MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2005

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2005 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur was called to order by Mayor Harold L. Dielmann at the Creve Coeur Government Center, 300 North New Ballas Road on Monday, October 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION ROLL CALL The Pledge of Allegiance was given. The Invocation was given by Mayor Dielmann. The following members were present: Mr. Dielmann Dr. Barton Mrs. Kistner Ms. Lynch Mr. Mitchell Mr. Kassander Mr. Haddenhorst Ms. Bryant Mayor Council Member Ward I Council Member Ward I Council Member Ward II Council Member Ward II Council Member Ward III Council Member Ward III Council Member Ward IV Mrs. Rhoades, Council Member Ward IV was absent. PUBLILC HEARINGS No Public Hearings were scheduled for this meeting. ADDITIONS TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Council Member Kistner moved, seconded by Council Member Mitchell, acceptance of the Agenda. Mayor Dielmann called for the vote on the acceptance of the Agenda as submitted, with the vote upon such motion being as follows, to-wit: Council Member Barton Aye Council Member Kistner Aye Council Member Mitchell Aye Council Member Lynch Aye Council Member Kassander Aye Council Member Bryant Aye

2 Council Member Haddenhorst Aye COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC Mayor Dielmann asked if there was anyone in attendance who wished to address the Council. Ms. Susan Murphy, representing the Creve Coeur-Olivette Chamber of Chamber of Commerce addressed the Council and read a statement on Eminent Domain. She stated at the last meeting a member of the Council had requested input and the Creve Coeur-Olivette Chamber of Commerce had drafted a Resolution, which included their specific recommendations. A copy of said Statement is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Council Member Lynch said there was a public forum being held on Eminent Domain at 7 p.m. on Thursday, October 27, at the Brentwood Community Center hosted by several of the State Legislators. ANNOUNCEMENTS The City Clerk announced: The City Council meets the 2 nd and 4 th Monday of each month 6:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Work Session and Agenda Review 7:00 p.m. Regular meeting of the City Council Public Hearings: November 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan for the Bonefish Grill Restaurant to be located at Olive Boulevard in the West Oak Square 1. Consent Ordinance Readings (A) Bill No for an Ordinance approving an amendment to the Master Signage Plan for the Plaza Motors campus, located south of Olive Boulevard and east of Center Parkway Drive, and zoned CB Core Business District, Final Reading Bill No was read for the final time by the City Clerk. Council Member Bryant said that the new facility at the Plaza Motors was a remarkable facility and she felt they should be very proud of it. (B) Bill No for an Ordinance to change the name of Country Glen Drive to Country Glen Lane as part of the Creve Coeur Place Subdivision, Final Reading 2. Consent Agenda Bill No was read for the final time by the City Clerk.

3 Council Member Kistner moved, seconded by Council Member Haddenhorst, approval of the Consent Agenda as submitted, with the vote upon such motion being as follows, to-wit: Council Member Haddnhorst Aye Council Member Bryant Aye Council Member Kassander Aye Council Member Lynch Aye Council Member Mitchell Aye Council Member Kistner Aye Council Member Barton Aye (A) Minutes Regular Meeting of the City Council dated October 10, 2005 The Council approved the minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council dated October 10, 2005 as submitted. (B) Bills Payable October 24, 2004 in the amount of $200,341.55, Entry Date of October 19, 2005 Summary of Accounts by Departments: No Department, No Division - $2, Legislative, Mayor & Council - $12, Administrative - $4, Administrative, MIS Operations - $ Finance, Administrative - $9, Finance, Municipal Court - $1, Finance, Interdepartmental - $1, Community Services, Ice Arena - $12, Community Services, Golf Course - $10, Community Services, Pro Shop - $2, Community Services, Food - $2, Municipal Facilities, Maintenance - $1, Police, Administration - $7, Police, Investigations - $10, Police, Patrol - $2, Public Works, Administration - $ Public Works, Streets - $5, Public Works, Health & Welfare - $36.56 Public Works, Parks - $15, Community Development, Administration - $ Community Development, Inspections - $ Capital Improvement Fund - $96, Total - $200, The City Council approved the Bills Payable in the amount of $200, with an Entry Date of October 19, (C) Bill No for an Ordinance approving an amendment to the Master Signage Plan for the Plaza Motors campus, located south of Olive Boulevard and

4 east of Center Parkway Drive, and zoned CB Core Business District, Passage as Ordinance No The Council approved Ordinance No approving an amendment to the Master Signage Plan for the Plaza Motors campus. (D) Bill No for an Ordinance to change the name of Country Glen Drive to Country Glen Lane as part of the Creve Coeur Place Subdivision, Passage as Ordinance No The Council approved Ordinance No to change the name of Country Glen Drive to Country Glen Lane in the Creve Coeur Place Subdivision. (E) Resolution No. 655 of the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Feld Chevrolet Company for the purchase of a 2006 One-Ton Dump Truck for an amount not to exceed $35, ($41, less $5,650 Trade-In of a 1996 GMC One-Ton Dump Truck with 38,000 plus miles. The Council approved Resolution No. 655 authorizing the purchase of a One Ton Dump Truck for an amount not to exceed $35, with trade in of a 1996 GMC One Ton Dump Truck. (F) Resolution No. 656 of the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with F&C Truck Sales for the purchase of a 2006 Two-Ton Dump Truck for an amount not to exceed $65, ($63, less $5, for trade-in of 1996 GMC 70 Top Kick Two-Ton Dump Truck with 40,000 plus miles, plus the Cross Conveyor Spreader option for $7,033.00) The Council approved Resolution No. 656 authorizing the purchase of a 2006 Two-Ton Dump Truck from F& C Truck Sales for an amount not to exceed $65, plus the cross conveyor spreader option for $7, (G) Resolution No. 657 of the City Council of the City of Creve Coeur, Missouri authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Art s Lawn Mower Shop for the purchase of a 72 Riding Lawn Mower for an amount not to exceed $11, ($12, less $ Trade In of a 1998, 72 Toro Riding Mower) The Council approved Resolution No. 657 authorizing the purchase of a 72 inch riding lawn mower from Art s Lawn Mower Shop for an amount not to exceed $11, (H) Application for a Original Package Liquor License (not including Sunday Sales), an Ordinance Package Liquor License (Sunday Sales) and a Wine & Malt Liquor Tasting Permit for Trader Joe s Inc. to be located at Olive Boulevard The Council approved a Original Package Liquor License (not including Sales), an Original Package Liquor License (Sunday Sales) and a Wine & Malt Liquor Tasting Permit for Trader Joe s Inc. to be located at Olive Boulevard.

5 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Bill No for an Ordinance for rezoning of property from A to B Single Family residential District with a RDD Residential Design Development overlay for the Giverny Subdivision to be located at Ladue Road, continued from Council Meeting of June 27, August 8, 22 and September 26, Letter of Request received from Taylor Morley that the Bill be deferred to October 24, Bill No was deferred at the October 10, 2005 Council Meeting until October 24, 2005, Second, Third Readings and Passage as Ordinance No Bill No was read for the second time by the City Clerk. Council Member Lynch moved, seconded by Council Member Kistner, the Council pursuant to Section RSMO., 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 (1) RSMo., with the vote upon such motion being as follows, to-wit: Council Member Barton Aye Council Member Kistner Aye Council Member Mitchell Aye Council Member Lynch Aye Council Member Kassander - Aye Council Member Bryant Aye Council Member Haddenhorst Aye The Council moved to closed session at 7:10 p.m. Council Member Kassander moved, seconded by Council Member Haddenhorst, the Council reconvene the public meeting, with the vote upon such motion being as follows, to-wit: Council Member Haddenhorst Aye Council Member Bryant Aye Council Member Lynch Aye Council Member Kassander Aye Council Member Mitchell Aye Council Member Kistner Aye Council Member Barton Aye The Council reconvened the public meeting at 7:20 p.m. 3. Bill No (Continued) Bill No was read for the third time by the City Clerk.

6 Mayor Dielmann asked if there were any comments from the developer. Mr. Bill Taylor, representing Taylor Morley Homes, said they did not but they would be happy to answer any questions. He said the development had been 3. Bill No (Continued) approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and with the park he felt they had made a lot of compromises and it was an excellent development. The City Attorney asked Mr. Taylor, the developer, if he was officially seeking approval of the revised plans submitted on October 20, and Mr. Taylor advised that was correct. Council Member Kassander said he felt the audience would be interested in seeing the revisions to the plans and asked if it could be shown on the overview. The Planning Director outlined on the drawing and said the parking area had been moved to the east but the exact location had not been determined. The trail that leads from the parking lot to the retention pond has been moved to the east and the curve allows for wheelchair accessibility and the revised Bill No before council provides that the trail should be completely paved. He said access for automobiles for maintenance was very important and the developer s trucks need to maintain the detention area and would be necessary for them to have accessibility as well as for any work that would need to be done by the City. He said they are proposing 8 inches of pavement over 4 inches of rock. Council Member Bryant asked where the path ends and the Planning Director advised that would have to be engineered that he did not think it was connected to Kingshill and there was no way to physically do it without a large amount of grading being done. He said he would like to suggest that it connect at grade. Council Member Bryant asked if there had been any feedback from the residents who live in that area if they wanted the path connected and he advised here had not. Council Member Haddenhorst advised that the Koziateck s were opposed to connecting it. Council Member Bryant outlined what had happened in Millennium Park and said she was trying to address what would be there now or if it would be a dead end. The City Planner said there was nothing in detail envisioned at this point but they would take the residents concern into consideration and this aspect would go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and he had not anticipated it would be connected. The Director of Planning said he was aware the applicant objects to Condition 1 in the Ordinance as he wants the mulch trail as opposed to the paved trail. Another change was the trail in this portion of the plan was pushed forward as opposed to being closer to the western property line. He said there would be a three foot high split rail fence abutting the trail. The City Attorney said for clarification, the revised Bill that he and staff had tried to present language addressing various points that had come up the last time there was substantive discussion about this and the changes could be pulled out of the draft as amendments if the Council chose to. He said he was not recommending a motion for a total substitution but the Council could pick and choose if they want to, that the underlined text was the new language. He said some changes are for clarification that

7 there was a Plan D added for MoDOT s consideration but most had been generated to address potential conditions that were mentioned at various times in the last discussion. 3. Bill No (Continued) Council Member Bryant stated for the record, in the opinion of the City Attorney these changes were not substantial enough to warrant sending it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Attorney advised he would not consider them of that type that it was clarifying the design of the park, security arrangements, adding potential language to protect the neighboring lakes that the subdivisions have expressed concern about, that it was not changing the nature of the proposed project. Mr. B. Taylor, the developer said for the record they do object to the latest Bill discussing the type of the path with 4 inches of rock, that they would like to see it as a passive park and mulch oriented in trying to following as much as possible the existing pathways that have been formed with the church over the years and not disturb as much of the natural vegetation and tree growth that was there now. He said that was their concept as opposed to an asphalt path. Mr. Taylor said it had been mentioned that Mr. Koziatek was opposed to the project. He said he had signed a petition in opposition and they had met with him individually and when they had a subdivision meeting of approximately 50 people and he thought that Mr. Koziatek and one other person that live along that area would not like to see the development or the park. He said everyone else along there in excess of people that abut the property as well many of the residents who live in the subdivision. He said those that live along the north side of Ladue Road the response had been overwhelming that have the most at stake as relates to accessibility to the park from both sides on Ladue Road and the Creve Coeur Place side that there was only 10 out of 300 residents on the north side of Ladue Road that were in favor of the project. Council Member Kassander asked Mr. Taylor if he was saying 300 residents were in favor of the project. Mr. Taylor said they had sent flyers to approximately 500 homes on the north side of Ladue Road of which about 300 live directly in Creve Coeur Place Subdivision or to the north that would be most impacted and there were only 10 homeowners who have spoken out against the project. He said Mr. Koziatek was impacted because he was in the immediate vicinity but there were many other residents who were in favor or have not contacted them in opposition to the park and accessibility. Council Member Barton said the Planning Director had mentioned at a previous meeting that as long as it needed to be hard surface that it should be concrete as it has better longevity and has the option of being paved over if necessary in the future and concrete was more esthetically appealing and more durable. He asked if that was still his opinion or why they had gone back to the asphalt. The Director of Public Works said when it was presented as an asphalt path he had looked at it from the standpoint as to what should be done to have the vehicles to get across it and with a cross-section of asphalt it would meet those requirements. He had not done the same for concrete as it had not been presented. Council Member Barton asked if the park was built and they put in sidewalks what would be required such as in Millennium Park and he was advised it was asphalt. He said his preference would be concrete and it would last longer but

8 there are those who like the esthetics of asphalt. The City Administrator said the width had also been discussed and it is proposed at 5 feet and all of the other park paths have a width ranging from 6-10 feet and he felt that should be a Council consideration of at 3. Bill No (Continued) least 6 feet. Council Member Bryant asked the width at Conway and Millennium Parks and she was advised they were 10 feet at Millennium Park and approximately 8 feet in Conway Park. Mayor Dielmann asked the width in Beirne Park and he was advised they were 6 feet. Council Member Bryant asked how the widths were determined and she was advised it was different periods of time and Millennium was the most recent at 10 feet. Mayor Dielmann asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this Bill. Mr. Ted Thomas, 153 Ladue Oaks Drive addressed the Council. He said he had been a subdivision trustee for 29 years and during that time the Ladue Pines residents were successful in deterring the owners of Woodbridge and Ladue Downs from efforts to increase density beyond one house, one acre and maintaining the integrity of the Ladue Road corridor. He said the Council had signed documentation that an overwhelming majority of Ladue Pines residents were opposed to increasing the density by changing the Building Code on the Thompson House property. He said they were aware that the Creve Coeur Master Plan makes reference to increasing the density if the new plan performs a significant public service or improvement. He said the developer had led them to believe that endorsing a turning lane for Ladue Pines in the proposed Giverny entrances would be beneficial and there is no way a turning lane will make it easier or safer to exit from Ladue Pines or Giverny onto Ladue Road. He said the developer s proposal to the City of a small pocket park would have very limited use by Creve Coeur residents and any parking access from Ladue Road would add to existing traffic problems and the proposed park acreage was the least desirable building site on the property and was no sacrifice by the developer for Creve Coeur. Mr. Thomas urged the Council to maintain the integrity of the Zoning Code in the Ladue Road corridor and said if they carefully considered the Giverny proposal they would realize there was insufficient benefits to Creve Coeur as prescribed in the Master Plan to change the Code as requested. Mr. Thomas urged the members of Council to fulfill their elected duty by voting no. Council Member Bryant said Mr. Thomas had made a reference to the Land Use Plan regarding public benefit and asked he read that portion again. Mr. Thomas again read that portion, to-wit: we are aware that the Creve Coeur Master Plan makes reference to increasing the density if a new plan performs a significant public service or improvement. Council Member Bryant asked the Planning Director and said it was her understanding that promoting public benefit or advancing one does not quite say that and asked if there was another reference other than the one he was referring to other than on Page 43. The Planning Director asked if it was that directly sees public benefit that it was on Page 44, Paragraph 1 and Council Member Bryant said that was not what he had said. The Planning Director advised it was his interpretation. Council Member Bryant said that he had said that the new proposal promotes a public benefit and that was not what the Land Use Plan says. It says that single family zoning will not be changed to other classifications unless it is demonstrated that the existing zoning no longer advances the public benefit and was different than saying the Land Use Plan

9 recommends an increase in density if it promotes a public benefit. She said her question was if there was a sentence in the Land Use Plan that says what he had said and the Planning Director advised it was 3. Bill No (Continued) not. Council Member Bryant said there was a difference and asked the Planning Director if he agreed and he said yes. Council Member Bryant said she thought there was some confusion and she felt it should be clarified before other people misunderstand the sentence. The Planning Director said that one suggests that there should be a change in order to receive some benefit and the other one states that since there is no benefit being provided the change not warranted. Mr. Thomas said he thought in the case of the Giverny project that in granting more than one house per acre was because of the public benefit of changing Mason Road and the intersection. Council Member Bryant said because it was specifically outlined in the Land Use Plan but had nothing to do with the sentence he was referring to in the Land Use Plan and she wanted to make sure for his benefit and everyone else that they understand the difference between the Land Use Plan requiring that the existing zoning has to no longer advance the public benefit vs. a new proposal promoting a public benefit. She said the burden is placed on the existing zoning that they had to make the case that it no longer advances a public benefit that it was not enough for the proposed project to advance a public benefit and that was not what the Land Use Plan says. Mr. Lauren Landeau, 365 Lyonnaise addressed the Council and said he understood there was a letter on October 20 to the Council and now 4 days later the Council is asked to vote on something that the public did not know about or hear about and the Council had only had 4 days to look at it. Council Member Kistner asked what he was referring to and Mr. Landeau said a letter had been sent with changes from the developer, October 20, and that was only four days and Council Member Kistner said they were minor. Mr. Landeau said they were changes and he felt the changes have been made according to the park and the Council was asked to vote on and the changes had just been made and not discussed with the public. He said the City has not determined where the path would end or what kind of pavement would be used. He said he had been a homeowner here and one of the main things that has been asserted was that the homeowners in Creve Coeur want to sell their homes and move into this project and he had done an informal sample and most of the people in his and the surrounding area and around retirement age had said they did not want to give up their home and move into a more expensive home to stay in Creve Coeur and he did not think that was true. He said the developer had said they sent out approximately 500 flyers to the people who lived north and only 10 people opposed it but did not say that 300 were in favor of it and had only said 10 people opposed it and does not mean that all the rest of them had made their comments known. Mr. Landeau said he felt the point needs to be further looked into. Mr. Colman Kraus, a resident of the Royal Gate Subdivision addressed the Council and said he had visited every home in the subdivision and had 98 signatures on a petition that said: As a citizen of Creve Coeur concerned about the character and quality of life in Creve Coeur, I adamantly oppose any change in zoning of the Thompson Center property located at 1214 Ladue Road from its current zoning. I respectfully request that the Thompson Center property remain zoned A for one home

10 for one acre. He said he was amazed at how many people were familiar with the subject and submitted the petitions to the Clerk. 3. Bill No (Continued) Council Member Bryant asked for clarification. the petition was not a Protest Petition. The City Attorney advised without looking at it he did not know one way or the other and Council Member Bryant said for the record. The City Attorney said without looking at it he did not know but unless it specifically meets the Statute, no, it must be within 185 feet and the Mayor advised it was approximately one mile west. Mr. Robert Hoffman, 212 Ladue Oaks Drive and a Trustee of the Ladue Pines Subdivision addressed the Council. Mr. Hoffman said he thought the changes were significant, that he did not think they were minor and he thought that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to look at them. He said when they had left the meeting last time this was a concrete area/asphalt path and he had now found out it was going to be a shredded mulch path. He said this was not made public and he did not think anyone knew about this until a few minutes ago. Mr. Hoffman said he thought the changes of moving the parking lot closer to Ladue Pines entrance would be harmful to traffic and he was not sure why they need a parking lot there at all and the fact that there was no end to the trail in Kingshill defeats the purpose of connectivity which had been talked about from the beginning. He said he thought there were a lot of changes that seem to be subtle but were very important to Ladue Pines and were on the south side of this subdivision but he felt it was extremely important. He said he thought the traffic hazards would be greater if the parking lot was closer to their entrance as he envisioned it being less than 100 feet from the intersection of where it was now and they would have two northern exits onto Ladue Pines on the hill with very poor visibility. Mr. Hoffman said he thought it should go back for more study as he did not think four days was enough and he did not think the public knows all the details of the changes and he felt they need to know. Ms. Denise Scheibal, 257 Hewlett Court and a Trustee for Ladue Downs Subdivision addressed the Council. She stated the staff report that was released several months ago had a mention of 25% of the tree census where the trees were 8 inch caliper or greater would be retained. She said that meant that 75% would be removed and that was prior to the storm. Ms. Scheibal said if the rezoning was approved she would like to know how many units could be built on the site of the current Care and Counseling Center and adjacent parking lots and based on that number what the density ratio would be. If a new development is built and is attractive and attracts empty nesters, had they considered those voters would be more inclined to vote against Parkway levies. At a previous public meeting there was a representative who said he spoke for the Episcopal Church and possibly the Bishop and had said he was never given an opportunity to give input on the Comprehensive Plan and later had pointed out that the Bishop was a resident of Creve Coeur so she felt they did have the opportunity to provide input on the Comprehensive Plan. The density of the proposed development would be more in keeping with the northern edge in the Kingshill area and asked why would the entrance not be put closer to the northern side where it would be more in keeping with that density. She said she had heard that there were elements of this proposal that have not been decided and things have been changed and she felt there were so many unanswered questions that a vote should not be taken and she was opposed to that.

11 Ms. Eleanor Glovinsky, 124 Bellington Lane addressed the Council and said she was speaking only as a concerned resident. She said she had ed a letter 3. Bill No (Continued) to all of the Council and hoped they had all had an opportunity to read and the people in the audience were not familiar with it. She said the letter touched on a lot of things in the staff report and was in opposition to the project. She said her comments were and she had a letter of October 7 from MoDOT. She said it had come to her attention that MoDOT was not aware that there was going to be a park here and she had faxed the plan to MoDOT. She said she had conversations with representatives of MoDOT and their conversation to her had been that they did not know how Creve Coeur could even be discussing this. She said they are talking about making changes to curb cuts in this area where MoDOT was the one who decides if, and when, the road can be changed and let additional egress be placed on the property. She had been told on Friday that there was no way they could come up with an answer by Monday so she did not know how the Council could think that they could vote this evening and in addition to that, she did not know how they could think about separating the park away from the Thompson Center when they have not agreed to accept it first and if they are going to accept the park and they would only have 22 acres. In terms of the greenspace left to the west of the property why would they give that benefit to only one resident that the people on the north deserve protecting their privacy. In regard to the sidewalk, when the plan had been done for Ladue Road that MoDOT would not allow a sidewalk to nowhere that they could not extend it around into Beacon Hill because people walking on Ladue Road think they could go into Beacon Hill and could not go anywhere. She said in regard to wheelchairs that because of the grade it would almost impossible. Mrs. Glovinsky said she did not know procedurally how they could act and she felt the residents of this City deserve an answer before they proceed. Mr. Les Steinberg, a Trustee of the Lac du Bois Subdivision addressed the Council. He said their subdivision trustees had met with the developer because they were undertaking a project to repair their lake and roads which were indirect improvements to the City of Creve Coeur. The lake was downstream from this proposed development and they were concerned after the work they had done to it that they did not want it negatively impacted by this development. He stated the developer had met with them and explained the government and regulatory processes as well as volunteering to perform a cross-section analysis before and after their project takes place so the impact could be monitored. He said he would like to let the Council know that work had been accomplished and as trustees they feel if the project goes forward it was not going to have a negative impact on their lake downstream. He said he envied their decision making process and the public was not aware of the procedures that take place. He said changes that are made are not material as stated by the City Attorney and the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission were fully equipped to handle it and he was personally familiar with the process and their ability to adapt taking the information and make the informed and correct decision and he would like to applaud them on their ability and willingness to do that. Ms. Judy Wasserman, 272 Princetown Drive in the Country Forest Subdivision addressed the Council. She said she was a trustee but was only speaking as a resident. She said the developer had met with their residents and there were approximately 50 people in attendance and the vast majority of those present thought the plan presented

12 would be an asset to the community and they do want access from Kingshill. Council Member Bryant asked if she wanted the path. 3. Bill No (Continued) Ms. Wasserman said they wanted the path to go from the bottom of Kingshill into the development. Council Member Bryant said the issue was the homeowners that live there as opposed to the subdivision as a whole. Ms. Wasserman said she had spoken to a lot of people and their residents want the access that they felt it was good for their property value to have this park. She said the Planning Director had said this was a passive park but they want that area preserved and never want a road to go through to Ladue Road. The idea that they could have a park dedicated to the City that they thought it was a wonderful idea. Council Member Bryant said for clarification, are the homeowners aware that the subdivision that sent Ms. Wasserman tonight to recommend a connection. Ms. Wasserman said no, she was talking for herself and many neighbors and also in Ladue Heights that it would be an asset for both of the subdivisions. Mr. Robert Frank from Strataventure that represents the Episcopal Bishop of Missouri said he would like to respond to a couple of comments about things that were said at a couple of meetings ago. He said this afternoon he had received from the Diocese attorneys the lease from Care and Counseling that will be three, 12-year leases and run for 36 years. He said the implication that they were rapidly running to sell that other piece of property is not true and if he would sit here and guarantee that would never happen into the future, no. The intent is and they have negotiated in good faith with Care and Counseling for an essentially 36 year lease at a dollar a year to maintain the Care and Counseling facility on the remaining piece of the property. He said it had been asked earlier why the Bishop, if he was a resident of Creve Coeur, did not respond. He said he became a resident of Creve Coeur when he became Bishop of Missouri which was four years ago and the prior Bishop was a resident of the City of St. Louis and therefore would not have had the same capacity to comment and because it was a religious piece of property apparently they were not notified about the Comprehensive Plan and all of the Public Hearings and things that went with that. Council Member Bryant said for clarification, the Land Use Plan was adopted in the spring of Mr. Frank said the Bishop would have been a brand new resident and had been in office less than four years. Council Member Bryant said it was not adopted before he was in that it was adopted after he was in. Ms. Charlotte Delfonzo, 128 Ladue Oaks addressed the Council and said that her mother was the administrator of the Thompson Center and a few years before the Center was sold they had come to the City Council and asked at that time to have more beds for the Thompson Center and the City Council had turned them down because it was one home, one acre. She said the Church was well aware that it was zoned for one home, one acre and she wondered why the developer was not aware of the fact, that the Church was aware of that fact at that time. She said if this was a park that was to benefit Creve Coeur where would the money come from because the money right now that the Council Members are talking about money is for the trash pick up and who was going to be using this park. She said she was in Conway and Millennium Parks probably three times a week and there was no one else there. She asked who this little passage was for that it sounded like it was going to be for the Giverny residents because no one else in Creve Coeur was using the two parks that are currently there and she did not know why they would all of a sudden start using this little pathway. Ms. Delfonzo said as an added benefit she

13 3. Bill No (Continued) would rather have more trees than a park that was not a park, that it was a little trail for Giverny residents. Mr. Frank said as a correction to the record the Thompson Center was turned down for a residential treatment facility that it had come before the City Council and not for additional beds for the Thompson Center. Council Member Bryant asked the Planning Director if he knew when that hearing took place, the Thompson Center Application and he advised in Mayor Dielmann requested a motion for approval. Council Member Bryant moved approval of Ordinance No. 3092, which motion was seconded by Council Member Kistner. Council Member Lynch said they had heard from many people over the years regarding this proposal, both for and against. She said she thought people tend to be concerned generally how it will impact individually or perhaps their subdivision and the Council has to think about how it will impact the community as a whole as well as those closest to it. She said personally, she did support the villa concept that she believed there was a desire for this type of residential housing especially with the demographics of Creve Coeur. She said there are people who have bought in this community thirty to forty years ago and who want a home with less maintenance and the amenities of a villa community and want to stay in Creve Coeur perhaps at different price points. She said the Comprehensive Plan does provide for lot clustering. Related to traffic, the Traffic Study done by the applicant as well as looked at by the City staff indicates a minimal difference in traffic volume whether it is 28 units or 49 units. She said she would like to see a turn-lane on Ladue regardless of the type or size of development on this property. She understood the safety concerns of those living in Ladue Pines with the traffic coming from the west having their subdivision entrance across the street from them and having more traffic to look at. She said related to the park that she had several issues with that. Is there a benefit? She said she had not heard people asking for more parkland in the area. The maintenance cost to the City in the future for this that some say is minimal, the issue of the path even though the applicant wants a mulch path, in the Ordinance that they are being asked to consider it does indicate an asphalt path and she would like to make sure the people understood that. She was also concerned about a curb cut on Ladue Road especially so close to the crest of the hill and while the land is being said it is a park is it simply a path and an area overgrown with brush and she was not convinced that it was really a park it seems as though there was a question as to whether this area was really buildable or not due to the terrain. Ms. Lynch said it comes down to would this development negatively or positively impact Creve Coeur, what benefits would this development bring to the greater community if it was rezoned without adversely affecting the neighborhood property owners or compromising their well being. Is there a compelling reason to rezone this proposal before the Council? She said she looked at the density proposed here of 1.78 vs. the Enclave 1.25 with improvements to Mason Road that came along with that development. Ms. Lynch said at this point she would probably vote against this.

14 3. Bill No (Continued) Council Member Kassander said he had a significant issue with rezoning this property that he did not see the compelling need that was driving the request that it appears to be more a number of units issue than anything else. The villa concept was not precluded with A zoning that could be done with a A RDD where they allow for extra common ground. He said if the applicant would desire to present that extra land to the City that would certainly be a different issue but as Council Member Lynch said the compelling need for another park was not there, it was an added expense and as far as the connecting path, the City would normally require connections to existing sidewalks from new developments and this had been done with the Enclave that they had connected up and built a sidewalk all along the new Mason Road and other developments do that so it was not an added benefit having a connection from Kingshill to Ladue based on giving extra density that this was something that they would normally take under serious consideration when a development is done at any location. He said as far as it being a park that what they see on the plans and the close together lines is the detention pond and what they were ending up with was a path through whatever remains of the woods and that pond and they do not know what the depth would be on a continuous basis, if any. MSD has to work on how much detention is required and it was an open issue at this time. He said the mulch path for him was a non-starter and all that was is laying down some wood chips and then two years later they have nothing but dirt running through the woods which they have now and there was no benefit there whatsoever. He said if something like this were to be approved, a concrete path similar to the other parks that the City has would be a requirement in his mind. The Plan does not encourage rezoning this property and he did not see that as an issue that was debatable and the public benefit of rezoning for this was not there. He said he had a lot of discussions, put out of information and received a lot of information from Ward III residents, specifically ones that are close by within a mile. He said Ward III is where this property is and in his discussions a large majority are specifically against this and 300 people being surveyed and not answering does not mean they are for it, they may not have a particular issue with it but they may be far enough away that they do not travel Ladue and just do not care or have a specific interest in presenting a case. He said they had heard from residents tonight and submitted a petition that clearly shows that the next subdivision down does not want it with 98 signatures and there was a protest petition and as he understood it was insufficient in number by a percent or two and clearly shows that the residents that signed it are not for it. Council Member Kassander said he did not see a compelling public need for the rezoning that villa homes can be built in the City with a RDD and 25 villa homes could be built there with a large common ground area with features that could be available to the City or the subdivision however it was designed and they could leave the density for the area the way they have always planned it to be and let the current zoning remain. The City Attorney said the City Administrator had just given him three additional Protest Petitions and they were not in a position to evaluate them and recalculate but he did want to alert the Council that it was possible that the percentage had gone up to the required amount and they would not know until later. He said if they have been submitted and are sufficient it was before a vote was taken and they would have their effect and they would not know until later.

15 3. Bill No (Continued) Council Member Bryant requested the City Attorney give a brief explanation of a Protest Petition and its effects. The City Attorney advised if a sufficient number of owners immediate approximate to the area, effected protest, it requires six votes by the Council to approve it within 185 feet drawn around the property. He said he thought the percentage was 27.7% when the meeting was convened. He said the Planning Director would determine the new percentage but they would not be able to do that at this time. He said they had been submitted and it does not have to be validated now for it to be valid. Council Member Barton said the developer undertakes a significant amount of risk and he understood they were beholden to their investors to maximize the potential gain on this property. He said he felt with such a dramatic change in zoning from A District that he had every reason to believe that the landowner and the applicant had every expectation that it is zoned A District and the Council had the expectation that it was zoned A and such a dramatic change to a B RDD development affords them an incredible appreciation in value of that property and an incredible margin of return that would not be afforded if it was continued to be A District zoning. He said he felt that margin offsets the risk of a downturn in the real estate market or a non-desire for the product to sell. Council Member Barton said he did not think that the community as a whole benefits from that windfall that they could render from that change of zoning. He said the counter argument was that the City benefits from a park and a change in the median but he did not think that offsets the benefit that the applicant appreciates from this change. Council Member Barton said he could not justify the change. He said in regard to moving forward with the vote when there were a lot of things unresolved he did not think those particular issues really change the outcome. If it was a palatable presentation and if he was wrestling with the idea of approving it there would be a lot of things that he would want resolved. He said he would fight against the whole gate concept and would like to see a lot more improvements to the park but as it was now it was not that palatable to even consider voting for. Council Member Haddenhorst said he would keep his comments very succinct. He said Enclave vs. Giverny was apples vs. oranges. One plan answers a specific need and clause in the Comprehensive Plan and the other is presented as providing a benefit for the public good, and he could not see it. He said he particularly did not see it as 2.5 units per acre vs in the Giverny and he would be voting against it. Council Member Bryant said the advantage of going close to the end was that you did not have to say as much and she would try to be brief. She said she had more items than Council Member Haddenhorst. She said her first comment was about the park, that she still did not understand the concept of taking what would normally be considered common ground out of a subdivision and making it into a public park only because if they actually felt that was a public goal, they would be going to existing subdivisions and asking them the same question. She never understood how it could be in the City s best interest to have a piece of land that they have to maintain as opposed to the subdivision. Secondly, if it was really a park then it should be designed as a park but it was being designed as common ground which reinforces the point that it is really common ground. She said she felt one of the resident s question was very interesting, how you include the public park as part of 3. Bill No (Continued)

16 your greenspace calculations if it does not stay part of the subdivision property, and she did not have the answer to that question but it certainly was one that should be discussed. She said she would like to submit something as part of the record, this is an from Planning and Zoning Commissioner Gene Rovak and she had asked him if she could submit it and share it with everyone and she had left a copy for everyone on the dais. She said it was dated October 20 and his comments reinforced something that she was told. She said she got a phone call a long time ago from someone who said this was not fair, I was going to follow the land use plan but I got outbid by someone who thinks they can convince the City otherwise. She said what Mr. Rovak s says as she already mentioned, she was really upset to hear from a major broker that most of the development community, Taylor-Morley excepted, had previously accepted the plan s density limits and that after Planning and Zoning Commission s vote was ready to assume there was no reason to take the plan seriously. She said she thought that was another issue that should be taken into account of what kind of a message this sends going forward. Council Member Bryant said she also believes that the argument that there was a strong market for this kind of housing was interesting but was not a compelling argument and part of it was that she had copy of minutes that she would also submit as part of the record from October 15, She said there was a 51/2-acre parcel on Warson Road where Taylor-Morley came in and wanted to rezone it from B to D District and they pointed out that the research disclosed that there was a waiting list of people wanting this type of development. She said the Planning and Zoning Commission at that point voted unanimously against it. She said all she was trying to say was while you want to have diverse housing that she felt 44 acres of attached homes at the corner of Ladue and Mason should be sufficient for awhile and she did not think there was any shortage of such development. She said her other statement was and she had mentioned this earlier, due to statement on Page 44 of the Land Use Plan that she took very seriously and she took to heart because she was involved in the Land Use Plan process so closely and for so long, there was a statement in there that says; single family zoning will not be changed to other classifications unless it is demonstrated that the existing zoning no longer advances the public benefit. She said she believed very strongly that this applies to density and she believed that based upon what she observed during the Land Use Plan process she did not believe there was input, that she was still looking for it that indicates otherwise. She said she did not recall anyone living in Creve Coeur who came forward and suggested they should increase density at any parcel in the City except for the Baer property which specifically included public infrastructure improvements involving Mason Road. She said finally, she had heard a couple of comments tonight that she thought the proposal, the architecture, the homes are great, but there is just too many of them and if this was developed as an A RDD overlay they would have a similar development, fewer of them and she thought that would be a benefit to the community so she would be voting no. Council Member Kistner said she shared a lot of the thoughts several of the people have just spoken but she would like to say a couple of things on the plus side of this development proposal mostly because she wanted to emphasize how difficult she felt this was. She said she thought this was a very attractive plan, there were a lot of positive point, she read in comments from Planning and Zoning members who had voted in favor of it and she thought they had points that were extremely well taken. She said she felt for her personally, she had gone back and forth on this 3. Bill No (Continued)

17 because she thought there were some positive aspects of this for Creve Coeur that she really needed to explore. She said she really liked the style of the low maintenance cluster villa housing that she felt that was a real asset in Creve Coeur and she felt for this property in particular, the RDD format would be of tremendous benefit because it leaves more open space and leaves more of the topography. She said that is something for the people to think about because the people that are here tonight are the people that are going to be the most interested for any proposal on this property and she felt one of the most difficult things for everyone to get over was the fact that it was not going to look like the Thompson property anymore. She said if they want to try and envision 26 giant mansions where the whole property has been graded into nothing and they have 26 mansions on it she did not know if they would be any happier with that proposal that there would be concerns about how it changes the way the landscape is now. She said she was always keeping in mind that there was going to be a change there and that change was not going to be desirable to many people. She said this was private land and it was going to be developed and they have to deal with the traffic, people, density whether it is 25 or 50. She said she wanted to point that out that change is coming and the Council s job is to try and figure out what is the best change overall based on proposals that come to them. She said she felt there was a very high standard for justifying rezoning and she did not see that with this particular proposal. She said she would be very receptive to an RDD with less density and she was sorry that they did not come closer to reaching some kind of a compromise where more of the people in the community felt like they could live with it but on balance and after a great deal of consideration she also would vote no on this. Council Member Bryant said she would like to follow up, two things: (1) Part of the discussion about the October 2001 that she had just found something that she would like to reiterate. There was a letter sent from the Planning and Zoning Commission that says; said motion to rezone unanimously failed due to the density of the proposal. She said that was the rationale given. She said there was a concern in 2001 and she felt it was still a concern in (2) She thought Council Member Kistner made a good point that they all have to live with change however; she had not actually heard anyone express the wish that it really would stay the same because she did not think anyone thought that was realistic. She said she felt everyone here had tried very hard, including the applicant, to be reasonable and thanked them very much for all their time and effort. Mayor Dielmann asked if there was any other discussion and called for the vote on the motion, with the vote upon such motion being as follows, to-wit: Council Member Haddenhorst Nay Council Member Bryant Nay Council Member Kassander Nay Council Member Lynch Nay Council Member Mitchell Nay Council Member Kistner Nay Council Member Barton Nay 4. Bill No for an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an eating and drinking establishment for the property located at Olive Boulevard, north of Olive Boulevard and east and south of Old Olive Street Road, Final Reading and Passage as Ordinance No. 3092