HomeMy Public PortalAboutPost Construction Best Practices Recommendations
STORMWATER
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
POST-CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
ADDRESSING LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS AND
MANDATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS
The St. Louis County Phase II Storm Water BMP Implementation Work Group
February 2011
ii
iii
Introduction
Change is everywhere, and the way we deal with change is important. This is true in
the way we develop our communities, and particularly true in the way we manage
stormwater. MSD has implemented stormwater regulations on new development and
redevelopment to address water quality. St. Louis County and municipalities within St.
Louis County have revised their planning and zoning ordinances to direct the growth of
their communities in a way that protects water quality. This document (and the process
used to prepare it) has been undertaken to help address some of the conflicts resulting
from these stormwater management changes, and to promote continued change toward
developing communities that are environmentally sustainable by protecting their water
resources.
Since October 2006, MSD has required new development and redevelopment projects
to meet water quality criteria in its Rules and Regulations. This criteria requires
developments to incorporate post-construction best management practices (BMPs) to
be installed to treat stormwater runoff from the developed properties. These BMPs
introduce a new design element into stormwater management in St. Louis County.
Based on the experiences of others across the nation undergoing the same types of
change to address water quality under the Clean Water Act, it was anticipated that
conflicts would develop between these new BMPs and current practices, including
current legal requirements by St. Louis County and municipalities within the County.
This document was specifically developed to meet the goals of the 2007 St. Louis
County Phase II Storm Water Management Plan. The goal was to assemble a Work
Group to identify and evaluate legal impediments to the design, installation, operation
and/or maintenance of BMPs allowed under MSD’s Stormwater Design Rules and
Regulations; and, to establish and distribute the findings, recommendations and models
of the Work Group. A BMP Implementation Work Group was assembled to develop this
information for the Phase II co-permittees responsible for the St. Louis Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and the general public in their communities. A
broad stakeholder group was formed. The original invitation was sent to 35 individuals
representing 22 different governmental agencies and stakeholder associations.
EPA and others recommend a review of local ordinances against a checklist to evaluate
existing development codes, regulations and ordinances to identify potential regulatory
and planning process impediments that affect the use of or successful implementation of
best management practices that infiltrate stormwater in new development, and that
mandate unnecessary impervious area. Referencing checklists developed by EPA and
the City of Indianapolis, MSD developed a checklist for St. Louis County to assess the
baseline “state of practice” with regard to the various topics. The Baseline Survey of St.
Louis County indicated a weak score in terms of performance related to the referenced
sources. Through this process, the Work Group validated the task and set about finding
solutions and models that could be recommended and are found herein.
The Work Group did not identify any instances where an installed post-construction
BMP resulted in a direct conflict with a local code or ordinance. Therefore, the Work
iv
Group concluded that code conflicts are not a significant impediment to BMP
installation. This was a surprising outcome; however, it created an opportunity to
address the reasons behind the low score indicated by the St. Louis County Baseline
Survey. As a result, the Work Group considered other legal impediments to better
stormwater management to include: the creation of unnecessary impervious areas that
are mandated, and overcoming the barrier of the unknown and uncertainty related to
site permitting approval. Therefore, the Work Group looked for ways to reduce
impervious areas in the community, and to promote post-construction BMPs that are
environmentally preferred by virtue of their ability to reduce the rate and volume of runoff
by infiltrating water into the ground. These environmentally preferred BMPs are legally
required to meet Missouri’s MS4 stormwater permit condition to mimic pre-construction
runoff conditions from new development to the maxim um extent practicable. Each
section of this document describes a strategy, model ordinances, standard drawings,
and recommended resources to demonstrate the benefits of these best practices and
their validity by identifying examples of local implementation.
Local government consisting of MSD’s co-permittees to the Missouri MS4 stormwater
permit will be asked to review the recommendations and models presented in this
document and consider incorporating them into their regulations. These
recommendations are also compatible with the MSD Site Design Guidance, which has
been adopted by the co-permittees, to ensure that private developers of land follow a
process of first reducing unnecessary impervious area, using pervious surfaces, and
then using infiltrating best management practices in the process of designing
stormwater management into a site.
Secondly, a broader reason to implement these recommendations relates to the
sustainability of our communities. Increasing impervious area increases the quantity of
stormwater discharges, which causes excessive erosion, and stream channel
expansion. The volume, duration, and velocity of stormwater discharges causes
degradation to aquatic systems. Protecting and restoring the physical, chemical and
biological integrity of receiving waters is necessary to meet the Clean Water Act. The
recent report of the National Research Council (Urban Stormwater Management in the
United States, National Academies Press, 2008) recommends that the EPA stormwater
program examine the impacts of stormwater flow, treat flow as a surrogate for other
pollutants, and include the necessary control requirements in stormwater permits.
Specifically, the report recommends that the volume retention practices of infiltration,
evapotranspiration and rainwater harvesting be used as primary stormwater
management mechanisms. Therefore, it is our goal to reduce impervious surfaces to
comply with legal obligations and to protect our water resources for future generations to
use and enjoy.
v
The Phase II BMP Implementation Work Group participants include:
AmerenUE
Associated General Contractors
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Planning Association
American Public Works Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects
City of Chesterfield
City of Ellisville
City of Maryland Heights
City of Olivette
City of St. Louis
East-West Gateway Council of Governments
Home Builders Association of St. Louis
Metropolitan Fire Marshals Association
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Metro West Fire Protection District
Missouri Coalition for the Environment
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Department of Transportation
St. Louis County Government
Shaw Nature Reserve of the Missouri Botanical Garden
SITE Improvement Association
U.S. Green Building Council
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Off-Street Parking..................................................................................................1
Weed Ordinances..................................................................................................7
Residential Streets................................................................................................9
Residential Parking.............................................................................................15
Green Space, Buildings and Site Design ..........................................................17
APPENDIX A – Model Parking Ordinance..........................................................23
APPENDIX B – Minimum Parking and Loading Requirement Tables .............35
APPENDIX C – MSD Non-Standard Detail, Bioretention for Parking ..............61
APPENDIX D – Model Weed Ordinance.............................................................63
APPENDIX E – Residential Street Design Criteria............................................67
APPENDIX F – Model Property Plat for BMPs at the Edge of Roadway .........69
APPENDIX G – MSD Non-Standard Detail, Roadway Bioretention .................71
viii
1
Off-Street Parking
Parking accounts for a significant portion of our built environment. In St. Louis,
parking lots account for over 21% of our impervious areas. The topic of off-street,
non-residential parking provides for significant opportunities to reduce the effect of
large areas of paved surfaces. This can be accomplished in three ways: 1) reduce
the number of parking spaces required, 2) reduce the space required per parking
space, and 3) reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from parking areas.
1. Reducing parking spaces –
Parking space requirements imposed and approved by zoning authorities result
in the creation of more parking spaces than are actually needed in many cases.
Several planning and zoning strategies exist to provide opportunities to reduce
parking spaces when they are not required.
• Parking ratios - can be reduced to 3 or less spaces for offices and 4.5 or less
spaces for retail and medical purposes per 1000 square feet of floor area
according to sources identified as benchmarks by the Work Group.
• Maximum parking – requirements should be set for developments so that the
number of spaces could not exceed 10% of the parking required by zoning.
Property owners could build additional parking spaces, however, they would
need to be constructed with pervious paving or otherwise mitigated with an
impervious area off-set (e.g. vegetated roof).
• Shared parking – allowed between
two or more uses to satisfy all or a
portion of the required parking.
• Phantom parking – involves not
constructing all the required
parking spaces until the parking is
actually deemed necessary due to
demand. In the mean time, the
areas reserved for this
unconstructed parking must
remain in green space and subject
to a potential request to construct
in the future.
• Reuse of existing buildings – would not require the construction of additional
parking spaces to meet current zoning ordinances.
• Parking study – results can be used to reduce parking requirements when
spaces are not needed. The study would take into consideration the
Aerial of Parking Lot
2
proximity of the property to mass transit, car pooling, bicycling, mixed
property use, and hours of operation.
Model examples:
1) Parking Ratios – a model parking ordinance was developed by the Work
Group and is attached in Appendix A. The model identifies and recommends
a parking ratio from those used or recommended by various organizations for
a number of use categories. The Minimum Parking and Loading Requirement
tables are located in Appendix B.
2) Maximum parking – requirements are based on Chesterfield’s City Code,
Section 1003.165 Parking, Stacking and Loading Requirements. The
recommended model parking ordinance contains a section that requires
increases in parking areas over 10% of the maximum parking requirement to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Services
Director, and applicants must include measures to mitigate for the increase,
such as, increased open space, pervious pavement, green roofs, and more.
3) Shared parking – City of Maryland Heights Zoning Ordinance, Article 14,
Section 25-14.10, Shared Parking allows for shared use of a parking lot
where uses are unlikely to produce substantial demand for parking at the
same time, based on a parking study and legal agreement between all land
owners. See the appropriate section of the model parking ordinance in the
Appendix.
4) Phantom parking, Deferral of parking construction – Chesterfield’s City Code
states that a parking deferral of construction may be granted for up to 50% of
the off-street parking spaces required in an industrial district, or up to 30% in
a commercial or other district, subject to a demonstration of time of day
usage, other parking options, proximity to mass transit, and more. See the
appropriate section of the model parking ordinance in the Appendix.
5) Reuse of existing buildings – St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance, 1003.165,
Section 2 exempts buildings older than 1978 from additional parking spaces
required under the minimum parking zoning requirements. See the
appropriate section of the model parking ordinance in the Appendix.
6) Parking study, Modifications of Parking Requirements – Chesterfield’s City
Code states that a Parking Demand Study can modify zoning ordinance
requirements to reduce the number of required parking spaces. The request
must include various analysis, as prescribed. Parking lot design
strategies must use pavement reducing strategies that mitigate stormwater
runoff. See the appropriate section of the model parking ordinance in the
Appendix.
7) Proximity to mass transit – St. Louis County Ordinance 23787, paragraph
12.b, adopted November 7, 2008, states that minimum parking requirements
for developments located within 1000 feet of a transit station may be reduced
by an additional 10 percent. See the appropriate section of the model parking
ordinance in the Appendix.
Additional resources:
EPA Water Quality Scorecard, this document was used as a reference and a
benchmark in the BMP Work Group’s survey of local regulations,
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water_scorecard.htm
Local Water Policy Innovation, A Road Map for Community Based
Stormwater Solutions, American Rivers, Inc. and Midwest Environmental
Advocates, Inc. publication, http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reports-
publications/local-water-policy-innovation.html
Parking Spaces/Community Places, Finding the Balance through Smart
Growth Solutions, publication EPA 231-K-06-001,
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm
Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual, Metropolitan Council/Barr Eng
http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Water/bmp/CH3_RPPImpParking.p
df
2. Reducing space requirements –
Beyond the number of parking spaces approved, steps can be taken to reduce
the amount of impervious area required for the
given number of spaces to be provided.
Options are limited to the size of the parking
space and the configuration of the spaces and
lanes accessing those spaces.
Minimum stall dimensions – can reduce the
impervious area of parking lots by allowing
smaller parking spaces per car. The EPA
Water Quality scorecard recommends a 9
foot wide by 18 foot long parking space. In
St. Louis County, a 9 foot wide by 19 foot
space is typically used. Angled versus 90° Parking
Zoning requirements in the St. Louis area
had required a number of compact car spaces, but this option has fallen out
of favor with local planning and zoning officials. Therefore, a 9 foot by 19 foot
stall dimension is recommended. However, Section 5 of the model parking
ordinance in Appendix A contains a provision allowing up to 10% of compact
parking space by right.
3
4
• Efficient stall configurations – under St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance
1003.165, the most efficient parking configuration for minimizing impervious
area is the 90 degree parking angle. Compared to a 45 degree parking
angle, the 90 degree configuration uses 22% less area and would be
preferred. However, the 45 degree configuration can be more desirable if
green infrastructure practices are incorporated into the design. For example,
if the unusable space at the end of parking rows is used for bioretention
instead of being paved, then the imperviousness of the parking area is
reduced from 100% to 75% impervious, and beneficial stormwater
management facilities are included in the design. Also, the benefits of the 45
degree configuration may be realized where it is desired to reduce wheel
turning to increase the life of porous pavement in parking areas.
Additional resources:
• St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance, 1003.165, 3.(1), Minimum Off-street
Parking Dimensions.
3. Reducing runoff –
Once planning decisions are made to allow impervious areas to be created, the
last option for addressing water quality involves reducing the amount of
stormwater runoff from an impervious area. Options to reduce runoff from
parking stalls involves using a parking surface that is pervious, intercepting
rainfall or managing the runoff from impervious stalls.
• Pervious parking – can reduce the
impervious areas of parking lots by
using paving materials and designs
that allow rainwater to pass through
the parking surface. Options
typically include: pervious asphalt,
pervious concrete, and pervious
pavers. All three types of systems
are allowed by MSD and the design
requirements are available online at:
http://www.stlmsd.com/engineering/p
lanreview/PlanReviewInformation.
• Landscape guidelines – can be used to require a minimum amount of green
space within the parking lot. If the green space is required to include native
plants or mature trees, stormwater and other benefits can be realized.
Requiring a tree canopy to cover 50% of the parking lots, at maturity, can
intercept and reduce rainfall by providing increased surface area that must be
wetted before runoff can occur. Trees will also reduce the heat island effect,
which reduces the temperature of the local environment. Requiring parking
Porous Pavers
The College School
5
islands at the ends of parking aisles and within aisles provides locations
where native vegetation and bioretention can be used to manage stormwater.
Requiring native plants will reduce irrigation requirements and promote
bioretention areas in parking lots for treating runoff.
• Bioretention areas (or rain gardens) – can be used in landscaped islands or
on the perimeter of parking lots to treat stormwater and possibly reduce
stormwater detention requirements. Instead of raised islands that are
irrigated to keep plants alive, bioretention areas in depressed islands can be
used to meet landscape requirements and MSD stormwater treatment and
detention requirements. A curbless or slotted curb design is required for the
stormwater to enter the bioretention island. MSD requirements for these
types of systems are located in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual as
Urban BMP Group, Filtering Practices.
Model Examples:
1) Pervious Parking – See the MSD Engineering Plan Review web site for a
Porous Pavement Typical Section Detail Library Drawing for asphalt, concrete
and permeable interlocking concrete pavement. An example of permeable
interlocking concrete pavement is the College School located at 1 Newport
Place, Webster Groves.
The City of Ferguson has
installed a pervious
concrete parking lot
located at 501 S.
Florissant Road,
Ferguson. The Missouri
Botanical Garden parking
lot at 4344 Shaw
Boulevard, St. Louis
includes porous asphalt
and pervious concrete.
MSD requirements for
these types of systems
are located under the
“proprietary best
management practices” link at:
http://www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/PlanReviewInformation
2) Landscape Guidelines – City of Chesterfield’s Tree Preservation and
Landscape Requirements in Chapter 27.5 of City Code (Ordinance 2512)
requires landscaped islands with trees in parking lots. The island size must
be a minimum of 9 feet wide and 135 square feet of pervious area per parking
row. No parking space can be located farther than 50 feet from a tree.
City of Ferguson Porous Pavement
6
3) Parking Bioretention
Areas – Bioretention areas
are used as water quality
BMPs under MSD’s Rules
and Regulations, and in
fact, are the most popular
post-construction BMP
used in the community.
Bioretention stormwater
management facilities
have been used
successfully in a number
of parking lot islands or on
the perimeter of parking
lots throughout the
community. A Non-
Standard Detail of Bioretention for Parking Islands is in Appendix C and will
be included on the MSD Engineering, General, Plan Preparation Guidelines
web site in the Non-Standard Details library. The Missouri Botanical Garden
parking lot at 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis contains an example of a
bioretention area in a parking lot island. Another example, with a curbless
parking lot design feeding a bioretention area, is at Bluebird Park in Ellisville.
Additional resources:
• National Asphalt Pavement Association, select Environment, Porous asphalt,
http://hotmix.org/
• National Ready-Mix Concrete Association, www.perviouspavement.org
• Interlocking Concrete Paving Institute, http://icpi.org
City of Ellisville, Bluebird Park
7
Weed Ordinances
The BMP legal impediment category of weed ordinances reflects the conflict that is
created in the community in distinguishing between an environmentally beneficial
native plant and an undesirable plant called a weed. BMP requirements specify
native plants for their environmental benefits, however, weeds create ecological
concerns and are a nuisance to the public. To promote the beneficial use of native
plants in BMPs, local government should be concerned about these BMP plantings
being illegal under their weed ordinance. The solution to this conflict generally
relates to the definition of a weed. Weed ordinances should be revised to define a
weed as an undesirable plant, and allowing the use of beneficial native plants in
bioretention areas and rain gardens. This can be accomplished by referencing weed
lists in the ordinance, and excluding native plants from the weed definition.
1. Native Plants -
Native plants are vegetation species that existed prior to the arrival of European
settlers within the State of Missouri, or the eco-region. These plants are
identified by the Missouri Department of Conservation. The benefit of native
plants in the community is that the maintenance of them will conserve water,
reduce pesticide use, and reduce fertilizer use. Furthermore, they add
biodiversity into the environment, which provides ecological benefits. Weed
ordinances must protect the managed stands of native plants in BMPs by
ensuring they are expressly
allowed. In addition, public
education through signage and
proper delineation of these native
areas is important for public
acceptance and to ensure the
areas are not damaged through
improper maintenance.
2. Weeds -
Weeds can degrade the natural
environment by out-competing
other plant species and become a
nuisance in the community, which
decreases property values and
threatens public health. Several categories of plants are undesirable, and need
to be defined and regulated by a weed ordinance. The weeds are determined to
be a public nuisance under a weed ordinance.
• Invasive Plants – are vegetation species that grow aggressively in Missouri.
They are listed by the Missouri Department of Conservation in the Missouri
Vegetation Manual and in newer, more complete lists of invasive plants
maintained by the Department.
Beneficial Native Plants in Detention Basin
8
• Noxious Weeds – are vegetation species listed as a Missouri State Noxious
Weed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture due to their ability to cause
economic harm and the
difficulty in controlling the
species.
• Nuisance Plant – is a toxic
species known to cause
death or severe allergic
reactions in humans,
specifically: poison
hemlock, poison ivy and
ragweed.
Model examples:
1) A model ordinance
encouraging the use of
native plant communities
as an alternative in urban
landscape design is included in Appendix D. This model ordinance was
developed by the Work Group based on sections of the City of Chesterfield’s
Weed Ordinance 2498 and the Wild Ones model ordinance listed below.
2) Wild Ones, a non-profit education and advocacy organization for native
plants, model weed control ordinance is located at:
http://www.wildones.org/weedlaws/weedlaw.html
Additional resources:
• Native plants identified by the Missouri Department of Conservation are listed
at Grow Native, www.grownative.org, and the Missouri Botanical Garden’s
Flora of Missouri Project, www.tropicos.org/project/mo.
• Invasive plants identified by the Missouri Department of Conservation are
included in the Missouri Vegetation Management Manual,
http://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/resources/2010/05/5398_3326.pdf
• Noxious weeds are listed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture under
Missouri law, http://mda.mo.gov/plants/forests/noxiousweeds.php, and federal
noxious weeds are listed by the United States Department of Acriculture,
http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver.
• MSD Landscape Guide for Stormwater Best Management Practices Design
contains plant selection guidance for stormwater management facilities,
www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/PlanReviewInformation
• Shaw Nature Reserve, www.shawnature.org
Examples of signage
9
Residential Streets
Streets account for a significant portion of our built environment. In St. Louis, public
streets account for over 25% of our impervious areas. In addition, 5% of the total
impervious area exists for public and private sidewalks. Much of this sidewalk area
is associated with street design. The topic of residential streets provides for
significant opportunities to reduce the area of paved surfaces.
This can be accomplished by: a) reducing the amount of impervious area required
for streets and sidewalks, b) reducing the amount of stormwater runoff from streets
by using pervious materials, or c) managing runoff from streets next to the roadway
in post-construction BMPs that reduce runoff.
1. Street width -
A strategy to reduce the impervious area associated with streets is to encourage
designers to use narrower streets in situations where a wider street is not
necessary.
• Street Design Codes – allowing a 20 foot residential street width is an
important tool that municipalities can offer the development community to
reduce the amount of required impervious area instead of a typical 26 foot
wide street width. The option to use a 20 foot street would be limited to those
situations where on-street parking is prohibited and alternatives to on-street
parking can be provided. These streets are typically short, cul-de-sac streets
that would be subject to zoning limitations of 25 lots served, or 50 lots on a
loop street.
• Fire Code Restrictions – can vary greatly in St. Louis with 43 individual fire
districts and departments, each with their own requirements. However, the
International Fire Code is recommended for requirements related to street
Wide streets create unnecessary impervious area
width, as this code allows 20 foot street widths in certain circumstances
depending on various criteria, such as street length, fire hydrants and
sprinklers installed.
Model examples:
1) A model ordinance allowing 20 foot wide streets, based on a markup of the
St. Louis County Residential Street Design Criteria for Right-of-Way and
pavement width requirements, is included in Appendix E (see Note (1)).
2) Metro-West Fire District Code, F-503.6.3 Street Widths and Weights: allows
20 foot wide streets where no parking is permitted on either side of the street.
Additional resources:
The EPA Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook has several chapters
relevant to the topics of this document, refer to the Water Quality Scorecard
and the Green Streets chapters, and more:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/munichandbook.cfm
Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, An Oregon Guide for Reducing
Street Widths, November 2000,
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/neighstreet.pdf
Better Site Design Fact Sheet: Narrower Residential Streets, Center for
Watershed Protection,
http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Assorted%20Fact%20Sheets/Tool4_Site_D
esign/narrow_streets.htm
2. Pervious Surfaces –
One way to decrease runoff from streets is to use pervious pavement instead of
creating impervious surfaces, which is typically the case. Pervious pavement
improves water quality by reducing the amount of stormwater runoff, and
simulates the way runoff leaves the site under natural conditions.
Pervious Pavement in Driving Lanes – was considered, however, the Work
Group had reservations about making a recommendation to place pervious
pavement in driving lanes of public streets until more information and local
experience has demonstrated positive results. Uncertainty regarding
maintenance requirements, pavement longevity, and a lack of public funding
for maintenance contributed to the decision not to make a recommendation.
Pervious Pavement in Parking Lanes – can reduce the impervious areas of
streets by using paving materials and designs that allow rainwater to pass
through the surface in the parking lanes of streets. Options typically include:
pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, and pervious pavers. All three types of
systems are allowed by MSD and the design requirements are available
10
11
at: http://www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/PlanReviewInformation.
The Work Group is recommending the implementation and evaluation of pilot
projects to gain more knowledge and experience about this technology.
• Pervious Pavement Sidewalks – can also
reduce impervious areas. The Work
Group was optimistic about this
application due to low loading demands.
However, maintenance costs and
longevity remain an uncertainty.
Implementation and evaluation of pilot
projects is recommended.
Model examples:
1) Pervious Pavement – The City of St.
Louis currently has a porous asphalt alley located off Cardinal Avenue.
2) MSD Engineering, Plan Review Documents web site under Proprietary BMPs
lists designer notes and details for pervious concrete, permeable interlocking
concrete pavement, and porous
asphalt. Current examples of “green”
streets planned for the area which will
incorporate green infrastructure, such
as porous pavement, include: St.
Louis City Sarah Street, and the East
West Gateway Council of
Governments “Great Streets” initiative.
3) Pervious Sidewalks – MSD’s Lower
Meramec Wastewater Treatment
Plant has pervious concrete sidewalks
installed.
Additional resources:
• City of Chicago’s Green Alley program uses pervious pavement. Link to the
Chicago Department of Transportation’s Green Alley Handbook from:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/alley/svcs/green_alley
s.html
• East West Gateway’s Great Streets Initiative -
http://www.ewgateway.org/greatstreets/greatstreets.htm
• Designing Pervious, A Minnesota City Eschews Storm Drains for Pervious
Streets. Public Works, Volume 141, Number 9, August 2010. p 33.
• See the web links provided above under the pervious parking section also.
City of St. Louis Porous Alley
Pervious sidewalk at
MSD’s Lower
Meramec Plant
12
3. BMPs at the Edge of Roadway Pavement –
The impervious surfaces of roadways generate stormwater runoff, and the best
location to treat runoff is as close to the source as possible, with dispersed micro-
practices. The idea of treating stormwater runoff next to streets generates
numerous issues and concerns from government officials and utilities. These
issues relate to how the right-of-way will be affected, how maintenance will be
handled, what the impact will be on utility placement and maintenance, and even
how stormwater will drain into the BMP. A variance from existing street design
criteria will be required. The recommendation is for new residential development
property plats to be adjusted for the following items to accommodate placement
and maintenance of BMPs at the edge of pavement, where space is available
after considering site restrictions.
• Right-of-ways (ROW) – would be limited to the street edge of pavement.
Public maintenance of the street would be enabled through a permanent
roadway, improvement, maintenance, utility, sewer and sidewalk easement
(PRIMUSSE) up to the former ROW limits. For Missouri Department of
Transportation streets, the BMP would be allowed in the MoDOT ROW, and a
maintenance agreement would be executed so the property owners or
subdivision trustees would be responsible for maintenance.
• PRIMUSSE – shown on the property plats up to twelve feet from the edge of
pavement will provide public agencies the access needed to maintain the
streets, utilities and sidewalks. Underground utilities should be placed
perpendicular to the sidewalk, not parallel under the sidewalk. Coordination
with utilities is necessary, and utilities may be placed in an additional utility
easement located outside the PRIMUSSE.
• Sidewalks – can be located in the PRIMUSSE. In some cases, sidewalks can
be limited to one side of the street subject to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
• Common Ground – would be established for the BMP foot print to ensure that
the subdivision trustees would maintain the stormwater facility so that it
operates properly. This is a typical arrangement for BMPs located elsewhere
in a development. The property plat shows the area as common ground and
identified as a Stormwater Management Reserve Area. This Reserve Area is
subject to a BMP maintenance agreement between MSD and the property
owner(s) to ensure the owners maintain the BMP.
• Curb Cuts – allow stormwater from the street to flow into bioretention areas
next to the street or through a “bioretention sump” located at the edge of the
roadway transitioning into the bioretention area. The sump design can allow
for non-erosive flows into the bioretention area, and for larger flows to bypass
into the curb gutter for management in a storm sewer inlet. Alternatively, an
inlet can be located within the bioretention BMP.
Cul-de-sac Islands – create an excellent location for a bioretention
stormwater BMP that would avoid the issues identified above, and would
typically not require significant changes to current development property plat
plans, since these areas are already in common ground that is maintained by
the subdivision trustees.
Model examples:
1) A recommended model property plat for BMPs at the edge of a roadway has
been drawn up and is located in Appendix F. This model has been reviewed
and agreed to by the Work Group, which consists of municipal and private
engineers and planners, and utilities. Each of the individual elements of the
model have been approved locally. Also, refer to the recommended Note (5)
in Appendix E, Residential Street Design Criteria.
2) MSD Non-Standard Details of Sewer Construction Drawings for Roadway
Bioretention located at the edge of street pavement, are located in the
Appendix G. These four non-standard detail drawings were reviewed and
agreed to by the Work Group as a recommendation for locating BMPs next to
roadways. Details of the Bioretention Sump are also included.
3) Cul-de-sac Bioretention Areas – Bioretention areas are used as water quality
BMPs under MSD’s Rules and Regulations, and in fact, are the most popular
post-construction BMP used in the community. Bioretention stormwater
management facilities are ideally suited to being located in cul-de-sacs. MSD
has developed plans for a stormwater infrastructure project to include
bioretention in a cul-de-sac on Chalet Court in Creve Coeur.
Additional resources:
EPA has identified, compiled and/or published a great deal of information on
various green infrastructure technologies, refer to:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/technology.cfm
EPA’s green streets initiative has identified a number of programs and
projects across the country:
http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/podcasts/greenstreetsusa.html
13
14
15
Residential Parking
Residential parking accounts for a significant portion of our built environment. In St.
Louis, private driveways account for over 9% of our impervious areas, plus
impervious areas on public right of ways account for additional area for residential
parking. The topic of residential parking provides for significant opportunities to
reduce the area of paved surfaces. This can be accomplished by reducing the
amount of impervious surface required for driveways, and by constructing driveways
using pervious materials. Overall consideration needs to be given to providing
needed parking within the community in a manner that uses the least amount of
impervious surface. The following strategies are tools that can be used in a context
sensitive approach to accomplish this.
1. Reduce the size of the driveway –
Less impervious area used for driveways can be accomplished by making the
amount of paved surface in the driveway smaller, or by reducing the amount of
driveway needed to serve a residential property.
• Two-track driveways – reduce the impervious area of a driveway by providing
for green space on the portion of the driveway that is not needed for a
vehicle’s wheels to travel on. Local American Planning Association members
were queried as to their use of this solution. Of the 12 responders, only one
city allows the construction of two-track driveways and three do not allow
them. The majority of the responders, eight, do not specifically prohibit or
allow. Various additional comments indicate that this solution is not very
popular.
• Shared driveways – are commonly used in St. Louis County, primarily in
duplex properties, where two residences use the same driveway. Also, where
off-street parking is provided, such as in lieu of on-street parking along a 20
foot wide street, shared driveways and shared parking can be a tool to reduce
the impervious area.
• Smaller driveways – less than 9 feet per lane width was deemed not popular
with the public or practical for use by the Work Group, and therefore, is not
being recommended.
Model examples:
1) Two-track driveways – Rock Hill municipal code Title V, Article IV, section
505.100 allows Hollywood driveways (a strip of grass between two strips of
concrete or brick).
16
2. Reducing runoff from a driveway -
One option to reduce runoff from driveways involves using a pervious surface.
Parking areas and driveways are suitable to the installation of pervious
pavement.
• Pervious driveways – can reduce the impervious area by using paving
materials and designs that allow rainwater to pass through the surface.
Options typically include: pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, and pervious
pavers. All three types of systems are allowed by MSD and the design
requirements are available online at:
http://www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/PlanReviewInformation.
17
Green Space, Buildings, and Site Design
Buildings account for a significant portion of our built environment. In St. Louis,
buildings account for over 31% of our impervious areas. The topic of building and
site design provides for significant opportunities to reduce the area of impervious
surfaces, allow for low impact development concepts, and providing for stormwater
runoff treatment using post-construction BMPs that infiltrate stormwater and reduce
runoff volume in addition to addressing pollutant removal through treatment alone.
Realizing these opportunities can be accomplished through municipal codes that
result in the protection of natural water resources and implementation of post-
construction BMPs that reduce stormwater runoff:
1. Protecting Natural Resources -
A conscientious effort by government officials and developers is necessary to
protect natural resources in the community. Two tools that have been used to
facilitate this process include stream buffer ordinances and conceptual plan
reviews by local government. These tools have been implemented in St. Louis
County by the MS4 co-permittees to comply with their Phase II Stormwater
Permit.
• Stream Buffers – are a protected strip of naturally vegetated land along a
stream. The purpose of a stream buffer is to physically protect a stream from
the encroachment of development. Stream buffers are necessary to protect
the integrity of stream ecosystems and habitats. Stream buffers also protect
development by maintaining the integrity of the natural storm water drainage
systems. St. Louis County and 54 municipalities in the County have adopted
stream buffer ordinances or setbacks.
• MSD Site Design Guidance – is a document that city planners and public
works professionals can use in their site design approval process to meet the
requirements of their MS4 permit and to encourage better site design within
their community to protect the environment. St. Louis County and 46
municipalities have implemented the MSD Site Design Guidance or an
equivalent process. The document calls for the evaluation of existing
conditions on a proposed development site to determine the resources and
sensitive areas to protect, plus the evaluation of conceptual plans to reduce
impervious area and use green infrastructure, where appropriate, to the
maximum extent practicable.
Model examples:
1) Stream Buffer Ordinance, City of Olivette Ordinance 2370 adopts the model
ordinance recommended by the St. Louis County Phase II Stormwater
Management Program Steering Committee.
18
2) Site Design Guidance – City of Olivette Ordinance 2426 incorporates the
principles and process put forth in the Site Design Guidance to promote green
infrastructure within the city.
Additional resources:
• Model ordinances to protect local resources, Aquatic Buffers, EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/ordinance/mol1.htm
2. Post-Construction Runoff Reducing BMPs -
The components of better site design reviewed under MSD’s Rules and
Regulations for stormwater drainage include the selection of: non-structural
BMPs in the form of stormwater credits that reduce the volume requirements of
the stormwater criteria; pervious surfaces; post-construction BMPs that infiltrate
water; and other post-construction BMPs to manage the stormwater runoff from
the development site. Pervious surface materials for parking lots and driveways
have been addressed in previous sections of this document and will not be
repeated, however, they are definitely applicable. The selection of post-
construction BMPs should include engineered systems that treat stormwater
runoff and reduce runoff volume through infiltration and vegetation. MSD has
adopted the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual for stormwater BMP design.
• Stormwater Credits – are
non-structural BMPs that
satisfy the MSD water quality
criteria requirements or
reduce the volume of water
that must be managed by a
structural BMP. These
practices include: natural
area conservation,
disconnected impervious
surfaces, sheet flow to
buffers, open channels and
environmentally sensitive
development.
• Rain Water Harvesting – involves the collection, storage and utilization of
stormwater runoff from a roof. Plumbing codes expressly allowing for this
practice are helpful in properly managing stormwater and encouraging
sustainable water use.
Parking lot bioretention, MO botanical Garden
19
• Green Roofs – are plants and associated planting media on the roof of
buildings that reduce stormwater runoff. Green roofs would be considered a
porous area, and reduce the development’s stormwater design requirements.
• Maryland Manual BMPs – adopted
by MSD that are considered to
reduce runoff include: infiltration
practices, dry swale open channel
practices and bioretention filtering
practices or other filter practices,
which utilize engineered soil media
bed or an enhanced infiltration
design.
Model examples:
1) Green roof – St. Louis Community College at Wildwood
2) Rain water harvesting – example is the Renaissance Place stormwater retrofit
(P-0029023-00).
3) Bioretention – Missouri Botanical Garden parking lot, 4344 Shaw, St. Louis.
Additional resources:
• MSD Engineering Department, Plan Review Documents,
http://www.stlmsd.com/engineering/planreview/PlanReviewInformation
• EPA Green Infrastructure Technologies and Approaches, see links under
Green Roofs, Rain Harvesting, rain gardens and other technologies,
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/technology.cfm
• Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID)
Strategies and Practices, EPA 841-F-07-006, presents 17 case studies to
compare the cost of LID and conventional stormwater management.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/costs07/documents/reducingstormwatercos
ts.pdf
• Illinois’ Public Act 96-26, the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act,
requires the Illinois EPA to assess and evaluate using green infrastructure to
help manage stormwater in Illinois. Illinois EPA is currently working with the
University of Illinois – Chicago: http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-
infrastructure/index.html
Green roof, St. Louis Community College
20
3. Residential Tear-Downs -
Many built-out communities in St. Louis are experiencing a phenomenon called
“mansionization”. Mansionization occurs when older, smaller homes are
purchased, and torn down or remodeled into a home that is significantly larger
than the original home. Adding impervious surfaces in the community results in a
proportional amount of stormwater runoff increase due to the amount of
impervious area added. Contributing to the issue is that these projects are not
associated with changes in existing infrastructure design, and are typically less
than an acre, which is below the applicability for MSD water quality criteria. The
net effect is flooding and stormwater complaints due to significantly increasing
runoff in the community without corresponding infrastructure review or upgrade,
and without imposing site stormwater design criteria. A proactive approach by
cities involves adopting stormwater criteria to mitigate increased runoff from
projects involving less than one acre of land disturbance.
• Applicability – under the ordinance must address sites less than one acre of
land disturbance to affect stormwater designs not regulated by MSD.
Addressing the new construction footprint versus just impervious area
additions is necessary to improve the degraded condition of all our urban
streams.
• Design storm event – affects
the sizing of the controls, or
mitigation BMPs, to reduce
runoff. Generally, a 90 to 95
percentile annual storm is
considered a best practice, in
St. Louis this is 1.1 to 1.5
inches of precipitation in 24
hours.
• Stormwater designs – that
include rain gardens are the
most popular BMP used in St.
Louis. Other options are
discussed in previous sections,
and should be designed
according to a standard design
reference manual.
Top left, a new home, larger
than the original home.
21
Model examples:
1) Webster Groves Stormwater Ordinance 8665, Chapter 54.
Additional resources:
• Mansionization, White Paper Discussion, City of Rockville, Maryland
publication - http://www.rockvillemd.gov/zoning/mansionization-wp.pdf
• Managing Teardowns, Preserving Community Character and Livability, see
Mansionization and Sustainability and other relevant sections,
http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/additional-
resources/Teardown-Tools-on-the-Web-1.pdf
22
23
APPENDIX A
Model Parking Ordinance
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
1. Scope of Provisions.
The regulations contained in this section and the following sections shall govern
the size, number, location, and design of all off-street parking and loading
facilities in the City/County.
It is the intent of this section to:
(1) Ensure sufficient off-street parking and loading facilities are provided in
proportion to the demand created by the use.
(2) Facilitate orderly traffic circulation patterns within parking and maneuvering
areas.
(3) Reduce underutilized or redundant vehicle parking areas.
(4) Encourage the use of parking lot design that will be beneficial to the
environment and enhance neighborhood character.
(5) Decrease stormwater impact and improve water quality.
2. Applicability
All buildings or structures which are erected or have a change in square footage
or use shall comply with the parking and loading requirements herein.
3. Minimum Parking and Loading Requirements.
Uses in all zoning districts shall comply with the minimum requirements listed by
use category in tables of the following sections:
CATEGORY SECTION
Commercial Uses Section A
Cultural, Entertainment,
and Recreational Uses
Section B
Industrial Uses Section C
Institutional Uses Section D
CATEGORY SECTION
Open Space and
Agricultural Uses
Section E
Residential Uses Section F
Transportation,
Communication & Utilities
Section G
Loading Section H
24
Planner’s Note: [According to EPA guidance, all permittees should enact parking
requirements that are at or below Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) requirements.
The following tables in this model recommend minimum parking requirements based
upon the lowest parking requirement from the sources and uses listed. These referenced
sources include ITE standards, American Planning Association (APA) guidance, Urban
Land Institute (ULI) guidance, current St. Louis County zoning ordinance, and current City
of Chesterfield zoning ordinance. Uses listed herein do not represent all possible uses
and permittees may need to add use categories to this list. Ratios in the parking section
tables are based on square footage (SF), or gross floor area (GFA) as defined by the
sum of horizontal area of all floors of a building, including basement areas, measured
from the inside of exterior walls. The GFA does not include interior loading and parking
areas, atriums except on the first floor, rooftop equipment enclosures, or enclosed mall
areas of shopping centers. Requirements may also be adjusted based on site analysis of
developments and actual parking demand/experience. Note that the maximum parking
allowed in Section 4 is based on the minimum requirement in this section.]
Planner’s Note: [See the City of Chesterfield for an example of a municipality who
utilized the ITE recommended minimum parking requirements, along with other
resources, and conducted a parking demand study in support of a new parking
ordinance.]
Provided, however, that no additional parking spaces are required for permitted
uses if located in a building authorized prior to [year] or in
[neighborhood/geographic location].
Planner’s Note: [Redevelopment is sometimes impaired by the need to provide
additional parking in existing buildings and/or developed neighborhoods. This provision
encourages reuse of these areas by waiving requirements that would require additional
parking be constructed. Planners should give consideration to how parking needs will be
met in these areas. ]
When determination of the number of off-street parking or loading spaces
required by this section results in a fraction of a space, the resulting fraction may
be disregarded.
4. Maximum Parking Requirements
Non-residential uses in all zoning districts shall not contain more than 110% of
the minimum number of parking spaces required except as permitted under part
7.4(b) of this Section.
Planner’s Note: [The minimum number of parking spaces required is defined by the
tables referenced in Section 3. The ratios given in the tables x 110% are not a cap on
total parking, but rather a cap on impervious parking requirements and set a standard to
produce the lowest impervious footprint. If more parking is needed, it can be provided
by impervious area off-set (e.g. pervious pavement or green roof) or by parking study
as described in Section 7.4.]
25
5. Minimum Off-Street Parking Dimensions.
The regulations in this subsection shall govern the dimensions for off-street
parking spaces, including those provided in developments approved in planned
districts or by special procedure prior to the enactment hereof, anything in such
planned district or special procedure approval to the contrary notwithstanding.
(1) Except as otherwise provided for in this subsection, the requirements for
off-street parking shall be implemented with regard to the minimum
dimensions in the following table:
PARKING TABLE
A B C D E F G
45o 9.0' 19.7' 12.5' 12.7' 51.9' 45.6
60o 9.0' 21.0' 17.5' 10.5' 59.5' 55.0
90o 9.0' 19.0' 22.0' 9.0' 60.0' ----
A Parking angle
B Stall width
C 19' min. stall to curb
D* Aisle width
E Curb length per car
F Curb to curb
G Center to center width of double row with aisle between
*Additional width may be required where the aisle serves as the principal
means of access to on-site buildings or structures.
Planner’s Note: [Angled parking results in the creation of islands that can be used as
either green space or BMPs. Section 6.(9) requires these islands be “green” and not
“wasted” imperviousness. ]
26
(2) All off-street, accessible parking spaces shall adhere to ADA requirements
and standards.
(3) In the event that the desired parking angle is not specified by the above
table, Department of Planning may specify other equivalent dimensions
associated with the desired parking angle by interpolating from dimensions
listed in the table.
(4) On-site parallel parking stalls shall be 9.0' x 22.0’ adjacent to a 22' two-way
lane or 15' one-way lane.
(5) Compact car spaces shall be designed at a minimum of 9.0’ x 18.0’. Not
more than 10% of the minimum parking spaces required shall be designated
for compact cars.
Planner’s Note: [Permittees should allow and encourage some reduction in
parking space requirements where compact car parking is provided.]
6. Supplementary Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements.
In addition to the above parking and loading requirements, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) In all zoning districts, all parking and loading areas, including driveways, shall
be paved with impervious or pervious pavement, except where the
City/County may approve an alternate dustproofing method.
Planner’s Note: [Permittees should encourage pervious pavement. Standard
details and specifications for porous pavers, pervious concrete, and porous
asphalt are available from MSD.]
(2) All areas for off-street parking and loading in any District shall be so arranged
that vehicles at no time are required to back into any street or roadway.
(3) Off-street parking areas in the Commercial or Industrial Districts shall provide
ingress and egress to any public right-of-way only at such location as
approved by the City/County.
(4) In all districts, parking spaces and drive aisles shall adhere to the minimum
setbacks of the underlying zoning district. The limitations of this paragraph
may be modified in a development authorized under any special procedure
by its site specific ordinance.
27
(5) Minimum off-street parking and loading requirements as specified in this
section shall not include parking and loading spaces located in the flood plain
or floodway, as determined by the City/County. (This provision does not
include parking associated with permitted uses authorized in a flood plain
zoning district.)
(6) No off-street parking space required under this ordinance shall be used for
any other purpose. Where a change in use creates greater parking
requirements than the amount being provided, an occupancy permit shall not
be issued until provision is made for the increased amount of required
off-street parking.
(7) Where an addition is made to an existing use which does not comply with the
parking requirements cited for such use, additional parking shall be provided
in proportion to the addition.
(8) Where no minimum requirement is specified, or when one or more of the
parking requirements may be construed as applicable to the same use, lot or
building, the final determination of required parking shall be made by the
City/County.
(9) Green Space Requirements: (a) 10% of the interior parking lot area is to be
dedicated to green space, or (b) each parking space shall be within fifty (50)
feet of a tree or other approved vegetation, with at least 135 sq. ft. of
pervious area per tree or vegetated area. Bioretention areas are encouraged
to be placed between parking aisles, at the end of drive aisles, or around the
perimeter of a parking lot. Landscape islands featuring no curbs or notched
curbs, which contain native plants or deep rooted non-native perennial plants
are preferred. Where angled parking is provided, resulting islands shall be
landscaped or used for stormwater BMPs.
Planner’s Note: [Permittees should require a minimum amount of interior
landscaping that that can be used for tree planting areas or BMPs.]
(10) Based upon site conditions and appropriate documentation, the Director of
Planning may authorize up to 10% of the required parking spaces to be
satisfied by providing bicycle parking spaces in lieu of vehicular parking
spaces.
(11) All parking spaces required by this ordinance shall be located on the same
parcel of land as the use to be served except as follows:
(a) Parking for one or more uses in a commercial or industrial district may
be provided on a separate lot when said separate lot is within a similar
zoning district type and within 300 feet of the use or uses to be served,
28
as measured along a pedestrian walkway designed to allow
pedestrians to safely access the use.
(b) When two (2) or more owners agree to provide their required parking
spaces jointly, the number of joint parking spaces shall be equal to the
number of parking spaces required if each were to provide parking
separately, unless otherwise stated in this Section.
(i) The applicants for joint parking shall submit a joint parking plan
and an appropriate legal instrument of agreement among the
involved property owners for review by the Planning Director.
(ii) Such joint parking plan and agreement shall include language
binding the owners of the properties and their successors and
assigns to the agreement and limiting and controlling use of land
to those uses and conditions accepted by the Planning Director
and agreed to by the owners of the properties involved.
(iii) The applicant shall record the joint parking agreement with the
County Recorder of Deeds.
Planner’s Note: [To minimize the creation of excess parking, permittees should
encourage shared or joint parking plans.]
7. Modifications to These Requirements
An applicant may request a modification of the requirements of this Section of
the Ordinance by providing a Parking Demand Study, as defined below, that
supports the request and demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that
the requested modifications are appropriate for the site and do not cause
detriment to adjacent properties.
Planner’s Note: [Permittees should allow parking demand studies to be used to
determine when a reduction in the minimum parking requirement is appropriate.
Consideration of site proximity to transit, car pooling, bicycle parking, adjacent
uses, hours of operation, and other factors should be considered.
(1) A Parking Demand Study is required when an applicant:
(a) Requests a reduction in the minimum parking requirements;
(b) Requests to exceed the maximum parking requirements;
(c) Requests any other modification to the standards of this
Section.
29
(2) The Parking Demand Study shall contain the following information as
determined by the City/County:
(a) A plan which graphically depicts where the parking spaces, loading
spaces, stacking area, and parking structures are to be located, as well
as the onsite circulation for automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle
movement.
(b) A report which demonstrates how any variations from this Section were
calculated and upon what assumptions such calculations were based;
and how everything shown on the plan complies with, or varies from,
applicable standards and procedures of the City/County.
(c) The plan shall show all entrances and exits for any structured parking
and the relationship between parking lots or structures and the
circulation.
(d) The plan, supported by the report, shall show the use, number,
location, and typical dimensions of parking and loading for various
vehicle types including passenger vehicles, trucks, vehicles for
mobility-impaired persons, motorcycles, buses, other transit vehicles
and bicycles.
(e) The plan, supported by the report, shall include phasing plans for the
construction of parking facilities and any interim facilities planned.
(f) Whenever the applicant requests (1) to reduce the number of required
parking spaces, or (2) to exceed the maximum parking provided for in
this Section, the required report shall document how the proposed
parking was calculated and upon what assumptions such calculations
were based.
(g) Such other information as determined by the Planning Director to be
necessary to process the Parking Demand Study.
(3) Design features and review criteria including, but not limited to those listed
below, will be reviewed when in conjunction with requests for modification to
any of the requirements of this Section.
(a) The Parking Demand Study provides sufficient number and types of
spaces to serve the uses identified on the site.
(b) Adequate provisions are made for the safety of all parking facility
users, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
(c) Sites are designed to minimize or alleviate traffic problems.
(d) Parking spaces are located near the uses they are intended to serve
and shall provide safe and convenient access for pedestrian access to
the facility.
(e) Adequate on-site parking is provided during each phase of
development of the district.
(f) The development provides opportunities for shared parking or for other
reductions in trip generation through the adoption of transportation
demand management (TDM) techniques to reduce trip generation,
30
such as car pools, van pools, bicycles, employer transit subsidies,
compressed work hours, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) parking
preference.
(g) Reductions in the number of parking and loading spaces should be
related to significant factors such as, but not limited to:
• Shared parking opportunities between different land use
categories or uses with different hours of operation;
• The availability and incorporation of transit services and
facilities;
• Opportunities for reduced trip generation through pedestrian
circulation between mixed-uses;
• Off-site traffic mitigation measures;
• Recognized variations in standards due to the scale of the
facilities;
• Parking demand for a specified use;
• The provisions of accessible parking spaces beyond those
required per the City/County Code;
• Provision of bicycle parking spaces; and
• Opportunities for reduced loading requirements, based on
business practices.
(4) Requests for modifications will be considered by the Planning Director and
may be approved if the requested modifications are appropriate to the site
and do not cause detriment to the adjacent properties. If said request for
modifications is approved, the property owner(s) involved in the Parking
Demand Study shall submit a written agreement to the City/County requiring
that the parking facility and any associated transportation demand
management (TDM) techniques shall be maintained without alteration
unless such alteration is authorized by the Planning Director. Such written
agreement shall be approved by the City/County and recorded by the
property owner with the County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and a copy filed in the project review file.
Review Procedure.
(a) Requests for a reduction in the minimum parking requirement:
i) The Planning Director shall review, and may approve, requests for
reduction for up to twenty percent (20%) of the minimum parking
requirement.
ii) Requests that exceed twenty percent (20%) shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Planning Commission.
(b) Requests to provide parking in excess of the maximum parking
requirement:
i) Requests to exceed the maximum parking requirement by not more
31
than fifteen percent (15%) shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Director.
ii) Requests to exceed the maximum parking requirement by more
than fifteen percent (15%) shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Commission. Where Planning
Commission approval is required for the proposed parking, the
applicant shall submit a statement that identifies measures to
mitigate for the increase in parking area. Mitigation measures shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission
and may include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Increased open space;
• Pervious pavements;
• Green roofs;
• Cool pavement materials;
• Structured parking;
• Native vegetation; or
• Rain gardens or bioretention areas.
(c) Review of other modifications. Requests for modifications to the
requirements of this Section, other than those listed above, shall be
submitted to the City/County for review and approval.
8. Phantom or Deferred Parking
Planner’s Note: [Permittees should encourage developments to use “phantom” or
deferred parking and loading requirements to reduce imperviousness. Phantom parking
protects against over parking a site, provides increased green space, decreases the
amount of disturbed areas and is cost effective for developers.
An applicant may request phantom parking or deferred parking, which is to defer
the construction of the number of required parking spaces and/or loading
spaces until a later date. Phantom parking means that some of the required
parking spaces and/or loading spaces might not be constructed unless they
were deemed to be necessary after full build-out occurs, but that an area on the
site would be reserved so that these spaces could be provided in the future
upon demand or request by the City/County. Said demand would be made if the
spaces were needed to meet the parking and loading needs of the project.
(1) The Planning Director may grant a deferral for construction of up to 50% of
the off-street parking and/or loading spaces required by this Section in an
industrial district; 30% in a commercial district and any other district if an
applicant demonstrates:
32
(a) Trip generation characteristics and time of day usage characteristics
for similar uses show that the parking spaces can be reduced without
causing parking to overlap into other nearby developments or onto
public streets.
(b) Vehicles owned by the occupants are characteristically different from
the norm or the proximity to employment, shopping, educational and
transit developments is such that reduced auto usage would be
anticipated.
(c) The immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serves a
significant proportion of residents, employees, and/or customers.
(d) Operation of effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus or
similar transportation programs with proof of continued financial
viability.
(e) Evidence that a proportion of residents, employees, and/or customers
utilize, have available or on a regular basis use bicycle or other
transportation alternative commensurate with reduced parking
requirements.
(f) Development will be in phases so that deferring the parking will have
green space until further build-out. The site must meet all parking
requirements based upon square-footage actually built.
(g) The businesses’ delivery requirements for operations and delivery
vehicles utilized require less loading space than the minimum required.
(2) Applicants for deferral of parking shall provide a written statement which
addresses how the proposal meets the applicable criteria. The application
shall include a site plan depicting the total required parking and loading on-
site, and the deferred parking and loading area(s) shall be labeled as
reserved for future parking.
(3) The land area delineated for deferred parking shall be shown on the plan
with proposed finish grades and landscaping. Landscaping for the deferred
parking area shall be as approved by the Planning Director with the
remainder of the site landscaped per guidelines for the appropriate district.
All landscaping shall be indicated on the plan submitted.
(4) The owner of the property, or their designated party, shall notify the
City/County of any change in the conditions that was the basis for a deferral.
(5) The City/County may require the construction of parking and/or loading in
areas previously reserved at any time upon sixty days written notice. A
parking deferral shall apply to the developer and all subsequent owners of
said property and shall run with the land and be shown on all recorded plats.
The plat shall state that the developer/owner and all subsequent owners
grant the City/County, or its designated representative, authority to enter
onto its property in the future to construct the deferred parking in the areas
shown on the approved site plan if owners fail to take action 60 days after
33
receiving written notice by the City/County. The costs incurred by the
City/County shall be repaid by the owners or shall be placed as a special
lien against the property. Development and construction by the City shall not
be in lieu of a municipal zoning ordinance violation, but shall be in addition
to any action taken for violation of provisions of this ordinance.
34
35
APPENDIX B
MINIMUM PARKING and LOADING REQUIREMENT TABLES
The following tables provide recommendations for minimum parking and loading
requirements. These requirements were established through discussions with the
Phase II Stormwater BMP Implementation Work Group, including St. Louis County
and municipal representatives, as well as research from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Urban Land Institute (ULI) and American Planning
Association (APA). The uses provided below represent an example of some of the
more commonly used use terms and are not intended to be an exhaustive list.
When possible, we encourage municipalities to conduct a parking demand study or
analysis to determine if the parking recommendations from either ITE or APA may
be reduced to accommodate the actual needs in your jurisdiction. The minimum
parking requirement column lists the requirements used or published by the
recommended source. The other sources column lists requirements from other
sources for reference; however, these requirements were generally not
recommended for the use category because they would result in additional parking
spaces and impervious area. Note that the model parking ordinance specifies a
maximum number of parking spaces based on a percentage of the minimum
requirement.
(St. Louis County parking requirements were used as a source in the table below to
represent the local requirements in St. Louis, and was selected as the model for
many uses. However, in 2008 the City of Chesterfield completed a city wide parking
study. The results of this study were used to reduce existing parking requirements
to more accurately reflect the use and associated parking demand. Several of the
minimum parking requirements in Chesterfield are less than that required by ITE,
ULI, APA and St. Louis County, and therefore, have been incorporated into the
model provided below. A full copy of this City of Chesterfield Parking Chapter is
available at www.chesterfield.mo.us )
36
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Auto Sales
3 / 1000 SF of sales
and showroom area,
3 spaces for every
service bay in repair
garage areas, and 1
space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
the premises. This
shall not include
space provided for
vehicles for sale or
lease
A Chesterfield
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Automobile Dealership,
1 to 4 / 1000 GFA
StLCo: 3.3 / 1000 SF of sales
and showroom area, 3 spaces
for every service bay in repair
garage areas, and 1 space for
every vehicle customarily used
in operation of the use or
stored on the premises. This
shall not include space
provided for vehicles for sale
or lease
Banquet
Facilities
3.3 space per 1000
square feet (SF) of
gross floor area
(GFA)
None Chesterfield
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Banquet Hall, 1 to 2
parking space per 200 SF, but
not less than 1 space per each
2 seats
StLCo: 1 / 50 SF of floor area
used for public assembly
Car Wash,
Except Self
Service
Stacking equal to 5
times the capacity of
the car wash beyond
cars in car wash
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Stacking area 5 times
the capacity of the car wash,
plus 1 parking space per
employee
Child Care
Centers, Day
Nurseries
and Adult
Day Care
Centers
2.66 / 1000 GFA, or 1
space for every 10
children or adults
enrolled plus 1 per
employee (consider
drop-off/pick-up
arrangement)
None
APA: Day Care
Center
ITE: 0.3/ licensed student, 1.8
/ employees
ULI: None
StLCo: 1 per 6 person
enrolled, plus 1 space per
operational vehicle
Cigar and
Newspaper
Stands
3.33 / 1000 GFA B StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 300 SF of GFA
37
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Clubs and
Lodges
1 space for every 4
seats or 1 space for
every 3 members
B StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per each 4
persons of the rated capacity
Commercial
Vegetable
and Flower
Gardening,
and Green-
houses
4.0 / 1000 GFA of
sales area None Chesterfield
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Greenhouse, 2.5 to 4
space per 1000 SF of sales
area
StLCo: 2 spaces for 3
employees on the maximum
shift, 1 space for every vehicle
customarily used in operation
of the use or stored on the
premises, plus 5 / 1000 GFA
of salesroom
Equipment
Sales,
Service,
Rental, and
Repair
3.33 / 1000 GFA A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 2 parking spaces, plus
additional space for each 300
SF of floor area over 1000 SF
Filling Station
(service
station)
1 space for every
employee on the
maximum shift
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 2 space per service bay,
plus 1 space per employee of
largest shift
Financial
Institutions
3.6 per 1000 SG of
gross floor area None ULI
ITE: 4.6 / 1000 SF of gross
floors area up to 10,000 SF;
Use Office ratios over 10,000
APA: 1 space per 200 SF of
gross floor area, plus 1 space
at each electronic banking
service facility and 3 additional
off-street stacking spaces per
drive-in lane, plus adequate
stacking area to approach
each drive-thru lane
StLCo: 4.5 / 1000 GFA
(excluding under canopy). For
drive-through tellers, stacking
for each unit for sufficient size
to accommodate 3 cars
beyond car using teller window
38
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Fitness
Centers,
under 1,500
SF
5 / 1000 GFA None StLCo
ITE: 7 / 1000 GFA
ULI: 5.75 per 1000 SF of
gross floor area
APA: 1 space per 4 persons
based on the maximum
allowance occupancy
Fitness
Centers,
1,500 SF or
more
3.33 / 1000 GFA of
office, consultation,
retail sales, tanning,
beauty service and
non-public eating
area; 1 space for
every 100 SF gross
floor area for
exercise, exercise
machines and
aerobics areas; 2
spaces for every 100
SF of swimming pool.
Use applicable ratios
for other uses at
these facilities found
in this table.
None StLCo
ITE: 7 / 1000 GFA
ULI: 5.75 per 1000 SF of
gross floor area
APA: 1 space per 4 persons
based on the maximum
allowance occupancy
Food
Markets,
5,000 SF
Gross Floor
Area and
over
4.5 spaces per 1,000
SQ of floor area A Chesterfield
ITE: 6.7 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: Grocery Store, 4.4 to 5 /
1000 GFA
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Food
Markets,
under 5,000
SF Gross
Floor Area
(Conv. Store)
3.3 spaces per 1,000
SQ of floor area B Chesterfield
ITE: 6.7 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: Grocery Store, 3.33 /
1000 GFA
StLCo: 3.33 /1000 GFA
Furniture
Store, Retail 2.5 / 1000 GFA A ITE
ULI: None
APA: Furniture Store, 1 to 2.5
spaces per 1000 SF of floor
area
StLCo: 3 / 1000 GFA
39
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Home
Improvement
Centers
4.5 / 1000 GFA (all
superstores) B ITE
ULI: None
APA: Home Improvement
Center, 2.5 to 5 per 1000 SF
of gross floor area
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Hotels,
Motels
1 space for every
sleeping unit, 2
spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus 1
space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
the premises
B StLCo
ITE: 1.25 / room; plus 10/1000
GFA for restaurant; plus
30/1000 GFA for
conference/banquet if 20,000-
50,000 SF / room or 20 / 1000
GFA if over 50,000 SF
ULI: 1.25 per room
APA: 1 space per room or
lodging unit
Kennels
2 spaces per kennel,
plus 2 spaces for
every 3 employees
on the maximum
shift, plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used in
operation of the use
or stored on the
premises
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 4 per 1000 SF of gross
floor area
Laundry and
Dry Cleaning
Pick-up
2.5 / 1000 GFA A ITE: Dry
Cleaners
ULI: None
APA: 2 to 10 spaces per 1000
SF of gross floor area; a
minimum of 4 spaces shall be
required
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Medical and
Dental
Offices and
Clinics
4.5 / 1000 GFA B StLCo
ITE: 4.5 / 1000 GFA
ULI: 4.5 / 1000 GFA
APA: 6 spaces per doctor or
dentist
Mini-
warehouses/
Self-Storage
Facilities
3.33 / 1000 GFA of
office, 1 space for
caretaker
B StLCo
ITE: 1.75 / 100 units
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 100 units,
and 2 spaces per on-site
caretaker residence
40
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Mortuaries
1 space for every 5
seats, 10 space
minimum
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 5 seats of
maximum capacity
Offices and
Office
Buildings
3.0 / 1000 GFA B
Indianapolis
Region,
Ordinance
Review
Checklist
ITE: If less than 25,000 SF
then 3.8 / 1000 GFA; 25,000 –
100,000 SF then 3.4 / 1000
GFA ; 100,000 – 500,000 SF
then 2.8 / 1000 GFA; over
500,000 SF then 2.8 / 1000
GFA
ULI: Same as ITE
APA: 1 per 350 SF of gross
floor area
StLCo: 3.33 / 1000 GFA
Produce
Stands and
Plant
Nurseries
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus 1
space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
the premises and 5 /
1000 SF sales
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space for every 300
SF of total sales area
Research Facilities and Laboratories (under one owner or management)
a. Less than
100,000 SF 3.0 / 1000 GFA B Chesterfield
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Research Laboratory,
2.5 to 4 per 1000 SF
StLCo: 3.33 / 1000 GFA up to
50,000 SF, plus 2.5 / 1000
GFA over 50,000 SF
b. 100,000
SF or larger 3.0 / 1000 GFA B Chesterfield
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Research Laboratory,
2.5 to 4 per 1000 SF
StLCo: 300 spaces plus 2
spaces for every 3 employees
over 400 employees
41
SECTION A: Off-Street Parking Requirements - Commercial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use
Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Restaurants,
Bar, Cocktail
Lounge
1 space for every 3
seats plus 2 spaces
for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift , Or
12.0 / 1000 GFA
None StLCo ,
Chesterfield
ITE: 20 / 1000 GFA
ULI: 18 / 1000 GFA
APA: Restaurant, 1 per 4
seats to 20 / 1000 GFA
Restaurants,
Fast Food
1 space for every 2
seats plus 2 spaces
for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift and 5
stacking plus 1 at
order station
None StLCo
ITE: 15 / 1000 GFA
ULI: 15 / 1000 GFA
APA: 10 to 20 per 1000 GFA,
plus 3 stacking spaces for
drive-thru window
Restaurants,
less than
1,500 SF
4.5 / 1000 GFA None BMP Work
Group
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 4 to 16.66 /1000 SF
usable floor area
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Retail Sales
Establish-
ment
4 / 1000 GFA B BMP Work
Group
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 5/1000 GFA
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Vehicle
Service
Centers and
Repair
Facilities
1 space for every
employee on the
maximum shift, 3
spaces for every
service bay, and 1
space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 4 spaces per service
bay, 6 spaces minimum
Veterinary
Clinics and
Hospitals
2.85 / 1000 GFA None APA: Animal
Hospital
ITE: None
ULI: None
StLCo: 4.5 / 1000 GFA
Commercial Service Retail Center *
Model Parking Ordinance
Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Center Size
(Gross Floor Area in Square Feet)
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Under 40,000 4 / 1000 GFA APA
ITE: None
ULI: None
40,001 to 100,000 4 / 1000 GFA APA: Retail Use
ITE: None
ULI: None
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA
Over 100,000 2.85 / 1000 GFA if center
is over 100,000 GFA APA: Retail Use
ITE: None
ULI: None
StLCo: 5 / 1000
*The Commercial Service Retail Center minimum parking table is applicable when
there is a mixed use development that is owned and managed as a single unit.
Section H, Table B applies.
42
43
SECTION B: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Cultural, Entertainment, and
Recreational
Model Parking Ordinance
Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Athletic Fields 18 spaces per field or 1
per every 4 seats
APA: Athletic
Field
ITE: None
ULI: None
StLCo: 20 spaces for every
diamond or athletic field, or 1 space
for every 4 seats, which ever is
greater. (1 seat is equal to 2’ of
bench length)
Auditoriums,
Theatres,
Meeting Rooms
and Places for
Public Assembly
(except as noted
herein)
1 space for every 4 seats
or 1 space for every 50 SF
of floor area used for
public assembly
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: 0.20 / seat
APA: 1 space per 4 seats. Theatre
- 1 for each 6 seats
Batting Cages,
Shooting
Ranges
1 space per cage or firing
station StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Shoot Range, Outdoor - 1
per target area or 1 for 5 seats,
whichever is greater. Shoot
Range, Indoor - 1 per 200 SF of
gross floor area. Batting Cage – 1
per cage
Bowling Alleys 4 spaces per alley Chesterfield
ITE: 5.5 per lane
ULI: None
APA: Bowling Alley, 2 per bowling
lane, plus 1 per every 2 employees,
plus 1 / 100 SF amusement
StLCo: 5 spaces for every alley
Camping 1 dust free 10x30 space
for every campsite StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per campsite or bed, plus 1
for each employee
Clubs and
Lodges
1 space for every 4 seats
or 1 space for every 3
members
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per each 4 persons
of the rated capacity
44
SECTION B: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Cultural, Entertainment, and
Recreational
Model Parking Ordinance
Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Community
Centers and
Private, Not-for-
Profit Recreation
Centers,
including
Gymnasiums
and Indoor
Swimming Pools
3.33 for every 1000 SF
gross floor area StLCo
ITE: 5.82 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 4 occupants or, in the
case of nonstructural facility, 1 per
4 persons the facility is intended to
accommodate
Drive-In
Theatres
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus 1
space for every vehicle
customarily used in
operation of the use of
stored on the premises
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 10% over vehicle capacity
Fairgrounds
Sufficient open land
convertible to parking such
that no vehicle need be
parked on any street
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 5 seats provided
Golf Courses
Space equivalent to 1% of
the total land area. Parking
area available along park
roads or private drives
may be used to fulfill this
requirement
StLCo
ITE: 9.8 per hole
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 3 golf holes, plus 1 per
each 2 employees
Golf Driving
Ranges 2 spaces per tee StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Golf Driving Range, 1 to 2
space per tee
Gymnasium
without
bleachers or
fixed seating
(except as noted
herein)
10 spaces per 1000 GFA StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Gymnasium,
20 space for every 1000 SF floor
area for seats
45
SECTION B: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Cultural, Entertainment, and
Recreational
Model Parking Ordinance
Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Indoor Soccer
50 spaces for every
playing field, plus 1 space
for every 3 seats of
spectator seating (1 seat
equals 2’ of bench length),
plus 2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, but in no
case less than 100 spaces
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Soccer Field, Indoor, 40 to
60 per playing field
Miniature Golf 2 spaces for every tee StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Golf Course, Miniature, 1 to 3
spaces per hole
Parks,
Playgrounds,
Picnic Grounds
Space equivalent to 1% of
the total land area. Parking
area available along park
roads or private drives
may be used to fulfill this
requirement
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Park - 1 space per 5,000 SF
of land area. Picnic Area –
minimum of 1 parking space per
table.
Recreation
Centers
3.33 spaces for every
1000 SF gross floor area StLCo
ITE: 5.82 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 4 occupants or, in the
case of nonstructural facility, 1 per
4 persons the facility is intended to
accommodate
Stadiums,
Sports Arenas,
and
Gymnasiums
with spectator
facilities
1 space for every 4 seats
(1 seat if equal to 2’ of
bench length)
StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: Arena – 0.33 / seat
Football – 0.31 / seat
Baseball – 0.35 / seat
APA: 1 space per 4 seats
Swimming Pools 20 spaces for every 1000
SF of water area StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Swimming Pool, 10 to 20
spaces per 1000 SF of water area
46
SECTION B: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Cultural, Entertainment, and
Recreational
Model Parking Ordinance
Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Tennis Courts 4 parking spaces per court StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Tennis Court, 2 to 5 spaces
for every court
47
SECTION C: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Industrial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Section H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Animal
Slaughtering,
Meatpacking
and Rendering
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per employee
on largest shift
Blacksmith,
Sheet Metal,
and Welding
Shops
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: None
Extraction of
Raw Materials,
Logging
Operations
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: None
Junkyards,
Salvage
Yards, and
Wrecking
Yards
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus
1 space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
premises
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per every 2 employees
on the maximum shift
Laundry or Dry
Cleaning
Plants
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per employee, plus 1
per delivery vehicle
Mail Order
Sales
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus
1 space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
premises
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 parking space shall be
provided for each 2 employees
48
SECTION C: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Industrial
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Min Parking
Requirement
Section H
Table
Recommended
Source
Other
Sources
Manufacturing
and
Fabrication
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus
1 space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
premises
A StLCo
ITE: 1.85 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: 1 parking space for
every 2 employees
on the largest shift
Plumbing, Air
Conditioning,
and Heating
Equipment
(sales, repairs,
and
warehousing)
3.33 / 1000 GFA of
sales and office area,
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus
1 space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
premises
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 2 parking spaces, plus
additional space for each 300
SF of floor area over 1000 SF
Warehousing
and
Wholesaling
2 spaces for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift, plus
1 space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored on
premises
A StLCo
ITE: 0.67 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: 1 parking space for each
1.5 employees, plus 1 space
for every vehicle used in
connection with the business
49
SECTION D: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Institutional
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Churches
1 space for every 4
seats (1 seat
equals 2’ of bench
length), plus 1
space for every
vehicle customarily
used in operation of
the use or stored
on the premises
None
StLCo
ITE: 0.25 / seat
ULI: None
APA: Church, 1 space for each
3 to 10 seats in the largest
assembly room
Fire Stations
1 space for every
employee on the
shift
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Fire: 1 space per
employee on the maximum shift
Foster Homes
1 space for every 5
beds, plus 1 space
for every employee
on the maximum
shift
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Group Home for Foster
Care, 1 per each employee or
caregiver, 1 for each 2
residents
Group Homes
for Elderly
(Assisted
Living Units)
1 space per 2 units,
plus 2 spaces for
every 3 employees
on the maximum
shift
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 4 residents,
plus 1 space per employee
Hospitals
1 space for every 2
beds, plus 1 space
for every staff
doctor and
employee on the
maximum shift
B StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space for every 2 beds
Libraries,
Reading
Rooms
2.0 / 1000 GFA None Chesterfield
ITE: 4.19 / 1000 GFA
ULI: None
APA: Library, 2 to 4 for each
1000 SF of floor space,
StLCo: 5 / 1000 GFA, 1 space
for every 6 seats in an
accessory auditorium, and 2
spaces for every 3 employees
on the maximum shift
50
SECTION D: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Institutional
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Nursing
Homes
(Skilled Care)
1 space for every 5
beds, 1 space for
every self-care unit,
and 1 space for
every 2 employees
on the maximum
shift
B StLCo
ITE: 0.5 / bed
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 4 beds, plus
1 space per employee
Police Stations
2 spaces for every
3 employees on the
maximum shift,
plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used in
operation of the
use or stored on
the premises
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space for each 1,000
SF of floor area
Postal
Stations
4 spaces for every
customer service
station, 2 spaces
for every 3
employees on the
maximum shift,
plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used in
operation of the
use or stored on
the premises
A StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 200 SF of usable
floor space, plus 1 per
employee
Schools,
Collegiate
2 spaces for every
3 employees on the
maximum shift, 2
spaces for every 5
non-freshman
resident students, 2
spaces for every 9
non-resident,
commuting
students
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per every 3.5 full time
equivalent students
51
SECTION D: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Institutional
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Schools,
Public and
Private, all
Grades and
Vocational
1 space for every
classroom and
office, and 1 space
for every 4 students
over 16 years of
age
None StLCo
ITE: Elementary: higher of 0.2 /
auditorium or gym seats and
0.25 / student. High School:
higher of 0.3 / auditorium or
gym seats and 0.3 / student.
ULI: None
APA: Elementary: 2 per
classroom
Primary/Secondary: 1 space
per 15 students
Vocational: 0.33 per student,
plus 1 per staff
Schools,
Special
1 space for every
classroom and
office
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 30 % of building capacity
52
53
SECTION E: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Open Space and Agriculture
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommende
d Source Other Sources
Agriculture
Operations,
Farm
Buildings
Sufficient open land
available for
parking so that no
vehicle need be
parked on any
street
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per employee
Cemeteries
2 spaces for every
3 employees on the
maximum shift,
plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used in
operation of the
use or stored on
the premises
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 4 visitors to
the maximum capacity
Forest and
Wildfire
Reservations
Sufficient open land
available for
parking so that no
vehicle need be
parked on any
street
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Sufficient open land
available for parking so that no
vehicle need be parked on any
street
54
55
SECTION F: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Residential
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Dormitories
or Group
Living
Facilities
1 space for every 2
dormitory units or 1
space for every 3
occupants
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Dormitories, 1 space
for every 4 sleeping rooms to
1 space per 2 beds
Dwellings,
Multiple
Family, Row
Houses, or
Other Group
House
Arrangement
1.5 spaces for
every living unit* None StLCo
ITE: 1.65/ dwelling unit
rental; 1.85/ dwelling unit
owned
ULI: Rental: 1.65/unit;
Owned: 1.85/unit
APA: 1.5/unit
Dwellings,
Single Family
(including
Single Family
Earth
Sheltered)
1 space for every
dwelling None StLCo
ITE: 2/dwelling
ULI: Rental: 1.65/unit;
Owned: 1.85/unit
APA: 2 per dwelling
Dwellings,
Two Family
1 space for each
living unit None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: None
* The off-street parking requirements for housing for the elderly in residential zoning districts may be
reduced to 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit when approved by the City/County. When such a reduction
is approved, an area of sufficient size shall be designated on the site plan to accommodate
additional parking, should conversion to conventional housing occur in the future.
56
SECTION F: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Residential
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Group Homes
for the
Development-
ally Disabled
0.35/dwelling unit None ITE: Assisted
Living
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 2 resident
beds
StLCo: 2 spaces for each
such use
Group Homes
for the Elderly
(Reuse of a
Single Family
Home)
0.35/dwelling unit None ITE: Assisted
Living
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 2 resident
beds
StLCo: 2 spaces for each
such use
Group Living
Facilities for
Religious
Purposes
1 space for every 2
occupants None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 space per 2 resident
beds
57
SECTION G: Off-Street Parking Requirements – Transportation,
Communication, And Utilities
Model Parking Ordinance Recommendations ITE, ULI, APA, St. Louis County (StLCo)
Use Minimum Parking
Requirement
Section
H
Table
Recommended
Source Other Sources
Highway
Department
Garages
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 4 spaces per service
bay, 6 spaces minimum
Public
Utilities and
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per employee
Radio, T.V.
and Other
Communicati
on Facilities
2 spaces for every
3 employees on the
maximum shift,
plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used or
stored on the
premises.
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: 1 per 500 SF
Terminal (Air,
Bus,
Railroad,
Truck, and
Watercraft)
2 spaces for every
3 employees on the
maximum shift,
plus 1 space for
every vehicle
customarily used or
stored on the
premises, plus 1
space for every 200
SF of lobby area
None StLCo
ITE: None
ULI: None
APA: Passenger Terminal,
1.66 / 1000 GFA to 5 /1000
SF net leasable area
58
SECTION H: Minimum Loading Requirements
When required in conjunction with uses specified elsewhere in this Chapter, loading
spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following tables:
Table A
Gross Floor Area Number of Loading Spaces*
(sq. ft.) 10' x 40' min*
5,000 - 24,000 1
24,000 - 60,000 2
60,000 - 96,000 3
96,000 - 144,000 4
144,000 - 192,000 5
192,000 - 240,000 6
240,000 - 294,000 7
294,000 - 348,000 8
For each additional 54,000 1 additional loading space
Table B
Gross Floor Area Number of Loading Spaces
(sq. ft.) 10’ x 25’ min 10’ x 40’ min*
2,000 - 10,000 1
10,000 - 25,000 2
25,000 - 100,000 2 1
For each additional 100,000 1 additional
* Each 10' x 40' loading space shall have a height clear of obstruction of not less
than 14 ft.
59
60
61
APPENDIX C
MSD Non-Standard Detail, Bioretention for Parking Island
0 0
D--s
cn 171
OIOZ '1d3S
CURB STOP
SLOPE
PAVEMENT//
AGGREGATE BASE
//\\//i//i\///
3/4"0 (OR LARGER)
GRAVEL, TYP. /,
2" THICK MULCH
MSD TYPE 4 GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
VARIES
18" MAX. PONDING
WQ STORM
36" MAX. PONDING
GREATER STORMS
2
i1
/\\/\/\
4"0 SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR SDR 35
PERFORATED PIPE, 3/8"0 HOLES, TWO SIDES,
FACING DOWN, 2" MIN. OFF BOTTOM
TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE: 1 "=20'
NOTES:
(1) SEE MSD LANDSCAPE GUIDE FOR BIORETENTION SOIL SPECIFICATIONS.
(2) AS SHOWN, MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA = 0.5 ACRES. ADDITIONAL PRETREATMENT (FOREBAY OR VERTICAL
SAND LAYER & COBBLE DIAPHRAGM) REQUIRED FOR LARGER DRAINAGE AREAS.
(3) VEGETATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SEE MSD LANDSCAPE GUIDE FOR MULCH & SUGGESTED PLANT LIST.
(4) ALL SAND & GRAVEL TO BE NATURAL, UNCRUSHED.
(5) SLOPES SHOWN ARE MAXIMUM. 12" WIDE BENCHES ARE ALLOWED IN LIEU OF 1:1 SUBGRADE SIDE SLOPE.
(6) MUST BE PROVIDED WITH OVERFLOW INLET OR OVERLAND FLOW PATH.
NOTCHED
CURB
SLOPE
PAVEMENT
y—T AGGREGATE BASE'
3. (MIN) T ICK •\/\/\\
BIORETENTION
\SOIL MEDIA
,1\\ MSD TYPE 4 GEOTEXTILE
/\ FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
\,
6" THICK SAND
(ASTM C-33 FINE AGGREGATE)
6" THICK 3/8"0 GRAVEL
(ASTM C-33 NO. 8)
6" THICK 3/4"0 GRAVEL
(ASTM C-33 NO. 6 OR 67)
EXISTING SOIL SUBGRADE,
TILLED OR "RIPPED" 12"
DEEP BEFORE BACKFILLING
v
- n
- n
Z
32.
r
63
APPENDIX D
MODEL WEED ORDINANCE
A MODEL MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE ENCOURAGING THE USE OF NATIVE
PLANT COMMUNITIES AS AN ALTERNATIVE IN URBAN LANDSCAPE DESIGN
The Common Council of the City of ________________________________ do
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Legislative Purpose: A variety of landscapes adds diversity and
richness to the quality of life in _________________________________. There are,
nonetheless, reasonable expectations regarding the city's landscapes which, if not
met, may decrease the value of nearby properties, degrade the natural environment,
threaten the public health and safety, or create a public nuisance. It is therefore in
the public interest, and within the purview of this legislation, to provide standards for
the development and maintenance of the city's landscapes, whether corporate,
private, or public.
The city recognizes the landowners' and lessees’ interest in having managed turf
grass landscapes. At the same time, the city encourages the preservation,
restoration, and management of native plant communities and wildlife habitats within
the city limits. The city recognizes that the use of wildflowers and other native plants
in managed landscapes is economical, reduces maintenance, and provides
ecological and environmental benefits such as effectively conserving water, soil, and
other elements of the natural community. Moreover, the preservation, restoration,
and management of native plant communities help to preserve storm water quality,
riparian corridors, stream banks, steep slopes, wildlife habitats, and other
environmentally sensitive areas, without adversely affecting human health, safety, or
public welfare. Native plant communities may also preclude the introduction of toxic
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other pollutants into the environment.
The city further acknowledges the need to enjoy and benefit from the variety, beauty,
and practical values of natural landscapes, and seeks to guarantee citizens the
freedom to employ varying degrees of natural landscaping as viable and desirable
alternatives to other conventional modes of landscaping.
The city seeks to encourage each landowner and lessee to create and sustain a
condition of ecological stability on his or her land, that is, a state of good health and
vigor, as opposed to one of impairment and decline. It is not the intent of this
legislation to allow vegetated areas to be unmanaged or overgrown in ways that may
adversely affect human health or safety, or pose a public nuisance. It is the express
intent of this city that it shall be lawful to grow native plants, including, but not limited
to ferns, grasses, forbs, aquatic plants, trees, and shrubs in a landscape.
64
SECTION 2. Definitions:
The following terms shall have the stated meanings.
(a) BMP. (Best Management Practice) a method used to manage storm water runoff
quality and/or quantity, such as a raingarden or bioretention area.
(b) Destruction, or Destroy: The complete killing of plants, or effectually preventing
such plants from maturing to the bloom or flower stage.
(c) Invasive Plant. A vegetation species that grows aggressively in the State of
Missouri, as listed by the Missouri Department of Conservation.
Invasive Plant
Examples include:
Autumn Olive Garlic Mustard Sericea Lespedeza
Black Locust Japanese Honeysuckle Sesbania
Bush Honeysuckles Leafy Spurge Smooth Sumac
Common Buckthorn Osage Orange Sweet Clover (white & yellow)
Crown Vetch Reed Canary Grass Wintercreeper
(d) Landowner. One who owns or controls land within the city, including the city
itself.
(e) Lessee. Any person, agent, operator, firm, or corporation having possession,
occupancy or control of all or a portion of a premises pursuant to a written or
unwritten lease, contract, agreement, or license with the owner.
(f) Native Plant. A vegetation species that existed prior to the arrival of European
settlers within the State of Missouri, as listed by the Missouri Department of
Conservation. Many native plants are listed on the Grow Native Website:
www.grownative.org, and the Flora of Missouri Project, www.tropicos.org/project/mo.
(g) Noxious Weed. A vegetation species that is listed as a Missouri State Noxious
Weed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, as amended.
Noxious Weed
Examples include:
Canada Thistle Johnson Grass Musk Thistle
Common Teasel Kudzu Purple Loosestrife
Cut-leaved Teasel Marijuana Scotch Thistle
Field Bindweed Multiflora Rose Spotted Knapweed
(h) Nuisance Plant. Toxic species known to cause death or severe allergic reactions
among a segment of the human population such as Poison Hemlock, Poison Ivy,
and Ragweed.
65
(i) Public Nuisance. Acts committed or suffered to be committed by a person, or a
substance kept, maintained, placed, or thrown upon any public or private premises
which constitutes a hurt, injury, inconvenience or danger to the health, safety or
welfare of the public or residents and occupants of the immediate vicinity as
determined by the ______________________________ (ENTER CITY
AUTHORITY).
(j) Sight Distance. The clear line of sight necessary for pedestrian safety or safe
operation of a motorized vehicle.
(k) Turf Grass. Grass commonly used in regularly-cut lawns or play areas, such as,
but not limited to bluegrass, fescue, and ryegrass blends.
(l) Turf Weed. Broadleaf weeds, annual and perennial grasses, that invade or disrupt
the uniformity of turf grass lawns.
SECTION 3. Landowners' and Lessees’ Rights and Responsibilities:
(a) This ordinance shall apply to all landowners and lessees.
(b) Managed stands of native plants, turf grass, ornamental grasses, or shrubs,
including plants that function in a BMP, and cultivated agricultural crops, vegetable
gardens, or flower gardens exceeding twelve (12) inches in height are permitted
provided they are maintained free of turf weeds, noxious weeds, invasive plants, and
nuisance plants, are kept at least four (4) feet from a property line, and do not
impair sight distance, or constitute a public nuisance to the public or residents and
occupants of the immediate vicinity.
(c) Turf grass shall not exceed 12 inches.
(d) If turf weeds, noxious weeds, invasive plants, and/or nuisance plants are
determined to be a public nuisance, said vegetation shall be destroyed by the
Lessees or Landowners on whose land they grow.
(e) The City may control turf grass in excess of 12 inches, noxious weeds, invasive
plants, and nuisance plants as set forth in Section 4 below.
(f) It is forbidden to place or dump dead plant material such as lawn clippings,
weeds, leaves, tree trunks, and tree branches, in or near storm sewers, creeks,
drainage swales, stream banks, or steep slopes in such a manner that constitutes a
public nuisance to the public or residents and occupants of the immediate vicinity, or
impairs drainage.
66
SECTION 4. Controls:
The city may not damage, remove, burn, or cut vegetation of any landowner or
lessee for which the city does not have management responsibilities, except
following a hearing at which it is established (1) that noxious weeds, invasive plants,
and/or nuisance plants specifically named in the landscape ordinance exist in the
landscape and they pose a condition creating a public nuisance ; or (2) that the
condition is a threat to the agricultural economy; or (3) that the conditions of
SECTION 3, entitled Landowners' and Lessee’s Rights and Responsibilities, have
not been met. A court order under these subsections shall provide that the
destruction, cutting, or removal of the offending vegetation shall be selective so as
not to harm that vegetation which is compliant with the law.
SECTION 5. Signage:
Where native plant communities and/or wildlife habitats are present on properties
within the City, educational signage shall be posted to describe and identify the
general limits of such areas that are likely to be seen by the public. This is required
on all non-residential properties and residential common ground properties over 1/4-
acre where native plant communities are present.
67
APPENDIX E
St. Louis County Design Criteria for the Preparation of Improvement Plans, Section
20.30 with recommended revisions underlined.
20.30 Residential Street Design Criteria
1) Right-of-Way and Pavement Width Requirements:
Street R/W Pavement Standard
Classification Width Width Dwg. No.
2 Lane Minor Local (1) 34 (5) 20 (3) C203.80
2 Lane Minor Rural (1) 34 (5) 20 (3) C203.81
2 Lane Local 50 (2) (5) 26 (3) C203.82
2 Lane Rural Local 50 (2) (5) 26 (3) C203.83
3 Lane Local 60 (5) 38 (3,4) C203.84
(1) The 34' right-of-way width section requires additional drainage and
utility easements on both sides of the roadway as determined by
the Department. It is limited to cul-de-sac streets serving not more
than 25 lots and loop streets limited to 50 lots, where adequate off-
street parking is provided on each lot, or in communal or guest
parking arrangements.
Planner’s Note: [When making changes to street design requirements, it may be
necessary to review and update subdivision, zoning, or other ordinances
impacting street design to ensure no conflicts exist regarding any of the
recommended revisions.]
(2) As provided by Section 1005.180 of the Subdivision Ordinance in
any residential zoning district where eight (8) or fewer single family
lots, including corner lots, are proposed on a cul-de-sac street
which will not contain sidewalks, a forty (40) foot right-of-way is
permitted with additional easements as required for drainage and
utilities.
(3) All of the above designated pavement widths shall be constructed
with rolled curb with the exception of the following conditions:
68
a) Where subdivisions are approved with commercial lot
frontages which require vertical curb.
b) Where subdivision Collector streets are designed with
vertical curb and restricted access and adjacent lots are
served from the internal cul-de-sac and loop streets.
c) Where 2 Lane Local streets are approved for improvement
with open drainage facilities as shown on Standard Drawings
C203.81 and C203.83.
(4) The 38' pavement width shown for 3 Lane Local streets shall be
designed in accordance with the following lane configurations:
a) 3 driving lanes where adjacent residential lots are served
from internal cul-de-sac and loop streets.
b) 2 driving lanes with 2 emergency parking lanes where
adjacent residential lots are served from the collector
roadway. However, at major intersections 3 driving lanes
with tapers, appropriate pavement joint transitions and
posted parking restrictions will be required.
(5) Where post-construction stormwater quality facilities are located at
the edge of pavement, the right-of-way shall end at back of curb,
with additional easements as required for roadway, improvements,
maintenance, utilities, sewers, and sidewalks (PRIMUSSE).
Planner’s Note: [The intent of Note (5) is to allow stormwater BMPs to be located
at the edge of pavement, and to clarify that BMP maintenance obligations reside
with property owners by locating the facilities outside of the right-of-way.]
69
APPENDIX F
Model Property Plat for BMPs at the Edge of Roadway
n d
N IN
cn o Ono �. f
/ h� OO
R
T
EA
- w
in .
N O
3 in 03
"N\rn r.
M N in
co z
7.
�S
0O.
N83'06'00"W
45.32'
L=12.0
R=52.00
N
MN
Into
28'48"E
12.01'
58225'42"E
- 38.63'
42.77'
COMMON
GROUND
89,640 SQ.FT.
STORM WA TER
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
. h oo
C.
to
69959SQ.FT.
W ,,7
0
03
N
.4)
12' PRIMUSSEp0"
A �
0
�•��0..
h
0111 II
no
10' ESMT
60.00'
100.00
FND: IRON PIPE
(N8210'48"W 0.20')
COR. 36" CH.
LINK FENCE
0.4'N
LOT 66
FND: IRON PIPE
(HOLD) 100.00'
'oo
o
S82.25'42"E
53.25'
10' ESMT
cp
10
8513 SQ.FT.
RADIUS PER
LOCAL CODES
W
co
0
0
PAVEMENT AND
R.O.W. LINE
•
NN2 25 42 W/7 87
To 50.50'
O o 'co
•
8 M
6060 SQ.FT. o
0)
■!
d
0
0
0
M
0
0
36" CH LI
END 36"
50.50'
12' PRIMUSSE
0
N
7
6060 SQ.FT.
tk�
°°
43.
50.50'
11
6060 SQ.FT. W
oco
N
n
0
z
20' BLDG. LINE
3 50.50'
ate' Itr
50.5'
10
6
387228 F ?;;Ns'
33,
S82'25'42"E
50.50'
12
6060 SQ.FT.
0
0
0
N
O
7' W. C.G. &Z
STORM WA TER
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
S82 25'42'E `V%
/ / COUNTY 50.50'
N8225'42"W 25'421W 274ROAD $82'25'42"E.
�-�50.50' N82.25
axial 50.50' /
50.50'
Sb`2o 05 •S82'11'44"E
57. 73'
N
S787839 E
108.72'
STORM WA TER
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
50.50'
10' ESMT
06060 SQ.FT. w
o ro
N
0
0
z
12' PRIMUSSE
K FENCE (ON
IRE FENCE O. 1'
50.50'
100.00'
FND: IRON PIPE
(N86.23'19"W 0.18')
N82 25'42" W
LOT56
M
0
O
N
100.00'
$8226'52"F
7' w. C.G.
o
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
3
N 6
6060 SQ.FT.
0
NE) COR. 48
END 36"
M
0
50.50'
20' BLDG.
Co
O
d 5
M
6060 SQ.FT. o
CH LINK FENC
WIRE FENCE (0
50.50'
100.00'
END: IRON PIPE
(514'46'49"W 0.42')
528.82'
LOT 67
r)
12' PRIMUSSE
o in
N 4
6060 SQ.FT. o
'5).:
50.50'
N 3
5'x10'
ESMT
S82 25'42 "E
50.50'
11' ESMT
o al
0
N M
7' W. C.G. 0,o
STORM WA TER Z
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
6060 SQ.FT.
9111rmmi
7' W. C.G.
STORM WA TER
MANAGEMENT
RESERVE AREA
co
0 3
to
to
6060 SQ.FT.
(26'W) S82 25'42"E
50.50'
u0.00'
D: IRON PIPE
COR. 48" CH
LINK FENCE
0.3'S
LOT 58
N82 25'42"W
50.50'
-11,98J
150.00
p=4'3
w ,
o oo
0 2
0 z
N6060 SQ.FT. i.�
0
10' ESMT
50.50'
50.50'
4.5 S6827,),F
0 z
0
N W cocn Su
15
6061 SQ.FT M
20' BLDG. LIN
4.20
40.63' co
n
2
i/
v
rn
S77.
,07"E
EASEMENT '
S74 p4 27 E
18204SQ.FT..-?.
0 3
N
� Np
6�2s,.
39.46'
O
N
ti
Li
W
0
S775j'07 23.5y
0785p.
7j.5j'60 g6 E ,�
07" 8.50' vN
`V%
7' W. C.G. &
STORMWATER1
MANAGEMENT
RESERVEAREA
N0 7845 SQ.
I FND: IRON 108 5 '
M (S22.17'57"W 0.11'
0
0
M
r)
n
FND: CROSS
(N75'40'43"W 0.51')
LOT Be
co
W
0
n
0
O
ui
25'
20'
25'
otte
25'
ti
71
APPENDIX G
MSD Non-Standard Details of Sewer Construction for Roadway Bioretention
_0
O
0
D
> -<
rico
— O
Z �
rri
m
_ Z
Z
Z
rri
no
cn
o Loz lsnone
A
\\/\\ \\!\\\\
FLOWLINE
(WATERLINE)
IN GUTTER
PAVEMENT
PC
STREET
(4) CROWN
PILOT CHANNEL
10'-13' CLEANOUT,
(FLUSH w/GRADE)
-
•.7
4' UNDERDRAIN
><
CURB
AGGREGATE B
SE
3:1 SLOPE, MAX.
(1)
0 I
(n.t.s.)
MAX. WLE
100 YR.
STORM
7'
BIORETENTION SUMP (5)
OVERFLOW MSD
2-GRATE INLET
MAX. WLE
PONDING
WQ STORM
%/j IN LET SEAT
sraiwraj. /,
*//
MSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
EXISTING SOIL
OVERFLOW MSD
`2-GRATE INLET
Q
SECTION A -A
NOTES: SCALE: 1"=20'
(1) ROLLED CURB SHOWN. VERTICAL CURB ALSO ACCEPTABLE.
(2) UNDERDRAIN NOT SHOWN IN SECTION VIEW, TO BE CONNECTED TO OVERFLOW MSD 2-GRATE INLET.
(3) ALL PLANTING SOIL TO BE VEGETATED. MULCH & VEGETATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY, IN SECTION VIEW.
(4) PILOT CHANNEL DESIGN BY ENGINEER. STONE, PAVERS OR EROSION MAT ACCEPTABLE.
(5) MAX PONDING DEPTH AT SUMP=2". GREATER PONDING DEPTHS ALLOWED WHERE (DOWN GRADIENT) GRADES
ALLOW.
/////i /\.
////
/ //
/// /�\
i/////\ FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
EXISTING SOIL
3:1 SLOPE,
MAX.
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
SLOPE
- . .
BIORETENTION (3)
PLANTING SOIL
MSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
SUBGRADE
SUBGRADE
-n
z
r
coo
�cn
cn i�
c�
oLoz lsnonv
m
N
UNDERDRAIN
BIORETENTION
CELL
(FLUSH
SIDEWALK
CLEANOUT,•
w/GRADE):•.
TYP. •
WATERLINE
IN GUTTER
PAVEMENT
/PC CURB
i
10' -13'
STORM
SEWER
,kGGREGATE BASE
3:1 SLOPE, MAX.
MSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
STREET
CROWN (4)
PILOT CHANNEL
A
BIORETENTION SUMP (6)
4' CLEANOUT, (FLUSH w/GRADE) L-►
> <
PLAN
(n.t.s.)
7'
MAX. WLE
INLET STONE (5) , PONDINGQSTOR M
4„-I W
Q �INLET SILL
// / //' / jig/'// \ ,\\',
%////// . j/ j///
��/ // // %PILOT • // \ BIORETENTION ( )
/ / // // / / /� PLANTING SOIL
/// // //CHANNEL//
/ /// /// /// ////j
/%////�i/%:01%: %//ice
OVERFLOW MSD
STREET INLET
STORM /. t
SEWER
UNDERDRAIN
3:1 SLOPE,
MAX.
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
SLOPE
_...„..4...._
MSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
EXISTING SOIL
SECTION A -A SUBGRADE
NOTES: SCALE: 1"=20'
(1) ROLLED CURB SHOWN. VERTICAL CURB ALSO ACCEPTABLE.
(2) UNDERDRAIN NOT SHOWN IN SECTION VIEW, TO BE CONNECTED TO OVERFLOW MSD STREET INLET.
(3) ALL PLANTING SOIL TO BE VEGETATED. MULCH & VEGETATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY IN SECTION VIEW.
(4) PILOT CHANNEL DESIGN BY ENGINEER. STONE, PAVERS OR EROSION MAT ACCEPTABLE.
(5) OVERFLOW MSD STREET INLET SHOWN BEYOND.
(6) MAX PONDING DEPTH AT SUMP=4". GREATER PONDING DEPTHS ALLOWED WHERE (DOWN GRADIENT) GRADES
ALLOW.
EXISTING SOIL
SUBGRADE
0
oo
N
0
0
m
Q
w
) VMOVOd JO 30a3 1V
NOI1N313d0I8 d03 1I`dl3a dWf1S
0
�-s
cn
cn m
o Loz lsnone
m
D
2"-3" SPACING
BETWEEN ENDS, TYP.
SHAPE SURFACE FROM
CURB TO VERTICAL SURFACE
OF BRICK OR BLOCK
BACK
OF CURB
WATERLINE 1
IN GUTTER
12" 19"
PILOT
CHANNEL
1'
A
54"
6"
23" 1
1'
EDGE OF DROP
1'
OUTER EDGE
OF SUMP
1'
1'
-A
PLAN
(n.t.s.)
BRICK OR BLOCK,
MORTARED IN PLACE —
2"
MIN.
/// j////////// B10— /—•
;////////////RETENTION///
i//�j//jj//jj PLANTING!— /
///////////// // j//,
j/////// j// j SOIL j/
/// /// /// // / / ///
i/////////////// /////
SECTION A -A
SCALE: 1 "=20'
CONCRETE PAD
OR PAVER STONES
MORTARED IN PLACE
BRICK OR BLOCK,
MORTARED IN PLACE
4'-6"
24" 23"
1' 1'
CONCRETE PAD
OR PAVER STONES
MORTARED IN PLACE
18"
6" 18"
/ MSD TYPE 1
\/ FABRIC GEOTEXTILE
19" 12"
EDGE OF DROP
BACK
OF CURB
\_WATERLINE
IN GUTTER
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
OUTER EDGE OF SUMP
NO1103S 1VOId)ll
) VMOVO I d03 NOI1N313d0I8
0 0
D-�
cn 171
o [.oz isnone
—1'-
PAVEMENT
AGGREGATE BASE
3:1 SLOPE, MAX.
2" THICK MULCH
MSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
2" or 4"
MAX.
PONDING
(AT SUMP)
U
7'
PILOT CHANNEL
(DESIGN BY
ENGINEER)
3:1 SLOPE,
MAX.
�/1�/1�/.
�//j�
%///////////
, i/ , /// , i/ ,
4"0 SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE,
3/8"0 HOLES, TWO SIDES, FACING DOWN,
2" OFF BOTTOM
TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE: 1 "=20'
3:1 SLOPE,
MAX.
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
SLOPE
-..--„s\--
4
a
/ 30" (MIN.) THICK
BIORETENTION
/\ SOIL MEDIA
yMSD TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE
\ FABRIC (SIDES ONLY)
\//
6" THICK SAND
(ASTM C-33
FINE AGGREGATE)
6" THICK 3/8"0 GRAVEL
(ASTM C-33 NO. 8)
6" THICK 3/4"0 GRAVEL
(ASTM C-33 NO. 6 OR 67)
EXISTING SOIL
SUBGRADE
NOTES:
(1) MUST BE PROVIDED WITH OVERFLOW INLET.
(2) SEE MSD LANDSCAPE GUIDE FOR BIORETENTION SOIL SPECIFICATIONS.
(3) MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREA TO ANY ROADWAY BIORETENTION = 0.5 ACRES.
(4) VEGETATION NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SEE MSD LANDSCAPE GUIDE FOR MULCH & SUGGESTED PLANT LIST.
(5) UTILITIES PARALLEL TO BIORETENTION TO BE PROVIDED BEHIND SIDEWALK OR UNDER PAVEMENT WHERE
PRACTICABLE.
(6) ALL SAND & GRAVEL TO BE NATURAL, UNCRUSHED.
1VNEI uvHa