July 14, 2015 — Meeting Minutes

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 1 of 6

THE CITY OF CLAYTON

Board of Aldermen City Hall – 10 N. Bemiston Avenue July 14, 2015 7:00 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

Alderman Boulton moved to approve the June 23, 2015 minutes. Alderman Winings seconded.

Alderman Garnholz noted a correction in the minutes – she was absent during that meeting and did not vote as specified.

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

PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS

None

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC) WITH AMENDMENTS (FIRST READING)

City Manager Owens reported that this is an ordinance to adopt the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code, (first reading). The first reading for the adoption of the 2015 International Building Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Residential Code, Energy Conservation Code, Fuel Gas Code and the Existing Building Code, with Amendments, occurred on June 23, 2015.

The 2015 International Property Maintenance Code is the latest model code presently available. It is anticipated that these Codes will be adopted by the majority of jurisdictions in the United States as well as Canada and Mexico. The IPMC was updated in 2009 and 2012. The 2015 version includes those updates (as modified).

The International Code Council (ICC) updates the various codes every three years allowing for new design practices, technology and products to be addressed. Clayton has been under the 2006 Code since its adoption in 2010. Many of the changes are not significant; however, in this age of rapid and significant advancements in technology, it is especially important to stay up-to-date.

Attached to the RFBA is a summary table indicating the proposed changes that are under consideration for adoption Significant changes include the addition of language in the appeals section, to make it abundantly clear how an individual would appeal the code official’s interpretation and application of the property maintenance code (See section 111) and additions to section 704, Fire Protection Systems, regarding the requirements for single station and multiple station smoke alarms, locational standards and compliance requirements.

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 2 of 6

In addition to the actual Codes, contained in the ordinance are amendments that are designed to take into consideration circumstances and standards which are particular to Clayton. The amendments, therefore, allow for meeting Clayton’s individual needs while assuring that the City is utilizing a nationally recognized standard for Code implementation and enforcement.

Other amendments contained in the ordinance are those that have simply been transferred from the previously adopted Codes and will continue to be enforced in the same manner.

The subject codes and amendments are required to be available for public review and comment for 90 days prior to their adoption. The Codes have been available in the City Clerk’s Office since June, 2015. Therefore, the ordinance is being presented for its first reading only pending completion of the required public review period. The second reading will be scheduled for the Board’s first meeting in October, 2015 (October 13, 2015). The time between the first reading and the second reading will allow staff the opportunity to conduct two public information meetings, which are currently scheduled for Thursday July 23 at 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., and Thursday, August 27 at 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. at Clayton City Hall. At these meetings, the Fire Department staff and Building staff will give a brief presentation regarding the proposed changes and will be available to answer questions. A number of other communication tools are in the process of development in order to effectively notify and engage the public of the proposed changes to the City of Clayton’s adopted codes. Recommendation is to approve the ordinance for the first reading only.

In response to the Board’s questions, Susan Istenes explained that this ordinance is specific to the building maintenance code (i.e. tall grass, building/property upkeep, etc.) and approval consideration follows the same track as the first reading approvals of the 2015 IBC codes at the June 23 meeting.

Alderman Garnholz introduced Bill No. 6509, an ordinance to consider adopting the 2015 International Building, Property Maintenance Codes with amendments for the first time by title only. Alderman Winings seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6509, An Ordinance Adopting the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code and Certain Modifications Thereto, Establishing Penalties For The Violation Thereof, and Amending Section 500.040 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clayton Relating Thereto for the first time by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER READOPTING PROCEDURE TO DISCLOSE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

City Manager Owens reported that in 1991, the Missouri General Assembly adopted the ethics/personal financial disclosure law, which affects municipalities with an annual operating budget in excess of $1 million. The ethics legislation allowed political subdivisions to establish their own method of disclosing potential conflicts of interest and substantial interests. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 105.485 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, on August 13, 1991, the City adopted by ordinance its own simplified personal financial disclosure requirements.

According to Section 105.485.4, RSMo., the Missouri Ethics Commission requires each affected municipality to readopt the personal financial disclosure ordinance in an open meeting biennially by September 15th.

Recommendation is to approve the resolution readopting the City of Clayton’s procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest and substantial interests for certain municipal officials.

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 3 of 6

In response to Mayor Sanger’s question with regard to Section 120.060 - 4, City Attorney O’Keefe explained that he does not believe that investors in a mutual fund actually own any shares of the constituent stocks. For example, a person does not own shares of Brown Shoe, they own shares of the Acme Fund. Alderman Garnholz moved to approve Resolution No. 15-08 and readopt the procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

A MOTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION 7700 DAVIS DRIVE (CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) – GROUND SIGN

City Manager Owens reported that this is an appeal submitted by Mr. Stewart Goldstein, 7729 Mohawk Place and Ms. Katherine Bauer, 7730 Mohawk Place of the Architectural Review Board’s April 6, 2015, decision to approve the installation of a ground sign at the northeast quadrant of the subject property owned by Central Presbyterian Church. The property is located at the southwest corner of Davis Drive and Hanley Road.

The property owner proposes to replace the existing V-shaped monument sign located near the intersection of Hanley Road and Davis Drive (west side of the sidewalk) with a two sided, 18-square-foot ground sign atop a six- foot tall stone wall base oriented perpendicular to Hanley Road . The sign panel is black aluminum and will contain the name of the church in white, internally illuminated, cut-out letters. A mulched landscape bed is proposed in the area around the sign that includes Boxwood and Variegated Iris plantings.

Section 425.060 of the Sign Regulations addresses ground signs as follows:

A ground sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area depicting the name of the building or names of not more than five (5) major tenants, each of which occupies a significant portion of the building, may be erected in lieu of any permitted wall sign, provided the ground sign is designed as a compatible and integral part of a landscaped area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials are approved by the Architectural Review Board.

Historically, signs have been measured by calculating the area around the lettering/graphics (if individually affixed to a building, wall, etc.) or by calculating the size of a sign box surrounding the lettering/graphics. Because this is a corner property, up to twenty-five (25) square feet of signage is allowed per street frontage. The size of the proposed ground sign (eighteen (18) square feet per side) is below the permitted size for ground signs. It is proportional to the building and constructed of high quality materials. The proposed stone wall base incorporates architectural elements from the building. A landscaped area is proposed as required.

The sign described above, along with a free-standing three-foot stone wall of the same design (proposed for the east side of the sidewalk on private property) were presented to the Architectural Review Board on April 6, 2015. The Architectural Review Board approved the project as requested minus the free-standing three-foot stone wall by a vote of 5 to 2.

Pursuant to Section No. 400.230 “Appeals”, an aggrieved party may, within 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. 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.

On April 20, 2015, the City received a letter dated April 20, 2015, from Robert Kuehn, Jennifer Jeffrey, Katherine Bauer, Edward Rader and Stewart Goldstein. Of those five property owners, only two own property

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 6

within 200 feet of the subject property, thereby meeting the second part of the definition of “aggrieved party”. On April 30, 2015, the City Clerk notified Mr. Kuehn that an Application for Appeal needed to be completed and submitted by a property owner residing within 200 feet of the subject property. On May 11, 2015, the City received an Application for Appeal from Mr. Stewart Goldstein of 7729 Mohawk Place and Ms. Katherine Bauer of 7730 Mohawk Place, both of whom had been signatories to the April 20 letter that had been received within 15 days of the ARB’s April 6 decision at issue.

Per Section 405.390 (B), “Definitions”, the definition of an Aggrieved Party” reads:

For the purpose of standing to file permitted appeals from decisions made in the course of administration of the City’s land use regulations, is as follows:

1) The applicant; or 2) One who: a) Suffers a demonstrable and material adverse effect from the decision at issue, and b) Is the owner or occupant of property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property as measured from all boundaries of the subject property.

A decision of the ARB is only subject to appeal by someone who qualifies as an “aggrieved party.” This rule of standing allows the city to address issues with true stakeholders as opposed to merely interested observers. It prevents abuse of the appeal and review processes, preserves the integrity of the ARB process and the time and resources of the Board and city staff, and avoids the risk that persons with ulterior motives beyond the decision at issue will try to use the process for their own ends.

The appellants assert that as “nearby property owners” they “have been and continue to be adversely affected by Central’s activities, including but not limited to increased neighborhood parking, traffic and congestion (both from cars at Central’s events and Central’s buses), reduced property values, and threats to their, and their families, safety, comfort, and welfare.” Finally, they assert that the approved sign “would have the effect of, and indeed is designed to, draw the attention of motorists and others on Hanley Road and east Davis Drive to Central’s activities. It is designed to and will have the adverse effect on [appellants] of greater attendance at Central events, resulting in increased parking on neighborhood streets, traffic and congestion, and other non- residential activities in east Davis Place and further deteriorate the residential character of east Davis Place.” They assert the sign is “massive” and “out of character for and would adversely detract from the residential nature of both east Davis Place in the Hanley Road near East Davis Place. Approval of the proposed monument also would have the adverse effect of undermining compliance with zoning regulations, including restrictions on the size and nature of signs, by other activities along portions of Hanley Road and Clayton Road that border East Davis Place, further deteriorating its residential character.”

The appeal goes on to identify the alleged errors in the decision by the ARB.

The appeal challenges the sign’s size, design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The only effort to identify any particular “material adverse effect” associated with the sign at issue is the unsupported and conclusory statement that by reason of a different sign, the church will enjoy greater attendance and that this attendance will result in increased parking on neighborhood streets and traffic congestion, and that this increased membership and traffic will “deteriorate the residential character” of the neighborhood in general. None of these assertions identifies a material effect experienced by these appellants and demonstrably resulting from the installation of the permitted sign on Hanley Road.

Recommendation is to consider whether the appellants’ written request for an appeal of the Plan Architectural Review Board’s decision complies with the requirements of Sec’s 400.230 and 400.230(B)(2). If so, the Board may decide whether to consider the appeal on the record of the prior decision by the Architectural Review Board,

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 6

or may at its sole discretion, receive additional evidence in such manner as it deems appropriate in light of the circumstances.

The requirement that ARB appeal processes be made available only to people with adequate standing to have a real stake in the matter was enacted in response to appeals which the Board perceived as frivolous or ill- motivated. The requirement serves important policy objectives. Prior appellants have been held to establish standing as a prerequisite to consideration of their appeals. In fact, on the last two ARB appeals concerning architectural elements of proposed homes, the Board was careful to make specific findings that the appellants in those cases had demonstrated “aggrieved party” status. Staff believes the policy goals behind the requirement for “aggrieved party” standing are best served if all appellants are held to an obligation to demonstrate in their statement of appeal that they have the requisite standing to entitle their appeal to consideration.

It is the opinion of staff that the appellants’ appeal documents have not demonstrated that they are reasonably likely to risk demonstrable and material adverse effect by reason of a decision allowing the church to erect a sign on a collector road on the opposite side of the church’s property from the appellants’ homes. Their appeal does not articulate any such particularized effect. Their generalized and conclusory statements do not support a finding of aggrieved party status.

If the appeal is entertained, the Board may approve, modify or disapprove the sign application at issue based on the Board’s assessment of the facts and governing ordinances.

Bob Kuehn, resident of 7752 Davis Drive, attorney representing Ms. Bauer and Mr. Goldstein, addressed the Board with a PowerPoint presentation (attached). Mr. Kuehn stated that the approved signage was not compatible with the image of Clayton and feels that the size of the signage including the monument base violates the City’s sign ordinance. He said that the Planning Department and ARB took a narrow view of its requirements and does not have the authority to rewrite the ordinance and authorize the sign to exceed 25 square feet. He brought up the issue of the “rules of standing” and felt that the Board was making an effort to hear the “right” person instead of “merely observers”.

Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board proceed to consider the appeal and allow appellants and the representatives of Central Presbyterian Church to present evidence regarding their positions as to the sign permit in question. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Mr. Kuehn continued with his presentation showing the Board examples of other signage throughout the City. He pointed out that the much larger 25 square foot sign will bring more people or members to their streets. He is urging the Board to accept the appeal and withdraw the Plan Commission/ARB decision.

Tim Page, Executive Administrator, Central Presbyterian Church, and Tom Avery, Attorney representative, addressed the Board presenting a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation reflected a change in the signage. (attached)

In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Page explained that the new design reflects a reduction of three to four feet in size; the signage will only carry the name and not list the current events and attractions. The signage is replacing the current outdated sign to which he believes the old sign is almost the same size as the new signage.

Alderman Garnholz moved that the Board approve a modification to the sign permit application. Alderman Winings seconded.

The motion passed on a voice vote of 6-ayes; 1 – nay (Alderman Boulton).

07-14-15 BOA Minutes July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 6

Other

Alderman Garnholz reported that the St. Louis County Municipal League will be expecting to select a new executive director at its July 16 meeting.

Alderman Garnholz reported on the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting: 1. Taylor Park improvements 2. The survey indicated that the community is in favor of investing money to keep the ice rink going; in favor of options for ultimate design 3. The Newman Green project construction will be starting soon and is expected to be complete within a two week time span. 4. The Parks Department has hired Justin Whipple, former Public works employee, as its new Parks Superintendent.

Alderman Boulton reported that the Sustainability Committee met recently and held a very nice reception for outgoing Chairman, Diane Meyer.

Alderman Berger reported that the last Chapman Plaza Citizen Public Engagement was very well attended, over 40 people. The participants had well over 25 questions; Parks staff and the consultant did a great job.

Alderman Berkowitz reported that he attended two out of the three Chapman Plaza Citizen Public Engagements. He found it interesting that the most heard comment was to preserve the sledding.

City Manager Owens announced that a long-time Parks employee, Linda Sowder, passed away and there will be a remembrance service on July 17 at The Center of Clayton.

Mayor Sanger announced that due to the Jewish Holiday he recommend that the September 22 Board meeting is cancelled and set an alternate date of September 29 as tentative. The Board was in agreement.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor ATTEST:

____________________________ City Clerk