In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Novelly stated that the (undeveloped) Desco building and has the ability to require 8182 Maryland Associates to build another half level on the garage and would give them another 77 spaces.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 8 of 12 In response to Alderman Garnholz’s questions, Mr. Lawson confirmed that there will be a right turn in and right turn out only into the alley that serves the garage. Mr. Lawson stated that the project will include retail and demonstrated on the presentation the locations and entrances.

Alderman Boulton expressed her concerns with regard to the loading docks and how this will impact the properties if sold for development. Mr. Lawson explained how they would be utilizing the current loading docks. He felt there would be no impact. Mr. Novelly added that Shaw Park Plaza does use those loading docks for their vans and they are a separate ownership group and in any event a possibility of being owned by two different entities is possible, but unlikely.

In response to Alderman Berger’s question, Mr. Lawson stated they have not had time to review the other separate parking study. He said that they had relied upon and worked with the City’s engineer, CBB, to put together the parking study and review it and in reading the other study he feels it was obviously prepared in a point for one specific buildings’ worries and concerns and also written to focus on those issues versus looking at the overall block as a whole.

In response to Alderman Lintz’s question, Mr. Lawson confirmed that both garage accesses can be used by people (card holders) who park in those garages.

With regard to the median, Mr. Lawson also explained that they did discuss with City staff regarding the lane changes and the widening.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Lawson explained that during some of the discussions it was proposed in the traffic study to have a triangular shaped, six inch high raised median that would restrict entry in and entry out (as shown on the presentation).

Gary Feder, Husch Blackwell, representing Shaw Park Plaza owner, addressed the Board stating that his client has no objection to a building on this site but opposes a building of this size at this location. He said that the Apogee Special Development Subdistrict Plan violates two of the regulations applicable to this site. The project proposes 238,097 square feet, 40% larger than the SDD permits, and the 1982 SDD limits the size to 169,994 square feet. He said that the Apogee project will not provide adequate parking. He stated that the current plan in place governs the SDD area and sets forth seven parcels and phasing; the Plan sets a maximum square footage and it’s obvious that in 1982, site designers determined building sizes appropriate for the parcels; noting that a smaller site (parcel) means a smaller square footage building. He noted that the Apogee site provides for the second smallest (at 169,000 square feet) building based on the site size; 8182 Maryland Avenue being the largest site. He stated that the Board of Aldermen cannot approve the Apogee SDD given the governing regulations that are currently in place. Mr. Feder continued by stating that there was a reason why, in 1982, the SDD ordinance provided for a lot and building size; he sees no justification as to why a 240,000 square foot building makes sense. He stated that only two amendments to the SDD have been allowed; in 1988 and in 1999; one allowed the building of Shaw Park Plaza because parcels 3 and 7 were consolidated and the total square footage of the building did not exceed what would have been allowed for each parcel. He asked that the City abide by the SDD Ordinance; noting other concerns such as traffic and parking. He added that his clients are objecting to a building that does not comply with the ordinance that is in place and that a revision to the SDD regulations to accommodate Apogee would be unjustified and unreasonable. An approval would set a precedent for future developments in the City.

Doug Shatto, Lochmiller Group, on behalf of Shaw Park Plaza owner, addressed the Board with regard to the parking/traffic study. He stated while they generally concur with the approach and methodology done by CBB in their Traffic Impact Study, they have identified several issues and concerns that were not addressed in the CBB study. He pointed out concerns regarding access to the parking garages, 8118 Maryland and Shaw Park Plaza, which would be impacted by the development plan and its heightened density, resulting in increased conflicts and confusion for drivers. He added that an impact of a median on Forsyth as part of the development plan will disproportionately impact motorists traveling to Shaw Park Plaza and places increased emphasis on

He pointed out concerns regarding access to the parking garages, 8118 Maryland and Shaw Park Plaza, which would be impacted by the development plan and its heightened density, resulting in increased conflicts and confusion for drivers. He added that an impact of a median on Forsyth as part of the development plan will disproportionately impact motorists traveling to Shaw Park Plaza and places increased emphasis on

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 9 of 12 the center access drive on Forsyth Boulevard, which has deficient geometrics that would preclude some access to Shaw Park Plaza as well as several other factors (sight distance, stacking, etc.).

Mayor Sanger commented that he doesn’t think that they have ever seen such a diametrically opposed report from two professional traffic engineers on any project that they have ever looked at. Although, Mr. Shatto is saying that he is in agreement with methodology the conclusions that Lochmiller Group has come to and the conclusions that CBB came to are completely different which leads to a lot of confusion our part.

Bruce Tuesley, Bentall Kennedy and Associates, represent the ownership of Shaw Park Plaza, stated that they are trying to preserve their rights within the building, reserve their rights to the parking so that they have adequate parking to remain a competitive building in the neighborhood. Right now there is adequate parking and does not believe there will be adequate parking once the building is built. He said that parking is getting scarce, office buildings are becoming denser, and more people in the same amount of square footage and the requirements for parking grow as well. They are simply trying to be protective of their rights to park in the shared garage and they are not an opponent to development, but quite the opposite, they are also a developer and represent a lot of property across the United States. They applaud the efforts that have gone into this building, it’s a beautiful looking building and they welcome it into the neighborhood, but they think the scale (the size), the parking issues it will cause are a little more than they would like to see in the neighborhood.

Lee Cannon, Principle of Traffic Engineer, CBB, addressed the Board stating that as a matter of clarification CBB completed their work for the City directly as an on-call service under the direction of the Public Works and Planning Departments. He said that with respect to the traffic impact study and the parking study that Mr. Shatto said that he agreed with the methodology and generally with the calculations. Mr. Cannon addressed the basics of the traffic impact study that was performed by CBB noting overall that they did not make any recommendations for improvement to accommodate this particular building site. He pointed out that one issue that they did take exception to was the access point (south driveway shown on presentation). He did point out that they performed their traffic counts when school was in session and during the peak hours. While working with the City staff CBB’s recommendation was to eliminate the left turn into the specific location and City staff felt that it would be prudent to consider the issues related to left turns out at that location as well.

Mr. Cannon then responded to the information presented by the opposition. He stated that there will be additional traffic with the new (bigger) building, but does not see any difference in impacts or mitigation needs with a slightly bigger building versus the originally (1982) approved square footage size. As for parking, their scope focused on how much parking is needed if the proposed building is built. With the existing parking (no matter who owns it, who it’s allocated to, and where it’s located) the parking stalls in the block are currently 63% occupied. Currently, there are two facilities that are underutilized. The difference between how much parking is needed to park cars, which is what CBB looked at, versus how much parking do we need to address a “sheet of paper” on an entitlement, a promise is very different and that is the main difference between the two studies. It is his understanding that the Shaw Park Plaza Building is about 94% occupancy, a 6% vacancy rate. He said that with talking to area real estate professionals the average rate in the St. Louis market is 10% for Class A space and that everyone would be happy at 90% occupancy. The opposition indicated that there are 422 spaces that they are entitled to and that if Apogee uses them they cannot use them, but at 94% occupancy to date they don’t use the 422 spaces. Looking at marked supply versus actual uses and at 94% the Shaw Park Plaza building does not need those spaces to park. It would be counterintuitive and go against the shared parking idea for the block if the City required any developer to build additional parking to meet some code requirements, some artificial number that would self-park the facility. CBB’s study goes through the numbers and is very straightforward, saying that if Apogee builds out at the proposed square footage there will be adequate parking and still a 10% surplus of the spaces that will be empty in the block.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Cannon stated that although this would have an impact on the Desco building and they don’t know what is being proposed for that building. Desco has a right to build additional spaces on top of the existing garage and a right to expand the facility.

Mayor Sanger clarified that it would be about 225 spaces if there is a Desco rebuild on that property.

If the initial funds are depleted the developer must deposit additional funds with the City. This does not approve any

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 11 of 12 incentives or public private partnerships, but rather is an agreement by the developer to reimburse the city for any expenses and analyses by the city that may be required to consider and evaluate such proposals whether or not any are ultimately found necessary.

The proposed ordinance would authorize the execution of the preliminary funding agreement.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6562, an ordinance to approve a funding agreement with Centene Corporation read for the first time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6562, an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Execute a Funding Agreement with Centene Center LLC in Connection with a Proposed Redevelopment Project at Forsyth Boulevard and Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza for the first time by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6562 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6562, an ordinance to approve a funding agreement with Centene Corporation to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6562, an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Execute a Funding Agreement with Centene Center LLC in Connection with a Proposed Redevelopment Project at Forsyth Boulevard and Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza for the second time by title only.

Alderman Garnholz – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6431 of the City of Clayton.

FY2016 2ND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT

Janet Watson gave a brief summary of the financial report.

Other

Alderman Garnholz • Congratulations to Alderman Berger on his induction to Clayton High School Hall of Fame. • MML held its annual banquet, Mayor Barry Glantz, Creve Coeur, was sworn in. • The Moorland’s held their annual night out at Peno, very well attended. • The EDAC approved the 2016-2017 budget. • Ward 2 held its recent Coffee forum, well attended by Crescent residents.

Alderman Winings reported on the Plan Commission meeting: • Good discussion on the proposed Centene development. • Capital Grille signage was approved. • Kudos to the Planning Staff on their hard work on the tree regulations.

Alderman Boulton reported that the History Center is now open at The Center of Clayton.

Alderman Berger reported that the Wine and Music Event was a hugely successful event, very well done.

Alderman Boulton reported that the History Center is now open at The Center of Clayton. Alderman Berger reported that the Wine and Music Event was a hugely successful event, very well done.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 12 of 12 Alderman Lintz also expressed kudos to the Planning Staff on the tree ordinance.

Alderman Berkowitz reported that the Picnic in the Park was also a hugely successful event, very well done. he also added that the Heritage Center grand opening was very well attended.

Mayor Sanger reported that he met with the new mayor of Richmond Heights, Mayor Thomson and he is anxious to continue working with Clayton.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk