They have met multiple times with City staff, as well as the City’s parking consultant. They have met with the property owners that are parties to the garage that includes Maryland Place, the Desco building, and Shaw Park, who has the most problems with the proposed development, and they are continuing to meet with them. What they also have done is found yet another parking expert, who actually happens to have the distinction of being around and having performed the parking study for the original SDD. He said that this parking consultant also is part author of the ULI Study called Shared Parking which is the “bible” in the industry in parking studies that they previously seen and he is presenting his findings to them soon; they received a rough draft today with a final draft being received tomorrow. They then could show what ratio they believe to be appropriate given the limited amount of the garage that they were able to consider as their own based on the interpretation of some 40 year old documents. Mayor Sanger stated that it sounds to him that it is getting more complicated rather than simpler. Mr. Novelly stated that it’s complex and unfortunately there’s 20, 30, and 40 year old documents that need to be relied on and so a lot of the principles with the exception of his father have passed away. Mayor Sanger stated that you now have a 20, 30, or 40 year old traffic consultant how do you rely on that person. Mr.

Mayor Sanger stated that you now have a 20, 30, or 40 year old traffic consultant how do you rely on that person. Mr. Novelly stated that luckily he has good notes, but he’s able to speak more as to what is traditional in the industry as to what would have been traditional in the industry back then as opposed to speaking specifically to what he has experienced, although he does remember the study. Alderman Lintz stated that the issue as he understands from the City’s legal counsel is that this is not an availability of parking. It is a legal question as to who has the rights to the parking and 30 or 40 year old documents, we live under a Constitution that is 200 years old and he doesn’t hear anybody complaining about that. He thinks that they need to address the legal issues and not the availability. Alderman Lintz asked that in reference to Mr. Novelly stating that he has been talking with the others, has he made progress in coming up with agreements with them on what they need and will agree to. Mr. Novelly said that he doesn’t want to put words in their mouths, but he suggests that two of the three owners will agree, the third owner simply does not want their views blocked and that’s the whole reason that they have been delayed, they don’t want the competition, don’t want their views blocked – they do not see a compromise and that’s a quote.

The first gentleman moved on to a different account, they put another young woman on the account and she is now on maternity leave. Now there is a third party that he has yet to have conversations with. He confirmed that his 10 or 12 meetings were with Bento Kennedy – in person meetings and/or by phone calls. In response to Alderman Lintz’ question, Mr. Novelly stated that they have not submitted any different specifications to the actual building (office) plans that were originally presented and approved unanimously at ARB. Mayor Sanger asked if that would include not consideration of interior parking in the building. Mr. Novelly said that they have not put it in, they’ve considered it, they started with interior parking, but realized with 1,300 spaces that are empty it does not serve traffic, or economics, or anything. Alderman Berkowitz asked Mr.Novelly if what he is saying to the Board today is that he’s “stuck” and he is not sure where he is going with this. Mr. Novelly said that he doesn’t believe that is the case at all. He said that it’s interesting the segway that the Board has with Louie’s Wine bar of the parking for lease versus available parking for zoning because that is kind of what one of the issues that they are facing here. Available parking for zoning is dictated by a ratio of a particular number of spaces per 1,000 square feet. Alderman Berkowitz responded that he is aware, but what he believes Mr.

Available parking for zoning is dictated by a ratio of a particular number of spaces per 1,000 square feet. Alderman Berkowitz responded that he is aware, but what he believes Mr. Novelly is saying is that he would like the Board to change their minds or at least have them somehow “overlook” the requirements that are placed upon him as a developer. Mr. Novelly stated that he would like a reduced ratio similar to what Centene has done, both here and what the Pierre Laclede Center has and what Centene has done in the project that they are currently proposing. Alderman Garnholz commented that if the Board is tabling this item she would be more comfortable having these types of discussions when counsel for Shaw Park Plaza is present