November 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 1 of 12 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 November 28, 2017 7:07 p.m.

Minutes

Mayor Sanger called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. The following individuals were present:

Aldermen: Mark Winings, Alex Berger, Joanne Boulton, Rich Lintz, Ira Berkowitz, and Michelle Harris

Mayor Sanger City Manager Owens City Attorney O’Keefe City Clerk Frazier

Alderman Boulton moved to approve the November 14, 2017 minutes. Alderman Berger seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS

None

A MOTION TO APPROVE A LIQUOR LICENSE UPGRADE FOR SEEDZ CAFE LOCATED AT 6344 S. ROSEBURY AVENUE

City Manager Owens reported that Seedz Café is requesting to upgrade their current liquor license (5% beer and not to exceed 14% wine at retail by the drink, including Sunday) to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink, including Sundays, at 6344 S. Rosebury Avenue.

Montgomary Gralnick, was in attendance on behalf of Seedz Cafe.

Motion was made by Alderman Winings to approve a liquor license upgrade for Seedz Café located at 6344 S. Rosebury Avenue. Alderman Boulton seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Presentation on the St. Louis Art Fair

Laura Miller, Interim Executive Director provided a presentation to the Board on the 2017 St. Louis Art Fair.

Presentation and update on the 10 S. Brentwood Boulevard Build-Out Project

The following persons presented to the Board:

John Wulf, Assistant Director of Public Works Chris Chiodini, Chiodini Architects

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 2 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition Tim Convy and Susan Findly, Avison & Young

The Board agreed to lease out the vacancy to better utilize the space.

City Manager Owens agreed that staff will interview commercial real estate companies to solicit people/businesses that would qualify for the use of 10 S. Brentwood Boulevard.

PRESENTATION ON LAND TRUST AND TARGETED INCENTIVES

Gary Carter, Economic Developer, provided the Board with a presentation on Land Trust and Targeted Incentives. At the Board’s request, he will outline a policy (resolution) to be presented to the Board for adoption at a future meeting.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT(S) WITH CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS, INC. FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND SERVICES

City Manager Owens reported that Public Works, Parks and IT are requesting approval of agreements with Cartegraph Systems, Inc. for Asset Management Software and Services. The agreements provide for software, implementation, data conversion, and hosting services over a three-year period.

Dale Houdeshell, Director of Public works presented to the Board.

Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6641, an ordinance to consider approving a contract with Cartegraph Systems, Inc. for asset management software and services to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6641, an Ordinance approving agreements with Cartegraph Systems, Inc. for Asset Management Software and Services for the first time by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Winings moved that the Board give unanimous consent to the consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6641 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Boulton seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6641, an ordinance to consider approving a contract with Cartegraph Systems, Inc. for asset management software and services to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6641, an Ordinance approving agreements with Cartegraph Systems, Inc. for Asset Management Software and Services for the second time by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Winings – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman Harris – Aye; and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6508 of the City of Clayton.

A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER SUPPORTING A CITIES-DRIVEN PLAN TO REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 3 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition City Manager Owens reported that the Sustainability Committee was asked to review recent action by the US Conference of Mayors regarding Climate Change. A draft resolution like the one approved by the Conference of Mayors was considered by the Committee at its November meeting. After review and discussion, the Committee desires for the City to join with the U.S. Conference of Mayors to call upon the Trump Administration and Congress to support the fight against climate change.

The Sustainability Committee voted to recommend approval.

Motion was made by Alderman Harris to table Resolution No. 17-27, and request that the Sustainability Committee provide further clarification, and itemized recommendations to the Board. Alderman Berger seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

A MOTION TO CONSIDER AN APPOINTMENT TO THE NON-UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND BOARD (NUERF)

City Manager Owens reported that the Board received a nomination to appoint Amelia Bond as a member to the Non-Uniformed Employees’ Pension Fund Board.

Motion was made by Alderman Winings to approve the appointment of Amelia Bond to the Non-Uniformed Employees’ Pension Fund Board. Alderman Boulton seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING REVISING CHAPTERS 405 (ZONING REGULATIONS) AND 410 (OVERLAY & URBAN DESIGN ZONING DISTRICTS) REGARDING TOWNHOUSES

City Manager Owens reported that this is an ordinance presented for second reading to consider approving a revision to Title IV (Land Use), Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations) and Chapter 410 (Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clayton for proposed amendments related to townhouses.

Alderman Winings introduced Bill No. 6638, an amendment to Chapters 405, Zoning Regulations and Chapter 410, Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts regarding Townhouses to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Boulton seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6638, an Ordinance Amending Title IV “Land Use”, Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations) and Chapter 410 (Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clayton, Modifying the Definition of Townhouses and Permitting Them as an Allowable Use in the R-4 Through R-7, Multi Family Zoning Districts and Other Actions Related Thereto for the second time by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Winings – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman Harris – Aye; and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6509 of the City of Clayton.

APPEAL FROM BOARD OF ALDERMEN ACTION

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 4 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition City Manager Owens reported that this is an appeal of the Board of Aldermen’s decision to approve Centene Center III, LLC’s conditional use permit for the operation of a daycare and corporate education facility.

Alderman Winings recused himself from the meeting at 8:12 p.m.

City Attorney O’Keefe read the following proposed findings and rulings to be presented to the Board:

In Re: Appeal for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 17-18

Findings and Ruling on Appeal

On September 25, 2017, several Clayton residents who live in the vicinity of the former Maryland School property generally located at 7501 Maryland Avenue filed a request for reconsideration and appeal of the Board of Aldermen’s September 12 decision to delete a condition about public use of greenspace on the subject property when approving a conditional use permit for operation of daycare and corporate training facilities by Centene Center III, LLC.

On November 14 the Board of Aldermen heard presentations on the appeal from all interested parties and took the matter under advisement. The parties were invited to submit post-hearing briefs in support of their positions which have now been received and considered. Being now fully informed the Board hereby issues the following ruling.

Comment

The Board very much appreciates and admires the concern, community commitment and energy which informed the efforts of residents around Maryland School to have their points of view heard. The zeal and scholarship of the proponents have been most impressive. We appreciate the cooperation and professionalism of all parties throughout this process.

The Decision At Issue In The Appeal

We all must keep clearly in mind the specific – and only – issue involved in these proceedings. As stated by the Appellants in their original filing:

We are aggrieved by the Board[‘s] . . . September 12, 2017 decision to grant Centene[‘s] . . . Conditional Use Permit Application . . . without the condition recommended by the City Planning Commission that Centene provide greenspace for public use during non- business hours.

The wording of the “condition recommended by the City Plan Commission” to which Appellants’ appeal is directed (the “Condition”) was as follows:

[“. . . the permitted uses shall be conducted so as to comply with the following stipulations and conditions at all times:” * * *] 17. Provide greenspace area for public use during non-business hours (evenings & weekends).

So the only issue raised by the appeal process is the Board’s choice to delete that language from the approved Resolution.

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 5 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition Appellants’ written appeal detailing, as required, “the decision being appealed and all grounds known to the appellant as to wherein and why the decision is allegedly in error” does NOT challenge the Board’s approval of the Centene CUP application in general, only the deletion of one proposed condition of approval. Thus the Board’s finding in Resolution No. 17-18 that “the applicant has clearly established that the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit set out in Section 405.840 of Clayton’s Zoning Regulations are met” is not challenged or put at issue by the present appeal.

The Condition at Issue

It is important to recognize what that disputed Condition does and does not say.

• It does NOT say any minimum amount of greenspace must be on the subject property. • It does NOT say where any greenspace is to be located. • It does NOT say that any landscaping is required for the greenspace. • It does NOT say that any greenspace has to be visible to anyone. • It does NOT say any greenspace has to be an aesthetic enhancement to the neighborhood.

So deletion of the Condition from the approved Resolution has no bearing or effect on any of those matters.

The only thing the Condition does say is that whatever greenspace there is on the site once it is finally redeveloped must be available for use by anyone for any purpose at any time the permitted facilities are not operating.

Other Greenspace Elements of the Resolution

It appears so much attention being drawn to the challenged Condition might make it appear as if that wording was the only part of the Resolution or regulatory process to deal with greenspace on the site. But that is not the case. Conditions 5 through 9 of Section 2 of Resolution No. 17-18 also require:

• A minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained from the east property line along Jackson Avenue. • A minimum 25-foot-wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained along Maryland Avenue between the public right-of-way and any surface parking. • A landscaped buffer a minimum depth of the front yard setback shall be maintained along Westmoreland Avenue. The front yard setback shall be the average existing front yard setback as determined by a block face study performed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Director. • A landscaped berm shall be installed and maintained between any expanded surface parking area and the public right of way, at a height to shield car headlights as approved by the Planning Director. • Landscape buffers must be maintained per an approved landscape plan.

Moreover, the Resolution also specifies that the site plan for the property on which the conditionally permitted uses are located must undergo the site plan review and approval processes provided by the Clayton City Code. See: Article VIII, of Chapter 405: Site Plan Review and Sec. 405.1000(A)(1). That site plan review process is now ongoing before the City’s Plan Commission.

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 6 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition And, especially in the context of the Resolution’s requirements bearing on the ongoing site plan review process, it should be recognized that the same motion that deleted the Condition put at issue by Appellants also added an alternative condition to the approved Resolution which separately addressed greenspace-related concerns:

Alderman Boulton moved to approve Resolution No. 17-18, a Conditional Use Permit for 7501 Maryland Avenue, 7500, 7504, 7512, 7516, & 7520 Westmoreland Avenue with staff recommendations except eliminating #17. “Provide greenspace area for public use during non-business hours (evenings & weekends)” and add a condition, “The overall site shall contain no more than 55% of impervious coverage.”

We also feel it is appropriate to remind those concerned about the quantum and character of greenspace in the area that there is an existing City park one hundred and twenty feet to the west of the subject property. The City has invested substantial resources in expanding and enhancing that park property for public recreational use. We are proud of it and hope residents will take full advantage of the opportunities that facility gives them.

With this context in mind we now turn to the appeal itself.

“Appellant” Status

Much discussion has been focused on whether the Appellants have the requisite qualifications to invoke the reconsideration and appeal opportunity afforded by Sec. 405.930 of the City Code.

While we believe much of that discussion has missed the mark and is not persuasive, we do not need to belabor the issue at this time. Because of our resolution of the merits of the appeal below, it is not necessary for us to make a final determination on the issue of whether any Appellant within the requisite proximity to the subject property has satisfied the aggrieved party requirement. That issue will be left to another time.

Merits of the Appeal

Appellants assert three “errors” on the part of the Board of Aldermen:

• Causing a loss of public access to neighborhood greenspace; • Acting on the basis of a mistaken belief that it would be unconstitutional to require the property owner to suffer public use of its property whenever the permitted facility is inactive; and • Failure to require the property owner to provide a service to the neighborhood in the form of the public’s right to use the private property.

1. Reduction of Amount and Access To Greenspace.

Appellants’ presentation and speaker after speaker complained that the Board’s decision will reduce greenspace on site and take away the public’s right to access and use existing greenspace for their own enjoyment.

But, as pointed out above, the deletion of the condition in question has no effect on the amount, location, appearance, visibility, aesthetics or character of greenspace on the subject property.

More importantly, no rights of nearby residents or the public have been impeded, reduced or eliminated by the Board’s decision not to create a right of public access and mandate compliance by the property owner. The fact is that the public has never had – and does not now

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 7 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition have – any right to enter onto or make use of the greenspace on the subject property. Public ownership does not mean that members of the public have a right to make personal use of property. The fact that the Clayton School District long tolerated interlopers or trespassers does not mean members of the public acquired any right to continued or future access to the site.

If residents are disturbed by choices that put the Maryland School site into private ownership they should direct their voices elsewhere.

2. Valid Exaction or Unconstitutional Taking

Appellants argue strenuously that the Board’s decision to delete the condition appropriating greenspace to public use was the result of an erroneous understanding of the distinction between lawful development exactions and unconstitutional and invalid takings of private property without just compensation. This argument is premised on a statement made during the meeting attributed to one of the Board members referencing that issue.

But this asserted “error” does not afford grounds to require the Board to reconsider and reverse its decision with regard to the deleted condition. The Board’s decision to impose or remove conditional use permit conditions recommended by the Plan Commission is one entrusted to the discretion of the Board of Aldermen. Each member of the Board of Aldermen may have had innumerable valid reasons other than his or her views on constitutional law for concluding that requiring a private property owner to allow unlimited public use of his property would not be a prudent public policy: questions of precedent and impact on future developments; concern with possible lawsuits if the property owner objects to an appropriation of its property; fear of City liability if people are injured while using the property the City made available to them; philosophical objections to government intrusion between neighboring property owners or governmental overreach; a desire to encourage area residents to take advantage of the growing city park two doors down the street; etc. etc.

Even if the constitutional law issue of exaction versus taking could be fairly debatable, of if the expressed view of one member was inaccurate or inaccurately stated (a proposition with which we do not concur by this Ruling), that would not support overturning the discretionary judgment of the Board as a whole. In short, this argument does not satisfy the Appellants’ burden to establish that the discretionary decision of the Board as a whole was erroneous.

3. Necessity for Conditional Use Permittees to Provide Service to the Neighborhood.

The lynchpin of Appellants’ argument and the key premise from which most of the allegations of error follow is their reading of Sec. 405.1830 of the City Code as requiring conditional use permittees in an R-2 district to provide services to neighboring residents as a condition precedent to approval of a conditional use permit. We respectfully disagree with that interpretation of the Code.

Section 405.1830 is a “Purpose Statement” pertaining to the R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District:

Section 405.1830. Purpose Statement

The "R-2" Single-Family Dwelling District (hereinafter known in this Article as the "R-2" District) is intended to allow single-family residential use but at a slightly higher density than the "R-1" zoning district. This district also allows for non-residential land uses which provide services to the residential district on a conditional use permit basis.

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 8 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition Appellants assert the last sentence means no conditional uses can be allowed in the district unless the permitted activities “provide services to the residential district.” We believe that interpretation of the code provision is strained and inaccurate.

First, the code provision, as stated in its title, is explanatory not regulatory. It describes in general terms the thinking of the those Boards of Aldermen that over the years selected uses to be permitted of right and conditionally allowed in the several zoning districts. Those Boards enacted the Purpose Statement to express to readers the idea that some conditionally permitted land uses might be of service to neighbors helped inform their legislative decision to conditionally allow that category of use – and they expressed that perspective in this broadly descriptive “statement.”

Second, the meaning ascribed by Appellants leads to conflicting and unreasonable results. The R-2 District specifically allows conditional uses which could not conceivably render any service to neighboring residents in the R-2 district. This circumstance establishes that “service” by each use is not a prerequisite to approval of a given application. Consider that each of the following uses is conditionally allowed in the R-2 District even though they cannot possibly “serve” anyone but the occupant of the property on which they are located:

• Church spires, belfries, monuments, ornamental towers and spires and chimneys exceeding the maximum height in the zoning district • Second units (carriage houses/granny units) • Solar energy systems, ground-mounted • Wind energy systems, building-mounted

Under Appellants’ reading of the Code conditionally permitted private schools could be compelled to admit and educate nearby students who do not choose to ascribe to the beliefs or pay the tuition expected by the institution.

Third, Appellants overlook the fact that the same sentence upon which they rely so heavily is repeated verbatim in the “Purpose Statement” for every residential zoning district in the Zoning Code. And in those districts, in addition to the examples cited above in R-2, the following conditional uses are allowed even though they can render no service to neighbors in those districts:

• guest lodging, offices, conference and meeting facilities for educational and institutional uses in existing residential structures. • attached two-family dwellings. • attached multi-family dwellings. • detached multi-unit housing/multiple structures on a single lot. • lodge hall or club. • business or professional offices. • parking lots and multi-level parking structures.

Fourth, and most importantly, such a reading of the Purpose Statement ignores the fact that Article VII of the Zoning Code comprehensively contains all the substantive and procedural ordinances governing application, review and approval of Conditional Uses. Sec. 405.840 of Art. VII, titled Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval, sets out the sixteen different criteria to be considered for issuance of conditional use permits. “Service to neighbors” is not a listed criterion.

Appellants’ construction of Sec. 405.1830 would inject administrative and logistical uncertainty and ambiguity into the permitting process: How much service is enough? How far afield from the

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 9 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition site must the service be offered? How many people have to be eligible for/interested in the service in order for it to satisfy the requirement? What if people don’t like/want the service? Or think the service is not of an appropriate caliber? If neighbors reject an offered service must the conditional permit be withdrawn?

We believe Appellants’ assertion that the Board of Aldermen must extract from each Conditional Use Permit applicant some species of “service” to some segment of the nearby population before any permit can be issued is not well founded.

Conclusion

Appellants do not challenge the Board’s determination of September 12 that Centene Center III LLC has satisfied all criteria for issuance of the Conditional Use Permit for which it applied.

The deleted condition Appellants seek to reinstate has no bearing on the amount, location, appearance, visibility, aesthetics or character of greenspace on the Centene site. Yet it is primarily alleged impacts on those circumstances which Appellants’ seek to protect or remedy by this appeal.

The City’s regulatory oversight process with regard to site plan, landscaping, greenspace and other aesthetic and substantive issues associated with the conditionally permitted use is ongoing. That is the forum in which Appellants’ aesthetic and quality of life concerns can most appropriately be considered.

The Board of Aldermen’s exercise of discretion to delete the condition at issue did not interfere with, reduce, eliminate or compromise any right vested in any neighbor with regard to the subject property.

The Board had full authority to issue the CUP and to delete the condition at issue, and did so in full compliance with all governing ordinances and laws.

The Board of Aldermen declines to reconsider or revise Resolution No. 17-18. Appellants’ appeal is denied.

Mayor Sanger stated the following, “Whether you’re here in support of the appeal or if you’re here not in support of the appeal I hope that you will have some pride in your government officials because you have no idea how much time, effort, and agonizing, everyone has gone through. We have challenged our City Attorney on every single thing that he has brought and whatever the conclusions we have all made you will find here in just a moment. But I can tell you this has been very, very, heavily vetted to make sure that we understand exactly what was appealed and what the implications are. So, with that do any of the alderman have any comments?”

Alderman Berkowitz stated the following, “I echo those thoughts Mayor, you have said that correctly. I think that there have been hours upon hours of time spent by probably everybody on this Board in considering very carefully every aspect of this appeal, every aspect of the CUP, every aspect of the zoning; and I respect everyone’s, whatever conclusion people have drawn at this point, I respect everyone’s opinion. I think it has come with a good deal of effort and a good deal of pain. So, with that I would like to say that I cannot agree with the motion that was just read today and that is no surprise about that. I disagree with the premise that the only basis that this Board can make its decision is if we were to agree that we were wrong in removing the condition with respect to access to the green space. I do not believe that that is the entire scope of the motion for the reconsideration made by our neighbors in this case. I think people know I

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 10 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition feel very strongly that we need to support our residential neighborhoods. I do not believe that we did that by way of the CUP.

I think that this case, and this was also brought out in the argument made several weeks ago, that this case does not hinge on whether we agree that we made a mistake with regards to condition. There’s been a tremendous amount of argument in regards to whether or not we correctly made a decision on a CUP for a use that clearly in my estimation is contrary to the purpose, the clear purpose, written into the Code. That Code provision, which our attorney has read into the record, and the section I have to keep looking back to is that this district allows for nonresidential land uses, which is what we’re doing with the CUP. We are allowing for a nonresidential land use and the Code specifically says it allows for nonresidential land uses which provides services to the residential district on a conditional use permit basis. I read that Mr. Mayor, to mean what it says in plain language. I don’t think I have to go into Black’s Law Book and figure out any of those words. They are very clear, it requires a service to the residential district in order for us to basically allow for a nonresidential land use.

Now we’ve provided a list of those approvable uses, which includes a university. I’m baffled at how we can decide that what Centene has at this location is considered a university, I think it’s pretty clear that it’s not. Mr. Berger was very clear on that at the hearing and I agree with that position. But the problem we have here is that we have basically contorted and shoehorned an acceptable use which ends up being completely and totally contrary to the purpose intended by the Code which is that if there’s going to be a nonresidential land use than it needs to provide services to the residential district. This use provides no service to this district. What it provides instead is a service to Centene, which is fine for Centene, but it doesn’t do anything for this neighborhood. Centene’s attorney came up and argued his case; he talked about what the benefits was, and one of the benefits was well if anyone in the neighborhood works at Centene that is a benefit to them isn’t it.

There were other contortions trying to argue for services to the community, by arguing that we’re going to pay taxes, well we all pay taxes. I don’t think my paying of taxes is anything out of the ordinary and certainly should not be considered as an add on service to the community. If we’re required to pay taxes, we are required to pay taxes. So, I disagree with the premise for the resolution, I disagree with many of the conclusions made in the resolution, and I’ll particularly take issue in the resolution with a provision that says that the Board had full authority to issue the CUP. Now there’s an and on that, but that’s an and so I read that the Board had full authority to issue the CUP and I do not believe that under the CUP rules, under the R2 rules that we had actual authority to issue what we issued and so I can’t agree with the resolution. Thank you.”

Alderman Harris stated, “I support what you have said totally. I also would just like to say that I think we need to think about the bigger picture, and spirit, and the intent of R2 CUP conditions. It is in that purpose statement which Ira just read which is providing a service to the community and if it doesn’t it really shouldn’t be considered. I do believe that the appeal brings out the idea very strongly that that is why we had no authority to grant the CUP and I can say that I voted for it, and I believe that I’ve since learned a lot. So, I would like to make sure we kind of stick with the spirit and intent of our Code instead of getting mired down in technicalities. There’s no precedence for this really in Clayton so far as I can find out. We’ve never done a CUP in R2, the Wilson School has been brought up as an example, but that was built before we had a CUP process. The Forsyth School has been brought up, but that is a very small example. I think what we’re doing is important and I would like to see us do it right.”

Mayor Sanger stated, “I hope that you all recognize that we all get along but don’t always agree. but we sure put a lot of thought and effort into it.”

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 11 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition Motion was made by Alderman Boulton that the Board of Alderman adopt the proposed findings and rulings on appeal and deny appellants’ request to reconsider Resolution No. 17-18. Alderman Berger seconded.

Alderman Boulton stated, “As a very wise co-alderman of mine once said, ‘we’re all a little bit right in these types of things,’ and I’d like to thank all the residents for coming to all the meetings, it was a lot more fun having you guys there. I’d like to thank all of the attorneys, both the paid and unpaid ones, they brought a lot of new information to the table and made us all stretch quite a bit. I’d really like to thank our staff because they’ve provided us with an immense amount of information and we couldn’t really do this job without it; and my fellow aldermen ‘cause it’s been pretty lively and I haven’t been bored.

I took the time to reread everything, I went back, even though I was in all the meetings, including all of the Architectural Review Board meetings. I did go back and I reread all the information, everything that anyone sent us, the minutes, everything. As you’ve seen by my actions on this Board greenspace is something very important to me and once greenspace is gone, its gone forever. Based on the site plan Centene has recently shown the staff and Board of Aldermen I think that we have a much better site plan that provides a lot more greenspace and is down to the 55% of impervious coverage as the intent of this Board has made. I also believe in private property rights and I think those are very important, and given the findings as read by our City Attorney, I vote yay.”

Alderman Berger stated, “I think it’s important to respect the people who are elected; for those of you who are not in our room you have no idea how we don’t agree and how at the end of the meeting we shake hands and we go forward even though we don’t agree - and we won’t agree on this.

The issue that is in my mind that is the tipping point is access to private property. If this is the only service that is available, access to private property stops that, hinders that, and I object to access to private property. As my fellow Alderman, Ira Berkowitz, and I have exchanged some rather heated moments, one of the things I wanted to say to him was that I respect his point of view and I know that he respects the rights of private property.

Services that emanate from this project are not well defined by what is written as our guide post. We have to determine through the process of architectural review, etc what services might be available, but access to unfiltered or unfettered access to private property is not something that I can support. It would be much like Alderman Berkowitz and his wife coming over and swimming in my pool and me not knowing it. And I don’t mean to make light of this subject because it is significant about access to private property and access to that kind of situation.

We took a risk as a Board by trying to buy additional green space within the neighborhood way before this project came forward. We took a risk to try to provide additional services to this neighborhood, independent of this development and those services. That greenspace, is still available and its available within less than 200 feet from the school property of what we know today as Maryland School.

One of the services that the Centene project is producing is maintaining an architectural asset. The Maryland school built in 1931 is an architectural gem. It is an asset to our community and the opportunity to have it renovated and maintained is a service. I won’t debate the pluses and minuses of other possible services, I’m voting in favor of the resolution because I feel strongly about the rights of private property.”

Alderman Lintz stated, “It’s been a pretty tough debate and that’s all I can say, and the fact that I don’t think I can be as eloquent as either of those who have argued both sides so I’m not going

11-28-17 BOA Minutes November 28, 2017 Page 12 of 12 Minutes are recorded based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th, 2013 Edition to try. It has been tough, I appreciate all of the comments, I appreciate the residents I’ve spoken to who have given me insights. My fellow Aldermen, council, staff and everybody. Thank you very much for that and I support the resolution.”

Alderman Berkowitz stated, “I vote no on the resolution.”

Alderman Harris stated, “I’d like to add my thank yous to everybody too, especially to two Alderman here who have talked to me for hours about this topic. Thank you very much – nay.”

The motion passed on a role call vote, 4-2: Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Nay; Alderman Harris – Nay; and Mayor Sanger – Aye.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk