02-27-18 BOA Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition • FY11 Center membership terminations • FY11 Program Registration Receipts • FY11 Signed Rental Contracts – Shaw Park and Oak Knoll Park • FY11 Outdoor Facility Pass Receipts – Pool, Ice Rink, Tennis Center • FY11 Part Time Employee Parks & Rec. Administration Department Timesheets, Absence Requests and Sub Forms • FY11 Advantage Card applications and receipts • FY11 Kid Center Reservation Sheets • FY11 Short Term Center Memberships – 30 Day, 7 Day, Groupon 12 boxes, containing the following records: • FY12 Daily Cash Reconciliations • FY12 Sports Files – Waivers, Rosters • FY12 Program Registration Receipts • FY12 Part Time Employee Parks & Rec. Administration Department Timesheets, Absence Requests and Sub Forms • FY12 Parks and Recreation Department Purchase Orders • 2012 Kid Center Reports • FY12 Advantage Card applications and receipts • FY12 Outdoor Facility Pass Receipts – Pool, Ice Rink, Tennis Center • FY12 Center membership terminations • FY12 Short Term Center Memberships – 30 Day, 7 Day, Groupon

Motion made by Alderman Winings to approve the destruction of records as listed. Alderman Boulton seconded. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote. OTHER

Alderman Boulton reported on the following: • All that Glitters event. • Plan Commission – reviewed proposed hotel proposal for 227 S. Central Avenue site.

OTHER

Alderman Boulton reported on the following: • All that Glitters event. • Plan Commission – reviewed proposed hotel proposal for 227 S. Central Avenue site. Alderman Berger reported on the following: • All that Glitters event – thanks to Sarah Umlauf and volunteers; Gary and Patty Krosch for sponsorship. Alderman Lintz reported on the following: • St. Louis County Municipal League – Pat Kelly provided a legislative update. o Bill to eliminate municipalities from issuing occupancy permits. o Bill regarding municipalities to submit financial (vendor) information. o Bill to choose trash collection services which would require voter approval. o The Missouri House approves the designation of July 7 to be” Missouri Sliced Bread Day.”

Alderman Berkowitz reported on the following: • All that Glitters event. • Clayton High School Student rally against gun violence. Alderman Harris reported on the following:

02-27-18 BOA Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition • Sustainability Committee – Aaron Young, Sustainability Planning Manager, East West Gateway was the guest speaker. • Clayton Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Dinner – Clayton Century Foundation was the recipient for the Cornerstone Award. There being no further regular business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk

02-27-18 BOA Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition ATTACHMENT

THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN CITY OF CLAYTON, MISSOURI

In Re: Ordinance No. 6515

KP Development Request for Reconsideration and Appeal

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL

We begin by considering, as our ordinances require us to do, whether KP Development (“Appellant”) has the requisite standing to pursue this appeal and reconsideration under the City’s ordinances. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we view our ordinances as requiring all appellants to not just assert they meet the qualifications to appeal but to demonstrate in their appellate filing that they satisfy all the requirements to be an ”aggrieved party” under the zoning code.1

Appellant’s filing asserts it suffers an allegedly material adverse effect because (1) approving a PUD for the subject property deprives Appellant of use of the subject property for parking, and (2) Appellant will lose access to leased spaces on the current surface parking lot “which will not be replaced”, and (3) fair market value of Appellant’s property will be affected.

We do not believe Appellant’s assertions clearly demonstrate the required standing.

The first two claims fail primarily because Appellant didn’t lose any rights by reason of the zoning approval being appealed. Appellant did not have – and never had – a right to use the subject property to satisfy parking demands for its property. The property was – and will be – owned by others. One hundred and thirty-two parking spaces had been – and will be – made available to the public (as opposed to Appellant) on a month-to-month basis.

As to the third asserted adverse impact, Appellant’s appeal filing does not even allude to, let alone demonstrate, a factual basis for its conclusion that the value of its property will be diminished due to “the decision at issue.”

For these reasons we are skeptical at best that Appellant has suffered any demonstrable and material adverse effect from the decision it seeks to appeal.

We have nonetheless considered the merits of the claims advanced by Appellant and find them not to be well taken. In that our decision to rezone the subject property to a planned unit development zoning classification was a legislative act undertaken in our broad legislative discretion, we do not think it is necessary to burden this process or our decision by a prolonged analysis of each argument raised by Appellant. We do believe, however, that it is appropriate to comment on one or two of Appellant’s assertions.

Appellant’s first point is that because the PUD applies to only the property currently owned by the city and under contract to the developer it cannot constitute a “unified land development” as contemplated by Section 405.1370(A) of the City Code. We do not read, interpret or apply our ordinance so narrowly. We believe the “unified development” concept of our ordinance pertains to the character of the development

1 We note that Sec. 405.1440 provides for consideration of appeals such as the present one without additional evidence. Thus, appellants who fail to include adequate detail and specificity in their filings to satisfy all applicable requirements run the risk of dismissal.

We believe the “unified development” concept of our ordinance pertains to the character of the development

1 We note that Sec. 405.1440 provides for consideration of appeals such as the present one without additional evidence. Thus, appellants who fail to include adequate detail and specificity in their filings to satisfy all applicable requirements run the risk of dismissal.

02-27-18 BOA Minutes February 27, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition and the presence of compatible land uses in structures which suit one another in terms of scale, cohesive design and consistent relationship to the surrounding environment. There is no minimum number of lots which must be involved nor any minimum number of lot owners who must be involved in order for a development to be “unified” as that term is used in our PUD ordinance.

The other principal thrust of Appellant’s objection to our decision is its assertion that the planned unit development fails to provide “public benefit” to the city. As we found in approving the ordinance originally, we disagree. Appellant bases its argument on this point on its view that the approved project will not provide public parking. That is inaccurate.

Appellant would fault us for failing to give due consideration to the viewpoint urged by its parking consultant. That is incorrect. We did give the information provided by Appellant due consideration. We simply found other information more well-founded, persuasive and reliable. The fact that we disagreed with Appellant does not mean we did not listen to and consider the arguments Appellant advanced.

Appellant has failed to establish any error in our legislative decision to rezone the subject property as provided in Ordinance 6515.

The request for appeal and reconsideration of the passage of Ordinance 6515 filed by KP Development is denied.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN FOR THE CITY OF CLAYTON, MISSOURI, THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018.

_____________________________ Mayor Attest:

________________________________ City Clerk