Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council reviews petition to make two temporary school structures permanent at Fellowship of Wildwood

Wildwood City Council · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public comment and staff presentation, planning staff said two modular classroom buildings at Fellowship of Wildwood (Living Water Academy) sit on permanent foundations and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended allowing the structures to remain; council asked staff whether a review cycle or termination date should be included and will consider amendments at second reading.

The council heard a public hearing June 8 on a petition from Fellowship of Wildwood to amend its PRD and allow two temporary modular classroom buildings to remain on site as long as the school uses them. Planning staff said the Board of Adjustment previously authorized a temporary variance through 2027 and explained the temporary buildings sit on permanent foundations, inspected by St. Louis County, and are not visible from Route 100. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended retention and a legislative update to make the structures permissible.

Members of the public and council asked several questions: Anne Young expressed concern about precedent — whether allowing temporary structures to become permanent would open the door to more permanent premanufactured or tiny‑home developments. Jeff Krueger, representing the petitioner, said the request mirrors what was reviewed by staff and the commission and requested council approval. Staff described options including adding a required periodic review clause or termination/inspection date; staff recommended a five‑year review cycle rather than a 10‑year cycle if council wished to add an assurance to preserve building condition.

Council did not finalize a modification at first reading; staff noted that a second reading will be required and that the council could add a review clause at that time. Director Vunich suggested a 5‑year review cycle could be sufficient to ensure maintenance and safety.

What happens next: The ordinance will return for second reading, and council members can propose a review cycle or other limiting conditions before final adoption.