October 23, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
THE CITY OF CLAYTON
Board of Aldermen City Hall – 10 N. Bemiston Avenue October 23, 2018 7:04 p.m.
Minutes
Mayor Sanger called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. The following individuals were in attendance:
Aldermen: Mark Winings, Joanne Boulton, Rich Lintz, Ira Berkowitz, Michelle Harris, and Bridget McAndrew.
Mayor Sanger City Manager Owens City Attorney O’Keefe
Motion made by Alderman Lintz to approve the October 9, 2018 minutes. Alderman Boulton seconded.
Motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously on a voice vote.
PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS
None
AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER TERMINATING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) WITHIN THE CARONDELET VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND DISSOVING THE SPECIAL ALLOCATION FUND
City Manager Owens reported that the Board approved the Carondelet Village Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Redevelopment Plan on December 18, 2007 with Ordinance No. 6007. The area for redevelopment was to be located east of the Crescent, south of Forsyth Boulevard, and north of Carondelet Plaza Drive. The plan called for the construction of approximately 110,000 square feet of retail, 150-room hotel, theater, parking and approximately 109,000 square feet of office. The total project costs were to be approximately $127,682,318 with $36,798,847 being reimbursable through payments in lieu of taxes and economic activity taxes.
The proposed developer never executed an agreement to carry out the project. The City never received any money for deposit in the Special Allocation Fund and no obligations are payable for the Fund.
Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6695, an ordinance to approve the termination of the Carondelet Village Tax Increment Financing to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded. City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6695, first reading, an Ordinance Terminating Tax Increment Financing Within the Carondelet Village Redevelopment Area and Dissolving the Special Allocation Fund Related Thereto.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
Motion made by Alderman Winings that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6695 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Boulton seconded.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6695, an ordinance to approve the termination of the Carondelet Village Tax Increment Financing to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded. City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6695, second reading, an Ordinance Terminating Tax Increment Financing Within the Carondelet Village Redevelopment Area and Dissolving the Special Allocation Fund Related Thereto.
Alderman Winings – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman Harris – Aye; Alderman McAndrew, and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6560 of the City of Clayton.
AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE GATHERING FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7811 MARYLAND AVENUE IN CLAYTON, MO
City Manager Owens reported that recently, the City was alerted to the fact that the property located at 7811 Maryland Avenue was available for sale. It is a small home set between the site of the new library and the Gathering. It is our understanding that this was previously the home for the pastor of the church. The listed price for this property is $450,000. The Board of Aldermen, at their June retreat, reaffirmed their commitment to expansion of greenspace throughout the City. Staff therefore thought it would make sense to at least consider the opportunity this space presented. It is a small site but could serve as a nice oasis along the city’s new bike route near Downtown Clayton. An appraisal was commissioned by the City of Clayton and estimated the value of the property at $340,000. As a result, the City negotiated with the property owners who have agreed to sell the property for $340,000. It is anticipated that the City can close on this property on or about October 29, 2018. Upon acquisition, the City will take steps to evaluate the property to decide the best course of action for its incorporation as a part of the City’s park system. The new park will serve not only the surrounding businesses, but all citizens of Clayton as well as the thousands of visitors that make their way to the City of Clayton each year.
Mayor Sanger clarified that the asking price was $450,000 and the City offered $340,000 (appraisal amount) which was accepted by the seller.
Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6696, an ordinance to approve a contract to purchase property at 7811 Maryland Avenue to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded.
City Attorney O’Keefe read Bill No. 6696, first reading, an Ordinance Authorizing the Purchase of Property Located at 7811 Maryland Avenue in Clayton, Missouri.
First reading failed, 6-Ayes; 1-Nay (Alderman Lintz). Second reading to be held at the November 13, 2018 meeting.
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A BANKING SERVICES AGREEMENT
City Manager Owens reported that the City’s current banking services agreement is with Commerce Bank. The City’s banking agreement provides for depository services, online banking, positive pay fraud detection, options for investment of idle funds, and a requirement that City funds be 100% collateralized, among other services.
The Finance staff prepared a Request for Proposal for Banking Services and distributed it to all banks that have a site within Clayton. Thirteen banks responded with detailed proposals. In reviewing each of the proposals the City analyzed the financial status of the bank, references, services provided, on-line system capabilities, banking fees, interest on idle funds, and convenience. The City then calculated the net revenue (interest revenue less fees) submitted by each bank. The City then met with the three banks with the highest net revenue to the City, all of which were very close in amount.
After completing the evaluation process staff are recommending staying with Commerce Bank as their fees and interest are comparable, staff have direct knowledge of their satisfactory overall service level, and the convenience of the drive-thru banking for our police officers. We are confident Commerce Bank can fulfill the City’s needs and in addition, Commerce Bank is a good community partner. The City’s pension plans also currently use Commerce Trust for pension administrative services, custodial services and fixed income investments.
The proposal is for services for a three-year period, with an option to renew for two (2) additional one-year periods at the City’s choice.
Janet Watson, Director of Finance, addressed the Board to answer questions.
Motion was made by Alderman Winings to approve Resolution No. 18-20, to authorize the execution of a banking agreement with Commerce Bank. Alderman Boulton seconded.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER DECLARING THE INTENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM BOND PROCEEDS FOR EXPENDITURES IN RELATION TO THE RENOVATION OF THE CENTER OF CLAYTON RECREATIONAL FACILITY
City Manager Owens reported that the City plans to issue bonds to fund the City’s portion of the renovations to the Center of Clayton recreational facility. The City will be expending funds soon on items which have a significant delivery period and pre-construction items and the City would like to be reimbursed for those costs. The attached ordinance will allow the City to be reimbursed for costs incurred prior to the bond issuance once bond proceeds are received.
Motion made by Alderman Winings to approve Resolution No. 18-21, declaring the intent to reimburse the City of Clayton from Bond proceeds for expenditures in relation to the renovation of The Center of Clayton Recreational Facility. Seconded by Alderman Boulton.
The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.
MOTION - APPEAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S DECISION
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
REGARDING TWO EXTERIOR BUILDING SIGNS AT 100 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
City Manager Owens reported that this is a request for a motion regarding the appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s decision to deny part of an application submitted by Shannon Brown of Designery on the behalf of Moneta. The original request submitted by the applicant to the Architectural Review Board proposed the installation of two 24.69 square foot Moneta wall signs and the removal of the north elevation Moneta Group sign. One sign was proposed on the west elevation and one sign was proposed on the south elevation. The signs were proposed above the first-floor windows and bracket-mounted to the brick façade.
The City’s sign code states: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” The Sign Code also states that wall signs should be installed on street frontages. A sign modification, granted by the Architectural Review Board, would be required to install a sign of the proposed size on the west elevation. A sign modification would also be required to install a sign of the proposed size and in the proposed location on the south elevation.
In an email sent to staff prior to the Architectural Review Board meeting, the applicant Shannon Brown, clarified that the request was to install the proposed west and south elevation signs and remove the existing north elevation sign. At the Architectural Review Board meeting, Mr. Brown made a presentation of the signage request and provided reasoning including that the existing north elevation sign is not visible to northbound traffic and has limited visibility to southbound traffic due to existing trees. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed west and south elevation signs would provide the desired exposure to traffic along Brentwood Boulevard and that the existing monument sign would remain. On September 17, 2018, the Architectural Review Board voted 6 – 0 to deny the south elevation Moneta sign while approving the west elevation sign under the condition that the north facing elevation Moneta Group sign is removed. Reasoning provided by the Architectural Review Board members for their decision included a desire to follow the Code and keep signage on street frontages, to prevent a corner of the building from being overloaded with signage and a desire to keep repetitive signage on buildings to a minimum – citing the existing monument sign to remain.
On September 25, 2018, the City received a letter dated September 25, 2018, from Shannon Brown appealing the decision denying to the north elevation sign. The applicant is appealing the Architectural Review Board decision on the grounds of a conflict of interest for a voting member. In the letter of appeal, the applicant has requested that a north elevation wall sign is allowed in addition to the west elevation sign. The applicant is appealing the condition of approval, not the denial of the south elevation wall sign.
Pursuant to Section 400.230 “Appeals”, an aggrieved party may, within fifteen (15) days of the decision for which redress is sought, file with the Board of Aldermen a written request for reconsideration and appeal of any decision of the Architectural Review Board under this Article.
The written request must set forth in a concise manner the decision being appealed and all grounds known to the appellant as to wherein and why the decision is allegedly in error.
The Board of Aldermen may consider the appeal on the record of the prior decision by the Architectural Review Board or may, at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances associated with this application for appeal.
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 5 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
The minutes of the September 17, 2018 Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board meeting related to this project, a copy of the staff report, an email dated August 23, 2018 between City Planner Anna Krane and Shannon Brown are included in the Board’s packet.
Shannon Brown, Designery, addressed the Board providing a summary of his letter of appeal noting that the principals at Moneta was concerned that Mr. Lintz’ involvement was a conflict of interest due to his wife’ competing financial advising company that is also located in Clayton.
Mayor Sanger stated that the appeal noted a reason of a conflict of interest which is an incorrect assumption.
City Attorney O’Keefe stated that the summary is effectively that both the State law and the City’s ordinances deal with parties having an interest in the matter. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Lintz’ wife’s company has an interest in the question of signage for Moneta. They simply do not have a role, do not have any economic interest in the outcome of the question.
Anna Krane, Planner, addressed the Board provided summary stating that multi-tenant office buildings can have two 12 sf wall signs on each façade. The original request from Mr. Brown on behalf of Moneta was for two 24+ sf wall signs, one located on the west façade and one located on the south façade. There is an existing Hoffman sign on the west façade and would represent a maximum of two on that face. During the Architectural Review Board meeting they felt that a wall sign on the south was not appropriate because 1) it is not a street frontage and does not meet the sign code; and 2) the Board felt that it would be an overload of signage in that area of the building. They did not feel that they wanted to approve a sign modification to allow a sign on the south wall. As discussion continued they felt that a 24+ square foot sign is twice what is allowed and recognized that the Hoffman sign is that size and that it would visually look better to have similar sized signage on that wall. The ARB also took into account the existing sign tenant panel on the monument sign located at the northwest corner of the property and decided that a condition of approval to keep the appearance of this building more cohesive with the downtown area would be to limit the repetitive signage for Monetta. They also felt that a 24+ sf sign along with the existing monument sign would already be a sign modification.
Ms. Krane clarified that the original request to ARB initially applied to remove the existing north wall sign, but during the meeting Mr. Brown suggested that maybe they would like to keep the north wall sign which is approximately 24 sf as well. The ARB felt that approving two 24sf wall signs, which are double the size allowed, would not be cohesive with the signage in the downtown area.
The ARB approved a Monetta sign on the west façade located at the south end of the building, which is the opposite of the existing Hoffman sign, and also with the condition that the existing north façade sign is removed which is what is being appealed.
Note: The following was requested to be part of the record.
City Attorney O’Keefe (speaking to Mr. Brown): “For clarification the City Code requires that as part of an appeal the appellant identify the error in the decision that the ARB made. You do not claim any error in the decision made and that the decision, contrary to the ordinances, misunderstood relevant facts, misapplied the law, and that you don’t make any such allegations – correct?”
Mr. Brown: “Well?”
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 6 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
City Attorney: “There’s nothing in your writings that say that.”
Mr. Brown: “Okay, okay, let me clarify please – I’ll mention. When we talk about the one sign being 12 something square feet and a total of two on that one elevation that was just mentioned and Hoffman allowed to double that it justified their sign.” “When I applied for this about a year and a half ago, if I’m not mistaken, to do something of a 24 square feet sign for Monetta on that I was told that you could only have 12 something, that’s it. So, in my mind that’s what we had thought moving forward. But, what we were wanting again was to have two signs of representation on the building. I mentioned to Monetta about doing the north and the west and they came back and said they thought it would be approached from the south, the south elevation and the west because the building extends out when you are going up Brentwood and customers can see that from the south and if you’re coming, if you’re going through on southbound you can see the one on the west and if you’re going northbound you can see the one that is facing the south elevation. That was our justification, okay so, when it wasn’t moving forward as far as what we were asking for that I felt that they wanted to signs, does it make sense, better sense, and it wasn’t more of the ordinance, it was about how it looked and how it looked on the building. And plus the fact that that sign, no sign was allowed in the ordinance, I believe, if it doesn’t face a street where the south faces the alley I think that’s correct. That’s what I said about the sign on Maryland…it faces the alley. So, but anyway that’s what came in my mind and I thought then it would make better sense if it architecturally doesn’t look good there….I think it does but if it doesn’t, if that wasn’t going to be a win then why don’t we leave the north face sign as it is, trim the trees back….I know there’s a monument sign there, but if you’re at the corner….”
City Attorney: “Maybe I didn’t make my question clear. What is the error in the decision of the ARB?”
Mr. Brown: “I’m not saying there is an error in the decision of the ARB.”
City Attorney: “Thank you, and the other question was as to whether there is or was a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Lintz is there any factual information that your client gave you with regard to how they perceive, how they reached that conclusion?”
Mr. Brown: “What I had in the letter is exactly what they told me.”
City Attorney: “They felt it was…it’s a feeling?”
Mr. Brown: “In their opinion, yes.”
City Attorney: “Thank you, that’s all the questions that I have. Thank you very much.”
Mayor Sanger stated that the Board will take this under advisement and will come back with a decision at the next meeting.
DISCUSSION OF ICE RINK OPTIONS
Patty DeForrest provided the Board with an overview and update on the options for the Ice Rink project (handout attached). After much discussion, Patty noted that she feels that the best-case option is Scenario 2 because they would still get the design and the use of the building, the rink, and the drop-off site. Patty also explained the proposed LEED Certification scoring. She feels that it will be a more affordable building to run/manager over time and asked for the Board’s direction.
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 7 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
At the Board’s direction staff will: 1. Authorize Jacobs to put together renderings for Option 2 and any other collateral materials. 2. Schedule a meeting to discuss with the Parks & Recreation Commission; invite the Ice Rink Task Force to participate and provide feedback and/or endorsement. 3. Initiate with the Clayton Century Foundation (CCF) fundraising campaign to raise a minimum of $2.5 million for Option 2 or $5 million for Option 1. Note: $5 million is a placeholder number and staff will refine that number to “back into” the $9 million commitment.
Other
Alderman Winings reported on the following: • Parks & Recreation Commission o Discussed the purchase of 7811 Maryland Avenue property. o Discussed the proposed shared dog park location in Brentwood.
Alderman Boulton reported on the following: • Clayton Century Foundation Executive Board o Strategic Plan scheduled Nov. 9-10 o Voting on new budget and new directors scheduled at the Oct. 24 meeting. o Current fundraising initiatives for DeMun Park and ECabs.
• Washington University o Student Event held on Oct. 10th with Rep. Stacey Newman and Bruce Franks as speakers.
Alderman Lintz reported on the following: • Plan Commission/ARB o Approved a new construction (teardown) on Ridgemoor o Approved with requirements a teardown at 146 N. Central Avenue and the owner is putting in an outdoor sports court.
Alderman Berkowitz reported on the following: • The Moorlands held an ice cream social; very little participation. • Wydown Forest held a meeting; discussed issues with speeders; the Police Department has posted a speed sign on Edgewood. • During an event he spoke to a Washington University Dean of Law School about the IHOP incident to which she was very supportive/sympathized with Clayton and the Police Department.
Alderman Harris reported on the following: • Municipal League membership meeting will be held on October 25 in Florissant.
Mayor Sanger reported on the following: • Attended the Washington University Student event. • Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council met at the Hanley House. • The Metro Mayor’s met on October 11. • Family Center held a dedication of the new playground on October 11. • Attended the monthly Mayor’s breakfast meeting on October 15. • He was a guest speaker for the 2nd grade at Captain Elementary School on October 15. • M1 Bank held a ribbon cutting ceremony on October 16. • The Barton held a ribbon cutting on October 17; they are currently at 50% occupied.
10-23-18 BOA Minutes October 23, 2018 Page 8 of 8
Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition
• The Fire Department held its annual Breast Cancer Awareness BBQ on October 17. • BeSpoke Apparel held a ribbon cutting on October 18.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________ City Clerk