Citation in context
May 20, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
05-20-16 BOA Minutes May 20, 2016 Page 1 of 4 THE CITY OF CLAYTON
Board of Aldermen – Special Meeting City Hall – 10 N. Bemiston Avenue May 20, 2016 3:10 p.m. Minutes
Mayor Sanger called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. The following individuals were in attendance:
Aldermen: Joanne Boulton, Alex Berger III, Rich Lintz, and Ira Berkowitz. Mayor Sanger City Manager Owens City Attorney O’Keefe
Absent: Cynthia Garnholz (arrived at 3:35 p.m.) Mark Winings
AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL RELATING TO THE SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION FOR THE 212 S. MERAMEC AVENUE DEVELOPMENT AND TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 212 S. MERAMEC AVENUE
City Manager Owens reported that this is an ordinance to approve a settlement agreement with the other parties in the case of Phillips, et al. vs. Clayton litigation and the Development Agreement with the developers of the apartment tower project at 212 South Meramec Avenue consistent with the settlement agreement. Doctor Phillips and the other plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Clayton asserting that the City wrongfully rejected their petitions seeking referendum on three ordinances associated with the project at 212 S. Meramec. After a full presentation of the case St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Prebil ruled that the city acted properly in rejecting the petitions because a referendum was not permitted under the Charter of the City and the laws of the State of Missouri. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Louis County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Prebil ruled that the city acted properly in rejecting the petitions because a referendum was not permitted under the Charter of the City and the laws of the State of Missouri. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of that court ruled unanimously last December that Judge Prebil and the City were correct. The plaintiffs ask the Missouri Supreme Court to take transfer of the case and on May 3, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court sustained that request. As the Board of Aldermen is aware, the developer proceeded with the construction process while the trial and appellate court proceedings were pending. In order to avoid risk and uncertainty associated with protracted appeals discussions were initiated concerning a possible settlement of the dispute in a manner that would allow the project to proceed. Those discussions resulted in the Settlement Agreement submitted to the Board for approval as part of the attached ordinance. The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the plaintiffs and the developer.
Those discussions resulted in the Settlement Agreement submitted to the Board for approval as part of the attached ordinance. The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the plaintiffs and the developer. The Agreement provides that the incentives for the development project will be reduced from 50% to 20%, provides $500,000 to be paid by the developer to the Park Tower Condominium Association and $500,000 to be paid by the developer to the plaintiffs for their costs and expenses of litigation, the installation of a camera facing east on top of the new apartment tower and providing a live Internet feed to units in the Park Tower Condominium, and a requirement that exterior lighting on the new project above the first floor be extinguished at 10 o’clock each evening.