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.