 |
|
SEARCH
IN THIS SECTION
Popular Pages in this Section
| MORE
SEARCH
IN THIS SECTION
Popular Pages in this Section
Archived Meeting Agendas
Every effort is made to ensure that the Agendas and Minutes provided on this and subsequent pages is timely and correct; however, users should keep in mind that this information is provided only as a public convenience. In any case where legal reliance on information is required, the official records of the City of Ballwin should be consulted. The Board of Aldermen meet on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the Ballwin Government Center, 1 Government Ctr. Schedule and place subject to change. Meetings are open to the public. All citizens are urged to attend. Board of Aldermen MeetingMeeting AgendaCITY OF BALLWIN www.ballwin.mo.us 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of Minutes: April 8, 2013 Board of Aldermen meeting & closed session 5. Oath of Office: Mayor Pogue, Aldermen Terbrock, Harder, Leahy, Boland 6. Second Roll Call 7. Presentation: Ameren Missouri 8. Pending Issues: None. 9. Citizen Comments 10. Public Hearing: None. New Business: 11. Legislation Next Ordinance # 13-12 A. Bill # 3781 Utility Vehicle Signage 12. Consent Items A. None. 13. Mayor’s Report A. Liquor Licenses: Schnucks (2511 Kehrs Mill Rd. and 15425 Manchester Rd.) 14. City Administrator’s Report A. Parks Time Clock 15. Staff Reports A. None. 16. City Attorney’s Report A. Legal Issues 17. Aldermanic Comments 18. Adjourn NOTE: Due to ongoing City business, all meeting agendas should be considered tentative. Additional issues may be introduced during the course of the meeting. CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Section 610.022 RSMo., The Board of Aldermen could, at any time during the meeting, vote to close the public meeting and move to closed session to discuss matters relating to litigation, legal actions, and/or communications from the City Attorney, as provided under Section 610.021(1) RSMo., and/or personnel matters under Section 610.021(13) RSMo., and/or employee matters under Section 610.021(3) RSMo., and/or real estate matters under Section 610.021(2) or other matters as permitted by Chapter 610. BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING BRIEFS This is a condensed summary of the action items which will be considered at tonight’s Board Meeting. It has been prepared to give you a greater understanding of the issues which will be discussed. If you have comments, questions, or concerns, please call (636) 227-8580. If you would like to know more about the programs or services which we provide, please dial our 24-Hour Information Line (636) 207-2300, or visit us on the web at www.ballwin.mo.us. CITIZEN COMMENTS If you wish to address the Board during this meeting, please fill out the “Citizen Comments: To Address the Board of Aldermen” form and place it in the tray on the table in the center of the Board Room before the meeting begins. Topics of a global nature, such as requests for ballot initiative endorsements, should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at 14811 Manchester Road, prior to the meeting. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes as an individual and 5 minutes representing a group. Please avoid repeating comments others have already made. Thank you for your cooperation. OATH OF OFFICE The Oath of Office will be administered to Mayor Pogue, Aldermen Terbrock, Harder, Leahy, and Boland. PRESENTATION Mark Nealon, Director of Ameren’s Meramec Valley Division, will be on hand to discuss street light maintenance. UTILITY VEHICLE SIGNAGE (Bill # 3781) This legislation addresses the problem of commercial vehicles being used as portable signs to circumvent our regulations. SCHNUCKS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES (Bill 3782 & Bill 3783) Schnuck Markets has petitioned for a Special Use Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages by-the-drink for consumption on the premises, for both of its Ballwin stores (2511 Kehrs Mill Road and 15425 Manchester Road). The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. BALLWIN GROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT (Bill 3784) The owners of Ballwin Grove Plaza have petitioned for an amendment to permit construction of approximately 22 additional parking spaces. The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval. FIRE LANES (Bill 3785) This legislation amends the schedule to reflect current conditions and add the Ballwin Grove designation to this list. LIQUOR LICENSES The Schnucks stores at the Manchester Road and Kehrs Mill locations have applied for supplemental licenses to permit sale by the drink, for consumption on premises, in accordance with the provisions of their Special Use Exception applications. LIQUOR LICENSES The Bonhomme Lions Club and the Rotary Club of West St. Louis County have applied for picnic liquor licenses for the Ballwin Days festival. PARKS TIME CLOCK It is necessary that we expand the time clock concept to include Parks & Recreation personnel. The purchase of compatible equipment necessitated the recommendation that this acquisition be made from a sole source vender. BOARD ROOM RENOVATIONS It is recommended that the general construction contract be awarded to United Construction, who submitted the low bid of $248,000 with alternates. It is also recommended that the technology package (audio/visual) be awarded to Innovative Technology Group, who submitted the highest of three bids in the amount of $96,442.83. Overall, the total cost would be $344,442.83 which is slightly under our budget of $345,305. TANDEM TRUCK It is recommended that we reject all bids and award this contract to Navistar Truck Group, who will honor the State bid of $154,311 with no trade. LEGAL ISSUES City Attorney Jones would like to provide an update of the status of pending legal issues. Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pogue at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT The Pledge of Allegiance was given. MINUTES The Minutes of the April 8, 2013 Board of Aldermen meeting and closed session were submitted for approval. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Leahy to approve the Minutes. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. OATH OF OFFICE SECOND ROLL CALL PRESENT ABSENT PRESENTATION City Administrator Kuntz said the program on Holloway Road is soon to expire, if it hasn’t already. The fixtures will revert to the City. I asked Ameren, but haven’t had a response, to consider extending that illumination to the intersection of Manchester Road so that we would have a single straight corridor of identical fixtures. In the older subdivisions and areas annexed to the City of Ballwin, we’ve got several fixtures that over time, are not providing illumination. Not because there’s a bad bulb or ballast, but because of foliage and trees. We wouldn’t allow those things to be planted there today. Most of this is in areas that we inherited through annexation. We’re not getting benefit from those fixtures. That’s what generated the correspondence. Ameren responded regarding the responsibilities of Ameren. That generated many concerns from the Board. At the Board’s request, Ameren representative, Mark Nealon, is here to answer questions. Alderman Leahy asked, “Are you a liaison to the City of Ballwin? What is your role with Ameren as far as we are concerned?” Mr. Nealon said, “I’m director of the construction and engineering services division that supports customers in Franklin County, Jefferson County, and West St. Louis County, including the City of Ballwin.” Alderman Leahy said, “How long have you been in that position? Every time we have an Ameren representative here for a discussion, he gets transferred somewhere else.” Mr. Nealon said, “There has been a lot of movement. I’ve been in this position since September 1, 2012.” Alderman Leahy said, “What is your role with lights and what is our role with lights regarding maintenance?” Mr. Nealon said, “The rates that we have established in our tariff with the State of Missouri, stipulates that the cost per light includes the cost of the energy associated with that particular light. It’s an estimated energy because we don’t meter any lighting circuits due to their predictability. There is a heavy maintenance element associated with that cost per light that includes everything associated with the light, the standard, the lens, hood, bulb, and the cables connecting those lights in order to insure the operational integrity of the light. What that means to us is that we make sure the lights continues to turn on and turn off. Whatever it takes to insure that to continue to happen, whether it’s replacing the bulb, hood, lens, cable, or the post, anything associated with the light and the cables connecting the lights, we will do.” Alderman Leahy asked, “What about maintenance of the trees that surround the lights? I noticed several lights in the summer that are surrounded by trees. The lights are not doing anyone any service. Is that Ballwin’s responsibility?” Mr. Nealon said, “It is Ballwin’s responsibility or the resident’s responsibility as specified in Ordinance 29-1.” Alderman Harder said, “About two months ago, there were two lights out in my subdivision. Because we’ve talked about the issue with service and your company servicing these fixtures, the two lights were on the same block. I didn’t report this because I wanted to see how long it would take to get service. City Administrator Kuntz called your office and reported it. Two or three weeks went by and the lights were still dark. I then called Ameren about the lights and was told ‘Okay, that’s fine. We’ll get to it when we get to it.’ I told her that these are at two intersections in the neighborhood and are important lights. They probably just need a new bulb. She said it will be at least two weeks before they get to it. It wasn’t in the middle of a storm or anything of that nature. In 2 – 3 weeks, the lights were fixed. Is there any way we can guarantee a better turn around if we’re going to pay $18 per pole that we can get better service without a light at an intersection?” Mr. Nealon said, “Yes, we attempt to hold to a seven-day standard. Anything that goes 4 or 5 weeks to repair is way beyond what we attempt to hold ourselves to. I apologize for that. This falls within my realm of responsibility to make sure this happens with any outage, service, or part of our system that our customers rely on.” Alderman Harder said, “For that person to say we’ll get to it when we get to it, or it will be at least two weeks, where would she have gotten that kind of information?” Mr. Nealon said, “I would not have instructed a call taker, assuming that’s who you were talking to, to make a statement like that. We’re more committed to making sure the lights are operational. We hold ourselves to higher standards than that sort of a comment. We hold ourselves to a 7-day turn around.” Alderman Finley said, “What is Ameren’s upcoming policy for requests for rate increases in the next year?” Mr. Nealon said, “I have not heard that there are any plans to file for a rate increase in 2013. I’m not saying that it isn’t going to happen, I’m just not aware of it at this time.” Alderman Terbrock said, “Regarding the test lighting on Holloway Road – What is the possibility of extending that to Manchester Road?” Mr. Nealon said, “What little I understand of the research project that involves 11 lights, in a pre-grant program, I’m not familiar if the latitude exists to extend it. I will ask the question and inquire if this is possible.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “Does this sound like something feasible?” Mr. Nealon said, “Not knowing anything about the nature of the grant, it’s difficult for me to say.” Alderman Terbrock said, “I heard that the reason we can’t get the more energy-efficient fixtures is because a tariff has not been set yet on these fixtures that we’re trying to use, and that’s why we can’t get them throughout the city. Is that true?” Mr. Nealon said, “From what I understand of our rate tariff is that the Commission approves a rate that is based on the wattage of the light, and based on the assumption that the light of that wattage is going to be on average, a certain number of hours per day. An energy-efficient light is going to allegedly emit the same amount of light at a lower wattage, un like any energy-efficient light you would by at Lowe’s or Home Depot. With that different wattage light and the average price of the light to purchase, a new tariff with a new rate would have to be established based on those new assumptions.” Alderman Terbrock said, “And that has not been done.” Mr. Nealon said, “No, not to my knowledge.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “Is there any work being done to get to that point, to get something set?” Mr. Nealon said, “Not to my knowledge.” Alderman Terbrock asked why. Mr. Nealon said, “Probably because we haven’t standardized on that particular light, hence the research project. The rate tariffs are based on a type of light that we consider standard, and so we have rates based on the mercury vapor lights and high pressure sodium lights. The new energy efficient lighting is not a type of light that we’ve standardized on or install, except in these special cases that involve grants. That’s not to say that we will not be there someday.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “Is this the only research project that’s going on that you know of?” Mr. Nealon said, “It is the only research project that I understand is going on anywhere in our service territory.” Alderman Terbrock said, “So essentially, there’s absolutely no work going on for energy efficient lights other than what we’re doing.” Mr. Nealon said, “Just here, to my knowledge.” Alderman Terbrock said, “It doesn’t sound very smart. Didn’t the State vote to force Ameren to go to more energy efficiency a couple of years ago?” Mr. Nealon said, “Yeah, we’re investing $145,000,000 over the next three years, including 2013, for a number of energy efficiency programs. Whether energy-efficient street lighting is part of the residential suite of programs, is something I’m not familiar with. I can easily find out.” Alderman Terbrock said, “I find it very interesting that we’re the only city in your service area that’s doing this. There’s no information to give on this and it doesn’t seem like anyone is trying to move to the more energy efficient lighting, when that seems to be what everyone is wanting.” Alderman Terbrock said, “There was a consortium of cities that discussed all of this at the State level about 4 years ago.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “That consortium was geared toward trying to combat the rate hike at that time. For years, street lighting was outside of the realm of the typical residential adjustments. We wouldn’t have been in the street light business if we thought it was going to be a rapidly escalating continuance of cost. $500,000 per year for street lights, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation if we were back where we were when we first thought we were doing a good thing of providing security and lighting for the neighborhoods.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “Do you feel that your company is in a position to want to work with the cities to try and relieve the $500,000 burden that we have for street lights and try to get something more technologically advanced in terms of energy efficiency?” Mr. Nealon said, “I would think yes, especially given the commitment to the Energy Efficiency programs that was passed into law. Absolutely.” Mayor Pogue said, “During the 2012 filing with the PSC, they required you to either come up with a tariff schedule for more efficient lights or a reason why you could not at that time. That March, Ameren also filed with the PSC for a $23,000,000 rate increase, which would be about 87¢ a month increase for the average resident. Do they plan to present a tariff schedule for more efficient lighting at that time?” Mr. Nealon said, “I don’t know. I’m not aware.” Alderman Terbrock said, “Clearly not. They’re not doing any work on it.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Let me take the flip side of Alderman Terbrock’s question. I don’t expect an answer tonight because it’s a broad policy question. Could you, from this meeting, direct us to some dialog and communication with respect to what the City of Ballwin might do, with respect to the cost of street lighting? For example, if we could come up with a number that stays in one place for a while, and it’s not totally unreasonable, could we get in the street lighting business ourselves and simply purchase energy from you? I’ve not seen a number to have that dialog, but clearly, this Board is concerned about energy efficiency through technology. Not to twist your words, but the company is not on a fast track in that direction. Would there be any opportunity, or could there be someone from your company, that could address that question? We’ve not been successful in pursuing that over the last few years.” Mr. Nealon said, “I am familiar enough with the rate tariffs to know that the only condition under which we would be able to turn over any or all of our lighting system to you to maintain, would be if we were to sell that portion or that amount of circuitry and lighting hardware to the City of Ballwin. Our rates are set up such that customers in the State of Missouri pay for the service. It’s not anything that would represent a rent-to-own type of situation or anything like that. The only way that we can turn over a portion of our system to another entity is through a transactional sale at what’s considered a fair market value, and then that transaction would have to be approved in the way of a filing with the State of Missouri, and approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. If all that took place, the last thing to make it work is that we would install a meter at the head end of that circuit or circuits. You would then be charged just for energy.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Similar to what you did on Holloway that we lived with for two years, and obviously that could be done. We didn’t get a street light bill. There was a meter put there, and we got an energy-only charge. The technology is there. It’s just not the numbers yet. How do we get there?” Mayor Pogue said, “Ameren Illinois recently did this with SIU Edwardsville, where they sold the entire street lighting system for the campus to the university.” Mr. Nealon said, “Yes, all of that is within the realm of possibility. It would be a sale at a mutually agreeable fair market value, then that transaction would have to be approved after we filed a case with the Commission to sell the assets. Upon its being approved, the transaction would take place after we install a meter. It would then just be a matter of charging for the energy, kilowatt hours associated with that lighting.” Mayor Pogue said, “This should be easily established since it was just done within the last year in a neighboring community. I think it would be easier to get that rate that was used for the linear footage of the service and the lights.” Mr. Nealon said, “It would simply be a matter of outlining whatever lights or portion of the circuit you would be interested in our developing that number, and going from there.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “I’d like to start with Holloway Road down to Manchester Road to the existing LED fixtures. I asked about this 6 or 9 months ago. I’m waiting for that number because that’s a simple extension of what’s already in place. I want to bring what they’ve got in place, what you see now, south, to a logical terminus. This will be a start, a small step. I don’t have an answer yet.” Alderman Terbrock said, “At least he’s told us it’s a possibility. We haven’t heard that it’s a possibility so far. We were told we could talk about it, but were not told we could buy it.” Mr. Nealon said, “It’s clearly defined in our tariff with the State, that a sale of facilities could be established and the transaction has to be approved by the Commission before we turn it over, and then we have to meter it so that we know what kind of energy is involved. It would be an energy-only proposition at that point.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Will you take this back to Ameren and have someone contact us so that we can start the dialog?” Mr. Nealon said yes. Alderman Boland said, “Until we get to that point, this is going to take some time and effort and negotiations. As Alderman Harder stated about someone calling in and talking to one of your reps and hearing 2 – 3 weeks on top of the original 2-3, which would 4 or 5 weeks, what can you do for us now? We’re investing a half million dollars a year in 2,000 lights. Is there a separate unit that we could be dealing with? Should we be following a protocol where instead of Alderman Terbrock or myself calling in to whomever, is there a unit that we can establish a relationship with where if we hear something, we can escalate it up the line, as opposed to Alderman Harder getting the luck of the draw, with someone who told him 4-5 weeks? That reflects poorly on you because you said your standard is 7 days. Is that 7 days from the day that someone makes the phone call, or is it 7 days from when someone in your organization gets the work order?” Mr. Nealon said, “It’s 7 days from the time that it’s reported by the customer.” Alderman Boland asked, “Is there any kind of system that you have in place now or a unit within your customer service area where municipalities can call in and have our request taken care of?” Mr. Nealon said, “Yes, given that the ultimate responsibility for the reliability of every electrical asset in that portion of the service territory is mine, I’ll be more than happy to leave my business cards with all of you. I consider that the last line of defense. If any lights are taking 4-5 weeks before being repaired, that reflects poorly on me and I take exception to that. It’s my responsibility for reliability of every electric asset within that portion of the service territory.” Alderman Harder said, “You talked about the City taking over the assets and just being billed for energy. Are there any cities in your coverage area that have done that, how successful was it, where are they in the process, how long does it take?” Mr. Nealon said, “The sale of facilities is very rare. I don’t know of any other municipality that has purchased lights from Ameren, but it is possible for any part of our system to be purchased if it is so desired, and assuming that the Commission approves it. Just because I have not heard of an instance where a municipality has purchased a number of lights, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened.” Alderman Harder asked, “Is that something we can do by subdivision, or do we have to do all or nothing, the whole city, half of the city?” Mr. Nealon said, “We can talk about any portion of the total street light plan that you would like. I consider that a practical option. Another option is that if for some reason either the property owner or the City can’t find a good way to get these particular lights that are covered in foliage trimmed, if you would give us a list of lights, we could turn them off. If those lights were turned off, whatever that cost is per light, would not show up on the bill. We would tag each light that was requested by you to turn off, and your bill would go down by that number. We have done this for a number of municipalities. It’s much more common because it’s easier to make happen.” Alderman Harder asked, “Instead of taking a radical approach, is there a way that we could pare down over a period of five years, where we gradually take over the rent’s decrease per pole, and we take over certain amounts of maintenance over a period of time instead of all at one time, so that we can stay under $500,000, which is nearing 1/5 of our city budget just for street lights. Is there a program that we don’t have to continue paying rent the way we’ve paid for the last 50 years?” Mr. Nealon said, “You’re asking if we could do such a turnover of assets in piecemeal fashion over time to make it manageable. Certainly, I’m sure it can be worked out. It would be a first. As a result, I imagine that the first few would go pretty slow until we developed a rhythm about it. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility. It’s part of our tariff with the State of Missouri to allow such transactions to take place.” Mayor Pogue said, “Alderman Harder to correct a statement, street lighting is not 1/5 of our budget. It’s less than 3%.” Alderman Harder said that 3% is still too high. PENDING ISSUES CITIZEN COMMENTS Walt Young, 634 Lemonwood Drive: Speed Limits: Mr. Young said, “When some of the speed limits were changed last year to 25 mph, the speed limit on Woodside Trails was changed from 20 to 25 mph. Woodside Trails has all dead end cul-de-sac streets, no sidewalks, and all the people walk their dogs in the street. 25 mph is ridiculous. I’m requesting the speed limit in Woodside Trails be brought back to 20 mph. It’s scary. 25mph is way too fast. Please look at all of the condos and see if the speed limit is 25 mph. If it is, it should be brought down to 20 mph. It’s dangerous. Please let me know so that I can pass the word along” Board Room Renovation: Mr. Young said, “I heard that you are going to put bullet proof glass behind the dais. Is that true?” Mayor Pogue said, “We’re not at liberty to talk about any security features that will take place within the Board room.” Mr. Young said, “If it’s true, it’s awfully costly to put something in where we haven’t had any need for that. There’s never been anything other than Kirkwood, and I don’t think I’ve heard of any Alderman or Mayor in the area ever having any problems. I would like to see that you not spend that money. We have other things we can do.” Asphalt Street Repairs: Mr. Young said, “You went around the city and removed the asphalt off the streets in order to put down new asphalt, which is great. You did this on Twigwood Drive in March. I’ve been told by the City that it may be July before it’s repaired and put back together. The holes are miserable. It’s so bad that if you drive over 5 mph, you’ll blow a tire. The rain may be destroying the street. I hope that we can get this done faster than that. Please do what you can to try to get it done sooner.” Gerry Matlock, 2327 Eagles Glen Ct.: Mr. Matlock said, “I am one of the abutting neighbors to the Schnucks Kehrs Mill store. I am here tonight, with many of my neighbors, appealing to the Board to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that the sale of liquor by the drink be limited to indoors only and not outside the store on the patio at the Schnucks Kehrs Mill store. The sale of liquor by the drink is not in the best interest of our community, taking into account, the close proximity to the surrounding homes, the close proximity to the children in the Clarkson Crossing subdivision and to Marquette High School, the resulting increase in noise to the neighbors, and the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay District ordinance.” Mr. Matlock said, “Please keep in mind that when this site was approved for this store in 2009, two ordinances were required. One was Ordinance 09-17 that rezoned the property from residential to commercial. The second was Ordinance 09-18 that adopted the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay District for this site. This overlay district is used when the property is located near and surrounded by residential homes and is supposed to incorporate higher standards than a standard commercial rezoning, otherwise you wouldn’t need this overlay. The overlay encourages small, low impact, boutique style developments that blend with the adjoining residential neighborhood. Thank you, and I will be glad to answer any questions that you have.” Myrna Meador, 2328 Eagles Glen Ct.: Ms. Meador said, “I’m a resident of Clarkson Crossing. I’m not an abutting neighbor to Schnucks. I live across the street from Mr. Matlock. The petitioner, Schnucks, is seeking approval for the sale of alcohol by the drink at the Kehrs Mill store because it is the ‘popular’ thing to do these days. Just because it’s popular does not justify allowing it in a residential neighborhood. This is a grocery store, not a pub, not a bar, and certainly not an outdoor bar. I remind you that the small grocery store sits in a residential area near two schools, and it’s not a super store in a strip mall, and there are no restaurant or sidewalk cafes nearby. I’m quite aware of the noise that comes from groups of people drinking as what starts out as a quiet congenial conversation. The consumers’ voices escalate with more drinking while they are enjoying themselves and the noise factor increases. Additionally, smoking is not allowed in these facilities, so all the smoking would be outdoors. I have personally observed these behaviors at establishments with outdoor patios, such as Villa Farroto, Chevy’s, Salenas, Kriegers, Harpers, and a lot of the wineries out highway 94 that I really enjoy, but they are not surrounded by homes a block away.” Ms. Meador said, “To remind you, we neighbors have only a 10-foot vinyl privacy fence. Schnucks refused our request for a sound wall, although they built a sound wall up to 16 feet at the Des Peres store. The Dierbergs store in Des Peres also has a sound wall buffer. Our neighborhood is very quiet in the evenings, weekends, and holidays. If outdoor drinking is allowed, it could occur every day of the week, until midnight, and this store is only closed on three holidays. Neighbors already hear voices and cars from the parking lot, and the building blocks the dispersion of the noise around it and focuses the noise back to the neighborhood. Before Schnucks comes back to this room asking the Board to approve 24-hour operation, which would include extended drinking hours and all the noise and disruptive behavior that go with it until the wee hours of the morning, and before they come back again, asking you to allow musicians to play outside or pipe the music outside, I remind you that this was designed to be a boutique grocery store that was approved by the Board a few years ago, for this unique piece of property and nothing more, only a small grocery store on a small corner of the city. I’m asking the Board to approve the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to restrict the sale of alcohol by the drink to inside the store and not allow alcohol by the drink on any part of the exterior building, including the patio.” Bob Bohlman, 2311 Eagles Glen Ct.: Mr. Bohlman said, “I support the amendment to keep the sale by the drink at the Kehrs Mill Schnucks store to indoors only and not allow this outdoors. I agree with the previous statements that have been made.” Jane Suozzi: Ms. Suozzi spoke to the Board regarding Ameren. She said, “I happened to be at the Earth Day observance yesterday. Ameren was very prevalent in terms of electric cars, Alternative Energy Program, which will cost me $15 per month extra. I recall that when an Ameren representative was asked, 7 or 8 years ago at a Board of Aldermen meeting, about efforts by Ameren to increase the efficiency of street lights, his reply was, no, we haven’t, we’re in business to make money. I don’t believe our issue with maintenance of these lights can be compared to a light getting hit and having to be replaced. Insurance companies are paying for that, not Ameren. We’ve paid for the street lights over and over and over again in terms of the number of years that we’ve been doing this. I think the cost of those lights should be depreciated by now. Currently, there’s a regional plan being developed, and I encourage your involvement in it, it’s called One St. Louis. It’s a regional plan for sustainability in the entire region, five counties in Missouri and three counties in Illinois. A number of local workshops are being held to address the factors of sustainability, such as recycling. I’m going to be taking this back to my co-workers at East-West Gateway and getting some of the municipalities involved in trying to get cooperation from Ameren for the street lights. They are a partner in this sustainability project. I don’t understand why they won’t work with us on this.” PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS LEGISLATION BILL # 3781 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BALLWIN WITH RESPECT TO DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS TO ADDRESS TRUCK AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. A motion was made by Alderman Finley and seconded by Alderman Boland for a first reading of Bill No. 3781. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result, the motion passed and Bill No. 3781 was read for the first time. Alderman Fleming said, “I’ve considered this issue more closely since our last meeting. To me, this is similar to the flashing sign issue a few years back. I could say at that time that the flashing signs distracted drivers and I could find justification for it. Here we’re talking about just prohibiting people from parking vehicles. To me, this isn’t business friendly; it’s not an eyesore to me at this point; I don’t know that we need to do anything right now; no citizens have contacted me and asked me to take up this cause; no citizens seem to be offended by the appearance of these; and I think it’s going to increase the work load on our inspectors. I don’t want to be known as a community that’s over-regulating the business environment, unless it becomes a problem. To me, it’s not a problem yet. I’m going to be voting against it this evening unless somebody changes my mind.” Mayor Pogue said, “I took Alderman Dogan’s request that someone contact the businesses, and did go to the businesses that currently had the three vehicles, and asked what is the purpose of these vehicles. They strictly said, for advertising. I have a concern that these former U-Haul trucks are going to continue to pop up. Recently, there is another one. I’m concerned about how it’s going to start looking for our commercial district. That’s why I asked for consideration of this legislation. I feel that some of the businesses are skirting around our sign ordinance by using these trucks. All three businesses stated that they do not pick up any merchandise, they do not deliver any merchandise. The vehicles are strictly there for signage.” Alderman Fleming said, “I appreciate your view on this, but as you indicated, you brought this forward. No citizens have brought this forward. The businesses say it’s for advertising. It is a tough economic climate and they want to advertise. I’m sure that we want to fill up our store fronts too. I guess the owners of those centers don’t mind that their tenants can advertise. We just have a difference of opinion on this.” Alderman Terbrock said, “I have been contacted by a resident and business owner. He is a resident of the city and own a business in the city. There is a portion of this that addresses the concerns that he had. It’s not the trucks parked on the streets, it’s about other parking. I’ve been doing a lot of work in the University City area and Page and Hwy. 141, in Overland, etc. It looks pretty bad over there and the trucks are parked all over the place. From that standpoint, I don’t want to see Manchester Road look like that. While this takes care of one issue that a resident contacted me, I think the rest of it is justified in my mind as well. I think they’re lining up for U-Haul trucks to letter them up and put them in front of businesses. I don’t think we need that.” Alderman Dogan said, “I concur with Alderman Fleming’s comments. My concern about this brought up at the last meeting was that this might be kind of anti-business. Alderman Fleming’s comments have solidified that in my mind. I barely notice these vehicles when I drive on Manchester Road. It’s nice to be reminded sometimes that we have X business in Ballwin and that businesses like to come here. I’d like to keep it that way. I haven’t received any contact from residents complaining about this. My wife hasn’t complained about this either. She usually complains about stuff she thinks are eyesores. If it passes her test, it passes mine. I’ll be joining Alderman Fleming in opposing this at this time.” Alderman Finley said, “We previously discussed the truck that hasn’t moved for months. Would the operation of the proposed legislation cause such a truck to fall under commercial vehicle, Section E, or box truck?” City Attorney Jones said, “It would depend on the size of the vehicle.” Alderman Finley said, “Under delivery service vehicle, those vehicles would be exempt as long as they are being moved in regular use three or more days per week. My concern is, does the legislation sufficiently address such a vehicle that’s just sitting there for weeks or months.” City Attorney Jones said, “Yes. If it’s not being regularly used for delivery services…..” Alderman Finley said, “Such a truck that’s not being regularly used, does it become, by definition, a commercial motor vehicle?” City Attorney Jones said, “It’s already a commercial vehicle.” Alderman Finley said, “The exception is the delivery service vehicle and we want it being moved 3 or more days per week.” Mayor Pogue said, “It allows the business that is truthfully using these vehicles, we have multiple businesses that deliver and have their vehicles parked in front. Alderman Boland said, “Before I became aware of the issues here, going up and down Manchester Road the last several years, I have seen the inflatable signs and trucks. It all comes down to what do we want to be. I think we are business friendly. Des Peres is business friendly. In Des Peres, they put up a sound wall, and they have very strict requirements on commercial development. I think we are still a business friendly city, so I’ll respectfully disagree with Alderman Fleming and Alderman Dogan. We need to pay attention to these sorts of things, because when we don’t pay attention to this, everything else creeps up on you. Whether it’s trucks with signs, animated balloons, etc. We want to be a destination. Des Peres is strict on what they allow. I think we should have something in place. From the perspective of being business friendly, Ballwin has always been business friendly. It’s a matter of paying attention to the little stuff. The Commercial District Overlay that we worked on years ago, addresses these things. We need to pay attention to what’s going on in the interim with the trucks, flashing signs, and balloons that are the size of a truck.” Alderman Terbrock said, “Stating that this may not be business friendly, Section 2 is very business friendly in the fact that it’s allowing some of the businesses to have vehicles and trailers that are essential to do business, when now they are being cited for having those. It’s allowing them to take care of the situation and have it on the premises when needed. They’re not allowed have that now. One side may appear to not be business friendly, the other side is extremely business friendly. That section alone doesn’t have anything to do with the trucks parked out front, but it is allowing people that need the vehicles to have them.” Mayor Pogue said, “The businesses that really need those vehicles are still going to be allowed to have them.” Alderman Terbrock said, “If this is going to be voted down, I would like to make amendments. Section 2 is definitely needed. There are a lot of people who are burdened by not being able to have their vehicles parked on their property, and have to take them other places. The ones who are following the laws and taking the vehicles other places and moving them back and forth is not business friendly at all.” Alderman Dogan said, “How would Code Inspectors measure a sign to see if it exceeds 10% of the face of the vehicle?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said it is a fairly simple process. The inspector measures the height and length of the vehicle and the size of the sign. If it is within the 10% rule it is ok. If it is not, a notice can be issued. Alderman Dogan asked, “Wouldn’t that occupy a lot of time if businesses react to this by trying to get the signage under 10%, or getting it to 15%, or signs that are shaped in a weird way. How do you measure a squiggly sign?” Mr. Aiken said the sign code already stipulates the technique to be used to measure such signs. The smallest rectangle that incorporates the sign is measured to determine the area of the sign. Alderman Terbrock asked, “Isn’t code enforcement complaint driven?” Mr. Aiken said, that complaints are a significant component of code enforcement, and they will undoubtedly play a role in the enforcement of this regulation if it is approved, but the parking of these large vehicles is a very public and obvious violation. I believe that such violations will be very visible to the inspectors and me as we drive along Manchester Rd. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Harder for a second reading of Bill No. 3781. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3781 was read for the second time. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3781 with the following results: BILL # 3782 - AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., FOR OPERATION OF A GROCERY STORE WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES BY THE DRINK FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES WHERE SOLD. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Kerlagon for a first reading of Bill No. 3782. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3782 was read for the first time. Alderman Fleming said, “Since the Minutes for the Planning & Zoning meeting on April 1 have not yet been approved, was it suggested to approve as Planning & Zoning recommended as indoor only consumption?” City Attorney Jones said, “The recommendation was for approval with no alcohol being consumed outside of the building, on the parking lot, or in the seating area.” Alderman Fleming said indoor only. Robert Wiegert, Managing Officer for alcoholic beverages for Schnuck Markets, said, “Regarding the Kehrs Mill store, this is an effort to allow consumption on premise. We have this at our Des Peres and Wildwood stores, our Culinary store in downtown St. Louis, and in Columbia, Missouri. There are noise ordinances available. The liquor license is annually renewed. The seating at the Kehrs Mill store is 30 seats in the outdoor area, which is the furthest location away from the Ballwin residents and close to the dock area where store deliveries are made. Aerial photographs have been provided to the Board of Aldermen of the locations where on premise consumption is allowed. It’s similar to the Kehrs Mill store location. Any outdoor consumption would be seasonal and limited. A time limit would be appropriate instead of a prohibition against having the onsite consumption available at the outdoor seating area. This would address the speculative concern about potential noise problems. There have not been any residential complaints regarding the other locations about noise or the businesses being turned into taverns or bars. Mayor Pogue asked who is the target customer for this type service? Mr. Wiegert said, “It’s not just a matter of popularity. People are more interested in wine, craft beer, food items. We have an extensive sampling program at the stores. This offers another opportunity for a type of sampling that combines food items with alcohol items.” Alderman Kerlagon said, “I was there last week. I thought I understood the staff said that in the outside seating, there would be no alcoholic beverages.” Mr. Wiegert said, “I can’t speak for what an individual may have stated to you. The Planning & Zoning Commission made that recommendation. If someone wants to sample a bottle of wine and share it outside in the nice weather, it’s available. That’s what we’re interested in. We’re not trying to turn this into a beer garden, but it’s part of the availability that we want to be part of the convenience for the customers.” Alderman Kerlagon asked, “Are the patrons allowed to drink on the inside in the upstairs where there is seating for people?” Mr. Wiegert said this will be available inside the store. Alderman Kerlagon asked, “Is it available in the actual store part where the wine is sold?” Mr. Wiegert said, “It is a consumption on the premises and is allowed, but we’re not trying to do that. The intention is not so that people can walk around the store and consume while they are shopping. I don’t see anyone doing that.” Alderman Terbrock asked what is the definition of premises? City Attorney Jones said, “It’s very broad and would include the outdoor area, but for this restriction that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended placing on this particular overlay district amendment.” Alderman Terbrock said, “If the statute says on the premises, why is this being discussed?” City Attorney Jones said, “We can be more restrictive within the municipality.” Alderman Harder said, “I’ve been to two of the stores, and the aerial photographs don’t help your case because of the way the store is laid out. Wildwood and Des Peres have a front door where the seating faces a parking lot and not a residential area.” Mr. Wiegert said, “There are variations on all of these locations. I want to give the Board an idea of the proximity of the residential.” Alderman Harder said, “The issue is noise when people are outside. At the Kehrs Mill store, the seating area is at the front of the store which faces east to the surrounding neighborhoods. I went to the Des Peres store on a Sunday. There was a guy with a saxophone, accordion and trombone outside selling hotdogs and people could sit outside and drink on a Sunday morning. I guess it was okay for that location. If that occurred at the Kehrs Mill store, it could be heard at the Marquette school. This is a slippery slope of the next thing. If people are drinking outside, they will want music, and whatever comes next. I can see their point. In this case, the way the store is built, there’s no buffer for sound or anything. It goes into the neighborhood around it. I’m in favor of the restriction in this regard. I don’t have an opinion on the Manchester Road store, but it doesn’t have seating outside.” Alderman Harder said, “I’m not a person who will buy a bottle of wine and walk around the store looking for fruit loops. Are you going to build a bar, will it be in a designated area, or can they walk around the whole store and drink?” Mr. Wiegert said, “No. We would control this. We’re not allowing people to walk around the store while drinking from a bottle wine while they’re looking for fruit loops. We do have the mezzanine seating in the store. People can enjoy the food and alcoholic beverage in the seating areas that the store has available, including the outside area. There is a noise ordinance in place and an annual renewal process for liquor licenses. There are businesses that get into bad habits or get noisy and have problems, those are addressed at annual renewal time. I don’t see that happening based on our experience with the other stores that have on-site construction.” Alderman Boland asked, “How long have these other stores has this type of setup?” Mr. Wiegert said, “The downtown and Des Peres store has been 4 years. Wildwood has been 3 years, and Columbia 2 years.” Alderman Boland asked, “Have there been any incidents at Des Peres or Wildwood?” Mr. Wiegert said zero. There have been no issues. Alderman Boland asked, “What is the target for these stores?” Mr. Wiegert said, “The discriminating shopper; people who are wanting to try beers or wine on a Saturday or early evening. This is very similar to our Des Peres and Wildwood stores.” Alderman Leahy asked what time limit he recommends be used? Mr. Wiegert said 10:00 p.m. Alderman Fleming pointed out that these restrictions are not being placed on the Manchester Road store. City Attorney Jones said that the Planning & Zoning Commission did not recommend the same restriction on the Manchester Road store.” Mayor Pogue said, since there is no outdoor seating, they would not be allowed to do that. City Attorney Jones said, “The State statutory definition includes the whole site where the building locate. At Manchester, without the restriction, people could legally drink in the parking lot.” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “The State Liquor Control views the premises to be the place where alcohol is sold under normal business operations. The Manchester Road store does not have outdoor seating. Their Special Use Exception doesn’t provide for outdoor seating. They wouldn’t be allowed to do this and the State wouldn’t consider that to be premises. That’s why I believe it wasn’t considered to be an issue when the Planning Commission discussed this. There isn’t any outdoor seating and its not the same kind of circumstance. The Kehrs Mill Store has outdoor seating and the State would probably consider that to be premises, but for any kind of limitation that Ballwin would place on it would prohibit the sale outside. This premises position is what I was told by the State. I don’t have this in writing.” City Attorney Jones said, “Our ordinance definition is broader. We cannot be broader than the State restrictions. If the State is going to consider the license definition premises to be where the alcohol is sold, it would not be allowed outdoors at the Manchester store.” Alderman Fleming said there are about 30 seats outside. How many are indoors? Mr. Wiegert said, “there are about 80 indoor seats.” Alderman Fleming asked Michael Wind, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, if he wanted to make any comments at this time. Mr. Wind said, “The Kehrs Mill store is set up with the parking lot facing the residential back yards. At the other stores, the parking lots are not facing residential areas. We felt it is in the best interest of the residents to have this restriction in the ordinance.” Alderman Fleming said, “The indoor restriction is not on the Manchester Road store. There were no residents showing concern about this for the Manchester Road store.” Mr. Wind said, “That is a large strip mall type of environment with no residential area close by.” Alderman Fleming said, “After all of the input, I’m inclined to support the restriction for the Kehrs Mill Store as recommended by Planning & Zoning.” Alderman Dogan said, “In the exhibit, #4, no food or beverage of any kind is served or dispensed to persons inside of automobiles or other vehicles except from a drive-through window and/or designated waiting spaces. Will this apply?” City Attorney Jones said, “No. This is standard language in all of our Special Use Exceptions.” Alderman Dogan said, “#16 says no outdoor entertainment shall be allowed. That addresses concerns down the road.” Alderman Finley said, “I may or may not be a conscientious objector in this situation. My remarks pertain to families with young children. As an elected official, I do not want to infringe on citizens’ liberties and enjoying legal activities; however, that should not infringe on another person’s liberty. Parents have the liberty to raise children as they see fit, including teaching of morals. Alcohol consumption can be viewed by some as immoral, and when it’s viewed by small children, many of us would agree that it’s inappropriate. Parents can avoid the sight of people drinking by avoiding various places. If someone has a major problem with people drinking alcohol, they can keep their children away from that area. People have to go to grocery stores. People have to eat. This situation is contrary to the S.U.E. provisions about adversely affecting the general welfare of the community and adversely affecting public safety and health. I do not mean anything specifically against Schnucks. I have always found them to be a family oriented company. I think this is a misstep on their part. If this situation comes up again from other stores where families normally go, I will also be against such legislation. I am open to amendments to restrict consumption to the upstairs area, or a sign stating no one under 21 allowed. The on premises consumption of alcohol at a grocery store, in my opinion, is inappropriate.” A motion was made by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Terbrock to allow outdoor alcohol consumption in the 30-seat outdoor area. A voice vote was taken with the following result: Alderman Dogan said his proposed amendment is to use 10:00 p.m. as a cut off time for consumption in the outdoor seating area. Alderman Boland asked what would be the cut off time for indoor consumption? Mr. Weigert said this could be the same as the outdoor. Alderman Boland asked if there is a cut off time at the Des Peres store? Mr. Weigert said he doesn’t know, but 1:00 a.m. is the State regulated time. Alderman Boland asked if the amendment is strictly for the outdoor or overall. Alderman Dogan said, “Since we’re not doing outdoor, it’s just for indoor.” Mayor Pogue asked, “Is there anything that would restrict someone from consuming the alcoholic beverage inside and then proceeding outside to be with friends?” Mr. Weigert said, “We would police that.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “That could jeopardize their license renewal if there are complaints.” Mayor Pogue said, “If we approve this, as recommended by Planning & Zoning, is there anything that will restrict someone from consuming the alcoholic beverage inside the facility, and then going outside where their friends are at the outside seating area?” City Attorney Jones said there would be no such restriction. As long as they are not consuming outside, it would be within the scope of this bill as it’s currently proposed. The comment was that in the annual license renewal, if the crowds are getting loud, then it might be considered. You would not be precluded from buying it indoors, consuming it, and then sitting outdoors. They would be precluded from serving it or consuming it outdoors.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “What will happen if someone goes into the store, buys an alcoholic beverage, and then goes outside with friends and drinks the beer or wine?” Mr. Weigert said, “If it’s a restricted area, we will tell them to leave or that they can’t consume outside.” Alderman Finley said, “Since Leahy’s amendment failed, we’re still left with the word premises, which included the outside.” City Attorney Jones said, “No. Paragraphs 16 and 17 speak about outdoor entertainment and outdoor consumption, neither of which is allowed.” A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Harder for a second reading of Bill No. 3782. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3782 was read for the second time. Findings: A vote in favor of the bill finds that the Petition, as submitted, would not substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion; would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; would not adversely affect the general welfare of the community; would not over-tax public utilities; would not adversely affect public safety and health; is consistent with good planning practice; can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the District; and can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area. A vote against the bill means that one or more of these findings is absent. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3782 with the following results: BILL # 3783 - AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION TO SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., FOR OPERATION OF A GROCERY STORE WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES BY THE DRINK FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES WHERE SOLD. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Boland for a first reading of Bill No. 3783. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3783 was read for the first time. Alderman Fleming said, “The same restriction was not asked for by Planning & Zoning on this store.” City Attorney Jones said that is correct. Alderman Fleming asked, “Would there be any value to putting the same restriction on this?” City Attorney Jones said, “Not at this time. As long as they don’t have outdoor seating, it wouldn’t make any difference. If they decided to add outdoor seating, they could allow outdoor consumption at that location.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “That would probably necessitate a Special Use Exception application, based on the layout of the store. There isn’t room for this as it’s currently laid out.” Alderman Fleming said, “For the sake of consistency, we should do this the same as the other store. Planning and Zoning took a lot of citizen input into account with the Kehrs Mill store, which wasn’t necessary with the Manchester Road store because citizens did not respond.” Alderman Boland said the Manchester store is older and some remodeling has been done. Are there any plans to do anything further with this store?” Mr. Wiegert said, “Not in regard to outdoor seating, which would include alcohol consumption. We would have to come back for a Special Use Exception application. This has not even been considered.” Alderman Boland asked, “Where will this be indoors?” Mr. Wiegert said, “There is a community room in the front of the store that we could use for this.” Alderman Dogan asked, “Are there any plans for outdoor entertainment at the Manchester Road store?” Mr. Wiegert said no. Amendment: A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Kerlagon, to add the exclusion for outdoor consumption, which will include language similar to Bill 3782, #16 and 17 of the Exhibit.” A voice vote was taken with the following result: Aye: Kerlagon, Finley, Harder, Dogan, Fleming, Leahy. Nay: Boland, Terbrock. The amendment was approved by a vote of 6-2. Alderman Finley said, “I reiterate all of my comments from the debate on Bill 3782.” A motion was made by Alderman Harder and seconded by Alderman Fleming for a second reading of Bill No. 3783, as amended. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3783 was read for the second time. Findings: A vote in favor of the bill finds that the Petition, as submitted, would not substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion; would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; would not adversely affect the general welfare of the community; would not over-tax public utilities; would not adversely affect public safety and health; is consistent with good planning practice; can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the District; and can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area. A vote against the bill means that one or more of these findings is absent. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3783 with the following results: BILL # 3784 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED PER ORDINANCE 09-20, FOR CERTAIN LAND AT CLAYTON ROAD AND HENRY AVENUE IN THE CITY OF BALLWIN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BALLWIN GROVE PLAZA. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Kerlagon for a first reading of Bill No. 3784. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3784 was read for the first time. City Administrator Kuntz said this legislation includes parking restrictions relative to fire lanes and an amended landscape plan. Alderman Fleming said, “The development is popular, has done very well, and is attractive. There are parking issues and complaints regarding parking. Correcting it has been a cooperative effort by everyone involved.” Bill Bierman said, “It’s my understanding that the plan that you have contemplates the fire lane being partially on the west side of Willbrook Lane, which is the street that runs through the plaza. Some of the tenants spoke to the fire district and discussed the possibility of tweeking this so that the fire lane would only be on the east side of Willbrook Lane. That’s not reflected on the plan. If that is acceptable to the fire district, that would be desired by the petitioner.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “How many parking places are currently on the lot?” Mr. Bierman said, “If the 23 are approved, it would be 96 total.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Mr. Aiken pointed this out that it’s 154. Mr. Aiken also pointed out that there are a few required trees that are not in evidence. We’ll go with this with the understanding that this will be resolved accordingly. Is that acceptable?” Mr. Bierman said yes. Alderman Boland asked, “In this particular case, they ran out of parking spots. Wasn’t there a calculation that’s typically done for parking spots relative to the size of the building?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “Yes. The ordinance stipulates so many spaces per square foot of floor area, based on the use. In this case, the entire area is the highest use, which is 5 spaces per thousand square feet. That’s what retail demands, even though the bank arguably isn’t standard retail. We still did this. Since so many of our plazas are so grossly over-parked, one of the things this neighborhood commercial district does is recommend a backing off of that parking standard. They wanted the full compliment of spaces when they initially submitted the proposal. They agreed to not build 40-some spaces initially, but they provided for them in the plan so that if they needed them in the future, they could be built without having to come back for an amendment to the plan. They built those spaces, but they still need more. When they built those spaces, they were fully parked, according to our code. The spaces that you are approving tonight with this amended plan, the additional 20-some spaces, actually puts them above what our code requires, but they clearly have established the need for those parking spaces.” Alderman Boland said, “I have been there a couple of times, and it’s unbelievable the volume of people and cars. Is there something amiss with the calculation with regards to restaurants?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “Not based on my historical experiences. They just happen to have two really popular places in that plaza right now. As long as that continues to be the case, they will need this additional parking. Someday, if that is not the case, then they will be over parked.&rdq |
Contact Us |
(636) 227-9000 voice |
|
