Citation in context
December 3, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
In other words the Planning Department prioritized and promoted this proposal valuing a vacant building over the safety of children.
• Because of the obvious safety issues brought up by the residents at the ARB meeting in May along with the problem with off site parking, this first proposal was withdrawn by the owners of the daycare.
• Remember--the Planning Department did not see this proposal as dangerous or inadequate but they saw it as acceptable and highly desirable using the public policy verbiage, “It would be a good use” for the building.
• A second attempt was made by the owners to get a different version of this proposal approved so on November 5, 2018 they filed again.
• Because of the failure of the first plan, the daycare owners had an expensive traffic study done by CBB that eliminated the children being escorted down the alley.
• This new plan doesn’t put the children at risk, it just puts 54 adults who live and park at properties adjoin the alley in very precarious position. How get in or out of where they live through 3, yes 3 lanes, of traffic converging in alley.
• Owners and tenants will not have the ability to move freely as they do now and will be at the mercy of daycare traffic managed by employees who will become traffic controllers.
14 • In order to get the daycare traffic plan to work is CBB’s crucial requirement is to make the alley one- way. A definite hindrance to Clayton owners and tenants.
• I don’t know if the Committee is aware of a statement made more than once by Brian Schnuck at a meeting between the residents and owners of the daycare on November 28. He stated that neither the daycare parents nor Clayton area residents could approach the alley directly from St. Rita during drop off and pick up times because that would mess up their traffic plan.
• Imagine, Clayton taxpayers are told they cannot use a public alley because it would mess up a daycare’s traffic plan? Now really, do you think the daycare employees are going to stop residents or even the parents of the daycare facility from St. Rita directly into a public alley during drop off and pick up hours? This could cause a volatile situation between residents and employees.
• From the public record of emails between Clayton Departments, hear what Mr. Spencer Litteken, Civil Engineer City of Clayton Public Works Department emails to the Planning Department, “The Clayton Public Works Department has decided to not implement CBB’s one-way alley recommendation as part of the Montessori School Project.”
• One of his reasons for this denial: the adjacent properties utilize the two- way alley.
• This statement was mentioned at the Architectural Review Board meeting on November 19, but it certainly wasn’t elaborated or explained in any detail by Susan Istenes, head of the Planning Department.
• She simply mentioned it and went on with her recommendation of her approval of the project. Why didn’t she elaborate and inform residents in more detail about Mr. Litteken’s major impact statement?
• Susan Istenes, the entire Planning Department, the daycare owners, CBB and the residents know that the proposed traffic plan WILL NOT WORK WITHOUT THE ALLEY BEING ONE WAY. Yet in the Dec. 3 CUP report the Planning Department states, “The Public Works Department reserves the right to implement the recommendation of the one-way alley in the future if alley conditions warrant the change.”
• I am sorry, this is totally incorrect. The CBB traffic report makes it clear and the architectural rendition makes it clear that the daycare traffic pattern would not work without the alley being one-way. The statement in the CUP is somewhat of a deception.
• The public record reveals in emails that after receiving Mr. Litteken’s opposition to the one-way alley, the Planning Department had meetings discussing the issue.
• To ease the pain of the Public Works Department’s opposition to the alley being one-way, Mr. Litteken concedes, “If the school is approved, Public Works intends on monitoring the alley to determine whether or not improvements are necessary. If improvements are determined necessary, Public Works will survey adjacent properties before implementation.”
• Nothing is stated by the Public Works Department that they would rescind their ruling of not wanting the alley being one way. Rather Public Works will consider improvements. The Planning Department,
Addresses the Board to answer questions regarding the 17 conditions of approval. Also addresses question brought up at last meeting and meeting held by the property owners for residents to come and discuss their feelings regarding the project.
12 BS – On Wednesday November, 28 we had a listening session at the Clayton Center. We opened up a dialog with the residents. What are you most concerned about is the question we asked and then we listened. The conversation went on for over an hour and a half. Some of the issues mentioned were: rental income and increased traffic. None were with the daycare. Higher Ground will offer at ten percent discount on tuition to residents in this neighborhood. This discount will directly benefit tenants who choose rental properties in the neighborhood and could motivate quality tenants to consider those properties. We have also offered to master lease any vacant apartment units at their present day rental rates for a period of three years. This Montessori will attract good tenants. We also have offered the use of the Alamo Lot to the residents for use on the weekends – subject to City approval. We recognize the parking lot will be vacant on the weekends and we would like to make it available to the neighborhood. We have accepted the 17 conditions that City has proposed. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – The condition number 17, the agreement for offsite parking, is that in the works? BS – Right now we have engaged Wash U and Clayton Valet. Clayton Valet says they will be able to handle 40 – 80 cars. It would be a matter of staffing and runners/drivers to handle special events. MM – We would expect most of the events be before 7 since most young children go to bed early. Clayton Road will also be the place that parents can park during day time hours. We will inform parents not to park in the neighborhood. Also, all 26 staff will not be present at all times so I expect there will be parking spots available on the Alamo lot for parents to park. LG – Answers questions about trash enclosure, queuing lanes, and the offering of the parking lot to the residents on the weekends per the City’s approval. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Brian you indicated that commercial deliveries would be done up front but where do larger deliveries happen? Diapers, food, cleaning supplies, etc. MM – We do not offer food. Children will have to bring their own food. Children bring their own diapers in their bags. The only deliveries we receive are misc. office supplies, toilet paper and things of that nature and we use Amazon for that. *CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – OPENS THE FLOOR UP FOR AUDIENCE COMMENTS* BARB NAUERT (BN) – SUBMITTED “CORRECTIONS TO THE RECORD REGARDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S DECEMBER 3 CUP RECOMMENDATIONS DOCUMENT” *SPEECH SENT IN VIA EMAIL POST MEETING IS COPIED BELOW*
I. Introduction
• It was explained to me by one of our council members that the philosophy of The Architectural Plan Commission is: Any proposal presented to this Commission and approved by the Planning Department is worthy of strong consideration. It is up to the taxpayers or residents to convince the committee the proposal will have a negative impact to the residents and give reasons why the proposal should not be approved.
• I feel that the residents in our area have made a strong case in presenting facts and reasons why this daycare proposal should not be approved.
Introduction
• It was explained to me by one of our council members that the philosophy of The Architectural Plan Commission is: Any proposal presented to this Commission and approved by the Planning Department is worthy of strong consideration. It is up to the taxpayers or residents to convince the committee the proposal will have a negative impact to the residents and give reasons why the proposal should not be approved.
• I feel that the residents in our area have made a strong case in presenting facts and reasons why this daycare proposal should not be approved.
13 • Owners have sent emails, made calls, provided pictures and a binder that reveal the negative impact this proposal will have on the neighborhood and the reasons why the proposal should not be approved.
• As a committee it is your responsibility to avoid any possibility of numerous negative externality from a project such as this.
• Let’s recall that in May of 2018 the first proposal the daycare owners made. It was a proposal that had definite and serious safety issues regarding traffic and children.
• The Planning Department stated it wrong in the latest CUP recommendations dated Dec. 3. The plan wasn’t that the parents parked their cars and walked their child to the day care.
• The facts are that the plan proposed children being dropped off at the southwest end of the Alamo parking lot, to be escorted across the alley by daycare staff and then down the alley 40-50 feet to the daycare center. The alley that has no sidewalks, the children would be walking no more than 2 feet from moving cars exiting the alley and they would be walking across areas where residents’ cars would be backing out of their parking lots or garages right in the path where the children would be approaching the daycare.
• Sound dangerous? Of course it is dangerous. Yet the Planning Department recommended approval of this plan.
• And one of the reasons given by the Planning Department for approval of this first application--the Old Title building had been vacant for two years. This is an “on the record” fact. In other words the Planning Department prioritized and promoted this proposal valuing a vacant building over the safety of children.
• Because of the obvious safety issues brought up by the residents at the ARB meeting in May along with the problem with off site parking, this first proposal was withdrawn by the owners of the daycare.
• Remember--the Planning Department did not see this proposal as dangerous or inadequate but they saw it as acceptable and highly desirable using the public policy verbiage, “It would be a good use” for the building.
• A second attempt was made by the owners to get a different version of this proposal approved so on November 5, 2018 they filed again.
• Because of the failure of the first plan, the daycare owners had an expensive traffic study done by CBB that eliminated the children being escorted down the alley.
• This new plan doesn’t put the children at risk, it just puts 54 adults who live and park at properties adjoin the alley in very precarious position. How get in or out of where they live through 3, yes 3 lanes, of traffic converging in alley.
• Owners and tenants will not have the ability to move freely as they do now and will be at the mercy of daycare traffic managed by employees who will become traffic controllers.
Rather Public Works will consider improvements. The Planning Department,
15 CBB, the owners and Clayton residents know that traffic plan could not work without the alley being one way. This would only be an improvement for the benefit of the daycare facility not for the residents who live along adjoining properties to the alley.
• NO explanation is mentioned in the Planning Department November 19 CUP about what Mr. Litteken has in mind. The alley has already been improved with a new concrete surface.
• The alley can’t be widened because of the utility poles and garages abutting the alley. What kind of improvements is he indicating?
• Improvements” usually mean spending taxpayer money, our money, for an alley that doesn’t need improving except for the daycare center.
• Instead of the Planning Department being Pro-Active about a potentially serious accessibility and traffic issues for Clayton residents before the project was recommended for approval, the Planning Department chooses to be Reactive on behalf of the daycare owners and to address a known problem after the plan gets approval.
• No elaboration, no explanation, no mitigation of this major issue was revealed at the November 19 ARB meeting.
• Mr. Litteken also states “the school” will use “their” traffic control personnel in able to mitigate congestion and safety concerns. Really?
• The CBB report recommends some best practices that should be implemented by the daycare’s staff to help ensure that the drop-off circulation runs safely.
• Residents and owners are not confident in daycare personnel being able to mitigate traffic issues in the alley only the Police Department should be doing that and so does Mr. Litteken when he states in his email:
• “If this is a real concern, I would consider discussing an off duty police presence to prevent issues. Maybe we could require one for a certain period of time after the school opens or require if it is a problem at a later date. I am not sure how this would work, but lets discuss if need be.”
• There is the city’s anticipation of a problem. Traffic in a public alley being controlled by a daycare employee. What will happen when there is no traffic control employee in a thunderstorm, hail, ice, or snowstorm? Will accept liability if there is an accident in the alley.
• What if the traffic controller is sick and so on?
• Following up on Mr. Litteken’s comment, MAYBE FOR A SHORT WHILE using off duty police? This is not reassuring to our Clayton property owners. What happens if we need this off duty police every day twice a day at drop off and pick up?
This is not reassuring to our Clayton property owners. What happens if we need this off duty police every day twice a day at drop off and pick up?
16 • To residents these traffic issues are “real issues” that will affect the safety and accessibility of our residents. This issue should have been clearly and pro-actively assured and resolved before Planning Department recommended approval.
• Then there are the comments made by Police Department about the CBB traffic plan stated in the emails to Susan Istenes.
• Quote from the Chief, “While we have concerns about the number of children (260 or 208, based on figures from you and Ana) who will be dropped off/picked up each day and the impact on surrounding properties and residents, we do not see an issue with the traffic plan from a safety standpoint, with a caveat. He continues,
• “What we know about human behavior is that it is unpredictable. It is when motorists become frustrated that they get angry and commit traffic violations and engage in so-called “road rage” incidents.
• While we expect the overwhelming majority to follow the traffic plan as outlined, the possibility exists that Montessori parents and neighboring residents may deviate from the planned process. An additional concern is that the school monitors do not “shortcut” their responsibilities and leave the alley unattended because they have responsibilities within the school at the time they should be focusing on the alley.” Unquote
• The possibility of motorists becoming frustrated when they can’t get out of their garages and parking lots? You bet.
• Drivers becoming angry and frustrated. You bet.
• Road rage could happen? A possibility when people can’t get to work, catch a flight on time, or have a need to leave their home for any reason.
• The chief is right when he states “school monitors might short cut their responsibilities. Another negative possibility.
• Yet at the Architectural Review Board meeting on November 19, the Clayton Planning Department regardless of these major issues recommended approval for this daycare proposal.
• Clayton Staff didn’t solve what residents consider major issues.
• In reading the latest Dec. 3 CUP recommendations here is what the report reveals about the Planning Department’s responses to issues:
• 7 times the Planning Dept. states “Staff is of the opinion”,
• 7 times the Planning Dept. states, “Staff believes”,
• 1 time the Planning Dept. responds, “staff does not anticipate,
• 1 time the Planning Dept. responds, “there does not appear”