November 12, 2024 — Meeting Minutes

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 1 of 10

THE CITY OF CLAYTON

Board of Aldermen In-Person and Virtual Meeting November 12, 2024 7:07 p.m.

MINUTES

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

In-person: Bridget McAndrew, Susan Buse, Becky Patel, Gary Feder, Rick Hummell, Jeff Yorg, and Mayor Michelle Harris.

Staff: City Manager Gipson, City Attorney O’Keefe, Anna Krane, Director of Planning, and City Clerk Frazier.

PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS

None

Mayor Harris announced that we will be holding a Public Hearing to consider a request for the following agenda items:

1. Resolution No. 2024-21 - A Conditional Use Permit for 801 Seminary Place 2. Bill No. 7044, An Ordinance for an amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “South 40 Overlay Zoning District” 3. Bill No. 7045 – An Ordinance for an amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District”.

All interested parties may provide comment to the Board. However, given that members of the public are likely to have diverse views and areas of concern, the Board asks the speakers to be respectful toward others. The Board also asks that speakers be mindful so as not to dominate the limited time for the public hearing which may preclude others from speaking.

Due to the number of speakers anticipated and the Board business to be conducted following the public hearing, the Board will hold the public hearing in two sessions – the first tonight and the second at the Board’s meeting on November 26. At each session, the Board has allotted one hour and 30 minutes to hear public comments.

Mayor Harris opening the Public Hearing and request proof of publication.

A PUBLIC HEARING AND A RESOLUTION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 801 SEMINARY PLACE

City Manager Gipson reported that this is a public hearing and subsequent resolution to consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of new residences and parking on the Concordia Seminary campus. Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary, or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 2 of 10

associated with that particular use. Institutional uses are permitted in this zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Harris closed the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 2024-21, A Conditional Use Permit for 801 Seminary Place. Motion made by Alderman McAndrew to approve Resolution No. 2024-21, granting a Conditional Use Permit for 801 Seminary Place, Concordia Seminary. Alderman Buse seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

A PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 410 BY THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW ARTICLES, ESTABLISHING THE SOUTH 40 OVERLAY AND THE BIG BEND OVERLAY

Mayor Harris announced that the public hearing is open and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Gipson provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation (available in the City Clerk’s office) on the City’s Code(s) regarding zoning, overlay districts, and conditional use permits, and the Comprehensive Plan as related to the proposed project.

Larry Mooney, 6366 Wydown Boulevard, addressed the Board requesting that they vote against the project.

Anne Martin, 5 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board expressing concerns on the proposed setbacks and the traffic study.

Kyle Johnson, 8500 Maryland, (virtual) addressed the Board expressing support for the project.

Jay Kanzler, 20 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board inquiring as to a Board member voting that may have a conflict of interest due to a relationship with Washington University.

Alderman Feder responded by explaining that there are no concerns of a conflict of interest.

Jonathan Katz, 3 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board expressing concerns of the noise decibels and provided a suggestion to the Board.

Joan Downey, 9 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board requesting that they do not vote in favor of the project.

Jean Cowen, 1 Dartford Avenue, addressed the Board in opposition of the project.

Bill Reamus, Attorney with Cape Sokol, representing Marilyn Edison of 30 Southmoor, addressed the Board with concerns on the impact the project will have on Big Bend Boulevard and the change and character of the neighborhood.

John Hutkin, 11 Brentmoor Park, addressed the Board expressing distruct in the Board, support for Washington University, support of the conditional use permit, but not supportive of the proposed overlay.

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 3 of 10

Ben Uchitelle, 41 Crestwood Drive, (virtual) addressed the Board expressing that the overlay is a better purpose, better procedure for the future in respect to Washington University and he is supportive of the project.

David Edison, 30 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board with concerns of increased population/traffic and policing challenges.

Bronco Marusic, 2 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board expressing support of the conditional use permit requirements and request that the Board “pause” on voting for the project.

Andrew Lieberman, 1 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board expressing concern(s) regarding the traffic study and protection(s) for the neighborhood, traffic accidents on Big Bend, supportive of the conditional use permit process, non-supportive of the proposed overlay project.

Marie Bone, 28 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board expressing concern(s) of increased traffic, population, noise, depreciation in property, and commented that the Fontbonne property i was not included in the overlay.

Josephine Weil, 3 Forest Ridge, addressed the Board stating that this is not a good deal, and she is not supportive of the proposed overlay.

Pauline Kim, 97 Arundel, addressed the Board stating that the current draft of the overlay does not sufficiently protect the residents/neighborhood and suggested some proposed amendments.

Angela Lieberman, 1 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board expressing that she feels there is a lot of distrust and that she feels disrespected. She urged the Board to say no to the overlay district.

Jeff Leonard, 8038 Davis Drive, addressed the Board stating that he has worked with the Board and staff on the Comprehensive Plan, he expressed a high regard for each of them and maintains trust that they will listen and come up with the right conclusion and requests that the citizens show respect.

Carol Needham, 11 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board expressing thanks to the Board and staff and requesting that restrictions are included to protect the neighbors from excessive noise. She referenced the City’s noise ordinance.

Shelby Chagrin, 14 Southmoor Drive, addressed the Board requesting that they pause and not vote for the overlay at this time.

Jean Most, 35 Aberdeen, addressed the Board questioning if this is the right zoning and the potential impact on the historic neighborhoods and its 100-year-old home(s).

Tommy Castellano, 6461 San Bonita, addressed the Board sharing his thoughts about colleges being welcoming neighbors. He and his friends play soccer at CBC and are often told to leave the property. He would like Washington University to be as welcoming to the community as Concordia. Susan Verdach, 7 Dartford, addressed the Board inquiring as to what future will be created with this decision. She expressed concerns of decreased property value, the loss of wildlife (birds, owls), and asked that the Board vote against the proposal.

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 4 of 10

Lily Katz, 3 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board expressing concerns that as Washington University buys up and secure(s) property eventually it will cut off part of Ward 3 from the rest of Clayton. She does not feel this is a good plan for that area. Rand Sommer, 4 Tuscany Park, addressed the Board with suggestions to redo the studies on the noise decibels and expressed non-support of the proposed overlay project. Jerry Lowder, 110 Arundel, (virtual) addressed the Board expressing opposition to the proposed overlay and requests that the Board vote against it.

Jeff Gershman, 6464 Cecil, addressed the Board inquiring if the discussion will be continued to the next meeting scheduled November 26, and requested consideration to postpone until the next meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday.

Mayor Harris confirmed that the public hearing discussion will continue to the next Board meeting scheduled November 26.

Mayor Harris called for a five-minute break at 9:25 p.m.

Meeting re-adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Alderman Patel expressed her thanks to everyone, staff, citizens, and Board. She briefly summarized all of the process(es) of getting to the issue before the Board tonight. She addressed areas of concerns and proposed the following amendments: 1. The purpose statement should include the goal of minimizing impact on and protecting the residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. 2. An amendment to not allow division one or division 2 athletics. 3. Remove an allowance for a venue with 500 permanent seats. 4. Reduce the maximum number for events of 900 to 600 and retain the cap of 2 of these events at any time. 5. Strengthen the language around the events permit requirement. “…not including university sponsored, athletic, related events…” – too vague and suggests striking that language. 6. Reduce the total number of venues on the site from 6 to 5, and the total number of outdoor playing surfaces from 5 to 4. 7. Reduce the building height to 50 feet - this would still allow a use similar to the old CBC site if relocated. 8. Further reduce the building height within 150 feet of the property line to 40 feet; currently its 65, and 50, and suggests 50 and 40. 9. Reduce the retaining wall height from 10 to 8 feet on the perimeter of the property. 10. Increase the depth of the step between tiered retaining walls, increase from 4 to 8 feet within the perimeter of the boundary. 11. Extend the transition zone on the south boundary to align with the existing tree protection area along the north side of Tuscany Park; consider requiring a higher wall on the southern boundary.

Alderman Patel added that we got a letter from Matt Barton of the St. Louis Audubon Society, with a number of recommendations based on the proposed plan and upon their review she is pleased to report that we (the city) meet all of the recommendations that he had proposed.

Alderman Hummell shared his thoughts based on what he has learned through this process. Regarding the South 40 overlay there is not a lot of controversy because it is an area that is largely developed and there will not be a change in its use. Although the processes may be

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 5 of 10

similar, the proposed Big Bend overlay, a largely undeveloped site, the intention is to permit uses that do not already exist and are also inconsistent with the adjacent uses. He believes that all landowners have the right to use their property consistent with the community's ordinances and regulations, if it's consistent with the applicable zoning. There are times when a permissible use of the land may not be adequately constrained by the existing law to mitigate the adverse effects a proposed project might have on the adjoining properties or the infrastructure of our community. The potential use at the Big Bend overlay site is clearly one of those times. He recognizes that the existing zoning for institutional uses is inconsistent with how these sites are used and have been developed. His interest in studying and supporting the overlay district concept is to create stronger legal requirements and conditions that either recognize the existing use of a highly developed site like the South 40, or create strong requirements and restrictions for a largely undeveloped area such as Big Bend which he is hoping, the result is that there is greater expectations and assurances for all landowners - the owners of the subject sites, the owners of the adjoining sites, and future owners of all sites. He expressed some concerns and questions about the process as it relates to the Big Bend overlay, 1) regarding the timing and impact; 2) adequately addressing the significant issues without a detailed site plan; 3) have we overreached with some requirements because we're contemplating development that might not even be feasible, due to the unique factors of the site; 4) doing things out of fear, and that maybe results in overregulating; 5) could this be premature; 6) for future development of the Big Bend site does the overlay district provide a stronger zoning benefit to the neighbors than the current CUP process. There has been lots of discussion on this and there is no consensus. He wondered if the authority of the Plan Commission/ARB and the Board of Aldermen gets meaningfully diluted by adopting these overlay districts. And if so, how. Does the creation of the overlay district somehow provide some kind of a pre-approval of site development that doesn't already exist today? And if so, does that risk outweigh the benefit of these legal standards, requirements, and expectations that we have outlined in the overlay districts. His desire is to provide for the residents, and especially his constituents, the strongest and soundest legal protections that the city can afford them. He stated that passing an ordinance in the form of an overlay district provides highly descriptive protections that do not currently exist and creates a very high bar that could bar any potential legal challenge that might arise in the future. He has heard, loud and clear that many residents believe that the CUP process is superior, based on a belief that undesirable development could be stopped or severely constrained. While that may be true in some instances, however, his understanding is that the burden to constrain is much higher when contrasted with the overlay process. The struggle for him is that there is no site plan, and he is not opposed to the idea of a site plan being brought forward and looking at a conditional use permit. He feels that now is the time to consider the best protections we can offer to the residents and is concerned that failure to do so may have regrets down the road. He proposed to add an additional amendment along with Alderman Patel’s, to limit amplified noise to Fridays and Saturdays Alderman McAndrew stated that she appreciates everybody's comments tonight. She expressed that she does not want to call this an athletic complex and reflected on the time when Washington University came to the city regarding the CBC site and Concordia proposed the

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 6 of 10

idea to move their housing closer to the Seminary campus and Washington University desiring to move their athletic fields closer to the South 40. She pointed out that Washington University has proposed an idea(s) for moving the baseball and softball fields and possibly replacing the multi-use and an indoor building currently at the CBC site. She feels the proposed amendments heard tonight, reducing the number of attendees, reducing events, restricting the time, could do a lot and would add an additional amendment restricting events such as graduation/commencement exercises, student and campus lectures, speakers, and/or cultural events on this site since it has been just fine so far on the other parts of the campus, i.e. Danforth. Alderman Buse stated that she appreciates the comments tonight, and throughout this whole process. She also those of who have recognized the amount of heart and effort that we put in here, and that we truly are your neighbors, and we truly do care, and we truly have been as transparent and as professional. She expressed her thoughts on the overlay project reminding everyone that the subject area is private property owned by and potentially being leased by very important community members. We have certain rights and responsibilities as a city government to respect everybody who is a part of our community, and to respect those property rights. The overlay district, as reviewed and discussed with our professional staff, who have been amazing through this whole process, feels that we will get more protections and in getting things that we all and you all have told us from sound, from density, and topography. If we put an overlay on the existing zoning as this development goes forward, and development is going to happen there, you have to realize that we want to not just protect but to enhance. She explained that it comes down to the use of the property. At the time that the current zoning was put in place she suspects that the city at that time thought of a college campus with the dorms next to the field and the academic buildings - Washington University has certainly expanded since then beyond that with a national reputation, of its excellence. Concordia as well, has been such a wonderful neighbor in opening up its spaces for the entire community to use. She feels that an athletic complex idea is not something we look forward to, and amendments suggested by her fellow alderpersons makes a lot of sense, and will serve everyone's needs in Clayton, into the future, and is consistent with our long-term comprehensive planning. Limiting the playing fields to apply to five playing surfaces, reducing the height of the buildings, capping the seating capacity She commented that Washington University has always been phenomenal and quite the model with sustainability efforts, and that we do have those things in the overlay as well with the Dark Sky compliance and the lead certification. She stated that as heard earlier we are aware of keeping as one community, and the use of the different campuses by us as open spaces and comfortable back and forth is something that I think is very valued. She said that we have all been to events with the city or the school district, or something else that were hosted by either the Seminary or Fontbonne, or Washington University and I would like to keep that opportunity there, too, in the overlay. Not just only for Washington University but maybe more of a community event. She commented regarding sustainability there is a preference for permeable pavers, and that impermeable coverage cannot be more than 60%. She suggests changing that impermeable coverage limit to 50%.

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 7 of 10

She supports limiting, the noise, and the amplification by days and hours, and questioned the timing of sports innings i.e. innings that are in play at 9:00 p.m. and adjust the restrictions back by an hour, or so. Alderman Feder commented that there is a lot of things in life I know nothing about, but one thing I do know something about is zoning. He again as stated earlier that in the past he has taught a one-week class at Washington University, a class in real estate law which includes one day on the subject of zoning; and he has been involved with a lot of zoning matters in his career. He stated that he was also on the school board in the past and knows there are two things that he thinks people care more about and get more emotional about than anything and that's what affects their kids’ school and what affects the area around their property. So, he fully appreciates the level of emotion that everybody in the community has brought to this and he hopes it will remain constructive and not personal. He commented that someone said earlier that they are genuinely trying to do the right thing here and that it's not a question of who they like better Washington University or the city and he thinks all of us are just trying to figure out what's the best way to move forward. He feels there are a few scenarios here worth thinking about; 1) if we don't pass the ordinance, what happens then. He feels that some people in the audience would like to believe that Washington University will sort of go away and the project will die. Which he feels is highly unrealistic, not only because of Concordia's involvement, but simply because in many ways this makes a lot of sense to Washington University, and I think they will go forward. and I believe, contrary to what many people think, that if this fails and we're paused, as the term has been used, he thinks, Washington University would be perfectly happy with going forward with the CUP application, in fact, would prefer it to the ordinance that is being pursued here. He stated that if the ordinance is passed as it stands, even without the provisions suggested tonight, it has more restrictions as compared to the CUP process. At some point, possibly a year from now Washington University will come forward in front of the Plan Commission under the overlay and at that time they may decide to do “this and this” asking for flexibility of some of the restrictions to which we can then say there is no flexibility due to the restrictions set forth in the ordinance as a piece of legislation. The city has upfront decided on all of these regulations dealing across the board with what can be done. He added that this would not be the “end of the line”, because they would have to go before the the Plan Commission and the ARB. Many of us have been to plan commission meetings and know that we have a very rigid plan commission with a lot of very experienced people. He provided an example of an issue where the Plan Commission denied a request. He believes in balance, and stated that as a former zoning attorney, strategically, if he were Washington University, he would not be disappointed. He noted that if this issue was paused, Washington University would not be disappointed; if it was rejected, Washington University would be happy to go through the CUP process, because he believes Washington University will do better for itself in the CUP application process, because without the overlay the CUP basically has no regulations. They could start at ground zero with regulations that only apply to single family properties. they have their architects and their engineers, and they would come up with a plan. They would go through the list of everything that's supposed to be regulated in some fashion - traffic, buffering, etc. and they will come up with what they say are based on best practices and other projects and/or what they believe will mitigate all these potential negatives, and they will be less restrictive than what's in this ordinance. They will be more intrusive in terms of the property.

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 8 of 10

He said that under the CUP we will get a project that is much less desirable to the neighborhood, and he understands you (public) don't want us to tell you how we're trying to protect you, but genuinely, we are because we have no reason to do anything else. You are our constituents; Washington University isn't our constituent. In his opinion this is the best route to go and again many of the recommendations made tonight and they are good suggestions, have just come up in the last few hours and he would be interested in what the staff thinks. Over the last four months this ordinance has gotten more restrictive every time it has been reissued, it is more restrictive than the one before, and he is certain to say that the next draft to be heard at the next meeting will be more restrictive than any we've ever had before. He said that for some of you it doesn't matter how many restrictions we ever have. You will not be satisfied, but he hopes for many of them you will be, and he believes it's the best protection. He said that he would like to see this move forward and believes it is the best way. Alderman Yorg stated that he has struggled with this some and have listened to all the comments tonight and is trying to process how to factor those into his thinking. He noted that he is a Washington University grad and played D3 baseball get what Washington University is, but he would also be remiss to not mention that he thinks a lot of the comments tonight have exposed a distrust of the parties including Washington University due to their lack of communication. He feels that part of the challenge is thinking about this not just from a public policy standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint. There is a balance of both of those when you hear talk about the overlay versus a CUP. He thinks an overlay from a judicial standpoint provides more ability for city to do what needs to be done to protect residents, but also felt that we should take additional time to review recently provided resident comments and input before moving forward. He raised additional questions regarding traffic on Big Bend, the use(s) of Fontbonne property, and the R-2 Zoning. City Manager Gipson provided explanations to Alderman Yorg’s questions. Alderman Yorg expressed his desire for some additional amendments; 1) if building a parking garage it should be constructed all underground (i.e. Danforth Campus garage); 2) require all campus lecture events to remain inside as Alderman McAndrew suggested; 3) agree with reducing the number of people to 600; 4) include the pull out bleachers as part of the permanent seating calculation; 5) decrease the height of the lights and/or limit the height of the lights to 80 feet; 6) limit the outdoor noise to begin at sporting events to 8 a.m. or 9 a.m.; and 7) create tree protection on Wydown Boulevard Anna Krane, Director of Planning, provided explanations to Alderman Yorg’s question regarding the tree protections. Mayor Harris reminded everyone that this is a project reforming a space that is in collaboration between Washington University and Concordia Seminary. She wanted to emphasize that because she feels their collaborative effort is foundational to enabling them to work together. We have all seen what the pressure is on small universities and colleges, and she feels as a city government, we want to try to protect that entity, lest it go the way of Fontbonne or some other universities that are experiencing problems. She emphasized that the plan, this overlay as it is now, with whatever details we change, the basic overlay does conform to our comprehensive plan. That plan was developed over a year with robust input from the entire community. The community said we want this to stay as an

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 9 of 10

institutional use which it is now as a university. It has sports facilities and housing, and we want it to stay - that is what our community told us. She supports all the suggestions that were made and is eager to see how the staff can recommend incorporating those that make sense in an organized way. She appreciates all the suggestions that were made, especially the suggestion by the young man and Ms. Katz on the openness and the shared us of all the school playgrounds, playing fields, the kids “cutting through” the properties and she challenges both Washington University, Concordia, and the city to try to look at the project in this regard. She noted a couple of examples; 1) the Centene University project where they fenced off access to the playground and that was not what the city or neighborhood wanted; 2) a new house in her own neighborhood that cut off access to a cut-through which was unfortunate. She stated that overall, everybody here is earnestly trying to do what we think is best for the whole community, and the whole city of Clayton, including all our partners, and it's an opportunity with this overlay to set strong parameters to raise the bar as a starting line. To have any development that wants to be there we can start at a much higher place, a more restrictive place, a place with more trees, more bird sounds, better lighting, and all those things that are better than we would be starting off with under our current zoning – and she supports that effort. She said it is great to be able to consider something strategically, in a holistic way for this entire property rather than one small project at a time and this could be a valuable thing for us going forward. So with that being said, if there are no further comments from our board, would it be appropriate for me to make one concrete amendment at this time, or would I wait until the overlays are introduced? to each overlay, and I can offer them separately if I should, to just strike the delayed effective date to immediately after. Motion made by Alderman Patel to amend both ordinances, Bill No. 7044 and Bill No. 7045, to strike the delayed effective date from the ordinance. Alderman Buse seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman McAndrew introduced Bill No. 7044, approving an Ordinance for an Amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “South 40 Overlay Zoning District” as amended to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Buse seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7044, first reading, an Ordinance to Substantially Enhance Clayton’s Ability to Regulate and Constrain the Spread of Institutional Land Uses in Residential Areas of the City by Amending Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “South 40 Overlay Zoning District”, and Other Actions Related Thereto by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman McAndrew introduced Bill No. 7045, approving an Ordinance for an Amendment to Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District” as amended to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Buse seconded.

afe95a5bba584e279dbbb0cb4ac09ee5 November 12, 2024 Page 10 of 10

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 7045, first reading, an Ordinance to Substantially Enhance Clayton’s Ability to Regulate and Constrain the Spread of Institutional Land Uses in Residential Areas of the City by Amending Chapter 410 of the Municipal Code to Add a New Article Establishing the “Big Bend Overlay Zoning District”, and Other Actions Related Thereto by title only.

The motion passed by 6 – Ayes; 1 Nay – Alderman Yorg.

Consent Agenda

1. Minutes – October 22, 2024 2. Resolution – Contract with Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) Cooperative for replacement hardware for the City’s VMware Clusters (Servers, Storage, and networking equipment). (Res. No. 2024-22) 3. Motion – Cancellation of the December 24, 2024, Board of Aldermen meeting.

Motion made by Alderman McAndrew to approve the Consent Agenda. Alderman Buse seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman McAndrew to adjourn the meeting. Alderman Buse seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

There being no further discussion the Board adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

________________________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________ City Clerk