►
Description
October 15, 2014 - St Charles County, Missouri Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
A
A
A
Applications
heard
during
tonight's
meeting
will
be
voted
on
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
during
the
meeting
tonight.
Planning
and
zoning
commission's
recommendation
on
the
applications
requesting
a
rezoning
or
a
conditional
use
permit
will
then
be
submitted
to
the
saint
charles
county
council
for
their
final
decision
on
these
items.
The
individual
items
or
bills
will
be
introduced
on
monday
november
10th
at
the
county
council
meeting.
The
commission's
vote
on
these
plats
is
final.
Unless
a
variance
is
requested
or
the
plat
is
denied.
A
The
following
documents
are
introduced
as
a
matter
of
record
for
the
public
hearing
and
regular
meeting
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
unified
development
ordinance
of
saint
charles
county,
including
zoning
maps.
The
year
2025
master
plan
for
saint
charles
county,
which
includes
the
year
2025
future
land
use
map.
A
A
Our
agenda
tonight
we're
going
to
have
the
we're
going
to
read
the
application
and
the
staff
will
give
their
recommendations
at
that
time.
The
petitioner
will
will
be
asked
if
he
would
like
to
speak
or
not
speak
on
the
issue
and
after
that,
if
there
are
any
people
that
object
or
have
any
other
would
like
to
speak
on
that
condition
there
they
will
be
allowed
to
enter
their
opinions
and
anybody
speaking
sheila
has
some
cards
over
there.
C
The
subject
property.
It
is
within
the
park
trail
south
subdivision,
amanda's.
The
area
is
zoned.
Our
knee
with
a
pud
overlay
and
all
the
adjacent
properties
also
have
that
zoning
uses
in
the
area
include
to
the
north
single
family.
Residential
to
the
south,
as
common
ground
to
the
east
is
single-family
residential
and
to
the
west
is
attached
single
family
residential
villas.
C
C
A
revised
final
development
plan
must
be
submitted
to
and
approved
by
this
by
saint
charles
county.
All
pavement
on
the
site
should
be
removed,
with
the
exception
of
a
20-foot
wide
drive
to
accommodate
two
parking
spaces.
Only
one
entrance
to
park
charles
boulevard
south
should
be
permitted.
A
permit
from
the
saint
charles
county
highway
department
must
be
approved
for
the
removal
of
the
second
entrance,
and
the
structure
shall
meet
all
property
maintenance
and
building
codes
for
single-family
residential
structures.
So
we
recommend
approval
subject
to
those
conditions,
and
there
were
no
letters.
C
A
D
D
D
So
I've
worked
with
this
property
over
the
years.
I've
sold
it
as
a.
I
represented
the
the
sellers
for
a
day
care
and
it
was
sold
to
a
church
and
worked
with
it
for
various
years
and
just
recently,
we've
endeavored
to
sell
the
property
and
we've
looking
at
it.
You
know
just
throwing
out
there
at
the
market
whether
it
was
residential
or
commercial
and-
and
it
seems
like
there's
much
more
interest
and-
and
I
think
residentially
is
the
way
to
go
with
this.
D
Less
improvements
would
have
to
be
done
to
meet
the
county
as
requirements
and
as
far
as
conversion
and
and
I
think
that
would
be
much
more
satisfactory
to
the
neighbors.
So
as
we'd
like
to
do,
we
do
appreciate
the
staff's
recommendation
to
approve,
however,
the
parking
lot
having
there's
an
existing
parking
parkway
there.
D
That's
there
has
been
there
for
quite
some
time
and
with
all
due
respect,
we'd
like
to
leave
that
if
we
could,
for
various
reasons,
the
parking
lot
that's
there
now,
the
drive
lanes
have
been
there
for
quite
some
time.
Whoever
buys
us
as
a
residence
would
likely
want
to
put
a
garage
on
the
back
side
and
there
is
sufficient
area
on
both
sides
of
the
property
to
create
a
driveway
on
the
back
side,
and
but
we
don't
know
where
somebody
would
want
to
put
that
garage
if
they
would
want
to
put
it.
D
At
some
point,
they're
going
to
want
to
remove
that
as
a
residence
and
they're
going
to
want
to
have
a
front
yard.
But
to
have
them
do
that
now
get
it
all
prepared
as
a
residence
put
a
garage
in
the
back.
It's
just,
I
think,
that's
that's,
asking
a
great
deal
for
somebody
to
come
into
a
house
that
it's
not
a
conventional
house.
So
it's
going
to
be
somebody.
That's
can
has
a
vision
so.
D
Based
on
based
on
the
hardship
and
based
upon
all
that
hope
that
you'll
prove
this
as
a
resident,
single-family
residence
and
but
but
not
require,
and
also
the
the
highway
department's
got
to
require
to
remove
one
of
those
driveways.
So
that's
additional
steps
we'd
have
to
go
through
before
somebody
could
use
this
property
as
a
resident.
So
for
all
those
reasons
we
plea,
we
appreciate
that
we
get
this
approved
without
the
conditions
for
removing
any
of
the
driveway,
as
shown
as
it
is
today.
E
D
D
I
think
I
think
you
know
we
would
still
want
to
do
that,
but
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
more
difficult
to
find
a
buyer
who's
willing
to
pay
more
for
the
money
to
spend
the
money
to
get
it
improved.
To
do
that,
I
mean
you
know
the
seller's
got.
You
know
we
gotta
net
a
certain
amount
of
money
and
right
so
if
it
costs
more
to
get
it
before
they
can
move
into
it.
It's
just
a
function
of
economics
right.
I
just.
D
I
I
mean
yes,
I
think
that
that
you
know
we
want
to
go
residential
with
it
and
we
can't
sell
it
right
now
without
residential
without
having
this
contingency.
So
we
would
still
like
to
move
forward
with
that.
We
just
hope
that
you're
you're
lenient
on
that,
and
maybe
if
we
have
to
jan-
and
I
talked
about-
maybe
something
in
the
future-
perhaps
maybe
removing
it
after
a
period
of
time.
Okay,
I'm
just
trying
to
be
sensitive
to
somebody
wanting
to
move
in
there.
F
C
You
know
like
we
could
have
you
know
a
one
car
garage
or
or
something
like
that
if
you
wanted
to
within
the
pud,
so
you
guys
it's
within
your
power
to
do
that,
you
can
you
can
remove
those
conditions
and
then
the
plan
is
approved,
as
is
with
all
that
parking
out
front
of
that
place,
or
you
could
put
some
conditions
on
a
time
frame
when
you
want
the
parking
reduced
down.
You
know
to
to
accommodate
one
entrance
or
something
like
that.
So
you
have
like
three
options.
A
G
G
I
G
E
A
That
wanted
to
speak
discussion
amongst
us,
my
my
knee-jerk
reaction.
I,
if
you
look
at
all
the
other
homes
there
they
all
have
drives
driveways
and
which
I
can
understand
the
economic
impact
on
that,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
to
make
it
look
like
a
residence
back
to
where
the
rest
of
the
community
is.
A
A
It
would
be
a
clone
of
the
house
to
next
to
it
and
the
houses
that
are
in
that
cul-de-sac
that
swings
around.
It
would
be
farther
away
from
that,
but
I
would
think
some
my
opinion
is
if
somebody
would
come
to
an
agreement,
that's
reasonable,
put
some
type
of
time
frame,
leave
it
as
is,
and
then
the
rest
of
the
parking
spaces
be
removed
at
some
future
time.
Otherwise,
it's
gonna,
it's
gonna,
be
a
parking
lot
out
there
and
that's
my
opinion.
G
A
B
K
A
K
Jan's
comments
been
on
the
board
for
a
long
time.
We've
seen
this
property
time
and
time
and
time
again,
yeah
throughout
the
years
and
and
if
resolution
obviously
is
a
single
family
residence,
the
the
troubling
part.
I
think
that's
the
economics
that
he's
talking
about
here,
so
I
would
say,
let's
go
with
gary's
thing
and
put
a
two-year
hiatus
here
and
we
can
then,
when
this
comes
back
with
a
pud,
if
we
want
to
strengthen
it
or
weaken
it,
it
can
be
done
at
that
time
great.
A
H
A
E
D
E
D
E
F
C
C
K
H
H
A
C
C
C
There
was
a
court
case.
The
people
of
the
subdivision
said
that
the
approval
violated
their
subdivision,
covenants
and
restrictions.
It
went
to
court
and
you
have
a
copy
of
that
court
finding
and
that
that
the
that
the
subject
that
the
amendment
to
their
sub-region
covenants
that
prohibited
the
splitting
of
watts,
was
not
a
legal
subdivision
amendment
to
their
subdivision
covenants.
C
So
therefore,
that
subdivision
the
court
ordered
that
we
approve
that
subdivision
re-subdivision
plot,
and
so
when
we
subsequently,
we
have
approved
four
other
resubmission
plans:
the
the
property
just
to
the
east
of
this.
This
one
is
a
re-subdivision
plat
and
there
was
also
resubdivision
plat
across
the
street.
From
it
the
the
plat
meets
all
of
our
requirements
and
staff
is
recommending
approval.
A
I
Good
evening,
I'm
david
diamond,
I
think
the
committee
received
the
fax
my
letter.
The
law
firm
is
the
traffic
law
headquarters.
I
faxed
it
yesterday.
I
believe
we
also
mailed
the
original,
but
you
probably
didn't
receive
it
today,
but
I
oppose
the
resubdivision
of
the
of
the
lot
and
I'm
referring
to
the
original
declaration
and
covenants.
I
I
The
judge
ruled
against
the
amendment
covenants,
but
the
original
says
that
the
lots
cannot
be
subdivided
if
necessary.
You
know
we'll
file
for
a
real
re-hearing
and
you
know
if
we,
if
we
lose
we're
gonna
appeal,
but
we're
gonna
fight
this
as
far
as
we
can
all
the
way
if
to
the
supreme
court
of
missouri,
if
we
have
to,
but
I
believe
the
judge
ruled
incorrectly
in
2006.
I
L
G
H
H
E
K
Well,
I
remember
these
well
and
I
think
I
voted
against
every
one
of
them
when
it
came
through,
but
things
have
changed
somewhat
that
the
sewers
and
the
water
is
out
there.
Now
before
that
property.
Several
of
them
were
bought
on
a
courthouse
step
for
back
taxes,
and
it
was
straight
economics
like
let's
split
this
in
two
pieces
and
the
defendant
stood
right
there
and
said
he
was
going
to
build
a
house
there,
which
was
totaled
ballyhoo.
He
lived
on
a
golf
course
up
in
wentzville
and
he
had
no
plans
to
do
that.
A
F
C
A
C
C
C
the
the
from
what
I
understand.
There's
a
family.
That's
distributing
dale
can
probably
answer
this
more
than
I
can,
and
so
they
have.
I
shouldn't
say
that
they're
in
dispute,
the
the
people
who
are
going
to
get
the
rear
portion
of
the
property
don't
want
to
stub
street
to
it.
They
have
no
designs
on
further
subdividing
that
piece
of
property.
C
We
as
staff
think
that
you
know
we're
being
short-sighted
and
not
having
that
street
go
through
because
50
years
down
the
line
that
may
go
through
and
then
we've
got
troubles
and
you
know
if
a
house
gets
built
right
at
the
end
of
the
cul-de-sac.
The
street's
not
going
through
they'll
have
to
get
around
it
through
any
other
means.
K
C
The
this
portion
of
the
plaid
would
would
not
be
in
the
floodplain,
and
the
on
this
approved
preliminary.
The
floodplain
is,
is
down
in
this
area
with
three
acre
lots.
We
allow
portions
of
the
lot
to
be
in
the
floodplain
when
this
came
to
us
a
few
years
ago.
It
had
on
the
current
flood
maps.
It
has
a
lot
more
flood
plain
on
it,
but
it's
unstudied
flood
unstudied
a
zones,
and
so
now
we
have
the
new
d
firms.
C
Eventually,
the
the
to
the
topography
of
the
site
is
such
that
that,
even
if
they
built
at
the
end
of
this
cul-de-sac,
they
aren't
going
to
be
in
the
houses
will
not
be
in
the
flood
plain
because
there's
a
topographic
change,
of
course
down
to
the
to
the
flood
area.
So
I
mean
it's:
it's
not
really
an
issue
any
longer
on
this
planet.
C
C
C
J
I
could
mention
something
to
me:
the
magic
words
are
landlocked
parcel
in
the
back,
so
a
landlocked
partial
is
going
to
be
created
in
the
back.
It
is
technically
going
to
have
an
access
easement,
so
you
can
get
back
to
it,
but
it's
the
access
easement
is
so
long
from
the
main
road.
Is
it
ever
going
to
be
economical
to
build
a
street
that
long
out
to
that
landlocked
parcel?
E
E
L
Dale
walterman
landmark
surveying
802
east
main
street.
Did
you
swear
to
tell
the
truth,
and
hopefully
yes,
I
do.
The
this
was
belongs
to
the
areas
which
were
six
siblings.
So
I
that
pretty
much
tells
you
there's
a
problem
right
off
the
bat,
so
four
of
the
siblings
sold
out
to
the
two
of
them.
Okay,
the
one
in
the
front,
wants
to
develop
and
the
one
in
the
back
which
we
took
off
the
final.
Perhaps
she
doesn't
want
to
develop,
but
as
of
monday
she's
had
second
thoughts.
L
She
thinks
she
probably
really
would
be
in
her
best
interest
to
have
that
stub
street.
But
now
she
I
told
her
to
get
with
her
brother,
so
we
could
decide
on
this
and
they
haven't
decided
and
I've
been
sick
and
bad
for
the
last
two
days.
So
I
mean,
can
we
table
this
until
next
month
might
be
a
good
idea.