February 10, 2026 — Meeting Minutes

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 1 of 7 THE CITY OF CLAYTON

City Council In-Person and virtual Meeting February 10, 2026 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

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

In person: Susan Buse, Becky Patel, Gary Feder, Rick Hummell, Jeff Yorg (virtual attendance), Kami Waldman, and Mayor Bridget McAndrew.

Staff: City Manager Gipson, City Attorney O’Keefe, City Clerk Frazier, and Assistant City Manager Burr.

OPEN FORUM

None

AN ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER FOR HOUSING MUNICIPAL PRISONERS City Manager Gipson reported that the City of Clayton and St. Louis County are parties to a contract for Housing of Municipal Inmates originally executed on February 9, 2004, and amended most recently in 2023. Under the agreement, St. Louis County provides detention services for individuals arrested or sentenced under the authority of the City of Clayton.

On December 16, 2025, the St. Louis County Council adopted an Order authorizing an increase in the per diem rate charged to municipalities for the housing of inmates at the St. Louis County Justice Center. The approved Order increases the daily housing rate for municipal inmates from $50.00 to $75.00, effective January 1, 2026.

Councilmember Buse introduced Bill No. 7129, approving an amendment to the Contract with St. Louis County Justice Center for housing Municipal Prisoners to be read for the first time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7129, first reading, an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Contract with St. Louis County Justice Center for Housing Municipal Prisoners by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Councilmember Buse that the Council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 7129 on the day of its introduction. Councilmember Patel seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 2 of 7 Councilmember Buse introduces Bill No. 7129, approving an amendment to the Contract with St. Louis County Justice Center for housing Municipal Prisoners to be read for the second time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7129, second reading, an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Contract with St. Louis County Justice Center for Housing Municipal Prisoners by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Councilmember Buse – Aye; Councilmember Patel – Aye; Councilmember Feder – Aye; Councilmember Hummell – Aye; Councilmember Yorg – Aye; Councilmember – Waldman – Aye; and Mayor McAndrew – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval, was adopted, and became Ordinance No. 6988 of the City of Clayton.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Minutes – January 27, 2026

Motion made by Councilmember Buse to approve the consent agenda. Councilmember Patel seconded.

AN ORDINANCE FOR A CONTRACT WITH WESTERN SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS FOR THE MASONRY REPAIRS PROJECT AT THE HISTORIC MARTIN FRANKLIN HANLEY HOUSE

City Manager Gipson reported that included in the FY2025 Capital Improvement budget is $225,000 for exterior repairs at the Historic Martin Franklin Hanley House. As staff were preparing to issue the bid documents for this project, Clayton experienced a devastating tornado on May 16, 2025, and the bid process was postponed.

On September 25, 2025, the Parks and Recreation Department issued a Request for Bids for the Hanley House Exterior Repair and Waterproofing project. Unfortunately, the Request for Bids was canceled due to an insufficient number of qualified attendees at the mandatory pre-bid meeting on Wednesday, October 8, 2025.

Since that time, staff have prioritized the repair work needed at Hanley House and issued a Request for Bids for masonry repair to the foundation of the building. Bids (2) received were opened on January 30, 2026. Staff recommend approving the ordinance authorizing a contract with Western Specialty Contractors in the amount of $41,865, plus a 5% contingency of $2,090.

Toni Siering, Director of Parks and Recreation, addressed the Board to answer questions.

Councilmember Buse introduced Bill No. 7130, approving a contract with Western Specialty Contractors for repairs to the historic Martin Franklin Hanley House to be read for the first time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 3 of 7 City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7130, first reading, an Ordinance Approving a Contract with Western Specialty Contractors for the Masonry Repairs Project at the Historic Martin Franklin Hanley House by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Councilmember Buse that the Council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 7130 on the day of its introduction. Councilmember Patel seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Councilmember Buse introduced Bill No. 7130, approving a contract with Western Specialty Contractors for repairs to the historic Martin Franklin Hanley House to be read for the second time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7130, second reading, an Ordinance Approving a Contract with Western Specialty Contractors for the Masonry Repairs Project at the Historic Martin Franklin Hanley House by title only.

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A PRELIMINARY FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL LOT DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR 121 S. MERAMEC AVENUE

City Manager Gipson reported that the proposed ordinance authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Preliminary Funding Agreement with School Lot Development, LLC. Key elements of the agreement include: • Escrow Account: The Finance Director is authorized to deposit funds from the Developer into a dedicated, separate escrow account. • Expense Reimbursement: Funds will be disbursed to cover reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the City for the redevelopment proposal review. • Cost Burden: The City Council’s position is that costs related to incentive requests should be borne by the developer rather than the taxpayers.

Approval of the ordinance will have a neutral or positive fiscal impact on the General Fund. All external costs for legal and financial consultants will be paid from the escrow account funded by the Developer.

Gary Carter, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Board to answer questions.

Councilmember Buse introduced Bill No. 7131, approving preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC for property at 121 S. Meramec Avenue to be read for the first time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 4 of 7 City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7131, first reading, an Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Preliminary Funding Agreement with School Lot Development, LLC in Connection with a Proposed Redevelopment Project at 121 South Meramec Avenue by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Councilmember Buse that the Council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 7131 on the day of its introduction. Councilmember Patel seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Councilmember Buse introduced Bill No. 7131, approving preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC for property at 121 S. Meramec Avenue to be read for the second time by title only. Councilmember Patel seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7131, second reading, an Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Preliminary Funding Agreement with School Lot Development, LLC in Connection with a Proposed Redevelopment Project at 121 South Meramec Avenue by title only.

AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AT 436 OAKLEY (all related documents are available in the City Clerk’s office)

City Attorney O’Keefe reported that the Council has received documentation subject to the appeal for the subject property (423 Oakley Drive) through the application process. The Council will take administrative notice of the Municipal Code of the City of Clayton as amended to date in particular Title IV of the Clayton Municipal Code regarding land use regulations, and Chapter 400 of the Clayton Municipal Code, including Article 3 as it relates to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). In addition, the Council will take administrative notice of sections 400.230 and 400.240 of the Municipal Code relating to appeals of ARB decisions. The Council will take administrative notice of appellant’s initial and subsequent applications for site plan and architectural approval of a new residence at 436 Oakley Drive. The Council has also received all files and records of the Department of Planning and Development Services relating to the appellant's application(s) and consideration thereof; all documents, testimony, and evidence offered at the Plan Commission and ARB proceedings with respect to appellant's applications, including the agendas, minutes, and visual and audio recordings of the Plan Commission and ARB meetings regarding appellant's applications. Appellant's appeal filed in this matter, and all exhibits were included; appellants appeal to the Clayton Board of Adjustment regarding the same allegations as raised in ground number two of the appeal now before the Council; and finally, the Council will take administrative notice of the

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 5 of 7 staff reports filed with the Plan Commission and ARB with respect to appellant's applications, and filed with the Council with respect to the appeal.

Stephen L. Kling, Jr, Attorney with Jenkins and Kling PC, located at 150 N. Meramec Avenue, addressed the Council on behalf of AMJCN LLC, owner of the property, and acknowledged that Dr. Tom Lucas, owner and manager of the subject property, was also in attendance.

Mr. Kling made some preliminary comments: (1) with respect to the staff report related to the second appeal as to whether the 60-day time limit was in effect or not should go to the Board of Adjustment suggesting that it should not. He stated that the provision of the Code states that those decisions go to the Board of Adjustment which applies only to decisions for building officials and administrative officials and stated that the City Attorney is not an administrative official, has no decision-making power, nor an administrative service that's identified in the Charter and he referenced MO Statute, Section 98.340. Mr. Kling noted that there are two appeals tonight for two plans; first plan - a stone exterior plan; second plan - a brick exterior plan. Per the second plan, Mr. Kling stated that the applicant's position as to the (ARB) decision to deny was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The issues and concerns with the plan were the height to which the applicant was unwilling to accept. During that review process the applicant provided as part of the record, pictures of various properties in the neighborhood, the height complied with the Code, staff recommended approval, and there was no request outside of the permitted requirements. He noted that the height issue didn't come up earlier, it only came up in connection with the last hearing, which was a surprise. There were no studies, no reports, no extrinsic evidence saying why that additional two feet was making the building incompatible with the neighborhood. Additional letters of support in connection with the appeal, letters from two architects and letters from some neighbors who all feel that the proposed building is compatible with the neighborhood and meets the goals. Per the first plan, Mr. Kling commented that it is the applicant's position that this plan was submitted and heard on November 3rd, 2025. He noted that the Code section states that if the plan is not denied within 60 days after its first submittal, it's deemed approved and that the plan was never denied. Although there is an exception if there's a written agreement for an extension to which his client never signed a written agreement to that effect. Mr. Kling added that the original plan has never been denied. It could be argued that it was extended to January 5th, and here we are well over 60 days, and there's been no decision denying that original plan - the stone plan. Therefore, by law, his (and the applicant’s) opinion is that that plan is approved. Mr. Kling asked with regard to the staff report, his suggestions, and the issue of whether the second appeal should go to the Board of Adjustment, that the City Charter be made a part of the record, because he cited some Charter provisions tonight. Mr. Kling noted that there were two additional letters of support that came in from residents to also be added to the record of this proceeding. (available in the City Clerk’s office) Questions from the City Council included clarification of whether the applicant would consider modifications to the plan(s) that will reduce the height of the building by two feet and clarify if the applicant’s preference to move forward would be with the stone plan (first plan) or the brick plan (second plan).

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Kling stated that since the filing of the appeal they (Mr. Lucas) have talked with architects looking for possible ways to mitigate without compromising the interior by reduction of the roof so that the total height of the building could come down and/or the pitch of the roof could be reduced.

City Attorney O’Keefe noted that Mr. King’s request that the City Charter be taken under administrative notice is fine and that the two letters of support can be filed with the city clerk and take administrative notice of that as well.

City Attorney O’Keefe clarified that under the City's ordinance, the City Council, sitting as the appellate body for the Architectural Review Board, has authority to affirm, reverse, or modify the ARB decision under appeal. He asked if there were any modifications that they would like the Council to consider and if so, they would need to get it submitted soon. Dr. Lucas, 8010 Pershing, addressed the Council explaining a proposed option/modification to a change of the pitch/height of the roof. Motion made by Councilmember Waldman that the City Council hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by Section 610.021, 1, 2, and 3, Revised Statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate, and or personnel, negotiation of contract pursuant to Section 610.021, 12RSMO, and or proprietary information pursuant to Section 610.02115, and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to Section 610.02118 and 19 RSMO. Councilmember Buse seconded.

7:33 p.m. – Mayor McAndrew calls that the meeting is in recess 8:33 p.m. – Mayor McAndrew calls the meeting back in order Councilmembers and staff present: Susan Buse, Becky Patel, Gary Feder, Rick Hummell, Jeff Yorg (virtual attendance), Kami Waldman, and Mayor Bridget McAndrew, City Manager Gipson, City Attorney O’Keefe, City Clerk Frazier, and Assistant City Manager Burr.

City Attorney O’Keefe stated that in consultation with the attorney for the appellant, the appellant wishes to have the opportunity to submit a revised plan which would address the height of the building through changing the roof pitch and changing the roofing materials and would like the opportunity for the Architectural Review Board to consider those revisions. Therefore, by consent of the applicant, of the appellant I recommend that the Council move to (1) take the appeal currently before the Council under submission on the record established thus far; (2) to suspend further consideration of the appeal; (3) Allow the appellant to submit a revised plan for consideration by the ARB as to building height, roof pitch, and roofing materials, and any other additional adjustments that the applicant may wish to make. Mr. Kling responded stating yes, it would be in suspension while that proceeding is going on adding that the Council is aware that a precautionary appeal with the Board of Adjustment has been filed and requested it to be held off to be scheduled while all this is going on, so they don't spend more time on this.

02-10-2026 BOA Minutes February 10, 2026 Page 7 of 7 City Attorney O’Keefe responded that they would take that as a request and asked Mr. Kling to send an email to the Planning Department since it was not up to the Council to schedule the Board of Adjustment proceedings and agree with no objection.

Mr. Kling stated that he agreed.

Motion made by Councilmember Buse to take the matter under submission and suspend the appeal before the Council tonight as stated to the terms by the City Attorney pending consideration of a revised plan to be submitted to the Architectural Review Board. Councilmember Patel seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Councilmember Buse to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Patel seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

There being no further discussion, the City Council adjourned at 8:36 p.m.

________________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________ City Clerk

Document

February 10, 2026 — Meeting Minutes