[1:18:12] leave the glory drive on to match the policy and both of our.
[1:18:15] There's a big hill on the left when you're going north, and it can be dangerous, but we're just wondering how that's going to impact if there's going to be a right turn lane left turn lane.
[1:18:26] And also where that comes in, the drive that's going to be going up to the left, we're going straight and then we'll drive to the right.
[1:18:34] Is there going to be like three ways to stop there or something because some of our men are older driving, and it could be tough.
[1:18:40] So just basically things like that, okay?
[1:18:44] Okay, are there any questions for the petition, or I'm sorry for this, no? Any other
[1:18:51] citizens wishing to be heard that are opposed to this application? Please come
[1:18:57] forward, state your name, address, and that you have been sworn in. My name is
[1:19:02] Malm. Well, she beats you, so I apologize. I didn't see her. I was pointing.
[1:19:06] I'm sorry. My name is Malm. I'm at 2196, Wilderness Trail.
[1:19:10] on her Missouri 63012 and I have been sworn in so I don't know about this to the extent that
[1:19:21] I would like to do a little bit more research before I'm very opposed but I am going to say
[1:19:27] the points that I have hopefully this will be continued and I can come back.
[1:19:31] So for right now, big concern on traffic, okay, so I live in part in anybody who has come
[1:19:37] a park in my there at Marriott, right? When you pull in, well, where they're saying the main entrance
[1:19:42] is going to be. If you've ever, during school hours, tried to go from that stop sign and leave,
[1:19:49] you have to wait there for at least five minutes, because there's so many cars coming from
[1:19:52] parked in, whether they're stopping at that three-way stop at the stop signs or not. It's a lot
[1:19:57] of traffic. So, just like this gentleman said, is there going to be any kind of traffic lights,
[1:20:03] any kind of traffic, you know, a stop sign put at that bridge there for the traffic to get better,
[1:20:09] how are we going to better, I mean, even though there are stop signs there in front of Barton,
[1:20:15] it's not going to help the flow. I mean, you'd have to put a stop sign right when it comes
[1:20:18] up to where that is for people to stop, right? Does that make sense? Right before Mary Adam and it's
[1:20:24] a lot. So, I do understand that it said that the traffic study was done with the 318 homes.
[1:20:32] My question is, is why was there only 99 homes to begin with, and then 299 homes then are the extra 200 homes added?
[1:20:41] Does anybody know the answer to that?
[1:20:44] Was it just more land purchased?
[1:20:47] We can ask the petition, but we don't know.
[1:20:51] Then as far as the roundabout as well, was the timing for the light because we're already, we're
[1:20:58] You're dump in 20 to 30 cars already and that round about already doesn't work.
[1:21:04] It's a huge problem already, so as far as that's concerned, so it says that there's
[1:21:11] not going to be any negative effects to any of the neighborhoods that are adjacent.
[1:21:15] I don't know how that's not a possibility with any kind of development being moved in
[1:21:19] or any vegetation being cleared out.
[1:21:22] It's going to have effects on our homes with the tracking, with the machinery, with everything.
[1:21:26] And there's going to be effects.
[1:21:29] So from 99 to 29, that's a pretty, pretty sizable difference.
[1:21:36] Let's see the bottleneck that is not purchased by the developer.
[1:21:42] Is that going to be taken by imminent domain?
[1:21:45] Or is that going to be purchased from the people who currently own it?
[1:21:49] Does anybody know?
[1:21:51] Again, we can ask the participants.
[1:21:53] Okay, okay.
[1:21:53] They have to get an easement across that.
[1:21:55] So they have to procure an easement across that property.
[1:21:59] I believe, if I'm not mistaken,
[1:22:01] that property is owned by the same people
[1:22:02] that they're buying this property from,
[1:22:04] they may be able to clarify that.
[1:22:05] I think so, because I think they're here today.
[1:22:07] It's not.
[1:22:09] Well, they would have to get an easement across that property.
[1:22:13] Yep.
[1:22:14] You have about 15 seconds left.
[1:22:15] OK.
[1:22:17] And let's see a vision, a vision, a vision, a vision.
[1:22:21] I think that pretty much, oh,
[1:22:23] I mean, that's going to dump about 600 cars into that property.
[1:22:27] So I mean, traffic.
[1:22:28] I know that the study has been done, but I mean, I would like to have it reviewed
[1:22:31] because there's no way that as that stands, that 600 cars coming in and out of there
[1:22:36] that it's going to be feasible because it's already bad and out with how it is.
[1:22:40] So, I mean, you're out of time, man.
[1:22:41] Perfect.
[1:22:41] Thank you, guys.
[1:22:42] Can we say it?
[1:22:42] Does anyone have questions for this?
[1:22:47] Were you opposed?
[1:22:49] I'm on a post.
[1:22:50] Okay.
[1:22:50] I just want to make sure.
[1:22:51] Very, thank you.
[1:22:51] Yeah, thank you.
[1:22:53] Well, I mean, I'm not completely opposed.
[1:22:55] These things just need to be addressed, right?
[1:22:57] I'm opposed the way that it is now.
[1:22:59] Thank you.
[1:23:00] And let me clarify a couple of things.
[1:23:04] Anything over 99 watts requires a traffic study.
[1:23:07] The traffic study was conducted at 317 watts.
[1:23:10] They scaled that back to 299 watts.
[1:23:12] So the traffic study actually was composed,
[1:23:15] looking at something that was greater than what's actually
[1:23:18] in front of you tonight.
[1:23:20] I think that's where the 99 watts is coming
[1:23:21] from anything in our code over 99 requires a mandatory traffic
[1:23:26] study and plan district.
[1:23:27] I think that's where it's coming from.
[1:23:29] So I wanted to clarify that for you.
[1:23:33] Your name, address and as you've been sworn sir.
[1:23:36] Yes, my name is Paul Callahan.
[1:23:38] I live at 7305 Fairfax Court and I have been sworn in.
[1:23:43] Thank you.
[1:23:46] I think most people, let me just read what I
[1:23:50] When I first moved to Jefferson County, like so many people, I was looking for more relaxed,
[1:23:57] less in government and trusive, to me, rural, idyllic lifestyle.
[1:24:02] At the time, there were only two larger bedroom communities here in the village, Jefferson,
[1:24:08] and parked in, and the village of Jefferson tried to be a self-contained hamlet, with a lot
[1:24:15] a tree buffer. I know I saw some of the graphics here. There is some tree buffer, but I
[1:24:22] don't think it's enough. Where I live, it drops off very steeply to the site of me is
[1:24:30] coming around at the village Jefferson that they did not build up because it's an intermittent
[1:24:35] washer stream. And it goes into the LaGory property.
[1:24:41] They seem to be building right up close
[1:24:44] the property line. So what I like is a little relief where they could reconfigure not have that
[1:24:51] last finger that comes right close to the property line and reconfigure it. So it's all on the main
[1:24:57] road. So we have more setback and there's more time for the water to get absorbed. I listen to
[1:25:05] the last presentation with item A where they were talking about, you know, have need more natural
[1:25:12] vegetation so it can start soaking some of the water in and stop it down a little bit
[1:25:17] and then proceed into the retention pond.
[1:25:20] So I'd like to see that.
[1:25:25] We've had a lot of erosion behind our house, so I'm concerned about them possibly taking
[1:25:31] out existing trees that would destabilize it even further.
[1:25:36] It drops at least 30-40 feet from the back of my house.
[1:25:42] The other thing that I wanted to address was the exit in the subdivision.
[1:25:57] We currently have a lot of trouble.
[1:26:00] The last lady was talking about, there's sometimes a five minute delay to be able to
[1:26:06] and left out of there, and I noticed from the traffic proposal all they're doing is a turn
[1:26:11] in, but there's no turn out. So, Legori and the modicello are only about 100 feet from each
[1:26:20] other. So, I don't know how we can have two coming out within 100 feet of each other, all turning
[1:26:28] left. I think there needs to be some kind of traffic light to manage some of the flow, or, you
[1:26:36] not just delaying the traffic signals.
[1:26:45] Thank you, you're out of time, are there questions for this system?
[1:26:50] All right, thank you, sir.
[1:26:51] Any other citizens wishing to be heard that are opposed to this application?
[1:26:56] Please come forward.
[1:26:57] Your name, address, and that you have been sworn in.
[1:27:03] I would like to submit some exhibits, please.
[1:27:05] Okay.
[1:27:05] Let's do that first before you can tell us who you are, and that you've been sworn in your address.
[1:27:10] I mean, I'm a name's Chris Gutterr, 8167, Fescent Drive,
[1:27:19] here's IBD for everybody.
[1:27:23] Is this doing for you, somebody?
[1:27:25] Yeah.
[1:27:25] Just make one for everyone, though.
[1:27:28] We got one for everybody.
[1:27:29] Yes, sir.
[1:27:30] I think we're up to E and F.
[1:27:35] E.
[1:27:51] Sorry, this is copies from the traffic study.
[1:27:55] Yes.
[1:27:55] Which is already an evidence.
[1:27:56] I mean, we can certainly submit these.
[1:27:58] but Dr. Lizardy, so I'm going to be referring to it.
[1:28:01] Sure, so it's exhibits E and F.
[1:28:04] Is there a motion to accept exhibit E and F and two evidence?
[1:28:08] Let me just say I'm going to get these to share.
[1:28:10] Absolutely, sir.
[1:28:14] I'll make a motion to accept it.
[1:28:17] Is there a second?
[1:28:19] Second.
[1:28:20] It's been a motion by Commissioner Sebert to accept exhibits E and F and two evidence
[1:28:26] that was seconded by Commissioner Husky, all in favor.
[1:28:29] Thank you.
[1:28:30] Opposed, exhibits E and F are accepted into evidence unanimously, give us just a moment
[1:28:37] to look over.
[1:28:38] And then we'll get you to start.
[1:28:39] I have been sworn in, too, by the way, sir.
[1:28:41] I'm sorry.
[1:28:41] I have been sworn in.
[1:28:43] Yeah, that's not.
[1:28:43] You're good.
[1:28:44] Just give us a moment here to, I'm sorry.
[1:28:47] Just give us a moment to review the, what you presented us, and then we'll get started again.
[1:29:05] Have a good.
[1:29:07] I'll say, okay, sir.
[1:29:08] Please continue.
[1:29:09] So, first and foremost, I would not be here tonight if the developer would be sticking
[1:29:15] to the 100 homes that were allocated to the property.
[1:29:19] If you review the traffic study exhibit A, which I have more, you'll notice that I have highlighted
[1:29:24] several key areas of concern.
[1:29:27] The first is the intersection at Catland Drive and Highway M approach.
[1:29:31] According to the study, this intersection is currently operating at levels of service as LLSE
[1:29:37] during peak hours as defined in exhibit B, LOSE represents unstable flow and operation operating
[1:29:43] at capacity.
[1:29:45] Further down the study, it's noted that traffic volumes during the study period were 40
[1:29:49] to 45% higher than a typical date likely due to construction or accidents on I-55 at the
[1:29:54] time.
[1:29:55] This raises serious questions to the accuracy and representation of the data.
[1:30:00] That is in the filing. Additionally, at the bottom of the page 1, the report identifies a sign of blind issue at LaGorey Drive Intersection was been mentioned before. Also, I'd like to note that this has not been studied by an engineer according to their paperwork that was submitted to the county.
[1:30:16] And there's also an issue of stopping distance as well, which has not been addressed.
[1:30:22] Turning to page 2 of the study, it forecasts that the three intersections surrounding the development are expected to be at LOSE under projected future conditions.
[1:30:32] And I asked this forward, how is that going to be mitigated?
[1:30:35] And also, if this were to pass, how is LaGory and Metropolitan going to be mitigated?
[1:30:43] They recommend adjustments to traffic lights, but the road can only hold so much traffic at one time due to its location and length between the roundabout,
[1:30:54] Marriott Drive and the lights at m and 55. It was also mentioned that 62% of the traffic will
[1:31:03] be going northbound on 55. That means 62% of the traffic is only coming back onto exit to m
[1:31:09] to get off to go to the subdivision. There is only one lane currently that goes straight onto Metropolitain
[1:31:14] and I have been on that exit and almost been on 55 trying to get off and that is without this subdivision
[1:31:22] being in place.
[1:31:26] With that being said, if the traffic lights were mitigated, the LOSD with the minor signal
[1:31:33] changes, which is still approaching unstable flow.
[1:31:37] So I'd like this board to please consider those facts before proceeding.
[1:31:43] Thank you.
[1:31:47] Thank you.
[1:31:48] Thank you.
[1:31:56] Any other citizens who should be heard, please come forward state your name, address
[1:31:59] and that you have been sworn in?
[1:32:01] Good evening.
[1:32:03] My name is Hannah Jumper.
[1:32:04] I live at 24.
[1:32:06] 84.
[1:32:06] Crary Hollow Road and I have been sworn in.
[1:32:09] Thank you.
[1:32:09] I'm speaking in opposition to the approval of this development.
[1:32:13] I grew up in Jefferson County and my family has lived here for over 50 years.
[1:32:17] My favorite thing about living here is being surrounded by all of the nature.
[1:32:21] I love the cannabis of trees.
[1:32:23] I'm surrounded by and the beauty throughout all the seasons.
[1:32:25] I recognize that our county is going through a period of immense growth.
[1:32:31] This development is going to generate a large amount of tax revenue for our county.
[1:32:37] I'm also being trained as a social worker and I'm taught to look at people in the context
[1:32:41] of their environment in order to empower them to be their best self.
[1:32:47] Lately, I've been learning how communities can be looked at in a similar way.
[1:32:50] When I think about Jefferson County in this way, I see the place that I love to grow up,
[1:32:55] but I also see a place that's bursting at the seams
[1:32:57] as other people have said.
[1:33:00] I'm asking you to look at our community holistically with me.
[1:33:04] A community that is well equipped to serve,
[1:33:06] its residents has sidewalks on their roads,
[1:33:08] it has reliable and affordable public transportation.
[1:33:13] It has an accessible medical center nearby.
[1:33:15] These communities have homeless shelters
[1:33:17] and robust community services.
[1:33:20] They also have smaller things like tornado sirens
[1:33:22] in etiquette street lamps.
[1:33:23] They have public parks that their residents can access easily.
[1:33:28] I notice our community doesn't have many of these resources.
[1:33:31] I'm sure with all of this tax revenue, they would be built.
[1:33:34] But what are people like my family who've been living here for so long already?
[1:33:38] A development like this one was built right behind my family's home up in Imperial.
[1:33:43] My community seems to, my community seems to take longer each and every day.
[1:33:47] And honestly, it's getting a little bit dangerous with all of the additional traffic that that development has caused.
[1:33:52] And as you need to think about our current infrastructure and how it would respond to an additional
[1:33:58] 299 families, our schools are equipped to make room, will our police and fire departments
[1:34:03] have the capacity, can the local pharmacy and the post office keep up?
[1:34:08] I know it's unrealistic to expect this proposal to fail given this commission's past record,
[1:34:13] but I'm asking you to think about the impact of this proposal and how to serve the residents
[1:34:17] that have been here for so long.
[1:34:19] Yeah, thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:34:24] Oh, okay, questions.
[1:34:26] I don't have a question, but that was great presentation.
[1:34:29] Thank you.
[1:34:30] Appreciate that.
[1:34:32] Any other questions?
[1:34:34] All right, thank you.
[1:34:35] Any other citizens wishing to be heard that are opposed to this application?
[1:34:40] Please come forward, state your name, address, and that you have been sworn in.
[1:34:47] My name is Susan Schweiger.
[1:34:48] I live at 7-005 Randolph Drive and I've been sworn in.
[1:34:53] I was not prepared for this.
[1:34:56] I received my notice two days ago and I've worked.
[1:34:59] So I didn't have time to really go over everything.
[1:35:02] My husband and I purchased our home last year.
[1:35:06] And we purchased the home we purchased because directly behind it is it's just woods.
[1:35:11] We wouldn't have put all of our savings into a home if we knew that a subdivision was going to be developed on the property right?
[1:35:18] behind us in a year. I've heard a lot of good points about the traffic. Coming off of 55,
[1:35:27] I get home at rush hour every day and there have been multiple times when I've been stopped
[1:35:32] on 55 and have had people almost re-rend me because they're not expecting the traffic stop because
[1:35:39] of the light there. I wish I had some better points but like I said I got my notice two days ago
[1:35:45] and I just haven't had the time and I hope that you listened to everything everyone else has said tonight
[1:35:51] because I think a lot of really good points for them about it. Thank you.
[1:35:55] Thank you. Are there questions? Yes, Mr. Chair. Where is your home in relation to the proposed development
[1:36:01] like on the North Southeast West? Where is it at? We are. You can do up-down left, right? That's okay.
[1:36:08] We're like towards the bottom, like there's that strip of houses. There's just a line of houses.
[1:36:16] the last house on that street. So, oh, that was my other point. I'm so sorry. There's a waterway
[1:36:24] directly behind us and with the construction, there obviously is going to be putting in
[1:36:31] grass lawns and that is going to affect runoff into that and I already know that that ground right there
[1:36:39] is just mud like you step in it and it goes down to feet right there. So I have concerns structurally,
[1:36:46] I know I'm not an engineer about putting houses on that land, it just doesn't, it's like
[1:36:51] building a house in a floodplain.
[1:36:53] So.
[1:36:54] Thank you.
[1:36:54] Thank you.
[1:36:55] All right.
[1:36:55] Thank you.
[1:36:58] Other citizens wishing to be heard that are opposed to this application.
[1:37:03] Please come forward.
[1:37:04] State your name, address, and that you have been sworn in.
[1:37:11] Is it hard if my mom comes up to you?
[1:37:12] I'm sorry.
[1:37:13] It's the same residence.
[1:37:14] Hang on.
[1:37:14] I got.
[1:37:16] Yeah.
[1:37:17] If you need assistance.
[1:37:19] It's fine.
[1:37:20] Only one of you can speak at a time though. Sorry. 21 71 Parked-in-way
[1:37:26] It's located on the outskirts of the property being developed
[1:37:30] If I'm not mistaken, I said that there's not gonna be any connection to it. Sir, and you've been sworn in. Oh
[1:37:37] Sean Sebert
[1:37:39] This morning. You have been sworn in. I
[1:37:43] Can attest to the people talking about the traffic have you been sworn in? Yes, okay. Please proceed
[1:37:48] I can attest to the people talking about the traffic, it is already that bad, and shortly after the property that we moved in on was gotten, even with the current population, we occasionally had kids coming over from that area, and they were littering, just minor things.
[1:38:12] And I can't help but see this is also being optimistic, calling it 317 or 18 cars for
[1:38:25] 399 lot project.
[1:38:29] If a family moves in, they're married, that's going to be 2 cars probably.
[1:38:33] If they got a kid that's probably 3.
[1:38:38] I see that it is being somewhere between three, two, six, not likely nine hundred.
[1:38:49] There's concerns there,
[1:38:54] and I've talked to people even during the summer with new
[1:38:56] houses going in across the way, like behind the grocery store.
[1:39:01] And even they were talking about how they're worried about the property tax going up.
[1:39:05] that's not something I've heard with anybody here, but 300 houses. I see that as also being another
[1:39:13] property tax concern. So I just wanted to bring these things forward to the council, so they
[1:39:21] got some idea of what other people are thinking and worried about.
[1:39:27] Okay, questions?
[1:39:30] All right, thank you.
[1:39:35] I didn't get sworn in yet. I'm sorry. I didn't get sworn in yet.
[1:39:39] Okay, we'll need to sort you in.
[1:39:41] You'll need to sort you in.
[1:39:42] You'll need to sort you in.
[1:39:43] You'll need to state your name, address,
[1:39:46] and then that you need to.
[1:39:46] My name is Karen Seabert, and I live at 2171 Parked in Way
[1:39:51] in Barhardt, Missouri.
[1:39:54] And please go ahead and raise your right hand.
[1:39:55] Oh, sorry.
[1:40:03] I do.
[1:40:04] Okay, please proceed.
[1:40:07] Anyway, you're fortunate because of the part
[1:40:10] of the subdivision we live in,
[1:40:12] is on the back side of Linguori and I live right up above the second lake and there's only
[1:40:22] my house and one other house until you get to the top of the hill and it turns and there's
[1:40:28] a bunch of other houses so we get the traffic coming off the hill and when I bought the
[1:40:36] else, the main reason I bought it was because it's surrounded by forest. I was a police officer
[1:40:44] in the city for 20 years and well, I was on there for 21 years. I just wanted the peace
[1:40:51] and quiet and my mom was alive at the time I moved out here and the deer. I mean, there's
[1:40:59] so much wildlife that comes in off a lingory and comes into my yard, goes down by the lake
[1:41:05] drink and I don't mind some taxes but I'm concerned with how many houses I'm going to put
[1:41:14] on here because the traffic when you get to the front of the division is a problem and they
[1:41:20] have two parks down there and during the ball season all the kids and all the cars are piled
[1:41:26] up and through there for the balls, Paul Season, and then you have the the the new
[1:41:33] service station is down there and the post office is down there. There's a lot of stuff.
[1:41:39] When I first bought the house was just the bridge to get out of our subdivision. They recently
[1:41:45] connected it with I believe it's considered part of the area where it runs through to the
[1:41:51] other park area in the post office, but where the turn-up out sat, it's always backed up.
[1:42:03] The front of the subdivision is always backed up.
[1:42:06] I'm lucky like I said, I live in the back, but I'm concerned with all of a sudden,
[1:42:12] the trees all being gone, the wildlife have no place to go, and people being stacked in
[1:42:20] like they're in the city.
[1:42:22] I mean, the main reason I moved out here was so that, you know,
[1:42:26] you could have a little bit of space in the neighbors
[1:42:28] but getting fights with each other.
[1:42:30] That's the main problem with the city
[1:42:32] as people are pile on top of each other's home,
[1:42:35] much that it just creates problems.
[1:42:39] At least if you have them spaced a little further apart
[1:42:42] and you have more greenery in between that area
[1:42:45] and the surround areas, I think people would accept it.
[1:42:49] but they're just worried about there being too much crammed in too tight.
[1:42:57] Does that make sense to you? Do you understand?
[1:43:02] I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I just got back from the doctor.
[1:43:06] So I don't sound right.
[1:43:09] But that's my biggest concerns.
[1:43:13] Right now I feel like I'm living in half and I've got all the woods in front of me.
[1:43:16] I got the woods behind me. I got one house that's close enough to get to.
[1:43:20] and the other house is up at the top around the hill and all the other houses are down below the lake,
[1:43:27] but they're already crammed together so tight down the lake, you know. Unfortunately, unfortunately,
[1:43:32] it's troubled. I'm unfortunately, you're out of time, so I have to stop you. But thank you. Are there
[1:43:37] questions? Any other citizens wishing? I'm sorry, actually the time is expired. We're over our 20
[1:43:44] minute time limit. So that is the end of the citizens to be heard that are opposed to this
[1:43:51] application with the petitioner please come back up.
[1:44:05] We'll just go through one by one. The
[1:44:07] first thing that I wrote down was the buffer between your proposed development and the other
[1:44:13] little gore property with the cemetery and stuff like that. If it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman,
[1:44:19] can I call it a civil engineer? He would know that better than me.
[1:44:24] Maybe.
[1:44:27] He will need to
[1:44:28] his name address and that he's been sworn in.
[1:44:31] For the record, my name's Mike Faulkner.
[1:44:32] I'm Vice President and Sterling Engineering.
[1:44:35] Office of 255, Newbomg Ardern, St. Louis 631 29, and I have been sworn in.
[1:44:44] Thank you.
[1:44:45] The question is, is the buffer between your proposed development and the cemetery and the
[1:44:51] Legore property?
[1:44:53] We do have a buffer there.
[1:44:54] is actually when the property was purchased.
[1:44:58] It was taken into consideration.
[1:45:00] Operation to provide a buffer from the fathers up there. So what we did is we actually located the property so that we went right
[1:45:10] of going back of what would be our lots. So that we had a good buffer on them so that they could control the
[1:45:18] themselves, the fathers. So that's how the property was actually set up so that we could
[1:45:25] actually end up with a buffer on the father's property so that they felt safe that they had
[1:45:31] control over that property in between their facility and the new homes. Okay. I'm going to skip
[1:45:41] some of the traffic stuff and we'll come back to that because there was several of them. So my
[1:45:46] question just to you. I think maybe there was some confusion, but maybe not. We started out
[1:45:53] at 99 homes and we went to 317, now we're back to 299. If you could just kind of clear
[1:45:57] that up a little bit. Yes, Mr. Chair. So to be clear, there was never a proposal for 99
[1:46:04] homes. The UDO requires that if you have a hundred or more homes, then you have to
[1:46:15] any lesser amount. The only other proposal was for 317 which we brought down to 299.
[1:46:25] The, there was a couple of comments about removing the lower, I'll call it the lower
[1:46:33] leg of that development where it runs up in behind the other subdivision. I think if Josh,
[1:46:40] if you could bring him back, I think that's what they were talking about. Removing that from
[1:46:46] design is, is that a possibility? No, and one thing I think I like to point out is the color.
[1:46:53] Sorry, Jeff. Yeah, the color. I'm sorry. Sorry, Jeff. That's all right. Oh, you pass it up. Right there.
[1:46:59] Right there. Right there. Go ahead and I think you're looking for the, you're looking for the thing on the
[1:47:18] Okay, so I'll please continue, can you clarify then what part you're talking about?
[1:47:26] I believe, well, I believe it was that the lower leg there towards the bottom of the screen,
[1:47:32] I assume the map is oriented in Norse, I'll call it on the southern southwestern south eastern edge.
[1:47:39] Well, not to make him go back and forth between maps, but if you visualize, maybe the other one that he first went to.
[1:47:47] When you have a large property like this, I know all the distances look small, looks like everything's packed together when the houses are right on top.
[1:47:55] But it's not, I mean, we're talking about depending on where specifically they're thinking,
[1:48:01] There can be as many as several hundred feet down there between the houses on either side of the property boundary.
[1:48:10] So it isn't a scenario down there where you've got a house and then 40 feet or 50 feet in another house.
[1:48:17] If I'm talking about the same area that I think they're talking about.
[1:48:22] Okay,
[1:48:26] erosion and water concerns.
[1:48:27] There was two comments about erosion, water concerns, and water runoff.
[1:48:32] If you would like to address some of your stormwater mitigation plans that you have in
[1:48:37] place.
[1:48:38] Yes, I can speak generally, and then if there are specific questions, I know the engineer
[1:48:42] could speak more broadly.
[1:48:44] But right now when you have a property like this, storm, you know, rain happens, stormwater
[1:48:49] just flows over the land and it flows where it flows.
[1:48:52] When you have subdivisions like this, we are collecting the storm water from the impervious
[1:48:58] services, right, and collecting it in the various detention basins on the property, which
[1:49:04] then have a measured release.
[1:49:07] So the water that's collected is not going out at the, so one earlier said, four inches
[1:49:13] in two hours, I think, for that first variance.
[1:49:17] If that's happening on a subdivision with basins, it may be raining that hard, but it's
[1:49:21] discharging that heart because it's collected in the basins and discharged at the measured rate.
[1:49:28] Can you go back to the green map?
[1:49:32] Yeah.
[1:49:38] There was one that was bigger.
[1:49:41] Okay.
[1:49:42] Yeah.
[1:49:43] Okay. All right. I'm sorry.
[1:49:44] No, I have the slightly larger one.
[1:49:49] Okay, so this is a preliminary plat, but
[1:49:51] where you have the detention basins in will that number stay consistent and
[1:49:57] the areas that you have them drawn in here will, will that stay consistent?
[1:50:03] Let me call Mike Falkin, I'm back up here.
[1:50:07] Yes, they should stay consistent.
[1:50:09] Will we develop this subdivision in this preliminary plot?
[1:50:13] What we do is we look at the overall drainage for this site.
[1:50:18] And as staff is alluded to, it's a lot of topographic restraints that's here on this.
[1:50:26] Well, it provides is little water shits and we have to map out each one of those little
[1:50:32] water shits and we have to provide the detention and water quality for each one of those
[1:50:37] water shits.
[1:50:39] So what we've done is demonstrated that on this preliminary plan and that will also be reviewed
[1:50:44] by your stormwater people, but the whole goal is to be able to control all the stormwater
[1:50:50] on-site in smaller little areas instead of the whole raw pitch,
[1:50:55] or we look at the individual areas to make sure
[1:50:58] that we're controlling all the stormwater.
[1:51:01] OK, thank you.
[1:51:03] Next up,
[1:51:07] there was a concern about density.
[1:51:08] I realized that your proposed development
[1:51:12] is only about half as dense as you could be approximately.
[1:51:15] But would you like to speak to the density of this proposed subdivision?
[1:51:23] So you're correct that our proposal is about half of what's allowed in the R7.
[1:51:29] And in fact less than half of what's allowed in the PDR1 at 2.67 just as a reminder.
[1:51:37] And again, I think when you have a big parcel like this on these small maps,
[1:51:42] It may look more dense than it is, but the lot size and density is basically exactly the same as the subdivisions on the north, west, so top left I guess of what you're looking at there, which are also zone R7.
[1:52:02] And would you like to speak towards the concern of property taxes increase?
[1:52:07] It's not really a land use issue.
[1:52:09] I'm sorry.
[1:52:10] That's not a land-to-use issue.
[1:52:13] I'm just...
[1:52:14] This isn't brought to question up.
[1:52:15] But that doesn't mean you have to ask the question, either.
[1:52:18] I'm sorry.
[1:52:18] But that doesn't mean you have to ask the question either.
[1:52:20] It's up to you.
[1:52:21] But I would advise you to stay away from matters that are not specifically land-use matters.
[1:52:25] Okay.
[1:52:26] You're all heard.
[1:52:28] So what we have left is a whole bunch of traffic stuff.
[1:52:31] And I will be murdered.
[1:52:32] And I will be murdered.
[1:52:35] And I will be murdered.
[1:52:37] this or if not, Mike probably can.
[1:52:39] There was a question about, I believe, about the entrance onto Marriott Lane, and I think
[1:52:44] there is some confusion about your access rights to there, if somebody could address that.
[1:52:55] Yeah, I can.
[1:52:56] I'm sorry.
[1:52:56] We actually went met with the property owners on that, and we were caught and acquired
[1:53:03] an easement for the construction of that road.
[1:53:06] So we already have a deeded easement for us to get out on to Marriott Road and I believe actually I believe the this G. I
[1:53:18] Kind of GIS I believe already even shows that because I was on the GIS earlier today
[1:53:23] And I believe it even shows that the path of that easement
[1:53:30] Okay, okay traffic
[1:53:39] please state your name address and that you have been sworn in
[1:53:44] Sean White, 12, 12, 12, 12, 4, 0, 0, all the blue of our zip code, 6, 3, 1, 4, 1, and I have been sworn in.
[1:53:54] And you are, sorry for what you are a professional engineer.
[1:54:04] I know that I'm established in a baseline to go with you.
[1:54:09] You are an engineer correct?
[1:54:10] I feel very qualified for this position.
[1:54:12] So yes, I am a professional engineer, a professional traffic operations engineer.
[1:54:17] I've been in the business for nearly 30 years.
[1:54:20] I've been a resident of Jefferson County for almost 25 years.
[1:54:24] And I live about a mile from where this is at.
[1:54:26] So I'm intimately familiar with this site.
[1:54:29] So I'm sure that you heard some of the concerns about the traffic patterns,
[1:54:35] expanding on the traffic patterns, the bottleneck,
[1:54:39] The bottlenecking of traffic traffic light concerns will come back to the LOSD and LOSD stuff because I have some questions about that.
[1:54:52] And then there was a concern or a question about ball season traffic.
[1:54:59] Ball season.
[1:55:00] Ball season traffic or high school baseball or was.
[1:55:05] So I'll open it up to you.
[1:55:07] So I will just give a brief introduction, I mean, I think we all know with any development you expect there to be traffic, so our purpose is to provide an unbiased assessment of what that impact will be and then if necessary make recommendations to make it work.
[1:55:24] So as part of that process we meet with the county we meet with Modad from the very beginning to sit down and get our direction from them on what intersections they went looked at, you know, just everything that goes into the study.
[1:55:35] We provide them all of our assumptions for where we think traffic will go to and from
[1:55:40] Get their approval of that the trip generation for this site all that gets approved by those agencies and then we go through the analysis and then we submit everything back to them for their review and approval
[1:55:49] so it's definitely not
[1:55:52] You know, done in a box somewhere. I mean, it's it's hand in hand working with modatt and the county to go to go through this process
[1:56:02] So yes, I mean, there is I mean this area
[1:56:05] I mean, there is traffic, especially during the peak hours, I mean, you're going to have traffic.
[1:56:12] When we look at operations, we're looking at things to operate at overall level of service D during the peak hours.
[1:56:21] That means you may have individual movements that do operate at level of service E or even level of service F.
[1:56:27] That's pretty common that you might have a left turn or a side street approach or something that doesn't.
[1:56:33] them might operate poorly, the idea is that the overall intersection operates a D, which every
[1:56:38] single intersection that in our study area does operate an overall level service D, most of them
[1:56:44] better than that. So we are meeting that. And then we did bake, you know, when we look where we
[1:56:49] ran a D of few issues, when we got to the 10-year scenario. So when we look, you know, 10 years out,
[1:56:55] and we assume a growth rate, you know, based on historical counts and working with a motor on
[1:57:00] to use for that. You know, we assume global growth growth in the area and we reanalyze everything.
[1:57:07] There were some deficiencies that came out of that. And generally, you know, a lot of things
[1:57:12] can be fixed with simple signal timing. You know, adjusting timing. If you have an intersection
[1:57:16] that's set with certain seconds allowed for each approach or each movement and you have
[1:57:21] something come along that adds a lot of traffic to a certain movement. If you don't adjust the
[1:57:26] means it's going to be a problem. So mode out typically revisit signal timings after any substantial
[1:57:33] development, you know, they're open to looking at those as well as probably every five to 10 years.
[1:57:37] They're just looking at that anyway because things change. So when you get into that 10-year scenario,
[1:57:43] you know, I coming up there, I get off at Highway M, I come down that ramp every day myself.
[1:57:49] So, you know, I think we talk about there about providing more time to that movement,
[1:57:54] So that it can't clear out and we don't back up toward the highway.
[1:57:59] So those are a couple of recommendations that are in there at Catalan.
[1:58:03] You know, that level of service E that approaches.
[1:58:04] I think it's 58 seconds was the approach of Catalan Road at Highway M.
[1:58:09] 55 is a cutoff between D and E.
[1:58:11] So it's just barely even in E.
[1:58:15] But again, a couple of seconds shift here there can fix that
[1:58:19] and still keep the intersection overall level of service D.
[1:58:21] So there are things there that can be done.
[1:58:23] I actually was just talking with Modet today on this and they were wanting to look at the files,
[1:58:28] so they could kind of look at some of those signal timing adjustments that may need to be needed.
[1:58:32] But again, that was a 10-year scenario where we're looking at what might need to be done in 10 years,
[1:58:39] if, you know, the area continues to grow grow like that's growing.
[1:58:46] So
[1:58:49] one of the things I think, I feel like our studies are pretty conservative
[1:58:55] And the, you know, one, we did 317 homes and it's $2.99.
[1:58:58] That's not a big deal.
[1:58:59] That's about 6% lower than what we have.
[1:59:03] But what I did notice is that, I mean, all of us who live out here know that when things are going on in the construction zone,
[1:59:09] there's days where everyone's bailing off of 55 at M to either, you know,
[1:59:15] jump over and take 67 down or to take metropolitan down.
[1:59:18] And so when we got into some issues because I'm familiar with it,
[1:59:23] When we got into some of the results at the roundabout and what it was showing for cues,
[1:59:26] I'm like, that just doesn't seem right based on my daily experience and what I see out
[1:59:32] there.
[1:59:33] And so we went back out and we had collected some speed data on metropolitan.
[1:59:37] And when we did that, we collected data over a period of four days.
[1:59:41] So we had speed data basically Monday through Friday monitoring the speeds on metropolitan near
[1:59:47] the glory drive and that also counts cars.
[1:59:49] I mean, it does speed in it counts cars.
[1:59:51] So I went back and looked at those counts and over those course of four days that southbound
[1:59:56] volume of metropolitan was the average was 575.
[2:00:00] The day we counted it was over 800. You know, so because of things that were going on on 55 and everyone bailing, so the volumes that are in this study that everything is based up of and all the analysis shows are volumes that are about 40% higher on the day we counted versus what it was the other week when we kind of for whole days.
[2:00:22] So I think when a lot of this construct with this construction gets done, we won't have as many fluctuations like that.
[2:00:28] You're still going to have cases where if there's a crash and hopefully got to help there's less crashes when they get this, you know, project done and that won't happen as much, but it will fluctuate like that.
[2:00:37] But I do think we, we have a study where volumes are almost 40% higher anyway and we can still show things can work.
[2:00:45] Of course, when we look at it, we did some sensitivity analyses if you've read through this long report toward the end that in the tenure conditions.
[2:00:51] if we bump those volumes down to what would be more normal, there was no occurrences of
[2:00:56] the round about backing up or, you know, tie a way in.
[2:01:06] You're reports stated that, I'm looking forward, but anyway, that during the peak time,
[2:01:13] you were an LOSE, and we were handed an exhibit F that gives us the definitions of the LOSD
[2:01:24] and LOS-E, LOS stands for level of service, LSD is approaching an unstable flow, and LOS-E is an unstable
[2:01:34] flow operating at capacity, or those correct?
[2:01:39] Those definitions are the definitions, correct?
[2:01:42] And then in your report, you stated that during the peak time,
[2:01:51] it's a very first bullet point
[2:01:52] in your report approach
[2:01:58] at Highway N, which operates at LLSE during the PM peak hour.
[2:02:03] How long does that PM peak hour last, and is that the only time that that intersection
[2:02:09] or that particular stretch is at that LLSE?
[2:02:14] Yes, that again, I mean, in page 19 of the report, that's what that's for all of these
[2:02:18] level of service rad and the seconds associated with that, you know, are on that table
[2:02:23] there.
[2:02:24] And again, it's a level of service D is what's considered the goal for the overall intersection.
[2:02:30] And so when we talk about the one that you're mentioning, that's the southbound approach of Catland drives,
[2:02:36] so coming from Walgreens and that side, that approach was 56.7 seconds, and with the development,
[2:02:44] it went to like 58. You know, so cutoff is 55. It's just barely in E and E is just that.
[2:02:52] The overall intersection is a D, so it's just one of those things where that's not considered
[2:02:59] a failing condition.
[2:03:00] I mean, it's just saying, hey, they have to wait a couple of seconds longer.
[2:03:06] D,
[2:03:08] let's put your answer on anything you'd asked.
[2:03:11] Oh, how long?
[2:03:12] The PMP Gower is one hour.
[2:03:14] So the AMP Gower is, we kind of traffic from 6 to 9 in the morning, and then we take the highest
[2:03:21] hour and that's three hour time period, and that's what we analyze.
[2:03:24] And then in the afternoon, we kind of between two and six PM to make sure that we, you know,
[2:03:30] also considered could the school times be higher.
[2:03:32] You know, so we kind of from two to six PM and we took the highest hour within that four hour time period.
[2:03:38] And that's what we analyzed.
[2:03:39] So yes, operations would be presumably better than that all the rest of the day.
[2:03:46] Okay.
[2:03:47] That is all of the notes that I had.
[2:03:49] The other commissioners have any other, please go ahead.
[2:03:52] I'm just reading the last line on your report and it's no improvements beyond signal timing modifications
[2:03:58] are expected to be necessary in 2035 conditions.
[2:04:02] So for the next nine years will there need to be any modifications?
[2:04:07] I mean, not as a result of what this development correct.
[2:04:12] Okay, that's why I just want to make sure I drill down.
[2:04:14] In the 2025 we talked about the right turnling that's warranted in some of those things,
[2:04:19] but in the 10-year condition, the only difference between 2025 and 2035
[2:04:23] was looking at some signal timing adjustments at the signals.
[2:04:28] So the assets, really, no traffic issues.
[2:04:31] They're no expected traffic issues whatsoever
[2:04:33] from this new subdivision.
[2:04:35] From this subdivision, no.
[2:04:38] OK, that's what it's accommodated with what's there
[2:04:41] and with making some of these tweaks.
[2:04:44] It's accommodated within acceptable ranges for level of service.
[2:04:47] OK, thank you.
[2:04:49] other questions? Yes, please, good. So one of the citizens talked about a number of cars, and I think maybe confused that a little bit with number of trips. And so we have the benefit of reading these reports a couple times a month.
[2:05:03] Can you explain why you count number of trips during a peak hour versus number of cars in this subdivision?
[2:05:09] So if we're talking about the trip generation for the site.
[2:05:12] So, as traffic engineers, there's the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which is a national
[2:05:19] international organization that has what's called the Trips Generation Manual, which
[2:05:24] you either permit state of the time that's like our traffic engineer Bible.
[2:05:28] So there are hundreds and hundreds of land uses in this, one of them being single family residential.
[2:05:33] And so that one land use, there are counts that have been done at subdivisions, hundreds
[2:05:39] of subdivisions.
[2:05:40] This is one of the land uses.
[2:05:41] Some land uses might have, they might be based on 10 studies or 20 studies.
[2:05:45] Single-family residential is based on hundreds of studies.
[2:05:48] I mean, there's several.
[2:05:50] So hundreds of subdivisions have been counted to say,
[2:05:52] okay, there's 200 homes in this subdivisions.
[2:05:54] Here's what it generated in and out in the AM and in the PM.
[2:05:58] There's 300 homes in this one.
[2:05:59] Here's what it generated in and out in the PM.
[2:06:01] And all those things are average to generate an equation
[2:06:03] that tells me I plug in 317 homes and it spits out
[2:06:07] what it's going to generate.
[2:06:08] So it's not, you know, we can all think of how I can think of my house operates. I have three
[2:06:14] I have three, I have three drivers in my house. My husband and I, you know, he works at home. I don't leave till after nine
[2:06:19] I don't get home till after six. So we'd regenerating nothing during that peak time. My kids aren't, you know
[2:06:25] I have one this getting up and leaving. So when you while yes throughout the day
[2:06:29] We're gonna generate traffic when you're looking at that one hour
[2:06:32] We're analyzing you don't have two cars for every house all get up and walk out and get in their cars and leave
[2:06:37] I mean, it's just, you know, so the trip generation that we use is based off of hundreds of studies to come up with that.
[2:06:43] And, and it's for just the one hour.
[2:06:46] Just one hour.
[2:06:48] Great.
[2:06:49] Thank you.
[2:06:51] Those are questions?
[2:06:54] All right. Thank you.
[2:06:56] Discussion amongst commissioners, questions for staff, motion to approve or deny?
[2:07:11] Well, I guess we, I, this is discussion.
[2:07:14] So, they can already build the houses already because it's already sewn appropriately for a subdivision, correct?
[2:07:21] So, we're not really denying anything if we choose to deny. They can already build a higher density subdivision that was proposed.
[2:07:32] Not to 100 homes, because it's kept at 100 homes.
[2:07:35] Yeah, there's an NR7.
[2:07:37] Okay, I want to make sure I put all my pieces together.
[2:07:40] Yes, they could build a subdivision there.
[2:07:43] they're asking for a zone resonant to build more houses,
[2:07:47] but not to the maximum density allowed.
[2:07:51] For either zone district to be clear,
[2:07:54] it doesn't meet the density of the R7 standards,
[2:07:57] or the PR1.
[2:07:59] So what is currently zone today,
[2:08:00] it doesn't even meet that density standard.
[2:08:03] And so just to be clear about that.
[2:08:05] And Josh, what would it be, accurate?
[2:08:08] But Mr. Weber,
[2:08:12] thank you.
[2:08:12] of the neighborhood that's proposed, matches the surrounding neighborhoods, is that accurate?
[2:08:17] In general, yeah.
[2:08:26] So fellow commissioners, everyone in the county always talks about
[2:08:28] any affordable housing, any place to live. We got families, we got people growing,
[2:08:33] and that's what this proposal is in front of us here tonight.
[2:08:37] The landowner wants to change the zoning to get a permitted land use that solves
[2:08:45] a problem this county complains about constantly, balancing that with the difficulty of trying
[2:08:50] to preserve the rule nature of this county is difficult.
[2:08:56] But I think we've learned in the past that not everybody wants ten acres in a brush hog.
[2:09:02] Some people, you know, want their three-quarter acre lot and they're all more.
[2:09:09] Can I jump in just make a quick comment so you know, because I think you said part that we
[2:09:13] really haven't talked about. We also have true preservation replacement as part of this. So that was largely
[2:09:18] in due to knowing where we were with the master plan, as well as making sure that part of that
[2:09:24] goal was to keep that character correct. So this is the first project that you've seen with that requirement
[2:09:31] on there. And that was what the Calipers measure in the trees. The whole thing. Yes.
[2:09:37] Okay, not done to exceed 200 caliper inches per acre.
[2:09:41] It's about 80 trees at two and a half inch caliper.
[2:09:44] Yeah, that was fun reading.
[2:09:45] Well, you're welcome to that, that's even more fun to write.
[2:09:50] You know, we did talk about the density.
[2:09:52] That was a joke.
[2:09:54] We talked about the density a little bit under the R7
[2:09:56] and if you went, 16 is per acre.
[2:10:01] That's a permitted density of about 670 homes.
[2:10:05] Okay, so just so you know,
[2:10:07] put that in perspective when you're averaging
[2:10:09] outright about two per acre, I mean, that averages out.
[2:10:12] There's a lot of common ground here too, right?
[2:10:15] Obviously, some of these are just comments.
[2:10:18] So you guys understand we would never bring an application
[2:10:20] forward to if the access was not locked down legally.
[2:10:24] We would not do that, especially in a condition like this
[2:10:27] where two access points are required per code for the number
[2:10:29] of units that we've got.
[2:10:32] And then lastly, I want to tell you even more fun
[2:10:35] than reading through the preservation language
[2:10:36] is sitting through a scoping session for a traffic impact study and listening to all the transportation
[2:10:42] engineers, no offense, Sean, go through minutia of growth rate details for a ten year growth
[2:10:47] period. Because that is a giant part of when we scope that out and mode out is on the, you know,
[2:10:54] they are on those meetings with us and they go again like Sean said they are an intimate part of
[2:10:58] this, especially when we do touch a county of state, when one of the access points touches a state access
[2:11:03] road, and that's part of the system, but there is a lot of discussion about what growth
[2:11:09] rates to use moving forward. And we're still, we still have a very low growth rate when
[2:11:13] you think about what we have over that over that 35 period. But what that means is, you know,
[2:11:18] this subdivisions find everything recommended in here are the systemic improvements to facilitate
[2:11:23] and manage that current condition of traffic as it absorbs, right? So it mitigates any of the
[2:11:30] packs that are generated from this subdivision, but then you keep looking out okay at what point
[2:11:36] do we need to make larger impacts and it's passed that 2035 on the growth projection. Obviously
[2:11:42] we know more growth is going to happen in this area, but it has a little bit more challenges on
[2:11:46] what's left to develop than some of the other areas, right? So that's just kind of how you guys
[2:11:52] can understand how that plays out a little bit in those discussions.
[2:11:57] Josh, one of your conditions
[2:11:59] of approval was the decide walk in that burn area and then a petitioner stated that that would
[2:12:06] be tough to do because it's a three-month slope.
[2:12:10] Can you talk a little bit more about that?
[2:12:13] Yeah, I actually looked at the grading lines are, you know, the pros grading lines are pretty
[2:12:20] intense. You know, short of I would like to see something like that either there or somewhere else
[2:12:28] the project personally.
[2:12:33] Maybe the grade doesn't work there and maybe that's because obviously
[2:12:37] you can't have sidewalks going down that steep of a grade. But we just thought it would be a nice
[2:12:43] focal piece coming in the development from that entrance but we would like to see if that
[2:12:49] amenity doesn't work somewhere else in the development.
[2:12:55] As opposed to waving the requirement,
[2:12:57] you can say, you know, if like some of the other ones we've built in where you can do this,
[2:13:02] but if it's unfeasible then the director has. Yeah. So that way, we can keep the spirit of the intent
[2:13:08] of that. The intent was not to have just a detention basin located on one of your access points.
[2:13:14] Okay. And to be quite frank with you and you leave it up to the director to design things for you,
[2:13:19] this is what happens, the director and the planning staff, because we just had that little v-notch
[2:13:25] come down. We wanted to see something happen in that area. So I think if you'd be comfortable
[2:13:28] saying, you know, this, this is the requirement or if proved unfaizable, something that
[2:13:34] meets this intent, you know, subject to the review and approval of the director, you know,
[2:13:39] I think that would cover that. And like Josh said that may allow us, you know, we want to,
[2:13:42] we want to keep that, we want to keep these, you know, the improvements associated with this,
[2:13:47] should you, should you guys, go down this path of approval to make sure we get that, but then
[2:13:51] We have some flexibility that if there is truly something that prohibits that we can get something
[2:13:56] that is going to meet the intent.
[2:13:58] That makes sense.
[2:14:02] Other discussion?
[2:14:04] I just like to say something.
[2:14:08] Everybody knows I'm a big proponent of green spaces.
[2:14:10] I see the subdivision and how they're putting in, or leaving in those green spaces and
[2:14:18] then adding walking trails, things like that.
[2:14:21] A lot has been discussed in Jefferson County about the beauty, the nature of Jefferson County and how we can retain that, but also bring in people who do want to live here, and the diversified people that live in Jefferson County, you know, that are, you know, they don't need a five bedroom house anymore as discussed and seeing that kind of diversification inside of a subdivision to me is something I think is is really good and, you know, a lot has been discussed, you know,
[2:14:48] we're building too much, we're building too fast,
[2:14:50] we have a developer that comes in here
[2:14:51] who could put five houses or six houses on an acre.
[2:14:56] And it's choosing to be a good steward.
[2:15:00] What? The people in Jefferson County would like to see. And so I think that's a very good feather in their cap. And this is a nice to see at a bell coming in and keep green space and not build six houses on an acre in my personal opinion. So I yield.
[2:15:24] Discussion or motion to approve or deny?
[2:15:27] And before anybody makes a motion, I do just want to go over everything because,
[2:15:32] I mean, I outlined essentially four things that you'll have to think about right, there is the underlying question of the zone change development plan and kind of take those together because it's a plan development, so that's one thing.
[2:15:44] The second question is obviously there was their quest for modification on the three to one on the lots.
[2:15:49] And then the third thing was obviously Council for the applicant requested that you wave the requirement shown on page 18 for the sidewalk extension.
[2:16:02] And obviously Mr. Bear had some proposal of how you could address that.
[2:16:08] And then the final thing is the preliminary plat, but that's actually the simplest of the four because if you're
[2:16:14] Approving us you're approving a plan if you're denying you have to deny the black, but does that does that make sense to everyone?
[2:16:22] Yeah, so your motion can be to approve with staff recommendations both applications.
[2:16:29] Correct.
[2:16:30] Yeah.
[2:16:30] You could do one, and in fact, you probably should.
[2:16:33] One, Uber motion that deals with both the, um,
[2:16:38] And the underlying zone-changing development plan application.
[2:16:43] Great.
[2:16:48] We can't go home until we've approved or did not.
[2:16:50] So we've got more business to take care of.
[2:16:56] I don't have a phrase.
[2:16:59] Make a stamp ahead of you.
[2:17:01] Let's just tackle them one at a time.
[2:17:04] That's easier.
[2:17:10] Well, I don't know what your motion's going to be with regard to either.
[2:17:16] I don't know what your motion's going to be with regard to.
[2:17:18] of the request, you know, either the modification or the request on the some like extension.
[2:17:25] So you're going to need to address those in whatever motion you may.
[2:17:27] Let me see if I can help you with it.
[2:17:29] I make a motion that PB25-001 to be approved with staff recommendations, including the sidewalk in the
[2:17:41] Burmed area close to the retention pond if that can't be accomplished in that area that something is given in return
[2:17:46] for that, somewhere else in the subdivision, I also, as part of my motion, make a
[2:17:51] rest.
[2:17:52] Make a recommendation at PB250013B approved.
[2:17:57] Thank you.
[2:17:59] So I might go second.
[2:18:00] I'll second.
[2:18:01] I'll second.
[2:18:01] I wish you sure I might have motion to approve PB25 of the dash, 0012 and PB25 dash, 0013.
[2:18:09] It was seconded by Commissioner Sprawl, all in favor.
[2:18:13] I know.
[2:18:13] Opposed, Madam Secretary, we please call roll.
[2:18:27] Yes.
[2:18:33] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[2:18:37] Yes.
[2:18:39] No.
[2:18:42] 7 to 1.
[2:18:46] P.B.25 dash 0.012 and P.B.25 dash 0.013 is approved by a vote of 7 to 1.
[2:18:55] Next up we have the approval of the 2020 planning zoning schedule.
[2:19:00] Discussion?
[2:19:01] It's right here in front of you.
[2:19:03] I mean, I don't really think that's choice.
[2:19:06] Yeah, just those dates follow the dates that we have had in place or the pattern of dates that we have had in place.
[2:19:14] It's time and more. Basically, this is a motion to approve.
[2:19:18] There's a motion to approve the 2026 planning and zoning meeting dates as a second.
[2:19:23] Second. Sorry. Well, I have whoever wants to.
[2:19:27] I got to get one tonight. All in favor say aye.
[2:19:37] Mr. Chair, I know it's not a crucial vote, but I just, who was the first and second on the schedule?
[2:19:43] Commissioner Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Smith made the motion and the second by Commissioner Mr.
[2:19:47] Thank you so much.
[2:19:48] You're very welcome.
[2:19:49] Report to the Commission.
[2:19:51] I have a lengthy report to the Commission tonight.
[2:19:56] Our next meeting is December the 10th.
[2:19:58] We'll be our final meeting of the year.
[2:20:00] We do have cases on that night.
[2:20:02] So we will see you then.
[2:20:03] Good work tonight.
[2:20:03] Appreciate it.
[2:20:06] Oh, the 11th.
[2:20:07] So don't come here on December the 10th.
[2:20:14] December 11th.
[2:20:16] Is there a motion to adjourn?
[2:20:19] Second.
[2:20:20] Second.
[2:20:21] Second.
[2:20:25] make the second of the motion all in favor.
[2:20:29] Opposed.
[2:20:30] We are a jar of thing.
[2:20:31] I'm going to get the hammer.
[2:20:32] There we go.