Minutes - Agenda

Transcription

Minutes - Agenda

AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000
7: 00 P. M.
1.
ROLL CALL
Mr. Richard Meyer, Chairman
Mr. David Bangert
Ms. Laura Bryant, Vice Chair
Mr. David Griege
Mr. Larry Kaplan
Mrs. Jill Schupp
Mrs. Linda Sher
Mr. Dudley McCarter, City Attorney
Mr. Scott Haley, AICP, Director of Community Development
Mr. Carlos Trejo, AICP, City Planner
Mr. Richard Heames, P. E., Assistant City Engineer
Mrs. Eleanor Glovinsky, City Council Representative
Mrs. Pat Rosenblatt, Secretary
w
Pursuant to Section 610. 022 RSMO, the Planning and Zoning Commission could, at any time during the meeting, vote to
close the public meeting and move to executive session to discuss matters relating to litigation, legal actions and/ or
communications from the City Attorneys as provided under Section 610.021( 1) RSM0.
2.
CONSENT BUSINESS
A.
1280 ANDES BOULEVARD
1266 &
REP:
1280 Andes Blvd.
MR. DUANE R. BURRELL
Sabur Surveying & Engineering Inc.
1751 Ashby Road
and 10850 Baur Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63114
314) 428 -1414
Re: Boundary Adjustment Plat
3.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
RETAIL COFFEE & "TEA SHOP
REP:
MS. DAPHNE McELROY
12324 Olive Boulevard
Special -D Coffees & Teas
Re: ( 1) Conditional Use Permit
Chesterfield, Mo 63006
P. O. Box 3829
636) 519 -8949
B.
TIPPINS RESTAURANT
REP:
MR. DANIEL M. LARSEN
Tippins Restaurants Inc.
Re: Minor Site Development Plan
Overland Park, KS 66210
7600 W. 110th Street, Suite 200
913) 661 -0669 Ext. 204
C.
HUNTERS POND ADDITION
308 Mosley Road
REP:
MR. TODD B. SCHEIBE. P. E.
Volz Incorporated
10849 Indian Head Industrial Blvd.
Re: ( 1) Final Subdivision Plat
2) Subdivision Improvement Plans
St. Louis, Mo 63132 -1166
426 -6212
r
D.
HBE BUILDING
0
REP:
MS. CARRIE BALDOCK
Voice Stream Wireless
St. Louis, MO 63141
314) 368 -8330
2) Site Development Plan
E.
DRURY INN
REP:
MR. THOMAS E. CUMMINGS. ES
Nextel Communications
One CityPlace Drive, Suite 100
St. Louis, MO 63141
314) 692 -6508
2) Site Development Plan
F.
TEXT AMENDMENT
REP:
MR. DOUGLAS M. BARON
Lowenhaupt & Chasnoff
Re: Section 26- 41. 5( a) -' PC'
10 South Broadway, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Planned Community District
314) 241 -5950
Minimum District Size
G.
BEL ARBOR
REP:
MR. MICHAEL BOERDING
The Sterling Company
Conway Road at Conway Pine
5055 New Baumgartner Rd.
St. Louis, Mo 63129
Re: ( 1) Final Subdivision Plat
2) Subdivision Improvement Plans
H.
SUMMIT LOFTS
314) 487 -0440
REP:
MR. ROBERT SAUR
Conrad Properties Corporation
652 Emerson
165 N. Meramec
Clayton, MO 63105
Re: Revised Site Development Plan
314) 721 -3202
I.
CITYPLACE
REP:
MR. THOMAS B. ROOF
TR,i Architekts
CityPlace Drive & Olive Blvd.
8251 Maryland Avenue, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63105
Re: Amendment to Site Concept Plan
314) 726 -9990
J.
CITYPLACE WEST
REP:
MR. THOMAS B. ROOF
TR, i Architects
CityPlace Dr. and Olive Blvd.
8251 Maryland Avenue, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63105
Re: Site Concept Plan
314) 726 -9990
5.
OTHER BUSINESS
A.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
REP:
MR. CARLOS TREJO, AICP
B.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
REP:
MR. DUDLEY McCARTER
C.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
REP:
MRS. ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2000
7.
ADJOURNMENT
0
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI
MA Y 15, 2000
A regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Creve Coeur,
Missouri was held on Monday, May 15, 2000 at the Creve Coeur Government Center, 300 North
New Ballas Road. The meeting was called to order at 7: 05 P. M. by Chairman Richard Meyer.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
d i
Mr. David Bangert
Ms. Laura Bryant, Vice Chair
Mr. David Griege
Mr. Larry Kaplan
Mrs. Jill Schupp
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. W. Dudley McCarter, City Attorney
Mr. Mark Perkins, City Administrator
Mr. Carlos Trejo, AICP, City Planner
Mr. Richard Hearnes, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
Mrs. Eleanor Glovinsky, City Council Representative
Ms. Amy Hauswirth, Communications Specialist
Mrs. Pat Rosenblatt, Secretary
AGENDA
Chairman Meyer announced that Tippins Restaurant and Bel Arbor Subdivision had
requested deferral from tonight' s Agenda.
2.
CONSENT BUSINESS
A.
Mr. Mike Sabur, Sabur Surveying, represented Malaco, LLC and Kamco Enterprises,
LLC in a request for approval of a Boundary Adjustment Plat for property located at 10850 Baur
Boulevard and 1266 &
1280 Andes Boulevard in the ' LI' Light Industrial District.
Hearing no questions for Staff, Chairman Meyer called for a motion on this item of
consent business. Mr. Griege responded by making a motion to approve the Boundary
Adjustment Plat, subject to the one condition in Mr. Trejo's report dated May 15, 2000. Said
motion was seconded by Mrs. Schupp and unanimously carried.
Chairman Meyer asked Mr. Trejo for a statement about the Comprehensive Plan
Workshops. Mr. Trejo stated the City had scheduled two workshops for the public - one
- to be
held on Tuesday, May 30 for residents west of I -270, and the one for the residents east of I -270
0
P & Z Minutes - May 15, 2000
0
will be held on Wednesday, May 31. These meetings will be held at 6: 30 p.m. in the
Multipurpose Room at the Creve Coeur Government Center. He stressed the importance of
attending these meetings.
3.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
4.
NEW BUSINESS
A.
RETAIL COFFEE & TEA SHOP
B.
TIPPINS RESTAURANT - ( Deferred
C.
D.
HBE BUILDING
E.
DRURY INN
F.
TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION 26- 41. 5( a)
G.
BEL ARBOR - (
H.
SUMMIT LOFTS
I.
CITYPLACE
J.
CITYPLACE WEST
A.
RETAIL COFFEE & TEA SHOP
by Applicant)
Deferred by Applicant)
Ms. Daphne McElroy, owner of Special -D Coffees & Teas, requested a Conditional Use
Permit for an eating and drinking establishment to be known as Special -D Coffees & Teas and
located in the Westgate Shopping Center.
Mr. McCarter pointed out that the accompanying Site Development Plan would also
need to be voted on, either separately or with the Conditional Use Permit application.
Mr. Trejo referred to his report dated May 15, 2000, a copy of which is hereto attached
and a part of these minutes, and stated that the location of the proposed retail space is south of
the former Casual Corner space and contains 1, 840 square feet rather than the 2, 330 square feet.
Ms. Bryant moved approval of the Site Development Plan, subject to the two
requirements per Mr. Trejo' s memo dated May 15, 2000 with a change to the number of square
feet from 2, 330 to 1, 840 square feet. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Kaplan and unanimously
carried.
Ms. Bryant made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to the two conditions in Mr. Trejo' s memo dated May 15, 2000, with a change to the
square footage from 2, 330 to 1, 840 square feet. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Bangert and
unanimously carried. The Public Hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2000.
B.
TIPPINS RESTAURANT
Upon a request by the Applicant, Mr. Griege moved approval to defer the Minor Site
Development Plan to the meeting of June 19, 2000. Said motion was seconded by Mrs. Schupp
and unanimously carried.
2-
0
C.
0
Mr. Mel Kosanchick, Volz Engineering, represented Johnson Development Company in
a request for approval of a Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans for
Hunters Pond Addition, 308 Mosley Road.
Mr. Kosanchick stated that they fully agree with the Staff comments and
recommendations. The proposal is for a four lot subdivision, which he stated are all in
compliance in terms of acreage, setbacks, and size.
Ms. Schupp questioned the width of Lot 2 and Mr. Kosanchick responded by stating all
the lots exceed the minimum requirement of 150 feet. Mr. Meyer asked for clarification of the
size of Lot 1 and Mr. Kosanchick stated that Lot 1 is 1. 12 acres. Mr. Trejo referred to the
concerns expressed at the last meeting by Mr. McLaughlin regarding landscaping along his
property line east of the subject parcel. He stated that Mr. Johnson has agreed to meet with Mr.
McLaughlin and discuss those issues. Mrs. Schupp remembered that a third of the existing trees
would be kept intact in the back of those lots. Mr. Kosanchick agreed, stating it will exceed the
City requirements as they have gone to great lengths to preserve as many trees as possible. Ms.
Bryant asked the developer to keep the equipment off the tree roots, and Mr. Kosanchick assured
her that the trees are a key to the development.
Mr. Griege made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Subdivision Plat,
subject to the eight items in Mr. Trejo' s letter dated May 15, 2000. Said motion was seconded by
Mr. Kaplan and unanimously carried.
Mr. Bangert made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kaplan, to approve the Subdivision
Improvement Plans, subject to the three items in Mr. Trejo' s report dated May 15, 2000.
Mrs. Schupp questioned the status of the escrow account for the placement of the
sidewalk along Mosley Road, Mr. Trejo replied that before construction begins, the cost of a
sidewalk will be determined, and that amount will then be contributed to the City by the
Applicant. Mr. Kosanchick agreed to an escrow.
Mrs. Schupp moved to amend the motion to include the requirement for a sidewalk
escrow. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Bangert and unanimously carried.
Chairman Meyer called for the vote on the main motion, as amended, which
unanimously carried.
This item will go before City Council on June 12, 2000.
D.
HBE BUILDING
Ms. Carrie Baldock, Voice Stream Wireless, requested approval of a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Plan to place roof mounted
communication equipment on the HBE
Building located at 11330 Olive Boulevard.
Ms. Baldock referred to Mr. Trejo' s report dated May 15, 2000, a copy of which is
hereto attached and a part of these minutes, and informed the Commission that there are
3-
0
0
currently two outstanding issues. The first issue pertains to the co- location requirement, and Ms.
Baldock stated they were awaiting responses from Ameritech and Southwestern Bell. The
second issue is the 150 ft. setback requirement from any residential structure, and Ms. Baldock
referred to a map showing that the property is more than 150 feet from the adjoining property.
Mr. Trejo concurred.
Ms. Baldock presented a photograph with antennas on the front of the building, and
explained that the proposed antennas will be located on the two sides in the back and will be
painted a color to match the building.
Mr. Trejo, informed the commission that the applicant has submitted a letter to the City
requesting co- location on the communication tower that is located at the golf course. He
anticipates that the City will be denying access to that location for reasons of not wanting to
extend the height any further than the existing height, which is located within the 1, 500 ft. radius.
He also stated that the applicant is working to provide a letter from HBE allowing additional
carriers to co- locate on the site, which must be submitted before the scheduled Public Hearing on
June 26, 2000.
Ms. Bryant made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit,
subject to the five conditions outlined in Mr. Trejo' s memo dated May 15, 2000. Said motion
was seconded by Mr. Griege and unanimously carried.
Mr. Griege made a motion to recommend approval of the Site Development Plan,
subject to the five items in Mr. Trejo's letter dated May 15, 2000. Said motion was seconded by
Mr. Kaplan and unanimously carried. The Public Hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2000.
E.
DRURY INN
Mr. Thomas E. Cummings, Nextel Communications, requested approval to place roof -
mounted communication equipment on the Drury Inn building located at 11980 Olive Boulevard.
After a brief summary, Mr. Cummings pointed out that the 39 ft. Ameritech tower was
structurally incapable of co- location and, due to the close proximity of the Drury Inn, they were
unable to locate their communication equipment on the Compact Building due to technical
reasons.
Mr. Cummings stated one reason for wanting to locate at the proposed site is to cover
the 270 and Olive Intersection and to offload traffic from their main sites, one at Olive and
Lindbergh and the other near Creve Coeur Mill Road. He presented some photo simulations
showing what the subject property will look like and pointed out the location of the antennas,
which will be painted to match the existing mansard roof. Mr. Cummings was aware that he
needed to document the proximity to residential buildings, but had not been able to schedule a
surveying crew to provide a signed and sealed drawing verifying that the location is greater than
the required 150 feet from the nearest corner of the Drury Building to the nearest residential
structure. He stated that he would be able to supply the City with this drawing before the Public
Hearing.
As noted in the Staff report, all equipment will be located in the equipment shelter. He
pointed out that there is a screen wall at this location which is in excess of 12 feet high, behind
4-
0.
0
which the communication equipment will be located. The equipment shelter is approximately 10
feet tall and will be located near the center of the building, which will make it invisible from
street level. Mr. Cummings stated there would be no signs or lighting except for a safety light on
the doorstep of the building.
Mr. Cummings was aware of the ongoing dialogue between Staff and Druco
Development regarding lighting and stated they have expressed to him their willingness to
cooperate with the City once the information has been analyzed. Mr. Trejo stated they know the
lighting issue for Drury Inn and the violations in terms of how the Code is interpreted but would
like to be able to address exactly what needs to be changed or accommodated. The owner is also
waiting for the quantification of the violation so that all parties can get together and solve this
issue. Mr. Cummings beseeched the Commission to pursue Option 3, so they can get the parties
together while this Conditional Use Permit process moves forward.
Ms. Bryant explained to the Applicant that a letter dated February 19, 1997, signed by
Susan Murphy, the Planning and Zoning Chairman, addressed to Terry Barnes at Druco,
contained the following verbiage: " By unanimous vote, the P & Z Commission disapproved the
lighting request, in order to maintain consistency in the application and installation of lighting
standards in the City, and some members expressed the opinion that a brightly illuminated
building of that height would essentially serve as signage." Ms. Bryant stated no one seems to
know how the requested lighting was installed when it was clearly disapproved. Mr. Cummings
responded by saying that until they received a letter in March of this year, they were unaware of
any violation. Ms. Bryant pointed out that Drury Inn somehow overlooked the letter they
received in February of 1997, which clearly denied their request for 48 ft. light standards. As a
point of clarification, Ms. Bryant pointed out that Drury was clearly denied brightly
illuminating their building to the point that it would serve as signage; she did not think they
put up 48 ft. light standards.
Mrs. Schupp pointed out Ordinance Number 1830 does not allow communication
equipment within 1, 500 feet of another tower and questioned the setting of a precedent if this
application is approved. Mr. Trejo stated this would set the standard in terms of what is
permitted as co- location and what is permitted from a technical point of view. He was desirous
of more flexibility in a commercial district and pointed out that communication equipment is
similar to mechanical equipment, which is not screened on roof levels. Mr. Trejo favored more
stringent standards for a residential district.
A brief discussion followed.
Mrs. Schupp questioned the possibility of the applicant going before the Board of
Adjustment for a variance based upon the hardship versus ruining the integrity of the ordinance.
Mr. Trejo directed attention to page 5 of his report dated May 15, 2000, a copy of which is hereto
attached and a part of these Minutes, and read from paragraph 2( a), which states that if roof -top
communication is located within 1, 500 feet from one another, the applicant has to provided
information to the satisfaction of the City Council that relocation elsewhere would not be
feasible.
Mr. Bangert asked the City Attorney if taking into account the physical constraint
damages the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. McCarter did not feel it would, but pointed
out that the burden is on the Applicant to prove to the Commission and City Council that they
cannot co- locate on another tower.
5-
0
0
Mr. Trejo informed the Commission that the City is scheduled to meet with the
consultant next week so they will know what needs to be addressed, beyond just shutting off the
lights projecting up to the building. In reality, Mr. Trejo felt 30 days should be sufficient time to
resolve the issue.
Ms. Bryant made a motion to defer the Conditional Use Permit to the P & Z meeting of
June 19, 2000 to give the City a chance to work through the Drury Inn lighting issue. Said
motion was seconded by Mrs. Schupp with the vote upon said motion as follows, to -wit:
Mr. Kaplan - nay
Ms. Bryant -
aye
Mrs. Schupp Mr. Griege -
Mr. Bangert Chair -
aye
aye
aye
aye
Ms. Bryant made a motion to defer the Site Development Plan to the P & Z
meeting of
June 19, 2000 to give the City a chance to work through the Drury Inn lighting issue. Said
motion was seconded by Mrs. Schupp with the vote upon said motion as follows, to -wit:
Mr. Griege -
aye
Mr. Bangert -
aye
Mr. Kaplan - nay
Ms. Bryant -
aye
Mrs. Schupp Chair -
aye
aye
Both items were deferred to the meeting of June 19, 2000.
F.
TEXT AMENDMENT - ' PC' DISTRICT
Mr. Douglas M. Baron, Lowenhaupt & Chasnoff, represented Charles Deutsch &
Company in a request for approval of a text amendment to the 'PC' Planned Community District,
Section 26- 41. 5( a), which would reduce the minimum district size of the ' PC' District from 40
acres to 15 acres.
Mr. Baron stated the amendment will lower the current minimum tract size in the' PC'
District from 40 acres to 15 acres, plus it would also eliminate the requirement that the tract is to
be developed by a single owner or developer. He presented a brief history of the ' PC' District,
which was created in 1969 to accommodate the 66 acre Westgate Development. Mr. Baron felt
it would be wise to reduce the size tract required in the ' PC' District in order to adopt a more
flexible and modern standard of a planned development of mixed uses; otherwise, he felt that
the' PC' District would never be used and the City would lose a valuable planning tools. He
compared the mixed -use developments of Chesterfield and St. Louis County, which he stated
have no minimum acreage requirements, with Maryland Heights requiring a 7. 5 acre minimum.
Mr. Baron pointed out that none of the cities have a requirement of a single owner.
0
0
Mr. Baron called on Charles Deutsch to briefly describe a project he plans to propose
for a sophisticated state -of t-he -art senior living facility. Mr. Kaplan felt the project did not need
to be explained when the actual request is for a text amendment. All Commission members
concurred. Chairman Meyer explained that the decision to approve the text amendment would
take place regardless of any proposed project; otherwise, it would appear that the text
amendment is being approved for a particular development. If the text amendment is approved,
Chairman Meyer stated it would be strictly for the betterment of the community.
Mrs. Schupp expressed concern regarding the request that the 15 acre tract would not
have to be developed by a single owner and presented examples of how that might be misused.
Mr. Baron pointed out that the property zoned' PC' would be subject to a Trust Indenture, with a
coordinated Site Development Plan.
Ms. Bryant asked for the definition of a " single owner." Mr. McCarter responded that
he thought a partnership of multiple individuals could be considered a single owner if it is legally
Ms. Bryant asked if 15 acres is reasonable. Mr.
incorporated in compliance with Missouri law.
Trejo replied there is no ideal standard, that Staff had recommended 15 acres based on what was
submitted by the Applicant. He felt the minimum size should be no less than five acres.
Mrs. Jill Kassander, 12121 Royal Valley Drive, asked the Commission to disapprove
the proposed text amendment. She felt reducing the acreage requirement to 15 acres would put
every neighborhood in Creve Coeur at risk, since there are many areas where a developer can
assemble 15 acres and crowd single family residential areas with a planned community district.
Mrs. Kassander expressed concern with the traffic that would be generated by a large
development and stated that it would be a shame if a development of the magnitude proposed by
Mr. Deutsch is allowed to go forward before the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is completed.
Mr. David Kassander, 12121 Royal Valley Drive, expressed concern with the impact
and precedent that a change of zoning will have on the City. He did not feel the City has had
enough time to evaluate the significant impact and precedent setting capability that would result
with the requested text amendment.
Ms. Bryant asked if sufficient notification was given, and Mr. Trejo responded that a
text amendment is citywide and does not require individual notification outside of the two
newspapers. When an actual location is identified, all procedures will be followed in notifying
all residents within 300 feet. Ms. Bryant stated she shared Mrs. Kassander' s concern with having
a land use plan in place, but felt a moratorium was not an option for the City.
Mrs. Schupp made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment to change
the minimum district size from 40 acres to 15 acres, subject to not eliminating the reference of a
single owner or developer. Said motion was seconded by Ms. Bryant with the vote upon said
motion as follows, to -wit:
Mr. Griege - abstain
Mr. Bangert - nay
Mr. Kaplan - nay
Ms. Bryant - aye
Mrs. Schupp - nay
Chair - nay
M!
0
0
The motion to recommend approval failed. This item will be forwarded to City Council
with a negative recommendation, which will require six favorable votes from the Council. The
Public Hearing is scheduled for June 26, 2000.
G.
BEL ARBOR
Upon a request by the Applicant, Mr. Kaplan moved approval to defer action on the
Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans to the meeting of June 19, 2000.
Said motion was seconded by Mr. Bangert and unanimously carried.
The Planning and Zoning Commission took a break at 8: 25 p. m. and reconvened at
8: 35 p. m.
H.
SUMMIT LOFTS
Mr. Robert Saur, President of Conrad Properties, requested a Revised Site Development
Plan for Summit Lofts, 652 Emerson Road. He presented a brief summary of the project to date,
with construction scheduled to begin mid to late summer.
Mr. Saur stated the request is for an amendment to the plan that was adopted by City
Council on April 12, 1999. He had a list of reasons for the amendment, citing excessive costs for
what they proposed, which caused them to revisit the Site Development Plan and salvage the
good urban planning which changed the building form. The benefits of the revised plan are that
the buildings are more easily phased than in the previous plan, which also allows response to a
changing market over a period of time. Focus groups were conducted, and larger units were
found to be desirous. The selling price ranges between $ 300, 000 and $ 500,000.
Mr. Saur presented the amended plan and compared it to the previous plan, which was
known as the Gardens of Creve Coeur. He pointed out that the original plan had 126 units,
compared to 88 currently proposed; the original units were approximately 1, 700 sq. ft. and are
currently 1, 825 sq. ft.; the building height has been reduced from 6 -7 stories to 4 stories; less
parking is required; and the floor area ratio was reduced from 1. 25 to . 89, with the site coverage
slightly less than originally proposed. Garages are contained under the buildings themselves
with one on the east side of the site and one on the west side of the site. Mr. Saur acknowledged
that visitor parking would be provided with surface parking in front of both buildings along
Emerson Road and Decker Lane, and described their plans for a visual barrier to screen the cars.
The center of the site will house a clubhouse, pool and landscaped courtyard.
He presented an
artist rendering of the loft interior and the courtyard, stating the buildings will be constructed of
composition brick and precaste limestone, with 2 -sided elevations.
Mrs. Schupp expressed disappointment to the change in the height of the buildings.
Ms. Bryant referred to Condition 1 of the suggested requirements of approval listed in Mr.
Trejo's report dated May 15, a copy of which is hereto attached and a part of these minutes. Mr.
Saur felt the use of landscaping between the sidewalk and the surface parking area would
provide a softer detail than a wall. Mr. Trejo stated his goal was to require something to hide the
parking and vehicle lights and felt Mr. Saur had provided sufficient details in response to the
suggested condition.
8-
0
0
Ms. Bryant made a motion to approve the Revised Site Development Plan, subject to
the eight items in Mr. Trejo' s memorandum dated May 15, 2000. Said motion was seconded by
Mr. Griege and unanimously carried.
This item will go before City Council on June 12, 2000.
I.
CITYPLACE
Mr. Thomas B. Roof, TR,i Architekts, represented The Koman Group in a request to
amend the Site Concept Plan for the CityPlace development located at CityPlace Drive and Olive
Boulevard.
This request is for approval to remove the parcel that is northwest of the Ballas
Extension Drive, which consists of about 11. 1 acres. The site currently contains the City's new
Public Work facility, the Creve Coeur Country Club in the southwest corner of the property, and
the approved site for the Amerisuites Hotel, which has since been abandoned. Their intent is to
propose a separate development from CityPlace, which will help them deal with the different
components as they move through the approval process. Mr. Roof stated they are asking to
revise the parking requirements for the original CityPlace development to meet the City's new
parking ratios that are now before the City Council for approval. He explained that the reduction
of the parking ratios would also involve the elimination of future construction of an additional
level on the east deck; it would include the addition of a potential restaurant parcel located south
of the east deck behind the Amoco Station and some minor modifications to the retail to allow
the Metro Imaging tenant that exists in CityPlace Retail to expand by 400 square feet. Trash
enclosures will be relocated behind the new CityPlace III Building.
Mr. Roof presented a booklet for the Commission' s review, which contained many
photographs taken over a period of time at various hours of the day to give the members an idea
of the non -utilization of parking currently within the development. He explained that the type of
tenant in CityPlace uses a higher square footage to employee ratio and, therefore, the parking
ratios are not as dense, leaving an over abundance of parking. A brief discussion followed.
Mr. Roof explained that there are individual lots within CityPlace, which are managed
by separate partnerships that The Koman Group manages. No Trust Indentures exist for the
CityPlace development. Mr. Trejo explained that the CityPlace site, which is considered a single
entity, is approved under a Site Concept Plan, and Trust Indentures are not required under the
CB' District, which, as an example, is not as restrictive as the Westgate development in the ' PC'
District.
Ms. Bryant made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Schupp, to approve the amendment to
the Site Concept Plan, subject to one item outlined in Mr. Trejo's memorandum dated May 15,
2000.
Mr. Kaplan asked if the recommendation for an access easement along the southeast
corner of the site is on the piece being removed or the piece remaining. Mr. Trejo replied that it
is for the original 26 acres of the CityPlace development and explained that in looking at the
future development east of the site, Staff is requesting continuing efforts of cross traffic or
9-
0
0
eliminating the need for traffic access to Olive Boulevard or North New Ballas, to provide an
easement at the southeast corner that will lead eastward that could potentially lead to the lighted
intersection for the West Oak Shopping Center, which will provide another opportunity to get a
better grid system on the site and multiple access points throughout that area.
Chairman Meyer called for the vote on the motion which unanimously carried. This
item will go before City Council on June 12, 2000.
J.
CITYPLACE WEST
Mr. Thomas B. Roof, TR,i Architekts, represented The Koman Group in a request for
approval of a Site Concept Plan for CityPlace West, located north of CityPlace Drive and North
New Ballas Road.
Mr. Roof stated that the design objectives in the development of the CityPlace West
campus are to attract technology companies through the creation of the mixed use development,
with the intention to retain population on campus during business hours and to enhance the
pedestrian access within both the CityPlace developments and the surrounding community.
They are hopeful to attract incubator -type technology companies to this development which will
compliment the strong technology based tenants that are in the existing CityPlace development.
Mr. Roof mentioned the many campus amenities on the CityPlace campus which will be
incorporated into CityPlace West and reinforced through the pedestrian connection. He
presented a diagram illustrating improvements to be constructed at Olive and I -270, pointing out
proposed modifications to the stop signs that exist at American Legion Drive and the Ballas
Road Extension. Mr. Roof described the strong streetscape element on the cross drive and
fronting along the Ballas Road Extension.
Mr. Roof stated he was taking advantage of the topography by tucking the parking
garage down and into the hill so that it does not obstruct views of the office building and is not
visible from the residential component. He presented sections illustrating streetscape and
landscape elements, along with artist renderings showing the entry element, the water feature,
and proposed restaurant.
Mr. Kaplan inquired about parallel parking on the north side of the condominiums and
Mr. Roof responded by saying that it was to provide visitor parking for the condominiums as
well as the office buildings during the day, in an attempt to reinforce the more urban streetscape
element that does feature parallel parking. Mr. Roof stated that the Director of Public Works
had requested an increase in the greenspace setback between the condominiums and the property
line to the south, which is currently 10 feet. He explained that if the setback is increased, the
parallel parking would potentially be eliminated. Mr. Trejo responded to Mr. Kaplan by stating
that any project that requires a Site Concept Plan or Site Development Plan approval has to
provide off street
parking. He pointed out that this accessway is not public and parking along
this road is allowed. Mr. Trejo stated he was under the belief that the roadway was to remain
private, such as the loop road at Rue De La Banque East. Ms. Bryant pointed out that a classic
urban streetscape contains a strip of trees between the sidewalk and the street, pointing out that
the strip of trees was not on the proposed plan. Mr. Trejo stated that the Site Concept Plan can
be amended or the Site Development Plan required to reflect the proper streetscape. Mr. Roof
explained that when parallel parking exists, concrete is adjacent to the street so the passenger
10-
0
0
does not step in grass when getting out of the car. He referred to the City of Clayton, pointing
out that concrete exists entirely from the street to the building with trees planted in tree wells.
The idea is for the cars to provide the buffer between the vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Roof stated they were at a very conceptual level and would be happy to work with Staff.
Ms. Bryant asked if the private drive aisle could be closed to the public, and Mr. Roof
responded by saying it would not be practical to close the road because of the need to provide
access for their tenants and residents. Mr. Trejo pointed out that a Public Access Easement could
be required, which would prevent obstruction of access to the general public.
Mr. Hearnes stated the road, whether public or private, north of the parking lot to the
Public Works facility must be open, and Mr. McCarter suggested a condition of approval could
be applied to ensure public access. Mr. Roof referred to Mr. Bhasin's recommendation to delete
access to parking at the condominiums off of Rue De La Banque and bringing the drive south of
the buildings. Mr. Roof stated they did not think introducing pavement for vehicular access
between two sets of residential buildings would be to anyone' s best interest, but he did agree to
delete the curb cuts and restrict access internally. A brief discussion followed. Mr. Koman was
in favor of retaining the curb cuts on the west side of the condominiums.
Mrs. Schupp expressed concern with the pedestrian crossing from CityPlace to
CityPlace West, especially across North New Ballas. She inquired as to whether the pedestrian
bridge should be incorporated in this area. Mr. Roof agreed that the sight lines are definitely
limited, stating they are proposing an on -grade intersection where the signals can control the
stopping of vehicles in all four directions to allow pedestrians to cross. He pointed out that the
possibility of an overhead connection at the south end of the property had been discussed. Mr.
Roof felt that an elevated structure would not be readily used and was amenable to some type of
crossing signal. Mrs. Schupp requested other alternatives to get the pedestrians safely across the
street in this area. Mr. Trejo felt the elimination of one curb cut and the availability of sufficient
vision corners could be one alternative to be worked out with the Applicant. He was confident
both departments could agree upon an alternative to meet the design standard and reflected safety
issues.
Mr. Roof stated that their goal is to be under construction with Building Four in August
Some phasing with the Country Club property must
take place, which will force the development to be phased, beginning with Building Four. The
Club needs about twelve months to wind down their banquet facility commitments. With regard
2000 with a completion date of April 2001.
to the completion of the West Campus, Mr. Koman stated a 36 -month period is reasonable. Mr.
Trejo responded to Mr. Griege' s question by stating that the scheduled construction of the I -270/
Olive Interchange was to commence this fall, but property acquisitions have not been completed.
That project is estimated to take 18 months from start to finish.
Stephen Wolff, Trustee of Courtland Hall Condominium Association, felt the proposed
site plan was great, but had some concerns, one of which was the 10 ft. setback from their
property line. He requested that the structure be built no closer than 30 ft. from the property line
separating CityPlace from Courtland Hall. Screening was another concern, and Mr. Wolff
requested that the caliper and height of the trees be such that over a relative short period of time
they will grow to a height so that each property is less visible to the other. Mr. Wolffs third
concern was the potential disruption and noise that occurs as a result of the construction phase,
0
0
and he felt construction should begin no earlier than 8: 30 a. m.
Mr. Koman responded by saying
they would make every effort possible to increase the 10 ft. setback and expressed a willingness
to work with Mr. Wolff on a landscaping plan that is adequate for both parties. Mr. Koman
stated that they would work within any reasonable guidelines to prevent union overtime wages.
Mr. Griege made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kaplan, to recommend approval of the Site
Concept Plan, subject to the one condition in Mr. Trejo' s report dated May 15, 2000.
Mrs. Schupp offered an amendment to add a pedestrian access across North New
Ballas, such as a bridge that goes over the street so that pedestrians would not have to cross the
street; the screening issue to be worked out between the Koman Group and Courtland Hall; and
both parties to work together to establish a reasonable time for construction to begin in the
mornings.
Mr. Trejo pointed out several important comments in Mr. Bhasin' s letter to ensure that
there is 24 hour access to the loop road of East Rue De La Banque. The other issues should be
dealt with at a Site Development Plan level, which includes more detailed items in terms of
construction.
Mrs. Schupp withdrew her previous amendment and offered another amendment to
have the developer look into the feasibility of providing a pedestrian access across North New
Ballas Road and a 24 -hour access to the Public Works area. Said amendment was seconded by
Ms. Bryant and unanimously carried.
Chairman Meyer called for the vote on the main motion, as amended, which
unanimously carried. This item will go before City Council on June 12, 2000.
5.
OTHER BUSINESS
A.
CITY PLANNER REPORT
Mr. Trejo, City Planner, reminded the members about the Comprehensive Plan
Workshops that are scheduled for Tuesday, May 30 and Wednesday, May 31 at 6: 30 p. m. in the
Multipurpose Room. The Work Session is scheduled for Monday, June 5. The Text
Amendment for the parking will be before the City Council for a Public Hearing on May 22.
B.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
Mr. McCarter had no report. Mr. Griege asked him what the City was doing regarding
the CEP issue, since it is not to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr.
McCarter replied that there is a difference of view in the legal community as to whether or not
Chapter 89 requires Planning and Zoning approval of capital projects and, if so, to what extent.
Traditionally, Planning and Zoning has not reviewed, either in this City or any other City, the
capital projects that City Councils approve, and the City Council has decided, with his
concurrence, to continue to follow the same process it has followed for the last thirty years,
which is not to have Planning and Zoning review those capital projects because it includes such
things as street overlays, repairs to the street, and things of that nature. Mr. Griege wanted to
know if the City was going to find out the way the law is suppose to be interpreted, and the City
12-
0
0
Attorney replied that he is pursuing that for the City Council, but there is no definitive answer.
Mr. McCarter stated he has presented it to the Missouri Municipal Attorneys Association for an
informal opinion. Until the court makes a decision, there is no answer by which the City will be
bound. Mr. Griege asked the definition of a Charter City. Mr. McCarter referred to Chapter 89,
Section 3 - 310 through 480, pointing out the confusion as to whether or not charter cities are
bound by the provision in Chapter 89. Basically, the rule is that the Charter City has all power
that a city may exercise under law except those specifically prohibited by Missouri Constitution
or Missouri Statute. Mr. Griege asked for the provisions of the Charter, and Mr. McCarter stated
that the provisions of our Charter simply say that the City, may by ordinance, establish a
Planning and Zoning Commission and establish such powers and duties of the Planning and
Zoning Commission as the City Council may determine by ordinance. Mr. Kaplan felt it would
be beneficial if all the Commission members received a copy of the duties of the Planning and
Zoning Commission that are set forth in the Charter. Mr. McCarter replied that those duties are
not in the Charter and referred to Section 26 -110. 5 of the Zoning Code.
C.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Chairman Meyer welcomed Mrs. Glovinsky as the Commission' s new City Council
representative. Mrs. Glovinsky had no report.
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2000
Mr. Kaplan moved approval of the Minutes of a regular meeting of April 17, 2000.
Said motion was seconded by Ms. Bryant and unanimously carried.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission,
upon motion being made and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 p. m.
llk
o
C-
Richard C. Meyer, Chairman
Transcribed by:
Pat Rosenbhut, Secretary
13 -
t, eleb'. u. y -
CREVE C
300 N. NEW BALLAS ROAD
CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI 63141
014) 432- 6000 - FAX ( 314) 872 -2539 - RELAY MO 1 -800 -735 -2966
filly yeard -plarE
1949 - 1999
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
CARLOS TREJO, CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT:
SITE
CONCEPT
MAYOR
MASTER PLAN
ANNETTE KOLIS MANDEL
SITE
PLAN
CONCEPT
AMENDMENT
FOR
PLAN
THE
TO
THE
CITYPLACE
CITYPLACE
WEST
DEVELOPMENT
CITYPLACE AND CITYPLACE WEST
TITLE:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
11600 BLOCK OF
LOCATION:
1ST WARD
OLIVE
BOULEVARD
AND
700
BLOCK OF
NORTH NEW BALLAS ROAD
BARRY L. GLANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
2ND WARD
SUE KROEGER
CB, CORE BUSINESS DISTRICT
ZONING:
OWNER:
APPLICANT/ REPRESENTATIVE:
THE KOMAN GROUP
THOMAS B. ROOF
ONE CITYPLACE DRIVE
TR, i ARCHITEKTS
SUITE 540
8251 MARYLAND AVENUE, SUITE 300
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
JUDY PASS
TR, i Architekts has submitted an application to amend the adopted Site Concept Plan for the
3RD WARD
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
CityPlace development located on the 11600 block of Olive Boulevard and extending to the 700
block of North New Ballas Road. Said amendment is to reduce the size of the approved 36 acre
development to back to the original 24. 9 acres. Approximately 11. 1 acres north of North New
BallasBallas RoadRoad willwill bebe removedremoved fromfrom thethe CityPlaceCityPlace MasterMaster Plan.Plan.
4TH4TH WARPWARP
MARTINMARTIN AA BARNHOLTZBARNHOLTZ
InIn addition,addition, TR,TR, i ArchitektsArchitekts havehave submittedsubmitted andand applicationapplication forfor SiteSite ConceptConcept PlanPlan toto redevelopredevelop
6.6. 55 acresacres ofof thethe 11.11. 11 acresacres beingbeing removedremoved fromfrom thethe CityPlaceCityPlace MasterMaster Plan.Plan. SaidSaid developmentdevelopment isis
titledtitled asas CityPlaceCityPlace West.West.
RICHARD RICHARD J.J. WOLKOWITZWOLKOWITZ
BothBoth propertiesproperties areare zonedzoned CB,CB,
CoreCore BusinessBusiness DistrictDistrict andand areare locatedlocated inin thethe boundariesboundaries
designated designated inin thethe TownTown CentreCentre AreaArea LandLand UseUse Plan.Plan.
ActionAction onon thethe
SiteSite ConceptConcept PlanPlan
amendment amendment forfor thethe CityPlaceCityPlace MasterMaster PlanPlan andand onon thethe proposedproposed SiteSite ConceptConcept PlanPlan forfor thethe
CITYCITY ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOR
MARKMARK CC PERKINSPERKINS
CityPlaceCityPlace WestWest DevelopmentDevelopment areare requiredrequired byby bothboth thethe PlanningPlanning andand ZoningZoning CommissionCommission andand
CityCity Council.Council.
ZoningZoning andand AdjacentAdjacent LandLand UsesUses
CityPlaceCityPlace andand CityPlaceCityPlace WestWest areare locatedlocated withinwithin thethe areaarea boundedbounded between between NorthNorth NewNew BallasBallas
Road,Road, OliveOlive BoulevardBoulevard andand CraigCraig Road.Road.
TheThe CityPlaceCityPlace developmentdevelopment lieslies betweenbetween OliveOlive
Boulevard Boulevard andand NorthNorth NewNew BallasBallas Road,Road, northnorth ofof thethe OldOld BallasBallas RoadRoad intersectionintersection withwith OliveOlive
CITYCITY CLERICCLERIC
Boulevard.Boulevard.
LAVERNELAVERNE COLLINSCOLLINS
Banque Banque East.East.
CityPlaceCityPlace WestWest lieslies northnorth ofof NorthNorth NewNew BallasBallas RoadRoad andand stretchesstretches toto RueRue dede LaLa
BothBoth campuses campuses areare zonedzoned CB,CB, CoreCore BusinessBusiness District.District.
TheThe CB,CB, CoreCore BusinessBusiness
DistrictDistrict isis intendedintended to:to:
a)a)
RelateRelate thethe developmentdevelopment ofof retail,retail, officeoffice andand multifamilymultifamily residential residential usesuses servicingservicing bothboth
aa citywidecitywide andand subregional subregional serviceservice areaarea toto anan adoptedadopted development development planplan forfor thethe majormajor
businessbusiness areas,areas, including including landland use,use, phasingphasing andand publicpublic improvementimprovement elements.elements.
Site Concept Plan • •
CityPlace and CityPlace West
Page 2 of 5
Encourage site consolidation and an orderly, phased pattern of development.
Accommodate the use of existing residential structures for offices in the interim period between their
b)
c)
present occupancy and ultimate redevelopment.
d)
Induce and ensure high quality future development through the used of Site Development Plan approval
procedures which provide for the specific consideration of access, parking, drainage, landscaping and
design factors.
The CityPlace campuses are predominately surrounded by commercial properties also within the CB, Core Business
District. To the east is a multifamily, garden style apartment complex, a low rise office building and single tenant
retail areas. To the south are single tenant retail areas including restaurants, a gas station and book store. Olive
Boulevard also bounds the CityPlace development to the south.
To the west are a wide variety of mix uses,
including retail, residential, a private club and the City's Public Works Maintenance facility.
multifamily development that is part of unincorporated St. Louis County.
To the north is a
Proposal Summary: CityPlace
The Koman Group is proposing to reduce the overall acreage of the original CityPlace development by eliminating
11. 1 acres north of North New Ballas Road from the adopted Site Concept Plan. The 11. 1 acres being removed
includes the Creve Coeur Country Club parcel, the new Creve Coeur Public Works Maintenance Facility and the
building site of the proposed Amerisuites Hotel. By eliminating these three sites north of North New Ballas Road,
the degree of intensity for the original CityPlace Master Plan development will change as follows:
Approved
Proposed
36. 045 sf.
24. 948 sf.
GLA
677, 342sf.
575, 570 sf.
GSF
823, 720 sf.
715, 618 sf.
Site Area
Building Area
0. 431
0. 533
Required Parking
Area covered by buildings
Area covered by Paving/Aisles
2, 743 stalls
2, 180 stalls*
Total site coverage
Floor Area Ratio
Site Coverage
202, 698 sf.
172, 992 sf.
633, 347 sf.
463, 974 sf.
836,045 sf.
636, 966 sf.
53. 2%
58. 6%
Parking provided based on proposed Text Amendment to Section 26 -93. 2 General Parking requirements.
SiteSite Coverage Coverage onon thethe sitesite willwill increaseincrease fromfrom 53.53. 2%2%
toto 58.58. 6%6%
development development plan,plan, however,however, willwill bebe belowbelow thethe maximummaximum 63%63%
withwith thethe lossloss ofof thethe 11.11. 11 acres.acres.
TheThe overalloverall
sitesite coveragecoverage permittedpermitted inin thethe CB,CB, CoreCore BusinessBusiness
District.District. TheThe totaltotal buildingbuilding areaarea willwill decreasedecrease fromfrom 677,677, 342342 sf,sf, toto 575,575, 570570 sf.,sf., butbut thethe floorfloor areaarea ratioratio ofof thethe sitesi(te ( farfar
beingbeing thethe grossgross leaseableleaseable areare ofof thethe sitesite divideddivided byby thethe totaltotal lotlot size)size) willwill increaseincrease fromfrom 0.0. 431431 toto 0.0. 533.533. ThisThis floorfloor
areaarea willwill stillstill bebe farfar belowbelow thethe 1.1. 00 floorfloor areaarea ratioratio permittedpermitted inin thethe CBCB district.district.
InIn additionaddition toto thethe removal removal ofof thethe 11.11. 11 acresacres northnorth ofof NorthNorth NewNew BallasBallas Road,Road, thethe KomanKoman GroupGroup proposes proposes thethe
followingfollowing amendmentsamendments toto thethe adoptedadopted SiteSite Concept Concept PlanPlan ofof thethe CityPlaceCityPlace development:development:
1.1.
2.2.
ReviseRevise thethe originaloriginal proposed proposed parkingparking requirementsrequirements toto conformconform toto thethe City'City' ss proposedproposed generalgeneral parkingparking
requirementsrequirements thatthat areare pendingpending beforebefore thethe CityCity Council.Council.
DeleteDelete aa levellevel ofof proposed proposed parkingparking fromfrom thethe toptop ofof thethe EastEast ParkingParking DeckDeck locatedlocated onon thethe southeastsoutheast cornercorner ofof
thethe site.site.
3.3.
4.4.
AddAdd aa 400400 sf.sf. additionaddition toto thethe northnorth sideside ofof thethe existingexisting retailretail building.building.
RelocateRelocate thethe trashtrash enclosureenclosure servingserving thethe existingexisting retailretail toto thethe southsouth sideside ofof thethe WestWest ParkingParking Deck.Deck.
5.5.
AddAdd aa 4,4, 000000 sf.sf. restaurantrestaurant southsouth ofof thethe EastEast ParkingParking Deck.Deck.
WithWith thethe eliminationelimination ofof thethe northernnorthern 11.11. 11 acresacres northnorth ofof NorthNorth NewNew BallasBallas Road,Road, therethere willwill bebe onlyonly oneone phasephase ofof thethe
CityPlace CityPlace development development notnot built.built. ThisThis phasephase includes includes thethe 88- - storystory officeoffice buildingbuilding builtbuilt aboveabove aa 33- - levellevel lowerlower parkingparking
deckdeck andand thethe second.second. 12,12, 000000 squaresquare footfoot retailretail building.building. SiteSite DevelopmentDevelopment PlanPlan approvalapproval andand aa ConditionalConditional UseUse
PermitPermit hashas beenbeen issuedissued byby thethe CityCity Council Council forfor bothboth ofof thesethese items.items. ThisThis willwill leaveleave onlyonly thethe proposedproposed 4,4, 000000 sf.sf.
restaurantrestaurant asas thethe lastlast itemitem needingneeding construction construction beforebefore thethe developmentdevelopment isis complete.complete.
Dilbert\Dilbert\ COMM-COMM- DEV\DEV\ PP&& ZZ CommissionCommission
\
\ ReportsReports
\
\ SCP-SCP- CityPlace.CityPlace. docdoc
Site Concept Plan
0-
Page 3 of 5
Project Summary: CityPlace West
In addition to the amendment to the CityPlace, the Koman Group has submitted plans for the redevelopment of 6. 5
acres of the 11. 1 acres removed from the CityPlace Master Plan. The 6. 5 acres includes the Creve Coeur Country
Club parcel and the building site of the proposed Amerisuites Hotel. The remaining 4. 6 acres of the original 11. 1
acres north of North New Ballas Road is the new location of the City of Creve Coeur Public Works Maintenance
Facility and will not be included in either of the CityPlace master development plans.
The proposed development will be called CityPlace West and will include the following:
Building Area:
Gross Leaseable Area Gross Square Footage
PHASE 1 ( CityPlace IV)
4 -story office building
85, 000 sf.
126, 950 sf.
3, 500 sf.
Restaurant
PHASE 2 ( CityPlace V)
5 -story office building
on -site amenity
85, 000 sf.
128, 680 sf.
4, 590 sf.
5, 400 sf.
PHASE 3 ( Residential Condominiums)
2, 6 -story buildings
Total Building Area
87, 797 sf.
103, 290 sf.
265, 887 sf.
312, 190 sf.
As per Code
Floor area ration
Parking
Area covered by buildings
Area covered by paving/aisles
Proposed
1. 0 max.
0. 94
696 stalls*
748 stalls
76, 342 sf.
86, 085 sf.
162, 427 sf.
Total site coverage
Site Coverage
63%
max.
57.4%
Parking provided based on proposed Text Amendment to Section 26 -93. 2 General Parking requirements.
The proposed CityPlace West development will maintain compliance with the dimensional regulations of the CB,
Core Business District, including floor area ratio and permitted site coverage. Note that the site coverage of the 11. 1
acre site will be 57.4 %, with 63% permitted by Code. The floor area ratio of the site will be at 0. 94, with a
maximum 1. 0 floor area ratio permitted by right under the Zoning Code and a floor area ratio of 1. 25 permitted by
Conditional Use.
Staff Concerns: CityPlace
The CityPlace development, between North New Ballas Road and Olive Boulevard, has developed in accordance to
the original Site Concept Plan adopted by the City. The area has slowly developed into an identifiable node within
the city. The architecture, signage and landscaping have been carefully developed and have maintained and overall
theme and identity to the site. The final stages of the plan, including the walking trail and fountain in front of the
CityPlace III office tower will provide additional enhancements to the site.
The developer has aggressively tried to create a self contained
office environment providing high quality office
space
with compatible
amenities
throughout the
campus.
The goal has been to create a lively pedestrian
environment in which tenants of the CityPlace development can do a wide array of business and personal related
transactions on the campus grounds without having to drive from place to place. A high quality of tenants and
service -oriented establishments have been pursued and maintained. This has allowed the degree of intensity or use
of the office buildings to be lower than comparable developments. These tenants generally provide a higher average
of square feet per occupant than neighboring developments such as WestPort and RiverPort. In addition, the
service- oriented establishments are specialty in nature servicing a more limited and affluent customer base, as
opposed to box -type developments servicing a wider spectrum of customers.
The mix use nature of the campus, average square foot per occupant in the office developments and the limited
customer types of service -oriented establishments have contributed to maintain a lower degree of intensity of the
campus than what could be permitted by Code. What the developer of the campus has aggressively done, is limited
the degree of impact that this development has contributed to Olive Boulevard. Note, that based on the parking
requirements of the existing Zoning Code, this site can potentially contribute an additional 2, 743 vehicles at anyone
time onto Olive Boulevard. The applicant has been seeking reductions in the amount of parking stalls required on
Dilbert\ COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \SCP- CityPlace.doc
Page 4 of 5
site by the City. With the revised parking requirements before the City Council, the applicant is seeking to reduce
the parking on site to 2, 180 stalls, or 80% of the initially proposed parking spaces. In addition, the floor area ratio of
the site has been maintained at 0. 533, or 53% of the permitted capacity in the CB district. With the lower far and
the higher average office space per occupant, the CityPlace development has controlled the degree of impact that it
has contributed to traffic congestion.
In addition, the CityPlace development has incorporated an effective transportation network to disperse traffic
leaving or entering the campus. With the North New Ballas Road extension, there are three possible ways to get to
Olive Boulevard, through North New Ballas Road, through CityPlace Drive and through Craig Drive.
Unfortunately, with the overall volume of traffic heading on west bound Olive Boulevard to access I -270 and the
spacing and timing of traffic lights within a 1/ 4 mile of the intersection, the flow of traffic has exceeded the capacity
levels of the I- 270 /Olive Boulevard interchange, causing traffic backup and congestion.
CityPlace has also provided an internal street system within the development allowing access to neighboring sites
without entering onto Olive Boulevard or North New Ballas Road. There are access connections to Borders
Bookstore and the Court Yard Hotel, and there is also access onto the neighboring McDonald's parcel. This internal
street system provides a benefit in reducing an additional traffic burden onto Olive Boulevard.
Staff recommends that this system be preserved as shown in the amended Site Concept Plan and expanded along the
southeast comer near the Phase VI restaurant, north of McDonalds.
An access easement be provided to the
properties to the east, to allow for future coordinated access onto the CityPlace campus and CityPlace Drive when
the properties to the east redevelop. This could potentially provided an access road parallel to Olive Boulevard that
could connect to the lighted intersection on Craig Road that leads to the West Oak Shopping Center an Organized
Living parcel.
Staff Concerns:
CityPlace West
The 6. 5 acre CityPlace West development will take the mix use concept of the CityPlace development one step
further and introduce a residential element into the overall campus plan. Two, 100, 000 square foot office buildings
are proposed, one 4 -story and one 5- story. Each building will provide amenity services, including a 3, 500 square
foot restaurant and an 5, 400 square foot unknown amenity. In addition, the CityPlace West Site Concept Plan will
include 28- residential units located in two 6 -story residential towers.
The CityPlace West Site Concept Plan continues the same efforts of the developer to provide a quality development
catering to tenants seeking high -end office space. The intent is to reduce the degree of impact of traffic onto Olive
Boulevard.
The far on the site is indicated as 0. 94, with 1. 0 permitted within the CB, Core Business District. However, if the
residential component of the CityPlace West development is removed, afar of 0. 62 is maintained, comparable with
the CityPlace Master Plan. For a site of this size, excluding the residential component of this site, the development
is only being built to 2/ 3' s of its permitted capacity under the CB district. In addition, with the residential
component placed on the site, a potential reverse commute element is being added to the site and the potential for
noncommuters who may live and work on the site.
The CityPlace West Site Concept Plan also provides a similar internal street network of providing alternative access
points to lead to Olive Boulevard and Craig Road. This includes the extension and connection of CityPlace Drive to
connect to Rue de la Banque East. Also an additional cross access street connecting Rue de la Banque East with
North New Ballas Road is provided.
Several on -site amenities and pedestrian oasis are provided throughout the CityPlace West campus. This includes
decorative paved areas, fountains and water features, gathering areas and benches and a central court plaza.
A
similar pedestrian network of sidewalks circling the campus is provided. However, the pedestrian connection of the
CityPlace West campus to the CityPlace campus is limited to intersection of CityPlace Drive and North New Ballas
Road. This appears to be the only logical connection between the two campuses in which activity buildings link to
activity buildings. Additional pedestrian access south of the intersection would connect to the CityPlace Two
Parking Deck. An alternative pedestrian connection could be provided here, either at grade level or above ground
which would allow the parking structure to be utilized as convenient and accessible excess parking to the CityPlace
West development.
Dilbert\ COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \SCP- CityPlace.doc
Page 5 of 5
The applicant hired the firm of Crawford, Bunte Brammeir to conduct a traffic impact study ( attached). This study
incorporates the CityPlace West development and the traffic impact potential that the 8 -story office building and
The study details traffic impacts at 5- intersections near the
CityPlace and CityPlace West development and also reviews the proposed pedestrian walkway system.
retail area of the original CityPlace development.
SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS OF APPROVAL
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the amendment to the adopted Site Concept Plan
for the CityPlace development, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
Staff recommends an access easement along the southeast corner of the site be provided to provide
future cross access to the properties to the east. This will allow for future coordinated access onto the
CityPlace campus and CityPlace Drive when the properties to the east redevelop, potentially providing
an access road parallel to Olive Boulevard that could connect to the lighted intersection on Craig Road
that leads to the West Oak Shopping Center an Organized Living parcel.
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the amendment to the adopted Site Concept Plan
for the CityPlace West development, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
An additional pedestrian access be provided at the southeast comer of the site, leading from the
proposed cross access drive intersection with North New Ballas Road to the CityPlace Two Parking
Deck.
ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on two separate items, the amendment to the CityPlace Site
Concept Plan and action on the proposed CityPlace West Site Concept Plan.
Action on the amendment to the
CityPlace Site Concept Plan will be in the form of a motion of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This
item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, with a tentative date scheduled for Monday, June 12,
2000.
Action on the proposed Site Concept Plan for the CityPlace West development will be in the form of a motion of
approval, approval with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, with a
tentative date scheduled for Monday, June 12, 2000.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \SCP- CityPlace.doc
L elebrafin.
CREVE COEUR
01,0 432- 6000 • FAX 014) 872-2539 • RELAY MO 1- 800 7- 35 -2966
30VY'ar9o1-19eart
May 12, 2000
1949 - 1999
Planning & Zoning Commission
MAYOR
300 N. New Ballas Road
Creve Coeur, MO 63141
COUNCIL MEMBERS
RE:
City Place Four West Campus
1ST WARD
BARRY L. GLANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
2ND WARD
SUE KROEGER
JUDY PASS
3RD WARD
Dear Mr. Meyer:
The following comments are from the review by the Public Works Engineering
Division for the Preliminary Development Plan Drawing ( PDP -1) of the City Place
Four West Campus, received in this office on May 1, 2000. These plans have been
developed for The Koman Group of One City Place, Suite 540, Creve Coeur, MO
63141 and prepared by TRI Architects.
Comments are as follows:
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
This plan does not reflect the precise alignment of the existing Rue De La
Banque.
4TH WARD
MARTIN A. BARNHOLTZ
It is desirable to have an unrestricted access to the City equipment on the
drive, which is proposed to be provided by the
northern most proposed
developer.
RICHARD). WOLKOWITZ
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK C. PERKINS
All on -site storm water is to be diverted to the retention lake between City. Place
One and City Place Two ( see Amerisuites plans).
The proposed loading dock on the west side of the property that accesses Rue De
La Banque is not adequate enough to contain a tractor trailer ( 40 to 60 feet long)
without blocking the road. The pad shown is not big enough for intended use.
Footprint of complex could be shifted 15 feet to the north with no direct access to
the sublevel garage from Rue De La Banque. This will provide enough room for
a two lane road along the south side of the proposed condominium building with
rear entrance sublevel parking.
CITY CLERK
LAVERNE COLLINS
This will provide a controlled access from Rue
De La Banque to a two lane roadway to the entrance for sublevel garage parking
and one entrance for surface level parking. This approach would be safer for all
vehicular traffic.
L
Provide adequate landscape buffer along the northside of the newly proposed
road from Rue De La Banque approximately 300 feet to the east ending at the
southwest corner of the existing block retaining wall.
Install a detector loop at the proposed road where it joins the intersection at
North New Ballas extension to provide reasonable access to the extension.
It is the owner' s responsibility to comply with EPA, Army Corp. of Engineers,
MSD and DNR and other regulatory agency requirements pertaining to different
aspects of this projects.
All proposed curb cuts along the existing streets must comply with AASHTO
requirements.
If you have any questions or need further information please call me at 872 -2533.
Sin erely,
hasin, P. .
Vija
Director of Public Works
VKB /cjb
cc:
Scott P. Haley, AICP, Director of Community Development
Richard W. Hearnes, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
Carlos Trejo, City Planner
James Heines, Construction Inspector
JH cityplace iv
CRAwfoRd, BUNTE, BRAMMEIER
MIN
IL
A__
M
TRAFFIC ANd TRANSPORTATION ENgiNEERS
1973 -2000 /
27 Yaars /
Missouri- Illinois
May 10, 2000
Mr. William J. Koman
The Koman Group
One CityPlace Drive
Suite 540
St. Louis, Missouri 63141
RE:
Traffic Impact Study
CityPlace Four & Five
CBB Job No. 062 -00
Dear Mr. Koman:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared the following study pertaining to your
proposed CityPlace Four and Five developments. The mixed -use project would be developed on
the west side of North New Ballas Road, including the present site of the Creve Coeur Country
Club and a site previously approved for a hotel. The City of Creve Coeur recently relocated their
maintenance facilities immediately to the north of this site.
The purpose of this study was to identify the amount of traffic that would be generated by this
project, the ability of motorists to safely access the site, and the impact that these trips would
have on the adjacent roadways. Where necessary, roadway improvements were recommended to
mitigate the impact of the development.
The primary emphasis was the ability of the critical intersections along Olive Boulevard to
accommodate additional traffic. However, it is important to acknowledge that the analyses also
took into consideration the pending improvement of Olive Boulevard between Ballas Road and
Woodcrest Executive Drive, which includes the interchange with I -270.
The analysis also considered the remaining components of the CityPlace development.
Specifically, forecasts for the CityPlace Three office building, which is currently under
construction, were added to the forecasts for the current project. CityPlace Two is completed and
fully occupied, so the existing traffic volumes reflect traffic from that facility.
The site plan for the current development proposes two 100, 000 square foot office buildings
CityPlace Four and Five),
a 3, 500 square foot restaurant, 6, 000 square feet of "amenity" space
The amenity space might contain fitness rooms, meeting
and 50 residential condominium units.
rooms or other ancillary services.
1830 Craig Park Court / Suite 209 / St. Louis, Missouri 63146 / 314 -878 -6644 / Fax 314878.5876
450 Cottonwood Road / Suite B / Glen Carbon, Illinois 62034 / 618 -656 -2612 / Fax 618 -656 -2612
email: cbb ® cbbtraffic.com
May 10, 2000
Page 2
Access would be provided
at two
locations:
one drive opposite the existing signalized
intersection of City Place Drive and North New Ballas Road and one drive connecting to Rue De
La Banque East. It should be noted that Rue De La Banque East also serves as the primary
access for the City' s maintenance facility. It is of further note that no new curb cuts would be
created along Olive Boulevard as a result of this development.
Rue De La Banque East has right -turn only access at its intersection with Olive Boulevard. Left turn access is available at the signalized intersections of Olive Boulevard with Rue De La
Banque West/Center Parkway and North New Ballas Road. However, there -is currently no
public connection between Rue De La Banque East and West.
The relative location of the development site ( with respect to the adjacent road system) and the
availability of multiple access routes would be advantageous in that site -generated traffic would
be dispersed between several different intersections along Olive Boulevard. These conditions
would effectively minimize the impact that the proposed development would have on any
individual location.
EXISTING TRAFFIC AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Olive Boulevard ( Missouri Route 340) is a major east -west arterial. To the west of New Ballas
Road, Olive has three travel lanes in each direction with a center median and designated turn
lanes.
However, immediately to the east of New Ballas Road, Olive narrows to a five -lane cross -
section.
North New Ballas Road is generally a four -lane roadway with a landscaped median, though
additional turn lanes are provided at the major intersections including Olive Boulevard.
The
intersection with American Legion Drive is controlled by a four -way stop, but most other major
intersections are controlled by traffic signals.
The heavily loaded intersection of these two streets effectively acts as a " bottleneck. Conditions
along Olive Boulevard are further exacerbated by congestion at the interchange with I -270 and
the inability to effectively coordinate numerous, closely spaced traffic signals along the corridor.
As an initial step in our analysis, manual turning movement counts were collected during the
morning ( 7: 00 — 9: 00 a. m.) and afternoon ( 4: 00 — 6: 00 p. m.) peak periods at the critical
intersections near the development site:
Olive Boulevard & New Ballas Road ( signalized)
Olive Boulevard & Rue De La Banque West ( signalized)
May 10, 2000
Page 3
New Ballas Road &
New Ballas Road &
City Place Drive (signalized)
American Legion Drive (all -way stop controlled)
Based on these counts, two peak hours were selected for analysis: 7: 30 to 8: 30 a.m. and 4: 30 to
5: 30 p. m. These times represent the peak hours of traffic activity on the surrounding roadways
as well as the peak hours of trip generation for the proposed uses within CityPlace. If the traffic
from the proposed development can be accommodated at these times, it can be reasoned that
adequate capacity would be available throughout the remainder of the day.
The existing peak hour turning movements are illustrated in Exhibit 1. As can be seen, Olive
Boulevard carries approximately 3, 500 and 3, 750 vehicles per hour (vph) the during the morning
and afternoon peak hours, respectively. It must be acknowledged that traffic volumes. on Olive
Boulevard ( as reflected by the counts summarized in Exhibit 1) are constrained by the existing
congestion, particularly for westbound movements in the afternoon.
North New Ballas Road carries as many as 830 vph immediately north of Olive Boulevard and
730 vph just east of City Place Drive. Field observations reveal that, with the exception of the
intersection with Olive Boulevard, motorists on North New Ballas Road experience nominal
delays.
The existing conditions at the critical intersections were analyzed using study procedures outlined
in the Highway Research Report No. 209 - " Highway Capacity Manual," published in 1997. This
manual, which is used universally by highway and traffic engineers to measure roadway capacity,
establishes six levels of traffic service: Level A ( "Most Desirable "), to Level F ( " Fully Loaded ").
Levels of traffic service are measures of traffic flow that consider such factors as speed and delay
time, traffic interruptions, safety, driving comfort, and convenience. Level C, which is normally
used for highway design, represents a roadway with volumes ranging from 70% to 80% of its
capacity. However, Level D is considered acceptable for peak period conditions in urban areas.
Table 1 presents the existing levels of service ( LOS) at each intersection. As can be seen, each
of the intersections currently has acceptable overall operating conditions with the exception of
Olive Boulevard at New Ballas Road. The overall failure of this intersection is isolated to the
morning peak period, when eastbound traffic is constrained due to a lack of adequate signal time.
This situation could be corrected with minor signal timing adjustments that were facilitated by
recent improvements to the south leg of New Ballas Road. In fact, a minor reallocation of time
8 seconds per cycle) to the eastbound movement would improve conditions on that approach
and the overall operating conditions would improve to Level D ( delay times would be reduced to
an average of 30. 8 seconds per vehicle).
mpact
N
Legend
XX =
A. M. Peak Hour Traffic
XX) =
P. M. Peak Hour Traffic
n1s.
AZ
01
A
b
N. New Ballas
o `\
00
7o
S /
a
90 J
r
b
tiff
~
a
O
N O
O .
American -
A°
v
Legion °
L 0 ( 5)
0( 0)
r 5 ( 20)
Drive
1
30 ( 15) s
0( 5)-+
1
W N
cn
0
25 ( 35) z
Cn
co
0
N
Cn
N -+
O
v
O
N
Cn O (0n
L 5 ( 15)
Cv
1085( 2490)
j- 70 ( 55)
1 1
130 ( 120) -s
2135 ( 1380) -+
N Cn
0--
175( 55)-,+
Cn
i te
A (n
CA Ln
1 4
r'
195 ( 135) S
Ln
1805 ( 1020) -+
Cn
CA
315 ( 225) Z
L 10 ( 25)
815 ( 1595)
r 215 (220)
4)
1
Lnn o
Olive Blvd
r'
Lnn
It
I
Exhibit 1 -
Existing Traffic
Job 462 -00
04118100 Traffic and Transportation Engineers
May 10, 2000
Page 5
a
Table 1 ,
nr
h -`'. : '.#
ski %
j
Existin
O eratin
AM Peak Hour
Intersection/ Approach
LOS
Olive Boulevard & N. New Ballas Road (
yft
Jtil }
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
Sign lized
Dela
Eastbound Approach
F
90 sec /veh
C
18. 3 sec /veh
Westbound Approach
C
18. 5 sec /veh
C
19. 0 sec /veh
Northbound Approach
D
31. 0 sec /veh
F
65. 1 sec /veh
Southbound Ap2roach
D
33. 1 sec /veh
F
69. 0 sec /veh
Overall Intersection
F
90 sec /veh
D
Olive Boulevard & Rue de la Ban ue West /Center Parkway
f
28. 4 sec /veh
Si nalized
Eastbound Approach
B
9. 9 sec /veh
B
10. 9 sec /veh
Westbound Approach
B
10. 3 sec /veh
C
15. 2 sec /veh
Northbound Approach
E
41. 5 sec /veh
F
79.2 sec /veh
Southbound Ag2roach
D
37. 8 sec /veh
E
57. 0 sec /veh
B
11. 7 sec /veh
C
20. 5 seclveh
3. 3 sec /veh
N. New Ballas Road &
l,
Conditions
City Place Drive ( Signalized)
Eastbound Approach
A
2. 3 sec /veh
A
Westbound Approach
A
2. 3 sec /veh
A
3. 6 sec /veh
Northbound Approach
B
9. 4 sec /veh
B
9. 1 sec /veh
A
2. 4 sec /veh
A
4. 2 sec /veh
N. New Ballas Road & American Legion Drive (
All -Way Stop)
Northbound Approach
B
13. 3 sec /veh
B
13. 2 sec /veh
Southbound Approach
B
12. 8 sec /veh
C
18. 9 sec /veh
Eastbound Approach
A
9. 1 sec /veh
A
9. 3 sec /veh
Westbound A22roach
A
9. 0 sec /veh
A
9. 2 sec /veh
B
12. 7 sec /veh
C
16.3 sec /veh
Overall operating conditions were found to be acceptable during the afternoon peak period and at
the other intersections.
However, it must be acknowledged that individual traffic movements
still experience operating difficulties, particularly in the afternoon when westbound traffic is
heavily congested. For example, the capacity analyses indicate that east -west traffic has
acceptable operating conditions at the intersection of Olive Boulevard with Rue de la Banque
West, but field observations indicate that westbound traffic is heavily congested in the afternoon.
Z1
7
May 10, 2000
Page 6
These calculations fail to reflect the constraints associated with traffic backing up from the
interchange with I -270. Field observations reveal that this " spill- back" effectively blocks traffic
on the side streets and further to the east on Olive. As a result, actual p. m. peak period operating
conditions on Olive Boulevard are worse than calculated. However, the proposed reconstruction
of the interchange will improve traffic flows along Olive Boulevard, thereby removing this
blockage. Furthermore, a fourth westbound through lane will be provided at Rue de la Banque
West,
thereby increasing the capacity of that intersection beyond that reflected by the
calculations of existing conditions.
The reconstruction of the interchange will offer additional benefits in that signal timing and
progression can be improved. Currently, the congestion of motorists turning onto or off of Olive
Boulevard is exacerbated by the prioritization of the traffic signals to serve through traffic.
Consequently, a number of side -street movements receive inadequate signal time. For example,
the southbound through movement on New Ballas Road at Olive Boulevard receives minimal
signal time during the afternoon peak hour and many motorists must wait through more than one
signal cycle before clearing the intersection.
Following the reconstruction of the interchange at I -270, it may be possible to devote additional
time to the turning movements and the side streets without significantly impeding the flows on
Olive. The new interchange will be designed with a " center- point- diamond"
configuration that
will have only one signalized intersection ( as opposed to the two existing signals).
This
reconfiguration will reduce the number of stops, provide improved spacing between the ramps
and the next signalized intersection, and allow for better coordination of the traffic signals along
Olive Boulevard.
Finally, it should be noted that the recent improvements to the south leg of New Ballas Road
provided additional intersection capacity, but the signal timing has not yet been reallocated to
maximize their benefits.
However, it is unlikely that timing changes would be implemented until
after the reconstruction of the I -270 interchange.
FORECASTED TRAFFIC GENERATION
Peak period traffic forecasts were prepared for the proposed development using information
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual. For the
purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the restaurant would not be open for breakfast, so it
would not generate a meaningful amount of traffic during the a. m. peak hour.
Furthermore, no
traffic generation was calculated for the amenity space because it would be used entirely by
office tenants or residents. Therefore, any traffic associated with the amenity space- would be
internally generated. The forecasted trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 2.
Z
7
May 10, 2000
Page 7
Table 2
Forecasted Trip Generation
CityPlace Four and Five
A.M. Peak Hour
Development Component
P. M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
City Place Four 100, 000 S. F. office
135
20
155
25
125
150
CityPlace Five
135
20
155
25
125
150
0
0
0
20
10
30
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
n/ a
5
20
25
20
10
30
275
60
335
90.
270
360
100, 000 S. F. office
Restaurant 3, 500 S. F.
Amenity 6, 000 S. F. internal usage)
Condominiums 50 units
Total
1
It should be noted that standard trip generation rates were used for the proposed office space.
There has been considerable discussion in the past concerning the operational characteristics of
office buildings in this area due to differences in the number of parking spaces provided and the
number of trips projected during a given peak hour. It must be recognized that multi- tenant
office buildings naturally produce varied schedules for their work forces, so the number of
employees leaving or arriving at any given time is typically less than 40% of the population.
Furthermore, the mixed -use nature of the CityPlace campus promotes more internal trips, many
of which would be made as pedestrians.
In order to validate these characteristics, traffic counts were made at the existing CityPlace One
and Two office buildings during the late afternoon ( 3: 00 to 6: 30 p.m.). These counts showed
that traffic is heavily distributed throughout this period. During the peak hour ( 4: 30 to 5: 30
p. m.), these two buildings ( which are fully occupied) generated 430 trips, or only 1. 04 trips per
1, 000 square feet of gross floor area. This rate is over 30% less than the standard rate being used
for this analysis, which was published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
It should be further noted that field observations indicate that excess parking is available at
CityPlace One and Two, apparently because tenant densities are lower than current parking
requirements.
This finding further distances the relationship between parking supplies and trip
generation.
In total, the proposed development would generate between 335 and 360 trips during the peak
hours as shown in Table 2. This traffic was assigned to the road system along with the additional
trips that would be generated by the continued development of the remaining CityPlace
buildings. The forecasted traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways based on existing travel
May 10, 2000
Page 8
patterns and relative location of the major access routes ( i. e., I -270).
The site -generated traffic
was distributed as follows:
To and from the West on Olive Boulevard ............................ ............................45%
To and from the East on Olive Boulevard .......................... ...............................25%
To and from the South on New Ballas Road ...................... ...............................
20%
To and from the Northeast on N. New Ballas Road ........... ............................... 10%
It was noted that many motorists currently utilize Ballas Road to travel to and from the south due
to existing congestion at the interchange of Olive Boulevard with I -270. Once the interchange is
reconstructed, which will begin later this year, many of these trips would be expected to divert
away from Ballas Road. This condition is indicative of motorists behavior in an urbanized
environment where they will seek the " path of least resistance ". In essence, tenants of these
buildings would be expected to utilize alternative routes to access this site in order to minimize
delays.
This reaction further disperses traffic traveling to or from the site and produces a
balancing" of the demands at. consecutive intersections.
Exhibit 2 illustrates the assignment of the traffic associated with CityPlace Four and Five
including the restaurant and condominium facilities). As previously noted, multiple access
routes would be available for motorists traveling to and from this development site.
Consequently, the site -generated traffic would be dispersed between several different
intersections along Olive Boulevard, effectively minimizing the impact that the proposed
development would have on any individual location.
It should be noted that the assignment shown in Exhibit 2 assumes that an improved, public
connection would be created between Rue De La Banque East and West.
Currently, motorists
cut -thru the existing bank facility to avoid the congestion along Olive Boulevard and at its
intersection with New Ballas Road. Therefore, as will discussed in the following section, it is
recommended that a dedicated connection be provided between these two roadways to facilitate
the demand for this movement, as well as disperse the development' s traffic to alternative routes
for access to the site.
FORECASTED TRAFFIC AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
The site -generated trips were aggregated with the existing traffic volumes along the area' s
roadways to produce a forecast of future traffic volumes, as shown in Exhibit 3. These forecasts
also include traffic generated by the previously approved CityPlace Three building and therefore
reflect traffic conditions following the buildout of the CityPlace development.
City Place Four & Five
Restaurant & Condominiums)
N
Legend'
XX =
XX) =
P.M. Peak Hour Traffic
n. t.s.
N. New Ballas •
Pd.
col
j0 %
b
0
r 0 ( 50)
J
O
O
b
N
o p
0 0
1
4j
90 ( 20) 1
c0O ,
N
O
b
O
CA
American
w
Legion
DTive
1
1
1
1
p
O
w
Q
v
O
Celt
y
N
O
O
CAo
41
90 ( 20) 1
O O
NCq
y
ti
i
L 30 ( 10)
L 30 ( 5)
d
1 4
35 ( 20) 1
4- 30( 5)
Olive Blvd
1
cn
N ..
O
Exhibit 2 - Forecasted Site Generated Traffic
oe 062 -00 —
J —
j
04/ 18/00 Traffic and Transportation Engineers
N
Legend
XX =
XX) =
P.M. Peak Hour Traffic
n. t.s.
44lo
Pd„
N. New Ballas •
Pp\
O
1
o
J
b
43
Q
o
O
C4
N
O
N
Cn
American o 010 °
Legion
L 0 ( 5)
0( 0)
r 5 ( 20)
30 ( 15) 1
0 ( 5) 25 ( 35)
h 1
to
w - Ch. (
Cn
r
N
O
Coa
O
v
Cn N
OO
N -+
1
O
s N
O Cn
N .-
O Op
L 5 ( 15)
J
L
Ln
O O
f --1100 ( 2600)
w
J
0 Ov
r 70 ( 55)
N Cn
175 ( 55) -
Cn
J
Ln
O-
9
Exhibit 3 - Total Forecasted Traffic
290 ( 165) 1
1 ('
220 ( 140) 1
2255( 1400)-+
cn
En
1865 ( 1030) -.
315 ( 225) - 41
1
L 40 ( 35)
u
855 ( 1655)
j-220 (230)
41 t tr'
Olive Blvd
N
Ln O
O
o Ln o
Job #62 -00
1 ___
04118100 Traffic and Transportation Engineers
J -
1
1
A
J
May 10, 2000
Page 11
The operating conditions at each of the intersections were re- evaluated to quantify the impacts
associated with the buildout of CityPlace. Table 3 summarizes the results of these analyses.
Table 3
rr°
Forecasted Operating Conditions
FoRowing the Buildout of Cit Place
g
AM Peak Hour
Intersection/ Approach
I
LOS
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
39. 9 sec /veh
D
25. 6 sec /veh
25. 1 sec /veh
ela
Olive Boulevard & N. New Ballas Road ( Si nalized
Eastbound Approach
D
Westbound Approach
C
20. 1 sec /veh
D
Northbound Approach.
E
46. 5 sec /veh
E.
44. 0 sec /veh
Southbound Approach
D
36. 1 sec /veh
E
40. 9 sec /veh
D
34. 6 sec /veh
D
29. 4 sec /veh
Olive Boulevard &
Rue de la Ban ue West /Center Parkway
Si nalized
Eastbound Approach
B
11. 1 sec /veh
B
13. 2 sec /veh
Westbound Approach
B
12. 0 sec /veh
C
21. 9 sec /veh
Northbound Approach
D
39. 4 sec /veh
E
54.4 sec /veh
Southbound Ap2roach
D
37. 0 sec /veh
E
55. 9 sec /veh
B
12. 8 sec /veh
C
22. 8 sec /veh
N. New Ballas Road &
City Place Drive ( Signalized)
Eastbound Approach
A
2. 4 sec /veh
A
3. 4 sec /veh
Westbound Approach
A
2. 3 sec /veh
A
3. 6 sec /veh
Northbound Approach
B
9. 5 sec /veh
B
9. 0 sec /veh
Southbound A2proach
B
9. 5 sec /veh
B
9. 8 sec /veh
A
2. 7 sec /veh
A
4. 7 sec/ veh
N. New Ballas Road & American Legion Drive (
A11 -Way Stop)
Northbound Approach
C
16. 3 sec /veh
B
14. 9 sec /veh
Southbound Approach
B
13. 9 sec /veh
D
26. 3 sec /veh
Eastbound Approach
A
9. 5 sec /veh
A
9. 6 sec /veh
Westbound Approach
A
9. 2 sec /veh
A
9. 3 sec /veh
I
B
1 14. 9 sec /veh
C
1 21. 7 sec /veh
As can be seen, acceptable operating conditions can be provided at each of the intersections
included in the study. It is important to note that these conditions are based upon revised timing
parameters that could be implemented following the completion of the I -270 interchange
1 =_
1
1
May 10, 2000
Page 12
improvements, thereby allowing many of the secondary movements to be better accommodated.
However, it must be understood that modifications to the signal timing along Olive Boulevard
would be at the discretion of MoDOT and that a progression analysis would most likely be
required to ensure that progression could be maintained.
Forecasted operating conditions at each of the critical intersections and, by extension, the impact
of the proposed development are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Olive Boulevard & New Ballas Road
The intersection of Olive Boulevard and New Ballas Road is already heavily saturated during
peak periods.
Capacity analyses indicate that it currently operates at Level of Service F during
the a. m. peak hour and that the north -south approaches operate at a Level F during the p.m. peak
hour. The morning constraints are related to limitations in signal time for eastbound traffic on
Olive Boulevard, but that could be remedied by timing modifications. In the afternoon,
conditions along Olive Boulevard are exacerbated by congestion at the I -270 interchange and the
inability to coordinate the closely spaced traffic signals.
As previously mentioned, several roadway modifications have been proposed in this area that
will substantially improve operating conditions at these intersections. The most significant of
these is the upgrade of the I -270 interchange to a " center- point- diamond" configuration. This
design will significantly improve operating conditions and will provide improved spacing and
coordination of the traffic signals along Olive, thereby alleviating many of the existing
constraints.
Furthermore, in conjunction with the development of CityPlace Three, Olive Boulevard will be
widened from just west of Old Ballas Road to the Border' s site, thereby extending a third
westbound through lane from the Amoco station at CityPlace Drive all the way to I -270.
This
widening will increase the utilization and efficiency of the third lane at the intersection with New
Ballas.
These improvements would provide additional capacity to the intersection and would allow the
signal timing to be reallocated to the critical movements. In so doing, the intersection would be
able to accommodate the additional traffic associated with the buildout of CityPlace ( Phase IV
and V) with operating conditions that are better or comparable to the existing Levels of Service.
An additional 150 trips and 190 trips would be added to this intersection during the a.m. and p.m.
These additional movements would be limited primarily to the
eastbound left -turn and southbound right -turn movements. The capacity analyses indicate that
the intersection would be capable of accommodating this additional traffic while maintaining
peak hours, respectively.
IL=-
May 10, 2000
Page 13
Level D conditions during both peak hours, though it would still be congested and several
individual movements would operate at Level E. More importantly, delay times for the north south approaches would be greatly diminished in the afternoon, from Level F with more than 65
seconds of vehicular delay to Level E with less than 45 seconds of delay.
Olive Boulevard &
Rue de la Banque West/ Center Parkway
As part of the reconstruction of the I -270 interchange, the intersection of Olive Boulevard and
Rue de la Banque West would also be improved.
westbound through lane are proposed.
An eastbound right -turn lane and a fourth
The eastbound right -turn would facilitate the flow of
traffic onto Center Parkway Drive and the various commercial uses south of Olive Boulevard.
The fourth westbound through lane would accommodate the flow of traffic towards I -270.
As a result, traffic flows along Olive Boulevard would improve, thereby removing the existing
Generally speaking, the capacity
peak hour blockage at the intersection with Rue de la Banque.
of this intersection would increase to the extent that it could accommodate the forecasted traffic
while still maintaining acceptable operating conditions ( Level C or better).
N. New Ballas Road & CityPlace Drive
Currently, the intersection of New Ballas Road and CityPlace Drive operates at a Level A during
both peak periods, thereby indicating that there is ample capacity to accommodate the anticipated
traffic increases associated with the buildout of CityPlace.
It is expected that as many as 240
additional trips would be added to this intersection following the development of CityPlace Four
and Five.
Our analyses indicate that the intersection would continue to operate at a Level A
following the buildout of CityPlace, so there would be no need for additional physical
improvements beyond the construction of the fourth leg.
As originally proposed, the north leg of this intersection ( which is an extension of CityPlace
Drive) would be two lanes wide ( one in each direction). However, it is recommended that two
outbound' ( southbound) lanes be provided at the intersection with North New Ballas, thereby
accommodating
a
separate
right -turn
lane
and
a
combination
through/ left -turn
lane.
Furthermore, the centerlines of the north and south legs of CityPlace Drive should be located
directly opposite each other to provide proper lane alignments. Finally, it is recommended that
non- locking" operations to avoid unnecessary stops to
the traffic signal be programmed for "
traffic on New Ballas Road.
1
7
May 10, 2000
Page 14
New Ballas Road & American Legion Drive
The intersection of New Ballas Road with American Legion Drive is currently controlled by a
four -way stop. This location does not satisfy the typical criteria for all -way stop control, though
it is our understanding that the stop signs on New Ballas were originally installed because of
sight distance constraints on the west leg. The retaining walls that created the sight distance
restriction on the west leg were reconstructed several years ago, thereby correcting the preexisting problem.
Therefore, it would be our recommendation that the stops on New Ballas
Road be removed.
The intersection geometrics are adequate to allow partial stop- control without creating adverse
conditions for side -street traffic. In fact, two -way stop control would allow the side street to
operate at Level of Service C or better while eliminating delays to north -south traffic.
It is our understanding that City of Creve Coeur officials may be reluctant to eliminate the all way stop. It should be recognized that, if the all -way stop remains, southbound traffic conditions
would be expected to degrade slightly ( to LOS D) during the p.m. peak hour following the
buildout of the CityPlace campus. This condition would reflect the delay that these motorists
would unnecessarily incur.
Furthermore, the adjacent section of New Ballas Road is currently striped for three southbound
lanes and two northbound lanes. In order to prevent obstructions to through traffic, it would be
appropriate to stripe the center lane to allow two -way left turns with a transition to a dedicated
southbound left -turn lane immediately to the south of this intersection.
Proposed Public Connection Between East and West Rue De La Banque
As was previously mentioned, the assignment of traffic generated by the buildout of CityPlace
assumes the creation of an improved, public connection between Rue De La Banque East and
West. Field observations revealed that motorists tend to seek out a " cut -thru" between these two
roads as ' a means of avoiding the congestion along Olive Boulevard, particularly at the
intersection with New Ballas Road.
These motorists most often utilize the parking lot of the
banking facility to travel between Rue De La Banque East and West.
It is recommended that a dedicated public connection be provided between these two roadways
to accommodate this existing movement, to disperse the traffic from the proposed development
and to facilitate cross -access between the adjacent land uses and collector roads to the north of
Olive Boulevard.
The connection would provide alternative routes for motorists traveling to or
from the development site, thereby minimizing its impact. For example, motorists exiting
CityPlace to travel to the west on Olive Boulevard or to I -270 would have the option of using
I = _
1 •
May 10, 2000
Page 15
New Ballas Road, Rue de la Banque East or Rue de la Banque West to access Olive Boulevard.
Similarly, motorists arriving from the east on Olive could use any one of several curb cuts to
access the development area.
This connection would require the cooperation of the City of Creve Coeur since it would require
the acquisition of additional right -of w
- ay. However, this proposed public roadway would be an
important link for the City since it augments the " frontage road" concept that has been promoted
elsewhere and it would facilitate local traffic movements without forcing motorists onto Olive
Boulevard unnecessarily.
Pedestrian Circulation
Lastly, pedestrian circulation was reviewed throughout the CityPlace development with
particular emphasis on proposed connections across North New Ballas Road.
element to a campus or "
vehicular connections.
village"
An important
concept is the provision of attractive pedestrian as well as
Therefore, it would be necessary to provide pedestrian crossings at the
signalized intersection of CityPlace Drive and New Ballas Road to " link" CityPlace Four and
Five with the remainder of the development.
Since this intersection is signalized, pedestrian
flows could easily and safely be accommodated at this location.
Mid -block crossings of North New Ballas Road would be discouraged. Research indicates that a
large proportion of pedestrian accidents occur at mid -block locations. Grade- separated crossings
could be used instead. However, should the City of Creve Coeur choose to retain the all -way
stop control at the intersection with American Legion Drive, it would be an appropriate location
for a second at -grade pedestrian crossing. Since all of the approaches to the intersection already
have to stop, pedestrian traffic could be accommodated without significantly increasing delay
times for vehicular traffic.
CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from the preceding discussion, as summarized below. Exhibit
4 illustrates the physical improvements that are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by
CityPlace Four and Five
Existing traffic conditions along Olive Boulevard are constrained. East of New Ballas Road,
Olive Boulevard narrows to a five -lane section that effectively acts as a bottleneck.
Conditions on Olive Boulevard are also aggravated by spill -backs from the I -270 interchange
and the inability to effectively coordinate the numerous closely spaced traffic signals along
the corridor.
e
1
1
May 10, 2000
Page 16
Many individual traffic movements experience long delays due to the prioritization of traffic
flows along Olive Boulevard. As a result, a number of side street movements currently have
insufficient green time to adequately clear and many motorists wait through more than one
cycle of the signal. However, signal timing changes could potentially be implemented after
the
reconstruction
of the
I -270
interchange
to
a
center -point
diamond.
This
new
configuration would provide improved spacing between the interchange and the adjacent
cross streets and it would allow for better coordination of the signals. As a result, additional
time could possibly be devoted to the side streets without impeding the flows on Olive.
The proposed development of CityPlace Four and Five would generate 335 and 360 trips
during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Multiple access routes are
available for motorists traveling to and from CityPlace. Consequently, the site -generated
traffic would be dispersed between several intersections along Olive Boulevard, effectively
minimizing the impact that the development would have on any one location.
Once CityPlace is built out, acceptable operating conditions could be provided at each of the
critical intersections if the signal timings are revised following the completion of the I -270
interchange improvements. The implementation of these timing would solely be at the
discretion of MoDOT and a progression analysis would most likely have to be completed to
ensure that coordination could be maintained along the corridor.
The intersection of Olive Boulevard and N. New Ballas Road is already heavily saturated
during the peak commuter hours. However, several roadway modifications have been
proposed in this area that will improve operating conditions, including the reconstruction of
the I -270 interchange and the widening of Olive Boulevard to extend the third westbound
lane back to Old Ballas Road. These improvements would provide additional capacity,
thereby allowing the intersection to accommodate the additional traffic associated with the
buildout of CityPlace.
As part of the reconstruction of the I -270 interchange, an eastbound right -turn lane and a
fourth westbound through lane would be provided at the intersection of Olive Boulevard with
Rue de la Banque West. Traffic flows on Olive Boulevard would improve, thereby relieving
the existing congestion that often blocks access to Rue de la Banque West. Consequently,
the forecasted traffic could be accommodated while maintaining acceptable operating
conditions ( Level C or better).
The intersection of New Ballas Road and CityPlace Drive currently operates at a Level A
during both peak periods studied, thereby indicating that there is sufficient capacity to
accommodate the anticipated traffic flows following the buildout of CityPlace. Analyses
w
J
May 10, 2000
Page 17
indicate that this intersection would continue to operate at a Level A and that there is no need
for physical improvements beyond the construction of the fourth leg serving CityPlace Four
and Five.
It is suggested however, that the signal' s operations be modified to avoid
unnecessary service to CityPlace Drive.
It is recommended that the existing stop signs on New Ballas Road at the intersection with
American Legion be removed.
The intersection geometrics are adequate to allow partial
stop -control without creating adverse traffic conditions on the side street.
It is recommended that a dedicated public roadway connection be provided between Rue de
la Banque West and East to facilitate travel between these two roadways.
This would also
encourage the disbursement of the development' s traffic to alternative access routes. This
improvement would require the City' s cooperation in the acquisition of right -of w
- ay.
However, this proposed roadway would be an important link to the City since it augments the
frontage road" concept that has been promoted elsewhere and it would facilitate the flow of
traffic between the various uses in the immediate area without impacting Olive Boulevard.
Lastly, it is recommended that a pedestrian crossing be provided at the signalized intersection
of New Ballas Road and CityPlace Drive. Should the City chose to retain the all -way stop at
the intersection with American Legion Drive, it is suggested that a second pedestrian
crossing at that intersection. Furthermore, should any mid -block crossings be pursued, it is
recommended that they be limited to grade- separated facilities only.
I trust you will find the above information useful.
Please feel free to contact our office if you
should have any question concerning this material or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Douglas S. Shatto, P. E.
Vice President
DSS.jmn
I
Impact Study
r
9
z
S-
r
d
use ` '
M
Dallas
New
City Place
Provide n
btic connection'
between East & West Rue de la Banque.
North
Four &
Five
City Place
Two
AAVv
City Pia e
8i
y
Tq
Three -
Reave stop signs on New Ballas Road and
I
4ntersection to partial stop control,.
N
e
ev
a
rd
x
•
r
oaf
F. ar -.. "
ll
1N! M 4' 1M1 ! ..
f . +
3 • _, . •'
All
k
Exhibit 4 - Recommended Improvements
t }
J
Job
#62-00
J
Traffic and Transportation Engineers
I
0
0
tCREVE
C
314) 432 -6000 - FAX ( 314) 872 -2539 - RELAY MO 1- 800 -735 -2966
iltcv yeareopeart
1949 - 1999
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION:
2641 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
APPLICANT:
DOUGLAS M. BARON
irt /ps
MAYOR
LOWENHAUPT & CHASNOFF
COUNCIL MEMBERS
10 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 600
ST. LOUIS, MO 63102
1ST WARD
BARRY L. GLANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
An application has been submitted to amend the minimum district size of the PC, Planned
Community District, Section 26 -41. 5 ( a) of the Code of Ordinances. Douglas Baron, with the
law firm of Lowenhaupt &
Deutsch &
2ND WARD
Chasnoff, has submitted the text amendment on behalf of Charles
Company. Said amendment request to reduce the minimum district size of the PC
district from 40 acres to 15 acres.
SUE KROMER
JUDY PASS
Text Amendments are governed under Section 26 -113 of the Zoning Ordinance and require
action by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider the application and decide whether or not to recommend approval.
3RD WARD
ELEANOR CLOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
As Per Section 26 -113 of the Zoning Code, within ninety ( 90) days after receipt of the
application from the Zoning Administrator, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall transmit
a report and recommendations to the City Council.
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
Proposal Summary
This application was first presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 2000.
The Planning and Zoning Commission deferred action on said request, at the applicant' s request
to modify the initial Text Amendment proposal. On May 1, 2000, the Department of
RICHARD).
Community Development received a letter from the applicant requesting the following Text
4TH WARD
WOLKOWITZ
Amendment:
Section 26 -41. 5 Dimensional Regulations
The Following area and yard regulations apply in the PC, Planned Community District.
a)
Minimum district size.
The minimum tract or site to be developed shall be
fifteen ( 15) acres. Such a site may, by Site Development Plan approval and in
conformance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into lots or
tracts to be sold to others for development or occupancy in accordance with
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK G PERKINS
the approved development plan for the project.
The current section reads as follows:
CITY CLERK (
LAVERNE COLLINS
a)
Minimum district size. The minimum tract or site to be developed by a single owner or
developer shall be forty ( 40) acres. Such a site may, by Site Development Plan
approval and in conformance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into
lots or tracts to be sold to others for development or occupancy in accordance with the
approved development plan for the project.
Text Amendment • •
PC Planned Community District
Page 2 of 5
The changes proposed are as follows:
1.
Removal of references to single owner or developer
2.
Reduction in tract or site size from 40 acres to 15 acres.
PC District History
The PC, Planned Community District was created in 1969, under Ordinance 523, adopted on July 14, 1969. The
district was originally known as the ' K' District. The ' K' District was specifically created to accommodate a 66.2
acre development known as the Westgate. As part of Ordinance 523, the rezoning of the 66. 2 acre Westgate
development was included.
The purpose of the ' K', District was to encompass large, compact parcels of property, of not less than forty (40) acres
of contiguous ground; on which can be developed separate environment communities consisting of combinations of
uses in locations where it would be appropriate to the area that office buildings, high rise apartments buildings, town
house buildings, garden type apartments, and complementary retail and service commercial buildings or units
intended primarily to serve the office and residential uses within such district) be constructed under one coordinated
and integral plan under conditions necessary to protect the general welfare including a sufficient landscaped buffer
area to preserve the stability and value of adjoining use districts.
Permitted land uses and developments included, but were not limited, to the following:
Multifamily dwellings, including garden apartments, town houses and high rise apartment buildings;
Commercial office structures for the conduct of any lawful business, professional or personal service;
Stores or shops for 1) the conduct or retail sales business or 2) the furnishing of personal and household
commercial services, provided that the total gross floor area devoted to any one business or serviced does
not exceed 6, 000 square feet.
Contemporaneously with the passage of any ordinance classifying any tract of ground to ' K', Planned Community
District zoning, the City Council shall approve a preliminary master development plan. Such preliminary master
development plan shall prescribe and permanently establish the method of ingress and egress to such tract from
adjacent public roads; the proposed location of public and private roads; the buffer area; the proposed lines of
demarcation between the various land areas within the tract showing the types or types of uses to be permitted
within each area; existing and proposed contour intervals; the number of multiple family dwelling units exclusive of
high rise apartment buildings; the number of dwelling units in high rise apartment buildings; the total amount of
gross leaseable retail sales and service commercial space in each area; and the total amount of gross leaseable office
space in each area. Thereafter, the developer of such tract shall submit a final development plan or plans for all or
part of such tract to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation to the City Council.
The ' K', Planned Community District may be established by ordinance of the City Council and a preliminary master
development plan may be approved by the City Council where the Council determines that it would promote the
public welfare that a particular tract or tracts be developed under on comprehensive plan allowing greater flexibility
in the combination of land uses within such tract or tracts and within any buildings erected on such tract or tracts
while maintaining at the same time, through the development plan, a greater degree of control of the manner of
In considering any proposed change of zoning to such zoning district and in approving the
preliminary master and final development plans, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall
consider the following factors:
development.
The relationship of the areas within the tract to each other;
The relationship of use areas with the tract to existing land uses and the lawful uses of adjoining tracts;
The provision of adequate parking facilities;
The provision of proper means of ingress and egress to public roads;
The provision of effective screening including landscaping and fences ;
Any other factors relevant to the public health, safety and morals, and general welfare of the City of Creve
Coeur.
Whenever the developer files application for approval of the first final development plan for any part of a tract
classified within this district, he shall submit a proposed trust indenture as to all the land within the district which
trust indenture shall provide for the appointment of a Board of Trustees to be selected by the owners of the tract in
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\P & Z Commission \Reports \TA -Accolade. doc
Text Amendment ' •
PC Planned CommunityDistrict
Page 3 of 5
an equitable manner which Board of Trustees shall be charged with the duty under this ordinance and under such
trust indenture to maintain all streets, private parks, common areas, walks, fountains, pools, statuary, landscaping,
recreation areas, and any other areas or structure for the common use of residents of the tract classified in this
district, and which shall provide an equitable means of assessment against all land within such tract ( with the
exception of public lands) to insure that the above described areas and structures shall be maintained in compliance
with this and other ordinances of this City and in such manner that such areas and structures will remain attractive
and useful to the residents of such tract and shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or welfare of residents of
surrounding areas or be detrimental to property values of land and improvements within such tract or in surrounding
areas. Such trust indenture shall also provide that the conveyance or change in ownership or lease of any part of
such tract shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance and of such trust indenture, and that no right or power
conferred on the trustees by such indentures to comply with the provisions of this paragraph may be abrogated.
Such trust indenture shall be submitted to the City Attorney for his approval as to legal form and shall be recorded
with the Recorder of Deeds of St. Louis County, Missouri, prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Today' s PC District
Under today's current Zoning Code, the intent of the PC, Planned Community district is to provide for the
development of large areas to consist of a mixture of residential, office employment and retail service uses, which
together comprise a community or neighborhood. Permitted land uses include single and attached family residences,
multifamily residences, retail services, financial related services, office uses, health services and public and private
institutional land uses.
The district regulations have been refined.
The Site Concept Plan and Site Development Plan require only the
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Note, any rezoning request to PC, Planned Community district
requires action by the City Council as per Section 26 -113 of the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum district' size for
the PC, Planned Community District continues to be 40 acres.
40 or 15 acres?
The question before the Planning and Zoning Commission is whether 15 acres is appropriate in size to conform with
the spirit and intent of the PC, Planned Community District. At the time of adoption of the PC district, the overall
goal of the City Council was to:
develope separate environment communities consisting of combinations of uses in locations where it
would be appropriate to the area that office buildings, high rise apartments buildings, town house
buildings, garden type apartments, and complementary retail and service commercial buildings or units
intended primarily to serve the office and residential uses within such district) be constructed under on
coordinated and integral plan under conditions necessary to protect the general welfare including a
sufficient landscaped buffer area to preserve the stability and value of adjoining use districts.
This purpose and intent of the PC, Planned Community District was refined in the 1983 to read as follows:
provide for the development of large areas to consist of a mixture of residential, office employment and
retail service uses, which together comprise a community or neighborhood.
In the late 60' s and early 70' s, the abundance of undeveloped land within in St. Louis County was plentiful. The
design standards for developments were based on developments occupying vast amounts of land, graded to
accommodate development proposals and built with the traditional suburban setting in mind, with green lawns and
seas of asphalt parking. The common definition of community at that time did include a mixture of compatible land
uses, but only when seen as part of a big picture. Land uses were still fragmented in the form of clusters, one area
for residential, one area for office and one area for retail. Within these clusters, additional fragmentation occurred
between similar uses, such as single family, garden style or town house residences and high rise apartments. The
concept of neighborhood and community was not defined by areas for pedestrian to congregate and gather, but to
provide easy vehicular circulation and access and reasonable travel distances for vehicles to get to and park.
Westgate, the City's only Planned Community development is an excellent example of the traditional planning
practice of the late 60' s and 70's.
The development made a concentrated effort to create a sense of place and
community to define Creve Coeur. The development even won a national award for its progressive and dynamic
design. This development contains 66. 2 acres of residential, retail and office uses. The retail area is located on the
northwest corner of the site, near the intersection of Tempo Drive and Olive Boulevard.
Dilbert\ COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \TA- Accolade.doc
The office area is
Page 4 of 5
maintained in the northern half of the site, along Olive Boulevard. The residential area encompasses the remaining
portions of the southern half of the 66.2 acre site. There is a mixture of uses within the 66. 2 acres, but Westgate is
designed in the form of a little zoned suburban city, each use segregate from the other.
By mid 1980, the only large comprehensive development in Creve Coeur was the 30 -acre West Park development,
annexed from St. Louis County prior to development plans being submitted. West Park requested CB, Core
Business district zoning. The CB district provided the uses necessary for the development and had no minimum
district tract size.
West Park was approved under a Master Development Plan ( Site Concept Plan) and also had
recorded indentures similar to those required in the PC, Planned Community district. The West Park proposal and
current make up did not contain any residential uses.
In 1995, the City created the MX, Mix Use district in an effort to provide a more traditional method of mixing
compatible uses in a smaller designated area similar to those of old walkable downtown developments. The intent
of the MX district was to encourage the redevelopment of under developed areas of the City that have been
identified by a City land use plan. With a city fairly well developed, there were no longer opportunities for large
tracts of land for development. The only way to encourage creating community districts or neighborhood centers
was through redevelopment.
The MX district was created flexible enough to encourage its use in rezoning,
requiring a minimum of 5- acres. In addition, the MX district encouraged more comprehensive developments, by
providing an incentive of increased density on a site the larger the lot became.
The use of MX zoning has been applied by the City conservatively, only along the Olive Boulevard corridor,
between Tempo Drive and Questover Lane. One reason for its minimal use has been that only one City plan, the
Northwest Sector Land Use Plan, has identified the use of the MX zoning district.
As a result of today's PC district and MX district, coordinated development has been limited. The PC restriction of
40 -acres has not allowed the opportunity for its use on smaller developments. The MX district was devised as a
zoning tool to be utilized through land use plans and also was not available until after developments like West Park
and CityPlace were proposed. The result has been developments under the CB, Core Business District and GC,
Each district allowing developments on one -half acre lots and without any
requirement to be regulated under a big picture.
General Commercial District.
As long as the City does not have other land use plans identifying MX use as indicated in the Northwest Sector Plan,
coordinated development for developments below 40 -acres may continue to develop as they are today. The request
to reduce the 40 -acre minimum tract size for the PC, Planned Community District is an effective way to foster
coordinated developments under the control of an indenture system similar in use at Westgate. This application can
be provided through the CB and GC districts, but with its historical use, it would be hard to set in place standards
such as those in the PC district.
Other Communities
The City of Chesterfield has a PC, Planned Commercial District similar to that of Creve Coeur's PC, Planned
Community district. Under Chesterfield' s zoning ordinance, a PC, Planned Commercial District may be established
on a tract of land in single ownership or single management control and does not identify a minimum tract size. The
City of Maryland Heights has a PD, Planned District which allows " MUD ", Mixed Use Developments. The
application and use of the " MUD" district places a minimum 7. 5 acre tract size.
Suggested Conditions for approval
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the Text Amendment as submitted by the applicant,
staff suggests the following conditions:
1.
Only the minimum district tract size be changed from 40 acres to 15 acres. The Commission is encouraged not
to eliminate the reference of single owner or developer. Said amendment would read as follows:
Z:\ P & Z Commission \Reports \TA -Accolade.doc
Page 5 of 5
Section 2641. 5 Dimensional Regulations
a) Minimum district size. The minimum tract or site to be developed by a single owner or developer
shall be fifteen ( 15) acres.
Such a site may, by Site Development Plan approval and in
conformance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into lots or tracts to be sold to
others for development or occupancy in accordance with the approved development plan for the
project.
Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall take action on the proposed Text Amendment as submitted by the
applicant.
Action on the Text Amendment will be in the form of a recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for action after a formal Public Hearing is
held. A Public Hearing has tentatively been scheduled before the City Council on Monday, June 26, 2000.
Z:\ P & Z Commission\ Reports lTA- Accolade.doc
13/ 00
04: 14 %
M4
372
2274
THE GATESWORTH •
1•
CHARLES DEUTSCH & COMPANY
One McKnight Place
Saint Louis, MO 63124
314) 372 -2272
April 12, 2000
Via Facsimile and U. S. Mail
Mr. Carlos Trejo, AICP
City Planner
City of Creve Coeur
300 North. New Ballas
Re:
Proposed Text Amendments
Dear Carlos:
As we discussed,
amendments.
we desire to amend our May 2,
2000 application for text
The only text amendment for which we now seek approval is
amendment to the Dimensional Regulation for the Planned Community District
which would permit a minimum tract size to be developed of thirty (30) rather
than forty (40) acres. Because tracts of land of 40 acres or more are nowadays
unusual in a highly -developed suburb such as Creve Coeur, it makes sense to
modernize the standard by reducing the minimum tract size for planned
community districts.
In addition, the Dimensional Regulations contemplate only a single owner of a
tract zoned PC, which owner could later subdivide those tracts for development
by multiple developers. Although at one time it made sense that a single owner
may have a large enough tract to rezone it as a Planned Community District, it
no longer does.
In today's world, a more modern and flexible standard would
be appropriate to permit' several landowners to come together to create a
Planned Community District
Thus, our proposed text amendment would
eliminate the single owner requirement.
The enclosed proposed text amendment would update your code to create
greater flexibility in the Planned Community District and better reflect current
practices and levels of development in the city. Please place this matter for
consideration on the May 15 Planning and Zoning Commission docket. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Charles Deutsch
U002
J / 13/ 00
04: 14 $
314
372
THE GATESWORTH
2274
1/
PROPOSED TEXT AMEMDWW TO CREVE COEUR CODE
26 -41. 5 Dimensional. Reguladons
The following area and yard regulations apply is the PC, Planned Community District
a)
Minimwn district size. The minimum tract or site to be developed b"
shall be fiddy (30) forty (499 sates. Such a site
may, by Site Development Plan Approval and in conformance with the
City`S Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into lots or tracts to be sold to
other for development or oocnpaucy in accordance with the approved
development plan for the project.
U003
BILL NUMBER.
ORDINANCE NUMBER.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 26 -41. 5 ( a) OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CREVE COEUR
RELATING TO THE MINIMUM DISTRICT SIZE FOR THE PC,
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, a proposed text amendment was submitted by Douglas Baron of the law firm of
Company to reduce the minimum district size
in the PC, Planned Community District, and
Lowenhaupt & Chasnoff, on behalf of Charles Deutsch &
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri has
recognized the need for a revision of the provisions of Ordinance Number 1903, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and by majority /unanimous vote
recommended denial/ approval of the subject amendment at its meeting on Monday, May 15, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, also being cognizant of a
need for these changes in the zoning regulations, held a Public Hearing thereon at the Creve Coeur
Government Center on June 26, 2000, beginning at 7: 30 p.m. or immediately following the close of the
previous Public Hearing, after having given fifteen ( 15) days prior public notice of the time, place and
purpose of said hearing by publication in the St. Louis Countian on_DATE, and in the West County
Journal on DATE, newspapers of general circulation in the City of Creve Coeur and after other written
notice was given all according to the provisions of law made and provided for such notices and hearings,
and
WHEREAS, all persons who presented themselves at said Public Hearing and desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard and a copy of the proposed ordinance has been made
available for public inspection prior to its consideration by the City Council; and this Bill having been
read by title in open meeting three times before final passage by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council being fully informed finds that amending the City Code of
Ordinances would be in harmony with and bear a substantial relation to the public welfare, health, safety,
comfort and convenience of the citizens of the City of Creve Coeur and in the public interest and in good
zoning practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri
that the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Creve Coeur be amended as follows:
SECTION 1: The minimum district size of the PC, Planned Community District be reduced from
40 acres to 15 acres and the reference to owner or developer be deleted under Section 2641. 5 ( a) and
such section shall be amended by enacting a new Section 26- 41. 5( a) as follows:
Text Amendment
A.
26 -41. 5 ( a) •
Minimum District Size of the PC, Planned Community District
Page 2 of 2
Section 26 -41. 5 Dimensional Regulations
a) Minimum district size.
The minimum tract or site to be developed shall be fifteen ( 15)
acres. Such a site may, by Site Development Plan approval and in conformance with the
City's Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into lots or tracts to be sold to others for
development or occupancy in accordance with the approved development plan for the
project.
SECTION 2.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT all ordinances in conflict with this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
SECTION 3.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance shall become effective
fifteen ( 15) days from adoption and approval in accordance with Section 3. 11 ( G) of the City Charter.
ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
PRESIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
LAVERNE COLLINS, CMC
CITY CLERK
N
BILL
523
NUMBER
ORDINANCE
523
NUMBER
AS PREVIOUSLY
225,
ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO.
BEING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
BY REPEALING SECTION
THE CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI,
AN
AMENDED,
3. 1
AND
ENACTING
IN
LIEU
THEREOF
A NEW
SECTION TO
NUMBERED SECTION 3. 1 WHEREBY NINE ZONING
ESTABLISHED FOR THE CITY INCLUDING A NEW
PLANNED COMMUNITY
TO BE KNOWN AS THE " K"
FURTHER
BY
BY
TO
AMEND
ORDINANCE
NO.
AS
225,
BE
DISTRICTS ARE
ZONING DISTRICT
AND
DISTRICT,
PREVIOUSLY
AMENDED
ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE TO BE NUMBERED ARTICLE 9C WHEREREGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION,
ERECTION,
AND
TO
LAND
WITHIN
AMEND
FROM "
THE
ZONING
AND "
B"
COMMERCIAL
SUCH "
AND
DISTRICT
SINGLE
C"
USE
REGIONAL
OF
PLANNED
K"
MAP
FAMILY
SHOPPING
STRUCTURES,
BUILDINGS,
COMMUNITY
OF
THE
CITY
BY
DISTRICT
AND "
J"
DISTRICT
TO
AND
DISTRICT,
CHANGING
PLANNED
PLANNED
K"
SUCH "
COMMUNITY DISTRICT AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 66. 2 ACRES AS
AND FURTHER
FULLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE,
TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUCHAREA OF 66. 2 ACRES.
A
WHEREAS,
TRACT
OF
OLIVE
BOULEVARD
THE
LAND
PETITION
OF
NOTTINGHAM
WEST
AND
PLANNED
COMMERCIAL
VARIOUS
TRACT
HEREOF,'
TYPES
OF
AN
INITIAL
OF
THIS
BEING
FURTHER
AMENDED
PLANNED
LAND
TO
WHEREAS,
OF
AND
A
THE
TO
CREATE
244
C"
NOTICE
A
OF
THIS
CITY
IN ACCORDANCE
ORDINANCE
NO.
THE
225,
AND
THAT
ON
FAMILY
AND
REZONING
THE
AND
SOUTH
IN
AND "
PLANNED
K"
BUILDINGS
COMMERCIAL
USE
OF
BETWEEN
DESCRIBED
A"
OF
OF A
SIDE
GENERALLY
DISTRICTS
TO
CONSTRUCTION
AS
WRITTEN
A
NEW
REPORT
ZONING
ZONING
AND
TO
ACCORDANCE
PUBLIC
WITH
NOTICE
OF
AND OF
OF
THE
THE
BOARD OF ALDERMEN THEREON WAS
DISTRICT
J"
COM-
OF
ON
BE
SUCH
CITY,
FILING
PUBLIC
OF
OF
THIS
BE
HELD
BE GIVEN
SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE
NO.
AMENDED;
AND
CITY,
KNOWN
AS
BE
THE
TRACT
OF
PROPOSAL;
BEFORE
THE
PROPOSAL
REV.
MADE
ALDERMEN
PREVIOUSLY
AND
BOARD
WAS
STAT. (
1959)
AND
AND
THE
HEARING
AFORESAID
TO
GIVEN TO ALL
REQUIRED TO
HAS
AS
AFORESAID
MO.
OF
AFORESAID
AFORESAID
89. 050
CITY
BOARD
TO
THE
THE
TO
THE
DULY
THIS
THE
225,
REZONE
THIS
THE
NO.
WITH
SECTION
TO
OF
ORDINANCE
HEARING
CONCERNING
AMENDED
THEREOF
COMMISSION
ORDINANCE
THE
AS
THE
FULLY
DISTRICT
ZONING
AND
225,
AS
SINGLE
SHOPPING
DISTRICT
IN
NATURE
AND "
COMPREHENSIVE
PUBLISHED
WHEREAS,
HIGHWAY
SUPPLEMENTAL
DISTRICT;
ALDERMEN OF
LYING
MULTI - FAMILY
PLANNING
COMMUNITY
SUCH
ACRES
SUBDIVISIONS,
ALLOW
RECOMMENDING
AMENDED,
K"
TO
OFFICE,
REPORT
CITY
66. 2
PROPOSING
AND
THE
WHEREAS,
B"
REGIONAL
AS
FILED
INTERSTATE
QUESTOVER
SO
FOR
LAND;
OF
FROM "
3
DISTRICT
BEEN
APPROXIMATELY
SECTION
MUNITY
HAS
BE
PROPOSAL
HELD
PROPERTY
IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
BEFORE
OWNERS
ORDINANCE
2
A
WHEREAS,
ALDERMEN
OF
9: 00
OF
THIS
AN
CITY
AT
P. M.,
THEMSELVES
GIVEN
PUBLIC
AT
THE
SAID
THE
THAT
THERE
AN
225,
AS
TO
BE
ON
IS
AS
AND
BOARD
OF
ALDERMEN
EXISTING
NEED
TO
AMENDED,
THE "
K"
WHO
DESIRING
OF
THIS
THE
THAT
THE
PUBLIC
SUCH
AT
THE
HAS
ZONING
DISTRICT
SUCH
AND
IS
IN
GENERAL
ORDINANCE
AND
ZONING
WERE
DETERMINED
FOR
NEW
HOUR
HEARD
OF
A
OF'
PRESENTED
BE
CITY
AMENDMENT
MORALS,
SAFETY,
TO
BOARD
AMENDMENT
WITHIN
DETERMINED
DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING
DISTRICT;
THE
NO.
AND
INTERESTS
WELFARE
OF
OF
THIS
AND
THE
WHEREAS,
DETERMINED
TO
FAMILY
THAT
AS
225,
CITY
THERE
THE
DISTRICTS
SUCH
THIS
BOARD
PLANNED
OF
AN
AMENDED,
J"
AND
TRACT
PLANNED
COMMUNITY
PUBLIC
OF
EXISTING
AFORESAID
AND "
THE
ALDERMEN
NEED
THE
OF
CITY
FOR
LAND
AND
FURTHER
AMENDMENT
OF
ORDINANCE
DISTRICT MAP
OF
THIS
FROM "
AND "
B"
REGIONAL
THAT
SUCH
MORALS,
SAFETY,
HAS
THE
ZONING
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT,
HEALTH,
THIS
C"
SINGLE
SHOPPING
REZONING
AND
DISTRICT
IS
GENERAL
IN
THE
WELFARE
CITY.
NOW,
THEREFORE,
CITY
OF
CREVE
225,
AS
PREVIOUSLY
SECTION
CITY
KNOWN
OF
IS
PREVIOUSLY
REZONE
INTERESTS
NO.
PERSONS
COMMUNITY
FURTHER
THE
1969,
PROVIDE
LAND
BY
MAY,
PLANNED
HAS
HEALTH,
FOR
HELD
OF
ALL
HEARD;
OF
THE
AND
BE
REGULATION
OF
DAY
TO
AND
TO
26TH
AND
USE
NO.
BEEN
HEARING
THE
CITY,
HAS
HALL
PUBLIC
PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN
THE
CITY
OPPORTUNITY
WHEREAS,
HEARING
OF
AND
225,
COEUR,
1:
COEUR
AS
ENACTED
3.
1OF
SPECIFIC
USES;
BUILDINGS;
OPEN
AND
TO
SPACES
COEUR,
ST.
DISTRICTS
LOUIS
3.
IS
REGULATE
HEREBY
HEREBY
3.
1
TO
AND
AND
AND
READING
AS
MISSOURI,
SHALL
BE
OF
OF
THE
THE
DETERMINE
A
AREA
9)
NO.
FOLLOWS:
NO.
225
SECTION
SAID
AND
HEIGHT
HEREBY
NINE (
AS
OF
TO
BE
ORDINANCE
RESTRICT
BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS,
IS
THE
ORDINANCE
NEW
INTENSITY
THE
OF
FOLLOWS:
REGULATE
LIMIT
SURROUNDING
THERE
AND
3
LIMIT
THAT
ORDINANCE
ARTICLE
LOCATIONS
ALDERMEN
AMENDED
3* OF
REPEALED,
OF
OF
MISSOURI,
CLASSIFY,
THE
BOARD
FURTHER
THEREOF,
COUNTY,
WHICH
THE
COUNTY,
REGULATE
REGULATE
BY
OF ARTICLE
AND
WITHIN AND
OF
1
ORDER
TO
LOUIS
IS
LIEU
TRADES,
TO
ORDAINED
SECTION
IN
IN
LOCATION
LOTS;
ST.
AMENDED
NUMBERED
SECTION
IT
SECTION
CREVE
IS
BE
IN
OF
DESIGNED
AND
OF
THE
SIZE
FOR
OF
THE
USE
OF
YARDS
AND
OTHER
OF
CREVE
THE
CITY
DIVIDED
NUMBER
INTO
KNOWN
AS:
3
A"
SINGLE
FAMILY
DISTRICT
B"
SINGLE
FAMILY
DISTRICT
C"
SINGLE
FAMILY
DISTRICT
D"
TWO
FAMILY
DWELLING
F"
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
H"
PLANNED
I"
INDUSTRIAL
J"
PLANNED
COMMERCIAL
K"
PLANNED
COMMUNITY
DISTRICT
ORDINANCE
NO.
SECTION
HEREBY
2:
AMENDED
ARTICLE
9C
COMMERCIAL
BY' ADDING
AND
ARTICLE
9C - "
SECTION
9C.
THE "
PLANNED
PARCELS
OF
K"
1-
CONSISTING
TO
OF
CAN
BE
THE
RETAIL AND
NECESSARY
SCAPED
USE
TO
A
THE
NEW
AS
DISTRICT
CITY
OF
CREVE
ARTICLE
TO
BE
COEUR
IS
NUMBERED
AS
FOLLOWS:
DISTRICT
UNDER
AREA
DISTRICT
LESS
THAN
DEVELOPED
OF
THAT
USES
TO
ENVIRONMENT
OF
BUILDINGS
CONTIGUOUS
IT WOULD
RISE
INTEGRAL
WELFARE
OR
USES
STABILITY
AND
BE
APARTMENT
AND
UNITS (
WITHIN
COMINTENDED
SUCH
PLAN UNDER
INCLUDING A
COMPACT
COMMUNITIES
WHERE
HIGH
RESIDENTIAL
THE
ACRES
LARGE,
TYPE APARTMENTS,
COORDINATED AND
PRESERVE
40)
BUILDINGS,
COMMERCIAL
THE GENERAL
ENCOMPASS
LOCATIONS
GARDEN
OFFICE AND
ONE
FORTY (
IN
OFFICE
SERVICE
SHALL
SEPARATE
APARTMENTS,
THE
PROTECT
BUFFER
DISTRICT)
CONDITIONS
SUFFICIENT
VALUE
OF
LAND-
ADJOINING
DISTRICTS.
AT THE
AS
2-
TIME
USES
CLASSIFIED
OR
9C.
PERMITTED
OF
APPROVAL
HEREINAFTER
PERMITTED
ONE
HOUSE
SERVE
SECTION
PLAN
NOT
AREA
PLEMENTARY
CONSTRUCTED
OF
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
TOWN
BE
READING
SHOPPING
PURPOSE
BUILDINGS,
TO
225
THERETO
OF COMBINATIONS
APPROPRIATE
PRIMARILY
REGIONAL
PLANNED
PROPERTY,
GROUND; ON WHICH
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
THEREOF,
K"
DISTRICT
IN
MORE
A)
B)
C)
OF
FOR
THIS
THE
LAND
OF
PROVIDED,
LAND
IN
THE
USES
THE
THE
PRELIMINARY
BOARD
VARIOUS
DISTRICT.
ALL. SUCH
CLASSES
USES
OF
DWELLINGS,
HOUSES
RISE
COMMERCIAL
HIGH
OFFICE
AREAS
APARTMENT
FOR
THE
PERSONAL
STORES
SHOPS
1)
THE
OR (
2)
THE
FURNISHING
SHALL
LIMIT
TRACT
OR
USES
MUST
THE
TRACTS
FALL
WITHIN
GARDEN APARTMENTS,
CONDUCT
LAWFUL
SERVICES.
CONDUCT
OF
OF ANY
OF
A
PERSONAL
RETAIL
AND
SALES
HOUSEHOLD
i
COMMERCIAL
SERVICES,
PROVIDED
TOWN
BUILDINGS.
OR
BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT
BELOW:
PROFESSIONAL
FOR: (
THE
PERMITTED
BUSINESS,
OR
OF
INCLUDING
STRUCTURES
MASTER
OF ALDERMEN
LISTED
MULTIPLE- FAMILY
AND
AND DEVELOPMENTS
THAT
THE
TOTAL
GROSS
FLOOR
L
10
4
AREA
DEVOTED
UNDER
FEET
FOR
OTHER
INDOOR
F)
POWER
LOTS
INCIDENTAL
BY
THE
SECTION
THE
NOT
HEIGHT
EXCEED
INGS
OF
9C. 3 -
12
BUILDINGS
12
OF
STORIES
AND
HIGH
HEREIN
SHALL
RETAIL
BUSINESSES
BEING
INCLUDED
A)
UNITS
THE
IN
THIS
B)
HEIGHT
SIDE,
UPON
SET
OUT
225
NO.
AS
RESTAURANTS
SPECIAL
IN
OR
USE
ACCORDANCE
IN
SECTIONS
AMENDED.
10
OF
ORDINANCE
NO.
225
SPECIFIED.
ARE
THE
TO
DEFINED
USE
THAT
OF
OF
AS
DETACHED,
WHICH
A
IS
CLEARLY
PRINCIPAL
STRUC-
FACILITIES
ANY
MAINTAINED
DWELLING
UNIT
FOR
WITHIN
USE
THE
GUESTS.
PRIVATE
USABLE
OPEN
SPACES.
EXCEPT
BE
OF
AS
OTHERWISE
ORNAMENTAL
DEFINED
COMMERCIAL
AS
TO
INCLUDE
OFFICE
PROHIBITING
TOWERS.
ONLY
HIGH
RISE
APARTMENT
NOTHING
CONTAINED
INCLUSION
C)
HIGH - RISE
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
AND
SERVICE
STRUCTURES
THE
ELEVATION
SHALL
OF
OTHERWISE APPROVED
OF
OF
SECTION
BUILD-
SERVICE
9C. 2
OR
FROM
BUILDINGS.
COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS
BE
TO
THE
SHALL
OR
BUILDINGS.
THE
BELOW,
SPIRES
PARAGRAPH (
RETAIL
PROVIDED
LIMITED
GROUND
ON
IN ACCORDANCE
TWO (
THE
WITH
OR
2)
PRIMARY
PARAGRAPH
SECTION.
TOWN
EXCEED
THREE (
ON
PRIMARY
THE
UNLESS
BANK
THEATRES,
ONLY
IN
ABOVE
ALLOCATED
LIMITATIONS
DEFINED
COMPLEMENTARY
ENTRANCE
OF
RISE
AS
OF
EXCLUSIVE
CONSTRUED
IN
AND
BUILDINGS,
SHALL
SQUARE
LAND.
THEIR
HEIGHT
BE
ALDERMEN
ARTICLE'
WHICH
RELATED
OF
OR
AND OTHER AUXILIARY
STORIES
4
BE
AND
PARK
STORIES
TO
HEREINAFTER
RESIDENTS
PUBLIC
H)
SUBJECT
RECREATIONAL
DISTRICT
OF
ORDINANCE
STRUCTURES,
USE
PRIVATE
OF
BUILDINGS
SUBORDINATE
OR
PERMITTED
6, 000
PLANTS.
PROVISIONS
TURE
BE
PERMITTED
CAFETERIAS,
INDOOR
PROCEDURES
13. 5
MAY
RESTAURANTS,
AND
ACCESSORY
G)
SHALL
SERVICE
EXCEED
AS
STANDARDS
THROUGH
PARKING
SPACE
BOARD
13. 3
E)
NOT
THE
THE
SITE
SUCH
OR
BY
WITH
ON
SHALL
INSTITUTIONS.
APPROVED
D)
BUSINESS
2)
THEATRE,
CAFETERIAS
AND
OR (
FINANCIAL
PERMIT
ONE
EXCEPT
AREA,
AN
ANY
1)
EITHER (
IN
AND
TO
HOUSE AND
3)
STORIES
ENTRANCE
GARDEN TYPE
APARTMENT
BUILDINGS
SHALL
NOT
IN HEIGHT ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE GROUND
SIDE.
5
SECTION
NO
BUFFER
9C. 4 -
AREAS
APPURTENANCE
BUILDING,
OR
ABOVE
SURFACE
STRUCTURE
SHALL
BE
ei < r VETS.
ice;'
LOCATED
OF
ANY
THE
WITHIN
TRACT
ONE
HUNDRED
FIFTY (
T0, BE
REZONED
INTO
PROPERTY
FAMILY
LINE
OF
RESIDENTIAL
HUNDRED
FIFTY
FEET
A
MAY
BE
REDUCED
TO
GEOGRAPHICALLY
APPROPRIATE
THE
BUFFER
PRIVATE
AND
OF
PUBLIC
SIZED
TREES
3
INCHES
2
SHALL
IN
BE
THE
PROVIDED
PROPORTIONS
PART
OF
ANY
AREAS
ESTHETIC
ON
000)
THE
THERE
SQUARE
AND
FEET
BE
OF
AND
AND
IS
TO
54
CASES
BOARD
AND
INJURED
BE
USE
OF
THE
THEREBY.
FOR
EASEMENTS
TREES
POINT
ONE - HALF (
FEET
RISE
OF
PUBLIC
AND
STREET
SHALL
HAVE
ABOVE
A
CALIPER
THE
GROUND.
OR
OF
THE
6)
GROSS
PARKING
2.)
LEASABLE
BUILDINGS
BY
THE
BASED
ON
THE
TYPE
OF
PARKING
LEASABLE
OFFICE
OF
AND
OF
THE
FOR
FOR
AREA,
PERCENT
AREAS
IN
ALDERMEN AS
SUCH
ECONOMIC
CONSTRUCTION
RETAIL OR
80)
ENCLOSED
EFFECT
SPACES
SPACES
EIGHTY (
BOARD
NEIGHBORHOOD
PROPOSED
SIX (
1/
STRUCTURALLY
BE APPROVED
PLAN
2
AND
EACH
SERVICE
ONE
PARK-
AND
LOCATION.
THOUSAND
COMMERCIAL
AREA.
THERE
C)
UNIT
FOR
EACH
DWELLING
80)
OR
TOWN
THERE
D)
UNIT
STRUCTURALLY
PLAN
BY
BASED
THE
ON
BE
HOUSE
SHALL
WITHIN
PERCENT OF
APPROVED
SHALL
SUCH
BE
EACH
BOARD
THE
TWO (
2)
PARKING
AND. EACH
ONE
AND
HIGH
PARKING
ENCLOSED
SPACES
ONE - HALF
PARKING
RISE APARTMENT
IN
TO
SUCH
OF ALDERMEN AS
SUCH
FOR
GARDEN APARTMENT
SPACES
AREAS
EFFECT OF
AND
LANDSCAPED
INCHES
GROSS
OFFICE
SUBTERRANEAN
SHALL
A
THE
RIGHTS - OF - WAY
MATURE
AT
THOSE
ONE
RESIDENTIAL
OF
BE
SINGLE
REGULATIONS
HIGH
THEIR
PARKS
SHRUBS.
DEVELOPMENT
OF
CONTAIN
IN
FEASIBLE
NOT
FOR
AFORESAID
FEET
JUDGMENT
WILL
ZONED
FAMILY
RIGHTS - OF - WAY
SQUARE
SHALL
THE
PROPERTY
PUBLIC
TWO
CHARACTER
EFFECTS
B)
1,
AS
SINGLE
PERIMETER
EXCEPT WHERE
THE
50)
ECONOMICALLY
MEASURED
BE
OF
IN
FINAL
AND
000)
CASE
SUCH
ING
1,
THOUSAND (
WHICH
OR
PARKING
9C. 5 -
THERE
ONE
SHALL
1/
IN
UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
LEAST
THAT,
HEREIN MAY
OUTER
NOT
ROAD.
FIFTY (
FOR
LONGER
THE
PROPERTY
PUBLIC
ZONED
NEIGHBORING
STREETS,
A)
OF
NO
CREATED
SECTION
EACH
OF
IS
AREA
MATURE
AT
LOCATED
USAGE
USE
SIDEWALK
WITH
PRESENTLY
OF
CLASSIFICATION
ADJOINS
ADJOINS
IS
SUCH
TRACT
OR
THE
ALDERMEN
THIS
USE
WHERE
SO
PROPERTY
SUCH
FEET
150)
BE
EACH
DWELLING
BUILDING.
SPACES
BUILDING
FOR
WITH
EACH
EIGHTY
PROVIDED
IN
SUBTERRANEAN
PROPORTIONS
AS
SHALL
PART
OF ANY
PARKING AREAS
ON
FINAL
THE
BE
DEVELOPMENT
CHARACTER
OF
6
THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
PROPOSED
TYPE
SHALL
FOR
BE
VIDED
30)
ALL
FOR
IN
H)
EACH
SIXTY (
9)
FEET
WIDE
THE
ROWS
OF
SPACES
AND
SUCH
SHALL
BE
TRACT
THE
PAVED,
SPACE
18)
PARKING
ANY
PARKING
IS
9C. 6 -
20)
OF
DEVELOPMENT
GROUND
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
FEET
K"
AND
TOWN
SPACES
BE
AND
THE
AND
PLAN.
AN
STREET
SPACE
HOUSE
LOADING
SHALL
BE• PRO-
AREAS.
ANGLE
SHALL
AISLE
OF
BE
THIRTY
NINE
BETWEEN
TWENTY (
20)
FEET
IN
BE
10)
FEET
WIDE
TEN (
BETWEEN ROWS
IN
PARKING
LANDSCAPED
OR
SHALL
OF
WIDTH.
AND
SUCH PARKING
WIDTH.
PLAN
WITH THE
TO "
THAN
AND
LONG
SHALL
LONG AND THE AISLE
TWENTY (
THEIR
THERE
PARKING
PROVIDED AT
FEET
SPACES
2)
TWO (
DEVELOPMENT
DRIVEWAY
SPACES
TO
OTHER
IN
THAT
EIGHTEEN (
OF
INDOOR THEATRE,
AND UNLOADING
LIGHTED
TO A
EFFECTS
THEATRE.
BUILDINGS,
OUTDOOR
PARKING
IN AN
ADDITION
LOADING
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY
ANY
OF
DEGREES
OTHER
FEET
SECTION
ING
60)
IN
BUILDINGS,
PARKING
20)
A.
ALL
OFF- STREET
TO
TWENTY (
FOR
ADEQUATELY
ALL
SPACE
ESTHETIC
LOCATION.
SEATS
3)
OFF- STREET
AND
AND
EMPLOYEES
APARTMENT
G)
I)
THREE (
3)
PROVIDED
TYPE
ECONOMIC
PARKING
AMPLE
BE
GARDEN
1)
THREE (
F)
THE
CONSTRUCTION
EVERY
ONE (
EVERY
SHALL
OF
FOR
E)
AND
PASSAGE OF ANY
PLANNED
COMMUNITY
SHALL APPROVE A PRELIMINARY
ORDINANCE
DISTRICT
MASTER
CLASSIFY-
ZONING,
DEVELOPMENT
THE
PLAN.
SUCH PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN SHALL PRESCRIBE AND PERMANENTLY
ESTABLISH THE METHOD OF
EGRESS TO SUCH TRACT
PUBLIC
ROADS;
BUFFER
AREA;
LAND AREAS
PERMITTED
THE
MENT
THE PROPOSED
THE PROPOSED
WITHIN
WITHIN
EACH
BUILDINGS;
BUILDINGS;
SERVICE
LEASABLE
THE
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
LOCATION OF
LINES OF
THE TRACT
AREA;
NUMBER OF MULTIPLE
APARTMENT
INGRESS AND
DEMARCATION
SHOWING
THE
EXISTING
NUMBER OF
TYPE OR
AND
FAMILY DWELLING
THE
PUBLIC AND
DWELLING
TOTAL AMOUNT OF GROSS
SPACE
SPACE
IN
IN
EACH AREA;
EACH
AREA.
ROADS;
THE
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS
TYPES
PROPOSED
UNITS
PRIVATE
FROM ADJACENT
OF
CONTOUR
USES
TO
BE
INTERVALS;
EXCLUSIVE OF HIGH RISE
UNITS
LEASABLE
IN HIGH
RISE APART-
RETAIL SALES AND
AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GROSS
ke
7
THE
THEREAFTER,
B.
DEVELOPER OF SUCH TRACT
SHALL SUBMIT
A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PLANS FOR ALL OR PART OF SUCH TRACT TO
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE
BOARD
OF
OF
ALL
ALDERMEN.
SUCH
ALDERMEN.
SUCH PLANS MUST
FINAL
DEVELOPMENT
RE APPROVED
PLANS
SHALL
BY
THE
INCLUDE
BOARD
THE
FOL-
LOWING:
1.
LANDSCAPE
MATERIAL
PLAN WITH
SPECIFYING
PROPOSED
ALL
3.
SIDEWALKS.
4.
PARKING
SPACES
5.
LOADING
AND
DELIVERY
6.
INGRESS
AND
EGRESS
7.
SEWAGE
8.
AND
AND
STORM
10.
THE
12.
C.
FACILITIES
FOR
AND
FUTURE.).
LANES.
AS
PER
PROVISION
THE
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOP-
WATER,
BEARING
SANITARY
APPROVAL
OF
INVOLVED.
PERSPECTIVES
IN
OF
FACILITIES
BUILDINGS
FORTH
HEIGHT,
DEDICATED
MUST
SHOWING
RECEIVE
COMMITTEE
SECTION
17
ALL
MATERIALS
APPROVAL
IN
ACCORDANCE
OF
ORDINANCE
OF
THE
WITH
NO.
THE
225,
TO
TRASH
ENGINEERING
BASINS,
INTENDED
DISPOSAL,
IN
DETAILED
EXTERIOR
OF
PLANS
RETAINING
INCLUDED
THE
USE
OF
ALL
LAUNDRY
BUILDINGS.
AND
CLOTHES
ALL
WALLS
LIGHTING
SOURCES
HOURS
OF
ALL
OTHER
INFORMATION
MAY
REQUIRE.
BUILDING
FOR
ALL
AND
LAKES,
SOIL
DRAINAGE
RETENTION
AREAS
DEVICES
DISTRICT.
AND
DEVELOPMENT
AND
FACILITIES.
APPROVED
NO
THE
CONFORMITY
SET
LOCATION,
HEIGHT
13.
AND
AMENDED.
AREAS
AND
LOCATIOt:.
PRESENT
TRAFFIC
ALL PLANT
ZONES.
AUTHORITY
ALL
COLORS.
DRYING
11.
AND
STRUCTURES (
DRAINAGE
ELEVATIONS
PROCEDURES
9.
SPECIES
MOVING
PROFILES
ARCHITECTURAL
AS
AND
REGULATORY
PLANS,
AND
AND
LOCATION OF
PLAN.
PLANS
THE
USES
SPECIFIC
SIZE,
2.
MENT
THE
THE
OF
PLANS
LIGHT,
INCLUDING
INTENSITY,
LOCATION
THEIR
AND
LUMINAIRE
USAGE.
PERMIT
IN THE
SHALL
DISTRICT
MEN HAS APPROVED A FINAL
WHICH
BE
UNTIL
THE
PLANNING
ISSUED
TO
SUCH
TIME
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND
ZONING
CONSTRUCT
AS
THE
ANY
BOARD
FOR THE AREA OF
THE
COMMISSION
PART
OF
OF ALDER-
PROPOSED
k•
8
NO
CONSTRUCTION.
PHASE
OR
ZONING
ALL
PART
OF
THE
COMMISSION
BUILDINGS
GRADING
AND
PROVIDED
IS
IN
D.
ING
NO
THE
SUCH
CITY
FINAL
PLANNING
PUBLIC
THE
AREA
ALL
OF
BE
STORM
A"
MAY
THE
K"
SUCH
THE
PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUED
NEEDED
ISSUED
AND
FILED
IN AN
PLAN,
TO
TO
PREPARE
PLANNING
FOR
WATER
AND
ANY
AND
PLANS
FOR
PLAN.
HOW-
PROHIBIT
THE
SUCH
TRACT
ZONING
CONTROL
ANY
A
FOR
COMMISSION
CITY
ESTIMATED
PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN,
FACILITIES
PLAN
FOR
AS
A
THE
AREA
OF
DETERMINED
BY
THE
REQUIRED
WITHIN
REQUIRED
FOR
SHALL
BE
CONSTRUCTED
THE
AREA
BUILDING WITHIN
OF
BUFFER
OF
THE
SUCH AREA.
DEVELOPMENT
SUCH
AREA
THERETO,
OUTSIDE
DEVELOPMENT
THE
ROADS,
ADDITION
OR
BUILD-
FORM APPROVED
PRIVATE
IN
ANY
BOND OR
AND
AND,
THE
IN
WITHIN
OF
FACILITIES
NECESSARY
CLERK
COST,
LANDSCAPING
OF
PERFORMANCE
COVERING
BUILDINGS,
AND
CONSTRUCTION
UNTIL
AMOUNT
CONTROL
BUT
THE
WITH THE
THE
ALL
FINAL
9C. 7 -
OR
GREATER
THAT
TRACTS
COMMUNITY
BY
DEVELOPMENT
OF
PRIOR
THE
TO
FINAL DEVELOP-
DISTRICT
MAY
STANDARDS
BE
BE
THE
AND WITHIN ANY
DEGREE OF
PROPOSED
PROMOTE
DEVELOPED
IN
AT
THE
OF
THE
MASTER
UNDER
PUBLIC
ONE
BUILDINGS
SAME
ZONING
TIME,
OF
USES
SUCH
OF
THAT
PARTICULAR
PLAN ALLOWING
WITHIN
SUCH
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT.
ZONING
A
SUCH TRACT OR
THROUGH THE
ORDINANCE
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
WELFARE
ERECTED ON
THE MANNER
TO
THE
LAND
BY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COMPREHENSIVE
COMBINATION
CONTROL OF
CHANGE
ESTABLISHED
BOARD OF ALDERMEN WHERE
IT WOULD
MAINTAINING
GREATER
THE
FLEXIBILITY
TRACTS
WHILE
ZONING AND
PLANNED
BE APPROVED
TRACT
ANY
FINAL
BE
THE
CONSTRUCT
CONSTRUCTION
BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINES
OR
UNTIL
TO
PLAN.
SECTION
OF
BE
OF
FINAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION OF
MENT
BEEN
OF
DEVELOPED
WATER
BE
FACILITIES,
STORM
AREA OF ANY
SUCH
SHALL
SHALL
APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN
TO
HAS
COMMISSION,
COST
OF
ISSUED
DETAILED
DEVELOPMENT' PLAN
ATTORNEY
UTILITY
FALLING
THE
HEREIN
SHALL
FINAL
ESCROW AGREEMENT
BY
BE
WRITING.
PERMIT
UNDER ANY
AREA
WORK AS
DEVELOPMENT
RECEIVED
THE
SHALL
DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED
CONTAINED
SITE
PERMIT
PROPOSED
HAS
WITHIN
NOTHING
EVER,
BUILDING
DISTRICT AND
IN
TRACT
TRACTS
PLAN,
A
CONSIDERING
IN APPROVING
x
9
THE PRELIMINARY MASTER AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
TO
EACH
LAND
PROVISION
MEANS
B)
OTHER, (
EXISTING
OF
OF
THE
A)
FACTORS: (
USES
THE
RELATIONSHIP
AND
THE
ADEQUATE
INGRESS
AND
FECTIVE
SCREENING
FACTORS
RELEVANT
WELFARE
OF
THE
SECTION
TO
PARKING
EGRESS
CITY
THE
OF
OF
USE
OF
PUBLIC
AREAS
PUBLIC
WITHIN
THE
D)
E)
AND
THE
THE
TRACT
TRACT
TRACTS, (
C)
PROVISION
OF
THE
AND
F)
PROPER
OF
ANY
MORALS,
TO
THE
PROVISION
AND (
FENCES,
SAFETY,
HEALTH,
WITHIN
ADJOINING
ROADS, (
LANDSCAPING
CREVE
USE AREAS
FACILITIES, (
TO
DENSITY
UNIT
OF
LAWFUL USES
INCLUDING
9C. 8 -
DWELLING
RELATIONSHIP
AND
EF-
OTHER
GENERAL
COEUR.
REGULATIONS
DENSITIES
SHALL
BE
ESTABLISHED
AND
MAINTAINED
AS
FOLLOWS:
TOWN
A)
HOUSE
AND
GARDEN APARTMENTS:
NOT TO EXCEED THIRTEEN
DWELLING UNITS PER
13)
NET ACRE DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL
HIGH
B)
RISE
NOT
APARTMENTS:
TO
EXCEED
DWELLING
ACRE
PURPOSES.
FIFTY (
UNITS
DEVOTED
PER
TO
50)
NET
RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSES.
NET
C)
ACRE
IS
UTILITY
RIGHTS - OF - WAY (
FOR
USE
IN
THE
THIS
SHALL
D)
ONLY
A
FROM
INCLUDE
DWELLING
A
BUILDING
ONE
KITCHEN.
SECTION
A)
PROVIDING
SIGN
SUCH
DIRECTIONAL
LINE
AREA
IMPEDE
SIGNS
FACING.
SUBSTRACTING
UTILITY
DEFINED
A
HABITABLE
REGULATIONS
SIGNS
SHALL' BE
SIGNS
WITHIN
FOR
AS
A
ALL
EASEMENTS
RESIDENTIAL
DEDICATED
IS
DIRECTIONAL
RIGHT - OF - WAY OR
BY
STRUCTURES
GROSS
AREAS
FORMING
9C. 9 -
SUCH
AND
THE
UNIT
DIRECTIONAL
PER
EXCLUDING
BUILDINGS
DISTRICT)
ACREAGE
WITHIN
OF
DETERMINED
ROOM
OR
EXTERIOR
PERMITTED
SHALL
NOT
TRACT
ACREAGE.
PUBLIC
IN
STREET
PRIMARILY
ANY
RESIDENTIAL
AND
PUBLIC
AND
INTENDED
CLASSIFIED
GROSS
RESIDENTIAL
PARKS.
GROUP
OF
LIVING
ROOMS
UNIT
LOCATED
UTILIZING
LIGHTING
THE "
ENCROACH
K"
UPON
DISTRICT
A
PUBLIC
TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY
AND PROVIDING
SHALL
FEET
NOT
EXCEED
FIVE (
5)
SQUARE
IN
OUT-
10
9C.
9(
ING
B)
ALL
A),
SHALL
COMMISSION
THAT
FINAL
BE
THEIR
JUDGMENT
THEIR
ARCHITECTURAL
BY
ORDINANCE
NO.
FROM
ANY
ANY
BUT
EXCLUDING
IN
THE
OF
TO
SECTION
BE
9C.
POSTS
AND
IN
BE
AS
TIME
GRANTING
GUIDED
A
SET
AND
IN
FORTH
TO
THEIR
WHOLE,
SUPPORT
THE
IN
B)
LIGHTS
OR
NO
LUMINAIRE
OR
OTHER
A
THE
ENVIRONMENT,
ON
THE
LIGHT,
SHALL
OR
WILL
OR
BE
HAVE
COLOR,
DIRECT,
AND
ANY
DEVICE
NOR
NOR
GLARE
BE
BRIGHTNESS
NOT
SHALL
PUBLIC
PARKS
INCLUD-
ILLUMINATING
DISABLING
OPERATORS
THE
MOUNTING)
COMMISSION
NEITHER
CREATE
OF
INTENSITY
BRIGHTNESS,
C)
A)
ENCLOSURE,
CONTROL
LIGHT
ZONING
THAT (
ITS
FOR
INTENSITY,
SHALL
SO
THE
AREAS; (
FLUTTERING
LIMITED
FOR
DIRECTED THAT
VISUAL
10 -
WILL
REFLECTED,
CAUSING
THOROUGHFARES.
PRIVATE
USABLE
ORDER
ENVIRONMENT:
TO
INSURE
BUILDING
TOTAL
SUM
APARTMENT
AREAS,
AREAS,
SET
AS
BY
FOUNTAINS,
OR
OF
AND
FORTH
THE
INSTALLATION
ART
OR
PERMITTED; (
OF
OF
DEVICES
TO MOTOR VEHICLE
VISUAL
USED
THE
ZON-
RELATIONSHIP
REQUIREMENTS
SOURCE
LIGHT
A
AND
IN
DEVELOPMENT
LIGHT
PLANNING
OR
ENVIRONMENT,
THE
TO
AND
SPACE
A)
IN
THE
IS
SECTION
PLANNING
APPROVAL.
SIGNS
THE
LUMINAIRE
HAZARDS
OPEN
TO
SUCH
BE
SURROUNDING
LIGHTS
FROM ANY
TRAFFIC
OR
CHANGING
BEACON
FOR
COMMISSION
OF
THE
TO. IN
BE REQUESTED AT
SHALL
ARMS
THE
FLASHING
A
OF
LEVELS
OTHER
BRACKET
OPINION
WHI( H HAS
OR
SHIELDED
BLINKING,
ZONING
REGULATORY
LUMINAIRE (
OBJECTIONABLE
LIGHT
THE
SHALL
SUBMITTED
CONFORMITY
REFERRED
APPROVAL
APPEARANCE
AND
REFLECTORS
SHADED,
ANY
THE
SIGNS
490.
ING
SO
THE
ARE
AND
ILLUMINATION
C)
LIGHT
PLANS
PLANNING
QUALITY
TO
THOSE
SUCH APPPROVAL
BUILDING
AESTHETIC
THAN
SUBJECT
AND
THE
APPROVAL,
OTHER
SIGNS,
OF
ADEQUATE
MONEY
AND
EQUAL
CONSTRUCTION
NOT
LESS
THE
APPROVED
OWNERS
AND
DEVELOPERS
POOLS,
STATUARY,
BEAUTIFICATION
THAN
SUCH
SUMS
BUILDING
FOR
NOT
WITHIN THE AREA OF ANY
THE
ONE OR
AND
FIVE
GARDEN
VISUAL
PERCENT (
AND
FOR
2$)
PERMITS,
THE
AND
TOWN
ALL
SHALL
ACQUISITION,
EQUIPMENT,
OF
ABOVE
MORE
THE "
K"
BE
FINAL
HOUSE
BUDGETED
ERECTION
WALKS,
PLANNED
DESCRIBED
5 %)
OTHER
AND OTHER APPLICABLE
GROUNDS
FOR
ALL
PERCENT (
LANDSCAPING
THE
LESS
FOR
STRUCTURES
UPON
PERCENTAGE
NOT
TWO
ON
RECREATIONAL
NATURAL
COST
THAN
DISTRICT.
BE MET
TO
PLEASANT
AND
PATIOS,
OBJECTS
COMMUNITY
PURPOSES
DEVELOPMENT
NEED
PLANS
l_ `-•
t(
11
AS
LONG AS
SUMS
THE REQUIREMENTS
EXPENDED
PLANNED
FOR
SUCH
DISTRICT.
VISUAL
ENVIRONMENT
PROJECT
OF THE
TOTAL AMOUNT
BOARD
REJECT ANY
WHICH
DEDICATE
TO
SO
OF
THE
THE
ON
THE
THE
AS
A
OF
PRIVATE
THE
USABLE
IS
DEFINED
THE
TERMS
OF
OF
TOTAL
THE "
NO
OF
K"
SINGLE
PERCENT (
UNOBSTRUCTED
TO
OFF- STREET
THE
TENNIS
OTHER
LIKE
OCCUPANTS
VICINITY
OF
OF
BE
THIS
AND
OF
OR
C)
25%)
SECTION.
USES,
THE
OF
PLANNED
ACCEPT
COMMUNITY
DESIRE
PORTION
THE
TO
OF
SUCH
DIS.TRICT
PROPERTY
MUST
BE
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
EITHER
PLANS,
ALL
AND
ZONING COMMISSION
NET
MULTI PLE =FAMILY.
ALDERMEN.
SPACES:
20%)
OF
DEVOTED TO
ON
A
LOT
NOT
D)
BUILDING
THE MULTIPLE - FAMILY
THAT
E)
OR
IS: (
THE
USABLE
A)
FINISHED
TO SERVICE
DEVOTED
SWIMMING
AND (
THE
PRIVATE
DEVOTED
LOADING, (
COURTS,
IF ANY
FINAL
THE
K"
TO
VOLUNTARILY
PORTION
BULLDINGS ABOVE
SKY, (
PARKING
PATIOS,
AND
SUCH
EMPOWERED
ANY "
MAY
PARK.
PERCENT (
SPACE
PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY
ALL
TWENTY - FIVE
IN
THEREOF
PUBLIC
OPEN
AS
TO
DEVELOPMENT
UNDER
PROPERTY
BOARD
THIS
AREAS
OF
BY THE
TOTAL AREA
SPECIFICALLY
MASTER
SHALL
USE
IS
DEDICATED,
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
COMMON
EXPENDED
THE
A MINIMUM OF TWENTY
OR
THE
EXCEED
RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL
C)
OF
PRELIMINARY
SUBJECT TO THE
AND
COST
SHALL
DEVELOPERS
CITY
VOLUNTARILY
SHOWN
BE
WITHIN
THE
ALDERMEN
PORTION
DISTRICT
IS
TO
PARAGRAPH ARE MET
PARKS:
THE
OR
THIS
PURPOSES
COMMUNITY
B)
OF
POOLS,
IN
BUILDINGS
SPACE.
UNOCCUPIED
BY
LOT GRADE (
B)
DRIVEWAYS
LANDSCAPING,
RECREATION
AVAILABLE
RESIDENTIAL
TO
OPEN
THE
WITHIN
BUILDING
SAME
THE
PAVED
SPACE,
BUFFER
PROPORTION
IMMEDIATE
GROUP
OF
THE
COMPLEX.
SECTION
9C.
WHENEVER
COMMISSION,
BY
TRAFFIC
NECESSARY,
A COLLECTOR
THEPRELIMINARY
STALLED
11 -
IN
CONTROLS
THE
JUDGMENT
STREET OR STREETS
OF
THE
SHALL
PLANNING
BE SET
AND
FORTH
ZONING
IN
MASTER AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SHALL BE
THE DEVELOPERS AND DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC
IN-
THOROUGHFARE.
0
12
SECTION
WITHIN
OF
9C.
OF
DEVELOPMENT
OF
12)'
THE
PLAN
FINAL
CONSTRUCTION
OF
THE
OR
PLANS
DEVELOPMENT
SHALL
BOARD
OF
THE
PLANNING
MAY,
COMMISSION,
TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF
SUCH
GROUND
COMMUNITY
AT
ANY
DISTRICT
REQUIRED
THREE
HOWEVER,
THE OWNER
TO
THE
SHALL
INTRODUCTION
SECTION
9C.
OF A
13 -
OF
ANY
HE
THE
SHALL
BILL,
IS
NOT
FOR
FINAL
DATE
OF
AND
OF :.
ALDERMEN,
PERIOD
DEVELOPOF
PORTION
CONTROL AND
TIME,
REGULATED
OF
THE "
K"
HEARING,
REQUIRED
THE
USE OF
PLANNED
OTHER
FOR
OF
THEREOF
THAN
THIS
THE
REZONING;
THE PROPOSED REZONING
SAID
PPROVAL
RECOMMENDATION
OR ANY
THAT
PUBLIC
THE
ABOVE
ON A
APPROVAL
A
A
BOARD
CONSTRUCTION OR
PROPERTY
DISTRICTS
TO
BILL
COMMON
FINAL DEVELOPMENT
THIS. DISTRICT,
THE
OF
THE
PLANNING
BOARD
THE
OR
BY
PLAN,
THE
18)
THE
WITHIN
BE NOTIFIED OF
WHENEVER THE DEVELOPER
FIRST
BY
MOTION
CLASSIFICATION.
READINGS
MONTHS (
TO
SUBSTANTIAL
ZONING
PRIOR
DEVELOPMENT
PLANS
ITS
REZONE
OF' APPROVAL
SUBMITTED
BEGIN
ON
THE
TIME
BE
IF
NOT
DATE
MASTER
PLAN OR
DOES
CONSTRUCTION
THE
EIGHTEEN
COMMENCE.
ALDERMEN
OF
OF
SHALL
WITHIN
DISTRICT
THE
MONTHS
PRELIMINARY
COMMISSION.
SUCH
MENT
COMMENCEMENT
TWELVE (
ALDERMEN
ZONING
12 -
PRIOR
REZONING.
TRANSFERS
OF OWNERSHIP
FILES APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE
PLAN FOR ANY PART OF A TRACT CLASSIFIED WITHIN
SUBMIT A PROPOSED TRUST
INDENTURE AS
TO ALL
THE LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHICH TRUST INDENTURE SHALL PROVIDE FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO BE SELECTED
OF THE TRACT
IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER WHICH
BY THE OWNERS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SHALL BE
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY UNDER THIS ORDINANCE AND UNDER SUCH TRUST
DENTURE
TO MAINTAIN ALL
FOUNTAINS,
POOLS,
STREETS,
STATUARY,
OTHER AREAS OR STRUCTURES
TRACT
CLASSIFIED
IN
THIS
PRIVATE
LANDSCAPING,
PARKS,
RECREATIONAL
EXCEPTION
OF
PUBLIC
AREAS,
AREAS,
WALKS,
AND
ANY
FOR THE COMMON USE OF RESIDENTS OF THE
DISTRICT;
AND
WHICH
SHALL
ABLE MEANS OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST ALL LAND WITHIN
THE
COMMON
IN-
LANDS)
TO
PROVIDE
AN
SUCH TRACT (
EQUITWITH
INSURE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
AREAS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS AND
OTHER ORDINANCES OF THIS CITY AND
IN SUCH MANNER THAT SUCH AREAS AND
STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN ATTRACTIVE AND USEFUL TO THE RESIDENTS OF
SUCH TRACT AND SHALL 140T BE
INJURIOUS
TO THE HEALTH,
SAFETY,
OR
WEL-
FARE OF RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING AREAS OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY
VALUES OF LAND AND
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SUCH TRACT OR
AREAS.
INDENTURE SHALL ALSO PROVIDE THAT THE CONVEYANCE
SUCH TRUST
IN SURROUNDING
13
OR
CHANGE OF
BE
SUBJECT
AND
THAT
TO
SUCH
TRUST
HIS
OF
TO
NO
TURE
OWNERSHIP
OF
9C.
FOR
SIFIED
IN
OVERHEAD
THE
AND
OF
PART
DISTRICT
WHERE
OF
FEEDER
AND
BE
SUCH TRACT
OF
SUCH
TRUSTEES
TO
THE
BE
RECORDED
PRIOR
CITY
TO
TRUST
BY
PARAGRAPH
SHALL
INDENTURE,
SUCH
MAY
BE
INDENABROGATED.
ATTORNEY
FOR
WITH
RECORDER
THE
THE
ISSUANCE
OF
ANY
SUCH
BY
COMMERCIAL
INSTALLED
TRACT.
CABLE
BOARD
225,
AND
TO
SINGLE
REGIONAL
OF
SHOPPING
SERVE
TRACT CLAS-
EXCEPT
SUCH
THOSE
TRACT
OR
ENCLOSURES,
MAY ALSO
THE
IN-
BE
STREET
PAD
INSTALLED
LIGHTING
ALDERMEN.
THE
CITY
ZONING,
AND
OF
THE
BE
DESCRIBED
RESIDENCE
DISTRICT
CREVE
494,
NO.
DISTRICT,
FOLLOWING
FAMILY
TO
OF
ORDINANCE
SHOPPING
THE
OF
WITHIN ANY
SWITCHING
PEDESTALS
PART
PRIMARILY
UNDERGROUND,
NECESSARY
RELATING
LINES
STRUCTURES
LINES
NO.
CHANGING
C"
BE
THE
REGIONAL
AND "
DISTRIBUTION
SERVICE
ORDINANCE,
BY
WIRING
INSTALLED AS
MISSOURI,
B"
OR
ORDINANCE
3.
AMENDED
DISTRICT,
SHALL
APPROVED
COMMERCIAL
CLASSIFIED "
ST.
DISTRICT
MAP
WHICH
RELATING
TO "
J"
AND
THE
LANDS,
DISTRICT,
TO "
COEUR,
K"
SAME. ARE
PRESENTLY
AND "
PLANNED
J"
COMMUNITY
TO - WIT:
A
TRACT
OF
5
EAST,
ST.
SCRIBED
AS
BEGINNING
60
AND
THIS
SHALL
BUILDINGS AND
SUBDIVISION
COUNTY,
PLANNED
OF
OF
THE
MISSOURI,
TELEPHONE
TRANSFORMERS,
SECTION
HEREBY
FORM AND
UNDERGROUND
GROUND AND MAY
PLANNED
ON
SUBMITTED
COUNTY,
DISTRIBUTION
STANDARDS
A
CONFERRED
BE
PART
ORDINANCE
PROVISIONS
LEGAL
USE
THIS
ADJOINING
LOUIS
THIS
SHALL
14 -
ELECTRIC
TENDED
ABOVE
THE
LOUIS
ST.
OF
ANY
PERMIT.
ALL
MOUNTED
TO
LEASE OF
POWER
INDENTURE
SECTION
ANY
OR
WITH
APPROVAL AS
DEEDS
TERMS
RIGHT
COMPLY
BUILDING
IS
THE
OR
LAND
IN
LOUIS
U. S.
SURVEY
COUNTY,
TOWNSHIP
1923,
MISSOURI,
AND
MORE
45
NORTH,
RANGE
PARTICULARLY
DE-
FOLLOWS:
AT
FEET WIDE,
A
POINT
SAID
IN
POINT
THE
SOUTH
BEING
ON
LINE
THE
OF
EAST
OLIVE
LINE
STREET
OF
U. S.
ROAD
SURVEY
14
1923
45
AND
THE
NORTH,
SURVEY
POINT
PLAT
THE
RANGE
1923
1 ",
A
32
WEST
FEET
A
NORTH
TO
A
POINT;
OF
SAID
OF
SAID
FEET
TO THE
SECTION
TRACT
THE
OF
CITY
4:
LAND
AND
ATTESTED
POINT OF
BY
MASTER DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE
NO.
SECTION
PHRASE
OR
ING
OF
VOID,
5:
THIS
SUCH
PORTION
OF
IF
PLAN
THENCE
LINE
NORTH
820
LOT
OF
60
SOUTH
NORTH
820
01'
30'
30"
LOT
4
FEET
FEET
ROAD,
OF
TO A
WIDE;
SOUTH
SECTION
3
OF
THE
DATE
IS
HEREBY
CLERK
IN ACCORDANCE
70
23'
30"
15"
WEST
EAST
752. 96
110. 94
FEET
HEZEL
JOHN
POINT
THE
THENCE ALONG
45"
ESTATE
SOUTH
THE
EAST
LINE
SOUTH
1331. 40
66. 159 ACRES.
DEVELOPMENT
AS
TO
ESTATE;
HEZEL
ON
08'
117,
THENCE ALONG-
23'
WEST
THE
770
ABOVE,
BOOK
15"
4 OF THE JOHN
SAID
NOTTINGHAM
1"
00
U. S.
PLAN FOR THE
HERETOFORE
FILED
WITH
THE PLANNING AND ZONING
OF ADOPTION OF
APPROVED
WITH SECTION
AS
THIS
THE
9C. 6 (
ORDINANCE
PRELIMINARY
A)
OF
AMENDED.
ANY
ORDINANCE
INVALIDITY
THIS
RECORDS;
BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
CITY
225, AS
COUNTY
BEGINNING- CONTAINING
MAYOR AS
THE
LOUIS
PLAT
OF
POINT,
PLAT
PRELIMINARY MASTER
SIGNED
A
IN
1873. 46
IN
TO
RECORD
POINT;
STREET
FEET
LINE
FOR
NOTTINGHAM
ROAD
EAST
OF "
LINE OF
EAST
TOWNSHIP
15
NORTH
EAST
SAID
4,
LOT
THENCE
OLIVE
THE
CORNER OF
THENCE
DESCRIBED
COMMISSION AND
1022. 15
ST.
A
STREET
THE
CLERK
WEST
POINT;
EAST
15"
OLIVE
LINE
TO
SAID
30'
ALONG
FILED
THE
SECTION
THENCE
22'
SAID "
FEET
ALONG
00
70
OF
OF
A POINT ON THE
THENCE
EAST;
FRACTIONAL
NORTHWEST
33
LINE
FEET
TO
OF
SUBDIVISION
1463. 17
899. 91
5
THE
AND
WEST
LINE
SOUTH
BEING
PAGES
WEST
SECTION,
IS
SUBSECTION,
FOR ANY
SHALL
ORDINANCE.
REASON
NOT AFFECT
SENTENCE,
HELD
TO
BE
THE VALIDITY
CLAUSE
OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
OF
THE
REMAIN-
THIS
AFTER
ITS
ORDINANCE
PASSAGE
SHALL
AND
BE
IN
APPROVAL
FULL
AS
FORCE
PROVIDED
AND
BY
EFFECT
FROM
AND
LAW.
R
PASSED
THIS
14th
DAY
OF
HAROLD
APPROVED
THIS
14th
DAY
A
EST:
GEORGE
E.
BAYER,
CITY
CLERK
L.
DIELMANN,
MAYOR
July ,
OF
HAROLD
1969.
jilt _,
L.
DIELMANN,
1969.
MAYOR
0
j
CHARLES DEUTSCH & COMPANY
One McKnight Place
Saint Louis, MO 63124
314) 372 -2272
May 1, 2000
Mr. Carlos Trejo, AICP
City Planner
City of Creve Coeur
300 N. New Ballas
Re:
Proposed Text Amendments
Dear Carlos:
We desire to further amend our application for text amendments. ( Please
see our prior correspondence on March 2, 2000 and April 11, 2000.) The
enclosed proposed text amendment lowers the current minimum tract size
to be developed in a Planned Community District from forty (40) acres to
fifteen ( 15) acres. We believe 15 acres is more than sufficient to meet the
purpose and intent of the Planned Community District of developing large
areas to consist of mixed uses which would comprise a community or
neighborhood.
This text amendment would modernize the current standard
for planned communities due to the fact that Creve Coeur has become a
highly -developed suburb.
We look forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission' s consideration of
the proposed text amendment on May 15.
Sincerely,
Charles Deutsch
CD / cs
Enclosure
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREVE COEUR CODE
26 -41. 5 Dimensional Regulations
The following area and yard regulations apply in the PC, Planned Community District.
a)
Minimum district size. The minimum tract or site to be developed by-a
single owmer or d
shall be fiftee
15 fer (
46) acres. Such a site
may, by Site Development Plan Approval and in conformance with the
City's Subdivision Ordinance, be subdivided into lots or tracts to be sold to
others for development or occupancy in accordance with the approved
development plan for the project.
tCREVE
COEUR
014) 432 -6000 • FAX 014) 872-2539 • RELAY MO 1- 800 -735 -2966
30
peart
DATE:
MAY 15, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT
eari -
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS
TITLE:
BEL ARBOR SUBDIVISION
LOCATION:
WEILER PROPERTY
COUNCIL MEMBERS
12529 CONWAY ROAD
1ST WARD
BARRY L. GLANTZ
ZONING:
A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
OWNER
TAYLOR-MORLEY, INC.
DAVID KREUTER
UNDER CONTRACT)/
2ND WARD
1224 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY
DEVELOPER:
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
REPRESENTATIVE:
MICHAEL BOERDING
SUE KROMER
JUDY PASS
THE STERLING COMPANY
165 NORTH MERAMEC
CLAYTON, MO 63105
3RD WARD
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
4TH WARD
MARTIN A. BARNHOLTZ
RICHARD J. WOLKOWITZ
The Sterling Company has submitted a Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement
Plans for the Bel Arbor development located at 12529 Conway Road. The Bel Arbor
development is a 3 -lot, single family subdivision proposed by Taylor -Morley. The Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed and approved with conditions the 3 -lot single family Preliminary
Subdivision Plat on February 22, 2000. The 3 -lot subdivision will redevelop an existing single family residence on a 3. 92 -acre parcel. The property is zoned ' A', Single Family Residential
District. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must take action on the
Final Subdivision Plan. Only the Planning and Zoning Commission must take action on the
Subdivision Improvement Plans.
LOCATION AND ZONING DESCRIPTION
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK C. PERKINS
The proposed subdivision development is located directly north of the intersection of Conway
Pine Court and Conway Road. The property is currently addressed as 12529 Conway Road.
The property is currently zoned ' A', Single Family Residential.
The ' A',
Single Family
Residential District is intended to provide for the development, protection and conservation of
areas of predominately single -family detached residences on lots of one acre or more.
CITY CLERK
LAVERNE COLLINS
The surrounding properties adjacent and bordering the proposed development are zoned ' A',
Single Family Residential. The Ladue Downs Subdivision borders the property directly north.
To the west is the 3 -lot, single family subdivision of Chateaux on Conway, which was also
developed by Taylor -Morley, Inc. To the east is a 5. 0 -acre, single family lot. South of the
property, across Conway Road, is the 5 -lot, single family subdivision of Conway Pine Estates
and the recently proposed 3 -lot, single family subdivision known as Conway Pine Estates
Addition.
Be] Arbor Subdivisioe •
Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans
Page 2 of 3
SUMMARY PROPOSAL
On February 22, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a 3 -lot, Preliminary
Subdivision Plat for the 12529 Conway Road property subject to the following conditions identified in Staffs Report
dated February 22, 2000.
1.
A 30 -foot wide extension of the proposed right -of w
- ay be extended from the cul -de -sac terminus, to the
east boundary line of the subject property to provide access for the most advantageous development pattern
of the Martin parcel.
2.
3.
4.
The cul -de -sac terminus would have to be approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall.
The street name shown on the note placed on the plat stating " access to lot 1 shall be from...." be change to
Conway Road.
The applicant shall submit 3 sets of the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat, including any conditions of
approval set by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Department of Community Development
prior to the application of a Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans.
On March 28, 2000, the applicant submitted a Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans. Said plat
and improvement plans did not incorporate any of the above mentioned conditions that were part of the approval of
the Preliminary Subdivision Plat. Section 22A -12. 3 ( c) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
establishes the following procedures for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review a preliminary subdivision
plat:
Planning and Zoning Commission: The Commission shall consider the merits of the Preliminary
Subdivision Plat and the review and comments of related City officials at its next regular meeting. By
majority vote, the Commission shall approve or disapprove the Preliminary Plat. A vote of disapproval
shall be accompanied by reasons for such action. In approving a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, the
Commission may impose conditions to be resolved in the Subdivision Improvement Plans and Final
Subdivision Plat.
The Subdivision Improvement Plans and Final Subdivision Plat have failed to incorporate conditions 1 and 3 noted
above, and have not resolved condition 2.
Under Section 22A -14. 3, the review procedures for Subdivision Improvement Plans are as follows:
Subsequent to Commission approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, the applicant may submit a
written request to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval of Subdivision Improvement Plans.
The Subdivision Improvement Plans may be submitted for review and approval at the same time or prior to
submission of the Final Subdivision Plat.
The applicant shall submit five ( 5) copies of the complete
Subdivision Improvement Plans to the Zoning Administrator who shall distribute these to the appropriate
City departments for review in a timely fashion. The Zoning Administrator shall coordinate the review and
receive comments form the various City departments, and shall forward the same to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for its review at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Zoning Administrator, as
assisted by the various City departments shall:
1.
Determined the completeness of the plans and compliance with the approved Preliminary
2.
verify accuracy of information provided;
3.
evaluate the degree of compliance with the technical requirements in the land development
Subdivision Plat;
standards, Article III of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, and other applicable
4.
City regulations;
identify any deficiencies or issues which require further attention and should be considered as
conditions of approval should the Planning and Zoning Commission choose to approve the Site
Improvement Plans.
The Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans are not in compliance with the approved
Preliminary Subdivision Plat. The request for the road right -of w
- ay extension from the cul -de -sac terminus, to the
east boundary line has not been incorporated. This has limited staff in review of compliance to items 3 and 4 noted
above and Fire Marshal approval of the cul -de -sac terminus.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports\ SP -Bel Arbor -Fnl. doc
Bel Arbor
SubdiviAd •
Final Subdivision
Subdivision Improvement Plans
Page 3 of 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans as submitted by the applicant fail to incorporate the
conditions of approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Bel Arbor Subdivision, staff recommends the
Planning and Zoning Commission motion on one of the following two actions:
1.
Defer action on the Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans so that the applicant can
resubmit revised plans incorporating the conditions of approval of the adopted Preliminary Subdivision Plat
for Bel Arbor Subdivision, approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 22, 2000.
2.
Defer action on Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans until the applicant resubmits
and receives approval of a revised Preliminary Subdivision Plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports\ S P- Bel Arbor -Fnl. doc
TAYLOR• MORLEY INC.
WORKING TOGETHER WE BRING OUALITV HOME
May 4, 2000 (
Chairman and Members of the
City of Creve Coeur Planning and Zoning Commission
Re:
Bel Arbor Subdivision - Request for Reconsideration
of Easement Extension to Martin Parcel Requirement
Dear Commission Members:
Let this letter serve as Taylor-Morley, Inc.' s request to the Commission for reconsideration of the
required easement connecting the private street in the Bel Arbor Subdivision to the adjacent
Martin Tract ( See "Suggested Requirements of Approval ", Paragraph
1, attached to February 23,
2000 correspondence). As you know the Martin tract is not subject to development at this time.
If this tract does develop with a public street, it will be difficult to force the Martin tract owners
to pay for the maintenance of the private Bel Arbor road which only serves three lots.
Furthermore, since approval of the preliminary subdivision plat, we have lost two sales on the
easement burdened lot. Not only is the easement unnecessary, it is diminishing the value of all
of the Bel Arbor lots without any real benefit to the City. Please reconsider the imposition of this
hardship on our development.
Very truly yours,
ill Taylor
President
cc: Mayor and members of the Creve Coeur City Council
1224 Fern Ridge Parkway • St. Louis, MO 63141 - 4499 • ( 314) 434 -9000 • FAX ( 314) 434 -1390
Internet Address: www. taylormorley. com
Celedraiiny
t REVE COEUR
4
314) 432- 6000 - FAX ( 314) 872-2539 - RELAY MO 1 -800 -735 -2966
iliv yeardopeari
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION /
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
TITLE:
THE SUMMIT LOFTS
FORMERLY THE GARDENS AT CREVE COEUR)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
LOCATION:
652 EMERSON ROAD
ZONING:
1ST WARD
BARRY L. CLANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
OWNER/ APPLICANT: ROBERT SAUR
CONRAD PROPERTIES CORP.
165 NORTH MERAMEC
CLAYTON, MO 63105
2ND WARD
SUE KROWER
JUDY PASS
On April 12, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1991, a Conditional Use Permit
application and Site Development Plan for the Gardens of Creve Coeur ( now known as the
Summit Lofts) development located at 652 Emerson Road.
The Summit Lofts is a 227 unit,
3RD WARD
multi -family residential development on a 3. 84 -acre lot located between Emerson Road and
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
Decker Lane, north of the Creve Coeur Corporate Center IV. A Conditional Use Permit was
SAM PA( i E
issued to permit a density over 20 units per acre, to permit four, 7 -story structures and to permit
a floor area ratio of 1. 25.
4TH WARD
MARTIN A. BARNHOL77
The applicant has submitted an application requesting an amendment to the adopted Site
Development Plans.
Said amendment is to allow for a reduction in the number of units on the
site, from 227 units to 88 units. In addition, the building heights will be reduced from 7- stories
to 4- stories each, and afar reduction from 1. 25 to 0. 89. The Conditional Use Permit will still be
necessary for the site density of 23 units per acre, but the building height and far will no longer
need Conditional Use approval.
In addition to said changes, there have been some site
modifications.
Since the site is located within the boundaries identified by the Southeast Olive/ I -270
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Development Core Area Plan, both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must
MARK C. PERKINS
take action on said request.
CITY CLERK
LAVERNE COLLINS
The subject property consists of 167, 270 sq. ft. (3. 844 acres) located between Emerson Road ( to
the west) and Decker Lane ( to the east), directly across from Studt Road. The property is zoned
CB, Core Business District.
The CB, Core Business District is intended to guide and control
private development and redevelopment of the major business districts in coordination with
related public improvements and services. Specifically, the CB district is intended to:
a)
Relate the development of retail, office and multifamily residential uses servicing both
a citywide and subregional service area to an adopted development plan for the major
business areas, including land use, phasing and public improvement elements.
Site Development Pl
endment •
Summit Lofts
Page 2 of 3
b)
c)
Encourage site consolidation and an orderly, phased pattern of development.
Accommodate the use of existing residential structures for offices in the interim period between their
present occupancy and ultimate redevelopment.
d)
Induce and ensure high quality future development through the used of Site Development Plan approval
procedures which provide for the specific consideration of access, parking, drainage, landscaping and
design factors.
There is a mixture of uses surrounding the site all under the CB, Core Business District zoning designation. To the
north are some single -family residential structures. To the south is the Creve Coeur Corporate Center III and IV
campus.
To the east the site is bounded by Decker Lane and to the west the site is bounded by Emerson Road.
There are addition office buildings west of the site and a small office center and surface parking lot east of the site.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to construct 4, 4 -story residential structures containing 88 residential units. The site will
be equally divided, with two of the residential structures along Emerson Road and the other two along Decker Lane.
The center of the site will house a club house, pool and landscaped courtyard. The residents will be provided with
underground parking. The parking structure will be divided into two components, one under the two buildings along
Emerson Road and one under the two buildings along Decker Lane. There will be surface parking reserved
primarily for visitors in front of both buildings along Emerson Road and Decker Lane.
The buildings will be masonry structures, incorporating a variety of brick and stone on the elevation details. Each
structure will be four stories in height, approximately 53 feet in height. Lower units will maintain private lawns
with upper units with balconies facing east or west. The central courtyard area will contain a pool and clubhouse.
The area will be landscaped along the perimeter, with an open axis view facing north, towards Trojan Drive. Access
to the garages will be on the south side of the campus.
PREDOMINATE CHANGES
The major change to the adopted Site Development Plan is the unit density. The original plans approved indicated a
potential density of 227 units. However, it is important to note that it was never the applicant's intent of construct
227 units. The building layout of the former plans indicated the highest and best use of the site, but the applicant's
intent was to design and build these units serving their client' s needs. The actual estimated density of the site was
indicated to be about 150 units. The plans submitted indicate a revised density of 88 units in the four structures.
The building heights have been reduced from 7- stories to 4- stories, resulting in the decrease in the number of units.
Once again, these units are based on an assumption they will be designed build to the client's needs. With the
reduction in units, the parking required on the site has been reduced. This has eliminated the need to have a
continuous underground garage structure stretching from Emerson Road to Decker Lane. The underground garage
structure has now been divided into two components, one on the east side of the site and one on the west side of the
site. This has allowed the architect' s of the site to propose a standard structural system based on a simple grid. To
accommodate the structural grid system, the buildings have been aligned equal distance from the road right -of w
- ay.
The previous design had the buildings staggered. The buildings and the underground parking structure are now
under the same footprint.
The building realignment has expanded the size of the central courtyard. This has allowed the developer to
eliminate the dividing garage access drive on the south, and link to the Creve Coeur Corporate Center IV property.
The clubhouse has been centered and centered on the site to serve as the focal point of the central courtyard. This
has maintained the axial visual linkage with Trojan Drive and Center Parkway Drive.
STAFF CONCERNS
The initial Site Development Plan was approved prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2030, which reduced building
setbacks in the CB, Core Business District to a maximum of 15 feet for 50% of the street facing building elevation.
Staff has determined that the applicant has a vested interest under the old ordinance, and therefore, the existing
building setbacks adopted in the original Site Development Plan may be maintained. The plans submitted indicate a
building setback of 92 feet. Within the area between the street and the building, there is the street sidewalk,
landscaping, off street
surface parking, additional landscaping and then the building footprint. Staff encourages the
Commission to consider the placement of decorative wall fence or dense landscaping between the sidewalk and the
surface parking area. This will be in conformance with the Commission's goal of creating an urban streetscape
within the defined " towncenter" area.
ZAP &Z Commission\ Reports\ SDP- Summit Lofts. doc
Site Development P110endment •
Summit Lofts
Page 3 of 3
The pedestrian walkways leading from the street sidewalk into the proposed development are divided by the drive
aisle of the off street
parking lot. Staff recommends that the sidewalk surface continue over the drive aisle rather
than having a hatched pedestrian crossing on the parking surface.
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the amendment to the adopted Site Development
Plan for the Summit Lofts development, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
2.
Staff encourages the Commission to consider the placement of decorative wall fence or dense landscaping
between the sidewalk and the surface parking area. This will be in conformance with the Commission's goal of
creating an urban streetscape within defined " towncenter" area.
Staff recommends that the sidewalk surface continue over the drive aisle rather than having a hatched pedestrian
crossing on the parking surface.
3.
A screening wall must enclose all mechanical equipment, no mechanical equipment shall extend above the
height of the screening wall.
4.
All dumpsters and trash or refuse collection carts and/ or dumpsters will be maintained within the underground
garage structure and be screened from view from adjoining properties or public rights -of w
- ays.
connection shall be provided for cleanup purposes.
A hose bid
5.
All overhead utilities shall be placed underground.
6.
All lighting shall contain full cut -off fixtures, should be down cast, parallel to the ground in a zero tilt, and
shielded or directed to prevent direct light from being cast upon any adjacent property and to prevent glare or
7.
Prior to the application of any permits, three copies of the Final Site Development Plan, incorporating any
changes or conditions placed by the Commission, shall be submitted to the Department of Community
8.
A Final Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development prior to the
application of any additional permits on the site. The Final Landscape Plan shall be developed in accordance
with Section 26 -62. 5 of the City of Creve Coeur Zoning Ordinance. Said plan shall include all items included
in the Concept Landscape Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall clearly meet or exceed
all of the design standards outlined in Section 26 -62. 6 ( including providing an adequate irrigation system as
other objectionable problems to surrounding areas.
Development.
defined in paragraph 0) of said section), shall be prepared by an architect or landscape architect registered in the
State of Missouri, and shall be included with the Final Site Development Plan.
ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on the Site Development Plan amendment for the Summit
Lofts. Action on the amendment to the Site Development Plan will be in the form of a motion of approval, approval
with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, with a tentative date
scheduled for Monday, June 12, 2000.
Z:\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \SDP -Summit Lofts.doc
Crele ratirt • •
C
tCREVE
014) 432- 6000 • FAX ( 314) 872-2539 • RELAY MO 1 - 800-735 1966
i E
A
c7iltvY
eare01—
1949-
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
arl
199. 9
J
SUBJECT:
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT
TITLE:
LINDBERGH- WARSON INDUSTRIAL CENTER
LOCATION:
10850 BAUR BOULEVARD
MAYOR
ANNE17E KOLIS MANDEL
COUNCIL MEMBERS
1ST WARD
LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
ZONING:
BARRY L 6LANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
2ND WARD
OWNER:
APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE:
MALACO, LLC, AND
DUANE R. BURRELL
KAMCO ENTERPRISES, LLC
SABUR SURVEYING & ENGINEERING, INC.
PO BOX 698
1752 ASHBY ROAD
GROVER, MO 63040
ST. LOUIS, MO 63114
SUEKROE6ER
JUDY PASS
Sabur Surveying & Engineering, Inc. has submitted an application for a Boundary Adjustment
Plat of three parcels located in the Lindbergh -Warson Industrial Center.
3RD WARD
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
Said properties are
located on the east side of Andes Boulevard, south of Baur Boulevard and are addressed as
10850 Baur Boulevard and 1266 and 1280 Andes Boulevard. The applicant proposes to alter the
existing property lines of the three properties and adjust the site and create two lots.
The
properties are zoned 11% Light Industrial, which require a minimum lot size of one -half acre.
Only the Planning and Zoning Commission must take action on a Boundary Adjustment Plat.
4TH WARD
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
The properties affected by the Boundary Adjustment Plat are located on the southwest corner of
Andes
Boulevard
and
Baur
Boulevard.
These
sites
contain
an
office
building,
an
office /warehouse building and an accessory storage structure. The parcel grounds are zoned, LI,
Light Industrial District.
The LI District is intended to encourage the development and
redevelopment of areas of the City which are designated as industrial by one of the City's land
use plans. The LI district is further intended to ensure high quality future development through
the use of site development plan approval procedures which provide for specific consideration of
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK G PERKINS
access, parking, drainage, landscaping and design factors.
Surrounding land uses include both additional warehouse and office facilities under the LI, Light
Industrial District and GC, General Commercial District.
SUMMARY PROPOSAL
CITY CLERIC
The current three parcels are already utilized as two properties. The parcel addressed as 10850
LAVERNE COLLINS
Baur Boulevard utilizes the middle parcel ( addressed as 1280 Andes Boulevard) as off s
-ite
parking. The applicant proposes to eliminate the central parcel and make it part. of the south
parcel addressed as 1266 Andes Boulevard. This site currently contains a 12, 000 square foot
office building. The minimum lot size permitted in the LI district is 0. 5 acres with a maximum
site coverage of 85 %.
Light Industrial District.
Both sites will meet the area and site coverage requirements of the LI
Boundary Adjustment, •
Lindbergh -Warson Industrial Center, SE Comer of Andes /Baur
Page 2 of 2
SITE AREA AND PARKING TABLE
Area
Site Coverage
ORIGINAL:
Existing/Proposed
Parking
Min. Required
Parking
10850 Baur Blvd.
1. 29 acres
36 stalls
at least 8 stalls*
1266 Andes Blvd.
0. 728 acres
39 stalls
none
1280 Andes Blvd.
0. 53 acres
34 stalls
at least 3l stalls*
1085010850 BaurBaur Blvd.Blvd.
75 stalls
at least 8 stalls*
1280 Andes Blvd.
34 stalls
at least 31 stalls*
EXISTING:EXISTING:
OriginalOriginal ParcelParcel OneOne
Original Parcel Two
1. 741 acres
0. 728 acres
PROPOSED:
Adjusted Parcel One
1. 414 acres
74%
36 stalls
at least 8 stalls*
Adjusted Parcel Two
1. 055 acres
67%
73 stalls
at least 31 stalls*
Parking estimates are based on the information given by the applicant and St. Louis County data. These represent the minimum parking
that is possible based on the information of the site uses given by the applicant.
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the proposed Boundary Adjustment Plat ( submitted
by Sabur Surveying and Engineering Inc.) dated received May 9, 2000 by the Department of Community
Development, for the properties addressed as 10850 Baur Boulevard and 1260 and 1280 Andes Boulevard, located
in the Lindbergh -Warson Industrial Center, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
Three copies of the recorded Boundary Adjustment Plat be submitted to the Department of Community
Development.
ACTION
Action on the proposed Boundary Adjustment Plat will be in the form of a motion of approval, approval with
conditions or denial. No action by the City Council is required.
Z:\ P & Z Commission\ Reports\ BA -1280 Andes.doc
Celed
rafirc
4,(.
REVE COEUR
314) 432 -6000 - FAX (314) 872 -2539 - RELAY MO 1 - 800 -735 -2966
JOY Yeare4 A-
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSII00%
N
FROM:
CARLOS TREJO, CITY PLANNER /
art
1949 - 199. 9
lJ
MAYOR
SUBJECT:
MINOR SITE PLAN
TITLE:
TIPPIN' S RESTAURANT
LOCATION:
11440 OLIVE BOULEVARD
ZONING:
PO, PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT
APPLICANT /:
DANIEL M. LARSEN
REPRESENTATIVE
TIPPIN' S RESTAURANTS
1
COUNCIL MEMBERS
1ST WARD
BARRY 1. 6LANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
7600WEST 10TH STREET, SUITE 200
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66210
2ND WARD
SUE KROEGER
JUDY PASS
An application has been submitted for Minor Site Plan approval of an outdoor seating area at the
Tippin's Restaurant located at 11440 Olive Boulevard. The property is zoned PO, Planned
Office District and the existing use is permitted as a Conditional Use. A Conditional Use Permit
was issued for the Tippin's Restaurant under Ordinance 1447, adopted on March 11,
1991.
3RD WARD
Since the proposed outdoor seating expansion is only 684 square feet and does not represent a
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
substantial change to the approved Site Development Plan on file, staff recommends that the
SAM PAGE
proposed alteration be adopted only as a Minor Site Development Plan.
Development Plan only requires action by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A Minor Site
4TH WARD
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
Tippin's Restaurant is located on the south side of Olive Boulevard, between Craig Road and
Mosley Road. The property is addressed as 11440 Olive Boulevard. The property is zoned PO,
RICHARD). WOLKOWITZ
Planned Office District and is adjacent to the Creve Coeur Executive Office Park development.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
tITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK C. PERKINS
The applicant proposes to place a 684 square foot outdoor seating area on the east side of the
building. The outdoor seating area will replace a landscaped area between the parking area and
the building. A total of 340 square feet of green space will be removed and will be replaced with
only 180 square feet of additional green space provided by removing two parking stalls along the
front of the building. The outdoor seating area will be enclosed with a decorative ornamental
fence.
CITY CLERK
In addition to the outdoor seating area, the applicant is providing a 4 -foot wide pedestrian access
path from the front of the building to the sidewalk parallel to Olive Boulevard.
LAVERNE COLLINS
SITE COVERAGE AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Under the PO, Planned Office site coverage regulations and Section 26 -93. 2 General Parking
Requirements, the following table compares existing site conditions with the Zoning Code
requirements:
Minor Site Plan
Tippin's Restaurant
Page 2 of 2
Maximum Site Coverage:
63%
Existing Site Coverage:
88%
Required Parking based on 1 stall per 50 square feet: (
107 stalls
Existing Parking
6, 495 sf. 50
/ sf.)
130 stalls
Parking as per proposed text amendment to Section 26 -93. 2: 94 stalls based on a 202 seat, seating capacity
Note that the site is over the permitted site coverage in the PO, Planned Office District and does not provide the
necessary parking required under Section 26 -93. 2.
STAFF CONCERNS
Since the proposed alterations to the site are minor in nature, the applicant may maintain the existing nonconformity,
but is not permitted to increase the existing degree of nonconformity as defined under Section 26 -70. 5 Site Related
Nonconformities. This allows the applicant to make minor alterations to the site such as including an outdoor
seating area, so long as the 88% site coverage is not exceeded. Therefore, the proposed green space being added
must be equal or greater than the amount of open space being removed. Currently, the plans as proposed, have more
green space being removed than added. The applicant will have to provide additional green space on the site,
possibly through the removal of a couple of more parking spaces.
The parking on the site, 107 stalls, is below the parking currently required by Code, 130 stalls. However, with the
proposed changes to the general parking requirements, the applicant would need to maintain a minimum of 94 stalls.
This would allow the applicant to remove a couple of parking spaces and convert them to green space.
The
Commission may grant a tentative approval subject to no permits being issued for the site alterations until the
amendments to Section 26 -93. 2 are adopted.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on the accompanying Minor Site Plan for a 684 square foot
outdoor seating area at the Tippin's Restaurant. Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve
said request, staff recommends the following:
1.
The amount of green space provided on the site must be equal to or greater than the amount of green space
2.
being removed for the outdoor seating area. The overall site coverage on the site may not exceed 88 %.
No permits may be issued for said site improvements until the proposed Text Amendment to Section 2693. 2 is adopted by the City Council.
ACTION
Action on the Minor Site Plan will be in the form of approval, approval with conditions or denial. No action by the
City Council is required.
Dilbert\ COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports\ MSP -Tippins. doc
tCREVE
C
014) 432-6000 • FAX ( 314) 872 -2539 • RELAY MO 1 -800 -735 -2966
i/tvYearso1-jieart
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION /
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TITLE:
SPECIALTY -D COFFEES & TEAS
LOCATION:
WESTGATE SHOPPING CENTER
COUNCIL MEMBERS
1ST WARD
ZONING:
PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
APPLICANT /:
DAPHNE McELROY
BARRY 1. 6LANTZ
DAVID KREUTER
REPRESENTATIVE
15468 DUXBURY WAY
CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017
2ND WARD
SUE KROWER
JUDY PASS
3RD WARD
An application has been submitted for review and action on a Conditional Use Permit request for
an eating and drinking establishment to be known as Special -D Coffees & Teas. The eating and
drinking establishment will be located at the Westgate Shopping Center located at the corner of
southwest corner of Tempo Drive and Olive Boulevard. The property is zoned PC, Planned
Community District and the proposed use is permitted only as a Conditional Use. The Planning
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
and Zoning Commission and City Council must take action on the Conditional Use Permit
SAM PAG E
request.
The Westgate Shopping Center is part of the 66.2 acre, mix use development known as
4TH WARD
Westgate. The Westgate development includes the Westgate Shopping Center at the southwest
MARTIN A BARN HOLTZ
comer of Tempo Drive and Olive Boulevard, office developments south of Olive Boulevard and
RICHARD). WOLKOWITZ
a multifamily residential development along the south end of the 66. 2 acre campus.
The applicant will occupy the tenant space addressed as 12324 Olive Boulevard. Said space is
located on the east side of the shopping center structure, at the location of the former Casual
Comer store.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUMMARY PROPOSAL
MARK C. PERKINS
Daphne McElroy has submitted an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Special D Coffee & Teas. The total tenant space area will be 2, 330 square feet. The primary use of the
facility will be a retail coffee shop with seating for 16 people or less. No table service or waiter
service will be provided. Special -D Coffee & Teas will also provide training and educational
CITY CLERK
LAVERNE COLLINS
courses on the use of their coffee and tea products. Hours of operation will be from 6: 30 AM to
10: 00 PM, seven days a week.
Because of the coffee and tea service provided, this use is classified as a coffee shop, identified
as an Eating Place in the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Manual. The City utilizes the
SIC Manual to classify uses for zoning classification purposes. Since this site is under the
umbrella of Eating Places, Section 26 -41. 3 ( e) requires application of a Conditional Use Permit.
Conditional Use Permie •
Page 2 of 2
The tenant has agreed to maintain a seating capacity of 16 or fewer seats, thus under Section 26 -93. 6 ( e. 2) may
maintain a parking level similar to a retail development. Thus, no additional parking is required.
STAFF CONCERNS
Staff has no concerns in regards to the proposed Conditional Use Permit application and Site Development Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on the accompanying Site Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit application. Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to recommend approval
of the accompanying Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit application, staff recommends the
following:
1.
The restaurant size shall be limited to 2, 330 square feet.
2.
The maximum number of seats designated for the use of the coffee and tea shop retail use be limited to 16
seats. The number of seats within the training and educational conference room is not limited for zoning
purposes.
ACTION
Action on the accompanying Site Development Plan will be in the form of a recommendation of approval, approval
with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council along with the Conditional Use Permit
application.
Action on the Conditional Use Permit application will be in the form of a recommendation of approval, approval
with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for action after a formal Public Hearing is
held. A Public Hearing has tentatively been scheduled before the City Council on Monday, June 26, 2000.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \CUP -Special -D.doc
C,
BILL NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT TO BE
KNOWN AS SPECIAL -D COFFEES & TEAS TO BE LOCATED AT THE
WESTGATE SHOPPING CENTER, ADDRESSED AS 12324 OLIVE
BOULEVARD, IN THE ' PC' PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HEREIN SET FORTH.
WHEREAS, application was made by Daphne McElroy for a Conditional Use Permit to operate
an eating and drinking establishment at the Westgate Shopping Center, located at the southwest corner of
Tempo Drive and Olive Boulevard, in the Westgate Development, zoned PC, Planned Community
District, and
WHEREAS, on Monday, May 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Creve Coeur, by majority /unanimous vote, recommended denial/ approval of said application for a
Conditional Use Permit and accompanying Site Concept Plan as per Section 26- 114.4(b), and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Creve Coeur City Council on Monday, June 26,
2000, beginning at 7: 30 p.m. or immediately following the close of the previous Public Hearing, on said
application for the Conditional Use Permit as provided by Article 9, Section 26 -114 of Ordinance Number
1903 of the City of Creve Coeur, and
WHEREAS, notice of publication for said Public Hearing had been previously published on
DATE, in the St. Louis Countian and on DATE, in the West County Journal, newspapers of general
circulation in the City of Creve Coeur, and
WHEREAS, all parties desiring to be heard, either for or against said application, were given an
opportunity to be heard, and a copy of the proposed ordinance has been made available for public
inspection prior to its consideration by the Council; and this Bill having been read by title in open
meeting three times before final passage by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council being fully informed finds that the granting of the application
would be in harmony with and bear a substantial relation to the public welfare, health, safety, comfort and
convenience of the citizens of the City of Creve Coeur and in the public interest and in conformance with
good zoning practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, St. Louis
County, Missouri, as follows:
Section 1:
A Conditional Use Permit is authorized to be issued pursuant to Section 3 hereof for
the construction and operation of an eating and drinking establishment to be known as Special -D Coffees
Teas at the Westgate Shopping Center tenant space addressed as 12324 Olive Boulevard, located in the
Westgate development, zoned the PC, Planned Community District, subject to the hereinafter stated
conditions, on the following described property:
conditions on the following described property:
Page 2
A tract of land in U.S. Survey 1923, Township 45 North, Range 5 East, St. Louis County,
Missouri and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the eastern right -of w
- ay of Temp Drive and southern right -of w
- ay
line of Olive Street Road as widened, thence along the southern right -of w
- ay of Olive Street Road
as widened North 61 degrees 12 minutes and 16 seconds East 83. 02 feet to a point; thence
continuing along said southern right -of w
- ay line of Olive Street Road as widened south 77 degrees
14 minutes and 50 seconds east 615. 19 feet to a point; thence South 12 degrees 51 minutes 15
seconds west 388, 47 feet to a point; thence South 89 degrees 50 minutes 58 seconds west 649. 76
feet to a point in the aforementioned eastern right -of w
- ay line of Tempo Drive; thence along the
eastern right -of w
- ay line of Tempo Drive around a curve to the right having a radius of 886. 72 feet
and arc distance of 280.92 feet to the point of tangency thereof; thence continuing along said
eastern right -of w
- ay line of Tempo Drive north 12 degrees 51 minutes and 15 seconds east 202. 15
feet to the point of beginning.
Section 2:
The Conditional Use Permit granted shall be subject to all applicable statutes,
ordinances, rules and regulations, and the following conditions:
1.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be for the operation of a 2, 330 sq. ft. eating and drinking establishment as
defined under Section 26 -52. 13 of the City of Creve Coeur Zoning Code.
2.
Said use shall be located in the Westgate Shopping Center tenant space addressed as 12324 Olive Boulevard,
located in the Westgate development as shown in the Site Development Plan dated ( Received) March 22,
2000, by the Department of Community Development and approved by the Creve Coeur City Council.
3.
Whereas the maximum seating permitted, excluding seating in the training and educational conference room,
is limited to 16 seats.
4.
The hours of operation shall be from 6: 30 AM to 10: 00 PM, seven days a week.
5.
The floor plan for the proposed restaurant shall be filed with the City's Zoning Administrator showing the
type and location of all equipment, furniture, seating capacity, and other information which may be requested
by the building official.
6.
All signs for the restaurant must be in conformance with the City's sign regulations, and permits must be
obtained for the erection or modification of any sign on the premises.
Banners, pennants, fringe, light
pinwheels or other similar devices for attracting attention may be displayed only in conformance with the
City's current sign regulations. Exposed neon signs shall only be used in conformance with the current sign
regulations of the City of Creve Coeur.
7.
The refuse containers shall be for the exclusive use of the restaurant and shall be located adjacent to the
restaurant.
The refuse containers shall be located within a screened sight -proof storage area with the
installation of a hose bibb to service the trash enclosure area. Trash pick -up for the facilities shall only occur
between the hours of 8: 00 a. m. and 8: 00 p.m.
8.
There shall be no outdoor storage or placement of any materials or equipment used in conjunction with the
restaurant, including storage of outdoor tables, chairs and umbrellas.
9.
Any mechanical equipment installed for the restaurant shall be properly screened with approved materials.
Conditional Use Permi0 •
Page 3
10. Delivery and company vehicles shall be parked in the rear parking area of the restaurant.
11. Any future enlargement, extension, expansion or alteration in the use of the structures or site must be
approved by the City Council upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit before a Building Permit for the enlargement or alteration
may be issued.
12. The seating area must have sufficient proper signs to comply with the " No Smoking" Ordinance Number
1392 and amending Ordinance Number 1548.
13. A copy of all herein attached conditions shall be furnished by the owner or petitioner to the operator(s) or
manager(s) including successive operator( s), owner( s) or manager( s) who shall forward to the Zoning
Enforcement Officer an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understood each of these conditions
and agrees to comply therewith.
14. All conditions contained within this permit shall be posted upon the properties in such a manner that it is
visible to the public and the operator of said facilities.
15. Failure to comply with any one or all of the conditions of this permit shall be adequate cause for the
revocation of said permit by the City Council, provided, however, no permit shall be revoked without prior
notice to the owner of the intention of the City Council to revoke this permit and reasonable time granted to
the owner to correct or remedy any such breach of conditions, except for repeated breaches or violations.
16. No Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council shall be valid for a period longer than one year from
the date it grants the Conditional Use Permit, unless within such period: ( 1) a Building Permit is obtained
and construction is begun; or ( 2) if a Building Permit is not required, an Occupancy Permit is obtained and
the use of the building commenced. The City Council may grant extensions to the one ( 1) year period of not
more than one hundred and eighty ( 180) days each, without notice or hearing, provided that a written request
for such extension is filed by the original applicant and approved by the City Council prior to the date the
conditional use permit is scheduled to expire.
17. Any transfer of ownership or lease of the property shall include in the transfer or lease agreement a provision
that the purchaser or lessee agrees to be bound by the approved Site Development Plan for the property and
the conditions herein set forth.
18. The use of outdoor speakers for the amplification of music or spoken word shall be prohibited.
19. An underground irrigation system shall be installed and maintained in good working order to serve all green
and/ or landscaped areas, including interior parking lot islands, identified on the Site Development Plan.
20. If deemed necessary and required by the City at a future date, the restaurant operator and/ or the property
owner shall provide adequate private on -site security personnel to address crowd control issues and facilitate
traffic flow and traffic control issues within thirty ( 30) days of such official notice. Such personnel shall be
required on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays or as prescribed by the City.
Section 3:
The City Administrator of the City of Creve Coeur is hereby authorized and directed
to issue a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, said permit to
expressly provide for the conditions and stipulations hereinabove set out in Section 2 of this ordinance.
Page 4
Section 4:
This ordinance shall become effective at the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after
adoption by the City Council and the signing thereof by the Mayor.
ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
e ebratin
7
0
CREVE C
314) 432 -6000 • FAX ( 314) 872-2539 • RELAY MO 1 - 800 -735 -2966
tilt'Yeariol H
—art
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT
TITLE:
LOCATION:
308 MOSLEY ROAD
COUNCIL MEMBERS
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MOSLEY ROAD AND HUNTERS
POND ROAD)
1ST WARD
BARRY L. GLANTZ
ZONING:
A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
OWNER:
JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
DAVID KREUTER
16120 CHESTERFIELD PARKWAY SOUTH, SUITE 260
CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017
2ND WARD
SUEKROEGER
IUDY PASS
APPLICANT/
TODD B. SCHEIBE, P. E.
REPRESENTATIVE:
VOLZ INCORPORATED
10849 INDIAN HEAD INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
ST. LOUIS, MO 63132 -1166
3RD WARD
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
SAM PAGE
4TH WARD
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
RICHARD). WOLKOWITZ
On March 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 4 -lot, single family
Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Hunters Pond Addition. The property is a 4. 5 acre site located
on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hunters Pond Road and Mosley Road currently
addressed as 308 Mosley Road. The property is zoned ' A', Single Family Residential, which
requires a minimum lots size of one acre. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council must take action on the Final Subdivision Plat.
Only the Planning and Zoning
Commission must take action on the Subdivision Improvement Plans.
The proposed subdivision development is located on the eastern side of Mosley Road, north of
Hunters Pond Road. The property is currently addressed as 308 Mosley Road and zoned ' A',
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Single Family Residential. The ' A', Single Family Residential District is intended to provide for
the development, protection and conservation of areas of predominately single -family detached
MARK C. PERKINS
residences on lots of one acre or more.
The surrounding properties adjacent and bordering the proposed development are also zoned 'A',
Single Family Residential. This includes Ladue Meadows Subdivision west of Mosley Road.
CITY CLERK
LAVERNE COLLINS
To the south is the Hunters Pond Subdivision. To the north is the Tureen Subdivision. To the
east are two single -family lots with access onto Mosley Road, via a 20 -foot private access strip.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
On March 20, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a 4 -lot,
Preliminary Subdivision Plat for the Hunters Pond Addition Subdivision subject to the following
conditions identified in Staffs Report dated February 22, 2000.
Final Subdivision Plat *
division Improvement Plans •
Hunters Pond Addition
Page 2 of 3
1.
The right -of w
- ay on Hunters Pond Road be limited to a maximum width of 50 feet.
2.
The developer shall incorporate the common ground into the proposed development through the form
of a Boundary Adjustment Plat, prior to the submittal of a Final Subdivision Plat.
3.
Information
ensuring that the developer has sole ownership of the common ground shall be provided at the time a
Boundary Adjustment Plat is submitted.
The sidewalk indicated along Mosley Road on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat will be removed and
an escrow for said sidewalk will be provided by the Applicant for the City of Creve Coeur, and the
sidewalk along Hunters Pond Road will be extended all the way to Mosley Road.
4.
A note shall be placed on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat along Lot I than no vehicle access is
permitted onto Mosley Road.
5.
The applicant shall submit 3 -sets of the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat, including any
conditions of approval set by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Department of Community
Development prior to the application of a Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans.
On April 17, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Boundary Adjustment Plat incorporating the
adjacent Hunters Pond Subdivision common ground north of Hunters Pond Road into the proposed development. A
recorded copy of the Boundary Adjustment Plat has been submitted to the Department of Community Development.
On April 14, 2000, Volz Inc., engineers and surveyors, submitted the Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Plans for the proposed 4 -lot, single family subdivision on behalf of the Johnson Development
Company. The Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Improvement Plans are in compliance with the Planning and
Zoning Commission conditions of approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plata The width of the Hunters Pond
Road right -of w
- ay is maintained at 50 feet, the sidewalk indicated along Mosley Road has been removed, and the
sidewalk along Hunters Pond Road has been extended up to Mosley Road. The developer, however, still needs to
provide an escrow for placement of a sidewalk along Mosley Road and a note indicating no vehicle access is
permitted on Mosley Road from Lot 1.
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
The following table includes the minimum' A', Single Family Residential District dimensional regulations and those
of each of the proposed lots within the subdivision:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Min. Lot Size
43, 560 sf. 1 acre
A' District
49, 188 sf.
45, 122 sf.
45, 120 sf.
47, 215 sf.
Min. Width
150 ft.
230. 7 ft.
134. 8 ft.
154. 4 ft.
161. 5 ft.
Min Depth
167 ft.
260 ft.
293. 4 ft.
292. 3 ft.
292. 3 ft.
District
Under the Final Subdivision Plat submitted, the area and lot layouts appear to conform to the ` A' Single Family
District requirements.
CURRENT USE AND HISTORY
Under the St. Louis County tax records, the parcel belongs to a Julia Otto Trust. The parcel contains a two, onestory frame structures. It appears as if two residential units currently exist on this site. Both structures were built
prior to 1945.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will take separate action on the Final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Plans. Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the Final Subdivision Plat for
the Hunters Pond Addition Subdivision ( dated ( received) May 11, 2000) by the Department of Community
Development), staff recommends the following conditions be incorporated:
1.
2.
A note be placed on Lot 1 that no vehicle access be permitted onto Mosley Road.
A note indicating that the 10 foot wide dedication strip parallel to Mosley Road for right -of w
- ay purposes
is dedicated to the City of Creve Coeur. Said strip showed be hatched to highlight that this segment has
been dedicated.
3.
A full written meets and bounds legal description with the lot area estimated to a tenth of an acre be added
4.
to the Final Subdivision Plat with a note indicating the 10 -wide dedication along Mosley Road.
Under the Vicinity Map, indicate Wunnenberg' s page number and grid location that this property can be
found in and indicate that this property is located in Political Ward 2.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \SP- Hunters Pond Add -Fnl. doc
Final Subdivision Plat
Jobdivision Improvement Plans •
Hunters Pond Addition
Page 3 of 3
5.
Indicate whether Hunters Pond Road is public or private right -of w
- ay.
6.
Indicate the location of all survey monuments, note whether these monuments were found or placed.
7.
Provide certification of real estate taxes are paid.
8.
An additional 15 -sets of the Final Subdivision Plat, revised to include any and all conditions set forth by the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development,
including the mylar original with all necessary signatures. The Plat should be submitted no latter than
Tuesday, June 6, 2000, should this item be reviewed by the City Council on Monday, June 12, 2000.
Subdivision Improvement Plans:
1.
The lot areas shown on the subdivision lots be changed to reflect the lot areas of the subdivision lots in the Final
2.
A street tree and common area landscape plan be provided in accordance with Section 22A -14. 2 ( d. 5).
Subdivision Plat.
Said
plan shall include type, species and size of roposed street tress along Hunters Pond Road and landscaping being
3.
provided in the common ground and easement area and adjacent to the single family property east of Lot 4.
Additional three sets of plans with any modifications proposed by the Commission shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development for review prior to application for any permits.
ACTION
The motion for the Final Subdivision Plat for Hunters Pond Addition will be in the form of approval, approval with
conditions or denial and will be forwarded to the City Council. This item is tentatively scheduled to appear before
the City Council on Monday, June 12, 2000.
The motion for the Subdivision Improvement Plans for Hunters Pond Addition will be in the form of approval,
approval with conditions or denial. No action by City Council is required.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \SP- Hunters Pond Add- Fnl.doc
BILL NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE
HUNTERS POND ADDITION SUBDIVISION, DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF
LAND BEING PART OF LOT 6 OF NEFF' S SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 45 NORTH, IN RANGE 05 EAST, IN THE CITY OF CREVE
COEUR, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI
WHEREAS, an application for the approval of a 4 -lot Final Subdivision Plat has been submitted
by Volz Incorporated, on behalf of the Johnson Development Company, to redevelop the property
addressed as 308 Mosley Road to be known as the Hunters Pond Addition Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned ' A', Single Family Residential and said subdivision
is in compliance with the minimum dimensional regulations of the 'A', Single Family Residential District,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 4 -lot, single family Preliminary
Subdivision Plat for the subject property on March 20, 2000, and said Final Subdivision Plat substantially
conforms to the approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat, and
WHEREAS, the Final Subdivision Plat submitted by Volz Incorporated, dated ( Received) May
11, 2000, was approved/ denied by a unanimous /majority vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission
on May 15, 2000, with certain conditions, and
WHEREAS, a revised plat, incorporating the conditions of approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission was submitted to the Department of Community Development dated ( Received) XXX, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed ordinance has been made available for public inspection
prior to its adoption by the City Council and this bill having been read by title in open meeting three time
before final passage by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri
as follows:
SECTION 1:
That the final plat for a 4 lot, Final Subdivision Plat to be known as Unters Pond
Addition Subdivision, described as a tract of land being part of Lot 6 of the Neffs Subdivision, in Section
111, Township 45 North, Range 5 East, in the City of Creve Coeur, St. Louis County, Missouri, as
heretofore submitted on the XXX, by Volz Incorporated for the Johnson Development Company, contract
owners of said parcel of ground, is hereby approved.
SECTION 2:
Such approval of the Plat of the subdivision to be known as the Hunters Pond
Addition Subdivision shall be endorsed on said Plat as indicated in Section 1 hereof under the hand of the
City Clerk, and the seal of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri shall be affixed thereto.
Ordinance for
Hunters Pond Addition Final Subdivision Plat
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 3:
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon the expiration of fifteen ( 15)
days after adoption by the City Council and the signing thereof the Mayor.
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF ,
2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
tCREVE
C
314) 432 -6000 • FAX (314) 872- 2539 • RELAY MO 1- 800-735 -2966
giltty yeare
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
opeart
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COUNCIL MEMBERS
TITLE:
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS /HBE BUILDING
LOCATION:
ZONING:
1ST WARD
BARRY L. 6LANTZ
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
DAVID KREUTER
CARRIE BALDOCK/ STEVE WALTERS
HBE CORPORATION
VOICESTREAM WIRELESS
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
2ND WARD
SUE KROWER
JUDY PASS
An application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan have been submitted by
VoiceStream Wireless to place roof mounted
communication equipment on the rooftop of the
HBE Building located at 11330 Olive Boulevard. The property is zoned CB, Core Business
3RD WARD
District. Under Section 26- 43. 3( b), roof -mounted communication equipment is permitted only
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
as a conditional use. The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on the Conditional
Use Permit and accompanying Site Development Plan and forward a recommendation to the
City Council. A formal Public Hearing and City Council action are necessary on both the
SAM PACE
Conditional Use Permit application and Site Development Plan.
4TH WARD
LOCATION AND ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING DESCRIPTIONS
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
The HBE property is addressed as 11330 Olive Boulevard. The site is a 10 -acre campus, located
RICHARD). WOLKOWITZ
on the southwest comer of Olive Boulevard and Mosley Road. The parcel grounds contain a
high rise office building totaling 185, 000 square feet.
A mixture of different land uses surround the site as follows:
North:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
To the north the site is bounded by Olive Boulevard. Land uses across Olive Boulevard
include a narrow retail development and the West Oak Shopping Center. Said
properties
MARK C. PERKINS
are
zoned
CB,
Core
Business
District.
Beyond
the
narrow
retail
development are single family residences part of St. Louis County.
West:
The site is adjacent to the Tippin's Restaurant to the northwest and the Bridge
Information Systems campus to the west. Said properties are zoned PO, Planned Office
District.
CITY CLERK
South:
LAVERNE COLLINS
East:
To the south is the single family residential subdivision of the Fairways. Said
subdivision is zoned' B', Single Family Residential.
To the east the site is bounded by Mosley Road. Across the street of Mosley Road, to
the northeast is a small retail center and to the east are additional single family
residences under the ' C', Single Family Residential District.
Conditional Use PeAe Development Plan
VoiceStream Wireless, HBE Building
Page 2 of 6
SUMMARY PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to install three ( 3) antenna bands on the western portion of the HBE Building rooftop.
Each antenna band has attachments for three ( 3) antennas, with a total of nine ( 9) individual antennas attached to the
rooftop. These antennas will be attached to the western stairwell structure of the HBE Building. This stairwell
structure protrudes above the roofline of the primary building mass. One antenna band will be attached on the west
side of the stairwell structure along Olive Boulevard, facing northwest. The second antenna band will be attached
on the east side of the stairwell structure along Olive Boulevard, facing northeast. The third antenna band will be
attached on the south side of the stairwell structure directed south and facing the Fairways Subdivision. The
communication equipment shelter will be placed within the walls of the stairwell structure parapet. The height of
the equipment shelter is below that of the parapet wall.
There are no other telecommunication providers located on this site.
STAFF CONCERNS
The placement of roof mounted
communication equipment is regulated by two sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 26 -52. 4 which establishes the standards for the placement of roof mounted
communication equipment in the
CB, Core Business District and Section 26 -88. 2 General Criteria for Communication Towers and Roof mounted
Communication Equipment.
Section 26 -52. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance list the following conditions for the placement of roof mounted
communication equipment in the CB, Core Business District:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Roof -mounted communication equipment shall not exceed fifteen ( 15) feet in height as measured from the
roof of the building and shall meet the sky -exposure plane requirement in the applicable zoning district.
Prior to approval of roof mounted
communication equipment by the City Council, the applicant shall
document their efforts to locate their communication equipment on an existing communication towers within
the City or in close proximity to the City. Such documentation shall also indicate why collocation on any
existing tower is not feasible or not desirable.
The design of the communication equipment shall maximize use of building materials, colors, textures,
screening and landscaping that effectively blend the communication equipment facilities with the surrounding
natural setting and built environment.
In addition to the requirements of Section 26 -115, the site plan for roof mounted
communication equipment
shall include the following information:
e)
1.
Proposed type, number, and location of antennas or other transmission equipment to be located on the
2.
building roof, and
Location of any adjoining residential districts or structures used for residential purposes.
Roof mounted
communication equipment shall not be installed on residential buildings or on buildings located
on lots used for residential purposes.
f)
Any roof mounted
communication equipment that is no longer in use for its original communications purpose
shall be removed at the owner's expense. The owner shall provide the city with a copy of the notice to the
FCC of intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of ceasing operation to
remove the equipment.
g)
h)
Roof mounted
communication equipment shall not be located within 150 feet of any residential structure.
Signs, lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall not be placed on any roof mounted
communication equipment.
The Site Development Plans submitted indicate that the rooftop communication equipment will not exceed beyond
the rooftop of the HBE building stairwell structure. The applicant has provided letters requesting collocation on
existing sites containing communication equipment near HBE, however, no responses have been provided. Under
Section 26 -52.4, the applicant needs to provide responses from adjacent sites containing communication equipment.
However, under Section 26 -88. 2, only sites containing communication equipment within 1, 500 feet need to respond.
The only site near the 1, 500 square foot distance is possibly the communications tower located on the Creve Coeur
Recreational Complex on Olde Cabin Road. The design of the antennas and communication equipment shelter is
designed to be screened from view. The applicant needs to verify that no residential structures exist within 150 feet
from the location of the communication antenna or other communication equipment. The plans submitted indicate
no signs or lighting will be installed.
ZAP &Z Commission\ Reports \CUP -Omnipont -HBE Building.doc
Conditional Use Pe*
Development Plan
Page 3 of 6
In addition to the conditions of Section 26 -52. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 26 -88. 2 sets additional criteria for
the placement of roof mounted
communication equipment. Said criteria is attached to this report, titled Ordinance
1830: Regulations over communication equipment. The plans submitted indicate compliance with a majority of
said section. The only items not addressed are the collocation requirements mentioned above and verification of
adequate separation from surrounding residential uses.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit application and
accompanying Site Development Plan for VoiceStream Wireless to place three ( 3) roof mounted
communication
equipment antenna bands and accessory structures on the rooftop of the HBE Building located at 11330 Olive
Boulevard, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
Prior to the scheduling of a Public Hearing, the applicant must provide the following documentation:
a)
Letters documenting that attempts have been made to collocate on nearby sites containing
communication equipment, refusal to permit collocation or why these sites are not feasible.
b)
Letter denying collocation on any site containing communication equipment within 1, 500 feet.
c)
A letter from the building owner agreeing to permit at least two additional wireless
2.
Verification that the location of the communication equipment will be at least 150 feet from any residential
telecommunication providers to collocate communication equipment on the site.
structure.
3.
All accessory mechanical equipment shall be screened from view in an enclosed shelter limited to a maximum
of 300 square feet. The equipment shelter and antennas shall be constructed of building materials, colors and/ or
textures that effectively blend the communication equipment facilities and antennas with the surrounding built
environment.
4.
No signs and lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall be placed on the roof mounted
communication equipment or shelter.
5.
Development.
ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall take action on the Conditional Use Permit and proposed Site
Development Plan separately.
Action on the Conditional Use Permit application will be in the form of a
recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council
for action after a formal Public Hearing is held. A Public Hearing will be scheduled only after receipt of the above
mentioned conditions have been addressed by the applicant.
application.
Conditional Use Per
Development Plan
VoiceStream Wireless, jBE Building
Page 4 of 6
ORDINANCE 1830: REGULATIONS OVER COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
On December 1996, the City adopted Ordinance 1830 to provide reasonable regulations for the location and erection
of communication towers and roof mounted
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
preserves the City' s authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modifications of
telecommunications towers and other wireless service facilities. The purpose of these regulations is:
1.
to direct the location of telecommunication towers and roof mounted
2.
protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and
3.
minimize
4.
equipment through careful design, siring, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques;
accommodate the growing need for telecommunication towers and other wireless facilities;
promote and encourage co- location and sharing of existing and new telecommunication towers and roof -
City;
roof mounted
communication equipment;
5.
adverse
visual
impacts
of telecommunication
towers
and
roof mounted
-
communication
mounted communication equipment as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use
towers;
6.
consider the public welfare and safety of telecommunication towers and roof mounted
communication
equipment;
7.
avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of
8.
to the greatest extent feasible, proposed telecommunication towers and roof mounted
communication
tower structures and roof mounted
equipment shall be designed in harmony with the natural setting and surrounding development pattern as
well as to the highest industry standards.
In addition to the criteria for conditional use permits contained in Section 26 -114 of the Zoning Ordinance, all
communication towers and roof mounted
communication equipment shall meet the following criteria:
1.
a)
HEIGHT
A communication tower shall not exceed seventy- five ( 75) feet in height except in the LI, Light Industrial
District. In no case shall a communication tower exceed two hundred ( 200) feet in height.
b)
All accessory uses and any guy wire anchors shall be subject to height and setback requirement generally
applicable to principal uses in the zoning district in which they are located. All guy wire anchors, equipment shelter
structures, or building fencing, and similar structures or improvements, constituting accessory uses shall be located
on the same parcel of land occupied by the communication tower.
c)
Roof mounted
communication equipment or communication equipment attached to existing buildings or
structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the roof of the building and shall meet the sky exposure plane requirement in the applicable zoning district if applicable.
2. SEPARATION
In zoning districts where permitted, an applicant for construction of a new communication tower or roof mounted communication equipment proposed within 1, 500 feet of an existing communication tower or roof mounted communication equipment will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council why
existing towers or structures within 1, 500 feet of the proposed site are not suitable or available for co -use. Any
applicant shall be required to demonstrate that it contacted the owners of existing communication towers or roof a)
mounted structures within a quarter mile radius of the proposed site, asked for permission to co- locate wireless
communication facilities, and was denied. The reasons why permission was denied or why proposed conditions
were not acceptable must be provided. The Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower or roof mounted
communication equipment shall be denied if the applicant has not made a good -faith effort to mount or co- locate its
wireless communication facilities or equipment on an existing tower or structure.
b) A minimum separation distance of fifteen hundred ( 1, 500) feet shall be required between communication towers
or roof -mounted communication equipment. Separation distances between communication towers or roof mounted
communication equipment shall be applicable for and measured between the proposed tower or equipment site and
those towers or equipment sites that are existing or have received approval on the effective date of this section from
any governmental facility, including communication towers located in the City, other adjoining municipalities or
unincorporated St. Louis County. Separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line
between the base of the existing tower and the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the proposed tower or roof mounted equipment site.
Conditional Use Pe*
Development Plan •
Page 5 of 6
3. CO- LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
a)
All applicants who obtain Conditional Use Permits after the effective date of this section to construct
communication
towers
or
roof mounted
-
communications
equipment
must
notify
any
other
known
telecommunications service providers in the St. Louis area that the structure or facilities are available for co -use.
Notices must be mailed or faced on or before the day the building permit for the structure is submitted to the City for
approval. Conditional Use Permit applications shall include affirmative statements outlining how the applicant will
accommodate
compensation.
other parties who wish to co- locate ' on the proposed structure or facilities
for reasonable
The notification required herein must allow other wireless communication providers at least 14
working days to indicate interest in co- location. if an applicant is notified that a company wishes to co- locate on its
structure or facilities, said applicant shall negotiate in good faith and take all reasonable steps to facilitate and
encourage co- location. The willful and knowing failure of the owner of a tower or roof mounted
equipment site
built or designed for shared use to negotiate in good faith with potential users shall be cause for the withholding or
future permits to the same owner for similar purposes.
b) If a communication tower is constructed, it shall be designed so as to be capable of permitting, at a minimum, at
least two other wireless communication providers to co- locate on said structure so that such users may lease a
portion of the tower at a reasonable rate. Such tower shall, in addition, make space available for public safety
communication facilities.
c) If roof mounted
communication equipment is constructed, it shall be designed so as to be capable of permitting,
at a minimum, at least two other wireless communication providers to co- locate on said structure and, in addition,
shall not preclude co- location of public safety communication equipment.
4. TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower or roof mounted
is required to demonstrate, using technological evidence, that the communication tower, antennas, cell, microcell, or
other wireless communication facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to satisfy the needs of the
company's wireless grid system. The applicant shall also demonstrate the communications tower or roof mounted
equipment is the minimum height and size required to function satisfactorily, and that no tower or antenna that is
higher or larger than such minimum required height and size shall be approved.
5.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
a) The communication tower shall be set back from the property line of the applicable parcel a minimum of one ( 1)
foot for every foot of structure height, or the distance required by the applicable zoning district, whichever is greater.
In addition, a communication tower located adjacent to any residential zoning district shall meet a sky -exposure
plane requirement contained in the district regulations of the zoning district in which the tower is to be located.
b)
All accessory uses for roof mounted
communication equipment shall be subject to height and setback
requirements generally applicable to principal uses in the zoning district in which they are located. All equipment
shelter structures or buildings, fencing, and similar structures or improvements, constituting accessory uses shall be
located on the same parcel of land occupied by the roof mounted
6. DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCES
No communication tower shall be located within 350 -feet of any residential structure.
communication equipment shall be located within 150 -feet of any residential structure.
No roof mounted
-
7. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY
The design of the communication tower, roof mounted
communication equipment, and accompanying accessory
structures shall maximize use of building materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that effectively
blend the tower facilities and accessory components with the surrounding natural setting and built environment. A
design goal should be positive, or at least neutral aesthetic and visual impact. When accessory equipment cannot be
located inside an existing structure, any accessory equipment building associated with a communication tower shall
be built with existing materials that are compatible with surrounding uses, provided the appearance of a permanent
structure, and shall not exceed 300 square feet in size.
8. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The perimeter area of all communication towers or ground- mounted accessory equipment structures shall be
landscaped with evergreen trees planted fifteen feet on center and a mix of deciduous trees and flowering trees
planted 30 feet on center. The evergreen trees shall be at a minimum of six feet tall and all other trees shall have
ZAP &Z Commission\ iteports \CUP -Omnipont -HBE Building.doc
Conditional Use Perm Development Plan •
Page 6 of 6
trunk diameters of a minimum of 2 1/ 2 inches. The owner of the communications facility shall be responsible for
the maintenance of the landscaping material.
9. SITE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the approval of the proposed communication tower or roof mounted
communication equipment, a site
development plan shall be submitted and approved in conformance with the requirements of Section 26 -115 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, the site plan for the communication equipment shall include the following
information:
a) Exact location on the tower and guy wire anchors,
b) Proposed type, number and location of antennas, and other equipment to be located on the tower,
c) Location of any adjoining residential districts or structures used for residential purposes.
10. ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION
The applicant proposing to build a communication tower or roof mounted
communication equipment shall submit
evidence that the communication tower or roof mounted
equipment and its method of installation has been designed
by a registered engineer and is certified by that registered engineer to be structurally sound and able to withstand
wind gusts and other loads in accordance with the requirements of the City' s Building Code and other standards
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The construction of communication towers or roof mounted
equipment shall be
done in accordance with all applicable FCC and FAA rules and regulations.
11.
SIGNS AND LIGHTING
No signs or lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall be placed on any communication tower and
associated equipment or roof mounted
communication equipment. When lighting is required and is permitted by the
FAA or other federal or state authorities, it shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding residential
property.
12. AUTOMATION REQUIREMENTS
Equipment at a communication tower facility or roof mounted
communication facility site shall be automated to the
greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and congestion.
The applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance
needs, including frequency of service, personnel needs, equipment needs and traffic, noise and safety impacts of
such maintenance in the Conditional Use Permit application.
13. REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
Any communication tower or roof mounted
communication equipment that is no longer in use for its original
communications purpose shall be removed at the owner' s expense. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of
the notice to the FCC of its intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of ceasing
operations to remove the tower an any accessory structures or roof mounted
equipment and any accessory
structures. In case of multiple operators sharing use of a single tower or structure, this provision shall not become
effective until all operators cease operations. Any equipment located on the ground, however, shall not be removed
until the tower structure or roof mounted
equipment has first been dismantled and removed.
Z:\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \CUP- Omnipont -HBE Building.doc
BILL NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROOF MOUNTED COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOFTOP OF THE HBE
BUILDING, ADDRESSED AS 11330 OLIVE BOULEVARD, PROPERTY ZONED CB, CORE BUSINESS
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to install and operate roof mounted
communication
equipment on the rooftop of the HBE Building located at 11330 Olive Boulevard, was submitted by VoiceStream Wireless,
and
WHEREAS, Section 26 -43. 3 ( b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Creve Coeur permits the placement of
roof mounted
communication equipment in the CB, Core Business District as a Conditional Use subject to the standards of
Section 26 -52. 6 and Section 26 -88. 2, and
WHEREAS, there are no other wireless telecommunication service providers located on this site, and
WHEREAS, on Monday, May 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Creve Coeur, by
majority /unanimous vote, recommended approval/denial of said application as per Section 26- 114.4( b), and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Creve Coeur City Council on Monday, DATE, beginning at 7: 30
p.m. or immediately following the close of the previous Public Hearing, on said application for the Conditional Use Permit as
provided by Article 9, Section 26 -114 of Ordinance Number 1903 of the City of Creve Coeur, and
in the St. Louis Countian and on ,
2000,
2000, in the West County Journal, newspapers of general circulation in the City
of Creve Coeur, and
WHEREAS, all parties desiring to be heard, either for or against said application, were given an opportunity to be
heard, and a copy of the proposed ordinance has been made available for public inspection prior to its consideration by the
Council; and this Bill having been read by title in open meeting three times before final passage by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council being fully informed finds that the granting of the application would be in harmony
with and bear a substantial relation to the public welfare, health, safety, comfort and convenience of the citizens of the City of
Creve Coeur and in the public interest and in conformance with good zoning practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, St. Louis County, Missouri,
as follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby determines and finds that the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the City
Administrator as requested by VoiceStream Wireless, in their application for a Conditional Use Permit on the hereinafter
described property will conform and comply with the required standards for Conditional Use Permits as set forth in Section
26 -114. 5 and standards for roof mounted
communication equipment in Section 26 -52. 6 and Section 26 -88. 2 and therefore a
Conditional Use Permit is hereby authorized for the operation of roof mounted
communication equipment on the following
described property in the CB, Core Business District:
A tract of land being part of Lot 3 of the William Lasley Estate Partition, in U. S. Survey 1962, Township 45 North, Range 5
East, St. Louis County, Missouri, and described as follows:
CUP -Roof -mounted CoAtion Equipment
VoiceStream Wireless: HBE Building.
Page 2 of 3
Beginning at a point on the southeastern line of said U.S. Survey 1962 said point being the most southern comer of said Lot 3 of
the William Lasley Estate Partition; thence along the southwestern line of said Lot 3 north 28 degrees 10 minutes 56 seconds
west, 718. 61 feet to its intersection with the southern line of Olive Street ( Missouri State Highway K -340), as widened; thence
along said road line south 88 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconds east, 517. 65 feet to a point of curve; thence continuing along said
road line on a curve to the left having a radius of 100. 05 feet an arc distance of 104. 72 feet to a point of compound curve; thence
continuing along said road line on a curve to the left having a radius of 761. 19 feet an arc distance of 238. 69 feet to a point of
compound curve; thence continuing along said road line on a curve to the left having a radius of 1000. 05 feet an arc distance of
97. 40 feet to a point; thence continuing along said road line south 73 degrees 16 minutes 49 seconds east, 14. 06 feet to a point on
the southwestern line of Mosley Road as widened by the County Court of St. Louis County during the February term, 1919;
thence along said line of Mosley Road south 27 degrees 57 minutes 26 seconds east, 333. 29 feet to an angle point therein thence
continuing along said road line south 12 degrees 01 minute and 40 seconds west, 9. 81 feet to its intersection with the
southeastern line of U. S. Survey 1962, as aforementioned; thence along said survey line south 61 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds
west, 874. 62 feet to the point of beginning.
Section 2:
The Conditional Use Permit granted shall be subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations, and the following conditions:
1.
The Conditional Use Permit is for the operation of roof mounted
communication equipment for use by VoiceStream
Wireless, and/ or additional users as approved by the City of Creve Coeur.
2.
The development of the roof mounted
communication equipment shall be in accordance with the Site Development
3.
Plan dated ( Received) May 9, 2000, and approved by the Creve Coeur City Council or as further revised and
approved by the City of Creve Coeur.
The maximum number of antennae to be installed on the HBE building shall be nine ( 9) individual antennas
mounted in three bands shown on the approved Site Development Plan and shall be mounted and painted to match
4.
the existing building as shown on the approved plans. No additional users shall install antennae unless granted
approval from the City of Creve Coeur for such antennae.
A copy of all herein attached conditions shall be furnished by the owner or petitioner to the operator( s) or
manager(s), including successive operator( s), owner( s) or manager(s) who shall forward to the Zoning Administrator
an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understood each of these conditions and agrees to comply
therewith.
5.
6.
Any future enlargement, extension, expansion or alteration in the use of the structures or site must be approved by
the City Council upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission as an amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit before a Building Permit for the enlargement or alteration may be issued.
A copy of all herein attached conditions shall be furnished by the owner or petitioner to the operator( s) or
manager(s) including successive operator( s), owner( s) or manager( s) who shall forward to the Zoning Enforcement
Officer an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understood each of these conditions and agrees to comply
therewith.
7.
Any transfer of ownership or lease of the property shall include in the transfer or lease agreement a provision that
the purchaser or lessee agrees to be bound by the approved Site Development Plan for the property and the
8.
All conditions contained within this permit shall be posted upon the property in such a manner that it is visible to the
conditions herein set forth.
public and the operator of said facilities.
9.
Failure to comply with any one or all of the conditions of this permit shall be adequate cause for the revocation of
said permit by the City Council, provided, however, no permit shall be revoked without prior notice to the owner of
the intention of the City Council to revoke this permit and reasonable time granted to the owner to correct or remedy
any such breach of conditions, except for repeated breaches or violations.
10. No Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council shall be valid for a period longer than one year from the date
it grants the Conditional Use Permit, unless within such period: ( 1) a Building Permit is obtained and construction
is begun; or ( 2) if a Building Permit is not required, an Occupancy Permit is obtained and the use of the building
commenced. The City Council may grant extensions to the one ( 1) year period of not more than one hundred and
eighty ( 180) days each, without notice or hearing, provided that a written request for such extension is filed by the
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ Ordinances \CUPS \Ord -CUP HBE.doc
CUP -Roof -mounted Com-
Sion
Equipment •
VoiceStream Wireless: HBE Building.
Page 3 of 3
original applicant and approved by the City Council prior to the date the conditional use permit is scheduled to
expire.
11. Any roof mounted
communication equipment and any associated support equipment that is no longer in use for its
original communications purpose shall be removed at the owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a
copy of the notice to the FCC of it intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of
ceasing operations to remove the roof mounted
equipment and all accessory structures.
12. Signs and lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall not be placed on any of the roof mounted
13. The applicant proposing to place roof -mounted communications equipment shall submit evidence that the roof mounted communication equipment and its method of installation has been designed by a registered engineer and is
certified by that registered engineer to be structurally sound and able to withstand wind gusts and other loads in
accordance with the requirements of the City's building code and other standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The construction of roof mounted
communications equipment shall be done in accordance with all applicable FCC
and FAA rules and regulations.
Section 3:
The City Administrator of the City of Creve Coeur is hereby authorized and directed to issue a
Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, said permit to expressly provide for the
conditions and stipulations hereinabove set out in Section 2 of this ordinance.
Section 4:
This ordinance shall become effective at the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after adoption by the City
Council and the signing thereof by the Mayor.
ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF _
2000
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF
2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\Ordinances \CUPS \Ord -CUP HBE.doc
RECEIVED
Vdkce.Stream
MAR t 6 2000
WIRELESS
C.C. COMMUNITY DEAF
12140 Woodcrest Executive Drive, Suite 170
Phone: 314- 317 -5200
Fax: 314- 317 -5317
March 10, 2000
Carlos Trejo
City Planner
City of Creve Coeur
300 North New Ballas Road
RE: VoiceStream Wireless Application for a Conditional Use Permit at 11330 Olive Blvd.
Dear Mr. Trejo:
This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit to place antennas on the rooftop of the EBE
building at 11330 Olive Boulevard Creve Coeur, MO 63141, for use as a PCS base station.
VOICESTREAM AND PCS
VoiceStream is committed to providing PCS services to the Greater St. Louis Region. In 1999, VoiceStream was granted
a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a PCS wireless phone system in this area, as well as
numerous other markets across the United States.
PCS is one of the newest emerging low-power wireless technologies. PCS stands for Personal Communications Services
and will truly allow businesses, individuals, and government services to communicate in an entirely new way. Although similar
to traditional cellular systems, PCS will look, sound, and work better, with the added advantage of having the capability to
provide fax service, paging, computer data, and video transmission in just one portable phone. PCS wireless is digital so it
transmits with more clarity than the analog cellular systems. Also, PCS is secure. VoiceStream has chosen GSM technology to
support their system This technology has been in use in Europe for many years and has proven reliability. User verification
systems eliminate cloning problems and encryption prevents calls from being overheard. These are just some of the features
PCS can offer.
PROPOSED USE
VoiceStream is proposing to construct a PCS base station on the HBE Building rooftop. This site is located in the CB,
Commercial Business Zone. VoiceStream will have three directional antennas ( approximately 56" tall x 8" wide x 2.75" deep)
mounted on the bowl of the tank
The antennas will transmit and receive low power radio signals.
One unmanned
prefabricated equipment cabinet measuring approximately 63" high x 53" wide x 25" deep will be located on the roof as well.
This equipment cabinet is connected to the antennas by narrow cables.
ZONING AND SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS
As a condition of our FCC license, there are firm FCC mandates for technical and operational standards of a PCs system
The requirements for our license consist of a high level of voice quality and level of service that must be provided across the
0
allotted coverage area. In order to accomplish this, antenna sites must be spaced' in such a way that the signals overlap but do
not interfere with each other.
For that reason, VoiceStream ensures that every site is carefully selected. The site that is chosen must provide coverage to
its service area and be as compatible as possible with the community where it is placed. VoiceStream prefers to locate' on
existing structures whenever possible; this may include rooftops, existing towers, or even billboards if they are of a sufficient
height. However, the most important factor for siting a PCS base station is the ability to send and receive radio signals. It is
essential that PCS antennas meet a " line -of- sight" transmission to the area being covered. The height required to accomplish
this is determined largely by topography and other environmental obstructions, such as buildings and trees, which can block a
radio signal. When there are no existing structures of a sufficient height to meet the needs of VoiceStream's system, a new
tower must be constructed to support the antennas. The HBE Building meets the current design requirements of our
technical system
The proposed use will not impair the use and enjoyment of surrounding property nor impede its normal development.
The use will require little maintenance ( approximately four times a year) so it will not be distracting to surrounding property
uses. No personnel will be stationed at the site. The equipment cabinet is not equipped with water or sewer facilities, nor is it
large enough to house employees. The cabinets are intended only to enclose and protect the radios and electronics. The
proposed use will have no impact on wetlands, watercourses, or other ecologically valuable lands. No signs will be posted on
this facility except applicable warning or equipment information signs. The base station will not be lighted. Traffic will not
increase due to the use and it will not create unsafe access on related streets.
Additionally, there is no information which
indicates that the construction of this site would diminish or impair property values within the area.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. PCS wireless uses low power to insure
that the signal stays within the designated coverage area and does not interfere with neighboring sites. An additional feature of
this PCS facility is that no ionizing radiation is created by the radio transmissions.
There are no activities associated with this use which would produce airborne emissions, odor, vibrations, heat, glare,
radioactive materials, or loud noises. All equipment and materials needed to operate the site are located within the equipment
cabinets, including heating, ventilating, and air conditioning provisions. Since this site does not have water or sanitary
facilities, it will generate no wastewater. Current levels of all government services are adequate to meet any needs of this use.
This site can act to enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable VoiceStream to bring PCS technology to the
City Creve Coeur. The advantages to the business or individual using a PCS phone will be clear to them But PCS can also
aid those who do not choose to own a portable phone. Police officers are aided in their public safety efforts by being able to
use PCS wireless fax machines to obtain immediate information about potential suspects.
Firefighters can receive faxed
blueprints of a building, while en route, to more safely and quickly fight fires. Ambulances can transmit vital patient data to
hospitals, allowing for the more personalized preparation of emergency rooms to meet the needs of their patients. At spill
sites, hazardous material information can be obtained by accessing computer databases throughout the country. Stranded
motorists without mobile phones benefit from the passing motorists who are able to call for help. These are just a few
examples of how PCS technology can work to enhance public safety and welfare. Additionally, the presence of another
competitor in the marketplace works to drive down prices for services from all wireless companies and ensures continued
efforts to achieve better quality and service.
VoiceStream respectfully requests that the City approve our Conditional Use application for this use. If you have any
questions, please contact me at ( 314) 368 -8330.
Sincerely,
I
1Z 4uotoc't'
Carrie Baldock
VoiceStream Wireless
P-CEIVE®
VccStzeamWREL
MAR 1 6 7060
ESS
r, M,,
M al LAITY DEVLP
Phone: 314- 317 -5200
Fax: 314 -317 -5317
To whom it may concern:
Omnipoint Communications is developing a system to provide PCS wireless technology to the Greater St. Louis Region. The
design of our system is based on careful site selection, in which each antenna site is spaced in a non -uniform pattern. Prior to
obtaining any specific sites, the network is designed by taking into consideration the topography of the land, population density,
expected use levels, and, whenever possible, the location of existing structures. Next, a search " ring" is identified for each
antenna site. The technology that VoiceStream is utilizing to develop this PCS system allows for some flexibility in base station
placement, but generally, the search ring, in suburban areas averages about two-tenths ( 2) of a mile in diameter. Specific sites
are then obtained through the leasing and zoning process. In order to maintain contiguous coverage between cell sites, as sites
around a particular area become fixed, flexibility is lost for shifting sites in the remaining rings. We consider it important to
provide high quality service in Creve Coeur. High quality means: it is our goal to provide a dependable radio signal level allowing
successful call completion and hand over between adjacent sites. The location of a site with respect to the adjacent sites is of
prime importance in the design of our system. Since the system works in continuity, the height and location of the sites are
chosen such that they handoff to adjacent sites successfully. In analyzing candidates, four major technical factors are
considered. They are: the height of structures versus surrounding PCS frequency obstructions, the ground elevation above mean
sea level, the coverage accomplished by a site and the proximity of the site to the search ring center.
The candidate at HBE Building was selected to meet our coverage objective for this ring, which is to cover Olive Blvd and
surrounding area. It fulfills our requirements, while other candidates considered for this ring were either not viable, or available,
for meeting our needs. Other sites evaluated were Ameritech, SW Bell and Sprint Towers. The selected site will handoff to our
other proposed site in Creve Coeur on Olive that is due West of this proposed site.
The proposed cabinet chosen for the site is manufactured by Nortel, which is a leader in the telecommunications industry. The
model number for the cabinet is S8000. This cabinet will support the tri- sectored antenna configuration. It will be located on the
roof of the HBE Building and inside the penthouse enclosure. EMS Wireless manufactures the antennas chosen for this site and
the model is RR65- 18 -02DP. The antenna cluster will consist of three sectors and there two directional antenna proposed per
sector to be used for both transmit and receive. These are high -gain directional antennas, which provide maximum radio signal
coverage.
If there are any questions, or need for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 317 -5307.
Sincerely
3 e
Radio Frequency Engineer
on behalf of VoiceStream Wireless
wm-)
O"-.4-
u
ac -
M7senid e Sah
MOBAi' _
Fronten c \
Ol
HOLIDAY
Screen
M
File
Name:
1:
Scale
Map
Projection:
Center
13
C: \
2000
15:
O_
00
net
Scale
Universal
Latitude:
MAR
Xcalibur -
teleworx \ GIS \ Design \ REG6CC.
42443
Map
MON
ALronLenac -
IN
Print
1.
Network
Trnnsverse
38 - 39 - 42.
13:
Copyright (
9
1994 -
N
Longitude:
in
Kilometers
Level
Ranges
0 <-
X <
0
O <-
X <
O
0 <-
X <
82 «
Mercator 90 - 25 - 53.
0
w -
76 <
70 <=
46 -
c)
5(-^te ->
ao
FiWg. : a o ,
r
J45&
1997
Telewor?:
e
0
X < -
76
X < -
70
X < -
20
Voc' tr
m
May 2, 2000
Mr. Carlos Trejo
Planner
City of Creve Coeur
Dear Mr. Trejo:
VoiceStream wireless is proposing roof -mounted telecommunications antennas on the
HBE building at 11330 Olive Blvd.
We are aware that there is an existing Sprint tower at the Creve Coeur Country Club and
of the City of Creve Coeur' s Ordinance Requirements for proposing towers within 1500'
of an existing tower. The Sprint tower at this time does not meet our RF requirements,
however we could co- locate on if it was a possibility for us to extend the tower to meet
the RF requirements. We would also need additional ground space for our equipment.
Please advise on whether an extension would be permitted on that site.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
k,
6aioW&<-)
Carrie Baldock
Planning & Zoning Specialist
VoiceStream Wireless
RECEIVED
MAY
2004 Westport Center Drive
St Louis, MO 63146
Phone: 314- 317- 5200
Fax: 314- 317- 5317
March 15, 2000
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Southwestern Bell
Real Estate Department
13075 Manchester Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63131
RE: VoiceStream Wireless - co- location request on Southwestern Bell tower
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that VoiceStream Wireless makes a formal request for permission to lease tower and ground space
from Southwestem Bell for the purposes of co- locating and placing an antenna installation on the existing Southwestern
Bell lattice tower located on Old Ballas Road in Creve Coeur, Missouri.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please call the undersigned at ( 314) 614 -4685.
Sincerely,
Steve Walters
Site Acquisition
Co- location specialist
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 2000
C.C. COMMUNITY DEVLP
c:
WIRE L E SS
Phone: 314- 317- 5200
Fax: 314- 317- 5317
March 15, 2000
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ameritech Cellular Services
Real Estate Department
500 Maryville College Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63141
RE: VoiceStream Wireless - co- location request on an Ameritech tower
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that VoiceStream Wireless makes a formal request for permission to lease tower and ground space
from Ameritech Cellular Services for the purposes of co- locating and placing an antenna installation on the existing
Southwestern Bell lattice tower located on Old Ballas Road in Creve Coeur, Missouri.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please call the undersigned at ( 314) 614 -4685.
Sincerely,
Steve Walters
Site Acquisition
Co- location specialist
t REVS COEUR
014) 432 -6000 • FAX ( 314) 872- 2539 • RELAY MO 1- 800 -735 -2966
3i tc —
6.
1 -9
DATE:
MAY 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
art
1949 - 1999
MAYOR
Cal-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COUNCIL MEMBERS
TITLE:
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS /DRURY INN & SUITES BUILDING
LOCATION:
ZONING:
1ST WARD
BARRY L 6LANTZ
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
DAVID KREUTER
THOMAS E. CUMMINGS, ESQ.
DRURY INN & SUITES
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
ONE CITYPLACE DRIVE, SUITE 100
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
ST. LOUIS, MO 63141
2ND WARD
SUE KROWER
JUDY PASS
An application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan have been submitted by
Nextel Communications, to place roof mounted
communication equipment on the rooftop of the
Drury Inn & Suites building located at 11980 Olive Boulevard. The property is zoned CB, Core
Under Section 26- 43. 3( b),
roof mounted
communication equipment is
3RD WARD
Business District.
ELEANOR 6LOVINSKY
permitted only as a conditional use. The Planning and Zoning Commission will take action on
SAM PAGE
the Conditional Use Permit and accompanying Site Development Plan and forward a
recommendation to the City Council. A formal Public Hearing and City Council action are
necessary on both the Conditional Use Permit application and Site Development Plan.
4TH WARD
LOCATION AND ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING DESCRIPTIONS
MARTIN A BARNHOLTZ
The Drury Inn & Suites property is addressed as 11980 Olive Boulevard. The site is a 2. 5 acre
RICHARD). WOLKOWrrZ
site,
located on the south side of Olive Boulevard, between Emerson Avenue and Center
Parkway Drive.
The parcel grounds contain an 8 -story brick hotel building and a 1 - story
restaurant facility.
The site is surrounded primarily by residential and nonresidential uses all within the CB, Core
Business District as follows:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MARK G PERKINS
North:
West:
CITY CLERk
LAVERNE COLLINS
South:
East:
To the north the site is bounded by Olive Boulevard. Land uses across Olive Boulevard
include Fountain Park and a strip shopping center.
To the west the site is bounded by Emerson Road. Land uses across Emerson Road
include the Lions Choice Restaurant and an office building.
To the south the site is bounded by Center Parkway Drive. Land uses across Center
Parkway Drive include single family residences.
To the east the site is bounded by Center Parkway Drive. Land uses across Center
Parkway Drive include the Plaza Motors dealership complex
Conditional Use Perle Development Plan •
Nextel Communications, Drury Inn &
Suites
Page 2 of 7
SUMMARY PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to install three ( 3) antenna bands on the sloped gable roof parapet on the Drury Inn &
Suites building rooftop. Each antenna band has attachments for three ( 3) antennas, with a total nine ( 9) individual
antennas. These antennas will be attached to the north, east and west sides of the rooftop gable. One antenna band
will be on the north side of the building, facing Olive Boulevard. The second antenna band will be facing west,
along the southwest corner of the building. The third antenna band will be facing east, along the southeast side of
the building. The antennas will project above the lower roofline of the parapet gable, but will not extend above the
high end of the rooftop. The communication equipment shelter will be placed within the walls of the parapet walls.
The height of the equipment shelter is below that of the parapet wall.
There are no other telecommunication providers located on this site.
STAFF CONCERNS
The placement of roof mounted
communication equipment is regulated by two sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 26 -52. 4 which establishes the standards for the placement of roof mounted
CB, Core Business District and Section 26 -88. 2 General Criteria for Communication Towers and Roof mounted
Communication Equipment.
Section 26 -52. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance list the following conditions for the placement of roof mounted
communication equipment in the CB, Core Business District:
a)
Roof mounted
communication equipment shall not exceed fifteen ( 15) feet in height as measured from the
b)
Prior to approval of roof -mounted communication equipment by the City Council, the applicant shall
document their efforts to locate their communication equipment on an existing communication towers within
the City or in close proximity to the City. Such documentation shall also indicate why collocation on any
existing tower is not feasible or not desirable.
The design of the communication equipment shall maximize use of building materials, colors, textures,
screening and landscaping that effectively blend the communication equipment facilities with the surrounding
natural setting and built environment.
roof of the building and shall meet the sky -exposure plane requirement in the applicable zoning district.
c)
d)
In addition to the requirements of Section 26 -115, the site plan for roof mounted
shall include the following information:
1.
Proposed type, number, and location of antennas or other transmission equipment to be located on the
building roof; and
2.
e)
Location of any adjoining residential districts or structures used for residential purposes.
Roof mounted
communication equipment shall not be installed on residential buildings or on buildings located
on lots used for residential purposes.
f)
Any roof mounted
communication equipment that is no longer in use for its original communications purpose
shall be removed at the owner's expense. The owner shall provide the city with a copy of the notice to the
FCC of intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of ceasing operation to
remove the equipment.
g)
h)
Roof mounted
communication equipment shall not be located within 150 feet of any residential structure.
Signs, lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall not be placed on any roof mounted
The Site Development Plans submitted indicate that the rooftop communication equipment will be in compliance
with subparagraph ( a) above.
The location of the site, however, is across the street from a building already
containing roof mounted
communication equipment and within 1, 500 feet from another site containing
telecommunication equipment. There are two additional sites located within a 1/ 2 mile radius of the Drury Inn &
Suites building. Under subparagraph ( b) above, the applicant must document their efforts to locate their
communication equipment on an existing communication towers within the City or in close proximity to the City.
Such documentation shall also indicate why collocation on any existing tower is not feasible or not desirable.
Due to the residential properties south of this site, the applicant needs to verify the distance between the nearest
roof mounted
communication equipment structure to these residences. Because of the close proximity staff request
that this distance be provided by a registered surveyor or' engineer within the State of Missouri. A note needs to be
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn. doc
Conditional Use Pere Development Plan •
Suites
Page 3 of 7
provided within the enclosed Site Development Plan that no signs, lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or
lighting, shall not be placed on any roof mounted
In addition to the conditions of Section 26 -52. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 26 -88. 2 sets additional criteria for
the placement of roof mounted
communication equipment. Said criteria is attached to this report, titled Ordinance
1830: Regulations over communication equipment. The plans submitted indicate compliance with a majority of
said section. The only items not addressed are the collocation requirements mentioned above and verification of
adequate separation from surrounding residential uses.
COMMENTS OVER LIGHTING AT THE DRURY INN & SUITES SITE
The City has sent a correspondence to the Drury Inn & Suites building owner expressing that the on -site lighting is
in violation with the lighting standards in Section 26 -77 of the Zoning Ordinance. The construction manager has
submitted correspondence back to staff disagreeing with staffs interpretation. Staff will contact the manager to
further discuss resolving this issue. In addition, the City has obtained the services of a lighting consultant to audit
several sites including the subject property. The applicant has been made aware of this issue and that this issue
might hold approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit. Staff proposes three alternatives for the Commission
to consider in regards to the lighting issue:
1.
2.
Defer action on the Conditional Use Permit request until the lighting issue is resolved.
Defer the scheduling of a Public Hearing or Council action until the lighting issue is resolved.
The
applicant will have to consent to a time extension should this option be approved.
3.
Defer the issuance of any building permits for the installation of the telecommunication equipment until the
lighting issue is resolved.
Staff encourages option three, so long as the applicant and building owner are willing to cooperate with staff in
resolving the lighting issue.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
Should the Planning and Zoning Commission motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit application and
accompanying Site Development Plan for Nextel Communications to place three ( 3) roof mounted
communication
equipment antenna bands and accessory structures on the rooftop of the Drury Inn & Suites building located at
11980 Olive Boulevard, staff recommends the following conditions:
1.
Prior to the scheduling of a Public Hearing, the applicant must provide the following documentation:
a)
Letters documenting that attempts have been made to collocate on nearby sites containing
communication equipment, refusal to permit collocation or why these sites are not feasible.
b)
Letter denying collocation on any site containing communication equipment within 1, 500 feet.
A letter from the building owner agreeing to permit at least two additional wireless
c)
telecommunication providers to collocate communication equipment on the site.
2.
Verification that the location of the communication equipment will be at least 150 feet from any residential
structure.
3.
All accessory mechanical equipment shall be screened from view in an enclosed shelter limited to a maximum
of 300 square feet. The equipment shelter and antennas shall be constructed of building materials, colors and/ or
textures that effectively blend the communication equipment facilities and antennas with the surrounding built
4.
No signs and lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall be placed on the roof mounted
-
environment.
communication equipment or shelter.
5.
Development.
ACTION
Dilbert \COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn.doc
Conditional Use Pere Development Plan
0
Suites
Page 4 of 7
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall take action on the Conditional Use Permit and proposed Site
Development Plan separately.
Action on the Conditional Use Permit application will be in the form of a
recommendation of approval, approval with conditions or denial. This item will be forwarded to the City Council
for action after a formal Public Hearing is held. A Public Hearing will be scheduled only after receipt of the above
mentioned conditions have been addressed by the applicant.
application.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn. doc
Conditional Use Pen0le Development Plan •
Suites
Page 5 of 7
ORDINANCE 1830: REGULATIONS OVER COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
On December 1996, the City adopted Ordinance 1830 to provide reasonable regulations for the location and erection
of communication towers and roof mounted
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
preserves the City' s authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modifications of
telecommunications towers and other wireless service facilities. The purpose of these regulations is:
1.
to direct the location of telecommunication towers and roof mounted
2.
protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and
City;
roof mounted
3.
minimize
4.
equipment through careful design, siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques;
accommodate the growing need for telecommunication towers and other wireless facilities;
promote and encourage co- location and sharing of existing and new telecommunication towers and roof -
5.
adverse
visual
impacts
of telecommunication
towers
and
roof mounted
-
communication
mounted communication equipment as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use
towers;
6.
consider the public welfare and safety of telecommunication towers and roof mounted
communication
equipment;
7.
avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of
tower structures and roof mounted
8.
to the greatest extent feasible, proposed telecommunication towers and roof mounted
communication
equipment shall be designed in harmony with the natural setting and surrounding development pattern as
well as to the highest industry standards.
In addition to the criteria for conditional use permits contained in Section 26 -114 of the Zoning Ordinance, all
communication towers and roof mounted
communication equipment shall meet the following criteria:
1.
a)
HEIGHT
A communication tower shall not exceed seventy- five ( 75) feet in height except in the LI, Light Industrial
District. In no case shall a communication tower exceed two hundred ( 200) feet in height.
b)
All accessory uses and any guy wire anchors shall be subject to height and setback requirement generally
applicable to principal uses in the zoning district in which they are located. All guy wire anchors, equipment shelter
structures, or building fencing, and similar structures or improvements, constituting accessory uses shall be located
on the same parcel of land occupied by the communication tower.
c)
Roof mounted
communication equipment or communication equipment attached to existing buildings or
structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the roof of the building and shall meet the sky exposure plane requirement in the applicable zoning district if applicable.
2. SEPARATION
a)
In zoning districts where permitted, an applicant for construction of a new communication tower or roof -
mounted communication equipment proposed within 1, 500 feet of an existing communication tower or roof
mounted communication equipment will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council why
existing towers or structures within 1, 500 feet of the proposed site are not suitable or available for co -use. Any
applicant shall be required to demonstrate that it contacted the owners of existing communication towers or roof mounted structures within a quarter mile radius of the proposed site, asked for permission to co- locate wireless
communication facilities, and was denied. The reasons why permission was denied or why proposed conditions
were not acceptable must be provided.
The Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower or roof mounted
-
communication equipment shall be denied if the applicant has not made a good -faith effort to mount or co- locate its
wireless communication facilities or equipment on an existing tower or structure.
b) A minimum separation distance of fifteen hundred ( 1, 500) feet shall be required between communication towers
or roof mounted
communication equipment. Separation distances between communication towers or roof mounted
communication equipment shall be applicable for and measured between the proposed tower or equipment site and
those towers or equipment sites that are existing or have received approval on the effective date of this section from
any governmental facility, including communication towers located in the City, other adjoining municipalities or
unincorporated St. Louis County. Separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line
between the base of the existing tower and the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the proposed tower or roof mounted equipment site.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission\ Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn.doc
Conditional Use Pere Development Plan •
Suites
Page 6 of 7
3. CO- LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
a)
All applicants who obtain Conditional Use Permits after the effective date of this section to construct
towers
communications
equipment
must
or
roof mounted
other known
notify
any
telecommunications service providers in the St. Louis area that the structure or facilities are available for co -use.
communication
Notices must be mailed or faced on or before the day the building permit for the structure is submitted to the City for
approval. Conditional Use Permit applications shall include affirmative statements outlining how the applicant will
accommodate other parties who
compensation.
wish to co- locate on the proposed structure
or
facilities
for reasonable
The notification required herein must allow other wireless communication providers at least 14
working days to indicate interest in co- location. If an applicant is notified that a company wishes to co- locate on its
structure or facilities, said applicant shall negotiate in good faith and take all reasonable steps to facilitate and
encourage co- location. The willful and knowing failure of the owner of a tower or roof mounted
equipment site
built or designed for shared use to negotiate in good faith with potential users shall be cause for the withholding or
future permits to the same owner for similar purposes.
b) If a communication tower is constructed, it shall be designed so as to be capable of permitting, at a minimum, at
least two other wireless communication providers to co- locate on said structure so that such users may lease a
portion of the tower at a reasonable rate. Such tower shall, in addition, make space available for public safety
communication facilities.
c) If roof mounted
communication equipment is constructed, it shall be designed so as to be capable of permitting,
at a minimum, at least two other wireless communication providers to co- locate on said structure and, in addition,
shall not preclude co- location of public safety communication equipment.
4. TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower or roof mounted
is required to demonstrate, using technological evidence, that the communication tower, antennas, cell, mircrocell,
or other wireless communication facilities must be located at the proposed site in order to satisfy the needs of the
company' s wireless grid system. The applicant shall also demonstrate the communications tower or roof mounted
-
equipment is the minimum height and size required to function satisfactorily, and that no tower or antenna that is
higher or larger than such minimum required height and size shall be approved.
5.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
a) The communication tower shall be set back from the property line of the applicable parcel a minimum of one ( 1)
foot for every foot of structure height, or the distance required by the applicable zoning district, whichever is greater.
In addition, a communication tower located adjacent to any residential zoning district shall meet a sky -exposure
plane requirement contained in the district regulations of the zoning district in which the tower is to be located.
b)
All accessory uses for roof mounted
communication equipment shall be subject to height and setback
requirements generally applicable to principal uses in the zoning district in which they are located. All equipment
shelter structures or buildings, fencing, and similar structures or improvements, constituting accessory uses shall be
located on the same parcel of land occupied by the roof mounted
6. DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCES
No communication tower shall be located within 350 -feet of any residential structure.
communication equipment shall be located within 150 -feet of any residential structure.
No roof mounted
-
7. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY
The design of the communication tower, roof mounted
communication equipment, and accompanying accessory
structures shall maximize use of building materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that effectively
blend the tower facilities and accessory components with the surrounding natural setting and built environment. A
design goal should be positive, or at least neutral aesthetic and visual impact. When accessory equipment cannot be
located inside an existing structure, any accessory equipment building associated with a communication tower shall
be built with existing materials that are compatible with surrounding uses, provided the appearance of a permanent
structure, and shall not exceed 300 square feet in size.
8. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The perimeter area of all communication towers or ground- mounted accessory equipment structures shall be
landscaped with evergreen trees planted fifteen feet on center and a mix of deciduous trees and flowering trees
planted 30 feet on center. The evergreen trees shall be at a minimum of six feet tall and all other trees shall have
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\ P & Z Commission \Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn. doc
Conditional Use PeAe Development Plan •
Nextel Communications, Drury Inn & Suites
Page 7 of 7
trunk diameters of a minimum of 2 1/ 2 inches. The owner of the communications facility shall be responsible for
the maintenance of the landscaping material.
9. SITE REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the approval of the proposed communication tower or roof mounted
a site
development plan shall be submitted and approved in conformance with the requirements of Section 26 -115 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, the site plan for the communication equipment shall include the following
information:
a) Exact location on the tower and guy wire anchors,
b) Proposed type, number and location of antennas, and other equipment to be located on the tower,
c) Location of any adjoining residential districts or structures used for residential purposes.
10. ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION
The applicant proposing to build a communication tower or roof -mounted communication equipment shall submit
evidence that the communication tower or roof mounted
equipment and its method of installation has been designed
by a registered engineer and is certified by that registered engineer to be structurally sound and able to withstand
wind gusts and other loads in accordance with the requirements of the City's Building Code and other standards
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. The construction of communication towers or roof mounted
equipment shall be
done in accordance with all applicable FCC and FAA rules and regulations.
11.
SIGNS AND LIGHTING
No signs or lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall be placed on any communication tower and
associated equipment or roof mounted
communication equipment. When lighting is required and is permitted by the
FAA or other federal or state authorities, it shall be oriented inward so as not to project onto surrounding residential
property.
12. AUTOMATION REQUIREMENTS
Equipment at a communication tower facility or roof mounted
communication facility site shall be automated to the
greatest extent possible to reduce traffic and congestion.
The applicant shall describe anticipated maintenance
needs, including frequency of service, personnel needs, equipment needs and traffic, noise and safety impacts of
such maintenance in the Conditional Use Permit application.
13. REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
Any communication tower or roof mounted
communication equipment that is no longer in use for its original
communications purpose shall be removed at the owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of
the notice to the FCC of its intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of ceasing
operations to remove the tower an any accessory structures or roof mounted
equipment and any accessory
structures. In case of multiple operators sharing use of a single tower or structure, this provision shall not become
effective until all operators cease operations. Any equipment located on the ground, however, shall not be removed
until the tower structure or roof mounted
equipment has first been dismantled and removed.
Dilbert\COMM- DEV\P & Z Commission\ Reports \CUP -Nextel Drury Inn. doc
BILL NUMBER
ORDINANCE NUMBER
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROOF MOUNTED COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON THE ROOFTOP OF THE DRURY INN &
SUITES BUILDING, ADDRESSED AS 11980 OLIVE BOULEVARD, PROPERTY ZONED CB, CORE BUSINESS
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to install and operate roof mounted
communication
equipment on the rooftop of the Drury Inn & Suites building located at 11980 Olive Boulevard, was submitted by Nextel
Communications, and
WHEREAS, Section 26 -43. 3 ( b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Creve Coeur permits the placement of
roof mounted
communication equipment in the CB, Core Business District as a Conditional Use subject to the standards of
Section 26 -52. 6 and Section 26 -88. 2, and
WHEREAS, there are no other wireless telecommunication service providers located on this site, and
WHEREAS, on Monday, May 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Creve Coeur, by
majority /unanimous vote, recommended approval/denial of said application as per Section 26- 114. 4( b), and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Creve Coeur City Council on Monday, DATE, beginning at 7: 30
p. m. or immediately following the close of the previous Public Hearing, on said application for the Conditional Use Permit as
provided by Article 9, Section 26 -114 of Ordinance Number 1903 of the City of Creve Coeur, and
in the St. Louis Countian and on ,
2000,
2000, in the West County Journal, newspapers of general circulation in the City
of Creve Coeur, and
WHEREAS, all parties desiring to be heard, either for or against said application, were given an opportunity to be
heard, and a copy of the proposed ordinance has been made available for public inspection prior to its consideration by the
Council; and this Bill having been read by title in open meeting three times before final passage by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City Council being fully informed finds that the granting of the application would be in harmony
with and bear a substantial relation to the public welfare, health, safety, comfort and convenience of the citizens of the City of
Creve Coeur and in the public interest and in conformance with good zoning practice.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, St. Louis County, Missouri,
as follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby determines and finds that the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the City
Administrator as requested by VoiceStream Wireless, in their application for a Conditional Use Permit on the hereinafter
described property will conform and comply with the required standards for Conditional Use Permits as set forth in Section
26 -114. 5 and standards for roof mounted
communication equipment in Section 26 -52. 6 and Section 26 -88. 2 and therefore a
Conditional Use Permit is hereby authorized for the operation of roof mounted
communication equipment on the following
described property in the CB, Core Business District:
NORTH GELBER PARCEL
CUP -Roof -mounted Com*
tion Equipment
Nextel Communications: Drury Inn & Suites
Page 2 of 4
A TRACT OF LAND BEING PART OF LOTS 8 AND 9 OF " THE LAKE HOUSE FARM
SUBDIVISION', ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 9, PAGE 74 OF THE ST.
LOUIS CITY (FORMER COUNTY) RECORDS AND PART OF " HENRY GERHARDT SUBD. ", ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 83 OF THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY RECORDS,
SITUATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, IN THE CITY OF CREVE COEUR, ST.
LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EMERSON AVENUE
40 FEET WIDE), AT THE SOUTHERNMOST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE
STATE OF MISSOURI BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 5547, PAGE 544 OF THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY
RECORDS, SAID TRACT NOW BEING PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR MISSOURI STATE
HIGHWAY 340 ( ALSO KNOWN AS OLIVE STREET ROAD, VARIABLE WIDTH); THENCE DEPARTING
SAID EASTERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF EMERSON AVENUE AND CONTINUING ALONG THE
SOUTHERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY 340, NORTH 10 DEGREES 24
MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, 136. 17 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 06
SECONDS EAST, 36.06 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 40 SECONDS
EAST, 141. 56 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERNMOST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO
THE CITY OF CREVE COEUR FOR THE WIDENING OF TROJAN PLACE; THENCE ALONG THE
WESTERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TROJAN PLACE AS WIDENED, SOUTHEASTERLY 85. 09 FEET
ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 100. 50 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING
SOUTH 49 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, 82. 57 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 8. 96 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 337. 40
FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 61. 26 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 39. 00
FEET AND A CHORD BEARING SOUTH 45 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, 55. 15 FEET TO
A POINT OF TANGENCY ON THE NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE COLLECTOR ROADWAY
60 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 00
SECONDS WEST, 76. 00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 92. 20 FEET
ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING SOUTH
75 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 34 SECONDS WEST, 91. 19 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 36 DEGREES
10 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST, 70.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
EMERSON AVENUE, AS AFOREMENTIONED; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, NORTH 00
DEGREES 11 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 280. 13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
2. 477 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Section 2:
The Conditional Use Permit granted shall be subject to all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations, and the following conditions:
1.
The Conditional Use Permit is for the operation of roof mounted
communication equipment for use by Nextel
Communications, and/ or additional users as approved by the City of Creve Coeur.
2.
The development of the roof mounted
communication equipment shall be in accordance with the Site Development
3.
Plan dated ( Received) April 12, 2000, and approved by the Creve Coeur City Council or as further revised and
approved by the City of Creve Coeur.
The maximum number of antennae to be installed on the Drury Inn & Suites building shall be nine ( 9) individual
antennas mounted in three bands shown on the approved Site Development Plan and shall be mounted and painted
to match the existing building as shown on the approved plans. No additional users shall install antennae unless
4.
granted approval from the City of Creve Coeur for such antennae.
A copy of all herein attached conditions shall be furnished by the owner or petitioner to the operator(s) or
manager(s), including successive operator(s), owner(s) or manager( s) who shall forward to the Zoning Administrator
Z: \Ordinances \CUPS \Ord -CUP Nextel Drury.doc
CUP -Roof -mounted Comotion Equipment •
Nextel Communications: Drury Inn &
Suites
Page 3 of 4
an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understood each of these conditions and agrees to comply
therewith.
5.
6.
Any future enlargement, extension, expansion or alteration in the use of the structures or site must be approved by
the City Council upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission as an amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit before a Building Permit for the enlargement or alteration may be issued.
A copy of all herein attached conditions shall be furnished by the owner or petitioner to the operator(s) or
manager( s) including successive operator( s), owner(s) or manager( s) who shall forward to the Zoning Enforcement
Officer an acknowledgement that he or she has read and understood each of these conditions and agrees to comply
therewith.
7..
Any transfer of ownership or lease of the property shall include in the transfer or lease agreement a provision that
the purchaser or lessee agrees to be bound by the approved Site Development Plan for the property and the
conditions herein set forth.
8.
All conditions contained within this permit shall be posted upon the property in such a manner that it is visible to the
public and the operator of said facilities.
9.
Failure to comply with any one or all of the conditions of this permit shall be adequate cause for the revocation of
said permit by the City Council, provided, however, no permit shall be revoked without prior notice to the owner of
the intention of the City Council to revoke this permit and reasonable time granted to the owner to correct or remedy
any such breach of conditions, except for repeated breaches or violations.
10. No Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council shall be valid for a period longer than one year from the date
it grants the Conditional Use Permit, unless within such period: ( 1) a Building Permit is obtained and construction
is begun; or ( 2) if a Building Permit is not required, an Occupancy Permit is obtained and the use of the building
commenced. The City Council may grant extensions to the one ( 1) year period of not more than one hundred and
eighty ( 180) days each, without notice or hearing, provided that a written request for such extension is filed by the
original applicant and approved by the City Council prior to the date the conditional use permit is scheduled to
expire.
11. Any roof mounted
communication equipment and any associated support equipment that is no longer in use for its
original communications purpose shall be removed at the owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a.
copy of the notice to the FCC of it intent to cease operations and shall be given ninety ( 90) days from the date of
ceasing operations to remove the roof mounted
equipment and all accessory structures.
12. Signs and lighting, other than safety or hazard signs or lighting, shall not be placed on any of the roof mounted'
13. The applicant proposing to place roof mounted
communications equipment shall submit evidence that the roof -
mounted communication equipment and its method of installation has been designed by a registered engineer and is
certified by that registered engineer to be structurally sound and able to withstand wind gusts and other loads in
accordance with the requirements of the City's building code and other standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The construction of roof mounted
communications equipment shall be done in accordance with all applicable FCC
and FAA rules and regulations.
Section 3:
The City Administrator of the City of Creve Coeur is hereby authorized and directed to issue a
Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, said permit to expressly provide for the
conditions and stipulations hereinabove set out in Section 2 of this ordinance.
Z:\ Ordinances \CUPS \Ord -CUP Nextel Drury.doc
CUP -Roof -mounted Com*
tion Equipment •
Nextel Communications: Drury Inn &
Suites
Page 4 of 4
Section 4:
This ordinance shall become effective at the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after adoption by the City
Council and the signing thereof by the Mayor.
ADOPTED THIS
DAY OF .
2000
ELEANOR GLOVINSKY
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF
2000
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Z:\ Ordinances \CUPS \Ord -CUP Nextel Drury.doc
Nextel Communications
One City Place Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO 63141
314 692 -6500 FAX 314 692 -6700
NEXTEL
City of Creve Coeur
Attn.: Carlos Trejo
City Planner
300 North New Ballas Rd.
May 11, 2000
Dear: Mr. Trejo:
This letter comes to your attention pursuant to our conversations regarding the proposed rooftop
telecommunications facility to be located on the Drury Inn & Suites at 11980 Olive.
In compliance with the City' s zoning ordinance, Nextel has reviewed all telecommunications facilities
within a one half ( 1/ 2) mile radius of the proposed site to determine whether the existing sites are suitable
for collocation. The following sites were each examined by contacting the property owners /lessees and by
performing Radio Frequency ( RF) engineering studies to determine projected signal coverage from the
subject properties:
Ameritech Stealth Pole: ( northwest corner of 270 &
Olive) The structure is a thirty nine
39) foot tall pole only capable of supporting one user. The structure is approximately
one half ( 1/ 2) the height necessary to meet Nextel' s RF needs for the area.
The " Compaq Building": ( 721 Emerson --southeast corner of 270 & Olive)
is immediately adjacent to the proposed Drury Inn & Suites location, but is
The structure
approximately forty (40) to Fifty (50) feet shorter than the height necessary to meet
Nextel' s needs in the area. It has also been determined by Nextel' s RF engineers that due
to the close proximity to the Drury Inn &
Suites, and the height differentials between the
two buildings, that a facility at this location would not allow for satisfactory RF coverage
to the east of the subject property ( see attached RF studies).
Nextel then surpassed the ordinance requirements by considering two ( 2) locations outside of the one half
1/ 2) mile area, to see if these properties would meet Nextel' s technical requirements:
Ameritech Monopole: ( at the City firehouse) The property is approximately 0. 3 miles to
the east of the proposed Drury Inn & Suites location. Due to the presence of existing
equipment on the monopole, a height sufficient to meet Nextel' s needs is not available .
Because of the property' s location, its Above Mean Sea Level ( AMSL) elevation ( 670'),
and because the available height lower than that needed to meet Nextel' s requirements,
the property would not provide Nextel with adequate coverage to the west of the
property. Because of this coverage degredation, the required traffic to be offloaded from
surrounding cell sites will not be met.
Southwestern Bell Self-Supporting Tower: ( behind Millstadt Lawn Equipment) The
property is even further east than the Ameritech Monopole ( 0.4 miles), and is at a lower
AMSL elevation ( 655').
All of the factors that make the Ameritech Monopole ineffective
are even worse with this property. Additionally, the ground space is limited, which
makes collocation almost impossible. Nextel' s system capacity requirements will also
not be met here, since the appropriate offloading cannot occur.
After careful consideration of the available communications facilities in the subject area, Nextel is left with
only one ( 1) viable option for the location of its proposed communications facility —the Drury Inn &
Suites
location.
Please direct any questions that the City may have to my attention at the address listed above, or I may be
reached at ( 314) 692 -6508.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas E. Cummings, Esq.
Zoning & Leasing Manager
PAftch Cellular`
ryville University Drive
Su
50
St. Louis, MO 63141
rilech.
April 17, 2000
Mr. Thomas E. Cummings
NexTel Communications
One City Place Drive
Suite 100
St. Louis, MO 63141
RE: EXISTING AMERITECH CELLULARTM TOWER
Dear Tom:
You recently requested information on potential co- location on our existing Stealth tower
at the rear of the above property (in unincorporated St. Louis County). This tower is only
39 ft. tall and is designed for one user to allow it to mimic a light standard. Therefore, we
cannot accommodate your request for co- location.
Please inform the City of Creve Coeur of this situation. Direct any questions to me at
314 -920 -4793. Thank you.
Sincerely,
B. Step en Kissel, P. E.
Manager —Real Estate and Construction
BSK/ sb
Ameritech Cellular'" and Ameritech' ( and design) are trademarks owned by
Ameritech Corporation and used pursuant to a license from Ameritech Corporation.
T_
ransr
litter Test Results from Compa
Roof To
Compaq Legend
Coverage from the Compaq roof top
ling Portable Coverage
ortable Coverage
et Portable Coverage
r
O
Portable Coverage
IDJ
Z
m
X
Notice how the In Building and In Car Portable Coverage on and around Olive,
between New Ballas and Mosley is being blocked by the Drury building.
Tra * mitter Test Results from DryRoof To
s
Drury Legend
Coverage from the Drury roof top
Building Portable Coverage
Car Portable Coverage
Street Portable Coverage
Portable Coverage
Notice howhow the In Building and In Car Portable Coverage on and around Olive,
between New Ballas and Mosley is Much better than the Compaq roof top.
ite Proposal - North Face
REBORN
sit
ME]
r
URuRy I.VNt Sums ..,.. .
a '.
S'=
I.
V+`',
4-
a
Al
w
ite Proposal - North -
Awiz:''•
I1.
j
Showing Antennas
Site Proposal - Northeast
I
Vol
001
t
A
P
r'
1
f
r
r`
ro .
tt
ite Proposal - East Face
M
I
77=
i -
9
4.
1
i1-
1_
C
L1
L --
w
1:
11
1
ite Proposal - East -
Showing Antennas
ff
1
V1- - 1
I-.
4040
IsIs

Minutes - Agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

Lou Fusz Soccer Complex (Creve Coeur)

The Best Value and Location in West Palm Beach

January 3, 2007 Minutes

What does “Commercial/Industrial Mean to NAHBA Today?

Regular Meeting - City of Dripping Springs

Staff Report - Fishers, IN

Staff Report - City of Mobile Urban Development Department

MLK - Landcroc

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

CP_003 Newsletter2.indd