Citation in context
November 12, 2024 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
That plan was developed over a year with robust input from the entire community. The community said we want this to stay as an
afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 9 of 10
institutional use which it is now as a university. It has sports facilities and housing, and we want it to stay - that is what our community told us. She supports all the suggestions that were made and is eager to see how the staff can recommend incorporating those that make sense in an organized way. She appreciates all the suggestions that were made, especially the suggestion by the young man and Ms. Katz on the openness and the shared us of all the school playgrounds, playing fields, the kids “cutting through” the properties and she challenges both Washington University, Concordia, and the city to try to look at the project in this regard. She noted a couple of examples; 1) the Centene University project where they fenced off access to the playground and that was not what the city or neighborhood wanted; 2) a new house in her own neighborhood that cut off access to a cut-through which was unfortunate. She stated that overall, everybody here is earnestly trying to do what we think is best for the whole community, and the whole city of Clayton, including all our partners, and it's an opportunity with this overlay to set strong parameters to raise the bar as a starting line. To have any development that wants to be there we can start at a much higher place, a more restrictive place, a place with more trees, more bird sounds, better lighting, and all those things that are better than we would be starting off with under our current zoning – and she supports that effort. She said it is great to be able to consider something strategically, in a holistic way for this entire property rather than one small project at a time and this could be a valuable thing for us going forward. So with that being said, if there are no further comments from our board, would it be appropriate for me to make one concrete amendment at this time, or would I wait until the overlays are introduced? to each overlay, and I can offer them separately if I should, to just strike the delayed effective date to immediately after. Motion made by Alderman Patel to amend both ordinances, Bill No. 7044 and Bill No. 7045, to strike the delayed effective date from the ordinance. Alderman Buse seconded.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Alderman McAndrew introduced Bill No. 7044, approving an Ordinance for an Amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “South 40 Overlay Zoning District” as amended to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Buse seconded.
City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7044, first reading, an Ordinance to Substantially Enhance Clayton’s Ability to Regulate and Constrain the Spread of Institutional Land Uses in Residential Areas of the City by Amending Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “South 40 Overlay Zoning District”, and Other Actions Related Thereto by title only.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Alderman McAndrew introduced Bill No. 7045, approving an Ordinance for an Amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District” as amended to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Buse seconded.
She commented regarding sustainability there is a preference for permeable pavers, and that impermeable coverage cannot be more than 60%. She suggests changing that impermeable coverage limit to 50%.
afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 7 of 10
She supports limiting, the noise, and the amplification by days and hours, and questioned the timing of sports innings i.e. innings that are in play at 9:00 p.m. and adjust the restrictions back by an hour, or so. Alderman Feder commented that there is a lot of things in life I know nothing about, but one thing I do know something about is zoning. He again as stated earlier that in the past he has taught a one-week class at Washington University, a class in real estate law which includes one day on the subject of zoning; and he has been involved with a lot of zoning matters in his career. He stated that he was also on the school board in the past and knows there are two things that he thinks people care more about and get more emotional about than anything and that's what affects their kids’ school and what affects the area around their property. So, he fully appreciates the level of emotion that everybody in the community has brought to this and he hopes it will remain constructive and not personal. He commented that someone said earlier that they are genuinely trying to do the right thing here and that it's not a question of who they like better Washington University or the city and he thinks all of us are just trying to figure out what's the best way to move forward. He feels there are a few scenarios here worth thinking about; 1) if we don't pass the ordinance, what happens then. He feels that some people in the audience would like to believe that Washington University will sort of go away and the project will die. Which he feels is highly unrealistic, not only because of Concordia's involvement, but simply because in many ways this makes a lot of sense to Washington University, and I think they will go forward. and I believe, contrary to what many people think, that if this fails and we're paused, as the term has been used, he thinks, Washington University would be perfectly happy with going forward with the CUP application, in fact, would prefer it to the ordinance that is being pursued here. He stated that if the ordinance is passed as it stands, even without the provisions suggested tonight, it has more restrictions as compared to the CUP process. At some point, possibly a year from now Washington University will come forward in front of the Plan Commission under the overlay and at that time they may decide to do “this and this” asking for flexibility of some of the restrictions to which we can then say there is no flexibility due to the restrictions set forth in the ordinance as a piece of legislation. The city has upfront decided on all of these regulations dealing across the board with what can be done. He added that this would not be the “end of the line”, because they would have to go before the the Plan Commission and the ARB. Many of us have been to plan commission meetings and know that we have a very rigid plan commission with a lot of very experienced people. He provided an example of an issue where the Plan Commission denied a request. He believes in balance, and stated that as a former zoning attorney, strategically, if he were Washington University, he would not be disappointed. He noted that if this issue was paused, Washington University would not be disappointed; if it was rejected, Washington University would be happy to go through the CUP process, because he believes Washington University will do better for itself in the CUP application process, because without the overlay the CUP basically has no regulations. They could start at ground zero with regulations that only apply to single family properties. they have their architects and their engineers, and they would come up with a plan. They would go through the list of everything that's supposed to be regulated in some fashion - traffic, buffering, etc. and they will come up with what they say are based on best practices and other projects and/or what they believe will mitigate all these potential negatives, and they will be less restrictive than what's in this ordinance. They will be more intrusive in terms of the property.
They would go through the list of everything that's supposed to be regulated in some fashion - traffic, buffering, etc. and they will come up with what they say are based on best practices and other projects and/or what they believe will mitigate all these potential negatives, and they will be less restrictive than what's in this ordinance. They will be more intrusive in terms of the property.
afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 8 of 10
He said that under the CUP we will get a project that is much less desirable to the neighborhood, and he understands you (public) don't want us to tell you how we're trying to protect you, but genuinely, we are because we have no reason to do anything else. You are our constituents; Washington University isn't our constituent. In his opinion this is the best route to go and again many of the recommendations made tonight and they are good suggestions, have just come up in the last few hours and he would be interested in what the staff thinks. Over the last four months this ordinance has gotten more restrictive every time it has been reissued, it is more restrictive than the one before, and he is certain to say that the next draft to be heard at the next meeting will be more restrictive than any we've ever had before. He said that for some of you it doesn't matter how many restrictions we ever have. You will not be satisfied, but he hopes for many of them you will be, and he believes it's the best protection. He said that he would like to see this move forward and believes it is the best way. Alderman Yorg stated that he has struggled with this some and have listened to all the comments tonight and is trying to process how to factor those into his thinking. He noted that he is a Washington University grad and played D3 baseball get what Washington University is, but he would also be remiss to not mention that he thinks a lot of the comments tonight have exposed a distrust of the parties including Washington University due to their lack of communication. He feels that part of the challenge is thinking about this not just from a public policy standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint. There is a balance of both of those when you hear talk about the overlay versus a CUP. He thinks an overlay from a judicial standpoint provides more ability for city to do what needs to be done to protect residents, but also felt that we should take additional time to review recently provided resident comments and input before moving forward. He raised additional questions regarding traffic on Big Bend, the use(s) of Fontbonne property, and the R-2 Zoning. City Manager Gipson provided explanations to Alderman Yorg’s questions. Alderman Yorg expressed his desire for some additional amendments; 1) if building a parking garage it should be constructed all underground (i.e. Danforth Campus garage); 2) require all campus lecture events to remain inside as Alderman McAndrew suggested; 3) agree with reducing the number of people to 600; 4) include the pull out bleachers as part of the permanent seating calculation; 5) decrease the height of the lights and/or limit the height of the lights to 80 feet; 6) limit the outdoor noise to begin at sporting events to 8 a.m. or 9 a.m.; and 7) create tree protection on Wydown Boulevard Anna Krane, Director of Planning, provided explanations to Alderman Yorg’s question regarding the tree protections. Mayor Harris reminded everyone that this is a project reforming a space that is in collaboration between Washington University and Concordia Seminary. She wanted to emphasize that because she feels their collaborative effort is foundational to enabling them to work together. We have all seen what the pressure is on small universities and colleges, and she feels as a city government, we want to try to protect that entity, lest it go the way of Fontbonne or some other universities that are experiencing problems. She emphasized that the plan, this overlay as it is now, with whatever details we change, the basic overlay does conform to our comprehensive plan. That plan was developed over a year with robust input from the entire community. The community said we want this to stay as an
Alderman McAndrew introduced Bill No. 7045, approving an Ordinance for an Amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District” as amended to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Buse seconded.
afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 10 of 10
City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7045, first reading, an Ordinance to Substantially Enhance Clayton’s Ability to Regulate and Constrain the Spread of Institutional Land Uses in Residential Areas of the City by Amending Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District”, and Other Actions Related Thereto by title only.
The motion passed by 6 – Ayes; 1 Nay – Alderman Yorg.
Consent Agenda
for replacement hardware for the City’s VMware Clusters (Servers, Storage, and networking equipment). (Res. No. 2024-22)