April 22, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Wait, what is it? Let us in on it.

What

does it say? I

didn't notice it. Let's take all that

for granted. Missed it.

Okay. All right. Well, welcome to our discussion session of April 23. And I think we have a couple topics. So we'll get started right away with the first one on the discussion of the Concordia overlay design ideas. And Anna, you have the mic. Sure.

Okay, so we had some interest in certain provisions of the previously proposed Big Bend Overlay District being adopted in a different form to address some concerns about this area. So today what I'm going to do is walk you through some of the ways that you would approach drafting an urban design district or an overlay district and what we might want to address to then ultimately come to a decision on whether or not we want to move forward with something of that nature. So just a reminder, we're talking about the Concordia Seminary property, which is outlined in red. I think everybody at this point is very familiar with the boundaries of Concordia Seminar. So focusing in on the context that surrounds it is a big part of how we would establish an overlay district. So as we're all aware, there's an area within the center of Concordia seminary where they've recently received conditional use permit approvals for new residential halls, a mixture of townhouses through multi-unit buildings. So that will involve a lot of construction in this central area, the area to the east of that where there's the large green space along Daman and Concordia Park. There isn't anything proposed at this time from Concordia to do any changes or modifications to that area. And then on the west end, confronting Big Bend is where we previously discussed a potential overlay district to govern institutional uses, outlined in black. This area is where the existing residential for Concordia is proposed to be moved into that new CUP area. Concordia is still actively pursuing the building permits associated with that conditional use permit. So a lot of the uses currently on the western side will be vacated soon. So when we think about context, the Concordia Seminary property is governed by the R2 residential zoning district. And as you can see, there's a lot of property that is directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of Concordia Seminery that's also governed by those same regulations. So the R2 district covers residential and then a mixture of institutional uses from larger university campuses to smaller schools and as well as some of our religious institutions or faith based organizations. And then we also have some adjacent property that's our multifamily dwelling district, a little bit higher density, not very tall buildings, but higher density in terms of the number of units that are on properties. So R2, since that's governing the area that we're talking about right now, as we know, is primarily single family residential. So as we've discussed before, R2 is built, a lot of the development standards are built from that single family first idea when we talk about land area setbacks, et cetera, single family. But there are many conditionally permitted uses that are already listed within our code. At this point, we do not know the status or the future of that western portion of Concordia so it becomes a little bit difficult for us to draft a specific overlay district, the way that we drafted the previous one, which was addressing very specific outcomes that would result from an institutional use. right now because we do not know if that's going to continue to be an institutional specific use or any of the uses that are currently contemplated by the R2 district, it becomes a little bit more difficult to be very pinpointed with an overlay. However, if there are specific concerns related to this property, there are really two options. Overlay districts are a great way of targeting redevelopment patterns or infill development patterns or addressing location-based issues. So we have two options within our code. They're essentially very much the same thing. We can really use either or option. It's just a matter of what you want to call it. But for the most part, overlay districts are really based on encouraging development and redevelopment consistent with a character. It's a little bit more general. A lot of our overlay districts are in areas that you are likely to see a larger scale redevelopment project that could take up multiple parcels or a larger block or or something like the entire western portion that we had highlighted before for Concordia Seminary's campus. Our urban design districts are typically more focused on residential neighborhoods, the way that we have them set up right now, or on that infill development. So the idea that small scale, you're taking out one little lot that's going to be in the character of the larger lots around it, and you're addressing more of those architectural or design-based districts. Issues that might arise compared to some of the more general overlay, but like I said the way our code is set up today We could really call them either or depends on what we really want to address So the previous overlay covered a lot of things But as I mentioned was focused in on the impacts of an institutional use on this scale of property we heard some interest and potential for really continuing to adopt some form of regulations that address grading and the transition zones that we talked about previously, tree canopy and the tree protection or landscape protection regulations. Some areas that were addressed in the previous overlay district that I think are really addressed within our code right now or some of the amendments that we are likely to make include stormwater, noise, and lights. Um, the three stormwater noise and lights are also even more difficult when we don't really know the scale of redevelopment. So at this point, when we talk about this area that's highlighted here, we don't know their specific use. And we also don't have an idea at this point in time on what we want to manage in terms of scale. So it's set up right now to fit with R2. If we said we don't actually want it to be R2 residential and we wanted multifamily, then that's a different conversation. But right now we really need to figure out are we looking institutional at what scale? And if we're just looking at residential at a certain scale, are there aspects of this property in particular that need to be addressed differently from other property that's also zoned R2?

I have a quick question. Right now, on the western part of the property, there is multifamily. Correct? So I mean, it's operating under a CUP or?

Right. So that is allowed through that institutional conditional use permit. But right now the property, you know, is allowed for single family residential use or to continue to be under conditional use. Under the institutional. Right. And so that's really the, when we talk about an overlay district, some of the impacts to noise and lights are going to be different if we go down an institutional path like we saw, or if we went continued down a multi-unit building path compared to just R2, which is essentially the same to what that area abuts today. So I'm just going to walk us through some of the areas from the previous overlay district and what they were addressing and how they might be applicable still or slightly varied from where you want to go. The first being grading, a big part of what we talked about under the proposed Big Bend overlay was maintaining some of the natural grades that we have. So we introduced some regulations with retaining wall steps, where regrading would be located, additional protections and that nature. A big piece that I'll remind the board is this was contemplating redevelopment of that overlay district in one fell swoop. So if... Because they could, if Concordia decided to switch gears and sell this property for residential redevelopment, then there would be a plat involved. And plats are ministerial acts. So if they created a plat that split this lot into multiple lots that met our R2 regulations, that would be something that this board wouldn't really have the ability to say no to. But it would significantly change something like addressing grading. Because again, the scale of how that property is being used is changing drastically from one large site where we're protecting grades to multiple smaller parcels. And then how do you protect grades differently there?

I guess the question with that thing, if we wanted to put like an overall grading on it, would that fix that problem? Like if they came in and platted it, would we be able to control some of that? Or are we completely out of luck if they come in with a plat regardless?

Yeah, the plat is a completely separate act from protecting the grading. So essentially they came in, they could get the plat and then somebody would come in and go through the process just like we do for new houses anywhere else with the site plan review and the grading protections there. So it would be treated just like it is for any other new family construction within the city. So that really is where the question is about how do we appropriately protect grading? What's the end goal? How does that change based on the intensity of the use on the site? That becomes hard for us to write an appropriate overlay district to manage single family redevelopment of that lot differently unless we can really establish what the end goal is.

Gotcha. But at least in theory, we could do an overlay that had all the rules about grading and a future plat would be subject to those.

Yes, but the grading. And so this is where we have here. So some of those would that would be an easy transition. So we have some regulations that in the proposed overlay district that covered heights of retaining walls. So if you were going to regrade where those retaining walls would be located in the maximum heights, So that's something that we could address there. But as far as some of the more general topography regulations, we had the goal or the guidelines that existing topography would be respected and that large-scale regrading of the site would not occur. So that was, again, treating it as a whole site. I think it becomes a lot harder if we are looking at a residential use to say you're not allowed to do any regrading on some of these single-family residential properties. unless we can tie it to something that we're trying to prevent. What's the reason? Because if we change the nature of this property, from the institutional nature that you have now to a platted residential neighborhood, you're already changing all of the grade because you're going to have roads, you're going to your storm sewer systems. All of these things are going to impact the natural grade of the property and the overall character going from this open space with the central area of development to platted subdivisions. Then we really have to think we'll why or how do we determine which lots could not be regraded at all and which ones could. At this point, that would be very tough for us to do. And again, we don't know that that's the direction that Concordia is going to go with their property, but I'm emphasizing it because I don't want us to go through an exercise that puts an overlay district that then essentially is meaningless in the end.

So can you just, I mean, I think you said this, and I'm just wanting to be clear because when was the last time we had a new neighborhood added in Clayton?

The majority of our neighborhoods were platted, especially on the eastern end before Clayton was even incorporated as its own community. So it would be an incredibly new procedure for everybody involved. Luckily, we have staff that have been involved in similar processes procedures in other communities so when we completely knew but that's where the the idea of wrapping our heads around that concept as a board is probably a little bit difficult and so then trying to adopt an overlay it's a whole nother procedure to go through to think about the context

yeah so when i think about that what i'm wondering is like because we haven't seen it i haven't witnessed other communities so i know that we haven't done it here is um I guess I was imagining that the developer comes to us with a plan and gets like the plan for the neighborhood approved. Not that like each individual person

Right. And they, and they could, but they, right. And that would be up to them. So the big part to originally establish the plotting of the neighborhood, that's the piece they could do. They could plot the neighborhood, which would require us to look, you know, work with public works to make sure that any roads that were intended to be turned over to the city were plotted at the appropriate route width and how those might be graded and how that would fit into a plan. But theoretically, somebody could come through the city's process to plat out that area as a subdivision and then sell lots one off at a time. I don't think that would happen because that's not really the most efficient way to develop an entire subdivision. But they could come and get the platting done, get the roads done, even theoretically build the roads. and then wait a couple of years and come back through the site plan review process for the house. Now, if we got a whole neighborhood planted there, we would probably figure out a good procedure working with staff to make it more efficient. Some communities that deal with this a lot, Dave and I have time, you know, He has a lot of experience with that from, but they might come and say, here's six models of homes that we have that we will rotate. And we would come up with some system that says you can't repeat. You can only repeat a certain number of the same type of house on a block. So those are all things that we would have to deal with it way down the line. So I don't think we need to do it now. Yeah, I'm thinking more

still just like the topography stuff. Like the developer is going to be planning everything the roadways, which in my mind would kind of like set a significant aspect of topography and grading changes. It would.

Yes, exactly. The roadways would, but the piece that we have to remember is that plats are again, a ministerial act. So a lot of what we have in terms of our authority over grading and through site plans, that's a different approval process from the platting process. So in all likelihood, if somebody were to come and plop this subdivision, they would have more than just a plat before us because they would want to make sure that they would have the appropriate places set up for all the requirements for MSD in terms of their storm controls, all of our roadways would fit, all of those sorts of elements. So there would be some regrading involved in how they would plat it out. But in terms of the number of lots and everything else, if they meet our road standards and they meet our lot area standards, we can't really say, actually, we don't really want you to have a buildable lot right there because we just don't want it.

but i think one of the distinctions though i understand your point regarding changing the legal description and subdividing lots however when it comes to the overall comprehend comprehensive approach to this not only would you have to replant the lots but to make them sellable saleable um you've got to have a storm sewer plan a sanitary sewer plan you may need to have lift stations you may need retention ponds You need all of these other elements in order to be put in place. Those are going to require approvals. And so I guess it's just important to make sure that we're all aware that there are some very significant controls in place before this could become saleable simply rather than just suggesting that subdividing it would be outside of our control, essentially, or a ministerial effect. I think it's more complicated than that.

It is, but what I'm trying to get to is we need to determine what our goal is out of the process of the overlay. So if our goal is saying that there's a different density or some reason behind reducing the density that's available on the site or protecting certain areas, then that's something we can address in overlay. But if we want to try and just... say that we are going to not allow regrading of the site that's a hard concept for us to really write into something that's defensible without any reasoning for it so that's where i just wanted you know if we write an overlay district right now that uses some of the stuff that was previously proposed about grading we're essentially potentially saying that um somebody who builds this, if a lot right here where it's kind of flat, we already have five homes. So if this becomes a house for whatever reason, these people are not allowed to have a retaining wall that's 15 feet in height because there might be another lot that's up higher right here. So that's where the context of the regulations that we're putting in place with retaining wall heights. If we think about the lots being broken down on this side are going to be very different from some of the regulations that We were contemplating before when the retaining walls were largely going to be facing certain directions. So that's what we need to think about when the use of this site comes into play.

Sorry, did you follow up? Only that my observation from what I've heard is that it almost feels... So I guess what I'm trying to discern is, is what would not be premature to do, given that the variability of the potential development is so great? So, you know, what would be reasonable to implement that might apply in almost any situation? It might be a pretty small list.

I mean, we really need to understand what you're trying to protect against. So is there a reason why we need to prevent regrading in this area? Before it was very clear, we were trying to establish additional protections for a neighborhood that provided separation from a use that had different operational characteristics and provided these areas for light, for water, for tree shade, all those things to be separated and provide a buffer and protected. But when we start talking about the other potential uses under the R2 in single family, then we need to know a little bit more as to why this single family neighborhood needs to be protected from another single family neighborhood when we don't know how it's going to be platted at this point. So that's really what we need to get down to. Well,

and that was the reason why it almost seems that the grading is... secondary it comes with their what we heard was concerned with water right and all that and the grading very much is a part of that concern with density keeping green space things like that and um the grading was a part of that so maybe it doesn't stand alone but it seems under the regulations under current would we be able to um to control the grading by you by pulling in these other concerns that all the neighbors had and they were probably very real with stormwater and things like that okay i mean can we dictate uh i don't know if we can dictate lot size or it's hard and you can't look at it as a whole so if you're but if you're doing sewer and rain runoff things like that can you do it as an entire and change a lot size or pull the topography under that. I mean, I don't know. It seems like those were the goals to protect those things for their surrounding

area. Let's talk for a minute about subdivision regulations and ministerial acts.

Yeah, I want to follow up on the comment earlier because it feeds into all these things. Under Missouri law, when you talked about the fact that there's going to be, you observed that there is regulatory actions to be taken in developing a subdivision. And those are decisions to be made. At the phase of platting, when the fundamental design of the subdivision is fixed by the platting, the city under Missouri law has a ministerial duty to approve a subdivision plat that meets the requirements of the city's ordinance. So if we say lots can be this small and the entire thing is comprised of lots this small, we may not want that many lots, but we have to approve the plat. And once you approve the plat, what follows from there is almost automatic. Okay? So the lack of discretion to disapprove a plat because of its size secondary effects or its collateral impacts is a problem for the city because we draw sort of cookie cutter rules for this zoning district. And if you meet those rules under current law, then you have to approve the plan. You can't say, no, you can't have that many lots. You can't say they can't have this. We want bigger setback or more green area if they meet the current rules. So the time to invest the city with greater judgment and discretion is setting those rules before there is a plaque. which I think is the thrust of what Anna wants to talk about and wants to get feedback on, what sort of rules should we look to enact so that we can measure future plat applications against these new standards? So I... I don't... oftentimes cities believe well if you know the plat is a time to exercise judgment and the courts have made very clear the language is the only judgment the court has is does it meet these technical terms of the ordinance and if it does you have no judgment to exercise just if you had a broader view of the city's regulatory options. I just want to make sure you appreciated that. Another

thing, really quickly, I'm sorry, but we talk a lot about the zoning code and the standards in the zoning code. There's another section of our code that's entitled subdivision regulations. And those subdivision regulations, they really dictate what you need to do when you submit that plat and what the standards are in order for land to be subdivided. And it deals with things like streets, the size of those streets. It deals with erosion and stormwater control. And all of those things are found in this other section called subdivision regulations that you frankly don't deal with very often or at all because we don't see this type of development. But it does exist currently in our code. And I think it's another thing that you know, layered on top of zoning. You know, if we're going to talk about what we want overall neighborhood design to look like, you know, it's a whole nother list of regulations, um, But I just bring that up, that it's not your traditional zoning process when we're talking about splitting up and platting lots, where they come before the plan commission and plan commission's making a bunch of adjustments. This is very black and white. If you meet the standards of zoning and the subdivision regulations, then we have a duty to approve it at that point. So as Kevin said, you want to preempt all of that. When the plat's in your hand is not the time to have that discussion. Is that correct? did i mess up your

no no i just want to

point out that that section's

that's a little too much pressure on me um yeah it it does seem to me that i disagreed with

uh Rick, the last time about whether something is premature or not, but it does strike me that to try to deal with the zoning and the overlay at this point when we have, at least last November, whenever it was, we had a fairly high degree of likelihood that the city, I'm sorry, that Washington University and Concordia were going to go forward with a sports venue, et cetera. And we were trying to deal with the inadequacy perhaps of our CUP process to address that. Now, who knows where this thing is going? It seems to me as a practical matter, federal government's pushing back on all the universities, including Washington University. I have no idea whether that means they will back off this project altogether. That does seem to me, no one said that to me, but certainly seems to me It pushes everything they want to do back, like the South 40, the expansion. I think that's now much more of an optional project than it was six or eight months ago. But who knows? I think we're going to find out more if we get an inkling that this really is the direction Concordia is going to go. That's one thing. But to start now trying to redo our zoning code based on absolutely no plan, no indication from Concordia that this is the direction they're going, it just seems to me it's premature. And frankly, among other things, I think we ought to at least let Concordia know and see what they're thinking. Because it seems to me when you start changing these regulations, this is Concordia's property and there is I defer back to Kevin on this. There is a certain point where we start messing with the regulations and we begin to definitely diminish the value of the Concordia property and their ability to seek a buyer if that's what they choose to do. So I was all in favor of the Big Ben overlay. Frankly, I still am. I wasn't bothered by the regulations at all. But it does seem to me at this point, it's really premature since we have no idea what's going to happen on the site for us to start trying to redo our zoning. Now, if on the subdivision provisions, if we think for the first time since the beginning of time, we're gonna have a subdivision in Clayton, which we've never had forever, then maybe we need to look at whether other cities' subdivision regulations look like in anticipation of something like that. Should we try to modify our subdivision regulations if we don't think they're significant enough? But I think going into a new overlay or something like this is just, this is not the right time to do it. I think it's, as Ana would suggest, it's a very difficult job and I don't think serves any viable purpose.

Jeff, did you have something? Cause I have. Yeah. So

I, um, so I think the answer on it to your initial question was, um, for me the goal is to try to have some control try to implement ahead of time some of the things we know we want to protect and what came out of the last process was we want to protect the trees we want to have a setback whether that's residential whether that's they decide to build institutional whether they decide to build athletic fields there are things i think everybody wanted which is save the trees don't butt up to my house so Grading, I see how it could be very complicated, but I guess my question is, would an overlay be the best way to implement some setback restrictions and some of those kind of ideas? Or like even, can you flip back one slide? Yeah. Or like, let's say this, the one in the bottom left. If we wanted to say we don't want development there, is that what the overlay couldn't, putting aside the legal takings argument, is that where the overlay could work? Where we could be like, we want to set back here, we want to protect trees here, irrespective of what development is.

Yeah, to an extent, yes. That's where the heart of the question is right now. If we look at the future redevelopment of the site, are there elements of the R2 district that are not acceptable? And so what are we trying to protect against when we say that? And so I think the hard part for us right now is we know that institutional is allowed through a CUP process, but as we all are very aware the institutional use or the educational use is a broad one. So it's hard for us to really address that. The residential side of things, when we look at our two district and what we're trying to protect against, I can tell you that while we haven't gone through it in a while, the procedures and the requirements that are in place from organizations like MSD when it comes to how you actually plat a subdivision and handle storm sewer are significantly different than how they were when Hillcrest was built out or Tuscany Park or any of these. So there's already going to be natural reductions in density that happen in order to make the plat, you know, through the platting process and ordered for them to be able to have the area to, to address some of these issues. But it's hard for us to influence that at this point. So we could build in an overlay district, but my biggest question would then be, what are we really protecting against? Because we understand that every one of those lots is eventually going to be redeveloped. And so if there are kind of deficiencies within the R2 regulations, a lot of which we're addressing right now, lot coverage is canopy coverage, things that we need to change, then the real question to me that I've kind of been arguing with myself is, well, are those changes that should be applicable across the entire city? Or is there something about this area in particular that makes those restrictions more important? So if it's a setback, then... What's the reason for this setback? And then we can draft it appropriately. But if you think about the transition zones, which I can go through them, but for example, with the transition zones and the setbacks, this whole area that's currently... You know, mostly pavement with no buffering. Is there a reason why we feel that homes need to have a 100-foot setback? So that's just where my head is going. I wouldn't really know how to draft it. Add that on top, this dashed line here, we don't even know if that's the location anymore. I mean, what's the boundary of the overlay district that we're drawing? Concordia has... you know, is likely readdressing a big part of what they were doing with WashU is getting a new soccer field for themselves. Okay. So that project as of right now, isn't moving forward. Do they have other plans for this open field? Is that line going to change? Are they going to subdivide it even for, I mean, that's where it becomes difficult on what boundaries are we addressing and why are we spending the time analyzing it?

So three to six months ago, we were very confident that we had the right as a board of aldermen to establish existing tree protections. That is what I'm talking about. That is the intent of the motion that I made when we withdrew or tabled whatever we did with the overlay, is that we identified that this is actually like a power that we have, that our residents value and would like to see us use. And so whether we apply it to all of Concordia, whether we apply it the common area of Tuscany Park, whether we like what other I'm open to applying at lots of areas, but I would like us to pro act like No one will save our trees out of the goodness of their heart. No one who comes in to develop and make use of property will prioritize saving trees. They won't. It is our responsibility as elected officials trying to maintain like a healthy environment and high quality of life community, we have both the power and I believe the responsibility to use the power that we have to protect these trees. If we don't have the ability to protect grading or minimize grading, or maybe it's more complicated, it'll only work halfway. Like, why wouldn't we still do it? Like, I don't, I'm actually not that interested in setbacks because it's going to be a neighborhood. We already have how setbacks are, like, setbacks feel pretty use-specific to me. Noise and lights feel pretty use- specific to me. Protecting trees doesn't.

So, could I make a comment too? So, I agree that trees would be sort of my priority. Trees and lighting, actually, I could add. But I guess when this topic came up, and I know it started with this property, but I actually thought we were going to consider what of those pieces of the overlay district that we found that people were really appealing to people, let's say tree canopy, what of those things do we want to expand citywide? That's what I thought. Actually that's where I thought this discussion was headed. I think that is like an important way to look at this, because you know what we have right now correct me if i'm wrong is that if you rip out a few trees and you have X, Y caliber inches as long as you protect replace the calipers. you're good. Is that

still true? Right. So I think that that's a helpful point of what you're bringing up because when we looked at the, you know, the next slides were going to cover some of the transition zones and the tree canopy, the pieces, if, if the trees and protecting the trees are something we want to focus on for this property, we can write that in, but I think we can also probably benefit citywide from some of that. So right now we have some protections in place with canopy coverage and But the weights are, I think maybe in 2016 when these were adopted, those weights of how we look at trees, existing trees, are no longer protecting the big trees from being torn down. I think they might have originally protected some big trees. We had developers who would alter the footprint of homes to protect some trees. We aren't seeing that anymore. And so that's something that we might want to evaluate that would be helpful to our established neighborhoods and whatever might come. And those things would be in place, like you mentioned. Then when they get to the phase of actually planting or developing a house on a lot, our tree requirements would come into play then. They wouldn't be able to just clear cut the entire site and start from new. So looking at the residential side, we have a canopy coverage requirement that was based on our canopy coverage goals across the city as a whole, we assigned a percentage to each residential lot. Where we were addressing some deficiencies I think with the canopy coverage for this particularly was institutions were on the caliper replacement schedule, which we found also leaves some to be desired. If the real goal is something like tree canopy, that's a perfect example of something that we need to put on the list to address citywide because every effort we make to address it for whatever use happens on this site is probably going to be an effort made to address it elsewhere. So that's specific. But if there are more specific things like this particular area needs to be protected from regrading on this site because it's really... an issue for this one area of this existing site, then that would be an overlay that I would say. Yeah. So I

was going to say, it seems to me if you're going to build sports facilities, unless the city regulates the preservation or protection of trees, the applicant isn't because it doesn't really make any difference to their sports facilities. If you're building a residential subdivision, which is going to be high end because everything in Clayton is high end and Think how many times you've seen advertisements for new subdivisions where they talk about, oh, you know, wonderful tree we've got already on the site. Preserving trees, for the most part, makes a lot of sense to most developers. Now, I realize there's a little bit of a question if you want absolute density that maybe there's a tree you'd like to get rid of, but for the most part... Preserving trees, I think, is part of a reasonable development. So it's something they promote. So we still have protections. But the idea that we're suddenly going to say, oh, my God, we got to protect every tree on the site. We're doing something that every developer is going to do anyway because it's in their own benefit. So, you know, I like trees as much as anybody, but let's not go overboard here.

Well, if it's why, but why not? I mean, if you, if it doesn't, if it would be something that we think most developers would do anyways, and that it wouldn't like, and that it would actually potentially increase the value of the property and ensure that it's consistent with how we are trying to maintain our community, then let's codify it. Let's not just hope that the developer who ends up purchasing the property shares that same idea.

Because it's an unreasonable requirement.

I don't think so.

I don't know if it would have to be, though. I mean, what a gift for a brand new subdivision to have all these mature trees. And figuring out a way to develop a community around mature trees seems to be something that a developer could do. Architects could certainly do. I would just wonder whether or not if there's areas that would conflict with potentially MSD. I don't want to put something in place that automatically is a problem for utilities and everything that has to go into building a neighborhood.

That's what we will have trouble addressing, but if we think about how trees relate to the character of neighborhoods, a lot of our infill development, they benefit from The existing canopy on adjacent lots and our street trees. And so they really, they remove all the trees. They do every, every one of them wants to remove every tree except for the street trees. So here's an example of we could be strategic and benefit community-wide from increasing the value we place on large existing trees, because right now we wait the young trees that in 30 years will grow to be the same size as the big tree, almost the exact same. So it's beneficial, makes construction a lot cheaper if they can tear down the tree and then plant a new oak tree that at some point will grow. So that's something that we Well, and

canopy coverage was something that our residents during the comprehensive plan said that they wanted to protect and enhance. I mean, that was a big priority for people.

I heard it during the plan. Go ahead. I'm sorry. We heard it during the planning. You hear it from neighbors whenever there's development. We heard it loud and clear with this overlay discussion. It sounds like it's something our community would really want that could be done

community-wide. I mean it all depends on how stringent the requirements are right like Gary said, I mean we don't need to go over overboard, but we can do a lot better than I think what we have in our current code. So I think I would support looking into that

yeah it's going to be if we decide to go that direction, especially on this property we're going to have to try to strike a balance, because if you can go back to the topography. The map that shows the topography. I've been around a lot of large scale development, probably tens of thousands of homes between Wentzville and St. Charles and these other communities. And so your lot coverage, if it went single family is going to be much greater, much more of the site is going to be covered than what you saw previously with the fields and everything else. You're going to have all these roofs, you're going to have the pavement, everything else. What's going to be the end result is there's going to need to be large basins on this site to contain that storm water. natural place for that basin to go is going to be where you have the highest concentration of trees which is down by tuscany where msd already has that structure so if you say we want to protect all the trees in that area the end result will be mass grading to divert that water away from the protected trees to a new basin site probably down where the tennis courts or something else are at so the end result of overburden tree protection if we go too far, for instance in that low point in that corner is going to result in a ton of grading that's gonna completely alter the flow of the site because they're gonna have to put basins somewhere if they go with the single family residential. So I don't know what that looks like in the end from an engineering standpoint, but I do just wanna point out that if you go tree protection heavy in that corner, this site is going to look completely different when it actually becomes developed. So like, if it doesn't make

sense to have it as like, whatever, however you define it, if you maybe you want it to be slightly less in that corner, like I'm open, I'm not saying we have to protect every single tree on the property.

I understand. I'm just making that point that this site is very complex from a drainage standpoint.

Some suggestions.

I just think it's better, and Susan, you're kind of the one that always brings this up, but I'm going to do it. It's better to do something citywide rather than single out a particular property. I do agree that this property has a lot more trees, but so be it. So I think clearly Concordia needs to be able to do what they need to do to survive. They need to utilize this property. They may need to sell it to a developer that wants to do a subdivision. But the idea that we have, if we could develop, this is a problem in many neighborhoods. A little story. I looked out my window one day and saw one of the tallest sycamores I have ever seen in someone's backyard coming down. Perfectly healthy tree. I really felt like crying. I did. So I'm just saying we could use this all over the place. And I hope that you will pursue that more of a citywide thing and then see how it translates. something like this

kevin and i were just talking one way we may do this to look at it globally is to have a different standard based on the number of lots that you're developing so if you're in excess of 10 lots or something like that and this would fall into that category then you have a higher tree canopy coverage requirement than you would otherwise but you're not getting into the specific site itself and saying you have to keep this cluster of trees because i do think on this site you can have a canopy requirement and spread them throughout the site but i'm really worried about targeting that specific corner especially if it goes single family residential because this entire site will be altered

i'm confused if we had the the canopy requirement is lot is site specific right so each each lot needs a certain canopy Right, you can

or we could increase the value placed on large existing trees to. incentivize it would be a combination right so

we'd want to distance, we want to make it so that where the feasible they save the trees. But we don't necessarily tell them where so as an end result for this, whether it goes residential or if it's another institutional use. If we correct and modify some of our tree canopy coverage that would apply regardless of the use, what we would do is essentially be reassured that there's going to be a redistribution of how the tree canopy works on that site depending on how it impacts. So there's ways to build in regulations right now. We say a lot based on this. We have a percentage of canopy coverage of a lot that's assigned based on the zoning district. So then there's a calculation if it's a 5,000 square foot lot, this is the percentage of canopy coverage that it needs. But what we can also do is we modify some of the subdivision requirements or we can add triggers that say you're developing a new block. We can add essentially a block canopy coverage. So because you're doing five or 10 houses in a row, we have an extra canopy coverage requirement that would, you know, cover this area in the original development conditions. So that would incentivize additional trees or potentially saving of trees, etc.

So one of the things I'd be interested in, if this is possible, would be to see if we could incorporate some type of a modified lot size for the entire development, recognizing that whatever lots are there are grandfathered in perhaps, but so that we can, let's just say I'm making this up. Let's say that they had to be half acre minimum or whatever the front foot is, or however we describe that so that we would therefore affect the overall density of the potential development. Is that possible?

Right. So that's kind of what I was bringing up earlier. If we think about residential here and the concept is the density allowed under R2 is too much and we need to protect it, then that's the conversation of is this properly zoned or is there some other... you know, element that we need to put into play that would impact how they platted property here.

Oh, yeah. So I think there's a correlation between trying to limit the density because of the impact it has on grade, water runoff, trees, all those things. So you put it all together and describe bigger lots as a consequence. It mitigates that risk to some degree.

Yeah, it does to some degree. And it's something that understanding... what the concerns are of this board will help us better present to you like potential next steps. But even if you were to zone this in our larger lot R1 subdivision, it's not going to necessarily fix a lot of what the actual concerns might be. But as David has mentioned, the way that our subdivisions would be platted in a modern subdivision, that's why when you go out west, you see the large common areas kind of like how Clive Rock Park is right now, except Those large areas that you find in between blocks were done intentionally because they become the basins. They become how the stormwater is handled, and they act as the buffers. So we would see that, although a lot of that's not required in how our subdivision and our street requirements would be for them to lay it out. They would have to provide those because it's the only way they're going to meet the regulations. So a little element of that would be involved, but even just going to our larger lot subdivision isn't going to necessarily require that.

So i'm gonna i'm going to step in we have one more topic which i'd like to share with you guys, and we only do it. So if we could can't solve the way this is going to be detailed and overlay right now tonight, I think we definitely have established that trees are a priority for us density is a priority. And so, Ivana, you all can carry forward with this in the future. Yeah, and I think,

yeah, stormwater is something that we're already addressing that I know is a concern here with some of the other changes. we can kind of if you guys want to bring this topic back for another time we might be able to provide a little bit more of a direction given this discussion

okay great thank you thanks so you guys we don't have that much time but i i've been kind of um noodling a concern of mine over the past month or so and you know I'm never say die. I have an opportunity now to share this with everybody. I've shared this with a couple of you just by happenstance and I've shared it with David. If you get, I have some handouts for you at your places. And if you will open up this guy, this colorful map and just have it there for you. And then I'm going to talk to you about it. If you look at the area and I have written on there who owns what, okay. to make it easier, you can notice that we have a lot of large, stagnant, vacant properties. Wash U is there. It's not vacant. You can see shockingly how much of Forsyth, and this is Forsyth Boulevard, so I'm calling this the Forsyth problem. We just have a lot of opportunity along Forsyth that we are not able to take advantage of because people are sitting on their properties for years. Centene, starting from the east, the purple, there's a big piece there that's about four acres that they're just sitting on. We all know across the street in red, the Gershman properties, the bank that has been vacant for quite a while, and then the vacant lots are That's just being held indefinitely. We have going on down, there's another Gershman property, which is Napoli, which is maybe kind of ripe for something improvement there. And then again, the keeping westward, the pink that's owned by Montgomery Bank, it's relatively small, but it is a very prominent piece of property And it looks terrible. And it's been really been underutilized significantly in the extreme for like decades. Of course, then we come to the county police department and that's a biggie, but we can't really address that too well on our own. So what I was looking at is I did some research. How do we get these properties moving? How do we get people to act on this You know, this is holding back the city of Clayton, both in dollars in terms of property tax and also vitality in terms of life on this street. The street is, in many places, just a dead zone. And it's one of our main streets. So I researched it. talk to David a few times about different things and kept saying no. So I guess we can't find these people, okay? I tried to find a way to do it, but we cannot. I even interviewed people in the city of St. Louis. I talked to other people. There's no way unless they're in a code violation of some sort, which they are not. So how can we, my question to you going forward, how can you find a way to be a catalyst to be proactive about getting these properties developed for the good of our city and the region. I did talk to some experts. I talked to some real estate experts, some property owners, some developers. And what I came up with, I'll just lay out for you. And then you can take this forward and decide how or if you want to pursue it. But a few steps that could help is first of all, go out and set up meetings with these property owners. And I would recommend the mayor, the city manager, Gary Carter's a small group, go and talk to each property owner, tell them the problem that this is, you know, not the highest and best use of this property. And it's holding us back. Um, send the message that it's becoming a blight on the city. And I would use that word, um, because it is, um, We can ask, what is your plan? What is your timetable? Are you open to seeing potential buyers or potential partners? Okay, we have that information. We go now to developers and do the same conversation, essentially, and ask them how they can help us achieve the goals that we see. We've got our new business development incentive plan. in that plan are stated some goals that we'd like to see with properties. And so that's a good tool to just take and enable the conversation about what we're looking for in our downtown. And then if we get some interest, we can go and try to bring these partners together and try to sort of force a discussion about what can be done and how we can help. How can our goal be achieved? And does that then involve some kind of financial assistance on our part or not? Maybe that's what it's gonna take to get some of these things going forward. Simultaneously over here, I've learned that one of the things we would love to have in one of these discussions is kind of the economic impact study of what if these properties were developed. What is our opportunity loss now? And I think there are a couple of ways to get that without us paying PGAV or somebody to do it. That's one way. But the economic development partnership with the county I think could be persuaded they they could be persuaded to fund a study. On just this topic also greater stl these charts came from greater stl and I we didn't pay anything for them, and that you know if you go on, they also listed every single property. It was a nice little service they provided just because we asked. And so you could go to these resources and say, can you help us with quantifying what we're losing by not having these things developing in a higher and better use way? And, you know, just take that then and see what we can create with it. Because I think otherwise, we've got some deep pocket owners that have no real incentive to do anything except wait and let their investment keep maturing. The property taxes on some of this stuff have got to be really low. That is another thing we could do. We could go to the county and make sure that they're properly assessed. Maybe they're not, and we could be getting more income that way. But um i just think i'm hoping that just having this little conversation will motivate you guys to to look at this as you are busy doing all this other stuff um you know there's more you can do you can you can try to if if nobody nobody wants to play ball or you could pick one of these properties i would say the worst looking one i would say pick that one and um i'll talk about chapter 99 i mean maybe that you know the only real tool we have is blighting so um It's something you would consider if you really wanted to play hardball down the road, but it's out there. So anyway, it's 7 p.m. according to that clock and my watch. So I will stop there. We don't have to discuss it, although I'm around to discuss it anytime. I'll tell you who I talked to. And I mean, a couple of these property owners said they're happy to entertain an offer at this point. But they're just not marketing these properties. All right. Thank you for listening. Okay. All righty. With that, I think there's a bunch of people out in the hallway that we could maybe let in as we start our seven o'clock meeting. Chief, do you want to tell them they can come on in? Oh, golly. Well, hello everybody. Are we still broadcasting, Andrea, and everything? And what's the beeping going on? Oh, I see.

Okay. Oh, you guys all have

to leave now. Darn. Okay. So, Andrea, is it okay to just start up? Okay, welcome everybody to our April 23rd meeting of the Clayton Board of Aldermen. We are really happy to see so many more faces in our audience than usual. Welcome Clayton Fire Department. Oh my gosh, thank you guys for coming out. And I know we have some distinguished guests, at least one in our audience tonight too. So with that, I'm just going to open up the meeting and if we can call the roll.

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

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

Here.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Here.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg.

Aldemann York.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here. Here.

Okay. Now's the time for public requests and petitions, and if anybody has anything that's not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. Press the button so it's like green. Yeah.

Hi. Hi. I'm Sam Page, your St. Louis County Executive. I'm sure I'm not on your agenda because... Can you hear me? I'll speak up. I just came to recognize my friend and your mayor on her last day in the last few minutes of her last day as mayor of the city of Clayton. I know Michelle, Mayor Harris for a lot of things not just as a member of the Board of Aldermen and as mayor and as a leader of our cultural efforts in in St. Louis, but also as one of my representatives on the Zoo Museum District and president of the Municipal League and in general, someone that I can go to if I've got a complex question that I need to figure out how to navigate the community. But one of the things that I wanted to do in Mayor Harris's last few minutes is recognize her accomplishments with a proclamation from St. Louis County that outlines many of those accomplishments but more importantly to me recognizes mayor harris as an important ally someone that i can depend on for advice and counsel someone who is spending her last day in elected public service but not her last day in public service because i plan to look for ways to deploy her across the county and use her wisdom as a former elected official One of the things I get to do as county executive is recognize accomplishments. And in doing so today, I have a proclamation to recognize and make today in St. Louis County, April 22nd, Mayor Michelle Harris Day. So congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, okay. Following that, the first item on our agenda is some unfinished business, which is the first quarter budget amendment. And so Mr. City Manager.

Yes. So this is a continuation of discussion we had at the last meeting We did send out some supplemental information last week that tried to explain the differences between what we thought would be the fund balance at the end of fiscal year 24 and where that number actually ended up. So all of that was detailed in a spreadsheet that went out. I also had really good subsequent conversations with members of the Board of Aldermen, so thank you for talking through that with me today. to better understand the concerns and really talk through the questions that were posed at the last meeting. What I want to emphasize here is that really what the board is approving anytime you're approving a budget or budget amendment are those revenues and the expenditures. So what we're going to spend money on and what funds we're going to use to accomplish that. We talk about fund balance, but that's largely to inform those decisions that you're making as they relate to revenue and expenditures. Fund balance is always going to fluctuate, and the only time we get a really clear picture of what our fund balance is is when we go and reconcile and audit where we were on September 30th of any given year. Outside of that particular date where we reconcile it down to the penny, that number's going to fluctuate throughout the year. And so there were fluctuations that you saw between where we ended up in 24, where we started in 25, And then again, where we anticipate will be after we do the first budget amendment. So hopefully in those conversations and if you have more questions about I'm happy to talk about that tonight. Hopefully you understand better the way that flows and where those numbers come from. What I do want to point out in this first quarter budget amendment because it looks like expenditures are increasing dramatically, and they are across all funds. It's about $7.4 million. Largely what that is, though, are projects and initiatives that weren't completed during fiscal year 24 that we are basically rolling over to fiscal year 25 in order to complete. So it looks like you've got $7.4 billion across all funds that's being added in new projects, and that's not necessarily the case. These are largely projects that weren't completed in 24 that will complete in 25. The fact that those things weren't completed in 24 is why that number at year end of 24 looks like it's inflated. It's way more than what you anticipated when you approved the budget for this year. You know, we gave the Board of Aldermen a number that was like $43 million that we anticipated in fund balance. We ended up around 50, and that's again because we had projects that weren't completed. So we're adding those projects back in through this first quarter budget amendment for fiscal year 25. There are three items that we didn't complete in 24 that aren't in this first quarter budget amendment. And so I do want to point three of those out. One is $500,000 that we had budgeted in 24 for the installation of some electric vehicle chargers. We didn't do it because we didn't receive a grant in fiscal year 24. That project is not coming back in fiscal year 25. So you're not going to see that within this budget amendment. There was a million dollar expenditure in fiscal year 24 that we had in the capital improvement fund that was going to go towards the municipal garage. You are not going to see that in the fiscal year 25 budget amendments either because we're going to use the bond proceeds and that's all complete now and we have that money to pay that million dollars as a part of the larger project. And then finally, there's about a million dollars or so in parks and recreation projects that weren't completed in 24 that aren't contained within this first quarter budget amendment, but you will likely see those in the second quarter budget amendment in fiscal year 25. So about a million dollars that isn't reflected here that will be in that next budget amendment. So I did want to point that out because those things alone are about $2.6, $2.7 million, and they account for a large portion of that fluctuation. So I just want to be clear about what's happening with those particular projects that weren't completed in 2014. Outside of that, again, I had some really good conversations. If there are any additional questions, we'll certainly entertain those. We have Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance here this evening as well to answer any questions you have. So I'll open it up to the board.

Why don't we just go around in order?

Yeah. I don't have any additional questions. I appreciated the extra information you sent out.

Yeah. I very much appreciated this conversation. This is clarifying this. I did have some trouble following it before, but that all made sense. a couple of things that aren't really, with the amendment, I'll just bring them up now. It is too bad that we're not pursuing at this point the EV chargers. I understand it was supposed to be more than the 500 that we were committing because we were hoping for the grant with it. But at some point, I hope we revisit that and I hope that at some point soon to put something at the center or other locations where they would be well used. We're certainly not ahead of the game on getting that done. So I'd like to see us do that. I'm also just wondering as we look toward these things that were rolled over that weren't completed last year, some sounds like they're existing committed contracts, committed funds. If there's something out there that we should be aware that its cost might materially increase, I hope that you make us aware of that. It doesn't have to be tonight, but just looking through this budget, if there's something that we previously approved that's been rolled forward and the cost may greatly exceed what we thought, then just come back to the Board.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Alderman Patel. Yeah, thanks, David. Appreciate all the time we spent this afternoon going over it because while I understand that technically what we're approving are changes in revenues and expenditures. And those are all explained in the request for board action and staff report, and we can see that they are projects that had previously been approved and are being carried forward. I continue to be concerned that the information, the way we're displaying this and the way it might be interpreted by residents trying to understand what's going on makes it look like You know, we had an anticipated ending fund balance of $50 million and now it's going to be $44 million. And that is confusing. And it makes it feel like we had, you know, a net $6 million in unanticipated expenses. And so... What I did was I went back, and I want to say this, I want it like kind of in the record in case anyone is trying to follow this later, is that I went back to our second meeting of September 2024 where we approved the budget. And on page 13 of that agenda, you can see... like the actual beginning fund balance, revenues and expenditures, and ending fund balance for each of our funds, as well as the total of all funds. And what I think is important to note is that when we approved the budget, which we are now amending, we believed that our beginning fund balance was going to be $39.9 million. And then we had the expenses, which are exactly what's shown in the first column there, 45.4 and 47.8 in expenditure revenues, 45.4 expenditures, 47.8. And then we thought we were going to have an ending fund balance of $37.5 million. So when we approved the budget, that's what we thought. The auditors came in and figured out this whole, what our beginning fund balance really was on September 30th or October 1st and what our ending fund balance is. And that's where you get the numbers of 52 and 50 million. And so then carrying forward the expenses that we did not incur in the last fiscal year, we end up where we are. And in fact, we are approving an amended budget that has us in an as good or better financial position as a whole with an ending fund balance of $44 million instead of $37.5 million. So i just want to say that that's what allows me to feel like this makes sense i understand it and i hope that we can continue to work on how we present the information so it's not confusing or misleading thank you

great thank you and i thought the conversation was helpful and we'll look for ways to repackage it

alderman Gary Feder

alderman fader

Just a suggestion, it sounds like you're looking for remedies anyway, but I used to find the best solution for anything that's potentially confusing is a footnote in which you specifically address exactly what may be confusing. And in two sentences, you say, this isn't confusing because of the following. So I would just consider if that's appropriate, a footnote could go a long way to addressing concerns.

Very good. Alderman Rick Hummell.

Very good. Alderman Hummel.

Like Becky, I went back. However, I went back to the fourth quarter budget amendment. And at that time we showed that our fund balance was going to be 43.8 million. And so I think from a presentation standpoint, it might be helpful to add that column in so that we can see that that's what it was, then it was higher than it was supposed to be. And now we're getting to the next part where it's essentially right where we need to be. So It is all just a timing issue in terms of revenues and expenses, but the substance hasn't really changed in terms of our fund balance. So I'm fine with that.

Alderman Jeffery Yorg.

Alderman York.

Three things. One, I'm generally fine with it. I think everybody else has kind of said like it, it would probably be nice to have like original budget and the fourth quarter amended budget, but however you guys work on it, I think that would help clarify, especially however we call out carry over just an admin note. June, can you move me over from, I think I'm an attendee instead of a panelist so they can't see me. Thank you. Otherwise I'm good with it. Great. Thank you.

Okay, great. Okay. All right. So we've had all our discussion, I think. Any more questions? Okay. We'll take a motion.

I'll introduce bill number 7066, approving the fiscal year 2025 first quarter budget amendment to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Second. Okay, any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7066, first reading. An ordinance amending the fiscal year 2025 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7066 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? But the ministry's like the board is given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7066 approving the fiscal year 2025 first quarter budget amendment to read for the second time by title only

second discussion. Mr. City Attorney

Bill number 7066, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending the fiscal year 2025 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

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

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

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Aldemann Yorg?

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

Okay. We have a public hearing on our agenda for Westmoreland accessory dwelling that's been postponed since still being considered by the plan commission so we'll skip over that. The next item is the consent agenda and Mr city manager do you want to report on it, or what's in there is our minutes. From last time and, of course, the certification of the municipal election of April 8th. Anybody want to talk about that? Okay. All right. So we need a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I'll move to approve the consent Agenda.

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

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

Aye.

Alderman Rick Hummell.

Alderman Hummel.

Aye.

Alderman Jeffery Yorg.

Alderman York.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay. That's our agenda for this first part of our meeting tonight. I think we'll have a, do you have anything further?

I do not.

Okay. So what we'll do is have a final, sometimes for those who don't attend often, we do a sort of a round table. And so tonight might look a little different than usual, but we're going to do that now. We'll always go in order of seniority. So go with our most senior alderwoman, Mayor Pro Tempore and soon to be mayor.

I mean, I think this round table should certainly be dedicated to you, Mayor Harris. So I just wanted to make a few remarks and maybe others do as well. But a lot of this is I said at your party last weekend, but I just want to thank you again for your service to our city. First as an alderwoman for many years and then as our mayor, And I just want to highlight some of your accomplishments. This certainly is not an exhaustive list, but as under your tenure as mayor, just to remind everybody that we hired David Gipson, our wonderful city manager. I know it wasn't easy for you to start your tenure without a permanent city manager in place, but you did it and did it well. I

I mean, I think this round table should certainly be dedicated to you, Mayor Harris. So I just wanted to make a few remarks and maybe others do as well. But a lot of this is I said at your party last weekend, but I just want to thank you again for your service to our city. First as an alderwoman for many years and then as our mayor, And I just want to highlight some of your accomplishments. This certainly is not an exhaustive list, but as under your tenure as mayor, just to remind everybody that we hired David Gibson, our wonderful city manager. I know it wasn't easy for you to start your tenure without a permanent city manager in place, but you did it and did it well. I

got

away with all sorts of

things.

There was nobody saying no to you then. Yeah. Other than Janet, maybe.

Janet. Janet. Yeah.

I know. Right. Yeah. You kept us going and kept us hopeful during an awful pandemic. Those were a rough couple of years, but you kept us optimistic. You stayed positive. You have brought millions of dollars in development throughout the city. I think it was a half a billion dollars, I heard. You have certainly developed many positive and strong relationships with our business community. I am always overwhelmed with how many people you know. It's incredible. I think you know most people in St. Louis. You started our Equity Commission and then certainly our Mayor's Commemorative Landscape Task Force. And as Mr. Page mentioned, you have been an incredible great regional leader with the Municipal League, including serving as president of the executive board. And you've certainly done a wonderful job leading these meetings for the last six years. You're always very inclusive of everyone who wants to speak, whether or not you agree with what they're saying. You're thoughtful, well-organized. And I think we all appreciate the positive attitude that you always bring. And you're always very encouraging in meetings and outside of meetings. I certainly want to thank you personally for your friendship, your mentorship for the last 10 years. You've always encouraged me, always been willing to share your time. I've really enjoyed all of our conversations through the years. I will really miss our Ward 3 lunches. I think the three of us always have a really good time, but we always are able to make it productive as well. I know that you won't be a stranger. I will certainly look for your guidance. But I just want to thank you over and over for your dedication to our great city, for your countless hours of service in furtherance of taking care of Clayton. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Bridget. Thank you.

Mayor Harris. Michelle, we've known each other under different titles and different roles as neighbors, businesswomen, school moms. Anytime you take your kids through high school together, you know each other pretty well. And community volunteer and leader and now mayor. There's something that I think you have always done that I have seen that I admire is you do your homework and you identify what you want then you prepare and you set out that vision and you aim high. When you believe in something, you dive in for the long haul. You ride the bumps, you tackle the unexpected, and you get us there. There may not always be the exact original destination, but it's always further along pushing us up the mountain. And I'll focus on one through line, one building block that really strikes me, and that's your value. And Bridget mentioned this a little bit. You really Establish and nurture relationships with the board, with staff, with anyone who comes into our meetings, with Scott, and with the community and stakeholders. And that's really, I guess it really strikes me in this time of remote work and everybody doing their checklist and hardly knowing the people with whom they're working, missing out on the brainstorming, the pushing, the thinking, the moving forward together. And your willingness to pick up a phone, knock on a door, share a lunch is really an example for all of us and how key it is to know and to really hear each other. And we all benefit. I mean, the result today, and we appreciate this so much in you, is the city has more partners, people ready to listen. They may have said no in the past, but they're ready and the door is open now for the next step. And that's a really foundation. That's a really powerful foundation for all of us for today and into tomorrow. So thank you, Mayor Harris. Thank you, Michelle, for all you give to our community and for your friendship. And thank you for being you, your one savvy, sophisticated, fun leader in front. Thank you.

I'm Michelle. It's been a pleasure to serve under you. You're the only mayor I've known and you've certainly set a high bar. When I think about you and your impact on our community, I think your impact has been very real and has really been felt and will continue be sustained beyond your tenure. Anyone who knows you knows that you have a strong vision and undeniable passion for our community, and you work incredibly hard to bring that to fruition, to life. I want to highlight three things that I think are particular strengths that I have appreciated and admire. The first is the regional relationships and collaboration that you have built and cultivated. So both within like the formal municipal league construct and metro mayors and those organizations in which you have been both an active participant and leader. as well as other ad hoc or collaborative efforts that you've made across city county lines and throughout the business community and all around. So I think it's incredibly important and has really been valuable for our larger community too. I believe that you're responsible for what I have seen as some real improvements to MIAC, the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. Just a couple years ago, you suggested an approach or a practice where these high school students actually identify a particular board or commission that they might be interested in and follow that over the course of the year so they actually have the opportunity to learn more specifically about a particular area and how it functions, as well as make an impact. We have actually implemented improvements that have been informed by these high school students. And I think it's really made it, I have to believe it's made it a more valuable experience for them, as well as certainly for us as a city and a community. And then lastly, I just can't say enough about how much I was struck this past Friday by the real impact that your work on the Commemorative Landscape Task Force has made. We had, I think, I'm terrible at crowd estimates, but over 100 people, I believe probably 50 or more Filipino Americans from across the region and the country, people came from Chicago and New Jeffery Yorg City and all over, And the recognition that you were undoubtedly a leader in ensuring that we made this recognition, that the recognition was truthful and meaningful to that community that was so horribly mistreated. And the respect that you showed all of those folks was amazing. And everyone I spoke to there was just so grateful and really felt impacted by what we did as a city. And it brought home to me that um you know these things are not unimportant um and it's just like you touch so many lives and that's just one recent and really powerful example so thank you thank you so much

I'm Michelle. It's been a pleasure to serve under you. You're the only mayor I've known and you've certainly set a high bar. When I think about you and your impact on our community, I think your impact has been very real and has really been felt and will continue be sustained beyond your tenure. Anyone who knows you knows that you have a strong vision and undeniable passion for our community, and you work incredibly hard to bring that to fruition, to life. I want to highlight three things that I think are particular strengths that I have appreciated and admire. The first is the regional relationships and collaboration that you have built and cultivated. So both within like the formal municipal league construct and metro mayors and those organizations in which you have been both an active participant and leader. as well as other ad hoc or collaborative efforts that you've made across city county lines and throughout the business community and all around. So I think it's incredibly important and has really been valuable for our larger community too. I believe that you're responsible for what I have seen as some real improvements to MIAC, the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council. Just a couple years ago, you suggested an approach or a practice where these high school students actually identify a particular board or commission that they might be interested in and follow that over the course of the year so they actually have the opportunity to learn more specifically about a particular area and how it functions, as well as make an impact. We have actually implemented improvements that have been informed by these high school students. And I think it's really made it, I have to believe it's made it a more valuable experience for them, as well as certainly for us as a city and a community. And then lastly, I just can't say enough about how much I was struck this past Friday by the real impact that your work on the Commemorative Landscape Task Force has made. We had, I think, I'm terrible at crowd estimates, but over 100 people, I believe probably 50 or more Filipino Americans from across the region and the country, people came from Chicago and New York City and all over, And the recognition that you were undoubtedly a leader in ensuring that we made this recognition, that the recognition was truthful and meaningful to that community that was so horribly mistreated. And the respect that you showed all of those folks was amazing. And everyone I spoke to there was just so grateful and really felt impacted by what we did as a city. And it brought home to me that um you know these things are not unimportant um and it's just like you touch so many lives and that's just one recent and really powerful example so thank you thank you so much

much yeah that was great that was a great day

yeah

alderman Gary Feder

alderman fader

So I said a lot at your party, and so I'm going to give a shortened and slightly different version. I've been in a couple of organizations where at different times, one of the assignments has been, say, what's the most important thing about you, how you identify yourself? And I just jotted them down because I remember them. And I think I always said my family was number one. Being a lawyer was number two. being Jewish was number three and living in Clayton was number four. And I don't wanna say not necessarily in that order, but I think that's how important Clayton has been to me. I've been here for 60 years, started here as Washington University. My pride in Clayton is sort of endless And you represent what is the very best about Clayton. And so I don't know what more I can say. But just anecdotally, I will say since COVID, I have what used to be one of my daughter's offices, bedrooms, which became my office. And so I sort of seclude myself in there. I keep the door open so the dog could come and bother me. But most importantly, a lot of times I'm talking on the phone for fairly long periods of time. And Robin will walk by. And she'll say, talking to Michelle? So, you know, the mayor and I have spent many, many hours together on the phone, always talking about Clayton. And as I said last week, I thought I knew a lot about Clayton and the Board of Aldermen, but I knew nothing until I got here, until I had a chance to learn from this mayor. So thank you.

So our tenure together, working together has been relatively short. But I would say one of the first things that I was impressed by was how hard you work. And I had no idea that being a mayor was a full time job. And you certainly made it that way. And I think you have such a sincere interest in. making Clayton a better community. But beyond the sincere interest, as it's been articulated by some of the others, what a terrific impact you've had as well. And so I think that is what is most significant. You've clearly made Clayton a top priority, but you've also demonstrated your leadership by being a regional leader as well. And that is so important in our community. generally, but I think it's extra important these days. So I thank you for your service, and I'm glad to hear that you are interested in staying engaged in, I hope, our community, but in the region as well. So thank you.

Thanks.

So I'm the newbie on the board as well as newbie in Clayton. Cause I've been in Clayton for five plus years, moved in right before COVID hit. It was great. I moved into a new community and then I didn't go anywhere. But I will say that, you know, Michelle, you were, I think I may have emailed you right when I moved in. I can't remember, but the willingness for the mayor to basically meet with a brand new resident who is basically was like, hey, I just moved here. I want to get involved. What do I do? It's very much appreciated because most would not do that. And I think it shows both a desire to make sure people stay involved, but also a desire, again, as others have said about, being willing to carve out time for anybody or anything to kind of help the city move forward. And, you know, subsequent to that, obviously we've had meetings. We talked about how I needed to get involved, wound up sitting here somewhere. Um, but no, and I'll, you know, being able to kind of encourage me and kind of help me think through some of that as I was thinking about running, um, is appreciative. And, you Watching the time you've put in, I think, sets... A really good example for not only the six of us that are going to be here after you're done, but also residents that live in Clayton. That there is a way to get involved, whether that be elected, whether it be board, whether it be cleaning up trash, whether that be whatever, drawing the art on your passes. There are ways for everybody to get involved. And the idea that as a long-term elected official and mayor, you've set that example for a lot of folks and i have a feeling you'll still be doing a lot of it even afterwards and i think that is something that for all of us that want to continue to keep the city what it is and what we envision it to be i think as example again not just for the six of us but the other however many thousands that we have in clayton that that it's worth the involvement as much as people can so thank you

that's that's so nice um Do you want to say anything before I launch in?

I did say quite a bit, but I will say again on behalf of all the staff here, thank you so much for all the support you've given all of us. As I said Friday, every resource we've ever needed, we've gotten and you've advocated for. to help us do our jobs and serve this community. So thank you for that. Personally, thank you for all the support that you've given me. I've appreciated the friendship. I've been really impressed by the leadership and what the city's been able to accomplish under your leadership over the last five plus years. I don't know what I'm going to do Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock anymore, which has been a standing meeting for over five years now. It's baked into my life. But I've enjoyed all of it, and I'm going to miss you. And it was a great run. So thank you very much.

Oh, okay. Well, I have not cried yet. And I found out too late that the mascara I have is not waterproof. So I cannot cry. Okay. Not doing it. All right. So, you know, I don't know what to say. It's been... Being the mayor, as I've said previously and written, it's been one of the most enriching experiences that I've ever had. I recommend it to everybody. It's really so much different than being an older person because you really are embracing the whole community and the region. And you're trying to make that connection and make it strong. Because that is what's going to help us stay healthy, you know. I think the reason we do these things, and I know everybody works really hard. I mean, when I was an alderman, I put in a lot of time as well. It was just sort of in a different way. We do it because of love of place. And there's been a lot written. And I actually, I saw the director of the History Museum today at a meeting and he talked a lot about it then, which is where I kind of learned about this whole concept. He's sending me, there's been a ton of studies and he's going to send those to me and I'm going to send them to you all. But I mean, I think that is kind of what we're all about. And as long as we kind of keep that in our forefront and make that our vision to make this place that we love better and better for everybody um and more welcoming to everybody and more vibrant um we will have a really great city and and you guys will have a big impact on where we head um i can't say enough how um grateful i am for the support that you've all given me over the years mostly um i look at two people um mostly i mean because you know i have a lot of ideas and not all of them are good right so i think you guys have done a great job of sort of helping to balance things out um but really you've been so supportive and um you know, help me work through some of the concepts. Like it's something I talked about earlier tonight that I've struggled with because I bounce a lot of ideas off of people. And that's just so helpful. It's always been collegial. This board is really actually exceptional in that regard. Very respectful, very supportive of each other, even when there's a difference of opinion. And so that's just something that really is unique i think in our world today so um i also want to thank the staff for their support um can't do you can't get things done without a good staff making it happen and giving you the information you need and sometimes saying no but a lot of times saying yes uh so i i really i can't say enough i think we have the best staff in the world and i mean it um We just, I'm just so proud of all of you guys. It's just great. I get so many compliments about public safety. Certain folks are way more popular, like our chiefs, but you know, I get a lot of compliments about them in general, but just... you know, you make us really proud with the job that you do. And that's just so important because it's, you know, it's motivating to us as well. I want to thank June for everything. June is just such a great coworker, right hand, helpful thinker, problem solver, organizer. June is, keeps track of so much stuff, so much information. You all know people have no idea. And still she has time to do prepare our agendas. tell us what to say, create, you know, receptions and invite people to parties. And just, I mean, just the list goes on and on and on. And I can't say enough about you. You are the best city clerk world. And Andrea, I want to give you a special thank you too, because, you know, we did start a new little task force a few years ago, this commemorative landscape thing. It was very nebulous then. I mean, nobody really knew. I mean, we had some vague idea. We kind of rode in on the wave of everybody tearing down Confederate statues. And we got a call from a resident saying, hey, there's a county monument you should get torn down. We're like, well, we need to look at ourselves also then if we're going to do that. And so Andrea helped us bring sort of this idea into fruition with a really sound process. And she has been the liaison and managed all of these meetings and all of the processes of getting stuff approved, which has been rather cumbersome but necessary. You and your team pulled off an incredible event Friday morning. And Andrea, I mean, doesn't just, you know, schedule the microphone. I mean, she's in touch with the Philippine community. She knows the leader of it here in St. Louis. She works with them very diligently, really even more than I have. And so I think we just owe a lot to her for kind of creating something out of nothing in that regard. So great job. Yeah. That being said, I think maybe we're at the end of talking and we need to do something. We need to swear in our new mayor. We're adjourned first. Okay. All right. You need to make a motion. Second. Is it a roll call? All those in favor? Aye. All right. Any opposed? Okay. I'm just looking at you as a joke. Okay. Nevermind. Gotta have a sense of humor. Okay. Yes. So we are adjourning this meeting and I'll just take a seat in the audience and then I'll come up when we're swearing her in right after and hand the gavel over. Is that okay? All right. Very good. Get my junk out of the way.

you

guys are clapping for me right oh uh just i would just want to say one thing I just want to say, I'm so proud of you. Um, I've seen how you've grown over the years and from that first wrinkled day, and that's a little joke with us. And, um, no, you've done a great job. You've really shown your leadership. You've worked so hard and you've shown you have the determination and grit and vision that you're going to need for the next six years to lead this group and to lead our city. And so congratulations. I want to present you with this wonderful gavel. It's all yours. Here's a picture.

Are we broadcasting? All right, here we go. June, would you mind saying the role?

Alderman Buse? Here. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderman Buse? Here. Alderman Fader?

Here.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Here.

Aldermen Jeffery Yorg?

Aldermen York?

Here.

Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe?

Here.

All right, this is the time in our meeting for public requests and petitions. If there's anything that's not on the agenda, feel free to come forward and address us. Probably none, but I still had to say it. I will open the public hearing for the first item on our agenda. This is a conditional use permit for Nettie's Pizza Den, which is located at 33 North Central.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted on behalf of Nettie's Pizza Den to allow for the operation of a restaurant. The subject property is located within the Ceylon building on the west side of North Central Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Foresight Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of planned unit development and is located in the northeast downtown overlay zoning district. Proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 11 a.m through 7 p.m. on Sunday. The proposed restaurant measures 2,600 square feet and will include 40 seats. The plan commission considered this request at its meeting on April 7th and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve a conditional use permit for the operation of Nettie's Pizza located at 33 North Central Avenue per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

All right, thank you. I will open the discussion. I don't know is Mike. Oh, there you are back there. Do you want to come up here and say hello? And I heard a little bit about the project of the plan commission, but I'm sure the rest of the board.

Is it green? Make it green. Yeah.

um so yeah i didn't i'm not gonna lie i didn't know i was coming for some such a momentum moment so thank you and congratulations um yeah we're hoping to do kind of uh i started doing neapolitan pizza i guess 17 years ago uh we're clayton residents i have a daughter in the high school a daughter in the middle school and we've also been operating a half and half restaurant on maryland for 13 years so clayton's been very good for us and we're just hoping to kind of afford the residents of clayton in this area another yeah another pizza option so.

yeah I think that's great does we can go does anybody have any questions for Mike now we're looking forward to trying it thanks.

Yeah, I think you know folks are just really excited about it. And my daughter works for you now at half and half and it's a wonderful experience. So really excited about you expanding and having more opportunities for folks to enjoy all the good food you make. Thanks.

Look forward to having you open and I have no other questions.

I just have a general question about process. I noticed that both this applicant and the next one, that if they want to offer outdoor dining, there's a separate opportunity to do that. Is that our process typically that it would not be at this time or if they knew they wanted to operate outside, would they also ask for that at this time too? They'll typically submit that separately. Separately. It's not uncommon. Okay. So, and my question for you is, is do you have any intention to have outside dining?

Sure. So there's very limited kind of space in front of the restaurant. We do feel that potentially having a couple on tables out front, just in terms of visually drawing people in, letting people see on the street that there's something going on in that space is probably something we would pursue. Yes, sir. Okay,

great. Thanks.

All I would say is I've eaten at your places and locales, and I'm looking forward to eating this one too. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Yeah, I think we're all very excited. When are you hoping to open?

Well, you know, we're hoping to open June, early June, but fingers crossed. Like any construction schedule, a bit behind, but we're pushing as far as we can at the end.

Great. Thank you.

All right. Thank

you. Any questions from the audience? Great. I will close the public hearing. Alderman Buse.

2025 06 granting conditional use permit for 33 north central avenue doing business as nettie's pizza

second

all those in favor

all right

all right thanks for joining me thank you so much thank you all

right the next item on the agenda is for sushi ai i will open the public hearing and request proof of publication

Yes, this is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted on behalf of Sushi AI to allow for the operation of a restaurant. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection between Maryland Avenue and North Central Avenue and the Bemiston Place building. The property has a zoning designation of planned unit development and is located in the Northeast Development Overlay Zoning District. The restaurant measures 2,970 square feet and is proposed to have 62 seats. Parking is served via street parking and nearby garages. Outdoor dining is proposed with 40 seats and will be permitted separately. The plan commission considered this request at its meeting on April 7th and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve a conditional use permit for the operation of Sushi AI located at 46 North Central Avenue per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

Great, thanks. I will open the discussion. Is there anybody here from Sushi AI? Did you want to come up at all or? Okay. Okay, thanks. All right, I'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any comments or questions?

Yeah, so it looks like this is a relocation essentially, right? An expansion? It's a bigger footprint,

it feels

like. Yeah,

quite a bit bigger. I mean, it always seems like it's bursting when I'm in there. Yeah, I

think it's great. Awesome.

Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderman Fader?

I've enjoyed going there. Sometimes it's a little hard to get a table, so things should be looking up. That's exciting.

This is just me with being directionally challenged. So is this the corner restaurant spot with the big garage doors that open up and close? Okay. I have no other questions. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it

right. Any other questions or comments from the audience? I will close the public hearing.

Alderman Buse? I move to approve resolution number 2025-07, granting conditional use permit for 46 North central avenue doing business as sushi ai

second

question all those in favor

aye opposed right great All right. The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. Does anybody have any questions or comments about it?

Just, it was unclear to me. I noticed as I read through the grant, there wasn't an actual dollar request in there. So I was wondering how this grant works. Is it open-ended or is there a specific dollar amount we're requesting?

Chief Smith and Captain Thuit here to Answer those questions for

you. So what we do is we what we usually do is we do two four hour shifts a month for our officers to come in and do overtime. And we ask for that's usually right between eight, nine thousand dollars we ask for. And then the state gives us the final total. And so that's how, we requested a little over $90,000.

Okay, so you described the nature of the work, they fund it, and so it's all correlated, and that helps me out. Thank you.

Yeah, exactly.

Alderman Yarnkeny. Al, do you apply for this every couple years, right?

Yeah, every year we do a separate. We used to do a DWI grant as well. We did not do that this year. It's our first year not doing the DWI grant. It's just it's harder to get people to do those. And so they have a different process we can do. We can put in for individual DWI grants throughout the year. And so that's how we're doing those this year. Great.

Anybody else?

Alderwoman Buse? I move that the board approve the consent agenda. Second.

Second.

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

Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Alderman Rick Hummell.

Alderman Hummel.

Aye.

Aldermen Yorg.

Aye.

Mayor McAndrew.

Aye. Thank you. Great. So the last item that we need to approve, which is not necessarily on the agenda, is a motion to I will move to appoint Alderwoman Buse, Susan Buse, as mayor pro tem. Second.

Second.

I guess does anybody have any discussion or comments on that? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Mr. City Manager, do you have any items to report?

Anything else tonight?

Anybody else? Great. Take a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Thank you everybody for coming. I look forward to serving our city.

We're here second and fourth Tuesdays every month. If you enjoyed it.