June 14, 2016 — Meeting Minutes

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 1 of 12 THE CITY OF CLAYTON

Board of Aldermen City Hall – 10 N. Bemiston Avenue June 14, 2016 7:10 p.m.

Minutes

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

Aldermen: Cynthia Garnholz, Mark Winings, Joanne Boulton, Alex Berger III, Rich Lintz, and Ira Berkowitz.

Mayor Sanger City Manager Owens City Attorney O’Keefe

Mayor Sanger pointed out that item #3, Bill No. 6562, was not a public hearing and recommended a motion to amend the agenda.

Alderman Garnholz moved to amend the agenda to move Bill No. 6562 to the City Manager’s report. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Boulton moved to approve the May 24, 2016 minutes. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Boulton moved to approve the May 24, 2016 minutes. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Mayor Sanger requested a moment of silence in regards to the recent tragedy in Florida.

PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS

None

PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 405 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE CLAYTON CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XXX: TREES AND LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS, AND AMENDING AND/OR REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 405, 410 (OVERLAY & URBAN DESIGN DISTRICTS) AND 415 (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) TO UPDATE CROSS REFERENCES TO SUCH REGULATIONS

Mayor Sanger opened the public hearing and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Owens reported that the City’s tree removal and replacement policy has been in place since 1999 and was established in response to an increase in development activity and the loss of trees in residential neighborhoods. The policy applies to residential and non-residential projects subject to Site Plan Review, and requires that when trees of one caliper inch or more in diameter are removed, they are to be replaced on-site with similar species. If the amount of caliper inches removed cannot be replaced on site, a contribution to the City’s Forestry Fund at a rate of $120 per caliper inch is required. In 2008, the City created the Landscape Plan Guide to

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 2 of 12 assist developers and design professionals in the preparation of landscape plans associated with certain development projects. The guide specifies when a landscape plan is required, the City’s tree removal and replacement policy, the review and approval process, the components of a landscape plan, and an approved tree list.

Since the adoption of these policy guidelines, staff has continually evaluated their effectiveness and impact on the development process and the City’s urban forest. Staff has observed that the current guidelines

• Do not provide flexibility in tree replacement requirements; • Have a disproportionate impact on sites with more and/or larger trees; and, • Have resulted in sites being overplanted with understory trees.

An attempt to update and codify new tree and landscape regulations in 2012 ultimately was not adopted by the Board of Aldermen (a comparison of the existing guidelines, the 2012 update and the current draft regulations is included as Exhibit C).

The purpose of the new regulations is to

• Establish minimum landscape standards; • Provide standards for the protection, preservation and replacement of trees; • Reduce tree loss and damage during construction; and, • Promote tree species diversity; and to maintain adequate tree canopy coverage citywide.

The regulations are a hybrid approach based on lessons learned from first-hand administration of the City’s current guidelines, newly available tree canopy data, industry best practices, input from the community, and professional expertise from the City’s contracted landscape architect.

The primary components of the regulations are:

Landscape Plan Requirements The regulations only apply to projects located on private property. Projects which require approval through the Site Plan Review, Special Development District, or Planned Unit Development processes must submit a landscape plan in conformance with the regulations. Projects that require a demolition permit are only subject to the requirements for tree protection and must submit a tree protection plan.

Landscaping Standards Projects must provide appropriate foundation and perimeter landscaping and native plants are encouraged. Mechanical units must be screened by 100 percent opaque screening such as landscaping or a fence.

Pre-development tree removal (“Clearcutting”) It shall be prohibited for any person to remove 19 or more caliper inches of Contributing Trees or any Landmark Tree located outside a lot’s buildable area for the purposes of preparing a lot for a development project subject to Site Plan Review, Special Development District, or Planned Unit Development approval. Any property for which a landscape/tree preservation Plan has been approved in accordance with this article and a building permit has been issued is exempt from this requirement.

New Tree Standards All new trees must be selected from the approved tree list. No more than 33 percent of the total number of trees may come from the same genus, and at least 33 percent of the total number of trees must be native. Trees planted in or near utility easements are discouraged. One medium/large deciduous tree must be planted on site if new trees are required. The Plan Commission may waive and/or modify these requirements.

Tree Preservation & Replacement:

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 3 of 12 Only projects in residential zoning districts which require approval through the Site Plan Review, or Planned Unit Development processes require tree preservation and/or replacement and there are different requirements for residential and non-residential developments. Two tree categories are defined for the purposes of determining the tree preservation and replacement requirements:

• Contributing Tree: Any tree measuring 3 caliper inches to 19 inches that is in fair to good condition and is not an invasive species as defined by the Missouri Department of Conservation. • Landmark Tree: Any tree exceeding 19 inches that is in fair to good condition and is not an invasive species as defined by the Missouri Department of Conservation.

For non-residential developments (such as religious institutions and schools), Contributing and Landmark Trees that are proposed to be removed or that were removed within one year preceding the submittal of a development application to the City shall be replaced on site with new trees so that the combined caliper inches of new trees is at least equal to the number of inches being removed. If the amount of caliper inches removed cannot be replaced on site, a contribution to the City’s Forestry Fund at a rate of $250 per caliper inch deficiency is required. The Plan Commission may approve a reduction up to 20 percent of the total required inches.

For residential projects, individual trees that are removed do not require replacement. New trees are required if the lot does not meet the minimum tree canopy lot coverage for that zoning district through the preservation of Contributing and/or Landmark Trees. To encourage the preservation of existing trees, Landmark Trees preserved on site shall be calculated at 125 percent of their calculated tree canopy area. If the amount of tree canopy cover cannot be provided on site, a contribution to the City’s Forestry Fund at a rate of $0.60 per square foot deficiency is required. The Plan Commission may approve a reduction up to 20 percent of the total required square feet canopy cover.

Tree Protection Measures Any construction, demolition, site work or similar activity which may injure existing trees requires the implementation of tree protection measures as set forth in the regulations or as determined by the City’s contracted landscape architect.

In February 2016, the project was announced in the Cityviews newsletter and a project webpage was created. On February 29, the City hosted two workshops to present the proposed regulations and solicit feedback from developers/design professionals and the general public. Notice for the workshops was posted on the project webpage, and emailed directly to 4,600 subscribers through the City’s e-notification system. Approximately 25 people attended the two workshops. On March 1 the draft regulations and workshop presentation were uploaded to the project webpage, along with a link to an online survey. As of April 11, 23 people had completed the survey and provided feedback.

The regulations have been tested by the City’s contracted landscape architect using eight case studies of recently approved/reviewed projects located in different zoning districts and contexts. The role of the case studies is to test the canopy coverage method against the caliper replacement method, and to refine the requirements and methodology.

If the regulations are adopted, staff anticipates the following impacts:

• An increase in the number of mature trees being preserved; • An increase in the number of native and canopy trees planted, and more diversity in tree species; • A decrease in the number of new trees planted since a one to one replacement is no longer required for residential projects; • A decrease in the amount of payments to the City’s Forestry Fund; • More flexibility for unique circumstances; and, • The cost to the applicants will not change as it relates to landscape review fees.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 4 of 12 Staff is of the opinion that the proposed regulations are in the best interests of the citizenry as a whole and represent a fair balance between the encouragement of tree preservation, planting and landscaping, and the potential impact to the community. Staff is of the opinion that the adoption of the proposed regulations is a proactive step that the City can take to establish minimum landscape standards; provide standards for the protection, preservation and replacement of trees; to reduce tree loss and damage during construction; to promote tree species diversity; and, to maintain adequate tree canopy coverage citywide.

The Plan Commission considered this request at its April 18, 2016 meeting and voted 6-0 to recommend approval as submitted.

Recommendation is to approve the proposed regulations and text amendments as submitted

Mayor Sanger noted that this process has been going on for a very long time. He stated that the staff has spent many hours working on this project and includes public input. He added that this will help maintain the City’s status as a Tree City USA.

In response to Alderman Garnholz’s question regarding wording in the ordinance on single-family homes (i.e. what “triggers” a site plan review, etc.) Louis Clayton stated that in the proposed regulations this is cross- referenced under Section 405.4040: Applicability.

Mayor Sanger closed the public hearing.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6560, an ordinance to approve the Tree and Landscape Regulations read for the first time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6560, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations) of the Clayton City Code By Adding a New Article XXX: Trees and Landscaping Regulations, and Amending and/or Repealing Various Sections of Chapters 405, 410 (Overlay & Urban Design Districts) and 415 (Subdivision Regulations) to Update Cross References to Such Regulations, and Other Actions Related Thereto for the first time by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6560 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. Bill No. 6560, an ordinance to approve the Tree and Landscape Regulations to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

Alderman Garnholz – Aye; Alderman Winings – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6430 of the City of Clayton.

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED 8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 5 of 12

Mayor Sanger opened the public hearing and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Owens reported that the 0.52-acre site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue. The property is improved with a two story commercial building that was constructed in 1947 and is currently vacant. Existing private alleys provide access to the site from Maryland Avenue, Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard.

In 1982, the subject property and the other properties in the block bounded by Brentwood Boulevard, Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard were rezoned to a Special Development District (SDD), a distinct zoning classification for large-scale development which involves a multi-phased, multi-year timeframe. An SDD is governed by a Special Development Plan and Subdistrict Plans, each of which require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The Special Development Plan provides the general development standards for the proposed development and the Subdistrict Development Plan provides detailed information related to each individual phase of the development. Since approval of the SDD zoning in 1982, four office buildings and a shared parking structure have been constructed. Two parcels, including the subject property, have not yet been redeveloped.

The project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 238,097-square-foot, 14- story office building including 1,655 square feet of ground floor space for a financial institution and a 3,737 square- foot retail/restaurant tenant. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of architectural precast panels with brick veneer, glass, and metal accents. Parking will be located in the existing parking structure which serves other buildings on the block. A drive through is proposed on the east side of the building for a future bank tenant and is screened by a street level fountain. New streetscape will be installed along the project limits on Forsyth Boulevard which will require a right-of-way dedication and approval of a Subdivision Plat.

The Special Development Plan (SDD) includes development standards regarding the use, area, height, and parking associated with the proposed development. The Board of Aldermen has the authority to determine a Subdistrict Development Plan’s conformance with the Special Development Plan. Once approved, the Subdistrict Development Plan and ordinance becomes the specific zoning regulations governing the use and development of the property.

According to the applicant, the following public benefits to the City are intended to be derived from the approval of the Special Development Subdistrict Plan “We plan to remove a vacant, boarded up and dilapidated building and build a new class “A” office tower including a programmable LED lighting internally illuminated water feature at the pedestrian level for their viewing and enjoyment.”

The building appears to be well‐designed and exhibits distinctive and identifiable characteristics while harmoniously fitting in with the existing context and neighboring buildings. Staff is of the opinion that the building is compatible in terms of materials, mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures.

Landscaped planters are proposed along the building frontage and corners and will contain a mix of evergreen and flowering shrubs. All existing site trees will be removed and no new trees are proposed on site; therefore, a payment to the City’s Forestry fund in the amount of $3,240 is required. New street trees will be provided along the property’s frontage.

The proposed stormwater runoff is less than existing; therefore, stormwater mitigation is not required. Stormwater runoff from the site will be piped directly to the public storm sewer system. The project has received conceptual approval from the Metropolitan Sewer District.

Existing private alleys provide access to the site from Maryland Avenue, Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard. Deliveries and trash pick‐up are expected via the middle alley on Forsyth Boulevard.

A traffic impact study prepared by CBB estimates that the development will generate 375 new vehicular trips during peak hours, and that the additional trips can be accommodated at the adjacent intersections. To improve the safety of the intersection of Forsyth Boulevard, Parkside Drive, and the south garage access, the

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 6 of 12 applicant proposes to prohibit left-turns from Forsyth Boulevard and from the subject property by installing a median in Forsyth Boulevard.

A proposed drive-through is located on the east side of the building and consists of two drive-through lanes. Vehicles will enter the drive-through from the north and exit the site from the south onto the private alley near Forsyth Boulevard. The parking regulations require 10 stacking spaces and eight stacked parking spaces are proposed. The drive through and cars will be screened from Forsyth Boulevard by a fountain feature. According to CBB, the traffic impacts associated with the drive-through are minimal and the stacking space is sufficient.

Based on the size of the proposed building, the Special Development Plan requires 715 new parking spaces (476 spaces on site and 238 spaces in the shared parking structure). The applicant does not propose to construct any new parking spaces, and will utilize 700 existing parking spaces in the shared parking structure. According to CBB, the existing parking supply provided in the project block (2,884 parking spaces) adequately serves current and projected parking demands with an adequate surplus of unoccupied spaces during peak times.

Thirteen bicycle racks will be provided in front of the building entrance and in the parking structure in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations.

Five loading spaces are required and two are proposed on the northwest corner of the building. According to the applicant, the proposed loading dock is located directly across from the loading area for 8235 Forsyth Boulevard which is under the same ownership and currently has five loading spaces which can be shared by both buildings.

The Downtown Master Plan was adopted in 2010 and identifies the property as being located in the Park View District. The vision for the Park View District is a “neighborhood along the park that takes advantage of the valuable views of Shaw Park and transforms the urban edge of the park into an active street life environment with sports, cultural and entertainment venues.” The plan makes specific recommendations for improving pedestrian connections to the park, increasing foot traffic, supporting small retail establishments and activity centers, and encouraging buildings facing the park to take advantage of the park views. Staff is of the opinion that the project generally complies with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan.

On May 2, 2016, the Plan Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Subdistrict Development Plan and approval the site plan with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall submit the following information and/or plan revisions to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to consideration by the Board of Aldermen: a. Conceptual approval from the Metropolitan Sewer District. b. Add the following note to sheets C01, C03, & C04 and the Subdivision Plat to clarify the location of the dedication area: “Property shall be dedicated to the City of Clayton Right-of-Way for the area in between the existing right-of-way line and the proposed private retaining wall along Forsyth Blvd.”. c. Revise the site plan to accurately depict the 12 required bicycle racks including the design and setbacks from other features in compliance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations. d. Provide site distance triangles at the entrances/exits of the site. e. Provide Auto Turn simulation to verify all emergency vehicles, trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc. can make all the necessary turning movements throughout the alley. In particular at the approaches off Forsyth and around the loading zone. f. Provide Auto Turn simulation to verify that the proposed median in Forsyth Boulevard does not prohibit turning movements to and/or from Parkside Drive. g. Illustrate turning movements for the vehicles entering and exiting the drive through lanes. h. Confirm the location of teller windows and/or ATM to verify potential stacking demands. i. Taller plantings should be added along the tallest sections of the exposed ramp wall areas to soften the hardscape condition along the street.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 7 of 12 j. A section detail for a typical planter that illustrates the soil conditions, drainage and irrigation should be provided. k. Two existing street trees are shown to be preserved; however, should be shown to be replaced. l. Add a note on the plans that the final selection of street species will be determined by the City at a later time. m. Submit an updated digital tree chart for review. Provide the tree charts on the plans to accurately depict tree replacement requirements. n. Remove the note regarding removing and replacing the streetscape as needed. 2. The applicant shall comply with the following prior to submitting an application for a Building Permit: a. Payment to the City’s Forestry Fund in the amount of $120 per caliper inch deficiency. b. Application and approval of a Subdivision Plat. c. Application and approval of an aerial easement for the sunscreen encroachment. d. Recording the approved development plan and Special Development Subdistrict Ordinance with St. Louis County and submitting proof of recording to the City. 3. That this approval is conditioned upon approval of amendments to the Special Development Plan for building area, use, and parking, at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen. 4. The final streetscape layout is to be determined by the City of Clayton Public Works, and additional plan sheets will be required illustrating the city standards and layout. 5. The contractor will be responsible for installing a covered walkway per City standards to maintain pedestrian access. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost associated with modifications to signal timing at nearby intersections.

The conditions listed under number 1 have been addressed. Condition 2.c is no longer applicable due to revisions to the building design. Upon further review of the SDD regulations, staff has determined that condition 3 is no longer applicable. Section 405.1240 states that “The Subdistrict Development Plan shall be in substantial conformance with the Special Development Plan as determined by the Board of Aldermen upon recommendation of the Plan Commission.” Thus, if the Board approves this subdistrict plan it is necessarily determining that the subdistrict plan is in “substantial conformance” with the SDD Development Plan. Therefore, a separate action amending the Special Development Plan is not required by the SDD regulations.

Recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and adopt an ordinance approving the Special Development Subdistrict Plan.

Mike Schoedel (Apex Oil) introduced Jared Novelly (Apex Oil and developer), and Rick Lawson, architect, ACI Boland. Mr. Schoedel provided a PowerPoint presentation of the project.

Mr. Lawson, provided an overview presentation (PowerPoint) of the architectural design and project materials.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Lawson explained the grade from the sidewalk to the front door of the building is similar to the Merrill Lynch Building.

In response to Alderman Garnholz’s question, Mr. Lawson stated that there are approximately 300 parking stalls that are reserved out of a total of 2,800.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Novelly stated that 8182 Maryland Associates (a Crest affiliated) owns the garage. The allocation for the new building would be 82 spaces.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Novelly stated that the (undeveloped) Desco building and has the ability to require 8182 Maryland Associates to build another half level on the garage and would give them another 77 spaces.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 8 of 12 In response to Alderman Garnholz’s questions, Mr. Lawson confirmed that there will be a right turn in and right turn out only into the alley that serves the garage. Mr. Lawson stated that the project will include retail and demonstrated on the presentation the locations and entrances.

Alderman Boulton expressed her concerns with regard to the loading docks and how this will impact the properties if sold for development. Mr. Lawson explained how they would be utilizing the current loading docks. He felt there would be no impact. Mr. Novelly added that Shaw Park Plaza does use those loading docks for their vans and they are a separate ownership group and in any event a possibility of being owned by two different entities is possible, but unlikely.

In response to Alderman Berger’s question, Mr. Lawson stated they have not had time to review the other separate parking study. He said that they had relied upon and worked with the City’s engineer, CBB, to put together the parking study and review it and in reading the other study he feels it was obviously prepared in a point for one specific buildings’ worries and concerns and also written to focus on those issues versus looking at the overall block as a whole.

In response to Alderman Lintz’s question, Mr. Lawson confirmed that both garage accesses can be used by people (card holders) who park in those garages.

With regard to the median, Mr. Lawson also explained that they did discuss with City staff regarding the lane changes and the widening.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Lawson explained that during some of the discussions it was proposed in the traffic study to have a triangular shaped, six inch high raised median that would restrict entry in and entry out (as shown on the presentation).

Gary Feder, Husch Blackwell, representing Shaw Park Plaza owner, addressed the Board stating that his client has no objection to a building on this site but opposes a building of this size at this location. He said that the Apogee Special Development Subdistrict Plan violates two of the regulations applicable to this site. The project proposes 238,097 square feet, 40% larger than the SDD permits, and the 1982 SDD limits the size to 169,994 square feet. He said that the Apogee project will not provide adequate parking. He stated that the current plan in place governs the SDD area and sets forth seven parcels and phasing; the Plan sets a maximum square footage and it’s obvious that in 1982, site designers determined building sizes appropriate for the parcels; noting that a smaller site (parcel) means a smaller square footage building. He noted that the Apogee site provides for the second smallest (at 169,000 square feet) building based on the site size; 8182 Maryland Avenue being the largest site. He stated that the Board of Aldermen cannot approve the Apogee SDD given the governing regulations that are currently in place. Mr. Feder continued by stating that there was a reason why, in 1982, the SDD ordinance provided for a lot and building size; he sees no justification as to why a 240,000 square foot building makes sense. He stated that only two amendments to the SDD have been allowed; in 1988 and in 1999; one allowed the building of Shaw Park Plaza because parcels 3 and 7 were consolidated and the total square footage of the building did not exceed what would have been allowed for each parcel. He asked that the City abide by the SDD Ordinance; noting other concerns such as traffic and parking. He added that his clients are objecting to a building that does not comply with the ordinance that is in place and that a revision to the SDD regulations to accommodate Apogee would be unjustified and unreasonable. An approval would set a precedent for future developments in the City.

Doug Shatto, Lochmiller Group, on behalf of Shaw Park Plaza owner, addressed the Board with regard to the parking/traffic study. He stated while they generally concur with the approach and methodology done by CBB in their Traffic Impact Study, they have identified several issues and concerns that were not addressed in the CBB study. He pointed out concerns regarding access to the parking garages, 8118 Maryland and Shaw Park Plaza, which would be impacted by the development plan and its heightened density, resulting in increased conflicts and confusion for drivers. He added that an impact of a median on Forsyth as part of the development plan will disproportionately impact motorists traveling to Shaw Park Plaza and places increased emphasis on

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 9 of 12 the center access drive on Forsyth Boulevard, which has deficient geometrics that would preclude some access to Shaw Park Plaza as well as several other factors (sight distance, stacking, etc.).

Mayor Sanger commented that he doesn’t think that they have ever seen such a diametrically opposed report from two professional traffic engineers on any project that they have ever looked at. Although, Mr. Shatto is saying that he is in agreement with methodology the conclusions that Lochmiller Group has come to and the conclusions that CBB came to are completely different which leads to a lot of confusion our part.

Bruce Tuesley, Bentall Kennedy and Associates, represent the ownership of Shaw Park Plaza, stated that they are trying to preserve their rights within the building, reserve their rights to the parking so that they have adequate parking to remain a competitive building in the neighborhood. Right now there is adequate parking and does not believe there will be adequate parking once the building is built. He said that parking is getting scarce, office buildings are becoming denser, and more people in the same amount of square footage and the requirements for parking grow as well. They are simply trying to be protective of their rights to park in the shared garage and they are not an opponent to development, but quite the opposite, they are also a developer and represent a lot of property across the United States. They applaud the efforts that have gone into this building, it’s a beautiful looking building and they welcome it into the neighborhood, but they think the scale (the size), the parking issues it will cause are a little more than they would like to see in the neighborhood.

Lee Cannon, Principle of Traffic Engineer, CBB, addressed the Board stating that as a matter of clarification CBB completed their work for the City directly as an on-call service under the direction of the Public Works and Planning Departments. He said that with respect to the traffic impact study and the parking study that Mr. Shatto said that he agreed with the methodology and generally with the calculations. Mr. Cannon addressed the basics of the traffic impact study that was performed by CBB noting overall that they did not make any recommendations for improvement to accommodate this particular building site. He pointed out that one issue that they did take exception to was the access point (south driveway shown on presentation). He did point out that they performed their traffic counts when school was in session and during the peak hours. While working with the City staff CBB’s recommendation was to eliminate the left turn into the specific location and City staff felt that it would be prudent to consider the issues related to left turns out at that location as well.

Mr. Cannon then responded to the information presented by the opposition. He stated that there will be additional traffic with the new (bigger) building, but does not see any difference in impacts or mitigation needs with a slightly bigger building versus the originally (1982) approved square footage size. As for parking, their scope focused on how much parking is needed if the proposed building is built. With the existing parking (no matter who owns it, who it’s allocated to, and where it’s located) the parking stalls in the block are currently 63% occupied. Currently, there are two facilities that are underutilized. The difference between how much parking is needed to park cars, which is what CBB looked at, versus how much parking do we need to address a “sheet of paper” on an entitlement, a promise is very different and that is the main difference between the two studies. It is his understanding that the Shaw Park Plaza Building is about 94% occupancy, a 6% vacancy rate. He said that with talking to area real estate professionals the average rate in the St. Louis market is 10% for Class A space and that everyone would be happy at 90% occupancy. The opposition indicated that there are 422 spaces that they are entitled to and that if Apogee uses them they cannot use them, but at 94% occupancy to date they don’t use the 422 spaces. Looking at marked supply versus actual uses and at 94% the Shaw Park Plaza building does not need those spaces to park. It would be counterintuitive and go against the shared parking idea for the block if the City required any developer to build additional parking to meet some code requirements, some artificial number that would self-park the facility. CBB’s study goes through the numbers and is very straightforward, saying that if Apogee builds out at the proposed square footage there will be adequate parking and still a 10% surplus of the spaces that will be empty in the block.

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question, Mr. Cannon stated that although this would have an impact on the Desco building and they don’t know what is being proposed for that building. Desco has a right to build additional spaces on top of the existing garage and a right to expand the facility.

Mayor Sanger clarified that it would be about 225 spaces if there is a Desco rebuild on that property.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 10 of 12

In response to Alderman Boulton’s question, City Attorney O’Keefe stated that he has not seen the easement and cannot respond to that question.

City Attorney O’Keefe addressed Mr. Cannon stating that he understood in his analysis that they looked at the question of the additional square footage in Site 5 as not meeting substantial feasibly the total square footage foreseen for the entire Special Development District. Mr. Cannon stated that he referenced the square footage of the building the differential between what was previously approved and what is being proposed as not having an impact to his traffic operations analysis – any more or less mitigation requirements if a bigger building is built (169,000 vs. 238,000) although he would still recommend the median.

In response to Alderman Boulton’s question, Mr. Cannon clarified that if they had to take 422 unused spaces in the garage and say that they cannot be used by anybody else, than it would make a difference.

Mayor Sanger asked regarding the issue in terms of access to the drive-in, pass through for the bank, passing in front of entrance and exits in front of the gates and if the building was only 169,000 square feet what affect would it have on internal traffic flow? If the footprint was smaller (internally) would it change flow? Mr. Cannon stated that it would be very little if any, currently there are three to four vehicles “cued” during peak times which is not a lot of traffic. He does not feel the flow would change on the Shaw Park side because there is a wide driveway between the Shaw Park Plaza and the site, but might get a different flow on the north/west side of the site because that driveway is only a two lane driveway.

In response to Alderman Garnholz’s question, Mr. Cannon demonstrated (presentation) the traffic flow between the Merrill Lynch and proposed site the morning peak hour serves a total of 80 cars an hour (70 left turns in and 10 right turns), less than 1.5 cars per minute.

Mayor Sanger stated that he is struggling with several issues; (1) the Desco Group building; (2) the loading docks; (3) easements; (4) FAR; and (5) art versus landscaping. He is recommending to the Board to table this ordinance until the July 12 BOA meeting in order to gather additional information.

Alderman Garnholz moved to table Bill No. 6561 for the July 12, 2016 Board meeting. Alderman Berger seconded.

The motion passed 5 – ayes to 2 – nays (Winings and Boulton).

Mr. Novelly expressed his concerns with the timeliness of delaying the Board decision.

City Attorney O’Keefe requested from the developer copies of the legal pages that were shown in the presentation to be submitted to the City Clerk.

Mayor Sanger called at 10:00 p.m. for a five minute break.

Mayor Sanger called the meeting back to order at 10:05 p.m.

TO CONSIDER APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CENTENE CORPORATION

City Manager Owens reported that Centene Center II, LLC has advised the City of its desire to redevelop property generally located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Forsyth Boulevard and Hanley Road and on Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza. They have also asked that the City consider the potential use of an economic development public-private partnership to facilitate a superior development. The City desires that Centene should bear the costs borne by the City to pay some of the City’s out-of-pocket costs in connection with the City’s consideration of Centene’s plans and exploring, evaluating, engaging the public, negotiating and potentially establishing a redevelopment area and appropriate public-private cooperation arrangements. The developer has agreed to reimburse the City for such professional services. If the initial funds are depleted the developer must deposit additional funds with the City. This does not approve any

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 11 of 12 incentives or public private partnerships, but rather is an agreement by the developer to reimburse the city for any expenses and analyses by the city that may be required to consider and evaluate such proposals whether or not any are ultimately found necessary.

The proposed ordinance would authorize the execution of the preliminary funding agreement.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6562, an ordinance to approve a funding agreement with Centene Corporation read for the first time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6562, an Ordinance Authorizing the City to Execute a Funding Agreement with Centene Center LLC in Connection with a Proposed Redevelopment Project at Forsyth Boulevard and Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza for the first time by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6562 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6562, an ordinance to approve a funding agreement with Centene Corporation to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

Alderman Garnholz – Aye; Alderman Boulton – Aye; Alderman Berger – Aye; Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; and Mayor Sanger – Aye. The bill was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6431 of the City of Clayton.

FY2016 2ND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT

Janet Watson gave a brief summary of the financial report.

Other

Alderman Garnholz • Congratulations to Alderman Berger on his induction to Clayton High School Hall of Fame. • MML held its annual banquet, Mayor Barry Glantz, Creve Coeur, was sworn in. • The Moorland’s held their annual night out at Peno, very well attended. • The EDAC approved the 2016-2017 budget. • Ward 2 held its recent Coffee forum, well attended by Crescent residents.

Alderman Winings reported on the Plan Commission meeting: • Good discussion on the proposed Centene development. • Capital Grille signage was approved. • Kudos to the Planning Staff on their hard work on the tree regulations.

Alderman Boulton reported that the History Center is now open at The Center of Clayton.

Alderman Berger reported that the Wine and Music Event was a hugely successful event, very well done.

06-14-16 BOA Minutes June 14, 2016 Page 12 of 12 Alderman Lintz also expressed kudos to the Planning Staff on the tree ordinance.

Alderman Berkowitz reported that the Picnic in the Park was also a hugely successful event, very well done. he also added that the Heritage Center grand opening was very well attended.

Mayor Sanger reported that he met with the new mayor of Richmond Heights, Mayor Thomson and he is anxious to continue working with Clayton.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk

Document

June 14, 2016 — Meeting Minutes