November 26, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Okay. Hello, everybody. Good evening. Welcome back. It's good to see you all again. Yes, it is. It is. I tell you true. Welcome to our Thanksgiving week board meeting. We're all eager to discuss a lot of the things we're going to that we've been considering and going to hear tonight. But I do want to let you know that upfront that we are going to make a decision on the South 40 overlay tonight, but we will not be voting on the Big Bend overlay. We will be considering a lot of different suggestions and talking, but we won't be voting on that just in case. That's the only reason you're here and you prefer not to stay. Okay. With that, will the city clerk please call the roll?

Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Alderwoman Buse? Here. Alderman Patel? Here. Aldermen Gary Feder? Here. Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Alderwoman Buse? Here. Alderman Patel? Here. Aldermen Fader? Here. Aldeman Hummel?

Here.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg?

Aldemann York?

Here.

Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager Gibson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Okay. Before we get started, I do want to take a minute and pause to remember someone who for decades was a force for good in Clayton and the broader community, Gary Crosh. A longtime resident of Southmoor, Gary was one of the original founders of Forest Park Forever, the St. Louis Community Foundation, and of course the Clayton Community Foundation. He served on the boards of the Contemporary Art Museum, Fontbonne University, and others, and worked for many years to just help improve the lives of Indigenous people in the Northwest of the United States. He was a special friend and advisor to many, including myself, and he will be dearly missed if we could have just a few seconds of silence for him. Okay, thank you. Now is the time for public requests and petitions. And so if anybody's here about an item that is not on our agenda tonight, this is your chance. And nobody's online raising their hand. You guys will let me know. Okay, moving on. As I said, we're going to really take action on the South 40 overlay and not take action on the Big Bend overlay, but the public hearing is still open. And so let's consider the South 40 overlay. Just now asking if anyone in the audience has any comments or questions about that overlay. And anyone on the board have any comments questions about that piece of the overlay. So, so we will close that public hearing just for the South 40 overlay and we will move on to the bill.

I'll introduce Bill number 7044, approving an ordinance for an amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to add a new article establishing the South 40 overlay zoning district to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

To the attorney.

All right.

Number 7044, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance to substantially enhance Clayton's ability to regulate and constrain the spread of institutional land uses in residential areas of the city by amending Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to add a new article establishing the South 40 Overlay Zoning District and other actions related thereto.

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Aldeman Patel? Aye. Aldman Gary Feder?

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Aldeman Patel? Aye. Aldman Fader?

Aye.

Alderman Rick Hummell.

Alderman Hummel.

Aye.

Alderman Yorg.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, very good. Moving on, the public hearing for the Big Bend overlay is still open, and so we will take that up now, and I think we have some folks here that would like to address us. I can start with... Someone from Concordia University, are you, Concordia Seminary, come on up. And I think they have some information to share with all of us, which will be great. We appreciate it. Your mic's on.

Green

light. Press the button.

Good evening. My name is Tom Egger, and I live at 1 McCall Terrace, which is on the campus of Concordia Seminary, where I serve as president of the seminary. I'm grateful for this opportunity to address our honorable mayor and alderman this evening, as well as some of my fellow Clayton citizens. I have been directly involved in multiple neighborhood meetings and all community meetings regarding this project for the last 16 months since we first announced this project in June of 2023. I have great respect for this kind of civic process and for the importance of local governments taking seriously the concerns of the citizens and seeking a good future together for our community, this place that we all call home. I have served on the faculty of the seminary for 20 years. And before that, I was a student at Concordia Seminary for seven years in the 1990s. So I've been studying and serving here in Clayton for 27 years, half my life. With my wife Tori and our six children, we've lived on the campus of the seminary nine years, and Tori and I will likely live here for another 15 or 20 years. So Clayton is my home. and the Concordia Seminary Campus is my home. The seminary is home to more than a dozen other faculty members, it's home to our students. We love and care about the seminary and about our community. And tonight I speak to you both as an individual citizen and as a representative of Concordia Seminaries. Concordia Seminar has been carrying out its mission for 187 years. and has been part of the Clayton community for 100 years. In 1924, 100 years ago this October, we laid the cornerstone for our beautiful academic buildings. And in our current thinking and planning, in which this campus project that we're discussing plays a large part, in our current thinking, and planning, we are charting a sustainable financial path to advance the seminary's work for the next century here in Clayton. Clayton residents will tell you that Concordia Seminary has been a good neighbor. open, welcoming, committed to maintaining a beautiful campus and sharing that beautiful campus with others. We are committed to being a contributor to our community. Our students provide honest, friendly, hardworking employees for Clayton businesses. Our students are involved in community service projects, picking up litter, planting daffodils with Charlie Brennan at the interstate exits. We offer several free public concerts in our chapel and free outdoor carillon concerts from our bell tower for the community each summer. We provide space for civic and community meetings. We provided an outdoor playground for Whiteown Middle School during its construction. And for years, Concordia has provided a significant corner of our property to Clayton as a city park, Concordia Park, for a dollar a year, which I don't think that we collect. But de facto, the entire campus has come to function as a city park, a welcoming and frequented place that enriches the lives of our Clayton neighbors. We absolutely prefer to continue these community commitments, service, beauty, and open hospitality. But it also seems necessary in this discussion to remind both our esteemed aldermen and our valued neighbors that Concordia Seminary and its campus is not public land, but private property. It may seem like it belongs to the whole neighborhood because we have been so opening, welcome and sharing, but these acres under the law belong to us. and the carefully planned development of our own property in a reasonable and responsible manner, and for an application completely fitting for an educational institution athletic fields, such development is a crucial step forward for us in our defined long-term plan to maintain the mission and character of our seminary. Let me talk a little bit about our long-term planning. In 2017, under our previous seminary administration, we developed a campus master plan that resolved to construct new married student housing closer to the center of our campus, replacing the married student housing on our Western Acres, which would open up the Western Acres for other uses. And then to explore leveraging some of our underused acres on the property to create a long-term revenue stream for the seminary. It is our right and our intention to develop our Western acres in some fashion. It is important for our long-term path. Various uses and developments were contemplated, but when discussions with Washington University turned toward the possibility of shared use athletic facilities, this was the perfect fit for our long- term plans. The proposal we have brought with Washington University is not for 24-hour retail space or for a helicopter landing pad for St. Mary's Hospital. Our proposal is for ball fields with dark sky lighting. The overlay guidelines and restrictions that have been developed ensure that these fields will not be a nuisance or a safety hazard. This proposal will enable Concordia Seminary and Washington University to utilize and enjoy their properties. And this proposal will not prevent our neighbors from using and enjoying their properties. A number of people have raised the concern that we are not being comprehensive enough in our planning. but this plan is actually quite comprehensive, gaining overall efficiencies for Concordia, for Washington University and for the broader Clayton community. By consolidating athletic facilities from the old CBC, from Wash U's South 40 and from the existing tennis courts, field house, soccer field and softball diamonds of Concordia Seminary, and by creating better maintained shared use athletic facilities on our western acres, this is without question in my mind the wisest and most efficient comprehensive path forward. Clayton is relieved of the old overly bright field lighting of the old CBC soccer field and likely gains tax revenue creating uses of the old CPC property. Concordia Seminary and Clayton neighbors are relieved of some of the most unattractive structures on the present seminary campus, namely our old seminary field house, which has sentimental value to us but is frankly an eyesore, our defunct tennis courts, and our poorly designed married student housing. With athletic facilities on the Western Acres, Concordia Seminary is relieved of the need to develop on our Eastern acres, a new basketball court and a soccer field. This plan maximizes the overall green space preserved on the Concordia campus, a campus that we have so generously shared and beautifully maintained and that we are seeking to continue to be able to beautifully maintain and generously share with our neighbors. I want to say here clearly tonight, changes are coming on the 72 acres of Concordia Seminary. This is our carefully considered campus master plan developed and approved by two successive seminary administrations, by our Seminary Board of Regents, and by the Board of Directors of our National Lutheran Church. We are committed to continuing our positive, welcoming community posture as well as our historic stately green spaced campus. And we must pursue development of some of our perimeter spaces. We are firmly convinced that our partnership proposal with Wash U for shared athletic uses on the Western Acres is the optimal path for such development. If this is not approved, or if it is so unreasonably restricted that it becomes unworkable for Washington University, Concordia will still need to pursue some kind of project on those acres and will thus immediately begin to design and negotiate alternative developments. It does not seem likely to me that other alternatives will be as advantageous to the seminary or to the surrounding community as this first choice proposal. Finally, and I appreciate your time and your patience this evening, I want to address the question that you've heard several times from this podium, what's in it for us? What's in it for US? I've already mentioned crucial benefits in this development for Concordia Seminary and its future. I can also outline benefits for others in the Clayton community. First, This project allows Concordia to remain a fiscally viable, well-kept, well-maintained school benefiting the neighborhood with a welcoming campus for neighbors to enjoy. Second, as part of this campus development, Concordia will construct a safe pedestrian path through our campus to DeMunn, which will especially benefit children walking to Captain's School. Third, With the successful development of our western acres, the seminary's large east lawn bordering DeMunn will become a primary green space for us and we will be much more inclined to preserve it largely intact in the future planning of the campus. And fourth, The seminary will continue to provide Clayton with the use of Concordia Park property on the Northeast corner of our campus alongside Captain's School. In fact, I've committed to the mayor that we are willing to discuss ways in which we could define this as a longer term partnership. What's in it for us? As a further response to that question, let me close by commenting on the word us. My appeal to you tonight, and certainly this is a reasonable appeal to my city leaders and to my Clayton neighbors. My appeal is that when we ask the question what's in it for us, that the hundreds of citizens who live, work, and learn on the Concordia Seminary campus would be included in the us of this question. What's in it for US? Concordia has been a positive part of Clayton for 100 years, and we desire to be an asset for the community for another 100 years. Surely, Concordia as an institution and as a collection of citizens has earned the right to be accepted as a part of the us by our neighbors and to have our private property rights honored by our elected officials. This proposed development will not deprive our neighbors of their rights and abilities to use and enjoy their properties. Please do not deprive us of the right and ability to use and enjoy our property. This week, our nation pauses to give thanks to Almighty God for his kind provision of so many blessings. I give thanks to God for the blessing of living in this community, and I thank him for each one of you and for each one of our neighbors. May this bounteous God who has loved all humankind so beautifully in his son Jesus keep each one of you in his care. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. Before you depart the podium, let me just see if anybody has questions. Anybody up here have questions for Tom? Okay. All right.

Okay.

Chuck, can you please come up to them? Come on up, Chuck. What? Well, I don't know.

I'm Chuck Shagrin, 14 Southmore Drive. I was unaware that Concordia is contemplating a commercial retail use along Big Bend. Could you elaborate about that, please?

I don't remember saying that.

Oh, I think you did. Could you? No.

He wasn't

going to

do that. So I think Tom was just saying he needs to monetize that property, period. My mistake, yes. Just in a general way, yeah. Okay. I think, you know what? Hang on a second. Yeah,

yeah. This is an opportunity

to address the board. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, I'm getting reprimanded. Okay, so no, we will not ask any more questions here, but the board can ask. Okay, all right. Yeah, I think they said they did not. So, but thank you very much. Oh, Gary, do you have a question for Tom? I guess we do have a question, sorry.

My step's in.

Yeah, yeah.

Without digging in too deeply, I think your comment essentially was this, if this arrangement with Washington University does not go forward, I think you said you would pursue other development projects. there has been a notion that that would be difficult for you because of internal matters involving the Lutheran Synod, your particular arrangement with Washington University, which we know generally involves a lease, that that's unique and it would be very difficult for you to make an outright sale. I've understood now that that's not the case, but I wonder what you could say about your ability to do some other transaction if this does not go

forward. we certainly have the support of our denomination to uh to explore any creative ways to secure a stable future to execute the purpose of our institution moving forward in the long term and they understand uh they understand the realities of that and um and certainly are open to considering any ideas that we bring forward. They've been very receptive to conversation along the way, but ultimately, ultimately any kind of a sale would have to be approved by them. That is true.

But it's possible. Yeah,

absolutely possible. Thank you.

Okay. Other questions? Okay, great. Tom, thank you so much. All right. So in our quest to get a little more information, we'd like to invite Washington University to come on up. We've had a bunch of questions for you guys over the course of this thing. And I think you've had a chance to kind of take a look at some of those questions. So why don't you just go ahead and talk to us and then we will ask questions after.

uh mayor harris members of the board of alders um really appreciate your time here and the amount of effort you've put into really carefully analyzing this whole process and to the staff the staff has been very dedicated and again put a lot of work into getting us where we are today to be able to have this dialogue And it's been a lengthy process. Certainly, Dr. Egger alluded to that. We've been talking with Concordia Seminary for over two years just and and then ultimately the city. And of course, then learning and listening to the concerns of the neighbors. Mary? Yes. Just one little detail. Could you go ahead and state your name for the record? I'm sorry. I'm Mary Campbell with Washington University. So As Dr. Egger noted, our discussions with the seminary launched this process. The seminary, as he so eloquently laid out for us, had concluded their planning process and made a decision as described to build greater density in the core of their campus and offer new modern housing for their students. The execution of this plan, again as you heard, will enable them to vacate the western portion of their campus. The two institutions sat down and figured out between sharing facilities and more efficiently utilizing the property we've already got, how we could plan for our long-term growth without taking any additional property off the tax rolls. And in fact, in Washington University's case, if we are permitted to relocate the interior uses in the former CBC as well as the field to this site, that's over eight acres that would be decanted and we'd be open to discussing new options. We went jointly with Concordia Seminary to the city to talk about this concept. The city recommended approaching this through the zoning overlay process as a means to provide us with the flexibility and predictability that would help us do long-term planning while protecting quality of life issues for the neighbors. We've done everything that's been asked of us. We're willing to do more and continue these conversations. We do very much respect the process, and our pledge is to continue to work with you all as cooperatively as we are able. We engaged the neighbors over a period of, I think, 16 months, as Dr. Eggers said, with meetings that were hosted by Clayton, by us. We met as a larger community. We also met with individual neighborhoods. We have really appreciated getting to know our neighbors and their concerns with regard to this plan, but just period, with regard to how we can be a better neighbor. always, always and to neighbors that we really frankly hadn't engaged with yet. So we learned a lot. We are certainly willing to have reasonable restrictions on our proposed utilization of this Western part of the Concordia campus like the things that are in the overlay now that we've been talking about noise and light restrictions, site capacity restrictions, etc. We're willing to consider this as long as we don't have limitations that are material and detrimental to our programs. We're also willing, and we heard from our neighbors, they've raised specific issues that are very important to them, and that definitely go to their quality of life. And there are areas where we can be helpful. And we can also help work with them to be a partner. in executing some of these quality of life improvements. We've got many, you know, some of the highlights would be improving the pedestrian and bike experience going from South through our site. It's really difficult right now. And I mean, that's absolutely something where that we would do, and we think that the community would appreciate that. We also heard about access and walking paths. You know, a new learning for us was Tuscany Park wanting a walkway on the south so that they could access Captain's School in the Daman area. We heard similar access discussions from our friends in Hillcrest. There's a lot of concern about Dartford becoming an informal path of travel for students who would come to utilize these fields. We understand that's not desirable. And with the great cooperation from Concordia Seminary, you've just heard Dr. Egger allude to that, we could improve that north end at Dartford where the bollards are, but have the access to Daman go east and have no direct access to the fields. So between improving Big Bend and for pedestrians and bikes and discouraging traffic to the fields on Dartford, that's definitely something we would like to continue to work on. We also heard that the community enjoys the fact that the field that's on the former CBC site allows community access when it's not being used by the university. We heard this is important. Our plan is to move and create a new multi-purpose field on this site. And we would certainly be willing to have the same arrangement where the community could access this field as they do now, if it's not being used by the Concordia Seminary or Washington University. So I know you have a lot to do tonight, so I don't have any more comments, but I'd certainly be happy to entertain questions.

Yeah, I think I'll just start off with a couple of quick questions, two that keep, you know, that you've heard a lot and I'm sure sitting through meetings and we've certainly heard a lot and have ourselves, you know, I think there are questions about the intensity of usage on whatever fields and in total, what is the intensity of usage? And I'm wondering, I know we've asked you guys, what is the current usage? What are the current usage numbers on your intramural sports facilities?

So I believe is that on the attachment that you have on the Engage Clayton site where it's got

So are those the numbers that exist?

So yes. So the city staff put that together, but they shared it with us. We provided input, real stats. And we also, if we saw something that we thought was incorrect, we worked with the staff to make sure it was correct before the staff posted it on the Engage Clayton site.

So just for those in the audience that want to know that information, it is on Engage Clayton. It shows varsity sports, club sports, and I guess other. And so I'm just going to throw out some numbers, but at the risk of getting confusing. But it's looking like somewhere between 100 and 300 people are what we look at in attending these games or practices, either one. that's that's pretty much it um 20 to 75 spectators period so i just i just want i know a lot of people have asked and i want to bring that out and and i think that's what we um that helps us in terms of understanding what limits we want to put um on this current overlay um also another question that comes up a lot is uh We've kind of gone back and forth on the number of facilities, if you will, on the site or the number of entities. I don't know what to call it. It's the combination of buildings plus fields. And we've gone back and forth between five things and six things. And I think we'd like to hear from you. I know you've stated that you feel you need six, and we'd like to

So we have the slate of the six things, as you said, Mayor. We've got the baseball field and softball field that we would like to relocate from the South 40. There's also a field that's essentially wedged between those two that is an intramural slash multi-use field. That... If we were able to relocate that, that gives us an opportunity to have some shared use with the community. So that's three. The tennis courts, Dr. Egger referenced their tennis courts are in disrepair. We would move our tennis courts from the Danforth campus to this site. And again, it'd be shared facility. We have, um, the soccer field that is currently, uh, the turf field that's on the former CBC site. And then the hope is to have, um, you know, I don't know if we'll get all of those on and we have not done any engineering. We haven't looked at it, but our wishlist would have, um, two possible buildings, either one or the other or both if we had less field because we've always said we would not exceed six. And that would be a gym or a field house. And why a field house? If you look at the test fit, it's got just a little bit bigger footprint than the box that says gym. And that's because we need an indoor track, just a 200 meter indoor track. We of course have track and field now. They practice in really not optimal conditions. And that's a building that is again on the wishlist So obviously something on that list has to go. And I think we have showed test fits representing all combinations of the six things because I don't think it's possible to fit more than six. And we also, again, we have not gotten to site plan review yet or putting together the site plan and we need to know more about the site.

Very good. All right, that's helpful. I'm going to go around in order of seniority and see if anybody else has questions for you.

Mary, in the response that you provided to us, there were a few times where you state the university will provide a more comprehensive response following further review and analysis. You know, language like that is difficult for us when we're trying to come up with an overlay. So can you explain a little bit what that means or.

I think at least one of those was referencing the maximum number of attendees for an outdoor event and it's. It references specifically baseball and softball. But we, frankly, we need to go back and talk with our experts, our athletic folks, and just make sure we understand the other sports that haven't been specifically referenced. We just don't know. And we want to make sure that if we're giving you a comprehensive answer that it's thorough and we can explain, you know, we can explain it. And right now we don't have all the information we think you need to help you make an informed decision.

Okay.

So.

That needs to be

highlighted. Okay. So the problem, I mean, we've been talking about this, as you say, for 14 to 18 months. So it's just difficult because it seems like that could have been a conversation that you could have had with your athletic director to find if there is a reason. Because again, the only numbers that we've ever gotten was, I think, a Very nice man named Jim who serves on the plan commission was able to figure out how many numbers go to varsity sports. So that's kind of the numbers that we all have to go on because there's no other numbers that you've provided us. So it is difficult for us to respond or consider some of the changes that you want to, or at least negotiate or whatever we're doing here tonight when we are given language like that where it's unclear as to why you need what you're asking for. So- That's, you know, I just, that's frustrating for us. So, and I would sincerely appreciate your, you know, going back to your, if there's some reason why you need more than 300, which it, you know, it clearly history shows that you never have more than 200 people at a baseball game. So why do we need a venue with more than 300? So I wanted to, I guess, at least alert you to that. Yeah. I'm also, there's a concern about Division I and Division II, and there's some language in here saying, moreover, collegiate sports have changed significantly in recent years, and it's difficult to predict what changes may occur over the next several decades. For example, is it possible, it is possible NCAA rules may call for a completely different taxonomy of competition levels? I mean, I have never heard that. I don't, I mean, maybe that's, but I think, understand, I don't, you know, I mean, I just don't know where you get that language that all of a sudden are we going to, there's not going to be any divisions in college sports. So, you know, you want the ability to, I don't know, engage with, I mean, you know, that again, when we had language, just because I think once you become a division one entity, everybody knows chances are you might have more people at your facilities. So I think neighbors are concerned about that. So that was your response to our, you know, negating the division language. So what, Again, I don't know what to do with that. So, yeah. Can

I interrupt that for a second? So just to, and maybe you can elaborate on this, but it's not. So the absolute numbers are not the only issue with the Division I, II, III language. And my understanding is that, Mary, can you explain? I know that there are teams now like Lindenwood. Yeah,

and I don't have any problem with if Lindenwood or SLU wants to come and play. I don't have a problem with that. But that language could be tightened up. But something where we're talking about, again, where you have responded as to whether or not we want to just – limited to Washington University being a division three school you know that's different than having SLU come in and play the boys SLU team come in and play The Boys Wash U soccer team for a scrimmage I mean that's totally different so

I think the intent with that you know first as the mayor said it's it's we already play folks that are either division uh one or division two, even at a club level. But second to that point, if the NCAA is changing a lot of things and if they were down the pike to just change their ranking system, their grading system, what differentiated a player one, two or three. And we suddenly found ourselves in a being categorized even with our existing activities as a division two, we would be automatically out of compliance with the overlay. So I think that's, that's the point there is, you know,

Does the NCAA function in that way where they would reclassify you without your consent or

interest? They might change the definition of, they just might do wholesale change in how they define the buckets that institutions fall in. And that's all that means. I mean, maybe it's just a matter of, again- Maybe it's just a manner of tweaking the language

around people coming in and that's a different scenario then. Yes. Okay. And then there was, you know, there's concern about the lighting schedule. I know that you guys wanted to revert back to 7 a.m. And I'm just wondering why would you ever want lights on at 7 a.m.? I just feel like I think I looked and I think the latest the sun ever rises is in January at 7.15 a.m. So it seems like you would never have people on a playing field here prior to, you know, I just, I don't, I guess I don't see the reason to reverting it to 7am. I don't know why we just can't keep, I mean, I don't know you turn the lights on at 8am. I mean, I, I don't want the lights to come on in the morning ever really. I mean, the lights can come on at night. I mean, that's understandable, but I don't,

No, other than we actually did talk to our athletic department and the student athletes do at times, given their academic schedule, they come out in the morning for practice. So, and just again, given that schedule, not having them be able to come till eight is an issue. They do come out early for practice. Now in the spring, you're absolutely right. You would likely not need lights in the morning because it would be light enough.

Um, I just don't think you're going to need lights on at 7am either. That's my point. All right. I understand. Yeah. Um, and then, um, I will, I think the last one of the last questions regarding whether you know we used a we changed a lot of shoulds to shall. There was, I think there's here, however, the university is concerned that the word shell may create a technical default as ultimately a determination of whether these requirements are met is highly subjective. um can you explain that a little bit more

so i think uh if you look at the red line of the overlay there were two uh there were two that that were called out as just two just two out of the eight or so that are listed um that were that were changed there were two that work that were called out um And it was really because of this concern, again, of triggering a default. And it may just need some finessing. One of them specifically was there's a really strong tree growth preservation plan, canopy plan that's in this overlay. But then putting a shell here it could potentially, you know, again, put us in default if we're actually doing something that complies with the other sections of the overlay. So again, just needs discussion.

And I, there was just in in terms of the height of the field house. You know you guys talk about a modern facility, but it's just really difficult I think when we've got, you know, I think most people in this room, the center of Clayton is 50 feet high. Right, right. You know, the center of Clayton seems very high to me. I understand it was built 20 years ago. It's not the most modern facility, but understanding why you would need anything higher than that, I think is difficult for anybody to understand as well. Because you've got a field house on the Danforth campus, which houses, you know, where you're going to have your varsity basketball games. So understanding why you need a big indoors facility that is that high, that would have that many seats is just, I don't understand why you would need that. when we're trying to bring, again, the shared facilities with Concordia and the intramural sports in?

So our architect can probably address the technicalities of that. But just as another benchmark for 50 feet, Concordia's existing facility that is certainly not state-of-the-art and very old is 50 feet.

Okay.

And it's also a lot closer to with a really unbuffered at all from the neighbors. So I think our design team was nervous about 50 feet and even going up to 60 feet would allow, you know, would allow per the design team what we need to do to make sure we have a state of the art buildings.

What, what does 60 feet get you though? I don't, I just don't understand what 60 feet. I'm, I would like to, if you wouldn't mind. That's great. I'd love to hear it. And that's fine. Yep. Yep. I will cede the chair for other questions. Did you like him? I didn't know if you, I thought you were going to stay up

there. That was a number that I was given. And then there was some confusion whether where the measurement was taken, was it taken to the, you know, we're on the roof line and things like that. So something,

but it's something. I just feel like most people in this room know what the center looks like. So it was, that was our, that was

our frame. Yeah. And then

sir,

Shall we get the answer? Let's have Tom give a more thorough answer.

Good evening. I'm Tom Kirk with Bold and Sawinski Jackson Architects. Thank you, Mayor and all the persons for allowing me to come up and address this question. I think, you know, a lot of these questions actually have been asking go to this issue of flexibility and planning, right? And Mary spoke about, just if I can backtrack for a second, to how many right, how many fields, how many buildings. And mentioned that we're not sure all those will fit and that's why there's a variety of test fits. So I use that as an example of nothing's figured out yet but we're just trying to understand what this will yield, what this overlay will yield in terms of a collection of fields and a collection of buildings. And that's actually the beauty of this overlay, this vehicle as a roadmap to understanding that. When it comes to the indoor facilities, These are, as you know, a variety of sports. We're bringing in club sports and other sports, and there's a variety of activities that happen there. The more height inside of the space, so I realize we're talking about the outside and the height, and it's a concern, but really the concern and the driver is the inside. and having clearance for these sports, a variety of sports, right? And it's not just basketball, right? So we want to try and at the outset in the overlay have as much flexibility for the interior of that space to allow for as many activities to happen as possible because inside that space what we have to start doing is From that height, we have to back down for structure. We have to back down per all this stuff. And you've all been in gyms. There's suspended basketball hoops. There's suspended netting that comes down for practice, let's say, for hitting practice or throwing practice. All that stuff is up in the ceiling, plus all the mechanical. So we're just trying to allow for the flexibility we need to have the most amount of activities that have certain clearances for those activities to occur.

OK, so could we ask then that you firm that up with some justification and get that back to us. You know, I mean, I'll just kind of back Bridget up on this a little bit. You know, we have a bunch of gymnasiums all around us and they're all a certain height and they all have, I don't know what the highest, like what sport requires the highest ceiling volleyball perhaps. I don't know, but let's, let's find that out. And then let's tell us and let's tell us, and then justify what you need. Because what we're going to do is get to the lowest number that works. Okay? Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on,

huh? Thanks. Thanks for being here to answer these questions and help us with this today as well. I think that Bridget hit on something. It is the uncertainty that our community is very... very comfortable with the space, with Concordia using it as Dr. Egger said, as part of our community. It's open, it's beautiful. There's a real commitment there and change there is hard. It comes hard. Given that we all know that change does come. So the question really is, as you look at that, we certainly hope that you retain that commitment to working with the neighbors and being a good neighbor and being part of the community. One thing that comes up repeatedly that is a really difficult question because it is traffic. And we have a big bend can be a nightmare already. And as we talk about size of fields, number of fields, it all comes back to density. It all comes back to which leads to noise and everything else. So I appreciated when you mentioned earlier that keeping the walking and bike paths along Big Bend because If this truly is a primarily intramural field, you're going to have a lot of students coming from close by. And the easier those other access points are with non-cars, the less traffic there will be. And that's also another reason why the D1, D2, D3 designation is important because if WashU's plans are eventually, which, you know, people, I'm a WashU alum and there's been bets about when it's going to become D1 for 30 years. And, and there is that concern that with that type of a sport, the density, the number of cars coming in is just that much higher. So if, and, So is there any plan, do you know of any long-term plan with the athletics department there, with athletics there to up the game with athletics and that this is part of furthering that plan in building these other fields? Yeah, I certainly don't.

There's been no mention of that during this process with our athletics folks.

So this is truly keeping, so the intent of WashU at this point is really to keep into the future the athletics at the level they are now? Yes. Okay. And what percentage of that attendance, which we saw it varies up to maybe 300 is primarily from local students students in the undergraduate campus or who would be walking or biking there, do you know if it is it primarily a local attended. Local locally attended activities.

Yes, I would prefer to actually get a list of you're talking about who they're actually playing and where they're coming from or just people participating.

The program is going to say about there's such a concern about traffic, which is very justified. Yes. And if these you and we're going to do traffic studies and do all those types of things. And so the question really is, how do you mitigate that? If in fact you have your five or six fields with the same events that you're currently having, that's still the plan. One of the ways to mitigate that would seem to be that making access easier. Also, there's been some talk and I don't know, I guess I'm asking you if it's a commitment if more of the parking stays on the Danforth campus with shuttles back and forth or how do you intend to address the traffic issue with the use of the field.

So a more robust shuttle service is absolutely in the plan. And so again, to minimize the number of individual car rides that you would have impacting Big Bend. And of course, if we are dramatically improving the bike and pedestrian experience, the hope would be that, and it's closer, particularly than the existing vehicles former cbc facility the hope is that more of the student athletes would walk or bike to this site

okay yeah if it's developed with that in line in mind as and as a priority i think that would that would address some of the traffic things um another uncertainty that comes up all the time is fontbonne and fontbonne i mean most directly it already has it already has a a gym um COB, Jean Gatza, been to basketball games there things like that and how that in going forward with this both from the ingress and egress questions in the parking as well as the facilities there that I know are not. COB, Jean Gatsza, You know wash used to use at this point in time that's another area of uncertainty I don't know if there's anything you can do to address that at this point.

Well, what's pushing the timing now is our partner Concordia. They're the driver of the timeframe. Maybe you heard that from Dr. Egger. Their CUP has been approved by this body to begin their replacement housing on the interior of their campus. Our planning process for Fontbonne is a ways off, primarily because while we own the Fontbonne campus, we have master leased it back to Fontbonne at least through the end of calendar year 2025 they do have the right to extend if if to to graciously close their university if that's what they need so at that time we will get a more, you know, intensive look at the campus. It's also important to realize that we own the site subject to the existing CUPs. So we are restricted to whatever the CUPs say at this point in time, you know, until and unless we engage with a further discussion with Clayton about, you know, potential rezoning. So it's a more built environment than we're talking about with the Big Bend site. It's got existing CUPs. We have a lot of compatible uses that we will need to thoroughly analyze in the context of the rest of the campus. And that's going to take a bit.

Okay, so at this point in time, do you know how it affects the need for fields and things like that on this area subject to the overlay discussion?

It should be really two different analyses. If we're looking at Fontbonne, we're looking at a built environment of an educational institution. There's a lot of uses that are very complementary to what we do. There'll be a whole analysis about what we can utilize very soon and what we need to... adjust to better meet our needs. But we are talking about the fields on the west side of Concordia. It's not the existing Fon Fon campus.

And I guess the last thing that I'll bring up right now is that in trying to, you know, where we all sit here trying to represent the immediate neighbors, the entire community of which you're a part, of which Concordia is a part, but protecting what we have, but also being, you know, playing offense, you know, trying to make things, leverage this into the future. And talking to different neighbors, there are very, very different views about, you know, the retaining wall should be, whether there should be versus open access to the grounds and things like that. And I heard you say, little bit earlier that a commitment to work with the immediate neighbors as this goes forward and some type of and maybe there would be some type if this all it may i don't know how what that would look like whether there's um you know this meeting set up or whatever neighborhood groups might want or something like that and you all would be open and committed actually to doing that type of outreach i would hope

absolutely Okay,

that's all I have right now. Thanks. Great.

Becky. Thanks. Um, so I have a few different topics I want to touch on. The first is the general like intensity or density of the use and development with the interest of it being compatible with the existing character and topography and minimizing the impact on the neighbors, right? And so some of the ways that we can do that is by restricting the number of people allowed per facility or per event and the number of facilities allowed. And so in your letter, I hear you asking for both more people per facility and more facilities. And that doesn't really feel reasonable to me based on your own verified information on the uses. Like I think what we've put in the overlay actually gives you room still to grow. We're not taking you down to exactly where you are now can have a few more people show up to games and things like that if you get, you know, a better season or whatever. But it's not, it doesn't feel reasonable to me to say that you need something with spectator space for 500 people. I see no use on here that comes anywhere near that. And you tell me you want that and you want six whole facilities. So If you, like, what can you say? Like, what do you actually prefer if you... And, like, on what grounds do you ask for this? Like... What

is the actual use? So I think the comment about wanting a facility that could seat 500, again, Tom may be able to illuminate this topic a bit more, but it is to have a modern facility It's that has retractable bleachers. That's also something that is not in this particular version of the overlay. It's going to be it's it's at some point you're going to have to build it to be, you know, a state of the art standard facility and they're generally over 500 seats. You know, they may be retractable bleacher seats. I mean, the Clayton high school is over a thousand. So, you know, and again, Tom may be able to elaborate on the building difficulties, but that's, you know, that's what's driving the conversation about that. Yeah. And it could be a conversation. I mean, you know, we also we, want to think about if there's a baseball tournament and we've got teams playing and you've got the, you know, the next teams coming in waiting in the queue for that first game to be over. Does that, would that put us over the limit? Those are the kinds of things that we're getting additional information on just to make sure that whatever we talk about with you, we are willing, we can stand by it with, with, anything we know about the current programs.

Yeah, so I just want a couple of things. I think we all know that many high schools certainly do get attendance at their basketball games that is at 500 or 1,000 people. But you're not talking about a high school basketball game. You're not talking about college basketball game. You are talking about college club and intramural sports which by your own verification attract anywhere from 20 to 200 spectators. And so I see no justification for expanding that, especially combined with your request for more actual facilities. And so I would encourage you to, I just, I don't think that that is very realistic. And, and I would encourage you A facility being modern is not necessarily tied to how many people can sit in it and use it. Like club and intramural sports are less about spectators and more about the participants and the like experience and facilities that you're providing those participants. And you can do that in a really state-of-the-art way that's really great and has the allowance for 300 people. Plus, if you have a really special tournament, you can bring in folding chairs. The overlay allows for that as it's currently drafted. And so I just think it feels like overreaching. It feels disingenuous with what you tell us about your current and even like slightly increased future uses. And so that's, that's my comment on that. I'm interested in this like understanding of how you think of a field house different from a gymnasium. Like, is that, is there a technical definition for that? Like, and what does it mean? I'm going to defer it. Yeah. I mean, we obviously know about your like really big field house, but that's not what we're talking about. The field house needing a track versus.

I don't know. What is it? Yeah. Tom's ready.

These are great questions. So thank you. I think let me back up on that list you have in front of you and that we talked about earlier that has WashU's existing facilities. There is no indoor track on that list. So just, it's a little difficult as we try and imagine all of this overlay. It's so complex, but there's also the added complexity of like, that's not even something that's listed as an existing facility because it doesn't exist.

Like you don't have an indoor track in your field house or in any gymnasium?

Our shoe does not have a 200 meter indoor track.

Okay, so you have an indoor

track, but not of this size. It's a jogging track inside the Summers Rec Center. It's a rec track. I don't know. Yeah, I'm just asking. I'm mentioning that because that's something that's not on that list, but that is being complicated. So

please let us talk so we can all hear each other. Thank you.

And therefore, that's one of the issues that's also in our mind driving why we would ask for the 500, let's say. Because that's, you're right. I mean, maybe club volleyball doesn't have 500 people coming, but we don't know about the indoor track yet and what that situation could be. So again, we're just trying to think about the flexibility there. So that's one issue that's related to that ask for the capacity. And I'll also say, most sports started out as clubs. We live in a very different environment where everything is, club sports often mirror varsity sports. But the reality is a lot of things start out as clubs and they grow and grow and they become legitimate sports. I mean, it's just like the Olympics, right? So again, it's just to this point of we don't know right now today what some of these sports, these club sports might grow into. So we're just trying to be mindful of that when we think about capacity. That's just to give you some context.

So the idea is that a field house would be like a gymnasium and a track or just a track or what out, like what's really in a, like a gymnasia I imagine is a gym and it might have two to four courts on it that can be modified for baseball, volleyball, pickleball, whatever you're going to do on them. Right. But what's in a field house?

So when you, so in a field house, if it has a 200 meter track, that would sort of set the footprint. And then inside of that, you can stripe it with basketball courts, tennis courts, badminton court. All those things you just mentioned can also be sort of in the center of that track. Right? So it's a multi-purpose facility.

Okay. And then... But then... And so then...

And there's all... We could keep going down rabbit holes about different types of flooring. In my gym, you might have a wood floor. In a field house, you wouldn't have a wood floor, and we could talk all night about that. But you...

All right, I think that helps. One little question about the height. I'm curious about like if you want, if you think 60 or even 70 feet gives you a better ability to design a gymnasium or a field house, how do you think about accomplishing that by actually going like partly underground so that the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods is minimized? Because that feels like an option to me.

I think that's definitely an option. I mean, again, we haven't designed anything. I think that's one of the challenges. Yeah, so you could design within those constraints. We're all thinking of either the best things or the worst things. And I think we're trying to strike a balance between those poles. But yes, to your specific point, I mean, that's what we did at Summers Rec. It's buried into the ground a certain amount to help with that issue. So yes, that's an option for sure.

And the overlay as drafted wouldn't prevent that. Okay, thank you. That's great. I appreciate it. Probably some of the next stuff is Mary again. So I wanted to just kind of, I guess, reiterate, I think Susan said most of what I wanted to say as it relates to traffic, I'd really like to see us put something in. I think we, I think generally we tend to over-require parking and therefore facilitate greater use of like vehicles and create more traffic. In many cases, there's some evidence to that. But I think the university itself has a really great opportunity, as you said, to use and expand as needed the shuttle service and the wonderful garages you built underground that I think really do have the capacity to... My impression is they have the capacity to support additional... usage and so if we were to say that like there's a commitment to do things like that in order to reduce traffic on the site and perhaps limit traffic on the site to like accessible uses or you know deliveries or things that that really need to come onto the site to really minimize both the traffic and the parking it sounded like you would be open to that.

Is that correct? Absolutely. And we're going to be required under the overlay to have a parking study done when we get into site plan review. So, you know, I think we would be very open to, you know, creative transit alternatives and talking that through in more detail.

Yeah. Great, thank you. Some of the other stuff we've heard from residents who are truly engaging with us, understanding the potential development and thinking about how How it will be all our concerns about some of the uses that are included that are actually not athletic uses. And so I'm interested in understanding what your response would be if we would remove the allowable uses of commencement performances and campus programs and cultural events. Since those aren't actually athletic in nature.

So I don't want to make that commitment, but I am very happy to break that one back. Okay. And just to underscore, I mean, we, this particular draft, we, we got a week ago and we rushed to get something back, but there's a whole lot of opportunity in here for us to work with you and, and work with continue to work with residents and neighbors, um, to try and, um, you know, to try and address some of the things that either haven't been addressed or we needed to get more information on, um, or just things where it seems like we're almost there, but not quite there.

Yeah.

So thanks.

Um, the last is my last topic. Um, and that is noise. So the overlay is currently drafted talks about noise and I think we'll have further discussions about, um, like hours and conditions of that, but it talks about actually two different sound systems. And I just want to talk to you about what I think those are. Like there's this primary amplified sound system and then a secondary system. And I believe the idea is that the primary amplified sound system is sort of like the announcers and speakers at a game. am i saying that correctly anna i'm looking at anna um yeah or did i reverse them

the intention was primary would be for um activities that had an audience

audience and

secondary would be for events and activities that did not have spectators or audience

Okay, thank you. And so I'm interested in understanding if like when I hear that I think that makes sense to me you're having like a varsity baseball game you want an announcer to be able to announce some things in the game for the hundred or 200 people in the stands. um but i'm wondering if it would be how the university would respond to a requirement that that that that amplified sound system only be used for like those varsity competitions um like that feels like what we're talking about but i want to make sure i'm not making any assumptions or

I think that's one we can definitely look at, at who's utilizing it and who needs to be utilizing it based on the definition. I mean, that clarification was important. Yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you. That's all. That's it? Okay, great. Alderman Gary Feder.

Okay, great. Thank you. That's all. That's it? Okay, great. Alderman Fader.

Well, I think the meeting tonight is significant for a couple of reasons. First of all, I think, again, as a group, we had not heard from Concordia. And I think that was very important. And I think it was important for Tom to mention the fact that there is the alternative if this transaction does not go through, that Concordia is compelled to do something else with the property. That was certainly not by my hope. I hope, however, that people in the community will realize that that is a realistic possibility here and that has to be brought into the context of what we're talking about. So I think that's an important takeaway. The other important takeaway is I think for the first time tonight, we moved from a hypothetical project, which is what we've been dealing with until tonight, until we are much closer to having actually a real project we're talking about because for the first time we have at least the quasi-applicant, Washington University, in front of the board at one time. And so in many ways that's extremely helpful and I think really moves the project forward to have some meaningful discussion. I think it's important because as I said at the last meeting when all is said and done, I think the overlay for Big Ben makes more sense than going through the R2 and through the CUP, but only if we get to a point where I think we actually come up with a overlay that really does what it's supposed to do, which is I think to some extent respect the rights of Washington University, which under R2 zoning, which is the current zoning with the CUP does allow for university and does allow for athletic fields. So I think we have to recognize WashU's interest in this property, but I also think we have to really dig down and try to deal with concerns people have. The problem, I think, with doing this as an overlay is because it is ultimately still a hypothetical as we come up with maximums and minimums in order to address all situations that might be coming forthcoming, not to a specific proposal. And that makes these maximums like on the size of facilities or what triggers certain things, it makes it much more difficult for all of us because we're dealing with trying to come up with ranges. And I think that's all the more reason why it is important, Mary, that we get more information from the university I think if everyone has not, I know you can't see it from here, but this little sheet with all the facilities on it, if you haven't seen it, you certainly ought to get a copy and you ought to circulate it because I think it is, as has already been alluded to, it tells a lot. I think of the various facilities it describes here with the exception of the multi-purpose field, it indicates that almost everything draws 200 people or less And so when you contrast that with then putting in the ordinance certain maximums that, for example, suggest theoretically that you could have two venues going with 600 people each, I can understand why people would say, oh my God, it's the end of the world. Well, there's historical data here. We're not speculating. Washington University's athletic department can tell us how many people come to these things. And I think the likelihood that you'll ever see 600 people at anything is extremely low or that you would see two events with 600 people. None of the statistics we have would suggest anywhere close to that. So those are all things that I think we need to consider at this point. I hope we get more information. The more we know about what the athletic department actually can give us in addition to what's on this sheet in terms of realistic expectations of numbers. That allows us to deal with the issues of how many venues, how big they should be, all of these things. We're still not there yet as far as I'm concerned. I personally think we need to get there because I'd like to see this ordinance passed, but I'd also like to see it be an ordinance that everybody will be protected by and the university will still have a reasonable use. I will say, by the way, just in passing on this issue about division one or the fact that the university is now division three. I think the wording that we had in there, frankly, just wasn't very helpful because it basically said if anything happens there, it involves division one or division two. That's a violation. And it was pointed out to me that Washington University plays teams in certain sports that are in division one. I'm sure that's not what we meant. I think what we meant is we presume that as long as this is a Division III school, the type of numbers it'll generate are far more acceptable than if it ever became Division I or Division II. So if we're going to deal with that language, I think we need to clean it up. But the language we had in there was overly broad. So... I think at the end of the day, it's a question for me. When I first heard about this project, it was that Washington University basically wanted to replicate what it had in two different locations, put them together in one site. That makes perfectly sense to me. But I think it is a difference between what Washington University needs and what Washington University wants. They're not the same thing. I think there is some middle ground in that. It's fine for the university to be aspirational, but I think we need to put some limits on it in light of actual numbers so that we bring these numbers into conformance and give Washington University a replacement facility, but not one that exceeds what it has right now because the more it exceeds it, more people, more concerns about noise lights, et cetera, and that's a valid concern of the neighbors and we need to address it. All in all, I think if whatever additional information where you've promised us tonight, the more you can get us, the more we can do our job and get this thing done in a reasonable fashion. Thank you.

Very good. Rick, go on.

Great. Mary, I was hoping that you might be able to share with us with very broad brush what might be the earliest that you would contemplate bringing a site plan to us? When might be the earliest you might see development actually occur? And even if it's in years rather than the month, that's just a broad brush on that.

So first we have to get, let's just say we're going to get through an entitlement process. At that point in time, Concordia has their CUP. They would then, knowing that they were assured of our deal with Concordia and Washington University, they would then start to build the replacement housing that you approved at a prior meeting. Let's say that takes two years, just bidding, all that kind of stuff. So in two years... they would be able to vacate the current housing on the site because they would have this new housing for the seminarians and their family. At that point, when they turned over the vacated site, we would have permission to start. So you're talking two to three years. That's my... For

development or when might you actually want to bring a site plan to us? That's

what I'm talking about. You

would wait until all that's done.

We would have to get in and do some rather invasive earthwork just to test and, you know, do the things you need to do on especially that challenging of a site to figure out what we can build where but i'm looking at tom to check my prognosis

yeah i think three years for a project with their housing project from starting documents

Okay. So significant amount of time. Significant

amount of time.

That's fine. Okay. And so I want to make sure that I've characterized my impression of the overlay from your point of view correctly. My impression is that you've been respectful of this, that you're willing to use it. You might even find it helpful. but my understanding is it's not a requirement for you to have this, that you'll deal with whatever process we have, whether it's a CUP process or a overlay process. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

This process was recommended to us by the city as being the most appropriate vehicle for zoning. So we've wanted to be cooperative and we've moved through the process very willingly and we'll continue to take direction from the city.

Okay, great. I don't have any other

questions.

Jeff?

A couple ones. To follow up on Rick's question, the plan would be using either or, but in theory, if the overlay is passed in a way that WashU doesn't want, you also would have the right to just walk away and be like, we just don't want to deal with this.

Correct.

Okay. A couple other questions. So do you have a realistic expectation of when you would have the information that the letter says you're working on? I don't want to pin you down to the stuff we asked tonight. Ideally, next couple weeks, if not sooner, at least for me, but if you can speak to that time.

I can't speak specifically to it, but I think within a couple of weeks is more than reasonable to have everything that has been requested and anything else that would be helpful to you all. Okay.

Yeah, I'd like noise related to the permits, maximum height or maximum numbers, and then why the height. So it seems like those are the things where you're still looking at the athletic department for numbers.

Yes. And if we can get a complete list, the things we're not working on, we'll get working on right away. Okay.

Thanks. Okay. Um, the, just to confirm, because I think we've kind of walked around it and just to kind of make it, make the statement. Part of the concern with the building is I'm understanding is that you want the flexibility of, you know, the height and the track. And that's, I'm assuming it's because you only build a building once and there's millions of dollars you sneak into a building and you want to have it sized to adjust three years from now. You don't have to basically tear down a building and rebuild it.

That's right.

To be okay. Um, And then I guess the last question I've got is with broad brushes, right? Because you don't control Big Ben. We don't control Big Bend, but there's a lot of concern about traffic on the Big Ben. We've talked about lights. We've talked, but can you speak a little bit to wash use philosophical approach to how they're going to handle Big Ben? If this goes through owning font bond, like, like, Just how do you think about Big Ben in terms of helping out with traffic, dealing with all of that?

So let's assume that Big Ben is the logical ingress and egress because we're not going to cut through the middle of the seminary. I think the city engaged a traffic engineer to actually take a look at and make some recommendations on both the location of an ingress and egress from the site, as well as the methodology. And the consultant came back after looking at the test fits that you've all seen and that are posted on the site. Granted, they're not a site plan. But they're, you know, they're certainly portray the intended uses. And they said that, and Ana, you'll correct me if I get this wrong, but they said for everyday activity, you are likely not going to need any kind of signalized intersection, anything like that, but you might if you have a tournament. So as an abundance of caution, you should have a signalized intersection. The further advice was that that intersection should be located across from Oak Knoll Park, so across from an existing drive. Now, you know, that's not a final plan. That was taken to the county. The county concurred in the recommendation, but they won't weigh in until we have a site plan, right? So that was just guidance for all of us to utilize as we had conversations. But there's plenty of room for improvement on Big Bend. We've heard it. We see it. There's no turn lane. I mean, maybe, you know, maybe part of this is we have a dedicated turn lane. It would be potentially helpful to the people on Southmore. And because right now, you know, you just have cars queuing up. If you had a signalized intersection, it would clearly help the Oak Knoll Park situation as well. I had my kids that... childcare there and it was taking your life in your hands at times trying to, you know, get out. And again, the signal would help. I would like to see actually think about a pedestrian crosswalk that was safe at this intersection that would also be beneficial to many communities. A dedicated turn lane into the site would again be helpful. So all these are things that I think if we work together and we continue to take feedback from our neighbors and start engaging, in more thoroughly in Big Bend and its issues and its pressure points, hopefully we can augment some changes that will improve the situation.

Thanks.

Very good. Okay, so I'm just going to do a little bit of a summary of our needs from you, but also, Ana, will we produce some kind of a list of the things in case I've missed something, Bridget's missed something. Okay, so essentially what we need in order to refine this further is concrete numbers on actual usage and then maybe, you know, additional, so that's what you need to replace what you've got. And then what would you like extra? So we need to know where that line is. We need to understand about the height for a field house or a gym. We need to make sure we know why you need the height you're asking for. What's the minimum height that we could use okay um and we need to back that up with the approved heights for the volleyball games or whatever it is um we you know we would like to get your um get your thoughts on the silent system topics um and also um uh oh yeah so i think i mean i think those are the key areas and then my question to you is one we talked about access to a field is what you mentioned but i i would like to understand because people have tom will egger connect correct me if i'm wrong but people have sort of unfettered access to walk around on concordia wherever they want to go um except for the cheese bandit. I don't know if you remember him. He was throwing cheese slices on cars as they drove through Concordia. So unfettered access is something that I think would be valuable to all the surrounding communities, to be able to just walk out your door and walk across the fields as long as there's no activity going on, no game. And you mentioned one field, but I'm interested in the whole entire community big bend overlay parcel. And then the other thing I want to challenge you on is how you can, we've mentioned synergies between WashU and Concordia, but can you further synergize your use of the site period? Can you put a field, can you build part of your field house underground and put a field on top of the field house according to the parameters that are in the overlay? What can you do to overlap fields? You know, you've said you need the two, baseball, softball, and then intramural. Can't intramural overlap with one of those other fields? I mean, how can we reduce the intensity of the site in terms of number of things? And I would just challenge you to try really hard to do that because I think that could be a real, that would be a really important factor and of great value to the community. Okay, yeah, okay.

And I'll just add, Mary, I think we also owe some information on overall capacity. Correct?

And whether you could avoid using lights in the morning. Since Bridget verified the sun rises at 715 at the latest in January.

Can I ask one more thing? Thank you. Kind of building on what's been discussed with Jeff and the whole idea of transit and encouraging safe walking. There's talk getting across Big Bend, and you suggested a crosswalk and things like that, and would Wash be willing to commit resources in working with the city to get that done?

Yes.

Okay. I

think we've assumed that we would be the heavy lift on any of this, particularly since it's dealing directly with the ingress and egress of our site.

I guess students do come from all areas up in there where people are living. And I'll just add, too, that we've had the pleasure of having a WashU student, Dylan Colbert, come to several of our sustainability meetings talking about increasing the flow between WashU and the city of Clayton for the mutual benefit of everyone and taking down some of the barriers along Forsyth, wherever else, to allow access back and forth and working on that, which fits in with this. So I appreciate that commitment.

Okay, very good. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Tom, again, thank you for coming and talking to us. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

So I think at this point, what we would like to do is entertain any other questions for us, comments from our audience, the public who've been patiently listening. And You know the drill. If you want to come up, state your name and your address and tell us what you have to say. I would ask for some brevity. It is 830, and so we don't want to keep everybody too long, but just, yeah, just come on up. Oh, we don't want questions. Okay. Mostly comments rather than questions, I'm told. Yeah.

recognize Concordia and should monetize their investment in their property along Big Bend. It's an R2 zoned residential area. I believe this athletic complex, and it is a complex, is not the right setting in this R2 zoning district. Thank you.

Thanks.

hi i'm josephine weill three forest ridge hey david thank you mayor thank you alderman for giving all this so much time i want to tell you after the last meeting that we were all here the next morning at four o'clock in the morning i was up and headed to the hospital and i had surgery on my sweet little arm as dick says it wasn't brain surgery it wasn't heart surgery it was an arm But I do have a new arm here, and I'm very proud. This is my second outing since that time. And I'm a little headachy and exhausted. But I really think what's amazing, we have the letter from Washington. We don't have that beautiful paper with the pictures on it. They seem to not realize this is deemed residential. There's nothing residential about an athletic complex. And if you think they're doing all this for 200 students, are you kidding? They would love to be D1. They would love to have a big athletic school. It'd bring in a lot more students. It'd bring a lot more in the athletic world. So I think the first problem is this is a residential area. And that's how we want to keep it. We love the fact that it's residential. That's our reason for being here.

Understood. Thank you. I'm glad your arm is healing well. Glad.

I'll be leaving for Colorado tomorrow with my family.

Good. All right.

Jonathan Katz, Three Tuscany Park. We were told of the purpose of having a... overlay district, is to simplify and unify the planning process to replace a whole mess of individual CUPs for individual facilities. And that makes a great deal of sense. But it should not be to evade the restrictions that a conditional use permit implies. So for example, we have a section of the municipal code 405840 criteria for conditional use permit approval. So the overlay district should incorporate this So it does not become a means to evade these criteria. So I suggest that the Section 405840, Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval, become an amendment to the overlay district so all of its criteria are included in the overlay district.

Thank you.

Jake Hansler, 20 Southmore. The three points that I'd like to make. The first is, as we talk about, I think most of the folks that I've heard at these meetings are not interested in the overlay district. And the reason is that we continue to have these how many angels can dance on the head of a pin conversations about what's going up. at WashU, what's going up in that area, because they say, well, we need to know what the overlay district is going to look like before we come to you with something. That's the great thing about the conditional use permit process is that they come, the applicant comes with and over with a site plan they come with facts they come with ideas and then we start talking about those we don't talk about theoretical heights we don't talk theoretical densities we talk about real numbers and real buildings and then we talk about it and then we vote on it why are we doing this overlay district when they don't even know what they want to tell you what to implement. I think it's clear that the plan is to move all the sports to this end. I mean, I think that's what we're hearing. It's no longer a gym, it's a field house. Well, that's what they have down there. They have a field house. We're coming this way with all of that. And I'll tell you, as soon as Fontbonne gets under WashU's control, those buildings are gonna start coming down faster than yard signs after election day. Okay. And that's where the rest of it's going to backfill in and it's going to be all right there. And why do we assume that if there isn't going to be much traffic with this, why do we assume everything has to flow through WashU? Why can't it come through Ydown or the backside of the font bond process? Or why can't it come though Concordia? We keep saying, well, obviously it can't come through Concordia. Why not? I mean, I think that's the other thing. We don't know how to do this because we don't know what the font bond process. And again, they're saying it's going to take three years before Concordia finishes. We have time. And here's the final point I'll make. Thank you for engaging me. We heard a lot of, oh my gosh, this is our property. What are we going to do with it? If you don't give us this... They have lots of land. They have lots of options, okay? They have big field houses on Concordia now. We could do something there. The problem is these folks don't. I don't. I can't do anything else with my property, okay? My house has been there 100 years, and I can't do anything else with it. They can. So as we talk about property rights, as we talk about things that can be done for the community, they have 100 more options than anybody in this room. And I think we need to think about that when we're deciding how to move forward.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll get one coming up and then we'll take the online ones.

Too short. My name is Marie Bone, 28, Southmore. Thank you all once again. Here we all are again. What are we all going to do on Tuesday nights? But I appreciate the effort that's being made and the investment of time, attentiveness right down to the number of feet. And I really do appreciate it. And I echo what Gary has said about finding what is being replaced and what is being added and what's a reasonable balance in that. The discussion about access, I live about 50 feet from Big Bend and You've all heard about everybody's difficulties with the bend. It really is a public safety issue for the city of Clayton. And it's not when you control because you can't, you don't control the road. I get that. But to talk about the specified overlay district in terms of access off of Big Bend at a particular point and not notice that the Fontbonne property has two curb cuts on Big Bend suggests to me that it's a reiteration. If they're not ready to talk about what they're going to do with Fontbonne, then maybe the city needs to tell them what can be done. And having three curb cuts along Big Bend may or may not be wise. And just because we're not ready to place an overlay around Bon Bon doesn't mean you can't anticipate some obvious, some things that are obvious. In addition, it would seem to me reasonable for the city to specify within the overlay that Washington University needs to maintain vehicular ingress and egress from Y down to the overlay property through Fontbonne, which provides some relief on Big Bend. It also anticipates emergencies. If you have ever watched an ambulance or a fire vehicle try to get to an accident, between 4.30, a long big bend, and they are frequent, between 4.30 and 5.30 p.m., it's terrifying. So I would just suggest that that is something that you could specify in the overlay, I believe, or at least could consider. And two other comments, if I may. One is that neighbors of mine have already been apprised that they can't disclose this, that they have to disclose this eventuality if they propose to sell their homes. And it's not expected to be a benefit to their home values. So please be aware of that. I do have a question, if I may, direct to the university. And that's up to you.

Back to us and then

we'll

get the answer at some point.

Okay. My question is, and it's a question that's been discussed at many neighborhood meetings, is did the university consider a use of the West Concordia space that was consistent with the current conditional use permit on that space, which is effectively graduate student or housing? That type of housing was that considered and. If not. Why not, thank you.

we'll put that on our list. Yes.

hi my name is obie Griffith I live in hillcrest at 104 Rundle with my wife Shirley and two small children. I'm a full professor at WashU and they've always been a great employer. So nothing against WashU, but we do have serious concerns about the big band overlay. We feel there are many issues not resolved and needing more discussion. There's uncertainty related to font bond that should be resolved first as it will directly affect the overall changes in terms of traffic, et cetera. I understand the timing of that is challenging, but I think right now, I think it's fair to say that Fontbonne, you know, the traffic there is very anemic. If WashU takes it over and puts a new school there or moves, I don't know, their school of engineering there or something, it could easily have a lot of traffic. And then together with the big bent overlay, it would really have a big impact. We don't think the current overlay district plan sufficiently protects the residents. And I just want to raise three issues, some of which have been touched on already. the proposed event sizes and parking traffic to come with them, the hours of noisy events. So many in Hillcrest, and I'm sure the other neighborhoods, have small children. And until you have small children, you don't realize how early they go to bed. But they're often supposed to be sleeping by like 7.30 or 8. So we would definitely prefer earlier starts and earlier terminations of late events or of loud events. And finally, the transition zone on the northeast side of budding Hillcrest which obviously affects us the most. We would really like to see those expanded as much as possible to protect the large tree population there, the natural terrain, the drainage and this would really mitigate many of the concerns around noise and light for Hillcrest. Thank you.

Dave Jump, Five Southmore. I asked a question in one of the earlier meetings, not with this group, but with the planning group. And the answer I got was understood differently by different people. So I know you want comments for this. This is a question. So the current topography of the site is a hill that goes up whatever it is, 50 feet or so. When you talk about the elevation and the allowable elevation, that is from the existing topography today or that is from whatever the topography would be after the excavating, dirt work, terracing, whatever is done.

I'll let Anna address that real quick.

So I'm just going to read the definition. height that we have in the proposed overlay district so building high would be the vertical district distance measured in feet from the grade plane to the highest point of the coping of the flat roof or the mean level between eaves if it was a sloped roof so we're using grade plane average and so they use the existing grade plane though that would be accounted for so you would essentially put the footprint of your proposed building down and on the existing topography before anything was changed. And that would establish your existing grade. And then you would have your proposed grade. So if any grades were going to be changed, we limit that change to six feet of the new building. And then the new building would be measured off of that height.

The new building would be measured off of?

The proposed. So the new building would measured off of their proposed grade, but we don't Per the regulations as they're proposed, we wouldn't allow them to change that proposed grade by more than six feet from the existing condition.

Okay. The other comment I've got is this. Everybody seems to like the idea of unfettered access and people able to come and go through this whole thing. And I know you can decide how big these facilities will be and how many seats and all of that. But to talk about how many people are allowed to be there and talk about it being wide open for anybody to come there, those don't happen in the same place. So I don't think you can have it both ways.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. yeah yeah yeah sorry um can we see the list all right uh okay so patty hayda

hi can you hear me

yes

um so i'm patty hayda i live in hillcrest also and trained in urban design and architecture. I sent a note to the Alder people with more detailed comments. A number of us have been trying to very quickly comb through the latest revisions and sort of understand what that, what the implications are. But I just want to mention two things from the longer list. One is the current overlay states that the grade should not be lifted or reduced to create one elevation. I mean, I don't think any architect with competence would create a single elevation across there because it's actually an 80 foot drop on the one of the sides, I think maybe going diagonally down to Tuscany Park and 60 foot drop on the other side. But I just think that language is kind of allowing for that. And maybe it should be changed to may not be lifted or reduced to create one elevation, just so that we avoid something really difficult. crazy with like huge walls. The other thing was about the noise because I think there's a lot of comments about the crowd size and I understand that but my concern with the noise is the amplified game commentary because games are a couple hours long And if there's commentary like so-and-so is at bat and okay, you know, there's a first base, whatever. It's going to just be an ongoing talking sound. And that to me sounds really like something that neighbors, I just, I don't see how anyone would want to listen to that. for that many hours, especially in the time that they're home, which is like Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday. Um, that seems to me, the scariest part about this is like we are, we will just be listening to baseball games all the time in the spring, um, maybe soccer too. So I, I just wanted to bring that up. Um, it's also set currently at 60 decibels or 70 if it is, um, like intermittent or something, or if it's a whatever impulse or something. But that is the low range of leaf blowers, which are very loud. And it's also the, it's higher than the number allowed under the landing planes at Lambert. And I just know that because of my research out there where they deemed it unsuitable for residential and they cleared out a whole neighborhood under the noise overlays that were going on there. And I'm happy to send you maps from that. So I think the overlay should hopefully have a much lower decibel level with the idea that then the university could maybe test anything higher and agree upon it with the neighbors, something like that so that neighbors aren't stuck with 60 decibel commentary with no recourse to change it because it'll be written into the law. So those are my two big points. Thank you.

And we don't know, don't do that one. Don't don't do that. I don't know what's going on there. Let's get Joan Downey. Hey, Joan, we're listening now. Can you hear me now? We can barely hear you. OK, can you hear me now.

Yes. OK, thank you for calling on me. So I have a couple of comments. I'm incredibly disappointed and exhausted after 16, 18 months trying to be an engaged citizen to still come to what would have been the voting meeting and still not have the facts on current usage. Um, I'm sorry. We, there are a lot of us that just, we're not doing this for a living and it's going to be really painful to, to deal with this process if it goes on for two or three years. Um, second, I appreciate the Concordia leader and I, um, I wish that, um, Clayton, the citizens had an opportunity to help Concordia with its long-term financial plans. I would have loved for the city to have been party to what we could do to help Concordial in its long range fiscal plans to create a long-term revenue with many ideas for that property other than to swap what initially sounded like a small intramural three field swap, which I'm sorry to say, has made me feel that the initial proposal has been disingenuous given that it's continually morphing into this more massive athletic complex to accommodate every possible future kind of sport that we could wish for. The second point I want to make is noise. I Google the decibel level of the Miranda, which is your default Apple on your phone. If you've ever tried to have a conversation with someone when their cell phone rings and it's the Miranda noise, that's 55 decibels. This proposal allows for that. Imagine us, the whole neighborhood, living with that constant noise. Everyone dislikes when a cell phone goes off and someone hasn't turned off the Miranda noise, but that's 55 decibels, and this plan permits for lower. This should go back from a noise point of view to whatever a quiet neighborhood is. And the gentleman who was not WashU but did the research to figure out when we would be dealing with tournaments And it was nights and weekends really gave me a disheartened feeling that my constant Big Ben traffic driving nightmare would extend itself now to seven days a week, including evenings and nights, which is frankly the only respite time that we who have to get home or get out of our homes have as relief. of the parking lot line on Big Ben. And it looks like these tournaments are now going to make that time, our evenings, our nights, our weekends, literally a continuous parking lot. Thank you very much.

Okay, and then Michelle's iPhone.

Hi, Michelle Dillon, number four, Southmore. I just have two quick comments. Number one, when Mary from WashU said, you know, you were taking your life in your hands to get out of Oak Knoll, we face that every time we leave in the morning or the evening. You hope the people in the right lane don't come into the left as you're pulling out. Number two, I'm going to echo what Joan said when this first came up a long time ago. It was three fields, maybe a small gym, and now it's an entire complex. And it's just, it's very, I find Wash U, I feel this has been disingenuous on their part, and I'm just disheartened by the whole process. Okay, thank you.

have another person online susan please go ahead

susan fredek you can unmute and speak if you'd like

susan you're muted so we cannot hear you if you're talking Okay, maybe she stepped away momentarily. Okay, if it comes, yeah, so. All right, do we have any others here that would like to address the board?

I'm Steve Kissel, and I live at 521 West Polo Drive for the last 38 years, and I've never been more thankful to live on the west end of Clayton. But I'm here because I sympathize with all my fellow Clayton residents and their properties and their concerns, especially my buddy Bronco over here who lives on Tuscany, who I used to play volleyball with. I just wanted to point out one big thing, the elephant in the room, font bot. Fontbonne has a 3,800-square-foot gym built in 1993, so it's got a little age. Needs a new AC system. Has a weight room that was put in in 2022. WashU paid $39 million for Fontbonne. They own it. Yeah, it's got to be open for a little while longer, but gosh, Concordia is not going to get those buildings built for two years. Why in the world is there an overlay that doesn't cover Fontbonne and this property. It's just insane that we are planning something and we're leaving out 16 acres of property. I can't believe it, including an already built gym. Not the biggest gym in the world doesn't have an indoor track. I get that. But it just seems remarkable that you can spend $39 million for a property. You don't need to plan anything on that. We're going to go plan everything down here and also up, of course, on our campus. And I just find that it reminds me a little bit of the Calaris deal with the school boards.

Yes, come on up. Good evening. My name is Carol Needham. I live on Tuscany Park. I want to thank you to the planning staff, to the alder people, to all of those who have sent a lot of careful consideration to this. I think the overlay is improved from the process. I want to stress it will not be detrimental to the WashU program to appropriately limit permitted noise levels at the property adjoining the Big Bend overlay. I have comments on section 410.980, part A4 in the section talking about outdoor amplified devices may be used or operated on another property and so on. from 8 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. That seems like a reasonable compromise. That's, you know, 100 days a year if they're operating on Friday and Saturday, and then delete the phrase from 9 a.m. That's the entire rest of the week. And I suggest that as a matter of good management, please do not allow amplified noise devices to be used every day of the week. all day long that's a lot of noise generation there is um no way to predict you know when they would use that and so to say friday and saturday okay fine we just won't use our yards um but every single day is just too much um All right, not all day, not every day. Second point on part five of that same section, I suggest we insert 35 decibels to replace 60 dBA steady noise and insert 40 dBA replacing 70 dBA impulse noise. That would keep it close to the currently existing noise level at the boundary line. Today, as I've said before, you can hear birds chirping during the day and owls hooting at twilight. Those are sounds you hear at about 35 decibels. I have measurements taken on Saturday afternoons, and they're running around 40.5, 42.4, 31.3, 33.2, but it's in that realm. 70 decibels has been already commented. That's close to a vacuum cleaner. That's an alarm clock noise. That's The garbage disposal running a couple of feet away in a leaf blower running 50 feet away. 70 decibels, even as an impulse, is distracting and it's too much, especially paired with all day, every day as a permission. I agree with what to amplify Ms. Hayden's comment about the ongoing amplified game commentary. I agree. It's one thing if you're at the game and you want to be paying attention to what's happening, but if it's a backdrop all the time for a few hours at a time, that's a lot. And I suggest that we limit the amplified noise to only Fridays and Saturdays. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hello, Dimitri Seriatis, 7 Southmore. I just wanted to thank Mayor Harris and the board for hearing what we have to say tonight. And thank you for Mr. Jeffery Yorg. I emailed a few couple of times. I just wanted get into some specifics about traffic because I've been told these meetings and some of these things that I would like to say haven't been said. So we know that traffic currently backs up on Clayton Road. It backs up routinely to block Southmore's south entrance, which is a distance of 0.3 miles during peak traffic hours. Any Southmore resident or Tuscany can tell you this is extremely frustrating. And then after you're frustrated, you have to dangerously zoom out onto Big Bend. Our wait time to exit the south entrance is currently graded E on an A to F scale by the DOT. Should a signal go in at Oak Knoll, it would be constantly triggered at peak hours by the daycare center volume. The bumper to bumper traffic would then back up further 0.3 miles north on Big Bend, blocking both of our exits from the neighborhood. This would surely push our south entrance into failing F status and make our dangerous maneuver onto Big Bend even more of a daily risk. We believe this would be catastrophic to the value of our homes and quality of life. And this is not accounting for any volume in and out of the new sports complex, volume that was grossly underestimated by the initial traffic study, a study that the university had at hand in designing in order to get initial approval for their desired entrance on Big Bend. The university is locking in by use of this overlay, the ability to run multiple large spectator events simultaneously, allowing at times 2,300 spectators at once. That includes the 500 at the indoor facility that is allowed to run concurrently with the two 900 outdoor facility events. This would generate massive traffic volume on Big Bend that they would never be accountable for. For reference, the pageant on Del Mar is a maximum capacity 2,300 venue and leaving the venue after show is chaos. Zoning regulations must forbid vehicular access to the site from Big Bend. There is ample opportunity for vehicular ingress and egress through the university's newly acquired Fonbon property. If necessary, the zoning should be rewritten to reduce site capacity to make these access points viable. Thank you.

Hello, Dimitri Seriatis, 7 Southmore. I just wanted to thank Mayor Harris and the board for hearing what we have to say tonight. And thank you for Mr. York. I emailed a few couple of times. I just wanted get into some specifics about traffic because I've been told these meetings and some of these things that I would like to say haven't been said. So we know that traffic currently backs up on Clayton Road. It backs up routinely to block Southmore's south entrance, which is a distance of 0.3 miles during peak traffic hours. Any Southmore resident or Tuscany can tell you this is extremely frustrating. And then after you're frustrated, you have to dangerously zoom out onto Big Bend. Our wait time to exit the south entrance is currently graded E on an A to F scale by the DOT. Should a signal go in at Oak Knoll, it would be constantly triggered at peak hours by the daycare center volume. The bumper to bumper traffic would then back up further 0.3 miles north on Big Bend, blocking both of our exits from the neighborhood. This would surely push our south entrance into failing F status and make our dangerous maneuver onto Big Bend even more of a daily risk. We believe this would be catastrophic to the value of our homes and quality of life. And this is not accounting for any volume in and out of the new sports complex, volume that was grossly underestimated by the initial traffic study, a study that the university had at hand in designing in order to get initial approval for their desired entrance on Big Bend. The university is locking in by use of this overlay, the ability to run multiple large spectator events simultaneously, allowing at times 2,300 spectators at once. That includes the 500 at the indoor facility that is allowed to run concurrently with the two 900 outdoor facility events. This would generate massive traffic volume on Big Bend that they would never be accountable for. For reference, the pageant on Del Mar is a maximum capacity 2,300 venue and leaving the venue after show is chaos. Zoning regulations must forbid vehicular access to the site from Big Bend. There is ample opportunity for vehicular ingress and egress through the university's newly acquired Fonbon property. If necessary, the zoning should be rewritten to reduce site capacity to make these access points viable. Thank you.

Others?

Good evening. Andrew Lieberman, number one sophomore. Just like to express my gratitude. Thank you guys for hearing us out. And thanks in advance for doing the right thing. You know, if it's Thanksgiving on Thursday and if I were to serve a half-baked dessert, it wouldn't go over well. That's exactly what's going on. You guys have been spinning your wheels on a bunch of hypotheticals. You know, my main concerns are three areas, safety, lights, and noise. So number one, safety, half dozen accidents in the last few months on the stretch. great F out of my entrance, great E as Dimitri just pointed out, lights. I was at a function at Wash U walking down Forsyth the other night. I felt like I was starring in a Broadway play. Lights on both sides. And I would invite you guys, well, after the holidays when the lights are on, just to experience it. It's kind of cool if you like starring in a production, but if it's in your backyard or front yard, not so cool. And then noise. I mean, we're talking about the amplification. We didn't even talk about during a baseball game, the walk-on music. I mean, it's just, it's not compatible with the existing surroundings. I think in its Concordia's property, but what's appropriate is residential. And I think there could be some beautiful residential facilities here, non-dense obviously, so it's compatible with the environment or the surrounding area. A precedent was set back, I think it was 2018, On Clayton Road, the former Katie's Pizza, they wanted to put an early childhood facility. We were actually for it because there's kind of a shortage of those types of facilities. The neighborhood stood up and said, wait, how many people? This isn't safe. Same story here. We're trying to put a square or a round peg in a square hole. It doesn't fit. It doesn't meet the compatibility requirements or the ordinances. Vote no on the overlay project. Let them go through a traditional cup. and come up with something that makes sense. Thank you.

We have others that would like to speak. Okay, yeah. You're not going to read that book to us, are you?

My name is David Anglin. I live at 6360 San Benito. I like WashU. It's great. It has helped me out. They're a big asset to the city. However, I've seen that The larger the institution, the greater the possibility of scope creep. And any kind of regulation that is more restrictive than an overlay should be considered. So if there is a CUP or something, in other words, if WashU can come with a little more definition, I believe that that would certainly benefit us. this situation but at this stage i can really understand my neighbors concerns and i support them

thank you anyone else

good evening your honor members of the board, staff, Jeff Kirschman here tonight on behalf of the Wiles. I wanted to speak to sort of a procedural question first, and that is the overlay district versus the existing scheme of a conditional use permit. As you have heard now, quote you a few lines from the CUP ordinance in a minute. The overlay district, nowhere in the overlay district is there any requirement that there be any kind of finding of compatibility, nowhere in there. We've spent a lot of time talking about buildings, parking, lights, noise, traffic, safety for sports complex and it is a sports complex. All of which, in my view, begs the question. And the question is, does this belong here in the first place? Does this sports complex belong in some of the nicest residential neighborhoods of Clayton? And I would suggest to you that the answer is no, it doesn't. Let me just read a few lines from the conditional use permit ordinance. The very first there are, I think, 16 different criteria that have to be met to issue the cup the very first one is that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood you'll hear that word neighborhood uh repeatedly throughout this ordinance uh it implies the same standard with respect to noise with respect to lights with respect to traffic um All throughout the ordinance, it uses the term compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Nowhere in the overlay district ordinance is there the same kind of standard. So you wonder why we asked for this proposal to be evaluated through the CUP process. That's the reason. The Clayton master plan also speaks to the need to keep this residential. The master plan was adopted by the Plan Commission, I believe approved by the Board of Aldermen just a year ago. With respect to Concordia, it says, quote, Concordia Seminary enjoys a positive public perception attributed to its expansive, well-maintained grounds, avoidance of dense development and absence of undergraduates, absence of undergraduates. It goes on to say, the campus understands the value it brings to the surrounding community through access to green space and other amenities and plans to continue being a partner in shaping the future of Clayton in a way that respects the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't believe that we heard anything like that tonight from Mr. Eggers. Washington U and Concordia have come to an arrangement, but it really doesn't take into account the surrounding neighbors. When Concordia received its conditional use permit back in 1994, contrary to what we're talking about tonight, it had a specific finding. It says, whereas at a meeting of the Plan Commission on January 22 1994, the height location and use, use of such buildings will not have any serious and depreciating effect upon the surrounding property, provided that certain conditions are met. And if you look at the staff report on the Conditional use permit that was just issued by the city for Concordia to build its new dorms. The staff said, given that the new structures would replace residences that are proposed to be demolished, that there are existing structures that will buffer the proposed structures and that the proposed and surrounding uses are primarily residential. primarily residential, staff are of the opinion that the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. We haven't had any such finding by the staff or by the plan commission with respect to this development. That's why you have heard many times that people want this proposal to be evaluated under the existing ordinance, which is a conditional use permit. It addresses all the same kinds of things we're talking about. Building height, size, noise, lights, traffic. All those elements of this proposal can and I suggest should be addressed through the conditional use permit process. um finally um you know we're we're all fortunate to live in clayton i'm sure my experience is the same as yours wherever you go If someone says, where do you live? They say, well, I live in Clayton. And people speak glowingly and enviously of those of us who are lucky enough to live in Clayton It's a wonderful community and it has an element to it of neighborliness. We're all neighbors here. With a few exceptions, the properties here are on relatively small lots. We live close to each other. We have to be neighborly. So we look at you as not only our elected representatives, But as our neighbors, and I would ask you as our neighbors to look at this proposal as you would that another neighbor is doing. Now, Washington University is a neighbor. So is Concordia. We respect that. And there are many people here who have connections to the university. But we hope and expect that the university would act neighborly toward us. We would ask that you consider this proposal not just as our elected representatives, but as our neighbors because that's ultimately what you are. Finally, I just want to say again thanks to the staff and the board and you, Mayor. There's been a lot of conversation, a lot of availability that you've all offered, and the process is better for that. Thank you, and have a great Thanksgiving.

If I might, and then you're welcome to come up in a minute, but if I might, just while it's hot off the press, I just want to make a couple comments based on your comments. You don't have to stay at the podium. I'm just going to make these comments. Just to clarify a couple of things. We had mention of a master plan that demanded residential on this property. We have just gone through a year-long comprehensive plan update with robust community input. I mean, the most community input I have ever seen us have way more than what's been around this overlay in all of my 16, 17 years working for the city of Clayton. And the community input was that that property shall remain institutional in use. It doesn't designate residential. It doesn't designated athletic. It shall remain institutional. That's one point. Number two, The idea of compatibility and no depreciating effect on the surrounding area that is embedded in the conditional use permit, it is, I can see that it is, and we can see that it's very important to what you think is the best safeguard for the community. So number one, compatibility is considered in site plan review and everything that would go on under this underlay, if it went forward, everything that would come forward as a site plan would be considered under the compatibility requirement. Number two, as we have talked among ourselves or with many of you, what if we put that language in the overlay? We have no problem. I mean, we haven't voted on that, but if that's... If that is what you view as the key to safeguarding compatibility and no detrimental effect on neighborhoods, if that's the language that makes this whole for you, and at the same time, the board can feel more secure in developing much stricter standards to start with for tree canopy protection, I mean, I won't go off on this, but that's one of the main things that I think an overlay provides us is the canopy protection. Some of the requirements in the CUP just are very weak when it comes to certain things and we can do better with the overlay. So what if we consider this as a board and what if we put that in? We could consider it. And to the overall, just comment about being neighborly. We're trying to accomplish something that's good for the whole city. And I think we've heard here tonight many benefits that can come from the eventual right overlay. And we want to be good neighbors to all of you, but we also want to keep our, especially, I'm going to especially say Concordia Wash U. I know you guys are healthy and you don't need any help, but we want to keep Concordia healthy for the long term, for the next hundred years. And so we want to try to give, to make it possible for them to do what they need financially. So just a few comments there. And I think there are a couple more people that would like to comment, so come on up. Don't fight over it.

Good evening. Rodney Wilkinson, 10 Southmore. On behalf of the four people that live in my home, we oppose this. You're elected by us, for us, and we would like you to help us. Plain and simple. Keep the CUP. That's what we want. We are the citizens. We pay the taxes. Do what we are requesting. Next, in regards to collegiate athletics. This dark sky, lights are at 80 feet down, not up, correct? And I'm looking to you too. Yes, okay. So dark sky over four or five fields is no longer dark sky. Sooner or later when you put enough candles together, you get a lot of light. Next, if you're gonna be playing collegiate sports on these fields, If you have an 80-foot ceiling and the lights are going down and you hit a fly ball, the average height of a fly ball is 100 feet in the air. That means your ball is going to disappear into the darkness and then have to come back down. Same thing with a pop fly. And if the ball is disappearing into the air and you can't see it, that can't be compatible with complete collegiate athletics. So what are they going to do? Turn the lights up so that they can make sure that they can see the ball? That breaks the rules. So I don't know how the two work together. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, David Edison, 30 Southmore. Thank you. This has been a learning experience for me. What every single meeting, I wish we could get this to go faster, I know we can't. What really disturbs me, especially tonight is the lack of anything from the board about the obvious creep, scope creep as someone termed it, disingenuity, the obvious bait and switch tactic that is going on. We had a gentleman stand up here and say that WashU does not have an indoor track field That was not true. You had to pull the truth out of him. This is not, we are not being given a fair shake and we are being told, well, Washington University and Concordia have the right to do whatever they want with, have the right to appropriate things with their property. And we want to protect our citizens. But I really, really want to ask, want to bring to the forefront the absence of any commentary on the shifting sands beneath our feet and this presumption of goodwill over here on this side from the people who don't have conflict of interest. And it is a glaring omission, and I wish I heard more about what Washington University's real intents were. in a way with nails to really drill down and get some answers. What are they going to do with Fontbonne? Why must we have 17 meetings before we get to know that? It bothers me, and I know I'm not the only one. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Kyle Johnson. So we have an online person, Kyle Johnson. Hello, Kyle.

Hey there. Kyle Johnson. Go ahead, Kyle. Kyle Johnson, 8500 Maryland. I just wanted to say I agree with the residents saying about it is a residential neighborhood and that it is important to have residential there. I think it would be appropriate to require the university to build residential dorm perhaps to have a certain amount of people living down there along with the fields. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, John.

Hi, John Hutkin at 11 Brentmore Park. Another one of my visits here. Good to see everybody. And thank you for all of the thoughts and ideas that are coming forward. I do I was at the first meeting, and it did seem like it was going to be more of a low key intramural type situation. It's grown since then, and it's been commented today. And I think that now that it's that, it has, I just don't see either where anybody else would have brought in, any developer that wanted to do something this radical and let's see, it says how radical it is. We want to relocate the following, the baseball, the softball, the tennis courts, the Danford campus relocation of the soccer field, and the, I guess it's what you're calling that major building that's going to hold different events with 200 meters and basketball and other things. So it's become, it's going to become a very active place because you've taken everything and dropped it right there in the middle of a very quiet neighborhood. It's going to be vastly different. I remember coming to the first meeting and all I said was, I think why all the people are up in arms here This is the first meeting I've been to and are used to that. And this is at the other end of the spectrum. It is extremely at the other end the spectrum. I was told that they could do whatever they want anyway, and that I should just read what's available in the instructions of the zoning. It seems to me that the zoning, that the CUP is what is our rights and they should not be taken away. And I thought I heard that it's okay to do with the CUP. Did I hear that right from Washington University? So I don't think we'll ever get everybody feeling trustworthy because even in the latest letter from Washington U is trying to take the guardrails out that you think that are in there. They want to take out about the noise and the lights. And I just, what else is coming? The numbers are off the chart. And There's no, I guess there just isn't a sense of trust here. And I don't know how we're going to get a sense of trust if we have to go within a overlay district. There's too many things that will always be open. And I have no idea why they aren't coming forward with the plans that any developer would have brought in here once it was challenged to show us what's going on. The excuses just don't make sense. Why not? And they said, well, we haven't done it. When somebody's got a big project, they may come in two years in advance anyway. That's how things are done. They've got all the ability to do this and it's just sitting still. So I just wanted to confirm The CUP. And I, oh, I do want to say something about the, I'm going to leave you with a, because I've talked about it before, about the sound. I want to just pass this out. This is a building that

I spoke about,

that if you look at it, it's a small building. He wanted to put a drive-through. And in the first page, there's the front. Then you go to the back. There's the drive-through, the second page. And if you go in order, and this had a speaker box that was a smart speaker box. If it was quiet, then it would lower its voice. If it was a little bit louder, it would then come up a little bit so you could hear and you could talk back to it. If you look at the last page, you will see a retaining wall. And then behind the retaining wall, there's a sound wall for like 90 feet to protect two houses just for one person talking to another 80 feet away. That's what it took to do that. So all this talk about sound is gonna be off the charts We hear it from the main stadium. We hear it from, what, there's something, what's the street over there? The Oak, it's part of the Clayton. Oak

Knoll Park.

Yeah, there you go. Anyway, they were having some event there, and I'm happy to have that. And I want to support Washington U, but this is just the wrong place for that. So I just want to bring that in again. Okay.

Thank you very much, John. Anyone else? Okay. All right. In that case, I think our job next is to kind of try to wade through some of the discussion that's been had tonight, some of the emails that we've gotten, some of the changes that we've already kind of put out there to get reactions to, and just see if we can give our staff some direction going forward for the next couple of weeks. So in that case, I think what we are going to do is recess this public hearing so that it can be continued in December. And in the meantime, we will work to kind of rationalize and make sense of as much of this as we can, and then get that out to all of you. And you're welcome to stick around for that, but we won't be taking comments. We'll just be. batting things around here. So, all

right. Can I share some thoughts before we recess the public hearing?

Of course.

Okay. But I'd be happy to defer to Becky

first.

Well, we will be. I just want to be clear. You're simply letting the public know we're not going to accept further comment, but we are going to talk.

That was what you... Try to make some sense of what we've been hearing and try to give staff direction. That is our next job.

Correct. But I just typically we would go around the room and I didn't know if you were moving on to a different agenda item or if you were going to give that opportunity.

I was actually not really going to give that. Opportunity. I was just going to try to work toward giving staff some direction based on what we've heard because we are not voting tonight. I didn't see the, I didn't really see the need to go around and state our opinions of the state of the world at this point. But of course, if you want to say something, you might.

I'll defer to anyone else before me and then I'd be happy to go if no one has anything to say. No,

it's my understanding we're just going to go around and talk about some different amendments. Yeah, we need to talk

about the topics that we need to consider or amendment. I'm

going to suggest, and I want you to feel free to speak, but I'm just going to suggest that a time for your comments probably is in December. But... Go ahead. I think I know what you want to say, so just go ahead.

Thank you. I will do that. So I want to share my thoughts. I think we spent a lot of time to talk about these overlays, and we've listened, we've learned, and we need to respond. And I think it's time that our community gets a clear vision of what we are thinking as elected officials regarding these pending proposals. For me, the overlays provide a clearer and greater requirements at each site, and they provide the city with a higher bar for legal challenge to any legal challenger to overcome. So there are terrific attributes about this. And I voted for the South 40 overlay for several reasons. Among them is that the terms and conditions were consistent with how the site is used. The proposed terms and conditions did not permit a use that exposes adjoining neighbors with uses or conditions that pose significant uncertainty regarding light, noise, water, traffic, or safety. The proposed terms and condition did impose new legal requirements that establish clear expectations on light, noise, density, and setbacks, among other important things. And so as I reflect on this, our public engagement, there was very little controversy regarding the South 40 overlay. It made sense. It was a sound planning strategy and consequently we voted for it. However, on the big bend overlay, I've got a different perspective. I think all of us share the same desire and concern to make sure that the proposed uses do not cause harmful effects to neighboring property owners. and that they should not pose dangerous safety conditions to pedestrians, bikers, drivers that use the Big Bend infrastructure. We may not be in alignment, however, on the best strategy to achieve this goal. And so what I want to share is to be clear that I am opposed to moving forward with the Big End overlay. I'd like to share those observations and reasons. The proposed use is consistent with the existing R2 zoning as an accessory use. However, it presents a starkly different intensity and density of the use, and it poses significantly new adverse risks to the neighboring parcels, including noise, light, activity, building height and increased vehicular traffic. Second, since we began this exercise, the proposed owner of the site has acquired the adjoining site, Fontbonne University, which provides a wealth of joint development strategies and potential mitigation opportunities. It seems to me failing to incorporate this new information is very short-sighted. Creating an overlay for just the Concordia site allows for development without incorporating any strategy involving the Fontbonne site. I understand we can't require them or any user to use this other property, but I am opposed to providing an avenue where it could be developed without incorporating that site. Third, while some mitigation strategies are likely to be imposed no matter what the proposed development might look like, without a site plan, we're using educated guesswork strategy to address many of the significant potential risks. Fourth, another goal of adopting the overlay is to avoid piecemeal development of the site by giving the owner the big picture parameters from which to work any potential designs, including phase designs. Unfortunately, failing to include the font bond assets puts the city in a position for a likely piecemeal approach to addressing the subject site's mitigation because the adjoining parcels are not being contemplated as one large site. We do have an existing tried and true tool to address the factors posed by the potential use of this site, which is the conditional use permit application. This requires a user to bring a complete site plan to the city, which is something all of us have struggled with because we haven't seen that. It eliminates the need to estimate or guess what risks are likely to be posed by the development Further, we could determine with greater specificity whether the development proposal has adequately mitigated adverse effects on the affected parties. Finally, my sixth, and this is to me a very important point, the board retains the ultimate authority to decline a CUP if it deems the applicant failed to adequately mitigate the adverse risks or conditions. posed by the proposed development. My understanding is that passing the overlay eliminates this legal control mechanism, and I'm not prepared to relinquish that power without greater certainty that we have sufficiently addressed all significant development impacts. To be clear, I am not opposed to creating an overlay district for this general area of Clayton. To me, the question is when we should do it. It is simply premature to approve anything right now. We are not facing an imminent threat that requires immediate action to be taken. In fact, WashU has said that they wouldn't even propose something for three years. To be sure, the proposed development does indeed present many significant potential negative impacts for any owner that abuts or is close to the property. However, we have a proven process in place for this scenario. There's time to address the development concept in a less reactive manner that incorporates better information than we possess now. Some are likely to suggest that more time is necessary to craft workable language in the proposed big bend overlay. I think it's highly unlikely that we can craft language acceptable to the owner and the neighbors given what we know at this time. I also think it's unfair to any property owner and an irresponsible exercise of legislative power to impose the proposed requirements out of some perceived abundance of caution. The proposed terms have not been drafted in response to a specific plan, and some requirements are not based upon sound development standards, but instead were developed to prevent the proposed owner from doing harm until more information is known. In my opinion, this is not good planning. It feels much more like a reactionary approach. We can do better than that. We have a plan commission that has experts to review these things. There are so many unknowns involved with this at this point. And here we are sitting around the table, essentially trying to design a site plan for the developer. I don't think that's our role. I certainly know it's not my expertise. I feel like we're micromanaging. There's no plan. We're just out of order on all of this in my opinion. So I believe that we should terminate the big bend overlay process at this time, allow Concordia Seminary to move forward with their right and need to dispose of their property without further clouding their prerogative with the uncertainty of another delay. So those are my thoughts. Thank

you. I guess I can ask if you'd like to make a motion to terminate it tonight.

I am prepared to, I'd be happy to make the motion. I don't know whether there'd be a second. I think I'm in the minority on this. I

could find out.

Yep. So I'd be happy and let, I guess everyone know where we stand. I would make a motion to terminate the big bend overlay district for consideration.

Do I hear a second? I'll second. And there'll be time for discussion. Correct. Second means we discuss it. Yep.

We can discuss it. We'll go around in order of seniority then.

Are we talking about the amendments?

We are now entertaining the motion on the floor. We have now gone in a different direction, and we are delaying that discussion so that we can entertain the motion to terminate discussion of the overlay period. Okay, do you want to terminate it or

not i'm not i'm not ready to go down the termination route, I think we. I I understand there's a lot of concern about the overlay obviously there have been many in this room that have voiced concerns about it, however, I have heard from a lot of residents who are starting to. really see the benefits of an overlay. So I think they would actually be more concerned if we are going to terminate the overlay and abandon all the protections that I think we've worked really hard to make sure that they're there that, quite frankly, might not be present in the CUP. Those are some of my biggest concerns that the big setbacks, the tree protection, all the things that I think we have done significantly better after each edit of the overlay, I'm afraid will not necessarily be available in the CUP. So I'd like to keep looking at the amendments. I'd like to um expand the protections i think we still need to hear from washu to understand some of their um you know some of the reasons that they've discussed increased population or why they need a certain amount of spaces so um i guess once i kind of have a fuller picture of whether or not these amendments are going to be present and whether i think that there are enough protections especially related to noise and light and certainly density on the site yeah i i would like to just consider just keep going down this path and then um i will make my decision at that point

yeah okay very good susan

i don't think ready to vote on the overlay tonight i am not ready to make a decision on that i'd like to hear washu's responses to everything they've heard tonight to where we are have a little bit more discussion um on many of the same things that you said, the noise considerations that came up tonight, the stamp bond, it is a big issue. I understand for planning reasons, all that, it's not part of this, but it does in fact impact a lot of the conversations we're having, whatever that might mean. Through this entire process over all these months, it does seem clear that and overlay is the best way to keep what everyone is trying to keep in this neighborhood. My understanding is that we've been advised that this, this land, this piece of property can be developed into, into athletic facilities. The entire property can be developed there. And so the starting point really then is how do we make sure it's developed in a way that, that protects what we have and what we want. And I'll actually, then how can we, the next step would be, how can we leverage it forward to benefit our community with the bike lanes, hopefully working with Big Bend, cutting back traffic there. If anything, I don't know how that's going to work. It is hard not to consider Fontbonne in it. I understand the technical reasons. We're told we can't do that, but it does make it much more difficult. And it does feel a little bit piecemeal. Here we are at the board level picking up this piece or that piece and putting it in, and we really need a cohesive look at what is the best use of this, probably as an athletic facility. I think that a lot of the concern is it should be residential, it should be this, it should be that. That's not how it's zoned. And so I hear what Rick is saying. I think we all share a lot of those concerns. We share a lot of concerns that are out there. And that gets you to what is the best way to protect and move forward our entire community. And it may well be the overlay. I would like to hear WashU's responses to what's happened tonight and then have us a chance to discuss it and then take a vote after that. I don't know if that can happen by the second week of December. I think it might be longer, but maybe sometime in January. So that's where I am on.

Just what we're shooting for. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Thanks. I am like repeatedly reminded of the idea of like accepting the brutal facts of the situation and working with faith that we can together come up with a way to overcome those. And the brutal facts are that this is private property owned by Concordia, and they have done significant planning around how to secure their future. And they have the right to do that. And we don't get to tell them, well, we want it to be residences or we want it to known that there are a number of people in our community who would have been willing to finance them or provide them some sort of funding to preserve it as parkland. But I think that's still just a real theoretical thing. And the fact is, like, they... have the right to enter into this agreement and the existing zoning on the site allows this use, and the overlay is more restrictive than the CUP. We have pressured staff on this repeatedly because I understand that folks feel that the CUP is a powerful mechanism. And the fact is that it isn't like I just it's administrative versus legislative mechanism. The reference to the 16 criteria in the conditional use permit, we have a mapping that we can share that shows exactly how each of those 16 criteria are addressed in the overlay. So you can see that the overlay has specific criteria for the site plan review that will take place during it, that a project's compatibility with its environment is considered. that is promoting compatibility with adjacent and nearby properties, which we must note two of the adjacent and nearby properties are institutional uses today. Two borders of the property. This is not like if you take this outside, it is not an unreasonable use. What we can do is limit the density and intensity, the noise and the light. And I believe if you've been listening to us, you've been hearing myself and many of my colleagues press for specifics and hold down the bar on the existing and current activities and the minimum that would need to happen there for that to be possible. And I just believe that the response from WashU, if anything, to what we've suggested so far demonstrates the risk of proceeding without an overlay. If we don't enact an overlay, they have suggested that they will consider moving forward under the CUP process and we should expect them to ask for all of the things they've put in their response letters to date, if not more. And we will not have the legislative power to layer the protections that we are working to do here. It's just like I know that people wish it was different, but it isn't. And that's where I'm at. And I am like Bridget, I have spent dozens of hours talking to residents individually and in groups. And overwhelmingly, many of them, they don't love this. I mean, like nobody wants their neighbor to put in a pool, right? Like one is quieter next door than it is today. But accepting that this is reality, and then working with us on how to make it um how to mitigate the impacts as much as possible and it's for those residents as well as myself as a neighbor that i will proceed with the overlay process um and and that's my intention

very good thank you alderman Gary Feder

very good thank you alderman fader

well i don't intend to vote for the overlay until i think it's in a condition that i think is appropriate but i would certainly not withdraw it at this point um I think we will get more information from Washington University. I wish we had it earlier. There are a lot of things I wish. I would like to wish with the rest of you that the R2 district where the CUP is found, I'd like to wish with you that it doesn't provide for college use or university use and it doesn't provide athletic fields and athletic facilities, but it does. It has for 75 years. It's exactly among the list of things that are permitted in the R2 district that creates the CUP. And in fact, if you look at it, there's a whole list of things that permitted uses. And what the CUP says is these are all the permitted uses and they include colleges and they include athletic fields. But then when you look in some of the other CUP sections, it says, look, all of these are in fact, it says that these are actually Uses that are indeed compatible but that some of them may cause issues of excess noise, excess odor, all of these potential negative effects. And what the CUP does is say to the applicant, show us what you're going to do to address these things. And Mr. Gershman and I had about a 30-minute call in which I think we convinced each other of absolutely nothing. But I said to him, I understand there's a provision that talks about compatibility. I think what the ordinance very clearly says is if you have an issue that you have to address in terms of compatibility, the question is, how are you going to address these negative factors in order to overcome any issues of compatibility? And by the way, I might note, I'd look today to see a definition of compatibility because I know Mr. Gershman's life seems to revolve around that term right now. And it is to exist or occur together without conflict. And I think the whole concept is, it's not that athletic fields are the same as residential. Of course they're not. It doesn't mean that to be compatible, it means that if you have residential, you have to have nothing else but residential. It means whatever other use you have there has to be able to exist without conflict. Now, I think the whole issue here of the overlay is how do we deal with the conflict? How do we deal with that fact that these athletic fields are permitted there, universities are permitted there, but how do we address concerns about noise, odor, buffering and all these other things? Again, I would say, as I did at the last meeting, everyone who wants to put the CUP on the pedestal understand that the CUP, because it's a residential district, that's why it was designed, but allows for universities and athletic fields. But it doesn't address what you do with athletic fields, which means there are no standards in the R2. It doesn't say what we're going to do with the fact that we have athletic fields. So does everybody really want to go to the CUP process where there are no standards in the R2 that address this? Everything, as Becky pointed out and people across the room pointed out, everything that could be in the CUP is in this ordinance. And you start off with the CUP and you start with nothing. You start with an applicant, Washington University, who I said last time, is smart enough to know that they will submit a site plan that addresses every one of these issues to what they think is a satisfactory level. And then the city's response will have to be, and they have no standards to start with because there is nothing about buffering or any of these other things. The city is going to have to come back at the plan commission and say, oh, that's not good enough. And we're going to have to do this instead of that. Now, you know, my friend Mr. Rick Hummell says the CUP is a tried and true process. I can assure you it's been tried, but I think repeatedly it hasn't been true. It hasn't been true to the people who have tried to use the CUP process because it doesn't work except if you've got a single family application. So I think what we've tried to do in both of these overlay districts is to recognize that institutionals institutional uses need their own kind of overlay that addresses all of these things needs to do it up front. I would predict if this goes down and whenever this is submitted, Washington University will submit a conditional use permit for two fields, the softball field and the baseball field. That would be obvious because once they get rid of those and move them, then they can still build housing on the South 40. Now, I can tell you that they're not going to have to do a whole lot because we can't force them to show anything more than those first two fields. They're going to put those out there and they're going to tell us what they think is appropriate lighting and sound, et cetera. And I can tell you we're going to have a heck of a time turning them down even if we wanted to. Because we have no standards to begin with. We put them in their own home court. We're on the defensive to say nothing of this issue about legislative or administrative. So again, if I thought the CUP was a good way to go, I would love to agree with you because I'd much rather be applauded by you than booed. But that's not why I'm here. I'm not here to get applause. I'm here to do what I think is in the best interest of everyone. And that's why I think the overlay is what we need to do. It's not there yet. It should be perfected. And then finally, on the issue of font bond, and only because I am a lawyer, I do feel compelled to say, unfortunately, I'd love to see them tell us what to do about font bond. We can't make them do that. I'd love to have them include font bond in their application, but we can't do that. If they have a legal interest in these 27 acres and they choose to submit that, That's all we can force them to do. And we need to deal with those 27 acres. And I can tell you, it's my opinion. And I think shared by others at this table, we don't have a legal basis in a plan commission hearing to tell them, Oh no, we're not going to deal with this unless you tell us what to do about, you're going to do about font bond. I wish we could, but we can't. And because I believe we can't, I think we have to make the best of how we deal with these 27 acres if they come forward. And I think that's the, uh, I think that's the overlay. And I hope we can get in the next four to six weeks, we can get to where people feel more comfortable. And that's where I'd like us to be. Thanks.

well i don't intend to vote for the overlay until i think it's in a condition that i think is appropriate but i would certainly not withdraw it at this point um I think we will get more information from Washington University. I wish we had it earlier. There are a lot of things I wish. I would like to wish with the rest of you that the R2 district where the CUP is found, I'd like to wish with you that it doesn't provide for college use or university use and it doesn't provide athletic fields and athletic facilities, but it does. It has for 75 years. It's exactly among the list of things that are permitted in the R2 district that creates the CUP. And in fact, if you look at it, there's a whole list of things that permitted uses. And what the CUP says is these are all the permitted uses and they include colleges and they include athletic fields. But then when you look in some of the other CUP sections, it says, look, all of these are in fact, it says that these are actually Uses that are indeed compatible but that some of them may cause issues of excess noise, excess odor, all of these potential negative effects. And what the CUP does is say to the applicant, show us what you're going to do to address these things. And Mr. Gershman and I had about a 30-minute call in which I think we convinced each other of absolutely nothing. But I said to him, I understand there's a provision that talks about compatibility. I think what the ordinance very clearly says is if you have an issue that you have to address in terms of compatibility, the question is, how are you going to address these negative factors in order to overcome any issues of compatibility? And by the way, I might note, I'd look today to see a definition of compatibility because I know Mr. Gershman's life seems to revolve around that term right now. And it is to exist or occur together without conflict. And I think the whole concept is, it's not that athletic fields are the same as residential. Of course they're not. It doesn't mean that to be compatible, it means that if you have residential, you have to have nothing else but residential. It means whatever other use you have there has to be able to exist without conflict. Now, I think the whole issue here of the overlay is how do we deal with the conflict? How do we deal with that fact that these athletic fields are permitted there, universities are permitted there, but how do we address concerns about noise, odor, buffering and all these other things? Again, I would say, as I did at the last meeting, everyone who wants to put the CUP on the pedestal understand that the CUP, because it's a residential district, that's why it was designed, but allows for universities and athletic fields. But it doesn't address what you do with athletic fields, which means there are no standards in the R2. It doesn't say what we're going to do with the fact that we have athletic fields. So does everybody really want to go to the CUP process where there are no standards in the R2 that address this? Everything, as Becky pointed out and people across the room pointed out, everything that could be in the CUP is in this ordinance. And you start off with the CUP and you start with nothing. You start with an applicant, Washington University, who I said last time, is smart enough to know that they will submit a site plan that addresses every one of these issues to what they think is a satisfactory level. And then the city's response will have to be, and they have no standards to start with because there is nothing about buffering or any of these other things. The city is going to have to come back at the plan commission and say, oh, that's not good enough. And we're going to have to do this instead of that. Now, you know, my friend Mr. Hummel says the CUP is a tried and true process. I can assure you it's been tried, but I think repeatedly it hasn't been true. It hasn't been true to the people who have tried to use the CUP process because it doesn't work except if you've got a single family application. So I think what we've tried to do in both of these overlay districts is to recognize that institutionals institutional uses need their own kind of overlay that addresses all of these things needs to do it up front. I would predict if this goes down and whenever this is submitted, Washington University will submit a conditional use permit for two fields, the softball field and the baseball field. That would be obvious because once they get rid of those and move them, then they can still build housing on the South 40. Now, I can tell you that they're not going to have to do a whole lot because we can't force them to show anything more than those first two fields. They're going to put those out there and they're going to tell us what they think is appropriate lighting and sound, et cetera. And I can tell you we're going to have a heck of a time turning them down even if we wanted to. Because we have no standards to begin with. We put them in their own home court. We're on the defensive to say nothing of this issue about legislative or administrative. So again, if I thought the CUP was a good way to go, I would love to agree with you because I'd much rather be applauded by you than booed. But that's not why I'm here. I'm not here to get applause. I'm here to do what I think is in the best interest of everyone. And that's why I think the overlay is what we need to do. It's not there yet. It should be perfected. And then finally, on the issue of font bond, and only because I am a lawyer, I do feel compelled to say, unfortunately, I'd love to see them tell us what to do about font bond. We can't make them do that. I'd love to have them include font bond in their application, but we can't do that. If they have a legal interest in these 27 acres and they choose to submit that, That's all we can force them to do. And we need to deal with those 27 acres. And I can tell you, it's my opinion. And I think shared by others at this table, we don't have a legal basis in a plan commission hearing to tell them, Oh no, we're not going to deal with this unless you tell us what to do about, you're going to do about font bond. I wish we could, but we can't. And because I believe we can't, I think we have to make the best of how we deal with these 27 acres if they come forward. And I think that's the, uh, I think that's the overlay. And I hope we can get in the next four to six weeks, we can get to where people feel more comfortable. And that's where I'd like us to be. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Just a couple of clarifying comments. Sorry, I do want to respond to what others have said. First of all, I want to be clear. I have not said I wouldn't find an overlay appealing or approve one. I have said that this isn't the right time to do it. Timing's premature. We don't have enough information. Second, I don't think that we are without any recourse and anything goes in terms of the site. I do think athletic uses are permitted. I won't argue the law with an attorney. I know better than to do that and I'm surrounded by them, but it would seem to me given our experience on the daycare facility that we do have the right to impose some type of concern regarding whether or not adverse consequences have been mitigated. To say we can do nothing about it seems to me to be unrealistic. Finally, I think Gary's scenario of a potential phased process with fields coming in is a likely scenario. And I guess I would pose a question to our city attorney, Kevin. Is it not possible for us to to enact an overlay district after a first phase is done. We can enact one. We may not be able to override a pending application, but once that's passed, we could still enact an overlay, could we not?

You can consider zoning legislation at any point, regardless of what is going on in the property. But existing uses and existing facilities cannot be impacted by new legislations.

We can't reverse what has been done, but just like we did on the South 40 site, we imposed an overlay. After all this was done, we gave them general guidance on how to use the site. We imposed new noise and other things. We had the grandfather in certain things. I accept that, but we could limit future things, correct?

You can apply new zoning legislation prospectively.

Correct. So I don't see this as an either or proposition. Either we do it or all hell breaks loose. I think there is an opportunity to do this thoughtfully and do it in a phase. Thank you,

Jeff.

If I had a question for WashU, could I do that now or is or we need to?

No, we're that's fine. I can add it to our list that we're sending them.

Um, so I have the, um, unique situation of having voted no the first time. Um, and a lot of those reasons had to do with timing and whether we were ready to approve something that you knew we were going to amend. And at this point, it's the same basic logic I would use for this, which is, I don't, there's enough discussions that we are having and there's enough information I don't have And I think voting to turn it down is as premature as it was to originally propose it two weeks ago. So at this point, I'm not ready to kill the discussion, which is basically what this would be. I agree with Alderman Gary Feder that it may not get there. I may not like it when it's done. But as I said... It was, to stay intellectually honest for me, if I voted no because it was premature to put it through last week, I think it's premature to vote to stop the discussion and see the other information that we need to get. I'm not saying this needs to go on eight, nine months. I do think there needs to be a moment of certainty for WashU and Concordia and neighbors and the board Um, but I think for now I'd like to at least get the information and see whether all of us in this room can get anywhere close to something that may be amenable. And if not, okay, that happens. And if we can even better than we can all walk away happy, but I feel like there's just, there's enough that I'm willing to see at least for the next couple of weeks before. So.

Um, so I have the, um, unique situation of having voted no the first time. Um, and a lot of those reasons had to do with timing and whether we were ready to approve something that you knew we were going to amend. And at this point, it's the same basic logic I would use for this, which is, I don't, there's enough discussions that we are having and there's enough information I don't have And I think voting to turn it down is as premature as it was to originally propose it two weeks ago. So at this point, I'm not ready to kill the discussion, which is basically what this would be. I agree with Alderman Fader that it may not get there. I may not like it when it's done. But as I said... It was, to stay intellectually honest for me, if I voted no because it was premature to put it through last week, I think it's premature to vote to stop the discussion and see the other information that we need to get. I'm not saying this needs to go on eight, nine months. I do think there needs to be a moment of certainty for WashU and Concordia and neighbors and the board Um, but I think for now I'd like to at least get the information and see whether all of us in this room can get anywhere close to something that may be amenable. And if not, okay, that happens. And if we can even better than we can all walk away happy, but I feel like there's just, there's enough that I'm willing to see at least for the next couple of weeks before. So.

Okay, very good. Thank you. I'm not going to add very much because I think most things have been said. I just want to underscore the notion, the belief that at least I have and I think many here have is that this overlay is much stronger than the CUP process because, and again, we can talk about adding compatibility language to it, whatever, but The idea that we could get these kinds of constraints built into the CUP or that we could simply out and out turn down the use within the CUP is simply, as far as I know, in the many, many conversations that have been had, It is not true. And so that's why, you know, I think many of us want to move forward to try to make this work because we feel like that's the ultimate best protection of the surrounding areas. So with that, I'd really like to close down this discussion so that we can move forward. Well, so I'm closing down the discussion. But thank you. I might have just moved on to some other topic. And we would like to have a vote, and would that be a roll call vote? Let's do it. Okay.

Alderman Buse? I'm sorry, Alderman McAndrew? No. Alderman Buce? No. Alderwoman Patel? No. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Alderman Buse? I'm sorry, Alderman McAndrew? No. Alderman Buce? No. Alderwoman Patel? No. Aldermen Fader?

No.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Alderman Yorg?

No.

Aaron Harris? No.

Okay. All right. Uh, now we are going to move on. As I mentioned before, we're just going to try to talk about all the input we've gotten, try to make some sense of it, try to come up with some logical direction for staff and you're more than welcome to stay and listen, but I think you should go home and put ice on your shoulder, Josephine. Okay. Um, Anna and David, could you kind of guide us through this discussion? I'm feeling unable to.

So as a starting place, we could pull up the red line version of the ordinance that we had posted and talk about the changes that are contained in there. And I recognize that some of those changes, we're still waiting on information from Washington University to help inform that. But we can walk through those and see whether or not those are items we might want to keep in that

And some of them were not opposed by WashU, you know, many, I mean, not many of them, but you know.

Those we can check off.

Yep. Can I make a suggestion? I don't know how, if we want to go through everything or not, but I think it'd be really helpful too to hear from WashU on what they heard tonight as well, what they're willing to do. They were asked, you know, what is, I don't know, I feel almost like we're sitting against ourselves to some degree. I guess if you want to go through this tonight, we can go through this all tonight. I think we can go

through it with what we know at this point and then we'll be getting more clear about what our draft revisions look like and then continue to get the responses. um like it's it's i mean it's an iterative process there's

no are you guys going to stick around and wash you and listen to some of this okay because that might be helpful to you all right i think i think it's a good point you know it's just that did you hear my entire point let's um okay thank you and let's get through the but as we go through it we may identify more pieces of information we want from wash you they're probably going to have to go back and find it yeah okay okay um Okay, we're going to continue and it would help if there wasn't any other conversation in the room. Thank you. Okay, would you lead us on?

I just want to share because I think this will be, I want to let everybody in the audience that's still here or anybody that listens to Zoom later, we'll post this in a second, but I think it addresses a lot of the comments and questions that have come up Today, yes. So this is a list that highlights here the 16 criteria for review for a conditional use permit. And you'll be able to zoom in on this. I'm going to stop you

for one second. Is this going to be posted? Right. This will be posted. I know you can't read it. We'll get it to you. You can... contact us with questions okay

yep so it says the 16 and underneath each it references a different section so for example on the first one and the conditional use approval criteria says proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and surrounding neighborhood underneath we say ca.1 b.2 and b.7 the second section here that was is referenced is the criteria for site plan review so this is the existing criteria for review that the plan commission uses When they're considering a site plan approval, and so what i've done is referenced where within the criteria for review for site plan, there is similar if not almost exactly the same language as the criteria for review, for a conditional use permit. So for the compatibility language, under the purpose of site plan review, which is one of the elements that the plan commission's using when they complete site plan review, it says, number one, a project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. So under site plan review, including traffic and parking, traffic movements, all of that's addressed in addition to the specific criteria for review that's proposed under the overlay. So this is an area that I think given what a lot of the public concern is about the loss of protections under a conditional use permit, this is a specific area I would point to them to look at and for the board to look at when suggesting any changes to identify maybe where there are gaps in what we are proposing under the overlay. So this will be added to Engage Clayton.

Thank you.

Oh,

it's on the right window. Here we go. Sorry, I got to figure out which window we're on. Here we go, here's the red line.

So what we have here is the red line draft that had been posted. And really what we did was we took the individual comments that came up during the last meeting and simply plugged those into this ordinance so that we could facilitate this next round of discussion. So the first change was in addition to the purpose statement, and you can see it in red underlined here that added the words while minimizing impacts on on and protecting the character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. I don't know if anyone has any comments on that particular purpose statement edition.

And it was not objected to, so I would certainly keep it in. I'm just, it wasn't objected to by WashU and it certainly, you know, adds to the purpose statement. So I would say no.

I feel like it addresses some of the main concerns about moving away from the CUP. That's what we want to do. That was certainly

the intent. If we scroll down below, we'll get to the next, which is a series of shoulds that turned into shalls. This was addressed in the letter we received from Wash U and Mary Campbell with Wash U had mentioned this earlier this evening. The two that they specifically pointed out were A4 and A5. So a four is the site development and layout shall prioritize preservation of existing trees and topography. And then five shall integrate new facilities with the existing existing context focus activity to interior design and minimize noise and light trespassing from the site, so those were the two concerns that they had laid out in their particular letter so. I'm not sure what the board feeling is. All of the

shells are okay, except for the one about the existing trees and the interior of the district minimizing noise and light. Those are the two shells that are...

The concern from Washington University is the subjectivity of of that particular provision, the fact that there will be trees that are impacted by utilities and entrances and those types of things. So the word shall in there is that

Well, I mean, so my understanding is this doesn't mean like we are only actually protecting trees in the existing tree protection areas like specifically. But what this does is require them to take a really strong focus in development to ensure that. that they are doing everything they can to preserve the trees. And if they're, that doesn't mean they can't get rid of trees, but they have to like show that they have tried to prioritize it. I feel very comfortable leaving in the shall in four and five.

So I think the operative word there is prioritizing. And then in number five, shall integrate new facilities with The existing context was. I mean. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, somebody else can comment on that one. If we're asking them, we've already asked them to minimize noise and light. We've already got a lot of restrictions on noise and light. I think this seems sort of redundant in a way, but I don't know what really. I

think the concern, at least of the way they've written it, the letters is getting out, especially with that one, that the fact that The ordinance is very detailed as far as lights and noise and those other things are concerned, and I think the concern is that if they've met the requirements for noise and lights that are contained within. The actual ordinance that we could still somehow make an argument that they haven't completely mitigated that.

Well, and I would argue that's precisely the point is actually that we have, you know, we're attempting to set these very specific guidelines. And we want there to be room for staff and the plan commission to evaluate specific proposals and say, actually, it looks like you could... Like, have you actually looked at whether you can preserve this tree or have you actually like considered this other thing? Like that for me, that's how we're giving the teeth to the staff and the plan commission to potentially further mitigate harms beyond what we're able to like specify.

Yeah. Like making sure, for instance, if the baseball field is you know, pointed a certain direction. You know, this is, you know, really stressing the fact that we need to minimize noise and you shall integrate new facilities, focusing them on the interior of the district to minimize noise and light trespass. They might be able to minimize light and noise and light trespASS by having the baseball field, I don't know, on the southern section, but keeping it interior, you know, again, as Becky said, my provided the plan commission with a little bit more teeth to force them to orient the baseball field a different way.

Okay, I'm, you know, I don't have a big, big dog in the hunt there. I do have a question, though. I mean, if we if we now integrate all new facilities in the interior, What's going to go around the edges?

Well, it doesn't say you have to be on the interior, but at least gives the plan. It says you shall with focus activity to the interior of the district. So focus activity, whether that's like the balls hitting the metal bats. So making sure that some of that interior is inside. I'm not saying everything has to be outside, obviously. But yes, I think it just provides a little bit more teeth so we can really push them to make sure that some of the big noises are on the inside rather than the outside.

I don't think the shall versus should is worth worrying about. I think, to David's point, this is, to me, is still, even though it deals with certain specific topics, it's still generalized language. And I would think that if the criteria that relate to this are satisfied, you'd be really hard-pressed to say, oh, yeah, but you didn't meet the shall test. I just, I don't think so. So I would, we got bigger fish to fry. I'd leave it alone.

I'm comfortable with leaving it. Keep going. Any other shells? No, everything else is fine. All

right, so next is the accessory uses. You can see the addition there, providing the parking necessary to support the primary uses on the site. And then Wash U had added the language as determined pursuant to Section 410.970, and that is the parking study.

Can I comment on the requirement

that we have?

Yeah. Providing the parking necessary to set primary uses on the sites Again, I certainly hope that wash you is planning shuttles and using parking on the Danforth campus or elsewhere, we don't bump on without having to take up more parking spaces on this site.

Yeah, I think there's a section where we talk more about parking or traffic and parking where we can get at that, right?

Yeah, the goal of this was to make sure that they couldn't build a parking structure that was really parking, that they shuttled people elsewhere. So referencing the requirement based on the parking study, I think does the same, you know.

There might be some wordsmithing then because depending how you read it, maybe you can make it tighter. The intent then is to make sure they don't do parking for elsewhere on this site.

Only is a word that we can put in.

Yeah, something to make that clear. Yeah, that'd be great.

I would not suggest cross-referencing the section that requires them to produce a study.

Okay. um yeah for for the record they wouldn't produce the studies uh kevin do you have a if they don't produce the study i

think the study you don't want us to produce the study and it's our regulations that establish the requirements i wouldn't be i wouldn't assert our authority to establish the requirements for projects i'd say we're bound by someone's study

okay even though it's the city's study

Are we doing that today? Or was that an offhand suggestion? It was a recommendation. Okay. And I would like to... I brought up something I heard from many residents, which was striking uses 4, 10, and 11. And Mary indicated openness to taking that back to the university. So those are the uses that are not athletic in nature, 4, 10, I would be interested in whether my colleagues would support that.

And four or two, did you think? Yeah,

four, 10 and 11. It's

four,

it's commencement, graduation. It's not on the screen. Yeah.

Mayor?

Yeah,

yeah. I may be out of order here. That's okay. And I may be the only one, but... Can I motion that we just table this until we get all the information from WashU and do it in the next discussion session? This could go another 45 minutes to an hour, and it's already 1020 before Thanksgiving. And some of us have family already at home. And we're still going to have to wait to a whole bunch of stuff from WashU. So we're still going have to do all this at the next study session anyway to cover the half of the information we're getting.

That's what I was trying to say earlier.

Amen. Thanks. I know I was the one that talked about doing this tonight, and that's before we got off the motion to cancel the overlay and all this other stuff. If I thought we could get through the whole thing tonight with all the Washington information, I'd stay. But we're going to have to do this anyway. And I'd rather do it a different day than Tuesday before Thanksgiving. So I would throw the motion on.

And I would

really love to

make progress on that. Yeah, so let me just... I hear you. I hear you. And I sympathize. Believe me, I've got family in town. My son. So... He lives in Seattle. I don't get to see him that much. But if we don't do this tonight, I don't think the staff has any direction to work from over the next, you know, between now and the 10th. And if we want to have something to look at for the 10th. We've got to kind of wade through this tonight. I don't know how else to do it. We've said we don't want to drag this out for three months. As

a compromise, I mean, I think there are a number of things where we would all agree the answer is wait till we hear more from WashU.

I was going to say there's

not that much more. So if we can just say, okay, we wait for WashU, we'll move on to the next one. And that'll probably take care of a lot of this stuff.

I agree with that. Yeah, I mean, I think the language under prohibited uses, the Division I, that just needs to be tightened up related to teams that are coming to visit to play. So, I mean, something we just need to figure out language to figure that out.

I did send it and I only did it once. I sent some suggested language because I thought

there

isn't a better way to say this where I think it conveys everybody. So I at least suggested something that I think works on that Division I thing.

I mean, and I think the outdoor events and

the maximum. Can I just ask a little bit about that? Because that was one element that I wanted to get more clarity from you all on this. So

can I, with sake of interrupting, there was still a motion on the floor. Do I need to pull that off or does somebody need to second that or not?

It's a formal motion. You can certainly make a motion to postpone. Do you want to make a motion?

If we think we can get it done in relatively short order, then I can pull that back. But it was intended to be the formal

one. Fair enough. If you want to make emotion, you make a motion and you see if someone seconds it and then we vote on it.

That's what I did. And then everybody kind of jumped into opinions as to whether or not we wanted to. And we had a bunch of hallelujahs on the thing. So but I can pull it back if we think we're going to get through fast.

That's fine. And not hearing a second. Yeah. Well, I

don't think we gave anybody a chance to second.

Let me tell you just, I'd just say as a favor, if you really want to make a motion to say, I want to make a emotion. If you're just asking the group, you know, what do you think of this? Which is what I thought you were doing. Then we did that. I

thought I had said, could I make a motion for that? But

maybe you didn't. It's 10 30. I might've blown that off.

Yeah. Understood.

Okay. So now. Where are we? We're at the point of going fast through the rest of this, are we not? Yeah, Ana had a question I think about. Ana? Yes, Ana has a question.

Yes, I have a question. So the prohibited uses for the language with Division I and Division II, is the desire there to tighten the number of people that might be associated with Division I and Vision II uses? Or what is...

What is more information about

tightening that?

That is the intent because there are some D1 schools that, you know, basically Wash U is D3 or whatever it is. So the only reason at this point they've stated to have D1 or two in there is because some of the schools they play. That visit them. Right, I understand.

I'm just saying that the idea that a Division 1 team that is restricted to the same capacity and size limits has operational characteristics that we need to further limit from a Division 3 team that's subject to the same capacity.

I don't even know why we need this in here. If the whole point is limiting people's if the concern of D1 athletics is the volume of people that are going to be there, and we're already going to manage the scope of volume of people by limits. I don't, I don't think we gain anything by adding it. And I think it's just superfluous in a document because unless somebody can tell me why it's in there other than to limit the volume of people showing up, then let's just deal with the volume of people instead of debating whether they're going to be D1 or D2 or D3 or 1AA or whatever it

is. That's fine.

Yeah, that's fine. I have one other comment that's a little bit easier, which I know I talked with David about too, is under prohibited uses, the way I'm reading, or patrons associated with an event hosted by the property. I think we've all been to events hosted at Font Bonne or somewhere else that weren't necessarily, maybe it was for the city, maybe it was a school district, maybe somebody else. I want that community use to still stay there. I know these are athletic fields, but just that's how I'm interpreting. Or patrons associated with an even hosted on the property so that it's not just the university having events on the property. They're not restricted to not working with us. so

okay that's clarification okay i'm good with that myself okay yeah everybody yeah okay

um and are we our e and f are kind of tbd right because we're waiting for information from washu yeah okay um similarly for the right the next problem under number three the venues and facilities yep and the building height also we're waiting on right so that gets us to page number five which there's no issues. There's no hardly redlining,

right? Yep. The next red line is on page 13. Oh, you have a different page number because you're in the RPA. Sorry.

It goes into the outdoor section 405.360 under the outdoor lighting standards. Yes. Um, I don't know. I

thought that your question about the morning, like do they actually need lights in the morning or not? And I meant to ask if we know if lights get used on the CBC property in the morning, because I'm thinking of that as comparable. I know that they're on at night until 10, but it would be good to know if they actually get used in the morning. Like that would be a good actual example. And then

the light pole heights, I mean, I tend to agree that if technologically and the plan commission's all right with them going up to 85 feet, I guess I'm all right with that. I agree with that.

I don't want to go on higher than 80. I feel like there's a visual issue that we're trying to solve for people. I get the idea of wanting to go higher, but if the whole point is people don't want to see it and 80 feet's already too high, the idea of allowing them to go up to 85 doesn't really make sense to me.

I just don't think people will be able to tell the difference between 80 and 85. I

think when we present this to them and they're already not happy with it and then say they can go even higher than that, yes.

I have residents who understand that design changes and technology changes, and they actually agreed with WashU on this proposal. aspect of the proposal so i would vote to put it back in so we can vote on it it was patty yeah i would put it back into so

i don't it can be i mean it can be limited by um you know dark sky standards versus by height too you know well it

has to meet dark sky standards and the plan commission will review it yeah

that's right that's what you're saying i know you don't have to say height we can say you know whatever that is with the dark sky standards to meet that

I just had a question for WashU, which they don't have to answer tonight, probably shouldn't. But on the terms of the number of facilities, I've understood this argument that in some ways we would be better off from a community standpoint and having two buildings as opposed to one because the two buildings for a lot of residents, they would much rather have a building close to them than a field. And so, and I think part of this was it's obvious they have to have certain fields and they have to have tennis courts, but I think it's kind of interchangeable when you get down to the end, whether you put your stuff in a building like your track or you do another field. So I think that issue of flexibility, I think isn't just for the benefit of WashU, it actually may be for the benefit of the residents. And at least I'd like to hear more from WashU on why that might make sense. to have two buildings and the rest fields, as opposed to one building and the rest fields. At least I think the residents actually might appreciate that even though it might mean more facilities. I just would, I think that should be added to the list.

Okay. All right. I'm moving us on. You want, I guess we'll just pass on the

retaining walls no there's nothing they don't disagree with any of that

okay

and then the transition zones is related

yeah

go ahead yeah the transition zone under f2 um and that's where i think david and nana you could weigh in that that's a really flat area that is potential for not hurting the otherwise very bumpy topography of the area

so we think a building or an unlit field that sort of thing would be appropriate there similar to what we have for the font font site

yeah and i'm i'm fine with making it go back to how it was yeah i agree the next problem is the transition zones on under f or yeah f11 And I guess i'm not they would like that deleted because there's concern about providing obviously being able to put materials down in an area that I guess trees aren't protected transition zones are where we're going to plant more. I kind of wanted to add that in because it seems like storing of materials and staging. for construction can be done on font bond, but, or, you know, in other places. But so I don't know if Anna or David, do

you have any thoughts on that one? Yeah, we really don't want any story or, or anything within the areas that we're trying to keep everybody out of disturbing. Um, but I think their request was related to the area, um, in the South, East corner that's existing parking lot, which is a typical area you see used for staging during construction because it's already protected somewhat because of the asphalt so. I would not want to open it up to any transition zone, but I think that we would be comfortable and we would also be able to review through their SWPPP plans and other site review plans that they would only be using that area that's an existing parking lot or paved space. So we could modify that if you're comfortable with it.

That makes sense to me. So just to back up one second in that section, there's another red line right above it. Not in that section. I thought I saw something. Oh, yeah. So the transitions, the changing from 90 to 150 feet I think that's something that Washoe identified that was problematic for them. Yeah,

that was what David and Ana just said, like for the flat area.

So I'm

okay. I think it's better to go back to the way it was because it's flat.

I wasn't sure if that's what you said. All right, great. Thank you. Michelle? Michelle? I think given what Gary said, we just got to move on. Okay.

The next, I guess, will be 410-965-B. Want to get rid of excessive regrading because of changes in utility issues?

Oh, yes, down here. Yep. I don't know, Anna, how you feel about that? I think excessive we removed this was really because what is the definition of excessive. So when we have a shall be protected from regrading, the excessive regrading was a threshold that was a little bit harder to define. So if we, I don't know. All

right, keep going.

And then the the will they want to add some language related to retaining walls under number one they they put it here and or to manage the reconnection with existing grades at the perimeter of the site is required. added on to. Under be one. know how you guys thought about that. I mean,

I don't, yeah, I wasn't really sure how that would impact. That was a new addition to something that hadn't changed. So that was something that I hadn't quite determined what that would look like. Okay. So is that maybe a TBD then? Our recommendation wouldn't be to do that at this time. Yeah. Okay. Let's

find out more on that one too.

Okay.

What does that mean? You know, you can tell

us. Yes.

Yeah. okay

and then there's not another issue until the under the architectural standards d nine this is related to sound um i think this yeah i mean this is related and i i mean i i kind of had this year have the same concerns i think this is related to a noise wall along tuscany um and they're concerns i guess in my concerns about tree growth so i don't know

so the tuscany would love to have the sound wall right i don't that going to cause any problems i guess that's the question

i'm not sure where the sound wall would be i don't know how it does affect tree growth i don't i don't

So this is a requirement for, and we could clarify more, but it would be along the boundary line. So there's existing mixture of different fence materials along the edge of the Tuscany Park. Some have a wood fence and there's a chain link fence there as well. So that's where this wall would be located. It wouldn't be permitted within the depth of the transition zone. So ideally they would be able to adjust the footings or whatever for their for their walls to save any trees that are along that actual boundary line yeah because it'd be right up at the bound yeah i mean there's not a lot of trees right next to them there aren't a lot of trees directly next to the fence

okay good

The next one's all about noise issues with noise

yeah I think this is another one with the providing the time, similar to the lighting.

I think that some of the comments made tonight should should really be considered you know, the meeting and getting I guess wash his response on how we can do that would be very helpful.

So let me understand, are we expecting more information from wash you on this particular topic and what is the question for if

we if we wanted to limit it what they say tonight practice Fridays and Saturdays during specific hours and see if that. Yeah. I don't start with that. And yeah.

Yeah. My only concern, and I just don't know, I don't know how they, and I don't know, maybe, and again, this maybe is a response from WashU, but I think they're asking for amplified noise for varsity athletic games, basically every night through nine 30 rather than just Friday and Saturday. I just don't have any control over the schedule set by the by the baseball, but right. So in which case I, you know, I guess that would be helpful to hear from them because if they don't have any control, it's hard for us to say you have to start games by four o'clock. So they're done by or three o'clock and they're done by six. I don't know. So

then there's also the decibels. comments about reducing that, that people were talking about from 60 being too high and maybe it's location of fields or something else. Can we be

reminded whether the decibel levels that are in here match the existing conditions that were measured or whether they are higher than that? I thought that we went with the existing conditions.

Yeah. So one of the issues you have with the site when you're looking at noise is once you get up closer to Big Bend, those numbers shoot up substantially. So There are some areas of the site where these numbers are actually a little bit higher than what you would currently experience. Now, I know we heard numbers tonight like 35, which we've not had a reading that low out there at the times that we've gone out and measured. Now, those are times when Big Bend typically has quite a bit of traffic going on. And that's kind of what we want to use for the standard here because you would go out and if you had it at 35 and Big Bend is putting out at rush hour, traffic, even at the far eastern end of Tuscany over Concordia Lane or that particular area. If you got sound that's 50 decibels that's emanating from Big Bend, if you set the limit at 35, you would never be able to determine that that's coming from the site rather than existing ambient noise in that area so we'll look at our sound data again um yeah and see if we can tweak those a little bit but we need to be really careful about not setting a standard that's below what actually exists at any point on the property right now because it would always read as a violation

it may be helpful to clarify that in here if nothing else for the residents so that we're not allowing sorry kevin we're not allowing an increase in um In the decibels? Yeah, I mean,

the only way we could refine it more would be to get more specific with different areas of the site based on current measurements.

Well, it's a recurrent request, so whatever we can do with that. We'll take a look at what we

have.

I would also add that maybe WashU can respond to the proposals about limiting amplified noise. So if it isn't a time that they could commit to, could they limit amplified noise just to varsity events, or do they... find that they're currently using speaker systems for other types, you know, that type of information would be helpful for us too as we look for other ways to mitigate noise.

410 under sustainability has been addressed. They want assessed. And then there's just some word changes under number four.

The move from addressed to assessed feels like basically eliminating the requirement. Like you can assess something without addressing it. Like I think the point is that we want these things addressed. I mean, so. I

don't understand

that. Do you want to explain how they've studied it or explain how they fixed it?

yeah like we don't want them to just tell us we want them to actually do something about it yeah

good

point but the truth is something like to talk about the tree growth or

There's stuff about the owls. There's some more changes related to that.

I would note that owls and hawks are birds. That is redundant. I know. You're attached to a bird person. I know more about

birds than I ever meant to. Birds are the owls.

That provision doesn't – why would we want WashU to enhance the natural habitat? It's one thing to protect what's there. But I feel like we're putting additional requirements on it to enhance the habitat.

I mean, I'm okay with the changes that they make, like changes to the tree growth area to address – I mean, I don't know. That's – I mean, I think the idea was to

try to get to like, I mean, I don't know that who suggested this. I don't think I

did. The enhance was related to some of the comments we received about choosing trees. that they're planting within the growth areas and the tree zones that would support the habitat for the hawks and all bird types in the area. Because right now our trees don't go that specific on choosing species types to support wildlife. I mean, that's

input from the Audubon. That's the Audubon input. And

we received that comment from a couple of residents. Oh, that's good.

I'm good with the way it's changed here.

Yep. And

I think that's it.

All right. Yep.

That all? That was okay. Okay. All right.

Well, we'll get to work on.

So you have all this, but we're going to get you a comprehensive list too. And whenever, you know, the sooner you get back, the sooner we can figure it all out. Thank you very much for. waiting thank you all very much for being here we're going to consider two other items very fast but they have nothing to do with this so um i'm gonna keep going you guys you ready

yeah

okay um next on our agenda is the consent agenda does anybody have questions about it okay um All right. Alderman McAndrew.

I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

All those in favor. Oh,

roll call. Sorry. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Aldern Jeffery Yorg. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

roll call. Sorry. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Aldern York. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay. Sign for the city manager's report.

Yes, first item tonight is an agreement with Park Tower Condominiums. It's an encroachment agreement for a commemorative marker. This is very similar to the agreement put in place on the Concordia property. Unfortunately, at this location where we want to commemorate the historic black church, we don't have an opportunity to put it within our right-of-way, and Park Tower is agreeing to let us put the marker on their property. So this would authorize me to sign that agreement.

Right. So everything is signed, sealed and delivered. You already approved the language. And so is there any discussion or questions? Thanks to the Park Tower though. Appreciate it. Yes, very much. They turned that around really fast. Okay. Should we introduce the bill?

Yep. I introduced bill number 7046 authorizing the city manager to execute an encroachment agreement with Park Tower condominiums for the installation of the first Baptist church commemorative marker to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7046, first reading an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute an encroachment agreement with Park Tower Economy Names for the installation of the First Baptist Church commemorative marker.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7046 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Let the minutes reflect. The board is given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7046, authorizing the city manager to execute an encroachment agreement with Park Tower Condominiums for the installation of the First Baptist Church commemorative marker to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney. Bill

number 7046, second reading and consideration for adoption of the ordinance authorizing the city manager to acute encroachment agreement with Park Tower Condominiums installation of the First Baptist Church commemorative marker.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

Aldernman Rick Hummell.

Aldernman Hummel.

Aye.

Aldeman Yorg.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Bill

number 7047. All

right. Next is an authorization to basically go over budget on Remembrance Park. These are both related to utilities in that area. As you know, utilities have been quite a challenge for us at that particular site. We've used up the contingency at this point. We have two change orders. The first one in the amount of $32,550 to restore the water service to the park. We would actually need to still go through the Missouri American approval process to get the permits and the approval for the water line. But we are also going to see if there's any way we can seek some sort of compensation from them because this change order is the result of them not doing what they were supposed to do with the water line in the way they capped that when the house was demolished. So we at least need to approve the change order at this point to keep the project moving forward. But we will try to recapture some of that from Missouri American. And then secondly, change order number seven in the amount of $6,500. This is to reconnect the streetlight service on Maryland Avenue. So with the board's approval, we would authorize the expense of those two change orders to complete the project.

Okay, very good. Any discussion?

And I will say we have Tony Searing online. Oh, Tony. Tony.

It's all good. Oh, gosh. Okay.

At least you're on

Zoom, though. You're going to be

there in the park, right?

I hope you're in your jammies. My pajama pants, yeah. They should look presentable up top, right? Yeah, well, we can't see you. That's true. Okay, so thank you for the report. Any discussion?

A question. I'm just curious. I appreciate the explanation, David. I'm just serious. Was there any kind of a communication issue on our end or is it clear that it was all Missouri American water? I'd have to defer to

Tony, but I'm not aware of anything on our end that would have caused that.

Neither am I. We are actually working with SWT, the landscape architect. Our records don't go that deep, I guess you would say. So we are working with them to see if they have anything in writing also too. We do not believe it was on our end.

Thank you.

All right. Then we can introduce the bill. Yes, I just... 7046.

I know. It's in my reading, though. It has Park Tower condominiums, so I just want to make sure. Oh, yeah, it does. Hold on. Yes, it's okay. I'll introduce Bill. I was trying to figure out if I had to get any deeper, but I'll introduce Bill number 7046. Okay. approving two change orders with burn and jones construction for construction at remembrance park

seven you you picked up a good mistake but it's 7047 now that i see that bill

number 7047 thank you second

any discussion okay mr city attorney

bill number 7047 first reading an ordinance approving two change with burn jones construction for reconstruction at remembrance park

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7047 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Let the minister reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7047, approving two change orders with Byrne and Jones Construction for construction at Remembrance Park. Is that to be read for the second time by title?

Very good. And we had a second, right? I did second. Okay. Any discussion? Right. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7047, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving two change with Byrne & Jones Construction for construction

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Aldemann York. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right. I think that definitely concludes our business. And so I would like to guys want to have a roundtable. No, I know Jeff wants to.

Oh, I've been ready a half hour

ago. Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. You guys, thank you. I'm thankful for you. Have a great Thanksgiving.