St. Charles County Council tables Moser Place preliminary plat after drainage concerns

St. Charles County Council on July 28 tabled Bill 5401, an ordinance to approve the preliminary plat for Moser Place, after council members and a nearby property owner said the proposal lacks sufficient stormwater detention and could worsen existing erosion and flooding.

Councilman Baker, who said he inspected the site, urged the council to delay action because "the people have a drainage problem now, and it's only gonna get worse if we approve this current plan." He said existing downstream erosion has already damaged fences and that the developer's current layout leaves no room for required detention.

The issue drew public comment before the final vote. Resident Robert Lively, whose property sits behind the proposed development, told the council the project "is going to come in our subdivision and cause quite a bit of flooding." He asked the council to reconsider approval to avoid what he called "a lake in our subdivision."

Developer counsel Zach McMichael argued the council's ability to deny the plat was limited. McMichael, identifying himself as an attorney for Coke Park Group, said approval of a preliminary plat is "an administrative matter" under the county's Unified Development Ordinance and cited the Missouri Supreme Court's Furlong decision, saying if a plat meets UDO requirements "it is the ministerial duty of the commission and the council to approve it." He asked the council to adopt Bill 5401.

Council members debated whether the council could impose detention requirements even though the development reportedly falls below the 2 cubic-feet-per-second threshold that typically triggers a detention obligation. Councilman Hollander said the site's current design "is totally different" from an earlier concept and reiterated that he would likely receive constituent complaints if flooding worsens.

After discussion, a motion to table the bill was made, seconded and approved; the ordinance was placed on the table. No amendment to the plat was adopted at the meeting. Council staff indicated that changes to the plat would require resubmission by the developer.

Discussion-only points: council members raised existing downstream erosion, the absence of shown detention on the submitted plat, the practical limits of council discretion on ministerial plat approvals, and constituent impacts if the development is approved without additional stormwater mitigation.

Direction and next steps: the item was tabled pending further action by the applicant; staff confirmed the plat could only be changed if the developer submitted revisions.

Formal action: Bill 5401 was tabled; no final approval or denial occurred at the July 28 meeting.

The public record contains written and spoken comments about drainage and potential downstream impacts; residents and council members asked staff and the applicant for additional information before any final action is taken.