The Six Big Proposals for the Maryland Park Lake District Development Area

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook215Share on Reddit14Print this pageEmail this to someone

MPLD_map

From the City of Maryland Heights: The City has begun the process of studying the proposals and conducting a series of public workshops and other meetings for input leading to a final decision sometime in February on which developments will proceed. The first public workshop is scheduled for July 26 at 5:30 p.m. at the Maryland Heights Government Center.

The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for the development area to be a mixed use destination featuring 30% open and green space along with regional retail, an office campus, hospitality and entertainment venues, regional sport venues and residential developments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determined that most of the property in the development area is not flood plain thanks to the 500-year levee protecting the area from the Missouri River and may be developed for commercial, industrial or residential uses.

  • Altus Properties is proposing the development of approximately 400-450 market-rate apartment units, to be constructed in two phases, as well as supporting select service retail on approximately 31 acres;
  • Creve Coeur Airport proposes development options that may include, but would not be limited to, runway extensions, runway construction, apron expansion, corporate and t-hangar development, and enhancements to airfield navigational aids and safety equipment;
  • Hat Trick Consultants proposes a mid-size multipurpose Event Center with approximately 6,200 permanent seats (8,000 seats for non-ice events) designed after the former St. Louis Arena with a “Retro Arena’ feel with the same amenities for standard similar venues of this size across the country;
  • Howard Bend Development proposes the “Little Lake Town Center” of 570 acres that could include regional retail, office campus, health and wellness, entertainment and amusement facilities and residential development, as well as a 1,365 acre area for land conservation and youth sports programs;
  • Pannatoni proposes retail/service retail uses on 134 acres along the Route 141 corridor and office-flex/office-distribution uses further north for a total of nearly of 1.3 million square feet;
  • SLCSW Farms LLC proposes approximately 44 acres of service commercial – service retail (restaurant, convenience stores/service stations, etc.), hotel and other commercial uses designed to complement and support other uses within the entire development area.

_______________________

The six development proposals:

_______________________

MPLD_1aMPLD_1b

Altus Properties
31.64 acres / NW corner of Route 141 and Creve Coeur Airport Road

  • “Altus is proposing the development of approximately 400- 450 market-rate multi-family apartment units, to be constructed in two phases, as well as supporting select service retail.”
  • “Upon completion of both phases, the proposed project will include 15-20 three-story apartment buildings, each with 20-28 units, a clubhouse, community room, and exercise facility, as well as a swimming pool and accompanying outdoor amenities.”
  • “Currently owned free and clear by Cornerstone Land Co. LLC, an affiliate of Altus Properties, LLC.”
  • “The proposed development is also contingent upon the Howard Bend Levee District’s ability to design, finance, and construct the necessary pump station(s), thus providing a holistic storm water management system for the district.”
  • A formal zoning application is included in the proposal.

_______________________

MPLD_2a MPLD_2b

Creve Coeur Airport
Approximately 300 acres / Terminus of Creve Coeur Airport Road, between Routes 364 & 141

  • The Plan “identifies proposed development options related to airside and landside needs. These needs may include but would not be limited to: runway extensions, runway construction, apron expansion, corporate and t-hangar development, and enhancements to airfield navigational aids and safety equipment.”

_______________________

MPLD_3a MPLD_3b

Hat Trick Consultants

  • “Our focus is for the City to consider a mid-size multipurpose Event Center (approximately 6,200 permanent seats and up to 8,000 for non-ice events). The design would be based on the former St. Louis Arena with a “Retro Arena’ feel with the same amenities for standard similar venues of this size across the country.”
  • “The Event Center can be placed virtually any location within the scope of the RFP so that there is accessible road access and near to additional commercial retail and/or hotel property.”
  • “An arena this size would allow Maryland Heights to host more than 125 new events per year. The funding mechanisms could include State, County, or City incentives (bonds, taxes, TIFs, as examples), bank or financial institution, private investors, Local Government Corporation and/or partnership with the developer. In addition, the facility would cover its obligations through ticket sales, sponsorships, naming rights, suites, club seats, concessions, parking, merchandise, and fees.”

_______________________

MPLD_4a

Howard Bend Development, LLC
Approximately 1900 acres / Both sides of Route 141, north of Route 364, and areas along the Missouri River (affiliated with Stan Kroenke)

  • Concept Plan encompasses three areas: Creve Coeur Lake Memorial Park, “Little Lake Town Center,” and “Conservation and Recreation Area (ConRec).”
  • “Master design will emphasize the physical connectivity of the Park, Town Center, and ConRec by water, trails, and roads. In particular the Developer proposes the development of a comprehensive lake plan that dramatically expands and integrates water features throughout the Lake District.”
  • “Little Lake Town Center” (570 acres) “could include regional retail, office campus, health and wellness, entertainment and amusement facilities, and residential development.”
  • The “ConRec” conservation and recreation area (1,365 acres) would be “owned and managed by a new non-profit entity” responsible for land management, conservation, and a comprehensive youth sports program.
  • “The Developer has had limited contact with some but not all of the landowners in the proposed Lake District area.”
  • “It is anticipated that the development of the Concept Plan will require both private and public funding. Sources of public funding could include the use of tax increment financing, a transportation development district, and community improvement district.”

_______________________

MPLD_5a MPLD_5b

Panattoni
Approximately 134 acres / Both sides of Route 141 at Sport Port Road

  • The Preliminary Plan (at right) depicts retail/service retail uses along the Route 141 corridor and officeflex/office-distribution uses further north. A total building area of nearly 1.3 million square feet is shown.
  • “The property was acquired for development on September 7, 2007. Due to a combination of market conditions and the cost of infrastructure requirements, development of the property has not been feasible.”
  • “Developer hereby requests that ad valorem tax abatement be granted to the project via Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.”
  • A formal zoning application is included in the proposal to amend the site’s current zoning and development plan, approved in 2009.

_______________________

MPLD_6a MPLD_6b

SLCSW Farms, LLC
Approximately 62 acres / Both sides of Route 141 directly north of Route 364

  • The Properties are owned by SLCSW Farms. “SLCSW is in the process of identifying a development partner for the project and is in discussions with several interested developers.”
  • “141 Frontage Property (approximately 42-44 acres): ‘service commercial’ – service retail (restaurant, Cstores/service stations, etc.), hotel and other commercial uses designed to complement and support other uses (such as regional sport venues) within the entire MPLD.”
  • “Non-frontage Property (approximately 20 acres): the portion of the Property that does not front on Highway 141 is expected to be developed as one or more of the listed Expressway Sub-District Uses in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, based on market demand.
  • “SLCSW wishes to redevelop the Property in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and anticipates that the project will require the assistance of redevelopment incentives due, in part, to the significant site infrastructure requirements to provide adequate vehicular access and circulation, utility service and stormwater facilities, and grading for the property.”

_______________________

[More at Maryland Park Lake District project website]

[A Brief History of Howard Bend – Maryland Heights]

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook215Share on Reddit14Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • Pingback: The Six Big Proposals for the Maryland Park Lake District - ConstructForSTL()

  • Dan

    Completely unnecessary expenditure in a needed floodplain area. Should not be incentivized in any way.

  • Matt Halley

    what a nightmare.

  • Pat-Rice Kramlove

    We don’t need any more short term development proposals that will get their 20 seconds of fame and then be abandoned. This is a waste of resources and tax payer dollars. But, I am all for the airport expansion. While I’d prefer to develop Lambert further and try to attract airlines and companies there, by extending runways there could be a boon to businesses in the region.

    • citylover

      Lambert has an extensive runway. They expanded so heavily when we were hot for biz with TWA then couple years later shut them off because air traffic began to dip. We have the runways, but we lack airlines. Without Southwest we’d be in the doldrums for airline traffic

    • tpekren

      I see your point but think it is really apples to oranges in terms of usage. This airport is about recreational users and will never be more than for the foreseeable future that nor I doubt that any future proposed runway expansion or added second paved runway will impede Lambert’s development.

      But I do agree, The airport is making a move to protect its future and really a no-brainer for the city to help it do it. Especially if you can create some easements that leaves some of the undeveloped land around it untouched for decades to come. In other words, I would suggest even a bigger airport footprint with limited development using the argument of having a safe for both pilot(s) and any apartment dweller.

  • Devin in South City

    Look on the bright side: Imagine how high our region would rank in the “mid-size multipurpose arenas per capita” ranking! Maybe with the Family Arena right across the river they could attract another indoor football team and have a MO-364 rivalry—the River City Raiders vs. the Maryland Heights Hooligans.

    • Devin in South City

      I take it back: the Maryland Heights Machos, per the artist’s conception, is definitely the way to go. For any sport.

  • Robert Erbs

    This project really gets me going. Maryland Heights wants to use public subsidies to build another Chesterfield Valley – airport and all. They want to use public money to build more strip malls in a floodplain. Then they want to use a street that runs through a subdivision to carry around 3000 more trips a day and then put even more traffic on Hog Hollow Rd (if you have ever been on that road you’d know that it shouldn’t be done.) Is Maryland Heights going to pay for the necessary upgrades and traffic control for those two streets? Also, I’m curious about whether there is actually any demand for any of this? How is there demand that Spirit cannot fulfill? Is there a need for more retail space in West Saint Louis County? More industrial? Is the Family Arena full every weekend necessitating a new arena close by? I just have so many more questions than answers here.

    • Brian

      In a region with essentially zero population growth, the only demand is from developers and their water-carrying politicians.

    • rgbose

      Our fragmented local gov’t structure incentivizes this. Munis want sales taxes from non-residents who can’t vote. It’s more politically advantageous than raising property taxes borne by voters at a higher proportion. Also property values are being undermined by spreading out. Plus the auto-oriented developments patterns that dominate MH weren’t all that productive in the first place.

      This development should be viewed as a sign of desperation.

  • Joe Bonwich

    Hmmm. Maryland Heights already has a casino. Now they want to build a stadium/arena. Toss in a few acres of new parking lots and you’ll have the big three of “growth planning” in St. Louis.

    • Dan

      Bingo, to the detriment of many!

  • Ice_Burned

    125 events per year, but how many net new events? Remember when the Arena was demolished so it couldn’t host events that would compete with the public’s investment in the Scottrade Center and then Chaifetz was built with public money? Now someone is asking for public money for a retro Arena in a flood plane. Stop the madness!

    • Eric

      Chaifetz got public money?

      • Ice_Burned

        8 million TIF made possible by a MO supreme court decision
        http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/04/23/story7.html

        • moorlander

          I’m struggling to come up with many +$80 million projects that haven’t received public money.

          • Tom of the Missouri

            Once you start giving money out, all future development will be unable to compete with subsidized developments unless it gets it too. At some point you have to stop. I have been the unsubsidized developer competing with the subsidized one so I know first hand. The most successful places on earth don’t do it. Cities, counties and states should concentrate on making themselves good fair low cost environments to everyone and not doing corrupt winner picking. The former is the only thing that is long term sustainable. The latter generally leads to corruption and economic collapse.

          • Brian

            Enos Kroenke’s $1 billion football palace in Inglewood is supposed to be built without public money.

  • rgbose

    Would you be able to see the Family Arena from the proposed one?

  • tony
  • Presbyterian

    I have no objection to expanding a local airport in a flood plane. I wouldn’t offer them public subsidies to do it, but it does seem a legitimate use.

    The others all have the same basic problem. This is a flood plane.

  • Daron

    Add it all to the park and let the egrets have it. or do the Howard Bend thing if you must.