December 10, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Well, good evening, everybody. We are going to start our six o'clock discussion session and a really interesting and exciting topic. I think for tonight is, uh, the, the future of the shop park rink area and what we can do with that. What we've learned from our livable communities planning that took about a year and had so much public input. So, um, With that, I think I should just turn it over to our Parks Director, Tony Searing.

Thank you. As Mayor Harris said, we're here tonight to get the ball rolling on the site that is the former ice rink and just really talk through maybe some of the concepts, talk through the plan and how we're going to move forward from here. So if you have not already seen the Livable Community Master Plan, it is at the engageclayton.com site, the full plan. But we're just going to go over some high-level overview. Yeah, not working. Okay, great. I'll just give you the sign. So we are pleased to report that as the mayor said, we had over a year of public engagement. We had several workshops, pop up events, we had some pop up engagement sessions at the St. Louis Art Fair. We also brought the pop-up sessions to Shaw Park on an evening where they had, I believe it was either soccer or baseball programming. So got to engage lots of folks in their realm of parks and recreation experience that they participate in. We did have over 200 attendees at the workshop. At the workshops, they let us know how do they get around Clayton for the bike and pedestrian plan, which that part is um for matt malik and public works that's for a different night um so they also talked about what they wanted to see in the parks um what they currently do in the parks and which parks they utilize the most so we also did a statistically valid survey there were 427 survey responses which i can tell you that the consulting firm was very happy with that They felt like they got some really good engagement from folks as well. And then we also had over 330 online comments when the plan and when the engagement session was online at engageclayton.com. So we really feel like we got some great feedback from folks to move forward with the plan. Really what people said in Clayton, we did have a couple folks that routinely commented that they felt like especially Shaw Park was consistently changing, that they felt like you always see it improving. So that was good to hear. And really what it kind of boiled down to is people said they wanted more programming throughout the parks that would draw the community into the different parks that we have. And Shaw Park and Oak Knoll Park, as we know, are consistently the parks that are the key destinations for most of the residents. Sorry. And then we asked folks, what would you support in some of the things that we could do to make Clayton a livable community? And some of those things that ranked the highest were protecting the trees and the tree canopy, which makes my park superintendent, our arborist, very happy. They also talked about parks and public spaces that really welcome people into the parks with multiple entrances and places to visit. They also talked a lot obviously, which we do a lot of, recreational programming for youth, and also integrating green infrastructure into any plans that we had, stormwater management as well. And some of the things that we currently do, sports fields, playgrounds, programs and support for small business startups, things like that. So I thought it was interesting what folks said they felt like would be a livable community. So in the end, the top three priorities that came out of the plan were vibrant and inclusive programming, safe and thoughtful connections, which again will refer to the bike and pedestrian plan, and then activated and adaptable public spaces. So if we're talking about the ice rink site today, the site really supports the temporary pickleball courts that are on the old ice rink slab. That slab was meant to retain water when it's an ice rink. So we do have squeegees out there. The staff blow off the water and the leaves regularly, but it was always planned to be a temporary site for pickleball until we heard what the community wanted to let us know that they wanted at that site. Really, as we mentioned, the consultants really took their lead from comments that they heard from, obviously, the community survey, city leadership, all the public workshops, and they developed some plans accordingly. The first, and we'll go through all five of these, and I'm happy to have any discussion along the way, and if there's any of the five, I guess, that this group or anybody that's on the Parks and Rec Commission or the public thinks that maybe we should... throw out right away, we can entertain that as well too. But the first and the second concepts are really more developed along the line to utilize flexible spaces, events large and small, and really how do we repurpose and use a site for multiple endeavors? The third model really explores recreation. It hones in on recreation. first and foremost. And then the fourth is really a more naturalized space. There'll be a tree canopy, really emphasizes a connection to nature. And then the fifth concept really is a hybrid of several of those first three concepts, actually, where it leans in on event space and some recreation programming as well. So this is the first concept. And again, all of these are on engageclayton.com as part of the full livable communities master plan. So concept number one really encourages flexible uses. You'll see there's a small lawn and a larger property. flexible plaza space, you could have food trucks. There's a loading and vehicle entry zone in the back. You could have food trucks pull up there. And then what you'll see referred to a couple times as the front porch, which is Brentwood Avenue, then is there for people to really fully enter the park, they can enter there with the event, or if it's just they're playing pickleball one night, they can use that main entrance as well. So it leans in on pickleball, which is already heavily used, we know, and then also the more adaptable plaza space. There is the estimated capacity for this would be between 3,000 and 4,000 people standing if there was an event in that space.

I'm sorry, are you talking about the flexible plaza space?

Yeah, the whole small lawn and flexible plaza space together would have a capacity of about 3,000 to 4,000. So concept number two really supports large and small events without any main recreation focus. Really, it's designed to accommodate if we want to do just a small, maybe small band, something like that, or a larger food truck event or a larger event, festivals, things like that, which is really what we heard that the community said that they wanted to hear. This is a little bit larger because it doesn't have the pickleball there. It does incorporate some shade like the first one did also. So because this is all event-oriented, it would accommodate more folks. It would accommodate about 4,000 to 5,000 people standing. So again, that's that entire event lawn space, even with the loading and unloading area and then the performance space as well. So concept number three really leans all into sports. There's not any flexible programming space, not a flexible place for food trucks or anything like that. It's all recreation. So it has a skate park, it has basketball courts, and it also has pickleball courts. And really it's designed with really teens in mind, giving them something to do, a place for them to hang out, socialize, stay active, and then also promote healthy lifestyles. So there wouldn't be a capacity if you used this model because it's really not intended for events at all. It's really just intended for recreation. Can somebody pop over?

Tony? Yes. Can I just ask, do any of these plans, I'm not sure from the time contemplate getting rid of the single tennis court that sort of backs is directly eased or is that for now consider that's going to stay there?

For now we would consider that would stay. Yes.

Thank you.

Yes. So concept number four really goes all in on nature. It is an event lawn that's smaller than the first couple event lawns that we saw, but it's really about nature and it's about a tree canopy, walking paths. We would have like rain gardens, educational signage about local ecosystems, and like I said, a bigger... Tree canopy, more tranquil, really encourages users to connect with nature and the event lawn part of it is a much smaller area. So that would accommodate about 1,000 to 2,000 people if they were all standing as well too. So more in on nature and less in on large event space. And then concept number five is really a hybrid concept. That really brings in elements of the first couple concepts that they planned, which were event lawn and event space, drawing people into the parks. But then it also added a smaller skate park, pickleball courts as well. So you could still do things like bring food trucks in there. If you wanted to have a pickleball tournament or some sort of skate park event, you could still do that. You would still have a performance stage like where the red... shade structures are. That's generally what they would consider a performance stage. It is adaptable. It can change depending on what we have going on in that area, at least as far as the event lawn. But then it still incorporates some of the recreational activities, the things like that that people said that they wanted to bring the kids to and some of the adults to the park. So it really... This plan really hones in on what people's varied interests were. I think it's important to note that we asked a lot of questions about what people wanted to see in this space, and we got a lot of, yes, we want food trucks. Yes, we want a farmer's market. Yes, we wanna skate park. So I think this kind of leaned into what could we do with this space that had multiple different options? So I don't know if we wanna talk more about these options before we go into the...

Tony, how big is the site in terms of...

Okay, question. I don't know off the top

of my head.

I'll calculate it real quick. Yeah. Maybe a few minutes, but

okay. Hey, does the hybrid allow food trucks or could they come into the back?

They could come into the back. Yes, it would allow for that. Yes. Yeah. And I guess also these are the five concepts that our consultant are offered to us. We could also do, you know, certainly whatever this group and the residents want to do, we could do another hybrid of things that, you know, maybe aren't included here of some other way, if people wanted to incorporate a different feature in the area, maybe not a skate park, but something else, we could certainly do another hybrid. That's why we would certainly engage a design consultant for this area. But Those are the five that popped out to them.

And then there was, I know at some point, and I don't mean to throw a wrench into what these concepts were, but at some point we talked about having something that connected the pool better to this area, like having a pavilion closer to where the century, is that the century? Is that what we call

it? Yes. Century garden.

I don't know. Is that, did that come up with the consultants?

It did not really come up in any of the community meetings. And so it didn't really rise to the level that they, felt like it needed to be addressed, but it really did not come

up. Other parks, like there's a brewing company.

Francis Park. Francis Park.

Yes, or like at Webster where they have the skate park, like how are those utilized and benefit from what goes on there?

So at Francis Park, Rockwell Brewing Company has a lease or they rent that space there. So they're providing concession services similar to how we have a lease for our concession stand at Shaw Park Pool. So it would be similar to that. We have not yet engaged like Webster or any of the other locations about how things like that have helped or hurt. their facilities yeah

i've been to that that francis park is always so crowded yes it is

like chocolate

great yeah

right i mean yeah no i think i mean there's a variety of options that we can do i think it's just we need to really narrow down the focus and see what it is that the residents would like

So, Tony, I'm guessing you're going to maybe go next to how do we talk about this or how do we move forward from a process standpoint. So hopefully this doesn't jump the gun, but I think it would be helpful as we start thinking about this to provide maybe some kind of I don't know how to describe it other than like a visioning package, something that would say what would it look like, how we would actually use this aside from the picture. But like from a programming standpoint, would we use it for any of our jazz festivals or wine and music festivals? Would we use it for certain athletic programming if that was the course for Parks and Rec? So just to make it more real in terms of, oh, OK, now I see that.

Yes, no, that is going to be coming, I guess, through, yeah.

Sorry, picking up on Bridget's comment too, what struck me about this, especially the drawings with the skate park is, again, it's segmenting off this particular area of a very, very beautiful park and connecting with the pool and everything else. And I wonder as we look at this, if there are concepts that make the park you know, a living, you know, with the different areas, obviously. And especially because the access from the front porch is not an easy or safe access. Right. So with the parking lots and one part of the park and everything else, this drawing does make it a standalone entity, which I'm not sure that's where we want to go. The other part that struck me was as we look at having an event lawn and everything else, which is great. And we've talked about Francis Park from the very beginning and how popular it is in the neighborhood and that vibrancy. I think we need to make sure that we're meeting an unmet need. We want this in our community. Is this a spot for it or should this be someone else? And we leverage this for pickleball or something that we don't have elsewhere. And that's a natural fit. And those are my two thoughts there. The other part, of course, is as you look at these different concepts, maybe it's too early in the game, but sometimes it's nice to have a ballpark of how much we're talking about investing in timeframes. As we figure out what we want to do when some of this could even be staged and that again I may be jumping the gun and bringing that up but

yeah, we're going to talk a little bit about timeframe next. And I do think a couple key points I do think it'll be important to engage a design consultant that will tie everything together so it doesn't look like it's a whole separate entity like you said. How do we get something, you know, that will flow from the Chapman Plaza over from Shaw Park Aquatic Center into this area and then over to the tennis center? So I think it's going to be very important to make sure that it's very cohesive, that it all looks like it's going together. And then I can't remember. timeline we talked a little bit about. I mean, yeah, we will have to do, oh, and money too. Yeah. So we'll have to do obviously some public engagement, but yes, I think the timeline, we can talk about that and kind of our next steps now. I

have a question. So my question first is I had Is it correct that I'm, did each concept maintain the century garden as a like distinct space? And if so, can you talk about what, like it makes it feel like that's kind of like a sacred cow. And I'm curious if we actually mean it to be.

I think that could be up for discussion.

I

mean, the area is

very underutilized. My perspective is it does not get utilized in its current form. Now, with all these other things happening around it, it might, but I would want us to feel free to use that space and incorporate it into it. So that would be my general feedback there. as it relates to all the concepts. I think that's fair, and I think in my opinion, I think that's a good

discussion. We were trying to bridge the pool, and that's why I thought that we're

going to

try

to incorporate that area.

Yeah.

It looks like it was in play the most, except for maybe number four, which was that.

Yeah, they kind of changed it a little bit. And then just my general feedback is that I'm super interested in the aspects of the site that I think activated, like the skate park, the basketball, and the pickleball. I would really love to see us create outdoor spaces where like teens and young adults would actually do stuff. And I think you see people taking advantage of those types of venues in other communities. And so, and I know people who do those activities in Clayton. So I really, I think it's very reasonable to believe that the site would become activated with that use.

Right. I would agree. I mean, I talked with somebody earlier about just even the temporary pickleball courts. It's not just a certain age group. There's a very wide variety of ages and abilities that are out there, even playing on the temporary court. So yeah, I do think it's important to have it activated for all ages. Yeah, I would agree.

And I'll add on the tennis center when they were reporting on that at the last parks and rec meeting, there are hopes to start pickleball instructions, but trying to figure out how to do that without pushing in realizing the demand right now for those you know, very temporary courts is still really high. And how do you get that in? So it goes beyond just activating it as is, but that in supporting our other programs. Yes, I would agree.

So can I build on all those comments just a wee bit? You know, I agree that this is our front door and we want to see it active. You know, I do. I am really big on and I think we heard a lot in our planning process about cultural events. I'm thinking music mostly, but you know, I think we heard a lot from people about that. And so I do think that's an important piece of this, but that would be more event oriented and wouldn't really interfere with, you know, basketball or whatever else, as long as we have the space there's no, and I, I've long been a believer in, you know, accessing that back tennis court and accessing the century garden and trying to create a flow throughout our park that way. And we, because also we have no, nobody's mentioned bathrooms here and, you know, and that's really, that's one of the most expensive things is to build a building that can provide a warming room or a party room or restrooms that isn't mentioned here. So I would think we need to give that some thought. And then the only other thing is, I mean, I go back to the, the plan. And in this plan, it had something that I thought was really great, which is seasonal programming. And this is sort of alluded to here. One of the things that, you know, if we want to activate with athletics, we want to activate it during the winter as well. And so I would really love to see us, maybe this is premature, seriously consider the temporary ice during the winter because that is a place where teens can go and do something that's wholesome and also in the evening. because it's a great place to hang out in the evening and, you know, have a little fire pit there or whatever. So that's my plug for that. Okay.

I would just say, and maybe I'm alone on this, but I feel like if we're going to start pursuing certain concepts, I'm not sure I would include the nature one. I just think that I think that could be something that could be taken out. I think there's a lot of nature throughout the center of the park, especially close to Chapman Plaza. And I just, I think there are just far better uses to the site.

Yes. I would throw that in.

That's

not

active use,

really. We've got Old Knoll Park and we've got other places for

contemplation. We have sensory and community garden over by the playground.

Oh, we have a sensory? I mean, not

community. But we don't have

a community. Yeah. But yes, a sensory, there is a sensory garden by the playground. Mm-hmm.

and we can talk go ahead no i was yeah maybe this was the next part like just in terms of what you envision for how we go from here or how do you that is part of that's the topic of our discussion today yeah yep

as long as everybody's okay with that i should say um

if you need i can pull up the survey from the that we have on file yeah so it's about two acres if you include okay yeah so if you include the century garden area including the century garden

yeah And again, back to the comments about, I do think it's important to engage a designer that will make the whole front door of Shaw Park cohesive and doesn't look piece-filled. So staff would recommend forming a working group or steering committee comprised of two to three Parks and Recreation Commission members, two to three Board of Aldermen members, along with staff, really to guide the process to make sure... the comments we heard tonight, like perhaps taking away the nature concept as one of those, but really to guide the process along. And then next slide, please. Sorry. And then really, here we are now on December 10th. So we would look for steering committee volunteers and then really start to narrow down the design scope process. We'd be looking at mid-January, having a steering committee meeting, discussing the design concepts. Hopefully in February then, moving forward with a recommended preliminary area use with the Parks and Rec Commission and the Board of Aldermen, talking about it at both of those committees or both of those meetings. And then in February to March, we could issue the RFP for the design consultants. Then the steering committee would review those submittals and approve a consulting contract, recommend approval for a consulting contract, which would be done by this board. And then we would move a little bit further along into the spring and the summer. which would be really developing the hard conceptual plan, getting those cost estimates, reviewing that preliminary design after the consultant does that with the steering committee, Parks and Rec, and the Board of Aldermen. We certainly would have to do more public engagement, which would likely be in the summer. And then I think the goal is to, by August, try to get this for the capital improvement plan and then apply for a municipal park grant. One of the comments I think I heard somebody say earlier, is there a way that we could piecemeal some of this? And maybe with, you know, once we get a design, but let's say we want to do permanent pickleball courts first. Maybe we apply for a Muni Park grant for that part of it. And maybe then we could do what the event lawn area, the next part of it, whatever the group or the steering committee decides. I do think there's a possibility of doing it in phases, even as far as the municipal park grant goes. So Um, that, that usually is due around the end of August. So theoretically that should give us enough time to apply for that. And we should have fields one and two and remembrance park done by then. So we could apply for another municipal park grant. As long as we have one of those two projects finished by then we'd be good.

Could you go back to the prior page? I just want to see again what this sort of timeline is. So you'd get the steering committee figured out by January. Mm-hmm. they would discuss these same concepts that we've talked about maybe feedback we maybe add to it subtract from it or whatever yeah guide the process uh and then we'd kind of focus on one kind of main broad concept i guess is that what we're saying there what i mean

one or two just to narrow it down and get a little more specific um so that we can actually progress and bring some sort of

Okay,

or refined concept to parks and rec Commission and board of all men, this is a really aggressive schedule, yes. And then I mean this, this is the schedule if we want to get it plugged into the CIP for the 26 to 2030 period. If we missed that August date you're really looking at the following years CIP and we can slow it down and do that, but if the thought is, we want to have this program. in the next upcoming five-year CIP. This is really the timeline we would need to try to hit, but it's going to be tough. There's a lot of work to get done in that period. It seems like a lot of time, but it really isn't when you start breaking it down in a timeline and realize that you've got decision points that aren't that far off.

Right. And also, when we apply for a Muni Park Grant, we have to have vetted costs. We can't just spitball it and say, we think it's going to be whatever, a million dollars. We will have to have affirmed cost

estimates. Muni Park Grant is probably something that would come a little bit later, I would think. we'd probably get far enough this year maybe to have a cost estimate to plug in the cip but uh if we need full-blown construction drawings for the municipal park grant

no final

costs then it's going to be a little while longer but it's it's an aggressive timeline but if the board wants to try to get it in the next cip this is something we'll need to try to adhere to as best we can

I would just say that out of all the things we talked about in the livable community plan, this seems to be the most impactful and highest profile. I think we should make it our biggest priority. So if it's achievable, then I concur with your recommendation.

I think we at least give it a shot. And if we start to fall off schedule, it looks like it's going to take more time than that, then we'll slow it down. But we need to make sure we get it right because it is a high priority for us.

Great. The public input, will that largely come, you know, obviously it will go to Parks and Rec, it will come here to this board, and then were you just thinking that you would publicize? Yeah,

like an open house or some more public engagement. Yes, and I think that would be when we have the design concept narrowed down to one or perhaps two two ideas to really get the input from the community.

And then will the steering committee, because I'm, you know, curious, you know, I know just in deciding down to the couple design concepts, will they look at, you know, data from the plan in terms of understanding how much of the community wanted a basketball court versus a skate park versus pickleball courts? Like, I'm just curious how they're going to narrow it down

Yeah, we can certainly get that data together of the activities that people talked about. They wanted like, yeah, what percentage said they wanted pickleball versus what percentage said they wanted sand volleyball or, you know, events, things like that. Yeah. We can

music, you know, some sort of performance in the park or something. Right. We

can really pull the data from this statistically valid survey for that. Yes.

Because I'm just trying to understand, like, if you have a few people from this board, a few people from Parks and Rec, I mean, they're, I mean, not deciding, but they're kind of paring down concepts and thinking about well, actually only 5% of the community said they wanted a skate park versus 50% wanted pickleball courts. But maybe I have a friend who told me, oh, a skate park would be fantastic and that really would bring young people. I mean, I know pickleball courts would too. So I think just trying to understand how they're gonna think about paring it down.

Yeah, some of that data, like I said, we can certainly get from this statistically valid survey. I think when it does come into... events or like cultural festivals. I think that was where a lot of people said, yes, we want it. So I don't think they narrowed down some of the specific types of events they wanted as far as, as much as they narrowed down, we want pickleball versus a skate park. But I do think some of those, certainly those recreation activities are all in this statistically valid survey.

Well, and I think also like understanding like, yes, I want events, but do the events have to occur in the park or can the events occur on Brentwood Boulevard between Forsyth and Maryland? Do you know what I mean? So I think like, do we, did they want to see a place where they could sit down, you know, in a nice space in front of a stage? Like, you know, one of the, a few of the concepts had that in it, but is that just as easily done, you know, on another area of the park or again on the street in downtown? So I don't know. That's right.

And there's just different categories, you know, like concerts versus festivals, you know, festival. I mean, you can do it in the street, but this area probably really lend itself to something like a festival, you know, where people can really walk around. Right. Right.

Or do you make it more just all recreation? You know, do you make it something where it's, you know, because we don't have a lot of Yes, there are playgrounds in the park, but there's not an area that's exclusively recreation. Just pickleball courts, just a basketball court, and just a skate park. I don't know. I don't how you decide one way or another. I was

going to say, I agree with you. You have to go back to the data. Right. And that's the only way because everybody's got their own opinion about what they want to see. And that'll come through in the steering committee loud and clear. So we've got to look at the numbers. Absolutely. Yeah.

Is there any – I'm not sure whether to ask this as a question or provide it as a recommendation, but it would seem to me to be helpful to have – somewhere along in this process, somebody involved that has a particular expertise in planning these kinds of facilities, meaning either a landscape person, an urban park planner, just like we had consultants helping us with the master plan and the livable community plan. I'm just thinking that as we envision these things, it's one thing for the layman to come up with, I think this would be great to use, and another one to say that's incredibly impractical, or You think about it this way, it could even be better than that. So at some point in the process, I think that would be helpful.

Isn't that what the design consultant is? I mean, we go out for a consultant who specializes in this kind of work and projects.

I think we could accomplish that by going after a design professional early on in this process, maybe even earlier than we have it listed out on here, where I think the early focus is going to be more on use than concept or layout, figuring out what exactly are we going to do there, because I think we're going to need to let that consultant know what that what it may look like, but they could also help us really guide us through that conversation. And I think one of the most important roles that the steering committee will play beyond just helping make these decisions and being focused on this is relaying the information back to the respective bodies to make sure that we're on the right track with it. And the reason you do the steering committee in the first place is we have two bodies that are gonna be really involved in this process and making sure that it's a cohesive process so that Parks and Recreation Commission members aren't going one way, and the board going another way. And in the end, you know, it would get pretty messy. The steering committee is going to help keep everybody on track, and the steering committee members are going to have to go back and really report out and have those conversations with the respective bodies. But I think a consultant early on can really assist in those conversations and help move us along, probably along this timeline better than we could without it.

And, yeah, I was just going to ask, you know, how detailed, how specific does the RFP have to be to get that design consultant on board? Because I agree with Rick and David and what they're just saying. And, you know, the uses, I mean, they can really help with the uses too if they know their stuff because some uses are complementary. And you can really get a lot of synergies going with this very, very limited space, really. We

could just build the facilitation into the scope.

Yeah.

I would think also one of the issues when I look at events versus sports, sports is kind of obvious. You're not going to do that in the street. You're going to do that here. Events, I think part of the tricky part is are some of the events like we've conducted in the last year didn't draw terribly well? Is that in part because doing an event in the street is somewhat off-putting and that same event done in a park would have seemed more accommodating, more appealing? I don't know how you get to that answer, but I mean, I'd like to see more events, but I also think you need to figure out, would those events actually be more successful in the future in this park setting than in the street? So I think somehow you've got to get to that, and maybe other people have experience that they could shed some light on that.

I think the biggest advantage more than increasing attendance is it's much cheaper. If you have the overhead put in up front to make sure that the electric's right, that you have restrooms, you don't have to close streets and have all the overtime that's incurred with that. So if you had a dedicated event space in the long run, you're going to have quite a bit of savings because most of the expenses with the large events that we have in the street are really operational in nature and you could build those into the facility.

Just to add on to that thinking of money, um, I don't know if there's a way, but I hope it'll be incorporated in the conversation. You know, you're talking about Francis park. I mean, it would be great if we could have a, have an eye toward revenue generation from this facility when we get it done. So in other words, if you're going to use the skate park, I'm just making this up. Do you charge like you used to for the ice rink? If you're going to have temporary ice, you can charge for that. If you're going into have a concert, can you charge for that? You have to have a way to police, you know, to police the area so that you can sell the ticket. But, Yeah. And having concessions, you know, a branded concession is a real interesting thing. And that's a key thing that's going on at Francis Park. Right. But revenue generating in a number of ways.

Yeah. A permanent, like you said, branded concessions, obviously we'd have to do, that'd be a ways down the road. We'd have to do an RFP for all that. But again, if you have like the flexible programming space, which is I think the consultant that did the livable community plan was thinking of, then you could maybe bring in food trucks, you know, whatever, every Thursday. And maybe you have, I know there's mobile alcohol venues and have those on whatever pickleball league night or what have you to it. So I do think that there's a wide variety of options.

A question for you on municipal park grants. I'm not familiar with how they work, and it's really a big picture question, which is, is there a range on how big or small these can be? Is it generally a percentage of your overall project? In terms of the monetary amount, how does that work?

Sure, you have to contribute a certain percentage to the project that you're applying for a grant for. And then there is a maximum amount based on the cost of your project and then the residents, the number of residents in your city. So it is max, there's probably about 50 or so questions and it's all give you a different point option. But I believe it's around $535,000, I believe was last year's maximum for a city of our size.

Okay, thank you.

Mm-hmm. But you do also have to allot a certain amount of your own skin in the game. And you can only have two out at once. And we have two out right now with fields one and two, and remember it's park. I don't know. I know there are some people from Parks and Rec Commission. I don't if they had any thoughts. Do you guys have any comments or questions? Any of

you? I like the discussion. I think sometimes we try to complicate things and try to do too much.

Oh, you want to come up to the mic?

Capture

your comments for eternity.

No, I'm just curious if anybody disagrees with the thought that pickleball would be sort of the anchor to this space.

I'm hoping it's not looked at as an anchor. I mean, it kind of looks like maybe it might be a good portion of the site or it seems to be, I think a lot of people gave us feedback that that's what they wanted to see. And it's certainly like the trending sport as everybody knows right now. Yeah. There's no doubt about that. You know, I think the most people to activate the site. So I guess I don't disagree with that, but I want to see more than just pickle. Sure.

Yeah. I just on top of, you know, we Clark's incredible success with the tennis facility.

Yeah.

He spoke about pickleball about six months ago to the Parks and Rec Commission. It was very convincing. It's the most popular sport the last three years in the United States, and it's not just for white hairs like me. It's for all ages. So I just think sort of that would be the next step, make a decision on at least do we agree that pickleball is part of it? And

that surface could be flexible if it was really needed for some other or a festival for one weekend or whatever because it's a flat surface. Correct. Yeah, I guess, yeah.

And the reality is I drove by last week in December and they're still out there playing so you're probably looking

at

two months maybe where it wouldn't be used for pickleball. So that's just my thought.

That's a good thought. Good

job. Just adding to the pickleball comment is that So many of my neighbors, several have recently joined Richmond Heights for their indoor pickleball, which is still on a gym floor, as well as all the other facilities around here. But that's something I think that our community would very much like to see that we catch up.

Yeah, no, we've had conversations about that. It's hard for us to do in the winter because we have 130 youth basketball teams. But we're having some other conversations about after hours activities at the center that might include something like that.

Just a question on tennis. So during the winter, like let's say, I don't know, during say November through the end of February or something, is, is tennis, are those courts really used a lot?

Well, it depends on the weather. I can tell you that we usually keep at least three nets up. If it's really cold, we will take some of the nets down. But on Monday afternoon, we were there talking with the lighting consultants and there were three courts that were being used while we were out there. So if the weather's nice and more people were starting to arrive because it was a like two o'clock when we left. So it was starting to get a little bit warmer. So if the weather's nice and if Clark's participants are willing to put up with the cold, they'll meet them out there. So they do get used over the winter. Yeah. All

right.

Well, a comment about pickleball. I like pickleball. I like tennis better, but one thing about pickleball, and this sort of came up at one of our recent meetings, is there's still complaints. I realize it's our temporary facility, but there's nice pickleball courts and there's nicer pickleball courts.

Oh,

yeah.

And there's also pickleball courts that are frustrating because the ball rolls away and rolls through little dividers and rolls down the hill. So if we're going to commit to pickleball, I still think like all the things we do in Clayton, we need to somehow make it high quality pickleball, not just pickleball. I don't know exactly what that means, but I think you get my drift.

Sure. I think, well, for all of it, if we're going do it, we should do it right. So yeah, that includes pickleball.

Another thought occurs to me just in terms of inclusion for input. It strikes me that we've talked in the past that we want to treat our downtown as a neighborhood as well because of the increasing number of residents. It would seem to me that um whatever um including some residents or some perspective of the downtown area as how they would use this in terms of their recreational time would be an important um part of the process yeah

i think certainly part of the public i mean the you know some of the buildings downtown are not transient but they're you know what i mean they're rentals but the park tower, which is right across the street. You know, I'm sure there'll be, I'm sure they'll look forward to having a lot of input just cause they own condos. Many of them stay many, many, many years. So I'm sure they're looking forward to seeing what's there. I mean, they, They come to our coffees and certainly begrudge. They go play pokeball, and they don't like what's there. So I know that they'll look forward to providing input.

And I say that knowing that you need to be careful what you ask for because they may also say, we don't want this loud noise, and we don't want that.

No, I mean, the people that have come to our coffes just want to see better courts there, quite honestly. But I understand that's a small... that's a small percentage of the building i'm sure so i

mean i certainly appreciate that yeah you want the view out of your front door back door what have you to look nice so yeah i think an improvement would be

make them happy and i know that you said it was matt's responsibility but uh the connectivity with walk speaking of including downtown and other areas um and even in ward two it's hard to get over to the park as we work on those different bikeable walkable paths, you know, the more active this is, the more important it will be to keep that very front and center in, in those plans. Right.

Yeah. So, and certainly Matt and I will work on that. Yes. Good. He knows where to find me. I know where to find him.

Tony, I was also going to ask too, just cause a basketball court was in one of these concepts. Was there any discussion in the plan? I don't remember about putting the basketball, putting a basketball court anywhere else in the park. no no okay

no

and yeah no because that was a clayton high school student has come to us in the past asking for courts right so just okay

no no no and that's why i think it's important to the consultant too with the parks working together look at all of our is this the best is this the best spot for this particular activity

yeah okay Shaw Park and Oak Knoll Park were routinely mentioned as the most used and the two parks that people want to go to the most. So, yes, I think because of that, yes, they both have a lot of activity that happens in them. Shaw Park is a little bit more programmed, obviously, than Oak Knoll can be passive, but it's still very busy over at Oak Knoll. yes like a jungle gym

yeah

um justin do you have an opinion on that like how often i'm

i think it's busy but it's not a lot of teenagers no it's not it's kids i mean it's yeah

yeah

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, I think we can certainly have those conversations. Yeah. Well, and wasn't this the only area

that they did any actual concept?

Yes. They really go into the center of the park. Yeah. So yeah. I mean, that's true.

No, I think that's a great, I appreciate you bringing that up. I think that is really important for us to consider that the plan was somewhat limited in its ability to imagine where these things go, but we don't have to carry that forward. And so you could focus on pickleball and basketball and, on that flat land and you can do a skate park doesn't need to be totally level even potentially right so that uneven terrain would be less of a

i think yeah those are great ideas and you know if we wanted to whatever redo the the sand volleyball courts or things like that those are all things i think that we could do um we could have conversations about and perhaps if we had to do those independently in a capital improvement process or a municipal grant process as well too yeah

I would just echo, I think what other people have been hinting around is making sure we think about things people want, but collectively think of all the parks we have to put them in. Like, I'm not even necessarily committed to pickleball in Shell Park. Like, if people want pickleball, that's fine. this is like one piece of land that that's it. But there's other places for a basketball court or a pickleball court. Like I, I don't know where it necessarily would be, but I want to make sure we don't get so fixated on like what mayor was saying, get everything in the one spot when it may be perfectly feasible to put basketball courts in Taylor park. And that's where they go or insert wherever, but.

I think the focus kept being on people saying, what are we going to do with the old ice rink? What are we going to with the old ice rank? And I think this is coming out of that. So yeah, but certainly I think we can have those conversations as well too.

Could be.

So you didn't capture all my words for posterity, but oh well. Anyway. All right. Well, I guess that's

pretty much it. I mean, I guess if anybody's interested, you can let me know.

Yeah, I'd rather do that in a meeting setting. Is there anybody on the board that would like to be a part of the steering committee? And then at the next Parks and Rec Commission meeting, we'll let the Parks and Recreation Commission members select their members for it, and then we'll convene.

it's my you know heartthrob that part it was on the

list it was

and me well sounds good there's not a law against it is there okay

there we go

that's one

thank you

thank you tony this will be exciting really well Okay. We have a couple minutes if anybody wants to take a break or whatever, we'll start at seven. Welcome, everyone. Okay, I will say again, welcome everyone. Sorry about that. My mic was not on. Welcome to our meeting tonight. We're going to have, I think, a good opportunity to do a little work tonight. But first and foremost, we will call the roll.

Alderman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Aldermen Gary Feder. Here. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Here. Aldman Jeffery Yorg. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

Alderman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Aldermen Fader. Here. Aldeman Hummel. Here. Aldman York. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

Okay, now's the time on our agenda to ask for public requests and petitions. If anyone is here to discuss something not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. If you want to come forward or put a hand up on the... on the Zoom. There's a hand up. Yes, we can promote to talking. Kyle Johnson, did you have a comment about something that's not on our agenda tonight?

Yeah, I did. So one thing I've noticed recently, one thing I really like about Clayton is its walkability. But what I've noticed, especially along Maryland Avenue, is the crosswalk buttons when you press them, they don't light up or make any noise when you press them. So it makes it hard to tell when the buttons are on. So I feel like... You know, especially given, you know, you got the high school there and the center of Clayton that maybe those could be like fixed or something.

Okay, I think our staff will take that under advisement. Thank you for bringing that up. OK, so then again, I think we're ready then to continue the public hearing that's been going on for a while. I wanted to let you know that we will not be voting tonight just to make sure you are aware of that. Also, I wanted to thank everyone who is here and those who are listening online for the continued support. you know, efforts in working with the city and attending meetings. I know that's not our favorite thing to do, especially this time of year. So we do appreciate it. We're here and we really value having you here as well. Um, so as I said tonight, we, uh, continuing work public hearing that is still open on the big end overlay. Um, again, we want to work through some possible changes. That's really a work session. This is not, um, really intended to be a session where we, um, really go on about, um, whether we support the overlay in its entirety or not as a concept. We're going to talk about some potential changes that we hope can make it better and make it better for everyone here. I was recently invited to... meet with a group of neighbors, uh, and we together identified some changes that might bring us closer together. And so we're all for that. Uh, I've had a chance to review these changes with Wash U and they have agreed to many of them already. At this point, I want to go ahead and propose them so they can be considered to be added to the overlay. Um, and, um, Some of these have been things that we've mentioned before, but this had never made it this far. And after which time, after I've gone through this list, the board will have an opportunity to comment, ask questions, discuss. And once that's over, we will open it up for public comment. I normally will take public comment first, but in this case, I want to do the reverse order so you all hear what changes are being proposed now. And again, no vote tonight. So as I said, the proposals that I'm going to talk about stem directly from the meeting that I had with the residents a couple of weeks ago. And I would say, I don't know, about 25 residents or something like that, I would say were in the room. So I'll go by just by category. One of the big, big items was reducing density. And so a couple items are relevant here. First of all, the number of facilities. The number of facilities had been six in total, including fields and buildings. And we, you know, I think at that meeting it was, I was asked if we can go to four total. I said at the time I didn't think so, but we have negotiated at least we are at five total. So we're down from six. That's one. All the attendance numbers are now, or I'm proposing that they will be tied directly to current usage per facility, which is considerably lower than some of the things we've considered in the past. So I don't want to read through all the numbers. I think WashU has issued a note to us and then identified exactly what those usages are. I'll give one example. Varsity Baseball is $275 for permanent seating. So I think those numbers are coming down and at that level will preclude, I think likely preclude any D1 aspirations that are entertained in the future. In terms of attendees, I just kind of alluded to this, but we were proposing reducing the cap for permanent seating. across the board. And we had already talked about, but again, want to make sure it gets into the recommended changes in the overlay, eliminating any event that is not athletic. So any special events we had in there at one point, commencements and all kinds of other things, that is totally gone. from the overlay or it would be if this is accepted sorry um noise amplification has been suggested um by one of you that amplification will only be allowed for varsity games that we baseball and softball um and it's been requested and i'm i'm looking for my friend there you are in the back is it carol yes um uh We are, you know, we want to refine our decibel limits around the perimeter. And the only way we can do that at this point is to take some more sound readings. And I'm hereby personally inviting you to go along with our public works director and our city manager to do those readings. Because I think it'll be informative for everybody. Lights. Again, it was suggested only allowed for university sanctioned athletic use. and off otherwise, and that is what is being proposed here tonight. Ingress and egress. So we can include the option of vehicular ingress, egress on Y down. And Marie, I know you were very interested in that. And so we're including it as an option there. Then with regard to building height, This is one that really has to be tied to official athletic rules and regulations. And so we've asked WashU, and they've told us that the sport with the highest requirement that they will have in an indoor facility there is volleyball. And so we had to tie to the rules for volleyball, which is 41 feet. But then we need space above that for pipes and lights and structures and a place to tuck the basketball courts or whatever you know we need some space above that so the overall height that they they have really come back to us with is 55 feet and so that's where that will stand right now as of this proposal but um again there's always uh there's always room for discussion on everything um So housing. So I know Joan and Anne, you had talked to me at that meeting about allowing if student housing would be allowed under this overlay. And could we add that in as an option? And I will tell you, and city manager will back me up on this, I took a hard run at this, but it is incredibly confusing and complicated to add it into the overlay itself. But I will say that if that were the case, if either the property owner or WashU or the combination wanted to switch somehow from athletics to residential, that could always be done. If we had an overlay in place, we could simply repeal it um and and we would then go through the idea of trying to plan what the residential housing would be and placing the restrictions that we were looking for i think you know i understand you're looking for the similar similar restrictions as what as to what is existing there and so we understand that i think to to add housing under the overlay we'd have to go pretty extensively into design requirements and all kinds of other things it's my understanding so um I think, you know, at this point, it doesn't look probable that we can put it in the overlay. However, I invite you and, and Joan and anyone else to come and we'll sit down with you, our staff, any of us and talk through the real details of the ins and outs of this. And, you know, if there's an alternative to this great, but at this point, I can't, we can't see our way through to doing it, to adding it. Um, Last but not least on proposals here, Mr. Gershman has sort of repeatedly emphasized the need for use for compatibility language in this. And that is the key piece that is missing from this overlay that is in the conditional use permit that I think everyone really values. And we can talk a lot about all these other details, but this to me is an overarching strategic piece that he has brought forward a number of times. And so I am proposing, and it's been talked about before, but I am proposing here that some language additions, both in the purpose statement and wherever else in the overlay it can fit. There are a couple other places, but these changes would include the statements from the conditional use permit, quote, assuring the compatibility of new development, end quote, and from the R2 that, quote, the height, location, and use will not have a serious and depreciating effect on any adjacent residential property. So if everybody agrees with that, you know, we will... we will put that in the overlay and you'd see it at the next go around. I believe that Washington University has said they agree with most of these changes that I've just read off. Again, we did get a letter and it's on our website. It's been published so that you can see some more details about what they've said about their attendance levels and about building heights and footprints and things of that nature. So there's just more info there, but I'm kind of summarizing it here. There are some items that we need to continue to pursue. So we have some time to do that after this meeting and going forward. I believe that we've talked a lot about the quote setbacks. Setbacks can take a lot of different forms. It can be an actual setback and it can be tree protection zone, it can be transition zone, whatever we want to call it, are all those things combined to create the effective setback from certain boundaries. And I think, you know, to my way of thinking based on the input that I've received from you all, we need to take a little bit harder look at increasing this setback on the Western and Southern boundaries. So we can look at that. And I think Ana, we've talked about it and she and David have some thoughts about that, that they're going to be researching access to property access has already agreed to in the overlay. But one of the things that we haven't talked a lot about is potential fencing. So I'd like for us to just take a look at that and discuss it with staff and with WashU and Concordia and see what, what that really might look like if we have any idea. And so we can also follow up on that. And then again, the, the additional sound taking the additional sound readings that we said we needed to do. I just want to take this opportunity while I have the floor to remind everyone of some of the benefits that both Washington University and Concordia Seminary have offered during the course of our conversations, which have kind of maybe gotten lost in the shuffle. But, you know, things like, again, total access to the property, improved pedestrian and bike path along Big Bend. a long-term contract with the city for the use of Concordia Park and so forth. So I think that kind of encapsulates the things that I took from that meeting that I would like to bring forward here tonight and get into the overlay. So now I would open it up for discussion among our board members, and maybe I'll just go in order of seniority for that.

What do you want us to go through I guess i'm curious do. If

you have questions about any of these or if you if you just don't think one of these things should be considered as part of the overlay. I

mean, I am fine i'm certainly fine with reducing the density here, I think, having height tied to something that's actually. something measurable vis-a-vis the NCAA requirement on volleyball and then adding the height for the, you know, everything else. The structure.

Yeah,

the structural components that have to go in is fine. I mean, I'm not really sure and I don't know if WashU wants to address us in terms of the attendance requirements. requirements that they're talking about. Maybe it's helpful to hear from them regarding that. In terms of amplified noise, I think that's a great idea. I don't think that there's any reason to have amplified noise for anything other than the baseball and softball games. So I mean, I'm certainly supportive of all the things that the residents want, especially given that WashU's, it sounds like has been amenable to a lot of those suggestions. I think they've

said we can live with these.

Yeah. So I mean outside of just trying to figure out again maximum number of people coming to these, I think is one of the outstanding questions that And again, the letter came to us at five o'clock, which I appreciate getting the numbers, but I really haven't had a chance to read the letter very closely. So it's hard to kind of comment on that. Was there another, I can't remember, was there anything else that?

Just the compatibility language then?

Yeah, I mean, I don't, and again, if that makes people, if that makes our residents feel better about the overlay, I think there already is a lot of compatibility language in the overlay. But if there are ways that we can buttress it a little bit more to make people feel comfortable, then, you know, I'm fine with that. Kind of a

belt and suspenders thing, as my friend Gary Feder always says. yeah okay all right good good susan any questions comes

belt and suspenders thing, as my friend Gary Fader always says. yeah okay all right good good susan any questions comes

yeah i'm going to to repeat everything um i do really appreciate the way the community input uh the university input and the board and mayor everyone has worked together because this has because this has been a work in process progress and I also appreciate the rational basis. Why does the building need to be this height? Looking at the numbers, both what they currently are and giving expectations to be able to manage the future and working together for a rational basis to the different steps. So the only things I want to add to that, one is relatively minor in here, in the document it talks about, there's always been a concern with drainage and also just sustainability sustainability concerns, and I have to say WashU, from anything I've seen, has always been an excellent partner with that. The treatment of all the artificial fields as pervious surfaces, I don't know, I'm not an expert in the area, but I think there's some variance in the types of fields that are used, and when I asked our city manager about it, he said that's okay because it'll still be caught when we look at water quality and the drainage issues going there, but that's just something to be aware of. There are all different types of field coverings out there. We want to make sure that the surfaces there are as sustainable and as protective of the neighborhoods as possible. Something that I've brought up before is I think that there's a lot of concern with density and cars and traffic. One way to control that that I think we all have to keep in mind is When we build parking lots, when we build spaces, cars come. And making sure that the overlay doesn't require that all parking be internal to the site or anything like that.

There's a provision in there that allows and encourages shared parking with nearby facilities.

Right and so both both the anything under common ownership, which will be fun fun, which also be the main campus and again we've talked about this with the shuttle buses I don't know if you can put that in a zoning requirement. But that awareness that the better the bike and the walking paths are the types of activities that are happening there as we limit. The size and everything else that helps but just it, this is this is adjacent to a campus that students. and faculty and other people can walk over there as long as it's something that is an easy thing to do. Many of us in Clayton drive. I think we had the example last week. You drive to the center because there's always parking. You walk if you're going somewhere else where there's not parking, and you don't think twice about it. It's just what you do. So encouraging. I think that hopefully that will help with traffic as well as the two spots of ingress and egress. And the other part I appreciated you bringing up, Mayor, was that We have to remember, again, that we're very defensive about this. There's a lot of things we don't want to happen, we don't want it to happen. And the way that I hope it's moving forward, and it seems to be, is that this is green space. This is working together as a community. It is open for the neighborhoods. And if it's handled well, it can be a benefit to the community. Certainly, I hope that we can get there, that it is. Is there anything else I wanted to add to that? It does concern me, and this is really what people think about. We talk about limiting the use only to athletic use, and that sounds great, but again, to me, it feels a little defensive. We have been to events as a city, as a school district, at different universities, and when we limit it too strictly to the uses of we may be cutting out community benefit there. We can do that if people are most comfortable with, but sometimes I just want us to be aware as we finalize this, how we use it to the best advantage to be part of one community and working together.

Yes, thanks. I'm really heartened by how it does feel like we are coming to a place where we can get to a solution and some guidelines that will allow the property owner to use the land and the residents to feel protected um and i have three specific i support i think everything that you talked about as we've gone through um i quickly tried to read washi's letter and i do have a couple of questions i'd be interested in understanding better um on the seat capacity for facilities. They all make total sense to me based on current conditions, except the question is the one thing that isn't an existing condition, which is an indoor 200 meter track and field facility. And the request is there for 475 permanent seat capacity. And I'm not for or against that at this point, but I would like to understand what kinds of activities are happening there that get that many people there at one time. So, so you could explain what that is literally like I would appreciate it.

So, I wonder if because Alderman McAndrew had a question about this as well. Would you, would it be okay you guys we just ask someone from WashU to come up and just talk through a little bit that attendance part of your letter. And then everybody who hasn't read it can understand it as well.

Yeah, so for folks, it is online, but it didn't get put there until like five because that's when we got it. So the like baseball and softball are 275, multipurpose soccer field is 50, and tennis courts are 125. And those are very consistent with the reduced numbers that many on the board have proposed previously. And like you said- but it's this four 75 number or the facility that it doesn't really exist today. That I like, I don't know. I don't a 200 meter track. Doesn't seem to me like it gets hundreds of people at it, but I don't actually know that because I didn't do it. We can give them an

opportunity to answer right

now. Like if we don't have someone here who can answer it right now, I think that's okay. Yeah. Okay. Just to have the question on the record and then. All right.

the i was going to but you know do you would you like to allow them to come up and talk about that for a second oh yeah if they're ready to i just didn't know if you have an answer do you have the ability to do that or you rather um get back to us it's up to you all watch you

Hi, I'm Mary Campbell from Washington University. And I may have a partial answer for you, but I don't have the specifics. As you note, we currently don't have a regulation indoor track and field facility. We do some practice, but they're at scattered locations throughout university properties. To get this 475, since we didn't have a precedent number We looked at the sports that would likely, generally you'll have a track and then you'll have volleyball or badminton and other activities that can go on in the middle part. We looked at the activities that would likely use that portion currently and came up with that total. I think, you know, based on feedback from our design team and looking at precedents for these facilities in other places, the track and field events themselves have quite a few participants, but they don't generally have a lot of, you know, permanent seating needed for spectators. People are sort of standing and waiting to do things. So, you know, in that four different events, you know, the only time you get a real people issue is that maybe the couple of times a year that these facilities have a meet, you know, have some major meet. And that I believe, I'm not fluent in this yet, but I believe if that were to occur, we could deal with that through the special use permit process. So that would be You know, Clayton would get to take a look at that and monitor it that way. But the rest of these tie to club, mostly club sports that we currently have that would be a great fit for the interior of this site.

So the high number is more tied to if you were hosting a meet. Is that what you mean then?

It's actually thinking more of these club sports that would be in the middle. Um, and yes, some spillover for a meet.

Yeah. But it would be hard to imagine that you'd have that many people inside the, I mean, I don't know. I know. I mean, I, I mean, can understand. I know you host a big outdoor meet. So perhaps there's an indoor meet that's, you know what I mean? So yes. And then, and like you said, that could potentially fall under a permit because you're not going to host meets every weekend.

Exactly. And they have, you know, track and field inside. You're going to have multiple events. So your big numbers are really going to be your participants. If you had a meet and you had multiple schools. Yeah. I

mean, would it be possible for your athletic director to contact somebody else who hosts an indoor meet to figure out about how many people they get? I mean, I don't know. That might be helpful, you know, for... And just if they could call and figure out about what the size and the number they find when they host an indoors.

Yes, that's the part I'm not answering for you because as you know, we don't have a precedent for it today.

Thanks. I think the last area I'm interested in WashU's consideration or thoughts on a little bit further beyond where we've come so far is the end time for amplified noise and light. So I think we've established that the request is only for amplified noise for the varsity competitions. So that would be limited by its nature. And we've Current drafts have the end time for that at 9.30, with a provision to let it go until 10 if an inning is underway. WashU themselves have acknowledged that in the last season, the latest games started at 5.00. I understand there's you want some flexibility at schedule in scheduling, but it does seem to me like there's room there to come just a little bit lower for those residents that surround the property and might be looking for it to be like. 830 or nine. I mean, we know some people want it to be like six, but I think it feels quite reasonable to me based on what you've I'm thinking games don't go longer than three hours. That's what a major league game lasts. We have a player in our midst who could let us know if we're off on that. But, so like perhaps 830 with going until nine instead of 930 going till 10 I just be interested in if that feels like an area where it'd be. It would certainly seem reasonable based on what you've done in the past and what you've been able to coordinate with other schools and stuff.

So I think the schedule came from maybe last year's schedule. And our hesitancy to move off of 930, especially for varsity, is that we don't control the schedule. What the athletic department does is you get in touch with the teams that you're going to play the following season, and they... you actually work together to pick a time. So that's what concerns us about locking in earlier than 9.30 is that we only control our half of the schedule. Right,

but you were able to negotiate a schedule that didn't go that late last year and you didn't even have like a regulatory requirement to do so. So it would seem reasonable that you could have games not start later than 5.00 Or six so that they would end by 830 or nine.

It might be reasonable today based on one year of precedent, but we're talking zoning that goes 10 years, 20 years out. It's again, we would be hesitant to commit to something that early. For the future, not having any idea if what works for these teams this year and last year would work in 10 years or eight years or even five years. Is there a reason to believe

last year was like an anomaly in terms of teams wanting to play in the day versus the night?

I don't know that. I don't have enough information to tell. Now, of course, everything's open for dialogue and discussion. You know, I can go back and, you know, drill further into that. But that is the reason there's hesitancy to move. And as far as, you know, digging into that number, I definitely would need to go back to our colleagues and learn more about it for you.

Yeah. That just feels like an area where there's still some room there and whether it's something where we do something different on a weekday versus a weekend too. I don't know. So that's all that I have right now.

Okay. Very good. Thanks. One, one other just thought on that would just be as you dig would be to think, you know, if, if you, if you left it, if you had to leave it at nine 30, would it be that, you know, out of 10 varsity games during the season, you know, half of them can go to 930, but the other half have to end by nine or, you know, something like that.

Yep.

Just as a compromise.

Yep.

Great. One of the thoughts of that too, and this is an anecdotal experience. So take it at that is when I've seen been tangentially involved in sports and scheduling, it depends who has the field that can allow for this to happen and maybe the location who has the home game.

Thank you.

Okay, very good. So we'll keep going around. Gary, thoughts? Questions?

You know, generally, again, I agree that this has been a very productive process. I think the first draft that was done months ago by the staff was a good one, but what we're winding up with and will wind up for the next meeting, I think will be probably the eighth or ninth iteration, and I think will be the best and I hope the last draft My general thought just on the topics, I don't have any problem. Just the headings, reducing density, attendance numbers tied to current usage, permanent seating, no events other than athletics, although I do appreciate Alderwoman Buse's comment about that we may be losing some opportunities. Noise, lights, ingress, egress. Again, we're understanding that when we say it's an option, I think that's all it can be. We can encourage a better ingress and egress from the Fontbonne site, but we can't mandate it. Building height, I have no problem with. Housing, that issue, I think, as the mayor said, is complicated, and I think it's one we best stay away from. I would say generally my attitude is, I'd like to see how this is presented in the next draft. The devil's always in the details, but I think generally, you know, these are all concepts that I think make sense and it will improve the ordinance. On the issue of compatibility, I would say that I think we should be careful not to go beyond where we need to go. I would just point out for those who aren't aware of it, that whether it's a CUP or under the overlay, either way it goes through a site plan review process, which is outlined specifically in a separate section of the code. And that section, And that section, which by the way is referenced in the overlay, it says this is the way site plan review will be handled and it references the existing site plan section in another part of the code. And it says among other things that in order to maintain the high quality of Clayton's residential neighborhoods and commercial districts and assure the compatibility of new development, a site plan review process is hereby established. It also says when it talks about the purposes of site plan review, that a project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area, those are all criteria. So that's built into the overlay because the overlay specifically sites, the site plan section, these are compatibility sections that are in there as to the specific comment about introducing language taken from the R2, The R2 section, which again is the one where the CUP comes up with talks about public and private elementary, middle and secondary schools being permitted with a conditional use provided that the height location and use of such buildings will not have a serious and depreciating effect on any adjacent residential property. And it then goes on to say that the way you deal with that potential argument of impact on adjacent properties, this serious and depreciating language. The next sentence basically says, if you deal with the height of the building and you deal with setback, that's the way to address it. In this case, obviously we don't have a building that's going to have a serious and depreciating effect on the neighborhood. And these are basically now we've reduced it down to one building. There is no reason in my opinion to take that language and try to put it into this ordinance so I agree with the mayor and everything she said except with the suggestion that we add that language but if the staff wants to take a crack at it. So be it but I'll tell you now I think it doesn't belong in this ordinance. Other than that, I hope we are really close to having something that works for everyone, which is what I've always wanted to get out of this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

I won't revisit any of my prior dissent. Instead, I will say that I don't have any issue with any of your proposed changes. I appreciate the fact that we're trying to use research and facts to develop some of the parameters rather than just something that feels better. I appreciate that one of the goals is to reduce density, and so you're trying to achieve that with a reduced field or building count. I also hope to achieve that reduced density by having the ability to access the adjoining parcel at Fontbonne. You've included the language for not only for the goal of potentially reducing density, but for access and for parking. And so I think it's important to have that as a consideration and to have it in there to make sure that it's an expectation. So I appreciate that attempt. And then ultimately, I'm just anxious to see how this is all going to tie together once we get it all written to make sure that we don't have any potential conflicting language within it and that it ultimately achieves our objective. So that's my feedback.

A couple of things on the, to all the women's Patel comment. Part of the challenge with baseball is it may go three hours. It may go 18 hours because you have, you have extra innings. And I recognize the idea of wanting to get through a game and having the game in prematurely because of time. So I can, I can appreciate why she's just concerned given giving them enough buffer, especially for certain sports, some sports, it's a little more likely that they're going to stay within a time limit. So a couple of things, you know, I won't belabor them because they've kind of been talked about is, you know, ultimately I want to see what the verbiage looks like, right? Because that's going to matter. But I think, you know, conceptually if it doesn't solve all the problems, I think a lot of the residents have expressed, but I think it definitely does move the needle to hopefully address some of them. I generally think about it as if WashU is generally okay with it and the residents are okay supportive of it i'm fine with it like i don't necessarily have a reason to say no to any of it because if you know to me if everybody agrees why am i going to say no when it comes to stuff like this um you it's I do want to hear kind of what the citizens that are here tonight think about it. Like, right. Like obviously there was 20. Yeah, I know. I'm just saying like, that's part of reserving judgment to seeing the verbiage and also hearing what folks say, but obviously you met with, you know, mayor with, with 2025 folks. And this is some of the stuff that came out of it. Um, I do agree with Susan. Like if, if, if everybody feels more comfortable having athletic use only, that's fine. But I think, um, What I've heard people say, among other things, are really concerned about traffic and density. And I think limiting it to athletic uses is just another way of trying to control those. And I think if those are the real concerns and that's what we're trying to do, I think control the density through the numbers. You don't need to necessarily control it in the type of event because whether it's a baseball game or softball game, commencement, if it's 250 people, it's 250 people. Like that's what I'm more concerned about. So again, if people are okay with that and they want that, that's fine. But I don't necessarily, I think it is limiting in a way that doesn't really achieve what I would think the goal would be. But again, if, if going back to earlier statement, if everybody's okay with it, like I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Um, and as for the, the, uh, the, the parts that, you know, Alderman Gary Feder talked about, again, we'll look at the language, but, um, Again, if everybody's comfortable with that and it doesn't conflict with other sections in the code, I'm fine with it.

A couple of things on the, to all the women's Patel comment. Part of the challenge with baseball is it may go three hours. It may go 18 hours because you have, you have extra innings. And I recognize the idea of wanting to get through a game and having the game in prematurely because of time. So I can, I can appreciate why she's just concerned given giving them enough buffer, especially for certain sports, some sports, it's a little more likely that they're going to stay within a time limit. So a couple of things, you know, I won't belabor them because they've kind of been talked about is, you know, ultimately I want to see what the verbiage looks like, right? Because that's going to matter. But I think, you know, conceptually if it doesn't solve all the problems, I think a lot of the residents have expressed, but I think it definitely does move the needle to hopefully address some of them. I generally think about it as if WashU is generally okay with it and the residents are okay supportive of it i'm fine with it like i don't necessarily have a reason to say no to any of it because if you know to me if everybody agrees why am i going to say no when it comes to stuff like this um you it's I do want to hear kind of what the citizens that are here tonight think about it. Like, right. Like obviously there was 20. Yeah, I know. I'm just saying like, that's part of reserving judgment to seeing the verbiage and also hearing what folks say, but obviously you met with, you know, mayor with, with 2025 folks. And this is some of the stuff that came out of it. Um, I do agree with Susan. Like if, if, if everybody feels more comfortable having athletic use only, that's fine. But I think, um, What I've heard people say, among other things, are really concerned about traffic and density. And I think limiting it to athletic uses is just another way of trying to control those. And I think if those are the real concerns and that's what we're trying to do, I think control the density through the numbers. You don't need to necessarily control it in the type of event because whether it's a baseball game or softball game, commencement, if it's 250 people, it's 250 people. Like that's what I'm more concerned about. So again, if people are okay with that and they want that, that's fine. But I don't necessarily, I think it is limiting in a way that doesn't really achieve what I would think the goal would be. But again, if, if going back to earlier statement, if everybody's okay with it, like I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Um, and as for the, the, uh, the, the parts that, you know, Alderman Fader talked about, again, we'll look at the language, but, um, Again, if everybody's comfortable with that and it doesn't conflict with other sections in the code, I'm fine with it.

Very good. Okay. I think that kind of wraps up what we need to talk about with this. And so now we're very eager to have... You all come and comment. You know the drill. You just come up to the microphone, say your name and your address, and tell us what you think. I do want to say, too, come on up, Chuck, that I think that we will likely have maybe another small meeting or two before our next January meeting. And so we can... talk more about some of these things then like in small neighborhood groups like we did just a couple weeks ago if we want if we want yeah okay go ahead chuck

40 Southmore drive. I agree. God is in the details and I'm just trying to get some clarification. So I understand what's being suggested. There was an earlier discussion at the last meeting that access to the parking on the site would only be allowed to handicapped delivery and emergency vehicles. Is that still the situation?

I'm going to let staff answer

that. I don't recall that being a suggestion.

I made us like when I was talking about the, um, I believe I made a comment along those lines based on the idea that I think you have to allow some parking on the site for those particular, um, access issues but that the um proximity of Fonfon and Wash U's extensive underground parking and shuttle system could make it such that we don't allow any additional parking and I wanted so I wanted language in here which I think version I think there's something getting close to that which or that at least doesn't um

it

allows us and encourages those like off-site parking um as much as possible. So I

wouldn't, I like that. What do you think

about it? What's your

comment? I think it's a great line of reasoning for several reasons. One is you observed Fonbon's current flat lot parking lots are there. The university has their underground parking. And as Mary Campbell observed, they have a great shuttle system. By limiting the onsite parking, it significantly reduces traffic. And I think traffic and access from Big Bend are crucial issue for the neighborhood. It's all about safety. And with reduced numbers, there shouldn't need to be a Big Bend access point. Certainly, there could be pedestrian access from new walkways and bikeways, but eliminating a traffic access point on Big Bend is critical, I think, to the success and support of this by the neighborhood. My other question is building height. There had also been discussion about burying this new structure in the ground, which I hope is still being contemplated, but I will observe that the building code, building height, is measured in a variety of ways. If it's a peaked roof, it's only measured to the median point of that roof. So the actual height of the structure could exceed the 55 feet. So I would be looking for clarity from the board as to what exact measurements being contemplated. And again, would encourage WashU and their architectural staff to perhaps bury that building as much as feasible into the site. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you.

Okay, I just on that comment, though, can we I mean I know we've talked about that related to the midpoint of the roof, so how have we left it is it still related as chuck said the midpoint or can we make it 50 but, since we are allowing them. beyond the 41 feet for volleyball, I know that there's stuff on top of it that we have to include, but can we cap the roof? The highest point, whether that's the access for the fire department is that, can that

be capped at 55 feet? It can. We would, it would just be a, we would do it through this overlay district because that's not how we calculate height anywhere else. So it would only apply to these properties. Yeah. I mean,

I, I would certainly support having a definitive numbers so that there isn't because i understand it is very confusing out in the neighborhood when they think a building is going to be a certain height you know the plan commission we you know think yes it's going to be that height but it's actually only to the midpoint of the roof so resolving any sort of confusion on the height i i would i think that would be a good idea that's that's a good that's

a

good we don't need to have a fancy pitched roof this is a you know so

well

okay

yes all right uh others

and I'm Anne Martin, Tuscany Park. I want to thank Becky for being so attentive to all these changes and for starting the ball rolling on reading everything carefully. And I'd like to make a comment about Gary Feder's remark a while back that he said he's never seen anything with so many conditional uses. And I'd certainly have to agree with that and wonder why That doesn't suggest to all of you that this is not an appropriate use, a land use. We take a zoning change very seriously and there's nothing in our area that's anywhere near six stories high and it's a building that you're not replacing, you're building something new. The numbers for all the participants and the audiences and all this had been all over the place from, what, 10 days ago, 1800 people possibly at a time. Now we still don't know. In fact, it was, let's see, hesitant to commit to any sort of numbers. And I understand things like site plan review, but the whole experience for a year has been responding to something we can't see at all. The size of the buildings, the number of fields, the number of buildings and all that stuff is gonna tell us what the numbers of cars ingress and egress will be. We don't have a traffic study that was based on our first, I don't know if you remember a year ago, it was two playing fields, period. I just have a feeling that WashU is, I'm just thinking they're enjoying this. We've spent a year nickel and diming this whole project with sound and lights and all that. There's nothing in the land used around this that has lighting like that, that has loudspeakers, that has a couple hundred people coming and going, not even the C2 that we're next to in Tuscany Park. All the other requirements for certainly zoning, but I would think even CUP or whatever, whether it's an overlay district, which by the way, we do not have yet, or if it's a CUP district. all of them require a compatibility with surrounding uses and buildings. There's nothing in this whole area of Clayton that's anything like this kind of use, this kind of ingress and egress. And the thought of hundreds of cars in and out on Big Bend, I can't believe that's not a bigger issue to you. Again, the traffic study is moot. You were talking about two fields in the beginning. Clayton Big Bend is five lanes all the way through from Webster to Richmond Heights, Maplewood, all the way to Clayton Road. And then it switches to four lanes right there, right where the worst traffic and backups are happening. during rush hour. And we've seen the pictures, we've shown them to you. We've shown how dangerous the sidewalks are. It's just wildly dangerous. And the County Highway Department is what set that up for us. So I'm not sure I trust what they're doing and I don't see you protecting us in any of that. There's, as I said, plenty of room to add another lane. We've got Fontbonne's property and the west side of Big Bend where there's lots of space. And I'm showing you the pictures of that. I think it's going to turn into something like what happened in U City. Wash U owns 200 properties in U City. They're the biggest landowners. Joe Edwards just sold all of his properties to Wash U. Wash U already has, what I think, eight homes on Cecil, private residences. And I think they're just biding their time and gonna wait till Concordia goes the way of Fontbonne. They've got 600 students. And they're battling right now with the synod, same synod in Indiana. They're not in good shape. I think they're going to fold. And I would bet money on this. And I think WashU has to be enjoying this nickel and diming for a year. And I think they're just biding their time until they can get 115 acres in Clayton. That's including Concordia. And you know what happens to properties all around there. All the properties bordering Fontbonne's property, that's going to be Wash U residences. They are doing huge land grabs. And I think you really need to think, is that... I think that's what would happen with Concordia. I mean, who foresaw Fontbonne? Yeah. Um, I think it needs your comment about depreciating effect. I don't think that's good enough. Um, I think the problem with this whole thing is changing the zoning and in the land use, there's nothing else like it around and it's not at all compatible in any way with the residential area in there. While she's got lots of money, they can, they've got all sorts of property North of Delmar, um, They've offered no alternatives to us, and I think they need to dig a little harder. And we don't have to solve all their problems. It's not for us to do. And I don't think you need to put that on us.

and I'm Ann Martin, Tuscany Park. I want to thank Becky for being so attentive to all these changes and for starting the ball rolling on reading everything carefully. And I'd like to make a comment about Gary Fader's remark a while back that he said he's never seen anything with so many conditional uses. And I'd certainly have to agree with that and wonder why That doesn't suggest to all of you that this is not an appropriate use, a land use. We take a zoning change very seriously and there's nothing in our area that's anywhere near six stories high and it's a building that you're not replacing, you're building something new. The numbers for all the participants and the audiences and all this had been all over the place from, what, 10 days ago, 1800 people possibly at a time. Now we still don't know. In fact, it was, let's see, hesitant to commit to any sort of numbers. And I understand things like site plan review, but the whole experience for a year has been responding to something we can't see at all. The size of the buildings, the number of fields, the number of buildings and all that stuff is gonna tell us what the numbers of cars ingress and egress will be. We don't have a traffic study that was based on our first, I don't know if you remember a year ago, it was two playing fields, period. I just have a feeling that WashU is, I'm just thinking they're enjoying this. We've spent a year nickel and diming this whole project with sound and lights and all that. There's nothing in the land used around this that has lighting like that, that has loudspeakers, that has a couple hundred people coming and going, not even the C2 that we're next to in Tuscany Park. All the other requirements for certainly zoning, but I would think even CUP or whatever, whether it's an overlay district, which by the way, we do not have yet, or if it's a CUP district. all of them require a compatibility with surrounding uses and buildings. There's nothing in this whole area of Clayton that's anything like this kind of use, this kind of ingress and egress. And the thought of hundreds of cars in and out on Big Bend, I can't believe that's not a bigger issue to you. Again, the traffic study is moot. You were talking about two fields in the beginning. Clayton Big Bend is five lanes all the way through from Webster to Richmond Heights, Maplewood, all the way to Clayton Road. And then it switches to four lanes right there, right where the worst traffic and backups are happening. during rush hour. And we've seen the pictures, we've shown them to you. We've shown how dangerous the sidewalks are. It's just wildly dangerous. And the County Highway Department is what set that up for us. So I'm not sure I trust what they're doing and I don't see you protecting us in any of that. There's, as I said, plenty of room to add another lane. We've got Fontbonne's property and the west side of Big Bend where there's lots of space. And I'm showing you the pictures of that. I think it's going to turn into something like what happened in U City. Wash U owns 200 properties in U City. They're the biggest landowners. Joe Edwards just sold all of his properties to Wash U. Wash U already has, what I think, eight homes on Cecil, private residences. And I think they're just biding their time and gonna wait till Concordia goes the way of Fontbonne. They've got 600 students. And they're battling right now with the synod, same synod in Indiana. They're not in good shape. I think they're going to fold. And I would bet money on this. And I think WashU has to be enjoying this nickel and diming for a year. And I think they're just biding their time until they can get 115 acres in Clayton. That's including Concordia. And you know what happens to properties all around there. All the properties bordering Fontbonne's property, that's going to be Wash U residences. They are doing huge land grabs. And I think you really need to think, is that... I think that's what would happen with Concordia. I mean, who foresaw Fontbonne? Yeah. Um, I think it needs your comment about depreciating effect. I don't think that's good enough. Um, I think the problem with this whole thing is changing the zoning and in the land use, there's nothing else like it around and it's not at all compatible in any way with the residential area in there. While she's got lots of money, they can, they've got all sorts of property North of Delmar, um, They've offered no alternatives to us, and I think they need to dig a little harder. And we don't have to solve all their problems. It's not for us to do. And I don't think you need to put that on us.

Thank you, Ann. I just want to reiterate that the other partner here is Concordia, as you mentioned, and we absolutely want Concordia to be healthy and sustainable long-term. absolutely echo your thoughts there and one way to help them do that is to allow them to monetize this property in a way that's produces some synergies of use for them as well so just saying that is part of why this can be beneficial to the city okay any other comments well yeah come on up

My name's Rand Summer. I'm at Fort Tuscany Park. We cut, we were sort of incorporated into the university now. So, um, I, there's sort of relative height. We're dealing with that, that, that, huge amount of elevation, 80 feet. Uh, there's the relative amount of height that, uh, we're, we're talking about 55 feet from where is it going to tower over our houses? Is it going to be from the Creek? The Creek's really low. And, uh, What if we say Tuscany Park, which is a low spot, the park is zero. How far is that going to go up over our houses?

The closest thing we can tell you is that the existing gym is 50 feet. 55 feet right now, Concordia's gym building. So the provision that we have within the overlay district to try and protect against or prohibit the ability to just build up the land and then put a giant building on top of that that would tower over you is by limiting the change that they can make in grade. to support a building. So they're only allowed to add up to six feet in height with approval from the planning commission through site plan review and then put a building on top of that. So they wouldn't be able to build the land up 20 feet in height and then put a 55 foot building on top of

That's

the maximum that they could do. Now we would have to go through site plan review to see how they are changing the topography. And that's also part of So there's height, and then there's the perception of the height. And so the further away you get from the point of the face of the building, the more that that height starts to drop down. And so that's part of the reason for having those larger transition zones that are filled with trees is to, again, remove the buildings from being right next to the residential properties. And then we add trees and other elements that would... prohibit or somewhat kind of cast shadows or sightline variances so that you're not just staring directly at a giant wall opposite of your residential home.

Okay. Do you remember a few years ago, Warshue did not build a bunch of parking garages in front of its beautiful campus. It put them underground. Remember,

Oh, okay. Debbie Summer, Fort Tuscany Park. And thank you for all the modifications you've already worked on and for good questions. I want clarification, and I've talked to our ward people about this, on that southern boundary that I just read your letter that you proposed, and we're back to the 90 feet line. on that southern boundary. So I would like you all to help me understand. We've gone multiple times with, we've got the tree coverage, the transition zone, and now right behind my house, it cuts back to 90. Also in the preliminary draft, one of the potential uses right behind my house or caddy corner is the varsity softball field. So if that's there and my setback is closer to me, I'm in this little amphitheater where varsity sports, which can go louder and have amplification. Am I misunderstanding? No,

that's right. Just varsity sports for games.

Right. So potentially on the preliminary draft, the softball varsity softball field will be right there. City Council Chambers, Potentially so i'd really like any clarification, you could give in regards to that 90 foot setback and then I want to reiterate what anna's talked about appreciate having other access right there at fun fun. City Council Chambers , And egress but again this can we ever meet with St Louis county the traffic department is that something we could do.

We could meet with them again. Yeah, absolutely. No problem.

I would love to be there. We've invited them over to our neighborhood multiple times and get no response, but maybe you have more clap than we do. We could.

Our next round of meetings with them will be during the site plan process where we have specific buildings, specific layouts. We have numbers we can actually share with them, solid numbers. And then we'll go through the more detailed traffic study at that time.

Okay. Do you have any clarification?

I would. Yeah, do you? Well, I was just going to say, I think that's one of the reasons why I was proposing here that we take another deep dive into the setbacks on the western and southern boundaries, because that came to our attention. So unless you have other

I was just going to add that because I had suggested extending the transition area and in consultation with city staff and further review of this site. realized that like, that is actually some of the land that is most well suited to development because it is currently developed and flat in terms of not disturbing like topography and nature and water and all that stuff. And so, so that's one thing to consider. Um, so another even, I guess, question I'd have for you to consider and maybe get back to us on is, you know, is this a situation where you might, um, prefer a building versus a field because the building is, the noise is on the inside. We talked about some of that stuff when we were with you on the property, but to think about some of that, that as it comes to the site, you already have that land developed today. And so it, to me, in fact, does seem reasonable to allow it to be developed at that 90 foot setback. or end of the transition zone. So that's just kind of like where I'm sitting right now as I think about it and what makes sense for the site and like good planning from that perspective. I think we can be open to understanding

it and seeing what else we can do closer closer to the eastern going heading heading east along the southern boundary so we're going to look at it and we'll see what see what we can figure out okay definitely promise okay um other other members of oh wait we've got someone online i'm sorry that wants to has had their hand up for a while so um this would be david david edison

hi can you hear me

yep

I am speaking here with my mom, Marilyn. We're stuck at home with COVID. We'd like to thank the mayor and the board for trying to work with us and with WashU. I know it's not an easy job. You guys have spent hours on this problem, and I appreciate your mediation attempts tonight, but I'm afraid to say they do not reassure us. WashU clearly continues to toy with us and with you. leaving way too much uncertainty to be credible, for anything to be credible. These are expectations, not rules, even written in there. I echo the sentiments of my former art teacher, Anne Martin, completely. We've lived at 30 Southmore for over 60 years. We're on the corner of Big Bend and Southmore. This is our backyard. Our garage and driveway exits directly onto Big Bend. Our only means of vehicular access is straight onto Big Bend. And we have seen some things. We never thought that this land would remain as it is forever, but the scope of this particular project, when it is possible to squeeze details out of WashU's incomplete concept, can only be called the Big Bend Sports Complex. When the Concordia project was discussed at City Hall at one meeting last fall, we heard, One member on the plan committee speaks so fondly of the fact that Concordia was going to leave its eastern border as the beautiful park it is today, in which we all agree should remain so. But moments later, that same man said of Concordia's western edge along Big Bend, well, it's not going to stay a park forever. But we don't expect that. What we do expect is for Concordia and for WashU to be held to the same standards as taxpaying residents. For instance, right now we are currently adding a ground level ADU so that my mom and I can live at 30 Southmore for the remainder of both of our lives. The rules say that this new unit must be built of brick because Clayton prizes architectural unity and, as it should, protects its remarkable historical character. We are all too happy to comply with the city of Clayton because Clayton is home and we love living here. Of course, Washington University and Concordia have rights to use their land, and I'm sure they've been bullying you on that front legally. But like their neighbors across the Big Bend Expressway, If this is approved, they must be held accountable to use that land in the spirit of the laws that apply to its voting taxpaying citizens. In order for fair use to be fair, it must apply the same mindset to any applicant, regardless of scale. I'll be brief, but we have four discrete problems with this proposal. Size. The size of this project was too big for the land and the community supporting it way back when it was merely intramural. After WashU's blatant scale creep and classic bait-and-switch to hosting Division 1, or whatever they're calling it now, We're going to see our land leveled for a squeezed-end Big Bend sports complex that Washington University will absolutely outgrow in 10 years. More in keeping with Clayton would be low-level residential complex for graduate students and young teachers with tennis courts and a playing field in the center of the property. And you can even make it brick. Second, sound. There aren't enough trees or setbacks in the world to keep Tuscany Park and Southmore from hearing nightly play-by-play announcements. The reassurances we've gotten are vague and hand-wavy at best, which, to be fair, is on brand for this entire half-baked project from WashU's perspective. No taxpaying homeowner could possibly offend their neighbors with that kind of noise or light in that way for a weekend, let alone in perpetuity with potential add-ons in the future. Number three, lighting. Forget looking at the night sky from 5 to 10 or later in the evening. For some of us, forget looking out our windows as well. It is hard for us to imagine that anyone at City Hall would want this unless they live far enough away from the Big Bend Sports Complex for it not to make a difference in their lives. Or last traffic. This is a literal killer. It is insane to think that it is remotely safe to put 100, 200, 300, 900. What are the numbers? People full of cars holding that many people of cars on to Big Bend at one time when it is already unmanageable for several hours a day. Game traffic and rush hour traffic. And this incredible increase in traffic will come from mainly 18 to 25-year-old drivers, not known to be the most responsible drivers. Just ask their insurance company. I was eight years old when I saw my first deadly accident on Big Bend. It happened in our driveway. A car wrapped itself around the telephone pole a few feet to the north. I saw a corpse with long hair draped over her gurney and a screaming man cut out of the wreckage with the jaws of life. That was only my first casualty on Big Bend. I am sure the Liebermans at number one Southmore do not want their daughter to share in that particular education, let alone on steroids, perhaps literally littered with red solo cups. Come on. Again, this land can and should be used in accordance with the character and spirit of Clayton, following the same sensibilities that inform the rules with which we who make our homes next door are only too happy to comply. Make it brick. That's all.

I am speaking here with my mom, Marilyn. We're stuck at home with COVID. We'd like to thank the mayor and the board for trying to work with us and with WashU. I know it's not an easy job. You guys have spent hours on this problem, and I appreciate your mediation attempts tonight, but I'm afraid to say they do not reassure us. WashU clearly continues to toy with us and with you. leaving way too much uncertainty to be credible, for anything to be credible. These are expectations, not rules, even written in there. I echo the sentiments of my former art teacher, Ann Martin, completely. We've lived at 30 Southmore for over 60 years. We're on the corner of Big Bend and Southmore. This is our backyard. Our garage and driveway exits directly onto Big Bend. Our only means of vehicular access is straight onto Big Bend. And we have seen some things. We never thought that this land would remain as it is forever, but the scope of this particular project, when it is possible to squeeze details out of WashU's incomplete concept, can only be called the Big Bend Sports Complex. When the Concordia project was discussed at City Hall at one meeting last fall, we heard, One member on the plan committee speaks so fondly of the fact that Concordia was going to leave its eastern border as the beautiful park it is today, in which we all agree should remain so. But moments later, that same man said of Concordia's western edge along Big Bend, well, it's not going to stay a park forever. But we don't expect that. What we do expect is for Concordia and for WashU to be held to the same standards as taxpaying residents. For instance, right now we are currently adding a ground level ADU so that my mom and I can live at 30 Southmore for the remainder of both of our lives. The rules say that this new unit must be built of brick because Clayton prizes architectural unity and, as it should, protects its remarkable historical character. We are all too happy to comply with the city of Clayton because Clayton is home and we love living here. Of course, Washington University and Concordia have rights to use their land, and I'm sure they've been bullying you on that front legally. But like their neighbors across the Big Bend Expressway, If this is approved, they must be held accountable to use that land in the spirit of the laws that apply to its voting taxpaying citizens. In order for fair use to be fair, it must apply the same mindset to any applicant, regardless of scale. I'll be brief, but we have four discrete problems with this proposal. Size. The size of this project was too big for the land and the community supporting it way back when it was merely intramural. After WashU's blatant scale creep and classic bait-and-switch to hosting Division 1, or whatever they're calling it now, We're going to see our land leveled for a squeezed-end Big Bend sports complex that Washington University will absolutely outgrow in 10 years. More in keeping with Clayton would be low-level residential complex for graduate students and young teachers with tennis courts and a playing field in the center of the property. And you can even make it brick. Second, sound. There aren't enough trees or setbacks in the world to keep Tuscany Park and Southmore from hearing nightly play-by-play announcements. The reassurances we've gotten are vague and hand-wavy at best, which, to be fair, is on brand for this entire half-baked project from WashU's perspective. No taxpaying homeowner could possibly offend their neighbors with that kind of noise or light in that way for a weekend, let alone in perpetuity with potential add-ons in the future. Number three, lighting. Forget looking at the night sky from 5 to 10 or later in the evening. For some of us, forget looking out our windows as well. It is hard for us to imagine that anyone at City Hall would want this unless they live far enough away from the Big Bend Sports Complex for it not to make a difference in their lives. Or last traffic. This is a literal killer. It is insane to think that it is remotely safe to put 100, 200, 300, 900. What are the numbers? People full of cars holding that many people of cars on to Big Bend at one time when it is already unmanageable for several hours a day. Game traffic and rush hour traffic. And this incredible increase in traffic will come from mainly 18 to 25-year-old drivers, not known to be the most responsible drivers. Just ask their insurance company. I was eight years old when I saw my first deadly accident on Big Bend. It happened in our driveway. A car wrapped itself around the telephone pole a few feet to the north. I saw a corpse with long hair draped over her gurney and a screaming man cut out of the wreckage with the jaws of life. That was only my first casualty on Big Bend. I am sure the Liebermans at number one Southmore do not want their daughter to share in that particular education, let alone on steroids, perhaps literally littered with red solo cups. Come on. Again, this land can and should be used in accordance with the character and spirit of Clayton, following the same sensibilities that inform the rules with which we who make our homes next door are only too happy to comply. Make it brick. That's all.

Thank you. Okay.

Go on up, Joan. Joan Downey, 9 Tuscany Park. So I'm completely opposed to this overlay district approach. Could I have the Cliff Notes version from someone on the board on what it actually takes to repeal an overlay district? Has it ever happened in Clayton? And does it require any citizen energy?

I'm not aware of it happening in the past, but if you were to repeal it, it would be basically the exact same process that we're going through right now. So any change to the zoning map would require public hearings that would be at the plan commission and then also at the board of Alderman and it would be repealed through an ordinance. So the same process essentially that establishes it wouldn't need to be in place to undo it.

Okay. That's a lot of work. Um, I think if this overlay boxes go through that it really should only be WashU students sport activities. I'm completely opposed to any other use like creative concerts, speakers, commencements. Speakers and talks bring security risks right into our Clayton backyards. I was at graduation and Having grown up in Columbia, South America, I'm very comfortable with machine gun carrying security guards around you physically. But it was not an experience I'd had in the United States until I went to commencement and saw the number of armed personnel that were needed for Dr. Fauci's speech to escort him onto the field and off the field. We really don't need to move some high-risk activities into our backyards. This needs to be a sports-only event. That's exactly what we're proposing tonight. Right. I'm just speaking to one of the aldermen's questioning of whether it could extend beyond sports. I get this there. I don't think it should change at all. Upon reflection, if WashU determines that this overlay district set of rules inside the boxes results in such a suboptimal athletic complex due to a suboptimal location. I volunteer to help look at residential options that might be used to recruit junior faculty into our Clayton community, like many other sister-rated universities do when we're trying to bring stellar staff and faculty to an excellent university. The options are very poor, as you know, for entry housing into Clayton for university-salaried staff and faculty, and I am sure that WashU has creative people that could look at this site differently, a walkable excellent school system adjacent to their already university campus, which will be formerly Fontbonne. And I'm happy to volunteer for any of those considerations. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else want to come up? Yeah. Oh, someone else is online. Okay. Hang on. Okay. Laura, you want to state your name and address and give us your comments?

Sure. My name is Laura Horowitz and I live at 70 Arundel Place. Um, I'm joining tonight mostly because as somebody who pays a good amount of attention to what's going on in the city and has sat on a couple different commissions and committees, I found this process. I'm actually surprised that it's still ongoing because my experience of working with our city staff and The transparency of this process led me to believe that the overlay district is the best protective measure the city can take for its residents. And I'm growing increasingly concerned about... the tenor of the conversation and the disengagement from like many Claytonians because I keep hearing from neighbors like myself who are just ready to move on and feel very, very comfortable with the Clayton, the overlay district as proposed and just the general transparency of the process. So I have all due respect to my neighbors who are living a little bit closer to the property, but I am also a bordering neighbor and I feel like this process has produced a very good solution and I would like to see it move forward. Thank you.

Okay. Franco.

Hi, I'm Bronco Marusic and I'm at two Tuscany park. I just wanted to say, um, To the extent that there's been these amendments made, most of the residents, especially those in Tuscany Park, are not in agreement with that. There is an attempt to make some compromises, but four fields, no change in the traffic. amplified noise throughout the week, none of those are acceptable. And it just comes back to placing an athletic complex within a community surrounding it that's been residential for 100 years. That's all. Thanks.

Thank you. All right. Others who would like to address the board? Okay.

name's marie bone 28 sophomore drive i am so appreciative of the efforts that have been made to listen to try to come to um tolerance levels if we if we can use that language and the amount of time that particularly you mayor harris have put to that and sign me up for those uh subsequent sessions if you do if you do another round um i have a couple questions but i have an over i don't think any of us who've been as engaged you know the 100 or so of us who've then coming to meetings would say that we favor this use of that of that property the fact that we have stayed engaged down to the gnats eyelash has to do with trying to deal with a reality that is an artifact of what zoning does permit. But all of us would say a better use of this property from the standpoint of compatibility with the community around it, the neighborhood around it, as well as benefit to, as we see it, to Washington University, would be just what my neighbor Anne described, something similar to what is there in terms of housing. Certainly it could have some field within it. It could share tennis courts with Concordia, but as I understand it, you don't have the power to direct the university that way. And I concur with one of the other commentators who's suggested that if If Washington University's enrollment grows as it hopes that it will, they may quickly, I mean quickly, but they may in 10 years find that the facility is too small for what they want, what they need. But that's their problem, not mine. My problem is to try to maintain the value of my home and the quality of my life. I'd like to specifically see where we are in cumulative numbers with, and I probably should have been doing that in my head, but there are four fields, there are four playing surfaces. What would be the maximum each of those playing surfaces could have at any one event?

Ana, do you want to address that?

So in the letter provided by Washington University earlier today, they list baseball with 275, softball with 275 seats, a multipurpose field with 50, 125 seats for their tennis courts, and then they're requesting 475 seats for the indoor track field facility.

But that's not the current draft.

That's the new information. The current draft just provides a maximum, not for specific field type, it's just a maximum here of venues or facilities with spectator seating shall be designed with a maximum permanent seat capacity of 200 seats per facility.

Well, one of the things that was discussed at the meeting. Oh, sorry.

Except for baseball and softball, which get 300 under the current draft.

Those

went down.

So at this point in the draft, what's the maximum number of participants that could be on the space at any one time?

So we don't have a participant number, we

have a maximum tenacity how many bodies could in total be on that land at one time in the draft. hundred.

600 for outdoor is that just for that we have to add up the number of facilities and

it's also important to note though that if all of those uses happen concurrently then there are more than 500 people on the site that would trigger an event permit requirement and the number of events with more than 500 people on the site is limited per year. Am I correct? And that's my understanding of what we're drafting. Yes, but the way it's

currently drafted, and so there's the proposal that's out there on Engage Clayton, then there's the list of items that were brought up in a subsequent meeting, and then there's the items that have been discussed this evening. So going back to that posted version that we have there, I believe that one, and I'd have to i switched my screen to the other thing i think it was two of 600 is what was in that last proposed draft

well yeah right so that's where we're um a lot of it's hard to put all these numbers out right now because we have we have capacity for facilities right and then separate to that we have event uh capacity triggers the special event permit

and so we just got this letter from washington university with the new numbers this afternoon so we're we're We even had it well, we haven't had a chance to even digest what we have from them and and try to figure out how to how to react to that

that's why i'm trying to ask

so.

yeah great so under the. Under the red line version that's been posted the last couple of meetings that would allow for 1200. total permanent seats on the site when you combine all the different venues and their caps. And then just for event capacity, we have in the current red line draft a trigger of 250 people for outdoor event requiring a special event permit except for baseball and softball uses which do not require a special event permit. So anything other than baseball and softball that has more than 250 people attending an outdoor event would require a special event permit. And then we have a maximum of 600 people allowed to attend an outdoor event. So we could have maximum of 600 attendees for an outdoor event, and only two of those outdoor events could happen with 600 people at the same time. So potentially under this special event, an outdoor event capacity. So then you would also have that same 1,200 number of participants at one time if you had two maximum outdoor events.

That's a lot of people in the space at any one time. I know. I mean, I'm appreciative and sympathetic. That's why I was trying. There must be something that's actually in print. That's why I was asking. Thank you.

Mary, can I ask you a question? Can I...

No, Campbell

or? Yeah, Mary Campbell. Can I just ask you a quick question? Just in line just with Marie's question, Mary Marie. If the 600 people, like, I mean, again, we've talked a lot about numbers. So 600, what do you anticipate? Like what sort of event? Can you give us any examples as to what? Because we're going to exclude, you know, graduation, cultural events, speaking events, I'm just curious, like what would trigger the 600 person event? And again, if you need to consult with other people, I would be curious. I understand the permanency capacity. That makes sense to me. But understanding why we would need 600 times two at an event, I'm just curious what you guys would imagine that would be.

Well, and if we are getting rid of the non-athletic events, it might be a moot point and it might make sense to just strike it. I mean, right. That's what I'm just trying to

understand what that would be, you know, because I think it concerns people to have that number of people coming onto the site where there's not an athletic event. So

yes, I'm glad I took a crack at clarifying this. So yeah, if you look at the current numbers that, you know, from last year that we have for softball or baseball I think, you know, Call it 300 each, right? So if they were to have a tournament at the same time, you'd have 600, right? And so that's how you might imagine getting the big kind of count. But, you know... That's

unlikely. Right, and then 600 more on top of that. So that's assuming that you guys have maybe an indoor track meet and a baseball and a softball event. Exactly, or tennis and people

exercising. I'm

just wondering if there's a way that we can make people feel better with that provision. I don't know, because having two events with 600 people would be very unlikely.

Yeah, it would be

unlikely. Yeah, so I just don't know why we need to... included, given that number. I understand if you find if baseball and softball are having a game at the same time, they happen to both be in, you know, the end of their season and more people come than normal, then maybe you have 600 people. But then having 600 more on top of that just seems very

unlikely. And we also then trip into the special permit process, right? As Ana said. So, I mean, frankly, I'm a little confused as to how you know, it would seem that if you had these two events that you would need, you'd have either nobody on the site, right? Right. Or you would have gotten into the special event permit where it could be specifically regulated for specifically what's going on with the site. And I'm not sure if I have that correct or not. But again, you know, happy to sit down and chart through this, you know, more with the right people just to get underneath that.

Yeah. I mean, I feel like it might be helpful to try to figure out how to clarify those, you know, just cause, um, Yeah. I mean, and we've been, we've been

trying to clarify

it. No, no, I know we've been, and we have been trying, but you know, I think Maria brings up a good point and realistically why allow two times 600 if there's not ever going to be 1200 people on that site. So,

and we've, we've tried, I've tried before and we talked about it. We've discussed it since, since that meeting with residents, trying to understand how, What is the worst case scenario? I mean, that's a question and I think we need to be able to answer it. So, but things continue to change and some of these permanent seats have come down since then. And so we just, you know, it's constantly changing. So that's one thing that makes it hard, but that doesn't mean we can't get it. So we will.

Yeah. And that would be really helpful too, because we now have the specific numbers by sport. But I'm, you know, It's hard to know exactly what, what we should be combining, what we, I just would, you know, love a, maybe a further dialogue. It's a direction on

when it seems unlikely that again, you'd have, you know, baseball, softball, and let's say you have a tennis event happening. You know what I mean? Right. Right. I would think it would be very unlikely. Right. No, no, no. I understand that. Right. Yeah.

Right. It keeps turning itself off. I don't know whether that's someone sabotaging me or whether it's just faulty. Okay. Other other. Yeah, Carol, come on up.

I'm glad that we're going to look again at that. I also accept the mayor's invitation to accompany the city manager and the sound engineers to measure the current decibel level at the boundaries of the overlay. And I wanted to double check something from earlier discussions in section 410980, part four, um i had understood there was a proposal to restrict amplified devices only to during use during varsity games and if that's the intent um the current wording doesn't specify that and i'd be happy to wordsmith that that's what

we

propose tonight to change oh okay okay okay thank you because i'm like wow it doesn't say that yet so but thank you very much um uh because that um So that takes care of a couple things I was going to say. And I wanted to reiterate, I think it was proposed last time, no Division I events. And I appreciate that occasionally you may have a Division I team that wants to play with the current Division III teams. And it's fine to have like two or three games a year, three games a year. Five games a year. with visiting teams who are division one that would be fine and I think it's actually valuable to include you know no division one other than these you know some visiting teams that are division one um to protect the um closer to Division three spirit of the current athletic program and You know, I have some friends that live at Evanston close to Northwestern's Division One program. And, you know, it's a different animal once you get into that level. But having some visiting Division One teams, and we can write language, and I'll propose some that would, you know, just a visiting team. That would be fine. Thank you.

Other speakers, other people that want to address us tonight?

Good evening, Your Honor. Jeff Gershman here for Dick and Josephine Weil. I have a question before I make a couple of brief comments. I've heard somebody say, I thought something about community access to this facility. Did I understand that correctly? Would the residents be able to use these facilities?

I think that they would have, A, access to wander on to the property or whatever. But then there's just like some of the, I think the Danforth campus currently has some guidelines for this. Is that right? But they would be able to use certain parts of it.

The neighbors today. What's it

called? Multi-use.

Multi-use field. Wash U allows the neighbors on the old CBC property to use the field there when it's not in use by their teams or like activities. And so they've suggested similar allowance.

So would I be able

to play tennis on these tennis courts? We don't, I don't know about tennis. The multipurpose field. It's like kids play pickup soccer there. That's what happens today. In that neighborhood, there are multiple... university athletic fields, the one at the old CBC and the one at Concordia. And both of those institutions allow folks who live in the neighborhood to use those multipurpose fields for casual, informal ballplay. And kids do that. We had a kid speak a month ago at one of our meetings about doing it. And so they've suggested that the multipurpose field would similarly be available when their universities are not using them.

Okay. Is there to be a fence around this facility?

So that is something that I addressed tonight as something I'd like to examine more because the current overlay allows for fences, but it doesn't really go into much detail about where, when, why. And I want to see if we can drill down on that to get some idea about that. I think there may be places where...

Yeah, I mean, in current use, the CBC field, for example, is fenced and the Concordia one I believe is not. So, I mean, it can work either way in terms of allowing access.

Okay. Well, I want to answer Alderman Yorg's question. It is clear that the residents are not supportive of this project. If there's any doubt, it should be apparent by now after six public meetings and virtually hundreds, I would bet, of people opposing this project, versus I think this person who spoke, Laura, was the second person in six meetings and probably a couple hundred comments who spoke in favor of it. There is no doubt, and it should be evident to all of you, that the community strongly opposed to a sports complex on this site. I want to make sure there's no doubt about that. You know, the city has wrestled before with Washington University's appetite for expansion. And if you look at the R1 zoning district, you will see on permitted uses there an interesting comment on that very issue. And Ordinance number 405.1780, which outlines the permitted and conditional uses, it specifically comments when this issue came up on the south side of Forsyth Boulevard. And it says, to this day, this area presents special use and aesthetic characteristics which require careful balance and special attention. The patent characteristics, I'm sorry, patent residential character of the structures in this area is a predominant feature which must be preserved for harmony with internal and contiguous residential uses while the area's proximity to Washington University suggests reasonable allowance for ancillary education-related activities. Therefore, in this part of the r1 district only education and institutional institutional uses may be conditionally permitted in existing residential structures provided such uses are limited to guest lodging offices conference and meeting facilities and similar ancillary activities if in addition to the other standards for conditional uses which we've all discussed and heard before provided this chapter, the following requirements are met. Number one, the residential appearance of the structure and yard areas is preserved. Number two, hours of operation are limited to times which will not interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of residential properties in and adjacent to the area. And finally, The use, the use will not result in excess traffic or light, smoke, noise, or other emissions incompatible. There's that word again, incompatible with residential neighborhoods in the city of Clayton. so uh when los you tried to do this before the city took an extremely protective stance with respect to the residents and we urge you to do the same thing with this proposal to allow this complex with 80 or 85 feet i'm not sure where we are now all light poles and I don't know where we are, 600 or 1200 or whatever the number is of people all packed in at once. Cars, concession stands, interior gymnasiums just doesn't fit in this residential neighborhood. And I would urge you once again to do what this board did 20 years ago. when this issue came up on the south side of Forsyth to do the same thing, to protect the residents. Thank you.

I'm Tina Holland. I live in Whitehound Forest. 40 years ago plus, the Board of Aldermen was subjected to a proposition by the Lutheran Synod where they wanted to build their world headquarters there. And my dad happened to be on the board at the time. And the Board of Alderman supported this proposition they thought it would be a great idea wonderful for the city of Clayton however the residents like these residents you're listening to tonight and with the other five meetings that they've had they opposed it and they were relentless in their opposition And because of that, the Board of Aldermen voted no. They did not want the people who elected them to have to suffer. They wanted to represent the people who elected that. So I would strongly urge that you not support this complex. Also, the boy who came up and talked about playing on the field, he said that they were allowed on the Concordia field But they were not allowed on the other field. On the CBC, if you will check the records, I think that is what he said. He

shared a story of they are sometimes asked to leave the field when Washi is getting ready to use it. So

nevertheless, I would strongly urge you not to support this. Thank you.

John Hutkin. Clayton resident. Um, I truly feel it must've been felt like a good idea at the time. Have you ever had that experience that at the time that this all came up, it was a good idea. And that's why I think there has been a lot of support initially. Um, I should have made copies of this, but, uh, This is very simplistic, similar to what Washington University has presented. I don't know if you can see this. This is a circle. And around the circle, it says criteria for conditional use permit approval, which is what the CUP comes under. And there's nothing in it, nothing. And it also requires, plus all upfront detail of project and confirmation of meeting conditional use permit criteria to get into this circle. What we have in an overlay district, and my father, when I first got into business with him, said, don't get in the trick bag. I think it's tricky, and we got a trick bag. All of this, you can see all this filled in with all these statements. And I'm just going to read this. This is what we're offering to put in in advance. They don't have to go through any of the, here are the real guard lines or guard rails and what you're going to see, you're going to get. And when you see what you're going Everyone here can have a different perspective than they have before they saw it. You may see something entirely different. It is impossible to have the same perspective that you had on when you see nothing than when you see everything. That we're putting all of us, residents, all of the everyone here on the board, the mayor, all the older people, you really have a chance to see what's really gonna happen. And so that is what the conditional use permit does. I showed in this, I just made some and I realized these numbers are changing, but just to get an idea of the scope and the size of this thing and what is trying to drop into it in advance of seeing the big picture It's a sports complex. That is going to be, if this gets in there later on, it said, oh, we can take care of that. It'll be the same thing as doing it. is they're going to be on a completely different position because we already have a sports complex. We, we bought it. We're, we're doing this deal because we're going to get a sports complex in there and we should get the amenities and other things that support that. So you'll, we'll be coming from a different place. We'll be coming from defense. This is, Being shown why and how the thing will work before it gets into the circle. This is already all of these things are in the circle. What are they? I know the numbers are changing five sports fields. No, no plan to show us up front. 1,800, I've heard, I know it's maybe changing, but we've heard 1,800 to 2,500 people. If you put the indoor people, the extort people, the players, the managers, all the people that surround being involved in the games, allowing sound and light to transfer, that was one of the requests from Washington U. I don't know where that's going, but it's going to be something. And if you have, how do you mitigate that? 1800 people or 1200 people. It's just not even, there's going to be if, if here, at least you got some force trading to do on the criteria because they, no one can meet that sound and understand what it's going to be. And more of the light I've, I have heard about dark side, David, they know that that's possibly a transfer of light too. And plus the whole place has to be lit up so that it's safe to get in and out of it and all, whatever that's going to take to make it safe to use the complex at night. We're talking about allowing potentially 80 foot light poles. Is that, would that be challenged in a CUP? I don't know. How many? The current one has, the baseball field has 10 and you've got numerous other fields that that is a lot. So it looks a lot different than it's going to look now. You're going to have significant topography upheaval, which then moves into having walls, retaining walls, increased dangers to pedestrians because we've got a lot more traffic. You're talking about also 40% of the building coverage in addition to these pervious fields, this is all still in the box. This is before we start. That very significant frequent duration of outdoor indoor activities many, many times over affecting the joining neighborhoods. I would say how much more activity do you think there's in there? And it does mention that in the CUP about how that affects it. This may sound like a lot. I'm gonna say it's 100 times. Maybe I'm overestimating it. How much more activity did we develop by putting this in there than what's already there and has been used to be there, and it's around the surrounding neighborhood? I think there's 44 houses that are within 185 feet. 45. And then it will extend beyond that. And then I had these, like, I didn't read out of room what's going in that you're free putting onto this. It's structured garages because we have to have more parking than was ever considered. ever considered in that space and on top of it it's and i don't know what's mentally going to happen they're saying well we'll put it underground and then we'll have a 12 feet high and then we'll a field on top of that oh that i don't want to be sarcastic but i mean i that doesn't quite fit the neighborhood uh compatibility uh then you've got um let's see uh Oh, you don't have, well, you don't pre-approve versus approve. Well, that's just all of these things are pre-approved. We are working backwards as far as how do we, you have to be on the defense and it's talked about, okay, extreme change to the, we already talked about these. So I just want a significant parking requirement. Oh, additional police. services, because things happen. And that's also in, does anything cause additional work to the police? That's also in the CUP. It's not supposed to do that. So the compatibility issue with the neighborhood, does it look anything like? It's not going to be completely different. The two things that kept coming up, this is going to protect you. If I were wanting to be protected I would want to start not here where everything's in it, and then they can actually add on to that. And you say, well, we'll take care of that in whatever service. It's not going to be the same thing. It is not the same thing as trying to get into the door. I'm not saying that... this can't be done. They couldn't have some fields, but when you put the whole complex in there, it's out of scale and it's out of size and it's bringing way too many people in there. It's bringing way parking in there. It is dangerous. I don't know if anybody saw the video that went out that showed, that talked about that. It was, everybody got that. I don't and all of all the crossing the streets. And just the normal people that are using Y down. So I, the bottom, I don't think we would be more protected in this because they have to come in the front door, and we get to see what they see. And you can then judge properly, what should be there, you can't do it without seeing it in advance. That's why all of these things that come in a CUP and all the cities, you must do this. We're trying to throw that out the window. And it was interesting. It was said to me, oh, this is when they saw this. I don't know if this person wants me to get credit for it, but it said something very interesting. He said, we're running a race. And by doing this there on the 50 yard line, And we're starting it back at the first yard line. So we're running a hundred yard dash. And I'm going to say, I'll use a football analogy, take it further. They're way in the red zone. And once this, once we put this in and there'll be no getting out and they can fool with that as time goes on. Well, it's practical. I know in one of the letters they wrote, well, it should be commercially reasonable. Those ideas will all come to the surface and even enhance the And add on to what you got. And you will not be in a position, you think, to hold them back because wait a minute, we did this thing because you approved all this in advance. Now go try and stop it. That train is going full blast. And it is much different And you're saying for protection of the residents to start from the empty space.

Thank you. Are there other people that would like to make a comment? Okay. Oh, okay. Got one.

I'm Josephine Weil. My husband and I live at number three, Forest Ridge. I wrote out what I was going to say tonight, and I've decided not to read it. And I'll tell you, I think you all know how all of us feel about this. I think you've been terrific to hear us all. I think WashU's made a clear presentation of what they want. They change it every time, in my opinion. But hey, I want to wish you all a happy holiday. I think this is the last Alderman meeting of the year. And we will plan to see you in January. Anna, we thank you and David and Michelle. We were very grateful to your mayorship and to all six of you aldermen who really stood by us and stood by Wash U too. It's a complicated process. We know that. But we're going to take our position. You will do the best you can with what you have to deal with. Happy holidays. Happy new year from all of us to all of you. Thank you.

Thank you, Josephine. Okay. Any other comments? Nobody online, correct? Okay. All right. As I said, we're going to try to work with the proposals that were introduced tonight. We're going to perhaps have more discussions with neighbors if that wants to happen between now and, oh, now in the second. Yes. Okay. between now and the second Tuesday in January. And I guess we have one more comment. So Lee's iPhone, you want to tell us what you think?

Lee. Yes, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Good evening. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk. I know each of you are here because you deeply care about our city and what you want to do with special communities. our community um my grandmother was an alderman for 20 years

do you want to tell excuse me i'm sorry you want to tell us your your full name and your address thanks

absolutely sorry lee johnson 68 aberdeen place

okay good

um can you hear me okay

yes you can go ahead

Thank you. So I understand that you're all here because you care about what's best for the community. My grandmother served as an older woman for St. Anne for 20 years, and I understand that you guys are here for your dedication to public service and for nothing more. I understand that conditional permits are powerful tools, but I also understand that it's a very complicated process and that I just hope that you Do this and understand and be mindful of what you guys feel is best for us and not necessarily what the loudest people seem to be saying. I understand that there's differing opinions of pressure surrounding you that they do, and I just hope that you continue to weigh all perspectives carefully and make the decisions that you truly believe will serve the city of its people. That I personally believe that it's reasonable. I understand others may not. but that I just at the end of the day, just hope you recognize that what is best for everyone is ultimately what you guys need to do.

meeting.

Compromise is where everybody goes away a little unhappy. So I think that's we will be working and we're open to talking to anybody between now and the second Tuesday in January to further refine things. If you, Ann and Joan, if you want to further dig into the whole housing idea, we're here to do it. So we'll look at the setbacks, all the things that I mentioned. So Thank you again. And we do have other business tonight, believe it or not. And so we will get on to that. I don't have a lot more to go, but I'm about to burst. Would you guys be okay? We just took a five-minute break. I really need one. Yeah. Thanks.

If it does, let me know. I'll share my laptop with you. I put it to sleep so you can read. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, good thing we make the big bucks

here.

That's all I can say. Where are you getting them? It's

all in my head though. It's not anywhere else.

If you can

be

quiet. Okay, moving on from that, we have the consent agenda up next. And is there any, does anybody have any discussion on the consent agenda? Okay, we'll take a motion. Mary, if

we could, sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt, but we need to recess the meeting.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Recess the hearing or leave it open to the next.

Right. So we will officially recess the public hearing on bill number 7045 until our first meeting in January.

Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

No, that's okay. I move to

approve the consent agenda. Second.

Roll call. Oh, oh, yeah. Oh, any discussion? No. Roll call. Alderman McAndrew.

Aye. Alderman Patel. I'm sorry. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Aldman Jeffery Yorg. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Alderman Patel. I'm sorry. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Aldman York. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thanks. Okay. Moving on to the city manager's report, the user agreement with St. Louis County.

Yes, I'll have to freestyle it here. My laptop shut down and it's logging back in. So this user agreement, it is a 10 year agreement with the ECC, which is the county's emergency communications commission. And so this allows our radio usage and interoperability with other departments within the county and also an emergency situation. St. Louis County can then connect to St. Louis City Highway Patrol, other departments. regional authorities. So we do this, this is again in your agreement. So every 10 years to make sure that we stay involved in that particular network. So we recommend approval of the agreement.

All right. Any discussion? I have one comment with this and like with our dispatch, I so appreciate the support that are different. No, you don't have to come up, but maybe. I so appreciate the each other and any options we have to include the city in that the city of St. Louis, it is, you know, it's reminded all the time just how close and how intertwined we are. And it would be great to continue to work toward improving the support of the city forces in the city communications at any opportunity we have. So it's really just not just a comment that I hope we continue to watch for those opportunities and to do what we can along our borders. Very

good. I don't see any cost on it. Did I miss that? There

is no cost to participate in the interoperability radio system, but networks actually paid for by a dedicated tax that's collected throughout the county. So we pay for individual radios. That's part of our capital plan, but we do not pay for network usage. Okay.

Okay. Alderwoman McAndrew.

I'll introduce Bill number 7048, authorizing a user agreement with St. Louis County Emergency Communications Commission to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? Do

we skip a spot?

Oh, sorry. I skipped the city attorney. Okay, Mr. City Attorney, please read the bill.

Sorry. Bill 7048, first reading an ordinance authorizing a user agreement with the St. Louis County Emergency Communications Commission for participation in the interoperable radio system for public safety departments.

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. Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7048, authorizing a user agreement with St. Louis County Emergency Communications Commission to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7048, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing a user agreement with the St. Louis County Emergency Communications Commission for participation in the interoperable radio system for Clayton Public Safety Departments.

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

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

Aye.

Aldman Rick Hummell.

Aldman Hummel.

Aye.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg.

Aldemann York.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Okay, bill number 7049 on the indentures.

Yes, so this one's a little bit unusual. When the Pierre Laclede Center was built back in 1963, and then that was the first building at 7714 site, and then 1970 at 7733 foresight. During that approval process, the city required that they file at the St. Louis County recorder deeds record a restriction indenture. that basically locked them into the C3 zoning that was in place in 1963 and 1970 when the buildings were approved. To be honest, I don't know that we were even really aware of this for maybe decades here and had regulated that property using the zoning that's currently in place. The current zoning, and there's a comparison table that was in the packet, you'll see is very closely aligned to those original C3 regulations that go back more than 50 years. We don't feel at this point in time that the deed restrictions really give us any additional authority or anything else. It's another just kind of cumbersome layer of regulation on that property. And again, we've been served well without it, just using the baseline zoning. This came up actually through a title search as the property was recently sold. So this was a question that came up from the incoming owner as to whether or not the city would release these particular restrictions. Staff has reviewed the indentures. We've reviewed the zoning code, and we feel that in this case it would be appropriate to release these additional indentures on the property as, again, it's closely aligned with zoning that's currently being enforced.

Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? Yes.

Just a curiosity, is it possible that there are other properties that have this similar indenture and we may need to do this again?

Ana can answer this. I would imagine if they approved them this way in that time, they probably did more.

Actually, in the previous zoning, the C3 that was referenced there, there was actually a reference within the parking requirements that basically said C4 and C3 uses of a certain size would then be subject to continuously the C3. So it's a very kind of weird and cumbersome requirement. So we haven't gone through and done any sort of research to determine if there are still other properties with similar requirements. But this property in particular also has a conditional use permit that governs the surface parking lots that kind of front Maryland Avenue. So there were probably more requirements there's probably more involved with the approval of the peer local leads and some of the other former C3 properties that have all since been rezoned.

Yeah. So, but my only thought, I'm sorry. My only thought there is so to me, there's sort of the zoning issue and then there's the restrictive covenant that pertains to a particular legal property. And those are obviously two different things, although they may substantively be the same, but two different processes. Yeah. I know you're trying to make the whole zoning more consistent. You talked about the overlays. You're trying to improve all that. So my only suggestion is just we've uncovered another thing, so maybe we need to look at that.

Yeah, that would be another layer we could look to our city attorney to assist in how we might go through the process of finding any other properties that are –

yeah especially that these were seven years apart which means it was still on people's minds uh over that span and other things were certainly approved in the downtown area so i wouldn't be surprised at all to find more indentures out there that hadn't been utilized in decades

i did have a question records for that time are digitized so that they can be readily searched which would mean doing title searches on the property which is both cumbersome and expensive

The lesson is hiring this title company, though. They're the ones that found it, even though Pierre Laclede has been sold multiple times.

That's exactly right.

They found it. The question I have is that the current zoning on the property is... high density commercial and R4 low density multifamily. So I don't think I knew that we had that. So those are like two different types of zoning that apply to the same property or is it one zoning that is called that? It's

two separately. There are a handful, not a ton remaining, but there's a handful of properties purely and then a couple that are on the north side of Forsyth near the, you know, just across from Hanley that have similar and some of the Wash U property that they own. The old famous bar has it. There's multiple split zonings at that point at some point during rezoning. And I haven't pinpointed exactly what time. But at some point, similar to when the C3 district was removed, we removed other residential districts. And there was kind of, if you look at the overall zoning map, there's a line that's pretty consistent where this R3, this kind of lower medium density multifamily zoning was a budding commercial. And so that... zoning remains, but part of what we're evaluating through cleaning up the overlays and the other base zoning for downtown is where that's not really an appropriate zoning to maintain in

the

context. So you'll see a little bit more about that when we get into some of the proposed changes that will be going over the coming months. Thanks.

Okay. Ms. McGandoo.

I'll introduce bill number 7049, releasing restriction indentures for the properties addressed 7701 and 7733 Forsyth Boulevard to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7049, first reading an ordinance authorizing release of restrictive indentures for the property addressed 7701. And 7733 Forsythe Boulevard.

Okay, all those in favor. Aye. Opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7049 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed. Okay, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7049, releasing restriction indentures for the properties addressed 7701 and 7733 Forsyth Boulevard to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? To the attorney.

Bill number 7049, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing release of restrictive indentures for the property is addressed 7701. And 7733 Forsythe Boulevard.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Alderon Gary Feder. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Aldman Jeffery Yorg.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Alderon Fader. Aye. Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Aldman York.

Aye.

Sarah Harris. Aye.

Okay, the discussion on the DeMunn Avenue traffic calming measures.

Yes, so we received some resident concerns about speeding and pedestrian safety over on DeMond Avenue. Those actually were reported from the residents to our Ward 1 representatives passing along the staff. We've since had meetings with those residents with the Ward 1 alders, and we evaluated this area. to see what we had from a volume standpoint and also from a speed standpoint for cars in that area. So that analysis took place way back in April of 2024, where we put up the speed signs to collect that information. What we found was the volume there exceeded the levels that you would see typically in our residential traffic calming program. So this really lays or falls outside of the program that the board put together by resolution a few years ago. In this particular case, if we wanted to add any kind of traffic calming measures to the street it's just a Board of Aldermen action and it's really outside of that particular program. The summary information was all included in the packet so you have all the data from those speed studies that were performed And what this discussion led to was the residents really looking for some sort of solution to try to slow vehicles down and make it a little more safe. And so we looked at some various options over there, Matt and his team. We have Rich Wilburn here from the Department of Public Works as well, our senior civil engineer who worked on this. They had put together some various solutions, and we had a meeting again with the residents and with – Alderman Humler and Alderwoman Patel to review all of this. We had some cost estimates. And so the solution that we came up with is probably the best one. And the residents on the street actually agreed in a small meeting that they had with the neighborhood was a solution for mid-block speed tables that are between Alamo and San Benito on DeMont Avenue. If we put in that type of improvement, the estimated... Uh-oh. Somewhere between... So the estimated cost is somewhere between 11,000 and $15,000. This is not a cost that's included in the budget, not a project that's included in The budget. So really, we have three options here. The first one of course, is to make no improvements, no change to the particular roadway. The next one if we felt like this was an emergent problem, something that we needed to deal with immediately, then we could amend the fiscal year 25 budget to add this particular project. Or the third option would be to direct staff to include this project in the upcoming CIP for the period between fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 30. So those are our three options going into the discussion this evening. As I said, we have Matt Malik and Rich Wilburn here from the Department of Public Works to answer any technical questions you may have. And we really don't have a recommendation for this particular request. Again, it falls outside of the program. It would be new for us to put in a traffic calming measure outside of the program, so we're kind of in new territory here. So we're happy to assist the board in that conversation.

Okay. Are there any... I mean, the only decision is really about the budget, I assume. Well, I mean, I wonder if you would just want like I and Rick can

kind of yes,

you guys ward

one. Go

ahead.

Go forth with your thanks. So the too long don't read is that this is a street with like low level commercial activity in a residential neighborhood where kids are walking to captain and all of that. So And I think that the neighborhood has been very engaged looking for like safety improvements. You'll all remember we approved a stop sign at one of the intersections there that had like some confusing signage and people have felt really great about how their city government is responding to their concerns. So my recommendation would be to go ahead and do the project. Sooner the better, but I'm really interested in what questions people have and where we think it fits.

Why don't we let Alderman Rick Hummell also comment up front?

Why don't we let Alderman Hummel also comment up front?

So, same perspective I would just add on to what Becky has said that the roots of this are really all about safety. This is a neighborhood that has a lot of vitality. We want it to have more commercial vitality. We've talked about the hotel and that may or may not ever happen. But the point is, is that this is a designated commercial area. We expect to have more traffic, but it needs to be safe. And so the pedestrian traffic is heavy. The vehicle traffic is heavy. So I certainly concur with what Becky said about sooner rather than later. The other thing I would just bring up is that I found it interesting this morning On KMOX, the alderman from the city of St. Louis talked about the importance of making it easier to put speed tables into the city, that it's obviously a problem and their process has been getting in the way of that. And I think in my observation, which is highly anecdotal, is that in the Post-COVID world, after COVID, there were a lot of fast drivers out there that decided the rules didn't apply to them. And unfortunately, we're still dealing with that. And it's a huge problem, I think, in the city of St. Louis. It is a small problem here, but it doesn't matter whether it's big or large. It's an important problem that needs to get resolved.

Let me just ask, is there anyone that opposes doing this?

I don't oppose doing it. I'm just a little concerned because we would actually, the data shows us there's not really a speeding problem. So I'm just trying to understand just because the average speed is under 25. I am all for, I wish we could put speed tables in multiple places throughout the city. So I just think it's important that if we go forward with this, again, I'm all for safety. I think we have to really delineate why we're doing it in this area. Because then you will have like residential streets and or even like, quite honestly, up at Merrimack where Hampton is, people are constantly running stop signs. So I get emails from people saying, can't we do something there? And having a speed table right there would be great. I drive into Kirkwood now and there's this great speed table at the stop sign and it really requires people to actually stop. So I just, again, I am all for, and I also understand that this is a somewhat unique area because it is like this commercial hub and we've got people walking to school. So I totally understand that. I just think we have to be careful about why we're doing. I think if you think

about the precedent for me, because I was like, how is this different than what we talked about when we passed the residential program? And for me, it's the volume. So like the ratio of like speeding or might not be what we set as the threshold in the residential program, but the volume of traffic is a good amount greater such that it could be considered a safety risk. And I'm very open to hearing about, just so you know, areas in your wards where you think this could be an improvement. I'd be supportive. Like my neighborhood has safety speed tables and others do in Ward 1, and people love them and never complain about them. Right.

I agree from a policy standpoint and a communication to our residents, it's important for us to have sound reasons and apply them consistently as we look across the city. And so I concur with Becky's comment that the volume of traffic on this particular street is so significant. And that combined with the fact that when you have high volume, the traffic the likelihood of a bad incident just simply goes up because the volume is there for that. So, and so it too, as David pointed out, it falls outside the parameters of our program. So the way I get comfortable with it is for those reasons.

Yeah, again, I mean, I'm sure there are other comments as well. I just want to reiterate, my street has wanted some sort of street coming for, many years now and i've always said well it doesn't we don't we don't there is not speeding on my street so i just want to feel comfortable that i can explain to people why there's now a speed table you know in other areas where there's not necessarily the speeding data but again i i know that there's other factors at work here i just want to be careful as to how we're proceeding so

so i guess the question is are we being

careful enough in your opinion I think, I don't know if we need to add some sort of language to our program. I don't know, but I don't, you know, maybe there's because we fall out of the program, it just becomes a question for the board, which maybe then that's, you know, a policy decision for us, which is, you know, what we're being asked tonight. So, yeah.

Well, and to piggyback on that, and David, Susan, because I wasn't here, like how does this compare to the whole stop sign debate on Audubon? I know they only seem to want a stop sign, but like how does this compared to that conversation?

That's one of the things that spurred us working on the policy. And at that point in time, and again, Bridget, I had that very same concern. I support doing this, but we better be very darn clear that we're consistent throughout the city in doing it and why. At that point in time, the neighbors and some of the neighbors wanted a stop sign at that one corner. We were advised that actually it did not increase safety when a stop sign is not where it's supposed to be. It can cause more accidents. And the neighbors were given options. And I think Matt met with them numerous times about different ways to calm the traffic versus have a stop sign. And the program was then given to them and get the signatures of the neighborhoods around here if they want it. And there was no interest to follow up. All they wanted was a stop sign, not the speed hump or anything else. But that was my question to David as well when I saw this is how we have to make sure this is distinguished. And the way I really did in my mind is that in that case, we are advised that it increases the danger And here, is it necessary? The neighbors feel it is. And it's not going to increase any danger. But I do think that we need to be very clear on when we think this is appropriate and when it's not. Whether that's through this policy or just being very clear in the decision we make tonight. Because this will come up again in many neighborhoods. And we need to be uniform across the city in how we do it.

I'll throw in that since my daughter and her family live on Alamo, two doors from DeMond. And I've done an awful lot of carpool. In the last few years, I am very much aware of what that area is like. It's heavily multifamily, not their street, but lots of multifamily. I'd have a hard time analogizing or thinking about what other area that actually is like that. I mean, I think it really is unique. that you have a very long stretch of residential and you have people who are going to Sasha's or wherever they're going or to call these. So you really have a sort of unfortunate combination of residential and commercial. So I think it is unique situation and where safety is concerned. I wouldn't strongly recommend it. I guess from a procedural standpoint, I'd actually rather we did not do it right away but put it in the budget because then at least it would look like it's a more appropriate way of handling it. On the other hand... if safety is a factor and it is, I would hate to be responsible for putting it off. So, so I'd be all right with spending the money now, even though in theory, I'd rather we put it in next year's budget, but I think safety is too big a factor. So I, I would do it now.

And I had one more comment too, aside from just responding to the stop sign issue, which I'm glad you brought up is it, Yeah, I feel similar that if we can go ahead and do it now to budget, it would be great as well. Is there any reason with resurfacing or sewer work or anything else in the neighborhoods that would impact the best timing to do something like this? No?

Not that I'm aware of, but since Matt stuck it out this long, come on up.

Let him speak. No, we resurfaced and micro surfaced in the last couple years there so it's you're looking at at least five to seven years before we're touching surface treatment neighborhood again thanks.

What happens when you're planning for snow with these speed bumps. Not that that would deter us from putting it in but i'm just wondering.

So the terminology on a... Settle in. Speed bumps, speed humps, speed tables. They get more gradual as I went down that list. The things that a lot of people are familiar with are speed bumps, which are really rough, one foot long. Really hard. The tables are more gradual. Right now, there are installations on Aberdeen and Arundel in the city of St. Louis portion that we will loop through and we haven't had issues. We checked with police and fire as well. It's gradual enough and they don't go to the curb line so that water can still drain. As you get into things like the raised crosswalks at intersections, that becomes a bigger consideration. And that was one of the other options. That's what led to the higher cost. You have to consider drainage.

Gotcha. Okay. Any other comments or discussion on this? So tonight you want us to decide, it sounds like everybody supports it. So the decision is when to spend the money.

That's correct. And so we would start working on this particular project and then bring this forward in a budget amendment to fund it.

So do we need a vote or do we need just some head nodding?

I think a vote would be appropriate before we go through the work.

Voice vote?

A voice vote would suffice, yes.

So does somebody want to propose

that we ask the city to develop a budget amendment to include this traffic calming project in the current year?

And I'll second.

All

those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Okay, then now this is kind of more of a fun topic. Is someone operating the slide machine for me?

Ana has it. I think we might have Gary Carter online too.

Oh, Gary's online? Okay. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, let's say I can't see who's online. I guess I just went back about 40 years in my...

it's been

a long night

overhead projector out

there we go we have the powerpoint okay oh we did yeah okay that's good let me know when you're you ready gary we're allowing you to talk now Do you want me to just go through this, Gary, or do you want to?

Yeah, I mean, go ahead, Mayor.

Okay. Okay, so we've talked, Bridget and Susan, a lot about doing something for Black History Month in line with sort of our efforts to be more welcoming and be more culturally diverse and all those good things. And so we set about trying to research what could be done for February, which is Black History Month. We tried out a lot of different options. We would have maybe liked to have done something more grand, but in this year's budget, that's just not really advisable. We don't have that kind of money available. So what we came up with is pretty simple, but I think really meaningful. Along the way, we developed some really great partnerships toward events of this type with opera theater of st louis the black rep the repertory theater of st louise and of course in the st louis county library so i really value that the whole process we went through really really uh is going to pay forward at some point i think if we continue to do these so um What we have are two, I would say, small events that we have structured. And if we want to flip the... And here's our goals again of what we're shooting for with any events. And we try to hit as many as possible. I think this one is pretty much just hitting two, which is the vibrancy in downtown and then promoting diversity in a sense of welcoming. So we can just move on. The first event is a panel discussion of a brand new opera written by this woman, Lynn Nottage, and her daughter. The opera theater will be hosting a world premiere of this opera this summer, and this panel discussion will allow them to kind of talk through what the opera is about and why they wrote it. And I won't read this all to you, but it's a very sort of family-oriented opera, but also talks a lot about the, I guess, the sort of from one generation to the next, the complexity of building wealth among African-American families and so on. So that's kind of the crux of the concept if you want to put it forward. Lynn Nottage herself is a two-time pulitzer prize winner i i'm not i confess i am just learning a lot about opera um and uh also things that you know the rep and the black rep so uh but um she's received tons of prizes as you can see here the whole uh opera community of people i know that know about this are very excited about it the library um We wanted to maybe host it at the library, but that's not going to work out for them. But they were over the moon about this. So I think we have something that is really going to stand out in terms of quality. The location, we've decided now we need a small venue. So we did look at the M1 Bank facility across the street, and it would work out, but... It's really, it's probably bigger than we need, but also we would have to go through, jump through some hoops on bringing in all the accoutrements of a stage and a lighting and sound and everything. And we just felt like it wasn't worth it on short notice and for this event. So it will be, and the little theater is not available, so it will be at the center of Clayton, which is totally fine. You can see the estimated attendance. the partner, Opera Theater of St. Louis, and promotion-wise, they will promote it through all of their media outlets. They are going to be promoting it to the press, and I think it will get press, and we will do our usual communications. The cost is To be determined, I mean, what will it cost to put this on at the Center of Clayton? Not very much, but we just haven't identified, you know, what it costs to rent a microphone. I mean, I don't know. We've got chairs, so I don't know what the cost will be. Gary, do you have anything to say about that?

Well, I think the cost is near zero, Mayor. The center has chairs and microphones, so unless there's some additional cost I'm not aware of, you know, I'm not – The cost would be zero.

All right. The opera theater is providing this to us for free. So that's really, this woman is, these two women are coming in from out of town to do something for opera theater but then they will also do this for us okay next then the other event and that was going to be on that it will be on february 24th uh the next one is a performance by um the black rep on february 10th and again exploring if you can read the description but just kind of giving the audience some insight into the music and culture of africa So it will be at the library in their auditorium, if you will. It will also bring around 125 people they anticipate. And the Black Rep is also obviously a partner. So the promotion will be through the library system and their media press releases. You know, the St. Louis American is going to really feature both of these events, I'm quite sure, which really helps us with our diversity goal. Clayton will promote it. But also, I don't know if I said it, but the library and the black rep will be promoting it too. So we'll get exposures on those two fronts, which I think is really, really great. The cost is really a $500 sponsorship fee to do this, co-sponsor it with the library. And we threw in 100 bucks for a banner so we can use the banner. So I think the cost per capita on these is extremely low. I think we're getting a lot of exposure beyond the 125 people that see it. And I think that's going to really be good for us in sort of building building our brand in a little different way than we have ever before.

Is the Black Rep putting this on as part of their...

Touring?

Right, their annual, their season, or is this something they're doing separately?

That's a great question. They have tour groups. I think this is something they're doing and they've worked with the library system every year now for a number of years doing something special for them during February. So I think it's a special effort on that part. Any discussion, comments, questions from anybody? Great. Thank you. Okay. Very good. All right. So we will just move forward with that and you'll be hearing about it when it's getting ready to happen. The last thing is the bike lanes, the bike lane markings for city manager.

This one's working. Good. All right. All right. Maybe it's not. There it is. All right, it's back. All right, so we have the parking protected bike lane that's along Maryland Avenue that was designed in 2020 and installed in 2021. We've had discussions with the Board of Aldermen that occurred back at that time during design. At that point in time, the board didn't want to move forward with the lane markings, so that was then the design proposal. That was something that was discussed quite a bit, but I think there was still some unsurety as to whether or not the city would which would keep the bike lanes in place. Obviously it's the first one that we've had here in the city, especially in the downtown area. And so the city decided to wait on the lane markings because of the material that was proposed at the time is really pretty permanent. So removing it's very, very difficult if the city made the decision to take the bike lanes out. So we didn't put it in at that point in time. We've had some subsequent discussions and I know Alderman Gary Feder brought this up at a Board of Alderman meeting a couple months ago to discuss this. We did have the safety concern that came up. We had someone that had an incident over there that basically walked into the bike lane and was struck, not knowing really that the bike lane was there. That's what the green paint's typically for, to delineate that so that if you're in an area walking from a car across it, it doesn't just appear to be extra pavement or a sidewalk or something like that. It gets your attention and lets you know there could be a bicycle there. So that's what drove this latest conversation on it. And at that time, it was basically stated that, hey, and staff agrees with this, if we're going to keep the bike lane in place, we should probably meet the safety criteria for a protected bike lane and put the green paint down. So we looked at some different options there, and there were two that were included in the packet. Matt Pinyan, Really to material options and then two different applications that were included in there, the first one is that mma. Matt Pinyan , Which does the very durable product at last 10 years over there, and you have to actually grind that off when you go to micro surface, the street and then reapply it at that point in time. We are expecting that we're going to go in and microsurface Maryland Avenue in 2031, which is seven years out. So we wouldn't reach the full lifespan of the more expensive product if we were to put it down at this point in time. The other option is to use a waterborne paint similar to what we use for the lane markings all over the city. That's a more temporary measure where we have to go through and repaint that every year, every two years. So we would have that more regular maintenance cycle, although it's lower cost. So that's kind of the decision point we have here. The bigger decision point is the bike lanes themselves. If we're going to keep that in place as the first part of this overall network, then we need to do it safely and probably apply the green paint. And if we are going to apply the paint, then the question is, which material do we use? And how much of a marking do we want? So there's kind of that baseline marking that can delineate it, or you can go through and paint the entire bike lane. And that's quite a bit more pricey to do that. And again, there was a table in the packet that lays out those particular options. And again, we have Matt Malik here this evening and Rich Wilburn that can talk a little bit more about any kind of technical aspects related to the bike lane markings. So we just need some direction on where to go with this. And again, our recommendation would be with bike lanes out there that we we take this safety measure and put down green paint in some form or fashion

This one's working. Good. All right. All right. Maybe it's not. There it is. All right, it's back. All right, so we have the parking protected bike lane that's along Maryland Avenue that was designed in 2020 and installed in 2021. We've had discussions with the Board of Aldermen that occurred back at that time during design. At that point in time, the board didn't want to move forward with the lane markings, so that was then the design proposal. That was something that was discussed quite a bit, but I think there was still some unsurety as to whether or not the city would which would keep the bike lanes in place. Obviously it's the first one that we've had here in the city, especially in the downtown area. And so the city decided to wait on the lane markings because of the material that was proposed at the time is really pretty permanent. So removing it's very, very difficult if the city made the decision to take the bike lanes out. So we didn't put it in at that point in time. We've had some subsequent discussions and I know Alderman Fader brought this up at a Board of Alderman meeting a couple months ago to discuss this. We did have the safety concern that came up. We had someone that had an incident over there that basically walked into the bike lane and was struck, not knowing really that the bike lane was there. That's what the green paint's typically for, to delineate that so that if you're in an area walking from a car across it, it doesn't just appear to be extra pavement or a sidewalk or something like that. It gets your attention and lets you know there could be a bicycle there. So that's what drove this latest conversation on it. And at that time, it was basically stated that, hey, and staff agrees with this, if we're going to keep the bike lane in place, we should probably meet the safety criteria for a protected bike lane and put the green paint down. So we looked at some different options there, and there were two that were included in the packet. Matt Pinyan, Really to material options and then two different applications that were included in there, the first one is that mma. Matt Pinyan , Which does the very durable product at last 10 years over there, and you have to actually grind that off when you go to micro surface, the street and then reapply it at that point in time. We are expecting that we're going to go in and microsurface Maryland Avenue in 2031, which is seven years out. So we wouldn't reach the full lifespan of the more expensive product if we were to put it down at this point in time. The other option is to use a waterborne paint similar to what we use for the lane markings all over the city. That's a more temporary measure where we have to go through and repaint that every year, every two years. So we would have that more regular maintenance cycle, although it's lower cost. So that's kind of the decision point we have here. The bigger decision point is the bike lanes themselves. If we're going to keep that in place as the first part of this overall network, then we need to do it safely and probably apply the green paint. And if we are going to apply the paint, then the question is, which material do we use? And how much of a marking do we want? So there's kind of that baseline marking that can delineate it, or you can go through and paint the entire bike lane. And that's quite a bit more pricey to do that. And again, there was a table in the packet that lays out those particular options. And again, we have Matt Malik here this evening and Rich Wilburn that can talk a little bit more about any kind of technical aspects related to the bike lane markings. So we just need some direction on where to go with this. And again, our recommendation would be with bike lanes out there that we we take this safety measure and put down green paint in some form or fashion

is there a picture of how the two different methods look but not not permanent and temporary but the other the other uh the two different ways of doing it

painting i'm sorry i did not include that it was in our design plans and we have that and i could do that um when we developed the plans for Maryland Avenue, it was included and it is not It wasn't everywhere in the bike lane. It was at the crossings where conflict points might be encountered. It was the dash greens at driveways. There was a bike box at Forsyth, and that was the recommendation.

Remember that now.

And so when you are looking at those options listed with cost estimates, that kind of option A and B, those lower-cost options, are utilizing that design. The other two are looking at if you paint the whole thing green.

Okay,

there's a little probably the last paragraph or last sentence of paragraph two. I see I got some wording confusing that seems to indicate that that's not an acceptable use that's not that's not accurate so I just wanted to clarify that you can paint entirely green for the bike lane. There are the Federal Highway Administration and National Association for city transportation officials do recommend using it for high conflict areas so that it maintains some effectiveness but it's it's permitted to be done everywhere. So those costs that I developed along with Rich's help looked at, again, that durable product as designed in 2021 or 2020. And then if we were to do it in waterborne, which wouldn't have to be removed but does wear a lot more quickly. is option B. Option C was the durable product, green markings everywhere. Option D would be green markings everywhere with the waterborne paint. The prices for that durable product, the MMA, have gone up significantly from what we're hearing from our consultants and looking at some county unit costs. When we bid that last, it was $9 per square foot, where We're seeing these unit costs through county, unit costs of $23 per square foot. Since we're considering, we may come in lower than that, but I still think you're in that 350 to $400,000 range if you would do the entire set of bike lanes in the MMA, just for our scale of reference.

Oh, go ahead. Go ahead,

Bridget.

No, I was just so then you're suggesting for the but yes, it could have been done the whole length, but you're only going to potentially doing at the intersections or conflict points, as you said. As it

was designed when we originally contemplated this project, it was at the occasional locations, the conflict points. I also provided a cost for an acceptable method of painting the entire bike lane green.

Just because like, you know, the person that was hit outside five star, you know what I mean? Like, that wouldn't necessarily help, you know, because the person's getting in the car and looking and seeing if there's pavement.

That qualifies as an area of high conflict.

Yeah, but I don't think that that would be, I don't, right, but I mean, I don't think it would be part of it. Couldn't we include it though? It's just one block.

I

mean, it's something that can be done. Oh, thank you. We

wouldn't have to do the whole thing and we could still include it.

Um, something I, I included in the final paragraph, just a lot of other locations along the route. We have many garage openings and usually after those, there's another bike lane symbol that's down. And as you're crossing intersections that side of Maryland Avenue, there's no garage openings. There's no driveways. So, um, the installation of maybe a quick estimate would be about three additional, um, perhaps bike lane markings on that lane would make them more visible to people walking across as a low cost measure that wouldn't require any kind of adjustment to the budget. We could just do that at the next scheduled maintenance.

So looking at the estimates, option A and option B, option B has to be reapplied every year or two?

Correct.

So you're getting up, if you're saying... The costs become pretty similar by the time we come to the resurfacing.

If you look at lifecycle costs, the MMA is a product that's out there for a reason. You save money in the long run. You don't have to apply it as much. Now, these are contractor costs. I'll say that. Whenever we do waterborne paint, we do a lot of that in-house. I'm not saying we would do the green lane in-house, so not all of our Pavement markings cost this much. But the waterborne, you do not have to remove prior to a microsurfacing installation. It wears off every year or two. And it would look faded much quicker.

The thought is that if we're coming up to microsurfacing and we're not going to get the full life, what's the most cost-effective way to do it? Having them marked and being safe certainly is what we need to do. But I just wondered if you're going to do you know, three to four times that 10,000, you're up to where the better product is. So why we're not saving any money?

Yeah, if we're looking dollars and cents, I don't know that A and B is why you don't get the full life. It's not a significant enough cost difference when you're talking about those limited areas that you're still getting maybe those six years out of it. But when you start looking at large scale areas, that just, that becomes

very costly. Oh, and you go down to C and D. Right, and my thought on that was just from what you've said, the waterborne, if it gets slippery, you probably don't want to paint the whole thing.

That's option D I wouldn't even

recommend. Between A and B, it seems it's going to be roughly the same cost. Unless you tell me otherwise, the better product would be A

and B. Well, it's a little over three times the cost, but you're still talking under $40,000 total. But you do it Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, you're looking at roughly the same lifecycle cost over the next six to seven years, probably. And to clarify what we have installed right now, option A or option C, all those different degrees do meet regulations. We're not lacking in any capacity to or any kind of liability. There's just different levels that you can apply. That's right. As Rich was mentioning, with the MMA, we do have to mill that off prior to the microsurfacing or prior to microsurfacing. When it's a full mill and overlay, you would just mill it out, but the microsurfacing doesn't necessarily adhere to that product well, and it could delaminate. So that's why you would mill it off the surface before you would microsurface. We didn't put a cost together for that. For the option A, it would be fairly minimal, but if you went with a A full coverage that would be a substantial cost that would add to the micro surfacing costs when you went to do that project.

Okay, what i'm sorry in the waterborne paint do you think do you think it would be a little slippery is that if you get

large scale areas, it can become slippery when it's sweat.

I mean, that's a reason to not do it on a stretch at all, like ever.

Yeah, that's why I said I wouldn't recommend D. I just gave it as a cost reference. I didn't

mean if we were going to thinking about doing it on a full stretch in front of the Maryland shops. I don't think it should ever be done on a stretch ever, so.

it's what you see on stop bars that that with people usually don't walk on those crosswalk edges they don't walk on but what what makes it reflective is glass beads that are put in it as that paint wears off those glass beads are exposed they reflect light and then it also becomes slippery and light rain

um I support the bike lanes and the marking to improve their safety. I emailed you quite some time ago, but that one of the things that I, and you responded, but like it's been over a year. I think one of the issues on the site is not just the lack of the green paint, but the, like on the whole stretch in front of Maryland shops, there's a bike like the bike drawing at the beginning and at the end, and then the entire stretch of Maryland. So if you don't understand why there is this space between where you're parking and the shop you're going to, you don't see something that tells you it's a bike lane if you weren't paying attention when you entered past the intersection. And I don't know what the... You know, guidelines are best practices but I, it feels to me like one or two more of those would help this like anecdotal experience of a person trying to understand what's happening.

I do recall us corresponding on that, looking at the time. And that is part of the issue. There is not a recommended number that the Federal Highway Administration gives for that. They leave that up

to the judge. That means we can't do it. Yeah. So if you tell me they say not to do it, that's great. So I would love to see us do the green at the intersections and conflict areas like the garages. I assume we would do that where people are entering and exiting from parking garages there. And then I would love to see what it would be to just add a couple more bikers. Look at it. It's a whole stretch of open pavement. There's

no reason to be stingy. Yeah. We could add one every 10 feet or something. Well, that's really close. I mean, since we do pre-paint

those ourselves, we get into operational time and costs every year. So it, It's a little bit like, you know, buying somebody a puppy. They got to take care of it.

Like two. I mean, two more. I don't know. No, I'm

not saying one or two more. We could add that in the area where we had the concern for sure.

You said these were contracted out.

The green might be, he said.

Oh, the greens.

The white markings that we install. We do those. We have stencils for those. That's the same thing regardless.

Just for the green paint. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. All right, other comments over here?

I think as I remember the incident where the gentleman opened his passenger door and hit the uh the biker he said afterwards i had no idea it was like a bike area now i i don't it just seems to me that the more markings we have whether it's green the more pictures of bikes the more someone would get the idea when they come into that area and would think about it one minute later that they're not going to open their door so i think it will help um By the way, on a somewhat related thing, I guess we all got this email from the mayor just in the last day or so from the shop owner on Maryland pointing out what she said was a disaster, which is actually on the other side of the car, which is the difficulty of getting out of the car. That's frankly been my own personal experience. I haven't hit any bikers, but I've often sat there at a busy time and I can't get out of the car because the street is narrowed. And so it's very hard to get your car. I don't know how we deal with that, although it does bring me to my third point, which is that even though I would definitely support the safety factors here, I always thought the only reason that I thought I'm supportive of the bike lanes, is that we're going to at some point be able to extend them going in an eastward direction and a westward direction. And it would actually be meaningful as opposed to be sort of this bike oasis in the middle of the desert. I must say, you know, and I'm going to sound like I've spent too much time with Alex Berger, and I have. But, I mean, as much as I drive on Maryland, I swear in three years if I've seen four cyclists, it's a lot. But if we're going to keep them, I first of all would really wish we could extend them eastward or westward so they would seem to be worthwhile. If we're never going to go beyond those four blocks, if we're me, I'd get rid of the bike lanes. If we can't really make them part of a transportation network that ties in with the path that cuts across in Ledoux, if we can't make it more worthwhile, I'd probably dump them. But if we're going to keep them, we ought to make them safe. And so whatever we can do in the interim to do it, I would spend the money because we have to try to make them safer.

Can I just say first, like opening the car is not going to change, like opening your car door onto Maryland, regardless of whether or not there's bike lanes.

That's true.

And people will go even faster down Maryland if we don't have bike lanes because we're giving them more lanes of traffic. And I will say again, we can argue about this every time I drive down Maryland, including this morning when it was 20 degrees outside, there was somebody biking on the bike lanes. So Every time I drive down Maryland, especially when the weather is nice out, I see somebody using them. I should

hitch a ride with you because I'm a seating

speaker. I am shocked at the people who tell me that they don't ever see people because I see people every time I'm down there. Every time.

Okay,

go

ahead. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I concur with everything Gary said. I never see a biker ever either. And anecdotally, I only hear people complain. I don't hear people be strong advocates. I'm sure there are people that use it, must be. They just don't talk about it, I guess.

People who are happy don't talk to us. It's only the people that talk.

That's true about all kinds of things. I get that. So my issue is more about... is this an important artery in our future bike network? I'm all in favor of bike lanes. And I do wonder, you know, if you had a choice to get from point A to point B, do you want to take Maryland or would you rather take some other street because the traffic might be less? And so I'm just wondering if, this seems like we keep perpetuating it because it's already there as opposed to deciding that it is the best place. And I suppose somebody already decided that, but I'm not so sure that this is the right place, especially as we contemplate a network. So I'd really like to make sure it's an important strategic part of our plan. And then of course, if it is, or it's obvious to all of you it is, then yes, we should make it safer and put some paint in. So since I'm not convinced, though, my starting point would be is let's spend the least amount of money possible. See if it's effective. And that way, if we know that if I'd hate to have to stand in front of our citizens and say we spent a half a million dollars on this bike lane that you don't like. I know that I'm just taking that as an extreme. That's why I'm saying this is where I would feel comfortable.

Very good. Jeff.

So as will come no surprise, I agree with Gary and Rick over here. I can probably get on board spending 10 grand, but I don't actually realize I've never seen anybody bike on it either. I

have personally. I

would love.

And seeing people bike

on it. But I also live right next to it. So, I mean, that's probably. I

think the bigger point is. Again, and I'm the new one on the group here. But there seems to be enough questioning whether or not this bike lane makes sense for us to have a larger discussion and maybe put out the same thing cops put out when they count the amount of people that go down the bike lane and have all that discussion. And the idea that you do all that, we decide it's not the right place. I would never bike on it because I can't get from my house there other than biking up Hanley, which I would never do. That's

not true. I'd be happy to give you the route because I do it from Daman.

Yeah.

You can cut through Ydown Forest. Yeah,

it's too hilly for me. It's not going to work.

It is pretty hilly.

So I don't know whether they make any sense there, whether they make any sens at all. But I agree that we're not going to make a decision on the bike lanes in the next year. I just don't see us working that fast. So I think we need to do something for the safety piece. So the $10,000 or whatever is fine. I just get it down. And then I would prefer to spend the next... year and a half have a discussion session maybe do some counts to see whether rick and gary and i are all off and there's 150 people today going down that we're just missing because i'm open to changing my mind if that's the case i've just never seen anybody there are some of the safety issues and i get the complaints of the businesses and i have not talked to those businesses to know what how much it may or may not be affecting their business like i'm sure they'd say it's probably a lot more than it actually is there's just a lot there that i'm Spending 35 or 40 grand and then having to take it off and we have to microservice for something that may go away in three years, if I was originally thinking, it just seems like a lot. But I do think safety needs to happen.

So if I may, if I may comment. I hear what everybody said. I was on the board that approved this, as were some of us. And so I voted for it, the spike lane at the time. We believe that we'd be able to develop some connectivity, and it does get you more or less to the Greenway. But on the eastern end, it's very difficult to go. If you wanted to go to Forest Park or Wash U or anywhere else, it's difficult because University City is in the way, and there's no remedy for that. But it's

not difficult at all. You go to Maryland, you go to Jackson, then you go to Wydown. Super easy. And then it's really easy to get to

Forest Park. Well, it's not a protected lane. You can go to Wydow and get to Forest Park, yes. Yes, yes. So the question is not that we would solve it tonight, but we had our livable communities plan done and it shows a lot of bike lanes. I'll finish. It shows a lot of bikes lanes in our downtown. It doesn't say anything specifically about this bike lane, which I was praying that it would, but it does not. So we're about to do a survey. So I'm going to suggest that we include in our survey some questions about bike lanes in general, but also about this bike lane. I would like to see us develop a specific plan that... That prioritizes target locations of where we want to get people to and from and and let's just as an example, let's say we want to get People from you know from from hillcrest to the high school. Okay, what's the bike lane for that? What are the priority targets for us to get people to and from? And we might not be able to accomplish everything, but what are they? And they can be prioritized. And then we will see if this bike lane is part of that. And it probably will be, I'm not sure. In the meantime, so I'd like to do that on the survey asking general questions about bike lanes, but also targeted connectivity and this particular bike lane How does it help you? Or how does it hurt you? Whatever we can do to quantify sort of some responses there. And I honestly think we do need to incorporate some input from those retailers. They are... having a really hard time. They hate this bike lane by and large. They used to kind of like it, but they don't like it now. They're just done with it. And we do get more complaints than kudos. So I think we need to do that evaluation. And I would, though, support being safer in the meantime because we don't want any more incidents. I totally support painting more little symbols along there, and I would do more than two myself along those shops. And then maybe some intersection work, as you're suggesting, so the $10,000 I can see it. And then we can always go back and do more, you know, once we get some clarity here. I just don't think we have the clarity to spend more than 10 grand. That's my spiel.

If I could quickly just point one thing out, too, just so everybody can take a look at it at some point. We don't have to go through it all right now. But page 52 of the Livable Community Master Plan actually lays out that bike network. And this is shown as basically the east-west spine of that network that runs through downtown, connects to Ladue, connects downtown. through Carondelet to Forsyth or across Maryland. So it does actually connect to the other communities around us and is shown as a spine. So the one thing that's really tough, especially when we're talking to residents and other folks that they look at this and they're like, this just doesn't make any sense that we've got this lane that just goes a few blocks. And it's really tough to get folks to zoom out a little bit and really ask the question, hey, do we want an on-street bike network? And if we want an on street bicycle network, You know the consultants that worked on this particular plan said that that Maryland is the. That is the spine, that is the area that makes sense for that that East West connection through downtown so I would just encourage everybody. To take a look at page 52 on there and you can get a sense of what a bike network might look like throughout the city. It's got the spine, which are the critical points, and then some boulevards and some shared use paths and that sort of thing. But the spines are the areas that you really want to take a look at because those are the major connection points through the city. So again, that's on page 52. We can send that out, that map as well. But I think it's important to kind of have that conversation within that overall context and framework.

Absolutely. So is that particular segment the best, the way that we get people to high school?

I don't know

Is it? I don't know. It was a

lot of the question. Livable communities hit it pretty hard. I think if we work the

communities plan over the next three to five years, we'll be figuring that out. And the streets too for microsurfacing in six. And if we've completely fallen flat or decided that biking isn't a priority in Clayton, then we change it when we resurface it.

So I agree with the $10,000 for now. And I'd like to do some more asking of people what they think of... Is

it closer to one year of life or two? What sense do you have of... My concern is us putting down green paint and it starting to look crappy quickly. And then the people who don't like the bike lanes have further reason not to like the bike lanes just because we used... cheap paint i mean not it's not cheap paint but like i i believe that if the cost over six years until we resurface is similar and the one gets us like a really sharp looking intersection and one gets us an intersection that looks bad good for one year bad for one year good for one year for one year then we should consider the mma symbols along the

maryland

i agree

I would be curious on your comments, Mayor, about doing a survey. Over and over again, we've heard from residents regarding the Big Bend overlay that we can design paths wherever we want to, but the kids will walk the shortest route or whatever way they find to be the easiest. I am curious. If people are biking to the high school, what route do they take? And are they using that bike lane or are they using some other way? Are they cutting through Shaw Park? Are they finding some other way to get there? So it's sort of that anecdotal response of, yeah, we can build it. And the engineer thought it was a great idea, but the residents don't use it that way.

interesting yeah but didn't i'll tell you they're driving uh denali jeeps yeah did you

take your yarn at the livable communities things and show where you've biked recently they had i don't know if they actually identified yeah yeah and we you know to forest park or to the high schools and the connectivity so i think a lot of the surveying has been done before we do it i'd like to look at what's already been asked but um Yeah, you should have played with it. It's all different colors too. Okay.

And you wanted to seem athletic, right? Okay. So I think Becky makes a good point about the green paint.

I could add to that. I'm sorry, since you did ask the question. It will wear, but it'll wear at the same rate as the white paint out there does now. Probably a little slower depending on how much snow we get and snow plows going over it. The white paint actually wears a little bit quicker just because we have such narrow lanes. So you'll notice when you're driving Clayton, more often than not, you might drive over a lane than you would in another city. So it does where, so I think you're closer to probably two years, but when we put it down we'll put it with the white paint and it's going to age at the same rate.

I mean that makes me that makes me feel better about where if you put the green

mma down we'd have the white waterboard next to it, which would degrade but the green wouldn't as much

yeah. So

sorry and

the actual likes. quantity of space and safety if it's slippery is like the, it wouldn't be an issue.

Right. I think they're 30 inches long.

Right.

Yeah. That's what, yeah. Thank you. So are we kind of arriving to the point of using the $10,000 plan I just clarifying Okay, so I think that. Okay,

a voice a voice vote on that as well

okay so would someone like to make a motion

i'll make a motion to spend the least amount of money $10,000 on paint for the bike lanes.

including the little uh markings along uh maryland shops extra bike plus that yes fixtures yeah okay second yeah all those in favor aye opposed okay um i think we can forego our round table And I really will be looking forward to it at some point. Maybe it'll be February and we can have a round table because otherwise, yeah. Thank you guys. Do we have a discussion session next? We do have a discussion session coming up. We're going to talk about zoning again. That's what I thought. Thank you.

Yes.

Oh, I guess we should. Okay. Have we have a motion? Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Jeff, you're a stickler.