MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI October 16, 2006

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI October 16, 2006 A regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri was held on Monday, October 16, 2006 at the Creve Coeur Government Center, 300 North New Ballas Road. Chairman James Kiske called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. James Kiske, Chair Mr. Barry Glantz Mr. Tim Madden Ms. Marcia Niedringhaus, Vice Chair Mr. Gene Rovak Mrs. Linda Sher Mr. Carl Lumley, City Attorney Mr. Mark Perkins, City Administrator Mr. Michael Hurlbert, AICP, Acting Director of Planning Mr. A.J. Wang, City Council Member Ms. Pat Rosenblatt, Secretary 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 Ms. Niedringhaus moved approval of the minutes of September 18, 2006, as submitted. Mr. Madden seconded the motion. Chair Kiske referred to Page 5 and changed the word multiply to multiple. Ms. Niedringhaus and Mr. Madden accepted the correction. Chair Kiske called for the vote on approval of the minutes, as amended, which unanimously carried. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Steven L. Kling, Jr., attorney, spoke on behalf of Old Ballas Village Condominium Association and the Ballas Point Properties, LLC, which owns property at 711 Old Ballas Road. Both properties are in the new downtown area. He stated they have issues with respect to the Downtown Architectural Guidelines, which is on the agenda, but noted that the Overlay District is not on the regular agenda. Mr. Kling stated his clients have issues on how their properties would be affected from an aesthetic point of view and use point of view and referred to discussion about possibly needing part of Old Ballas Village for a parking lot, as well as issues with respect to the location of parking garages. wanted to make the Commission members sensitive to these particular issues as they work through the agenda tonight. He 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None

2 5. NEW BUSINESS CB District Condos to AR District Briarcliff Condominiums to AR District PC District to AR & GC Districts/Deletion of the PC Zoning District Enclave Bellerive, Plat Shoppes at Questover, Building C Downtown Architectural Guidelines CB District Condos to AR District Mr. Hurlbert referred to his revised report regarding this item. He explained that Condition 2 had been revised with the recommendation that the Zoning Code should be amended to allow 4-story or 60 ft. heights in place of 3-story, which is what the CB District currently allows. He explained that the AR District currently allows only 3-story heights and pointed out that the existing 4-story buildings would be nonconforming. In lieu of amending the AR District as a whole, which would allow 4-story houses, amending Section , Multifamily Uses, would leave the 3-story height for just the AR District. Mr. Hurlbert explained that a request had been received from the condominium associations south of Old Ballas Road, just west of the Golf Course, to change the zoning from CB Core Business to AR Attached Residential. This rezoning will provide some protection to those residents. He explained a breakdown of the zoning comparisons in the report, the building height being the largest difference, which will be addressed through a text amendment. Mrs. Sher inquired as to whether there were any other condominiums in the CB District, and Mr. Hurlbert referred to the CityPlace Condominiums to the north, the ones on Rue de la Banque, West Village, and Summit Lofts. This amendment will only affect the multifamily developments on Coeur de Royale and Sarah Lane. For clarification purposes, Mr. Hurlbert explained that Section is the conditional use requirements for multifamily in the AR District; by amending that section with the addition of letter f which will allow building heights up to four stories. This text amendment will affect all multifamily uses in AR Districts across the City. Mr. Hurlbert referred to the zoning of the single family property on Sarah Lane, which will remain the same because he was not able to contact the owner of that property and did not feel comfortable proceeding with the rezoning without making contact. He added that it makes sense that a commercial property on Old Ballas Road that is not part of the condominiums associations would not be zoned AR. Mrs. Susan Murphy, 624 Fairways Circle, spoke as a resident and not as a representative of the Chamber. She expressed support of the rezoning of the condominiums to AR. She had a suggestion that the text amendment and the rezoning as two separate issues. She then asked if the residents of Old Ballas Village had been asked if they would also liked to be rezoned since they are very close to the condominiums requesting rezoning and because of their proximity and location in the downtown area. Chair Kiske expressed concern about the text amendment and felt other areas may need to be notified as to what might be happening. He stated that his understanding is that if CityPlace were to decide to raze one of their properties in the AR District, the building could be four stories instead of the present three stories. This would require City approval as well as parking to substantiate the height. Mr. Hurlbert stated the concern by property owners is that by rezoning the property and creating a nonconformance, there could be legal issues with getting loans or selling properties. A brief discussion followed

3 Mrs. Sher made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request for multifamily developments, located south of Old Ballas Road, from CB Core Business District to AR Attached Single Family Residential District with the conditions listed in staff s memo dated October 16, Mr. Glantz seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Chair Kiske stated that (f) will be added to Section as part of the conditions Briarcliff Condominiums to AR District Mr. Hurlbert referred to the map included in the report that shows 31 properties for St. Louis County, each of which contains a building with multiple units in each building. That property was annexed into the City, as far as he can tell, around There was a Master Plan approved per St. Louis County that showed the entire layout as it presently exists. The City of Creve Coeur approved each building based on this Master Plan from St. Louis County. Because of that, zoning was never placed on any of the property, which is being corrected after 26 years. Mr. Hurlbert pointed out that this item does not have a formal request and if the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the rezoning, a member and/or the entire P&Z sponsor it if they so choose. He alluded to the revised Staff report, which reflects that the text amendment is applied to this property as well. Mr. Glantz disclosed that his company was the architect on some of the most recently completed buildings at Briarcliff, but did not feel this would affect his voting. zoning. Ms. Niedringhaus stated she would be happy to sponsor the application for a change in the Ms. Niedringhaus moved to recommend approval of the zoning request for Briarcliff Condominiums development to AR Attached Single Family Residential with the conditions listed in Staff s memo dated October 16, Mr. Madden seconded the motion, which unanimously carried PC District to AR & GC Districts/Deletion of the PC Zoning District Mr. Hurlbert stated he does not have a formal request in writing, but that a Council Member had requested changing the PC Planned Community District zoning to AR Attached Residential and GC General Commercial. He explained that the PC District allows for a multitude of uses, including gas stations under conditional uses. This PC District abuts quite a few single family residential homes, explaining the concern is that the PC District does not provide protection and buffers to those residents. As a result, the request is to rezone to GC the different components of the Westgate Complex, which involves the Westgate Shopping Center, the Westview Office Building and the Paragon Office Building. The Cross Creek Apartment Complex to be rezoned to AR Attached Single Family Residential. Mr. Hurlbert continued by saying it also involves a second district which is the Parc Provence property off Coeur de Ville with the request to rezone this property to AR Attached Single Family Residential, which presents some problems with conformity. He spoke with property owners of both Westgate and Parc Provence who have expressed some real concern with this request. Mr. Hurlbert referred to a letter from the representative of Parc Provence attached to the report requesting that this item be taken off the agenda/deferred. He noted issues that need to be worked out, such as Cross Creek s fourstory buildings and the Westview Office Building. Mrs. Sher felt it might be in everyone s best interest if this item is deferred until there is a sponsor from City Council, as well as provide more time for concerns to be addressed. Mr. Hurlbert was not aware if the reason for this request is due to any specific redevelopment proposal. Mr. Jack Groneck, Woodline, Trustee for Country Forest Subdivision, expressed concern with the possibility of the Cross Creek property being redeveloped commercially. He asked for - 3 -

4 notification if this item returns to the P&Z Commission. Chair Kiske assured him that he would be notified. Mr. Douglas Baron, Attorney for Parc Provence, stated he is the author of the letter asking for deferral because they did not have enough time to fully evaluate the proposal. Mr. Baron remembered coming before the Commission four or five years ago when Parc Provence was still on the drawing board and dealing with the very issue of how to have the property rezoned. He felt the PC zoning works very well for a project like Parc Provence, which he described as a 120-bed state-of-the-art Alzheimer Nursing Facility, which encompasses all facets of life. At that time, the PC zoning was looked at as a very valuable tool even though it had not been used for a long time. Mr. Baron expressed concern that this rezoning would put Parc Provence in a situation where it is a legal nonconforming use, which causes a myriad of problems. He spoke of the $135M investment that the developer has made in the community to build a top notch facility that helps to be a gateway into Creve Coeur. He felt the message to future developers would question whether or not to make an investment in Creve Coeur if, all of a sudden, the rules of the game might change. He felt this rezoning was a very serious request that could have very significant adverse consequences and, for that reason, requested deferral. Mrs. Sher moved deferral of Item until there is a sponsor from City Council and until all parties involved can have a chance to thoroughly discuss it and work through any issues. Mr. Rovak seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Chair Kiske announced the item had been deferred. Mr. Hurlbert stated notification letters would go out again, perhaps, for the second meeting in November Enclave Bellerive, Plat 2 Mr. Greg Vatterott, C.F. Vatterott Construction Co., requested approval of a Final Subdivision Plat for Enclave Bellerive, Plat 2, to subdivide the property, located north of Ladue Road and east of Mason Road, into two separate lots. On January 24, 2005, the property was rezoned from A to B/RDD, with a proposal for 55 attached and detached homes. Mr. Vatterott commented that he could not believe it was January of 2005, and twenty-one months later, Mason Road is getting rebuilt, which is a five-stage process. He is hopeful that Mason Road will be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Vatterott said they are ready to start a $1.8M home, which fits the profile they had envisioned. Mr. Lumley asked for the status on the lift station. Mr. Vatterott said the information he has is that they have completed Bellerive Country Club and are now working on the downstream side. He was unsure if they will have it completed in Mr. Rovak moved to recommend approval of Plat 2 of the Enclave Bellerive Subdivision, with conditions in staff s report dated October 16, Mr. Glantz seconded the motion, which unanimously carried Shoppes at Questover, Building C Mr. Steve Noles, co-developer with Mr. Todd Kamp, requested Rezoning and Site Development Plan approval for property located at Olive Boulevard. Mr. Brandon Harp, Civil Design Engineer, and Mr. Doug DeLong, Loomis Landscape Design, were also present. Mr. Noles located the subject parcel as situated directly east of the Shoppes of Questover on Olive Boulevard. He said the property is currently zoned MX Mixed Use, and they are asking for GC - 4 -

5 General Commercial zoning with MX Mixed Use restrictions so they can address the setbacks, the traffic flow, and the alignment with the Shoppes of Questover. He pointed out that Mr. Kling would come up later to speak about a couple of agreements reached before the meeting, one being the Deed Restriction which is to be recorded with the property. The Waddell property, directly to the east, is zoned MX ; the Shoppes of Questover to the west is zoned GC with MX restrictions; to the north is the Heritage Shopping Center, which is zoned C-1 St. Louis County; and the Questover Subdivision to the south is zoned residential. Mr. Noles pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan for this area calls for a project that co-exists with the residential neighbors to the south. To mediate that, Mr. Noles said they have addressed a lot of their concerns in their Site Plan and have had a chance to review it with interested parties. He feels they have come to an agreement as to what they are going to attempt to do. The Deed Restriction calls for no vehicle oriented businesses in the area and there is a limit of 25 percent of gross floor area to be restaurant space. In an effort to address some of the mitigation for the residential properties that border the subject property, the existing trees are to be left at the far south of the property, large trees will be left in place by building a retaining wall that matches the Shoppes of Questover, with the placement of a 6-ft. cedar fence on top of the retaining wall. As a rear buffer, 21 additional trees will be added, giving a total of 36 trees on the lot. The sidewalk will go around the building and all the way across the front of Olive Boulevard. A shared driveway will be between the two buildings to help the traffic circulation completely around Questover. The lighting in the back is the same as the Shoppes of Questover 42 inch bollard lighting to be placed on the development side of the cedar fence. Mr. Noles stated the Kamp property currently has a full access curb cut with a cut in the median that allows for a stack lane. A conceptual agreement has been reached with MoDOT that the median cut in front of the Kamp property will be closed the same time the median cut is closed in front of the Vetenarian property, with a left-turn only in front of the Shoppes of Questover. The proposed building is 9,800 square feet, with 6,000 sq. ft. of retail on the first floor and approximately 1,800 sq. ft. office in the rear of the first floor, and another 1,800 sq. ft. in the lower level. Parking for the office space is in the rear of the site, with retail parking in the front and on the side. There will be some shared parking with the Shoppes of Questover. Mr. Lumley asked to be provided with a recorded copy of the Deed Restriction on the existing shopping center. Mr. Noles stated he would also give a copy to Mr. Kling. At the request of Mrs. Sher, Mr. Hurlbert compared the requirements of the GC District with those of the MX District. A brief discussion followed. Mr. Glantz questioned the shared parking and wondered if parking is short on the proposed site. Mr. Harp explained in order to stay in tune with access management, he created a cross drive between the two sites. He said they have the right number on the proposed site, and pointed to the area where there is an excess of parking. In answer to another question posed by Mr. Glantz, Mr. Harp pointed out that the City of Creve Coeur drive aisles are 22 feet, and MoDOT is requiring a 30 ft. throat to their entrance. To the right of the outbound lane is a row of parking, and they cannot encroach any further because of greenspace and site coverage. Mr. Harp stated the outgoing traffic will have a straight shot out, and the incoming traffic can either make a right turn or travel straight ahead. Mr. Steve Kling, Jr., speaking on behalf of three Questover subdivisions, stated that this particular area has been one of the most studied in all of Creve Coeur, with studies done in 1985, 1989, 1991, 1996, and revisited again in the city-wide plan. He spoke of litigation and the current litigation on the other side of Questover concerning access to Questover Lane. He alluded to the most recent planning - 5 -

6 that was done in the Northwest Sector Plan and revisited in the city-wide plan; the recommendation was for a neighborhood business concept. Access was to be controlled so there would not be cut-through access to Questover Lane. Mr. Kling stated their two issues with respect to this proposal were uses and access to Questover Lane. He said Mr. Noles has talked about certain uses that will not be permitted because of the MX restrictions within the GC District. Also, Mr. Kling pointed out that there would not be access from this development over to Questover Lane. Mr. Hurlbert referred to the list of Recommended Conditions for Approval, specifically Condition 2, which prohibits the following uses on the properties: drive-in sales of goods and services, gasoline service stations; automotive dealers; motion picture theaters, amusement and recreation services and residential care facilities. Mr. Glantz asked if Staff has the lower level plan for office space on file. Mr. Hurlbert said the plan showed the tenant space. Mr. Carl Kamp stated the business he has operated for 32 years is an answering service or inbound call center, handling heart/lung transplant, several BJC facilities, Merritt s emergency travel hot line, etc., pointing out the importance that the equipment and people be protected and able to continue to function regardless of straightline storms and winds. Mr. Glantz felt the space in the lower level is perfectly reasonable as long as it meets the City s Life Safety Codes, part of which is egress. Mr. Hurlbert pointed out that the two stairwells shown will provide egress. Mr. Glantz stated that he wanted to make everyone aware that if it does not meet Life Safety Codes, there cannot be any office space in the lower level. After a brief discussion regarding the deed restriction, Ms. Niedringhaus suggested adding a new sentence to Condition 3 to further restrict the parcel to provide that there shall be no direct or indirect access to Questover Lane. Ms. Niedringhaus moved to recommend approval of the rezoning of the parcel addressed as Olive Boulevard in conjunction with the Shoppes at Questover Building C Site Development Plan, with conditions listed in staff s report dated October 16, 2006, with the additional clarification on the deed restriction regarding access to Questover Lane, as well as to revise the last sentence in condition #3 to read The easement shall not include direct or indirect access to Questover Lane. Mr. Madden seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Ms. Niedringhaus moved to recommend approval of the Site Development Plan for the Shoppes at Questover, Building C with the conditions listed in staff s memo dated October 16, 2006, as they have been amended. Mr. Madden seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Mr. Hurlbert announced the Public Hearing before City Council would be November 13, Downtown Architectural Guidelines Mr. Hurlbert referred to the draft of the revised Downtown Architectural Guidelines, which reflects the comments made at the August 21, 2006 and September 18, 2006 P&Z Commission meetings. He explained that the revisions included the specific building placement to provide for the variation from 10 to 15 feet; also the parking structure language was modified slightly. After much research and a lot of comparisons, Mr. Hurlbert referred to the draft guidelines as a pretty good document and feels it is ready to go forward, barring any other major changes. He stated that he did seek comments from area architects and referred to the response from Christner. The Downtown Overlay District does codify some, not all, of the issues, which will be discussed in the Work Session later in the evening. Chair Kiske asked if Christner s concerns expressed as Issue #3 in their letter had been sufficiently covered within the document. Mr. Hurlbert stated they did not want to get into designing those types of amenities and features, but wanted to keep it general. Chair Kiske did not feel that - 6 -

7 adorning flat boxes with medallions would constitute decorative accents. Mr. Hurlbert suggested that he state he does not feel the proposal meets the intent of the guidelines. Mr. Glantz called the document one of the best set of guidelines that the City has produced recently. He felt a few suggestions could be incorporated into a couple of items. Mrs. Susan Murphy, representing the Creve Coeur/Olivette Chamber of Commerce, distributed a summary of their comments/questions and read them into the record. She stated they are requesting a definition of appropriate amount of creativity. She also requested a definition for creation of an urban form. Referring to Page 2 of her handout, she pointed out that it is still the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce that the screening of parking garages has not been adequately addressed. She said in speaking with Chief Brandeis, he indicated that the Creve Coeur Fire Marshal would be very willing to work with the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission in developing architectural guidelines for screening, so that some of the same problems that occurred with the screening of the MLP property are not revisited a second time. She inquired about the underground parking since she did not see it addressed in the Guidelines or the District Overlay verbiage and pointed out that the current City Ordinance requires 50 percent of the parking for multifamily facilities to be located underground. Mrs. Murphy directed everyone s attention to Item #3 on Page 3 pertaining to fenestration above the first floor, and asked if different shaped windows would be considered. Item #5 on that same page, posed the question as to whether the restriction of tinted windows also applies to buildings facing west, pointing out that tinting reduces fading and also lowers HVAC costs. Referring to Item #5 on Page #5 pertaining to screening of roof-top equipment, Mrs. Murphy stated it might present practical difficulties as the equipment that is normally screened on rooftops has requirements of its own, including free air and access. She alluded to the recommendation that suggests building screens should have similar materials and wondered if a brick building would require brick screening and if so, would this require structural engineering changes in the building. Mrs. Murphy also asked if louvers are allowed for screening purposes. Mrs. Murphy referred to Page #6, Building Height Requirements, and stated the Chamber s recommendation is that any buildings 10 stories and taller be considered by this Commission only after MoDOT or an independent consultant has done a thorough traffic study of the traffic generated by that 10-story building. She then made reference to Building Placement on Page #7 and said that it appears as if recommendations #1 and #2 would radically reduce greenspace by positioning all buildings near the sidewalk, forming a street wall. Number 3 would also dramatically reduce greenspace and could also lead to some traffic safety concerns, as the Chamber has mentioned before, with sight distance as with the MLP development. Going on to Page 8, Item #3 Landscape, Open Space, and Amenities, suggesting creating landscape corridors, asking who would be creating these corridors the developer or the City? The Chamber requested clarification. In Item #5, Mrs. Murphy asked the difference between a plaza and a park. Item #6 regarding Open Space, she stated that it seems this guideline could contradict Items #1, #2, and #3 under Building Placement. She suggested that there is still no delineation between greenspace and open space. Mrs. Murphy alluded to Page 9, #12 under Amenities, and asked, once again, who is responsible for those, the developer or the City? On Page 10, Streetscapes and Sidewalks, Mrs. Murphy referred to Items #3 and #4 with the following question: If there is parking along a primary street with a 5 ft. tree wall next to a parking space, with a 10 ft. sidewalk next to the tree wall, how would you get from your car to the sidewalk, especially if there is snow or ice? She said she realizes it is the owner s responsibility to clear a sidewalk, but does not think it is the owner s responsibility to clear a landscape area

8 Mrs. Murphy went on to Item #7 on Page 11, stating that even though pattern pavement is very attractive, wheelchairs, walkers and canes can get stuck or even slip on uneven material particularly in snow and ice. The Chamber recommends that color be used to differentiate crosswalks. For her last comment, she asked the following question regarding #1 of Site Grading on Page 12: To avoid massive grading to create flat building pads, it appears that this guideline contradicts #3 under Building Facades, and given the changes in topography, if you cannot create flat building pads, how will the horizontal elements in one building be aligned with the horizontal elements in adjoining buildings? Mrs. Murphy thanked the Commission for the opportunity to ask these questions and said she hoped it gave them some basis for additional consideration or conversation. Ms. Niedringhaus referred to an sent to Mr. Hurlbert from Mr. Moskop dated October 2, 2006 and said she thought the comment made by Mr. Moskop with respect to store front windows being recessed at least 2 inches had some merit. Mr. Glantz stated that he felt the goal is to create something that is not monotonous, achieved recessed or projective and, at the same time, it can probably be achieved being flush as well. It was decided that the developer should pay particular attention to the articulation of windows rather than require them to be recessed at least 2 inches. Mr. Glantz referred to item #3 with the suggestion of adding something along the lines of other decorative window shapes may be considered. Chair Kiske said his understanding is that tinted windows is not the preferred method of reducing heat load, it has to do more with low UV-rated glass and other nanotechnology coatings that prevent infrared from penetrating. Mr. Glantz stated that he believes that to be correct. Other solutions were discussed. Mr. Hurlbert pointed out the difference between saying tinted windows should not be used versus may never be used. He emphasized that these are guidelines. Mr. Glantz asked to return to the Chamber s letter that screening of parking garages is still not addressed. He felt they were missing the point and felt pretty confident with the way it reads now because he does not think parking garages should be screened. He felt they should move past the MLP project where the parking garage is attached to the building. Mr. Glantz said the goal is very well stated that the parking garage should be an integral part of the building s design. He stated that when you design something integrally, it does not need to be screened, that it is part of the architecture. Mr. Glantz stated that he feels the guidelines are well stated, and Ms. Niedringhaus added that the picture next to them is particularly descriptive. Mr. Glantz felt the Commission has made their intentions very clear while, at the same time, trying not to stifle some flexibility or creativity. Discussion continued. Item #7 under Streets, Streetscape & Sidewalks, should read Crosswalks should be provided with stamped concrete, pavers, or other material or colors different from the street. Ms. Niedringhaus asked for clarification on Page 10 with respect to the tree lawn, stating in her mind the tree lawn is not a 5-foot wide strip that has no concrete at all. An additional sentence in Item #4 should read The tree lawn shall provide for interruptions to allow pedestrian connectivity to the street. Chair Kiske asked if the issue concerning the requirement of 50 percent underground parking for multifamily dwellings needed to be addressed in the guidelines. Mr. Hurlbert stated that this will not be required in the Downtown and will be codified in the Downtown Overlay district. Ms. Niedringhaus moved approval of the Downtown Architectural Guidelines pursuant to the Draft dated with the changes discussed tonight, those being the change on Page 3, Item B-2 with respect to varying window articulation; B-3 with respect to the statement that other decorative window shapes may be considered; and the change on Page 10, H-4 to note that interruptions in the tree lawn shall be provided to provide connectivity; and Page 11, #7 that the words or colors be added when referring to other material to differentiate the street that causes the walkway to stand out. Mr. Rovak seconded the motion, which unanimously carried - 8 -

9 6. WORK AGENDA A. Downtown (DT) Overlay District Mr. Hurlbert explained this is a preliminary draft, which is a concept of a creation of a downtown overlay zoning district that supplements and/or supercedes the CB regulations, the underlying base zoning district. Where the requirements are called out, they take precedence over the CB requirements. In addition to these requirements, to allow flexibility from such things as floor area ratio and building height, language has been developed as well, which is a procedure that would have to receive approval. In response to a question about the building height, Mr. Hurlbert responded that the CB District allows 10-story buildings, pointing out that once you get above three stories, you must provide for 10 or 15 ft. setback offsets to break down the massing. Mr. Hurlbert stated that he thinks this provides for a more interesting looking building. He did say that a nine story building, under this requirement, could still be on Olive Boulevard. He pointed out that the tallest buildings should be around a theoretical Plaza Center/Town Center Square around Studt and Ham, based on how the downtown shapes up. Mrs. Sher referred to Page 2 regarding the requirement that the ground floor uses must be retail or restaurant, and questioned how the inclusion of other uses was limited to 25 percent of the ground floor area. Mr. Hurlbert responded by saying that he had researched other cities and this was the number most often provided. He added that he had seen 33 percent and 50 percent non-retail. Mrs. Sher stated that she liked the concept of more retail versus less retail, calling it one of the key elements to make the downtown successful. Mr. Hurlbert explained this requirement was specifically for the first floor. He pointed out that a large building would provide enough of the services the residents would need but that a smaller building may not be sufficient. Discussion followed on how to encourage development in the downtown area. Mrs. Sher alluded to the preservation concept and asked if there were any buildings in the downtown area that are older than 50 years. Mr. Hurlbert was not certain of the number, but felt there might be two buildings close to that age. Ms. Niedringhaus referred to the Brentwood Square sign that everyone wanted to preserve and how it was incorporated into the new structure. Mr. Hurlbert asked that specific revisions or comments be directed to him in the next week or so. He will revise the draft and it to members. Mr. Hurlbert pointed out that he would like to, with each subsequent meeting, provide the revisions until they have a finely-tuned document that can go forward. It could be on the agenda for comment on November 20. He stated that he would be sending out a notification letter to property owners to advise them of this undertaking and to get everyone involved. B. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update FY 2008 to 2012 Mr. Hurlbert stated that this item will be on the agenda for the meeting of November 6, He warned the Commission members that this would be their last chance to throw in any of their pet projects. He said most of the s he has received pertained to maintenance, so there really is not much to add. C. Southwest Bank Sculpture Proposals Chair Kiske disclosed that he is a customer of Southwest Bank

10 Ms. Linda Gies of Southwest Bank asked Commission members for their feedback on the three proposed sculptures, so that the bank can choose the final version. She also had a sample of the metal to be used. She pointed out that the foliage shown in the pictures would not remain when the sculpture is in place. Mr. Hurlbert reminded the Commission members that the issue with the previously approved fountain was that the wind was blowing water onto the windows and onto the sidewalk, which caused slippery conditions. Ms. Gies explained that she and her boss were having a nice conference while sitting on one of the benches, when the wind blew and they were both soaked. Ms. Gies asked the members which sculpture they like or which one they do not like. Mrs. Sher stated that she did not like #1 and preferred #2. The consensus of the members was a preference for #2. Mr. Madden inquired about the sun shining on the sculpture. Ms. Gies said they asked the sculptor about the metal, and he informed them that he had installed sculptures with that same finish and there should not be an issue. They told him if there is an issue, he must come back and do something to the finish of the sculpture so that people are not being blinded by the reflection. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Planning Department Report Mr. Hurlbert stated the CIP would be a big item for the next meeting. He also expected the amended CityPlace Master Sign Plan, CityPlace VII, and the CityPlace Master Plan amendment. He also pointed out that UMSL offers a Planning and Zoning Certificate program. B. City Attorney Report Mr. Lumley said he was reading a wonderful article today in the St. Louis Bar Journal written by our own Vice Chair. Ms. Neidringhaus replied that it is one of those things you volunteer for and then six months later you actually have to do it. 8. 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 10:00 p.m. Transcribed by: James L. Kiske, Chairman Pat Rosenblatt, Secretary