MOPR's   3/14/06  VP   P&Z   MTG  MINS


Notes:   Mtg started 7:03, adjourned 7:47 pm.  There were no agendas on the hallway desk.  Add'l MOPR abbrevs used here are in bold text directly below.


Present:   RH,  DC,  Betty Halker (BH), Jeff Schaub (JS), Roxanne Ruppel (RR), new Chairman Richard/Dick/Dixie Nicolas (DN), EM, JW, (Gary Seel absent/excused), TW, Scott Rue (SR).  (J Schaub, EM & TW are non-voting members.)


Audience:   LtM, TB, MMW, Kim Gardner (KG), (Amy?) _ of Coldwell Banker, Vivian Blackman, 2 unidentified men, Stephanie Reynolds, about 7:40 Dan Miller arrived.  


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  1 of  10


DN:  P&Z Cmsn, City VP, 3/14 come to order.  Ms sec'y, will u please call roll?  RR:  (see above +) Mr Gary Seel's been excused.  & the non-voting members will be JS, TW & EM.  Everyone's here except Gary Seel.  (Pledge)  ?: _ _ - ?:  Alright, how are u?  ?:  Good.  DN:  Is there any additions tonight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ add to the agenda?   ?:  Do u wanna delete something?  JW:  Mr Chairman.  DN:  Yes. 


JW:  Just uh I guess whenever u get down to your uh CPlan discussion, u might announce that uh the uh situation with Mr Blandford.  DN: Oh, ok, um u might wanna _  - JW:  Ok, I'll - DN:  _ _ _ _ - JW:  That's fine.  DN:  Uhh _ _ dev approval of (the Vance?) Forest Condos & give me that gentleman's name.  RR:  Kim Gardner.  DN:  Mr Gardner.  KG:  Yes, sir.  DN:  Come closer to us.  Please announce your name & phone # please. 


KG:  Uh name is Kim Gardner;  phone # is 314-842-9600.  DN: Tku.  ?: _ _ - ?:  Oh, ok.  ?:  Yeah, I (remember they approved?) the agenda.  ?:  Ok, accepted.  RR?: (Does that serve our purpose?)?  DN:  All in favor, say aye - (ayes).  Alright, go ahead & start. (pause) 


KG:  Oh, sorry.  Well, what I'm here for approval is uh for the Enchanted Forest Condo Project at uh 903 Forest Ave.  This is a uh project that uh, uh involves 36 condo units;  it's uh 3 bdgs in the - this 1st phase that I'm requesting approval for - uh that's six - uh 3 bldgs with uh 4 units per floor, 3-story bldgs.  There would be 1 entrance off of Forest Ave & uh the uh pkg right now is just under 2 units per uh per - I'm sorry - 2 pkg spaces per unit;  the apartmt is for 1-1/2.  So we're, we're exceeding the pkg requiremts.  The uh, uh entrance will have a, a gate, um be concrete uh columns & a fence along the front of the property.  The uh bldgs are um, uh frame structures with a uh peaked roof;  uh, uh 1st floor is brick & the 2nd & 3rd floor would be a uh vinyl siding.  Um it will be landscaped with uh (side or site?) lighting.


& um the price point uh is $140K per unit.  Uh originally we were looking at uh $90 to 100K per unit uh, uh facilities & the bd had requested that we would move that up & looking at the market, it appears that $140K is a uh good solid price to uh to come in at.  


Uh the uh, the, the dev or the bldg itself will also have add'l brickwork added which would be uh front 4 columns;  those will all be brick-faced.  Um we have uh the uh MSD in front for a sewer connection.  Uh AmerenUE has got their power poles running along our side of the uh street with uh 3 different voltages so we have no problem with getting electric power there.  There will not be gas run to the bldgs;  they will be all-electric units & um there will be a water main extension thru MO American Water Co to get uh water svc out to the site.  Altho there is a water main on the other side of the street, it's not sufficient for fire protection.  So we uh are increasing the uh, uh water main size.  Um const is uh ready to begin upon uh approval of the bd. 


Uh u may have noticed that there has been some activity at the site.  This is unrelated to the condos.  What we're doing is trying to remediate the conditions that are at the site.  Uh u may be aware that the uh the site in 1999 or thereabouts was uh, uh filled & we subsequently were uh - & we'll get that designated as not being in the floodplain.  However, when that fill was placed, it was not placed in an exact - an eng'd manner;  it wasn't compacted.  So we've uh tried to uh remediate that condition by uh excavating those existing soils & recompacting 'em into uh an eng'd, um, uh into a uh - I should say recompacted in an eng'd manner with a 95% compaction level of, of grading.  & uh we're about half way thru it except the rain which just recently uh came upon us.  


& I believe that gives u a pretty good overview of the project.  Did u have any ques's related to that?  If, if I might, while, while u're thinking about that, I'd like to hand out 2 different uh docs.  The 1st is the front page of the bldg plans & it'll give u an idea of what the bldg looks like.  Then I'd also like to hand out a uh, uh doc that shows what the bldgs themselves look like with a uh architectural rendering. 


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  2 of  10


TW:  Mr Chairman.  DN:  TW.  TW:  Mr KG, uh originally I think when u'd been previously approved at subsequent times - I can't recall what's been approved, but um - JW?:  Hu-hum.  TW:  we had contemplated a grant fund for Forest Ave reconst.  Well, that contemplation is now here upon us & I'm sure u're probably aware of it.  KG:  Yes.  TW:  & we have bidded that job.  We are gonna move fwd to a uh - hopefully MODOT will concur with our bids that we rcv'd so that we can move fwd with the reconst of Forest Ave in the Spring or late Spring, May.  Um I would ask that u - because I know that at various stages of your site plan u had different elevations & a lot of different entrance locations - I would ask that u contact Ryan Klug of my ofc to obtain any updated uh drawings that u may or may not have incorporated so that we can make sure that we match grades properly now that both projects are potentially at the cusp of moving fwd.   


KG:  Uh that's a good point.  I have already contacted your ofc actually & gotten the latest plans - TW:  Right.  KG:  & I'll be providing those to the surveyor who will be laying out the entrance.  Uh my plan is to NOT construct anything permanent at this point until Forest Ave is completed.  Any asphalt connection to it would be considered a temp asphalt connection & then a final permanent asphalt would go in once the final Forest Ave pavemt is in place.


TW:  'cause, 'cause I want it to be clear that now that we got the road - potentially is, is there, it may proceed some of your bldg & maybe in conjunction with - I wanna make sure that now we've established those road grades & we don't change those road grades - that we match YOUR stuff to the approved drawings from MODOT that require some adjustmt in the grade elevation in that area.


KG:  Right, I'm aware that uh Forest Ave's uh grade will change slightly from what it is now.  TW: Right, in that area slightly as u move uh up & down there, it varies & quite a bit in some cases another 2 or 3 ft.  KG:  Right.  TW:  So, I just wanted to make sure that on - for, for the record, we uh coordinate & make sure that his final site plan does match the road grades as approved & designed by MODOT. 


KG:  There's, there's one other related item.  I'm planning to have that water main extension const'd during roughly the same time period so we don't have Forest Ave const & then water main - TW:  Right.  KG:  const running in a separate uh time wise & we get it all done & not disturb the area any more than is necessary.  TW:  We, we will have a pre-const conf when MODOT allows that to happen which all the utilities will be invited to that mtg.  So if u have some of those plans with MO American, please make sure that they bring those plans to the mtg, those proposed plans to the mtg that we will be having, I'm told will be within the next 3 wks -  KG:  Ok.  TW:  so that that can be discussed in front of the contractor so that he can fit that into his schedule because we have staged const in various parts along uh Forest Ave.  So that has to be worked into them.  In other words, we don't want the contractor to be slowed down by something that they already have bid on.  KG:  Yes, right.  TW:  Tku, Mr Chairman. DN: Yes, sir.


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  3 of  10


BH:  I have a ques.  DN:  Go ahead.  BH:  It's been so long since we've talked to u.  Uh did we not at some point request a turning lane?  KG:  No, there was no need for a turning lane due to the traffic.  Uh there was a traffic study done & there's no need to have a turning lane for this dev.  BH:  With an add'l  70 some odd automobiles?  KG:  Well, they're spaced out during the uh the day uh so there was no major traffic impact as a result of this dev.  BH: That's (insanity?) _ _ _ _ _.  KG:  In the ord, there was the requiremt for a traffic study to consider whether it's - a traffic sign or a turning lane would be necessary.  BH:  Did we ever see the traffic study?  KG:  Uh, it was, yeah, it was submitted to the eng & was reviewed.  It was - a study was performed. ?:  _ _ -


SR:  I got a ques. DN: Yes _ - SR:  Um we had discussion last month about bldg types & designs & this & that.  Something come up last month at our mtg about incorporating more of a scenario to your, to the bldgs.  Um would u be opposed to brick in the front of the - in the bldgs that u have - brick _ _ _  - u show the 1st floor, uno as far as brick in the 2 fronts, to the fronts on all 3 bldgs? 


KG:  Um well, the uh, the 1st floor is, is brick & what I have added is that the columns would be brick.  So I've added uh an add'l uh 3 stories of brick columns to the face & that's on both sides of the bldg.  SR:  Oh, it is on both sides?  KG:  _ just one side.  That'll be on both faces of the bldg.  These - the bldgs, the way they're designed is that there is a front on both sides;  there's no back to the bldgs.  SR:  Ok.  KG:  So what u're looking at is both the front & the back.  ?:  _ _ _ _ok.  ?:  Yes.  DN:  Anybody have any more ques's?  DC:  I've got a few. DN:  DC.


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  4 of  10


DC:  Well, I'll start off here. (train starts whistling)  Didn't the original prelim plan have a - show 6 or 7 units?  KG:  It showed 6 units in the 1st plan & at that time we were talking about the phasing of the uh project due to the uh, uh the need to get FEMA approval for the 2nd phase.  DC:  Have u got approval for the 2nd phase?  KG:  No, & that's why tonight I've only submitted for the 1st phase.  I'm currently in design with uh Horner & Shifrin to do the uh hydraulic analysis & uh & get the approval from FEMA for the 2nd phase. 


DC:  Well, I'm not in favor of doing a phase - in phases.  We get hung up every time we do anything in phases & uh I think the Phase 2 should be eliminated from this dev plan - KG:  Well, just for - DC:  & then when u get ready to do the Phase 2, u come back in & submit what u're gonna do, how u're gonna do it.  We're, we're sayin' we're gonna approve a Phase 2 plan (& ex-see?) nothing.  & u can come back in here at a later time as most of 'em do when things do - lookin' - just, just whatever they want & say uno - we've got, we've got hung-up a couple of times on things - 2 ops.


KG:  If, if I could, um I, I'm not requesting for Phase 2 & I would be glad to specifically have it noted that there is no approval for Phase 2.  I'm only submitting tonight for that 1st phase.  The reason that we're still usin' the phasing, it's, it's just convenience uh more than anything because that's the wording that was originally uh, uh used at the uh early submittal - uh early uh bldg plan approval. 


Uh what happened is uh we're running at some issues & trying to do just what u're saying - is to have exactly what's going to be done in Phase 2 put on the plan so basically, there is nothing in Phase 2 showing on these plans.  When u look at that, u'll, u'll only see 3 bldg & the only references that there's attached line & it shows where Phase 2 will be.  But uh there's no request in front of the bd & I did plan to come back in front of the uh the cmsn for approval of the 2nd phase because there will be some changes & there's a lot there to look at for that 2nd phase, so that would be uh the plan.  


DC:  Have u rcv'd uh a LOMR (Letter Of Map Revision)?  KG:  Yes, I have the LOMR for Phase 1;  yes, that's been submitted.  That's - the 1st part of this project is all out of the floodplain.   DC:  Uh & u're removing this elevation is uh excavation up there & reusing that dirt.  That has been approved by the COE or whatever, the EPA & everybody?  Then has the waste concrete been removed of it? 


KG:  The - right now, the, the waste concrete hasn't been removed.  We're just pulling that out &, & stacking on-site.  I, I don't know how much we're going to be ending up with.  Some of that can be used as uh a fill material;  some of it is not useful.  Um we're working with uh Brucker, uh his geotechnical eng, to uh have him decide what can be put back in & what cannot.  Uh the material that we're taking out is um, uh it won't - doesn't involve the COE for uh permit requiremts.  & uh it does require a Land Disturbance Permit from DNR.  We have that.


DC:  & u will be - probably submitting all these compacting things to DNR, city eng & the cmty dev dir for their analysis as well as whatever your technical people _ - KG:  Oh, yes.  Uh we've been having some uh good results.  We dug it out, uh we were fortunate to find that is all good clay material in there altho there is some concrete mixed in.  & uh the original soils, while I expected them to be uh almost worthless, it turns out that they're very good clay soils that are in place & very well compacted.  We uh dug down about 6' thru the existing soils in addition to the uh 30' bores that were performed & uh the geotechnical uh eng had reviewed that, done his uh testing on that material & uh we've since backfilled the lifts & been getting 95 to 98% compaction.  We're also adding a hydrated lime with the uh clay to dry it & harden it.  So we're gonna have a good solid foundation.


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  5 of  10


DC:  Uh there's a 4" water line u said there's a - the uh at uh American Water Co - there is another water line there at W on your plans - KG:  Yes.  DC:  Is that the new water line?  KG:  That's the new uh water line extension.  DC:  What size is that?  KG:  12".  DC:  12". 


On also, on the prelim plans there was a landscape berm along Forest Ave.  I see some type of maybe elevation in there & landscaping but is that berm uh actually been taken out?  Is there no - KG:  No, that's the - the berm is - it's still showing on the grading plan.  It's still part of the project u all see.


 DC:  I - we don't have any elevations here at Forest - what we've seen except for uh (no, we didn't have?) - & then it's been so long since I've seen this thing, I don't really remember what - (but or what?) I just remembered.  Uh on the plan here, u only have one trash enclosure for these 3 units.  Uh is there any way that u could put another one over by one of somewhere that would - I'm kind of uh worried about the trash.  I mean u'll probably be hiring somebody else to do this but one, the trash enclosures are all _ _ -


KG:  Well, um that was a ques that was uh difficult to come up with initially & I had uh discussions with waste haulers to find out what they would rcmd.  & the final rcmd was for 2 uh trash units for 72 units & uh only needing one for the 1st 3 bldgs.  Um uno u look at & uno what's convenient for the owners - u don't wanna have them walk too far to have to get their trash out but at the same time, uh trash facilities are things that are hard to maintain.  Uh they're subject to a lot of abuse with the haulers coming in, the lids getting knocked off.  So um what I had opted for was the single ones that would be larger in size as opposed to putting 2 of 'em in.  It just seemed like that would be a cleaner look to the overall site & still met the uh the trash needs for that type of facility.  DC:  Well, it looks like there may be room down there on one end of that pkg lot down there on that uh let's see, south, southwest corner down there _ _ _ _.


KG:  If, if I might uh uno I'm gonna be very conscious about what that dev looks like & if we have, as we go thru the 1st uh part of the dev, & we'd see that one of 'em is not sufficient, it's not a problem to put in an add'l trash enclosure.  & as a result of the uh the way this is laid-out, I should have over 2 units - 2 pkg spaces per unit uh when we're completed.  So it won't be a problem to find the space to add add'l trash enclosures. 


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  6 of  10


DC:  Another ques I have here on the outlet to the - from the uh det pond there, I guess this det pond - is it been already approved by the MSD?  U got approval on it or is _ _ - KG:  Well, I have approval of everything thru MSD except for the $14K that I have to spend & I didn't wanna spend $14K until I got my final plan approval.  So uno there's a little bit of a, uh, a catch there.  I have all the design - everything u see has been approved by MSD with the det basin, the outlet structure, the uh the outfall into the creek, all those parts.  


DC:  Uh the only thing that I think that possibly - u have this 10 x 10 rock, rock blanket in, into the uh - that (FDS4?) that flared-end section at (4?).  KG:  Yes.  DC:  But where that dumps into that swale into there, uh maybe u should put uh some rip-rap, some pretty good rip-rap in there for uh to keep that slope & everything from washin' away, especially when the creek comes up.  When the creek gets up in there it's liable to just take uno that - all that outta there - & maybe some large rip-rap in there - I'll say uno maybe, I don't know, maybe uh Tom could give u some idea maybe what u think about that rip-rap - uh rip-rappin' that uno that bottom of it is about 420, 422, 424 in there - rip-rappin' that so far out so we don't get any washin' when that comes over there.


TW:  Well - may I address _ - DN:  Sure.  TW:  Um gotta be a little careful, Dave, filling in that creek with certain materials that it might be - TW&??:  (not or knock?) (ground off?) - TW:  by DNR than if u didn't do anything.  That's just one cmt, uno because that rip-rap can be looked at by DNR as a fill material.  It's common.  Um maybe we could do a little more (in the sense of or extensive?) rock blanket/rip-rap up near the (FDS4?) - ?:  Yeah.  TW:  & be a little cautious of getting out too close into the Grand Glaize Creek area.  I certainly appreciate your cmts for that bank protection near & around where the flared-end sec.  DC: Right.  TW:  But I would caution us to go - uh insisting that he go all the way out into the 420 elevation because that's getting into the throat of the creek which is probably gonna be frowned upon.


DC:  Well, we did it over here on uno on our outlet structures on the levee.  We got them - we got them puttin' that rip-rap in there all around, in pretty thick - TW:  If I remember right tho, I think DNR had a big fit about it.  DC:  Well, I think DNR has a fit about everything, but uno what I mean.  TW:  Right, but I'm just sayin' that u will run into that same problem if we force him to do that. But if we're forcin' him to do it & on the other hand DNR's tellin' him that if u do it, u're gonna get your permit pulled.  I mean uno so he's gonna be caught, but I would say that we can require him to do a little more immediately around that flared end so that flared end doesn't settle. 


DC:  Right.  That's what I'm afraid of is when - if that creek comes up & goes over that 424 into that - down into that low 422, that's gonna be a lotta water goin' thru (at?) 426.  TW:  I guess - DC:  That's 2 or 3' comin' over the top of that & that creek ROLLS down thru there.  TW:  The berms DO show up on a copy that I have here of - in the front, there's 2 berms on Page 3. 


& then I think he also is showing a retaining wall _ site _.  I, I remember on the east side that there was some concern from the neighbors.  That they - DC:  About that retaining wall?  TW:  Well, that they wanted something besides a brick front.  So I guess he's addressed that there.  & then those berms DO show up going from - they're about 2' high berms, 435 contour up to uh - DC:  Yeah - TW:  437. 


& then on the page, I guess it's 7, there is landscaping shown on those areas.   DC:  Yeah, but I mean it showed that but it didn't show actually a berm or anything _ I - TW:  Yeah, the berm shows up on the Grading Plan.  DC:  But what - TW:  those long - DC:  Is that 3?  TW:  Pardon me.  DC:  That's on 3?  TW:  Page 3.  DC:  Ok.  TW:  So there's those long oval-shaped contours.  DC:  Right, I see it, yeah.  & the trees, trees are gonna be planted on that, on that berm, is that the, the idea of it?  KG:  The plan was to plant 'em on the berm so that they stood up a little bit higher up.  DC:  'cause I didn't see this plat, uno this plat here on the _ _.  Ok. 


I, I'm, I'm concerned about that flared-end section down there, gettin', gettin' washed outta that thing there.  Um there's a line in here that's got a question mark on it, goin' up thru there & I see that question mark on it.  What is that?  Is that the pole line, electric line that goes up on - along Forest Ave on, on that side road?  On, it's on uh Page 2 where the 5' sidewalk - oh & where the uh, where the uh (_someone coughs_) sanitary sewer line runs, there's a line there that's got - is that the pole line?   KG:  That, that's a mistake in the uh in the cat program.  It was supposed to come out as a letter E;  that's the electric line.  DC:  Ok.


TW:  &, & some of those poles - & I can't say exactly which ones - right now I don't have the Forest Ave Plans in front of me - but it's a possibility that one or two of those poles is probably gonna be relocated.  DC:  Back toward - back into the property line or - TW:  in, in the Forest Ave Project.  DC:  At the back - TW: _ _ - DC?: _ _ _ _ - TW:  _ _ we'd make sure that is coord'd with his designer.  DC:  Ok.  TW:  Make sure those poles remain in, in that spot because they may (move?).  It does look like the one pole in the NW corner of the project _ _ _ _ sidewalk.  That's awful close to the existing pavemt.  I suspect that pole might be relocated to the SE.


DC:  Now this - u're electrical uh goin' into this will be all underground;  it won't be any poles.  KG:  That's correct;  it's all underground svc.  DC:  All of it?  KG:  Yes.   DC:  Uh that's all I have now _ _. 


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  7 of  10


DN:  Anybody else then?  ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ _  - EM?: _ _ - JW:  I just had one - if u'll let me talk directly to TW.  DN:  Sure.  JW:  It's just u've overviewed - these plans agree with everything & u've seen no problem _ _  - TW:  Yeah, I mean we've reviewed 'em in several iterations & uh uno we have, we made - & our last letter basically says that we would rcmd that u would wait for MSD approval on the det pond & once that part uno -


BUT if u can make some kind of contingent approval, then I'm sure that he would spend the money to get the MSD uh permit - & I can certainly understand where he's comin' from - but if u made your approval contingent on the final MSD approval, then _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - JW:  Tku, Mr Chairman.


DN:  I (misstepped?).  I forgot to ask u earlier, uh u were talking _ _ _ const _ _ _ - KG:  Which const?  DN?:  Roof.  KG:  Oh the roof is uh shingles. It'll be an architectural shingle on the roof;  probably a uh green as is shown on that drawing, green color, to correspond  _ _ _ _.  DN: _ _ _ _ 108 uh pkg spaces?  KG:  The 108 will be - the final total with 72 units as a requiremt - but I should have 144 or probably about 148 I think is what I'm looking at for the final, both-phase const.  So right now, I have 36 units & I believe it was 68 pkg spaces.  So I'm just shy of having 2 per unit. 


DN: _ _ _ _ _ -  Can we go fwd on this, this (final?) dev plan & contingent on him coming back  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ accept the change _ _ _ _  & then _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - KG:  Well, it's, it's actually Phase 2 but Bldg 4, 5 & 6 & 3 other bldgs. 


EM:  Yeah, it, he, he submitted a Phased Plan under this &, &, & his ord contemplates it - his dev ord contemplates a phased dev if I'm not mistaken.  ?: _ - EM:  _ always been upfront _ sure.  He, he can do that.  Here's the way that the approval supposed to work & actually, this is more of an info'l item for the P&Z Cmsn.  Once it's submitted to the city eng for his approval, he goes ahead &, & transmits a letter to this bd, uh &, & its chairman is supposed to sign the letter.  But if he DISAPPROVES then there's an automatic appeal to this cmsn - EMorDN?:  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -


DN:  The reason I say it, because it was turned down by P&Z, it went before the bd with stipulations;  they bought the stipulations, they added their stipulations & then they came back with another ord that was, I think 6 mos old, maybe even older - EM:  Probably.  DN:  & then in here it says 72 units, which _ _ _ original _ _ Page 2.  Ok, (it said attention on there?).  Ok, I see it, alright, ok. 


DC:  Maybe I could straighten u out on this, Dick. This came to us back probably some time when u were on the bd.  DN:  Yeah, I remember _ - DC:  Submitted by Mr Rucci.  DN: Yeah, Rucci, right.  DC:  & that fell thru;  & then it came, Mr Gardner came here & we went back oh - in 9/23/03 this started.  & we went thru all this & then he was havin' it - wanted it rezoned from PDC.  We rezoned a piece - the prop back to P - from PDR to PDC because of another dev goin' in there with a comm type thing & we changed the ord back to PDC;  then Mr Gardner came in & wanted to change the PDR & we turned that down, denied that, the PDR leaving it at PDC;  & the BOA, uh we denied it & requested them to deny that & but they didn't.  They approved it & from there, I don't know what happened after that - they - right there, it just - that's -


EM:  Well, they, they passed an ord &, & that ord approved the prelim dev plan &, & now he's just submitting the final dev plan to the city eng &, & again - ?:  _ - EM:  this is REALLY _  info on it.  ?: _ _ _ _ _ - ?:  _ _ _ _ _ (footnote?) _ - EM?:  (The score is here?) & uh - ?:  I don't know that - if it's got - DN:  Ok - ?:  an ord - DN:  If there's - ?: _ _ - DN:  no other ques's, uh wanna move on to approval?  ?:  Alright _ -


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  8 of  10


DC:  I've got one other ques - DN:  Oh - DC:  just I forgot to ask _ - DN:  another ques.  DC:  When u add this 4, 5 & 6, are u contemplating to have to ENLARGE the det pool for those 3 other units?  KG:  Yes.  DC:  Ok, u - KG:  (at the?) - DC:  (wanna ADD?) another det pond or englarging the one that u have?  KG:  No, the one I have in there will be abandoned, actually it will be removed & a new one will be const'd.  DC:  Ok, ok. 


DN:  We have a ques from the aud, uh Mr White.  Mike White.  MMW:  No, I just wanted to, yeah, I'll, I'll speak real quick.  Yeah I just wanted ta, ta speak briefly & um as much as uh -  DN: _ _ - MMW:  My name's Mike White.  I live at Emmanual Ct in VP.  DN:  U're, u're Mike White;  what's your phone #?   MMW:  861-9064.  JW:  U gonna tell him u're an ald?  (they laugh heartily)  ?: _ _ - DN:  Ok, go ahead.  ?: _ - MMW:  Not unless he asks  - ?:  This has nothing to do with that.  (laughter continues)  ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ -  DN?:  U're in good graces.  MMW?:  Uh I'm gonna (blow-up?) down here.  (JW laughs heartily)  


No, &, & this has tumbled thru the bd & Mr Gardner has made uh many compromises & adjustmts including adding a lot of brick to the front.  Um I, I believe RH had requested the gating on the front, which he did & I believe that he's really made an effort ta make this a good project.  Um & I just wanted to say that he's been willing to work, work with uh the bd & everybody else to try to make it a good project &, & I don't see any reason that this shouldn't just continue to move fwd.  & that's all I really had to say. KG?:  Tku.


DN:  wbp?  JW:  Mr Chairman, I move approval of the final dev plan with the contingency of the approval from MSD.  ?:  I'll 2nd it.  DN:  Motion & a 2nd;  all in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Ayes have it.  Uh Item #6 - Mr Gardner, (my pleasure?).  KG:  Tku.  DN:  Welcome to VP.  (JW laughs)  KG:  Tku. 


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  9 of  10


DN:  Um, Item #6 on the agenda was the CPlan.  _ _, would u address this?  JW: Oh yeah, I just uh I guess more of announce that Mr Gene Blandford is no longer employed with PGVA {sic}.  So we're in a dilemma;  possibly he might work for another company & rep the city, so we might stay with PGVA & have another rep from them.  So the BOA is in a dilemma to decide which direction that they're gonna go.  & hopefully at the next bd mtg, a decision will be made & we can continue on & whatever!  Wish I had more info & I don't know any reasons WHY or guess it's none of our biz.  But uh there is a dilemma there that we're gonna have to deal with.  I think EM might have some info he might wanna share about the problems - ?:  Uh it - what's - ?: PGAV.


EM:  Right, I talked to John Brancaglione today & he wants to uh reassure the city that uh, uh regardless of WHAT we do, he said that uh he has plans to proceed if, if that's the direction the bd wants or if the bd wants to talk to uh (crackling noises of DC un/folding drawings)  Blandford about the city,  then he would support that.  So it's really - JW:  So they wouldn't release files & info or - EM:  Uhh that they would make it available - JW:  cooperate with him - EM:  Right.  JW:  if he would go to work for - somewhere else.  EM:  Right. 


DN:  I have a ques.  Uh TW, I am (going?) back to the (cot?) - (JW chuckles) - ?: _ _ -  DN:  Um don't u have a planner?  TW:  Uh - DN:  'cause I'm used to dealing with Zambrana & they had an eng'g firm & a planning firm.  TW:  Well, eng'g firms are made up of different types & not every eng'g firm has a planner;  uh as a matter of fact, most don't.  Uh we have architecture & eng'g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ those things.  Uh we have various stages (of our co?)  (_ _ _ _ DC/drawings noises _ _ _ _ _)  (not a?) planner;  so uh it's not out of the ques  (_ _DC/drawings noises _ _) support work going on (_ _ _DC/drawings noises _ _ _) & so I'm gonna support work on this contract.  So it's not out of the park (_DC rattlling drawings _ _) uh but I think it was recongnized early on that PGAV, their focus in the world is planning (_ _ _ _ _ _DC/drawings noises _ _ _ _ _) that's why they were chosen.  So a lot of eng'g firms claim to be planners, but in reality, they may not be the best planners that are out there on the market _ _ they, they do other things & they may try to have eng's do the planning but a true planning firm will focus-in on uh that type of work, so.


DN:  The thing really is u can't really decide.  I mean (which or Rich?)  - EM?:  Uh Boyd probably uh - DN:  Rich Henz - that's the one I met when we 1st started on the CPlan back in '86.  EM:  He used to be the head planning uh Dir of the City of StL & worked for a firm called (Dem_uous?).


TW:  (WVD - Warren Van Bride?) - ?: _ - TW:  _ & so did _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  kind of changes (involve or evolve?) - uno uh it's not to say that we won't be planners but uno uh I think true planning firms like PGAV _ _ _ _ & a few others that are like that are probably where u will find the best pool of planners.  That's because that's what they do every single day;  whereas an eng'g firm, u might have maybe a planning man one day & that same person may do eng'g work next wk;  nor are they considered truly an expert when they do that.  So that's - that part _ _ _ _.  It's just structural eng'g;  it's like anything else, uno if u do it every day u're probably better at it. 


DN:  Well, uh the mayor asked me a long time ago to get on this thing & I finally said yes & he said the 1st thing I want u to do is get this redev plan started & get, get something on the books because we don't wanna get hit with our pants down when those devrs come in.


TW:  Yeah & my, my take if u're asking for my opinion which it sounds like u might be - DN: _ _ -  TW:  um is that right now, I'd still consider that the city has a contract with PGAV & that they are considered GOOD planners & I think they're in & I think they even have an ofc in Kansas City.  & I think that probably - well, the mayor will probably be mtg with those folks very soon, PGAV, & they'll probably try to reassure him that someone NEW will be added to the project to keep the project moving.  From a continuity standpoint, that's probably the best for the City of VP.  


Now if that doesn't work out, then maybe Plan B is uno maybe Gene Blandford but I, I think that's for the mayor & the bd to decide.  JW?:  Right.  TW:  & uh certainly PGAV & the city have expended a lot of resources with them, so to throw all that away & start over is definitely not prudent.  So, but I think it's either gonna be PGAV or Gene Blandford probably.  Uh but I think, like I said, if the mayor meets with those folks & maybe one of the bd's members would (vote it down for the town?), uh that's fine, that's (in the interest of?) the City of VP.


DN:  Ok.  JW:  But u wouldn't rule out the possiblility of hiring _ _ _?  TW:  Well, the project uno we're pretty far into this project uh with them & I guess I wouldn't completely rule it out as long as that particular planner (happened to have?) some (problem or property?) in the project.  JW:  Well, that's where I was goin'.  TW:  Right.  I guess - JW:  (It's an idea?).  TW:  We're talking about this but uh it might better off in another conversation.  ?:  (That's what I think too?).  


TW:  I think PGAV - it happens to every company;  u part ways for a lot of reasons;  whether it's a project for the mayor or (any of u?), it's your job.  The contract's still with PGAV for right now.  That's - ?:  Well, they can fire me cause I'm a (taxpayer?) -  TW:  Yeah, I hope to be there some day. (JW laughs) 


3/14/06  P&Z - Sec  10 of  10


DN:  Uh I just got some other items uh I got uh Item 7, Chairman Update - uh I contacted uh more in the cmty since I talked to u of course at the last mtg & I got uh nothing but uh praise for us uh working out a plan on that uh redev'g the lower end & uh I got an ord that I drew up & it's in LEG tomorrow tonight er Thursday night.   & uh we talked about bldg type & then also (occupants?). 


Uh but I contacted O'Fallon & they had a problem with uh people coming in with no Green Cards.  Um they're shadowed by uh a contractor.  They're living in these roll-off dumpsters & uh they caught 48 of 'em;  thought they were comin' - crossing them off the job - replacin' em.  & uh so they, in, in, in the meantime, passed an ord similar to the one that I'm submitting & uh it will uh require that the contrator, in 72 hrs, uh has to uh submit the payroll records so that city money, cnty money & state money is used properly & taxes are paid.  Also, if they don't submit it, they, they stop the work.  So it will protect the city in the future for uh const that without the, the right credentials. Um -


BH:  (It's a chance for?) _ _ _ - DN:  Pardon?  BH: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - DN:  He's been askin' _ go get it.  That's, that's a grown man.  BH: _ _ they don't _ _ _ _ _they don't, they don't submit a separate payroll, (it won't work?).  DN:  Well, the payroll _ _ _ _ tried everything & couldn't get the contractor.  They uh - it was a Gundaker project & he kept saying that they had - that everything was A-ok & this went on for - on & on & on & finally uh the cnty stepped in & then the city stepped in, went out on the job & there was fights & people gettin' all over their cars - ?: _ _ - DN:  & (they called me?) & finally - ?: _ - DN:  shut 'em down.  They caught 'em in the bank & that's where it started.  So I _ _ (protect?) the city & this ord will help the city & help the cnty.  _ goes on the job & sees that workman being attacked by whatever - RH:  Aliens?  (Scott? laughs heartily) -


DN:  It's up in the LEG Cmte.  JW:  Mr Chairman.  DN:  Yes?  JW:  I'm in support of u on that ord; I'll get it in that mtg.  But uh a while ago u mentioned, check to see if they had a card - was that a Green Card or a union card?  DN:  No, a Green Card.  JW:  Oh, ok.  DN:  Um I think that's about all I've got except I would like to start _ (conduct compliances?) _ _ _ on your _. 


Alright, entertain a motion to adjourn?  JW:  So moved.  ?:  2nd.  DN:  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  That's got it!