[0:00] Everyone stand for the pledge of
[0:02] allegiance, please. I pledge algiance to
[0:05] the flag of the United States of America
[0:07] [clears throat]
[0:08] and to the republic for it stands one
[0:11] nation under God, indivisible with
[0:14] liberty and justice for all.
[0:21] Yeah. Day late, right?
[0:23] >> Yeah.
[0:27] Two days late.
[0:32] » Roll call members, please. Sherperson
[0:34] Roth
[0:36] >> here.
[0:37] >> Commissioner Kinsky
[0:38] >> here.
[0:39] >> Uh, Commissioner Euing
[0:42] >> here.
[0:44] >> Commissioner Donovan
[0:44] >> here.
[0:46] >> Uh, Commissioner Bowman.
[0:49] Commissioner [clears throat] Grass
[0:50] >> here.
[0:51] >> Our new uh Commissioner Latrell
[0:54] >> here.
[0:56] >> Uh and Alderman Leison Prince
[0:58] >> here.
[1:00] >> And we have a quum.
[1:02] >> Approval of the agenda for September
[1:04] 3rd, 2026.
[1:08] » Motion to approve.
[1:09] >> Second.
[1:10] >> I have a motion and a second. All in
[1:11] favor?
[1:12] >> Opposed? I
[1:14] >> motion carries.
[1:18] Approval of the minutes of from May 7th,
[1:21] 2026.
[1:32] » Motion to approve.
[1:34] >> Second.
[1:35] >> I have a motion. I have a second. All in
[1:37] favor?
[1:38] >> I
[1:39] >> opposed.
[1:40] Motion carried. Introduction of
[1:43] evidence.
[1:46] Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to uh
[1:48] introduce into evidence the St. Genevie
[1:50] Municipal Code, the St. Genevie
[1:52] Comprehensive Plan, and my staff reports
[1:55] and supporting documents uh for the
[1:57] cases before the commission this
[1:59] evening.
[2:01] >> Motion to accept the evidence as
[2:04] presented.
[2:06] >> Second.
[2:06] >> I have a motion and a second.
[2:09] All in favor?
[2:11] >> I
[2:11] >> oppose. Motion carries.
[2:16] Uh, citizen input. Everybody's here in
[2:19] regards to the agenda items. Correct.
[2:22] Old business.
[2:24] None.
[2:26] New business.
[2:28] Can we uh
[2:33] You can just reference the case number
[2:34] if you want,
[2:35] >> but can we just do this one first so she
[2:39] can be out of here and go back?
[2:40] >> You want to do that? You want to alter
[2:42] it?
[2:42] >> Do the
[2:43] >> Sure. guest lodging first. You bet.
[2:45] >> Okie do. We're going to go to uh
[2:49] SUP00004-26
[2:52] to operate a guest lodging establishment
[2:54] Airbnb at 6 Herszog Lane, a single
[2:58] family residential structure.
[3:03] Okay.
[3:06] As the chairman said, um there's been a
[3:09] request for an Airbnb
[3:12] uh at a single family residence located
[3:15] at 6 Herszog Lane. And in your packet,
[3:18] you will find the application. you'll
[3:20] find my report and some additional uh
[3:24] photographs, an aerial photograph of the
[3:26] property and uh current photographs of the house and kind of the parking
[3:33] area yard area there as well. Um
[3:40] so currently the property is located in
[3:42] an R1 single family uh residential
[3:45] zoning district. Um the property uh does
[3:49] meet all the requirements
[3:51] um that we have for uh guest lodging
[3:55] including parking. Uh I have spoke uh
[3:58] it's a blank document in your packet but
[4:01] I've spoke with the fire chief and the
[4:03] police chief on on this item and they
[4:06] have no issues or concerns with it being
[4:09] an Airbnb. Um, the applicant is present
[4:13] tonight. If you have any questions uh
[4:16] for her, but um if you got any questions
[4:19] for me, I'll be glad to take them. But
[4:21] it meets all the requirements per our
[4:23] municipal code.
[4:31] As you can see in the picture there,
[4:32] there's plenty of plenty of parking to
[4:34] be be there. And
[4:36] >> well that [clears throat]
[4:37] you know about off streetet parking I
[4:39] don't know how I mean if it really plays
[4:42] any factor into that but horizontal lane
[4:44] is not a city street so I don't know how
[4:47] that falls in
[4:49] >> as far as requirement of off streetet
[4:51] parking well so if you go down to the
[4:54] end of their lane and look in one of
[4:55] those pictures that shows the garage
[4:58] there's
[4:59] >> more than ample parking so it's you know
[5:01] not that we want them parking on
[5:03] >> what appears to be City Street, right?
[5:06] >> But I doubt they will. If they're going
[5:07] to access the home, they're going to
[5:09] want to park down at the end by the
[5:11] building. Anyway,
[5:13] >> anybody questions, comments? Lee, do you
[5:15] want to say anything?
[5:18] If anybody has any questions, I'll be
[5:20] happy to try to answer them. I'm not
[5:23] being uh disrespectful, but I'm getting
[5:26] over like a good tour. So,
[5:29] >> understandable.
[5:30] >> The swimmer in me is struggling to
[5:33] breathe the water.
[5:34] Anyway, I'm getting better.
[5:37] >> Okay. Can you hear me?
[5:38] >> Yeah.
[5:40] >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
[5:44] » Are you planning on having like a
[5:46] mixeduse like it's going to be
[5:47] somebody's residence part of the year
[5:50] and then an Airbnb the remaining part or
[5:53] is it fulltime in Airbnb?
[5:56] >> Uh what kind? Okay. It's going to be,
[5:58] you know, my sister Lynn and my brother
[6:01] Mike
[6:02] >> and I we the three of us own the we kept
[6:04] it the house after mom and dad passed.
[6:07] And so we pro the last 15 years or so
[6:10] we've just been renovating it and and we
[6:13] use it predominantly now just for family
[6:15] functions like a herthod Christmas
[6:18] party. But those of you that that grew
[6:21] up here, you know, that house was always
[6:23] one that was very open and everybody
[6:26] came and ice skated and, you know,
[6:29] always ate and D. So, we thought, you
[6:31] know, it would be really good if we
[6:33] could, you know, offer it as an Airbnb
[6:36] just once or twice a month, very
[6:39] minimal. Uh because we still we still
[6:41] use it. Uh but that's kind of you know
[6:45] our theory or what we want to get out of
[6:48] this is uh and if you guys get up that
[6:51] way you should really come by especially
[6:53] of you that grew up here because it
[6:54] really does look good a lot of the time
[6:57] and energy mostly my brother Mike and
[7:00] Lyn did. Uh but anyway, yeah. So, not
[7:04] anything major, not a lot of vehicles. I
[7:07] try to drive up there a couple times a
[7:09] week and I know Mike's in and out of
[7:10] there and but does that answer your
[7:13] question?
[7:14] >> Yeah.
[7:15] >> Was there anything from any of the
[7:16] neighbors?
[7:17] >> No. No.
[7:19] >> Nobody has responded.
[7:23] » There's no other questions from the
[7:25] board. I would like to make a motion to
[7:27] approve with the conditions listed in
[7:29] the staff report.
[7:31] Second.
[7:32] >> I [clears throat] have a motion in the
[7:33] second. Do a roll call, please.
[7:37] >> Okay.
[7:39] Um, Chairman Roth,
[7:41] >> yes.
[7:42] >> Commissioner Kinsky,
[7:43] >> yes.
[7:44] >> Commissioner Euing,
[7:46] >> yes.
[7:47] >> Commissioner Donovan,
[7:49] >> yes.
[7:49] >> Commissioner Grass,
[7:50] >> yes.
[7:51] >> Commissioner,
[7:53] >> yes.
[7:53] >> And Alderman Prince,
[7:55] >> yes.
[7:57] >> Oh, thank you.
[7:58] >> Congratulations. appreciate
[8:02] >> and that goes to window.
[8:03] >> Now, am I excused? Oh, I do. I
[8:06] >> You can go. Yes.
[8:08] >> I'm going to go watch Missouri's first
[8:10] meeting.
[8:11] >> So, that that'll go uh to the first
[8:14] reading.
[8:15] >> Uh [clears throat] on the 24th, I think
[8:18] 24th.
[8:19] >> 24th is the correct date.
[8:21] >> All right. Good to see all of you.
[8:23] >> Thank you. Good luck.
[8:26] >> [laughter]
[8:26] >> We'll go to SUB 005-26.
[8:33] » Okay, this is our subdivision U progress
[8:38] point. Um,
[8:42] so [clears throat] this is is really the
[8:43] final plat. Um,
[8:46] exempted out of this plat really is the
[8:50] infrastructure plans. So the
[8:51] [clears throat] infrastructure plans are
[8:53] I'd say probably
[8:56] at 90% I think is a comfortable number
[8:59] there. Uh Mary, if you want to say
[9:02] whether that's about the right number or
[9:04] not, I don't know, but we're we're
[9:05] there. We're right there.
[9:07] >> Um but all of the utility settings and
[9:11] everything are on this plat. They'll be
[9:13] recorded with this plat. Um it wasn't
[9:17] too long ago that the city owned the
[9:19] property. We divided uh the property up
[9:22] as as part of a plat that that was
[9:24] previously before the commission. And
[9:27] this is taking that plat and
[9:30] incorporating it in and dividing
[9:33] everything up into 137 home lots plus
[9:36] the common ground. [clears throat]
[9:38] This also includes
[9:41] um some all the infrastructure that's
[9:43] going to be the cities to uh maintain
[9:46] and use and then also uh trails and the
[9:52] um playground as well.
[9:58] And so the folded up version that was in
[10:00] your packet was the packet or was the
[10:03] one that I printed off earlier this
[10:05] morning. And uh then we had uh a
[10:08] revision uh due to some factors. There
[10:11] was some um correction of of spelling on
[10:16] items and um dealing with getting the
[10:20] assignments correct. Nothing to do with
[10:24] what is regulations from the city
[10:27] standpoint. It's more of making it
[10:29] correct to get it recorded.
[10:32] That be a fair statement, Mary?
[10:33] >> Yeah, that's correct. We're constantly
[10:35] just looking over the past to make
[10:37] revisions or anything put together just
[10:39] correct things.
[10:41] >> So none none of those items were issues
[10:44] that uh were concerns of the cities and
[10:47] it not meeting uh the requirements
[10:50] before we brought it to you. Uh, but I
[10:52] just want to let you know the ones
[10:54] laying flat is the latest greatest copy
[10:56] that we'll take uh before
[11:00] the board of alderman and then from
[11:02] there uh if it's all approved then we'll
[11:04] have it recorded at that point.
[11:09] » So they were able to add 10 building
[11:12] lots I guess from the last time cuz I
[11:14] thought it was at 127. So it's always
[11:16] been at 137.
[11:18] >> I think it was higher than that before.
[11:20] It was almost 200 was 173 at one point.
[11:23] >> Yeah.
[11:24] >> And a lot of that's happened because of
[11:28] um the air vents and property going away
[11:31] from that and uh any of the sinkhole
[11:34] properties out there. We got to maintain
[11:36] a distance away from those. So that's
[11:38] what they've come up with to reduce it
[11:40] down. It's been 137 since really since
[11:42] I've been on board.
[11:49] Is there still a storm water management
[11:51] plan that come forward?
[11:53] >> Yeah, there there there is a SWIP plan
[11:55] that's in the the documents with the
[11:58] infrastructure drawings
[12:04] and it
[12:06] I don't think we have any outstanding
[12:08] items whatsoever on the SW plan cuz it's
[12:10] in place right now. Uh they they
[12:13] currently have a land disturbance permit
[12:16] and we're using that swip plan which is
[12:18] approved by the city to do that land
[12:21] disturbance
[12:23] >> and then that will just carry on.
[12:24] >> The storm water management plan was
[12:26] coming before us yet.
[12:29] >> It's part of the whole infrastructure
[12:32] package. So what you're looking at
[12:34] tonight is just the approval of
[12:36] >> So we get to look at that yet before
[12:42] Okay.
[12:43] >> Yeah.
[12:43] >> Well, no. In the meeting with
[12:46] >> the first meeting we had with this Happy
[12:48] said that the storm water management
[12:51] plan had to come before us yet.
[12:55] >> I don't remember what he said, but yes,
[12:58] the So, you've got water, sewer, swift,
[13:02] [clears throat] um, all that sidewalks
[13:04] and streets that Robert mentioned
[13:07] earlier is about 90%. The SW plan though
[13:09] is done. Yeah, Swift fans complete.
[13:11] Yeah, we're operating off of it right
[13:13] now. And essentially, it's more related
[13:16] to operational of while the
[13:20] subdivision's being developed of how all
[13:23] that storm water is managed, how we
[13:25] don't prevent, you know, how we're
[13:26] preventing runoff, not allowing it out
[13:28] onto the streets or into any um
[13:32] waterways that are coming in and around
[13:34] the property and materials not getting
[13:36] off site.
[13:39] You have it.
[13:41] >> It shows up on the progress point plate
[13:43] two. It says storm water management.
[13:45] We're looking at
[13:49] here.
[13:51] >> Well, is there an actual storm water
[13:53] management plan?
[13:54] >> Here it is.
[13:55] >> That's so
[14:02] right here. We got it.
[14:04] >> And at the top of the page, you
[14:06] >> happy said that that would come before
[14:08] us because I questioned storm water
[14:10] management when we wanted approval on
[14:14] the subdivision in the beginning and
[14:18] he said that the storm water management
[14:20] plan would have to come before us.
[14:21] >> Juny, what page is that?
[14:23] >> But it's at the bottom right hand
[14:26] corner.
[14:29] >> Sheet three of seven.
[14:33] It can, but not unlike the water and
[14:35] sewer
[14:36] >> management going down the slope and
[14:41] » on the other side of parks common ground
[14:44] and then is a little further in.
[14:46] >> Yeah. So that storm water uh management
[14:49] reserve area, that's what you're talking
[14:50] about.
[14:51] >> Yes.
[14:52] >> Yeah. Yeah. So that's that's those are
[14:54] like the detention type areas. Um that
[14:58] that's when it's all said and done. and
[15:00] the thing is developed, those will be in
[15:03] place for all the storm water to go to
[15:05] those and be managed from that point.
[15:08] And the develop or not the developer,
[15:10] the um
[15:13] subdivision organization
[15:16] uh has and that's that information is on
[15:18] the very first page. They will maintain
[15:20] those and be responsible for those. Now,
[15:24] we do have access rights through this to
[15:26] access that as a city to make sure they
[15:28] are maintaining it. And that's part of
[15:30] uh my department's job to make sure that
[15:32] they're doing that. And we have access
[15:34] to be able to make sure that they're
[15:36] maintaining all those. And all those are
[15:38] designed to not let any more water off
[15:41] of the property than prior to
[15:43] development.
[15:50] But the actual SWIP plan that we're
[15:53] operating off of doesn't really take
[15:56] into account at this point in time for
[15:59] what we're doing out there now. Doesn't
[16:01] take into account those detention bases
[16:06] because they're not they're not in
[16:07] operation until we build them.
[16:13] But I most certainly can I mean I can go
[16:15] get the swip land right now. It's in a
[16:16] great big roll in there. But
[16:19] >> yeah, if you want to. It's right there
[16:20] in my mind.
[16:21] >> I'm not sure what happened or even I
[16:24] said at one point, but those plans all
[16:26] have to go through Cochran and Robert's
[16:30] office to be approved per code.
[16:32] >> What you're approving is the layout.
[16:35] >> My question is when we had that first
[16:38] meeting
[16:40] on this subdivision, there was an
[16:42] engineer here and I don't know who all
[16:44] and I questioned storm water management.
[16:46] [clears throat] Happy said that that all
[16:48] comes to us later.
[16:51] The storm water management
[16:52] >> take a look at it. But it would have to
[16:53] go through Robert's approval and
[16:55] Cochran's approval. What you're
[16:56] approving is the plat.
[17:00] >> So D saying we have authority to approve
[17:03] or disapprove of the storm
[17:04] >> of the storm water plan or the water
[17:07] plan or the sewer plan.
[17:09] >> So that's beyond our review.
[17:12] >> Yeah.
[17:14] >> You want to add to that? I'll go grab
[17:16] it.
[17:17] >> Yeah, I mean it's uh you know those are I mean obviously I'm I'm not
[17:22] an engineer but that's why we have
[17:24] Cochran as a secondary uh to review
[17:28] those between them and myself. Um
[17:31] you know I'm I'm a flood plane manager
[17:34] so I deal with flooding a lot which is
[17:36] caused a lot by storm water.
[17:37] >> I ran public works for years.
[17:40] >> Sure.
[17:41] This property where this is going on a 4
[17:44] inch rain.
[17:46] >> This whole thing was underwater and
[17:48] crossing Parkwood Drive. Taller than a
[17:51] fire hydrant.
[17:52] >> Yes.
[17:54] >> Because of so much water that comes off
[17:56] of this side of Progress Parkway.
[17:58] >> Gotcha. Is this the
[18:03] I was one of the big ones that was open,
[18:05] I think. But
[18:11] » question did much of that common ground
[18:14] that 10 acres along progress was that
[18:17] unusable because of the terrain.
[18:23] Yeah. So that's where where it drops off
[18:25] progress. that drops steep off and then
[18:27] there's just a small section that's flat
[18:28] before you hit that
[18:31] uh
[18:33] I'm going to call it a creek channel cuz
[18:35] that's actually that's actually how it's
[18:37] shown on the storm water uh improvements
[18:41] is um not storm water improvements but
[18:44] it's it's shown as a as a creek
[18:59] Sure.
[19:12] So here is the beginning page of it.
[19:18] So this is one page one of their SWIP.
[19:21] So with their SWIP, it deals with
[19:23] everything from um like I said, keeping
[19:27] runoff and keeping material from going
[19:29] out onto the streets. So they'll have a
[19:32] gravel entry area. They have what they
[19:34] call a wash down station. Um they'll
[19:38] have uh facil toilet facilities, trash.
[19:42] They'll have a uh concrete lined uh
[19:45] container. So, we're not going to dump
[19:48] concrete spoils out along the
[19:50] properties. They'll be dumped in a in a
[19:52] managed containment system, so there
[19:54] won't be uh concrete water even washed
[19:57] out onto the ground. Um they will have
[20:01] uh temporary detention basins in place
[20:05] that then will become permanent
[20:07] detention basins at that point. So
[20:09] you've got the big one to the north. So
[20:11] it's going to catch all that water from
[20:14] uh if we're essentially looking at at
[20:17] your maps there uh a long lot maybe like
[20:22] 76 and 62 if you can see the lot numbers
[20:25] on your on your plans there. Mhm.
[20:28] >> So from there up is all going to drain
[20:31] to the northeast corner of the property
[20:35] and there will be a big detention basin
[20:37] there and then that uh will hold the
[20:40] water and let it out at no faster rate
[20:43] than it was coming across that area
[20:45] prior to development.
[20:48] And then also these sink holes that are
[20:51] shown on here also take on uh some storm
[20:56] water drainage as well from the west
[20:58] side of the property.
[21:03] So the very next page is those lots that
[21:05] I just mentioned south. So there's a
[21:08] large detention basin that you can see
[21:10] on on and that's the one that you
[21:13] mentioned earlier that was on that page.
[21:16] um that'll that'll be a sediment basin
[21:19] as well. And again, it dumps all the
[21:22] water gets directed down that way and
[21:25] gets dumped off. And then it all of that
[21:27] will then that rate that's not supposed
[21:30] to be any more than prior to development
[21:33] will come all the way south of the
[21:35] property
[21:36] and filter out just as it does now.
[21:40] >> It goes this way now.
[21:41] >> Mhm. cuz here's where it comes under
[21:44] Progress Parkway and it goes to a
[21:46] sinkhole up here.
[21:49] So the the difference from elevation
[21:52] from here to here is tremendous. So I
[21:55] don't know how it's getting to a
[21:56] sinkhole that's up here
[21:58] unless it's underground
[22:01] cuz this goes uphill like that to the
[22:04] north as you come from south.
[22:06] >> Okay. Then it comes around here and goes
[22:08] >> Yes. It it it kind of comes around this
[22:10] direction. drain in this direction is
[22:11] drain in that correct direction. Yeah.
[22:13] This all goes from the property you were
[22:14] talking about on this side of of
[22:16] Progress Parkway comes through here.
[22:19] Yes. All the all the corn stuff on this
[22:20] side comes around and wraps and goes in
[22:22] between here and the arch dascese
[22:25] property.
[22:27] >> Okay. I do want to reiterate you have
[22:31] [clears throat] perview approval over
[22:34] easements and access and layout all
[22:37] those things just not over the
[22:40] engineering specs involved. Does that
[22:43] make sense? Okay.
[22:46] >> But that well okay we'll just go with
[22:48] that. All right.
[22:54] But I can I can I can copy these and
[22:58] send these uh I'm more than happy to
[23:00] send these to you all so you can you can
[23:02] take a look and so you can see what's
[23:03] going on there and what's going to be in
[23:05] place. That's not a problem.
[23:08] Obviously, they won't be this big, but
[23:11] you can zoom in and and look at all of
[23:13] them for sure.
[23:20] Okay, back to where we were.
[23:24] If there's no further questions, I would
[23:26] make a motion to approve.
[23:30] I have a motion.
[23:32] >> I'll second.
[23:32] >> I have a second. Roll call, please.
[23:36] >> Cher Ross.
[23:38] >> Yes.
[23:40] >> Commissioner Kinsky.
[23:41] >> Yes.
[23:43] >> Commissioner Yuing.
[23:45] >> Yes.
[23:47] >> Commissioner Donovan.
[23:48] >> Yes.
[23:48] >> Commissioner Grass.
[23:50] >> Yes.
[23:52] >> Commissioner Latrell. Yes.
[23:53] >> And Alderman Lison on Prince.
[23:55] >> Yes.
[23:58] » And that passes unanimously.
[24:05] » Okie do.
[24:08] Brings us to general discussion of
[24:10] possible additions andor amendments to
[24:14] the land use section of the St. Genevie
[24:16] Municipal Code. So, I have I have a few
[24:19] items here. Uh, but I'm going to cut it
[24:21] a little shorter and kind of split it
[24:23] up. Um,
[24:25] basically what I want to talk to you all
[24:27] about is, you know, I've been here uh
[24:29] roughly 5 monthsish now, and there's
[24:33] several things that that that come up
[24:35] and keep showing showing up. So, these
[24:37] are items that [snorts]
[24:38] uh with your all's permission, I'd like
[24:40] to put together a list uh of these items
[24:45] and send them to you and let you look at
[24:48] them and review them so that at our next
[24:50] meeting, we can go over those items and
[24:52] you can kind of look around in your
[24:54] areas or around town to see that you're
[24:56] seeing what I'm seeing. And to give you
[24:58] a good example, I included a photo, an
[25:00] aerial photo at the very end of your
[25:02] packet
[25:04] that's not from here.
[25:06] And I'm not going to tell you where it's
[25:08] from, but obviously you can see what
[25:09] county it's in.
[25:11] >> So, if you look down at the lower left
[25:13] hand side, uh, where it says 460,
[25:16] that is a single family dwelling. So,
[25:19] you can see how much of the lot that takes up. And you can see how much
[25:23] grass there is in that lot. And you can
[25:26] kind of see a theme that's starting to
[25:28] pick up. The house to the north at 462
[25:31] is kind of starting to do the same
[25:32] thing. And if we jump across the
[25:35] alleyway there at 383, it's kind of
[25:39] starting to do the same thing. [snorts]
[25:40] So,
[25:41] >> [clears throat]
[25:41] >> um, those are kind of things that are
[25:43] cropping up here as well. So, we're getting too much lot coverage. Um,
[25:49] >> don't we have a code on percentage?
[25:51] >> Yeah, we do on rear yard only, not on
[25:55] the entire lot.
[25:56] >> Oh, okay. So, I thought it was the whole
[25:59] lot.
[25:59] >> Yeah. It's 30% of your rear yard.
[26:02] There's not a whole lot coverage amount
[26:04] unfortunately. At least not that I've
[26:06] been able to find anywhere.
[26:08] >> So was included in that table.
[26:09] >> Do what?
[26:10] >> I thought it was included in that table
[26:12] that's at the front of the chapter.
[26:13] >> There's not it's not a it's not a whole
[26:14] lot coverage.
[26:17] Um, so the other part of of all of that
[26:21] is um
[26:24] when you have these accessory buildings
[26:25] like a garage, a shed, and you start
[26:29] putting them close to the house, we got
[26:31] a regulation. It says if they get within
[26:33] 10 ft, less than 10 ft of the house, so
[26:35] if it's 9 ft 6 in away from the house,
[26:38] it's considered part of the house for
[26:40] zoning purposes. So that means it has to
[26:42] meet the setbacks the same as the house.
[26:46] And we we've got a lot of structures
[26:48] that that aren't that way. We're also
[26:51] getting structures that are put on
[26:53] vacant lots that are right next to
[26:58] the lot with the house on it. And you
[27:00] can't have an accessory structure like a
[27:02] garage on a vacant lot without a main
[27:04] house. So to do that, you can still do
[27:07] that. There's a couple different ways.
[27:08] one you build across the lot line that
[27:10] connects them together zoning wise or
[27:13] you get them officially that lot line
[27:14] gotten rid of and then you can put the
[27:16] garage there. So it's going to be things
[27:19] similar to that. So I'll make a list and
[27:23] let you guys go over it and then at the
[27:25] next meeting we can kind of kind of go
[27:27] through those. Um
[27:30] the the big one uh really um is and it's a topic that probably most people
[27:38] uh either you like it or you don't like
[27:40] it. Um all the cities I think are
[27:42] dealing with it and it's something that
[27:44] we're going to start [snorts] going to
[27:45] need to get a handle on before somebody
[27:48] does ask about it. We need to start
[27:50] looking at uh developing regulations for
[27:52] data centers.
[27:54] We need to get ahead of the game so that
[27:56] if somebody comes and wants to do one
[27:58] because right now a data center here is
[28:00] not defined. So literally somebody could
[28:03] fill this building that we're in right
[28:04] now with servers and really that's a
[28:06] data center.
[28:07] >> Mhm. [clears throat]
[28:08] >> And it's going to take a lot of cooling
[28:10] even though it's the building of our
[28:11] size. So you know if you have a house
[28:14] that's right next door to all that you
[28:15] might not want to hear that right. So,
[28:17] we want to make sure that we have the
[28:19] appropriate things in place so that if
[28:22] somebody is looking at doing that, they
[28:23] can look at our rules and regulations
[28:26] and go, "Oh, I come there, this is what
[28:28] I'm going to have to do." They know what
[28:30] to expect
[28:31] >> as soon as possible.
[28:32] >> Yeah.
[28:33] >> Well, have you looked at the Perryville
[28:35] regulation?
[28:36] >> Yes.
[28:37] >> Okay.
[28:37] >> Yep.
[28:38] >> Cuz I mean, what Pville did was they saw
[28:42] this as an issue.
[28:44] >> Yep. and they enacted a regulation
[28:48] kind of on a hurry up basis. Yes.
[28:50] >> And then they said, "Well, we need to
[28:52] tighten it." Not necessarily because
[28:56] there was some developer out there, but
[28:57] just because they realized that they
[28:59] needed to tighten it.
[29:01] >> And then they have tightened it again.
[29:04] >> Right.
[29:04] >> And I uh
[29:07] >> I think time is of the essence.
[29:10] >> Yeah. And and so even and so even if
[29:14] >> you know our regulation was not perfect,
[29:17] it's better than nothing. Yes.
[29:19] >> At least initially and we could do what
[29:21] Perryville's do doing. And I think
[29:24] Perryville's
[29:26] regulation
[29:27] has got a lot to commend itself for in
[29:31] particular with regard to noise because
[29:35] through a fortunate
[29:38] happen stance, the city attorney
[29:43] was in the Navy and was an expert on
[29:45] sonics and so basically wrote the
[29:49] regulation so that it regulates both
[29:52] noise and tonality. And tonality is
[29:54] basically the spikes. No, noise is the
[29:57] average decibels and tonality focuses on
[30:01] the spikes. And as I'm sure you can
[30:03] imagine, you can have a generally low
[30:06] level. But if there's a sudden loud
[30:08] piercing sound, it's quite annoying no
[30:12] matter how generally low the level might
[30:15] be. So I I think we need to move on
[30:20] this.
[30:21] >> So the the administrator and I have
[30:24] attended uh some meetings and and
[30:26] classes hearing kind of from both sides
[30:28] of of of the deal and like you said,
[30:30] we've gotten Perryville's uh ordinance.
[30:33] So, um what I'd like basically to tell
[30:37] you all that that we're gathering those
[30:40] items to make rules and regulations and
[30:42] I kind of like to do the same thing as
[30:45] what I just described before. We'll put
[30:47] some stuff together. Are you going to
[30:49] put down put together a proposed
[30:51] regulation? Okay.
[30:53] >> Yep. So that way we can you guys can
[30:55] take that and and view it and we can put
[30:58] things in, put things out and and come
[31:00] up with something that gets to something
[31:03] we feel comfortable with at this stage
[31:06] and then like you said if there's
[31:07] something we need to change we can
[31:08] always change it.
[31:10] >> Wasn't Perry County also looking at that
[31:13] so it doesn't move out in the county?
[31:14] >> No. the problem. Perry County,
[31:17] so I've been up to a lot of the
[31:19] meetings. Perry County is taking the
[31:22] position that there is nothing that the
[31:24] county can do. They there are other
[31:27] counties in Missouri that have done
[31:30] moratoriums, 6-month, one-year
[31:32] moratoriums. They have not been
[31:34] challenged in the court yet as to the
[31:36] validity of the moratoriums.
[31:38] The Perry County Commission doesn't
[31:40] believe it has the authority to do the
[31:42] moratoriums.
[31:44] There are other things that counties can
[31:46] do, but right now the legislature hasn't
[31:50] spelled them out. Like you may recall
[31:52] anything,
[31:53] >> pardon?
[31:53] >> Has our county looked at it yet?
[31:55] >> To my knowledge, no. But it's somewhat
[31:58] similar to when the uh silica sand mine
[32:02] was proposed out towards Han and Wine
[32:06] Garden. And there are things that a
[32:09] county can do, but they would be
[32:11] primarily focused on public health. So
[32:14] the silica sand mine was delayed and
[32:17] ultimately the developers decided to
[32:19] walk away from the project, but it was
[32:21] delayed based on a health department
[32:24] regulation
[32:25] that was combined with a county
[32:28] commission ordinance. They were
[32:30] basically identical, but the health
[32:31] department had the power to make the
[32:33] regulation and the ordinance basically
[32:36] imposed a penalty should one violate the
[32:39] regulation. So there are things I I
[32:44] think frankly Perry Countyy's a little
[32:46] bit wrong. I think there are things that
[32:48] steps a county could take. Now there is
[32:51] hope that when the legislature resumes
[32:55] they will spell out what counties can
[32:58] do. I'm not aware of our county doing
[33:00] anything at the present time. The other
[33:03] thing that Perry C Perryville said was
[33:08] they would be keen Pville would be keen
[33:12] on annexing a county property. So, if a
[33:15] farmer on a property just outside the
[33:17] county or the city boundaries wanted to
[33:21] sell his property to a data center, but
[33:24] wanted the data center to be subject to
[33:26] some level of regulation, the city of
[33:29] Pville, or at least the city
[33:32] administrator said he would be in favor
[33:36] of an of that sort of annexation. I
[33:39] don't even know if that would possibly
[33:41] apply, but you know, our great my great
[33:44] fear is right now, for all I know, a
[33:47] farmer is being offered
[33:49] >> Yes.
[33:50] >> you know, $100,000 an acre for property
[33:54] in the county that abuts the city.
[33:59] » So, I think
[34:01] those are issues we need to move
[34:04] quickly.
[34:04] >> Yeah, definitely. I think, you know, cuz
[34:05] if if somebody wants to do something
[34:08] like that, they're going to want to know
[34:11] upfront what's expected of them.
[34:13] >> Mhm.
[34:13] >> And we want to we want to ensure
[34:17] ourselves and citiz the rest of our
[34:19] citizenry that we're we're doing what's
[34:22] best for them. Even if we end up with a
[34:25] data center or somebody, whatever
[34:28] community it is, that all the things are
[34:30] in place to to be able to
[34:35] Well,
[34:36] >> sorry. I'm going to back in here.
[34:38] >> I would really
[34:40] commend looking at the Perryville
[34:43] regulation, the latest incarnation of
[34:45] the Perryville regulation cuz that
[34:48] >> some of the provisions may be challenged
[34:50] in the law and you know, a developer can
[34:52] do that, but at least that they're
[34:54] there. They basically have a provision
[34:57] that says there will be no
[34:58] non-disclosure agreements.
[35:01] >> Yep.
[35:01] >> In connection with the development.
[35:03] Yeah,
[35:03] >> we also have a provision that says if
[35:06] the developer abandons the project,
[35:08] they've got to restore the property back
[35:10] to its original value or sell it to the
[35:13] city for a buck if the city wanted it
[35:16] back for a buck. So, I [clears throat]
[35:18] mean I think that that I think I don't
[35:21] believe in reinventing the wheel. So,
[35:24] there may be there may be tinkering on
[35:26] it. For instance, Pville believes that
[35:29] the only possible location for a data
[35:33] center of any sort of magnitude would be
[35:35] in Pville's industrial park. There may
[35:38] be locations that we have in our city
[35:41] that would be suitable for a large scale
[35:46] if not a hypers scale data center that
[35:48] are not in the Pville Industrial Park.
[35:51] And so we may want to look at
[35:53] >> yes
[35:53] >> some different approaches, but at this
[35:56] >> well that that goes back to my example
[35:57] of having it in a in a building like
[36:00] this. If we have a a building a
[36:02] warehouse building that's available but
[36:04] it's not in the industrial park,
[36:06] >> right?
[36:06] >> Then we want to have something there
[36:08] that
[36:10] >> regulates that or doesn't allow it at
[36:12] all or whatever we determine that's
[36:14] going to be.
[36:16] >> Okay. But that's that's what I'm looking
[36:18] at is is uh getting your your guys'
[36:21] input and we'll present something uh
[36:24] Dave and I will work on on this and
[36:25] we'll pre present something to you guys
[36:27] and that way we can get it moved from
[36:29] here up to council or up to the board of
[36:32] alderman and go on from there.
[36:35] >> Well, but just to be clear, we have not
[36:38] received or been contacted at all about
[36:40] any data center
[36:42] >> proactive
[36:42] >> anything. It's all a proactive approach.
[36:45] Yeah,
[36:45] >> I wouldn't be opposed to a special
[36:47] meeting if you have the regulation.
[36:49] Yeah. Okay.
[36:50] >> Do we ever address container homes?
[36:55] >> Do you think there's a need to? Well, so
[36:58] they would have to meet the building
[36:59] code regulation and uh the a container
[37:04] home is not um it would have to have uh
[37:09] some unique ch it would really have to
[37:11] be designed by an architect with the
[37:14] license from the state of Missouri to be
[37:16] allowed because it it's not able to be
[37:19] constructed under the residential
[37:22] building code. So it it would be unique
[37:25] in that
[37:27] >> because it doesn't fit the model code,
[37:30] then it has to be engineered. So not
[37:32] that there wouldn't be uh requirements
[37:34] for that. It would it would still have
[37:36] to meet your minimum building code
[37:37] requirements, but as far as supports and
[37:40] things like that, that'll be the
[37:42] engineered side of it.
[37:44] >> But uh sizewise, um it it might even it
[37:49] depends on what size container you got.
[37:51] If you got one of the large the 40ft
[37:52] containers, it's bigger than what a tiny
[37:54] home would be and actually would meet
[37:58] the spacing requirements for a a home.
[38:00] >> Well, I mean, just seen some of them on
[38:02] TV. They stack them and cut them and you
[38:04] know that.
[38:05] >> Yeah. All that would have
[38:06] >> cool stuff out of them.
[38:07] >> Yep. Yep. I've seen them stuck in the
[38:09] ground sideways. So, um you know, at
[38:12] angles. So, but all that would be
[38:14] engineered and if somebody wants to do
[38:15] that, we're we're more than glad to take
[38:17] a look at that.
[38:20] Going back to the buildings, um, we're
[38:23] already, if y'all will consider like the
[38:25] historic homes where
[38:27] things are too close, but your insurance
[38:29] says that's not part of your house. You
[38:32] got a shed in the back that's maybe 5 ft
[38:34] away, living on Main Street in his home,
[38:38] and my insurance company says that is
[38:40] not the house. I have to separately,
[38:43] >> so I can't see the city telling me it's
[38:46] part of the house. Well, it's just for
[38:48] zoning only, not building regulations.
[38:51] So, per for per zoning requirements,
[38:54] it's for setback purposes. That's what
[38:56] it's there for. It's not to regulate
[38:58] construction or anything like that. It's
[39:01] simply
[39:02] >> that makes sense, but you can tell me
[39:03] more about it later.
[39:04] >> Okay.
[39:05] >> Yeah. It's kind of one of those things
[39:07] like um uh Commissioner Kinsky
[39:10] mentioned. Um most of these if you look
[39:12] at planning zoning regulations through
[39:15] out cities in Missouri it's uh St.
[39:18] Genevie didn't reinvent the wheel when
[39:20] they made that requirement. Most
[39:23] [snorts] of the cities around here have
[39:24] that exact same requirement. U not that
[39:27] that's right or wrong but they they have
[39:29] that same requirement. So um we're
[39:32] looking at tweaking those whether it's
[39:35] one way or the other. That's why I'm
[39:36] bringing it to you guys to be able to
[39:39] make those decisions.
[39:46] And that's all I've got. All
[39:48] >> other than two pages of notes, that was
[39:50] it.
[39:51] >> Yeah, cuz I I really don't want to get
[39:53] fully into the rest of them. We'll be
[39:54] here a while. So, I can I can put them
[39:56] all on that sheet and and you guys can
[39:58] look at them.
[40:00] >> Excellent.
[40:03] Motion to adjurnn. Second.
[40:07] >> We got a motion and a second. All in
[40:09] favor?
[40:10] >> I
[40:11] >> opposed.
[40:13] Motion carry. Thank you.