Board of Aldermen

BOARD OF ALDERMEN CITY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY OCTOBER 28, 2019 WORK SESSION The work session meeting of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Town and Country was held at 6:30 PM on Monday, October 28, 2019. Present were: Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter. Aldermen Benigas was absent. Mayor Dalton presided. City Attorney Steve Garrett was present to represent the City. 1. Project Unplugged-Room Design Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, Parks Director Anne Nixon described the process, inspiration, and details of the Project Unplugged room design. She displayed flooring, seating, and lighting components and renderings of the intended final design. An estimated budget was shown and it was explained that the design work was not funded by the donation. Alderman Holman reported that the Parks & Trails Commission were very happy with the design and unanimously supported the project. In response to Alderman Butler, Ms. Nixon explained that the project will be completed by line item or by in-house staff and thus no contractor or bid process was required. She added that the public would not be prohibited from using the space and that it would be locked only to protect valuable equipment. 2. Discussion – Regular Meeting Agenda Items No votes were taken. REGULAR MEETING The regular meeting of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Town and Country was held at 7:00 PM on Monday, October 28, 2019 at the Municipal Center, 1011 Municipal Center Drive. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Granville White, Ward 3 resident, led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL The 7:07 PM roll call indicated Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter to be present. Aldermen Benigas was absent. Mayor Dalton presided. City Attorney Steve Garrett was present to represent the City. MINUTES – 10/14/19 Special Meeting Alderman Holman moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Mortland. Mayor Dalton called for any corrections or amendments. Hearing none, the minutes of 10/14/19, were unanimously approved. Board of Aldermen Page 2 of 5 October 28, 2019 MINUTES – 10/14/19 Regular Meeting Alderman Holman moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Reuter. Mayor Dalton called for any corrections or amendments. Hearing none, the minutes of 10/14/19, were unanimously approved. HEARING FROM CITIZENS Susan Crandall, 13326 Buckland Hall, expressed concerns about the Mason Road Trail Project and associated signage that is proposed at the entrance to Buckland Hall subdivision. She explained that the subdivision is in opposition of the trail project as it is does not meet the originally intended goal and will further pose a safety issue. A written statement of her comments was submitted for the record, along with an email exchange with the City, and two emails from residents that could not be in attendance. All noted submittals are attached to and made a part of these minutes. Evan Crandall, 13326 Buckland Hall, spoke in opposition of the Mason Road Trail Project given the expense and failure to reach Queeny Park as intended. He encouraged the Board to table the project until necessary easements are obtained. Rodney Yoshida, 13308 Buckland Hall, noted his concurrence with the statements made by both Crandall speakers. He expressed concern about the present safety issue at the dangerous curve on Mason Road being further exacerbated by increased pedestrian traffic. Jana Hunt, 13320 Buckland Hall, read a statement into the record regarding her opposition to the Mason Road Trail Project and its associated signage because of safety concerns and negative impact on surrounding properties. Said statement is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Cheryl Schmid, 13302 Buckland Hall, expressed concern about changes made to the original plan that resulted in a walkway that does not reach Queeny Park as intended, but is still an expenditure of taxpayer money. A related email was submitted to the City Clerk which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. PUBLIC HEARING(S) APPOINTMENTS  Planning & Zoning Commission-Granville White Alderman Frautschi moved to confirm the appointment of Granville White to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a four year term, seconded by Alderman Allen. In response to Alderman Frautschi, Mr. White confirmed his attendance availability for Wednesday evening meetings. Mr. White shared information about his professional background, various roles, and experience that would add value to his service on the commission. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, none; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. Mr. White’s appointment was approved. COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS Board of Aldermen Page 3 of 5 October 28, 2019 Alderman Frautschi Alderman Frautschi reported that Planning & Zoning Commission will have a special meeting at 7:00 PM on November 13 in order hold a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. She invited all to attend the meeting or submit input to her to be shared. Alderman Allen Alderman Allen stated that the Ways & Means Commission took a first look at the proposed Budget on October 25 and would hold a follow up meeting for continued review at 8 AM on Friday, November 1. Alderman Butler Alderman Butler announced that the Police, Fire & EMS Commission would be meeting at 7:00 PM on November 19, at the Town & Country Fire House. In response to Alderman Butler, City Administrator Bob Shelton reported that the City continues to be in contact with St. Louis County regarding the Mason Road Trail Project. He further noted that approval has been received and the contractor will be providing all necessary insurance documentation to St. Louis County and obtaining the permit. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BILL NO. 19-63, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HR GREEN, INC. FOR ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES (sponsored by Aldermen Frautschi & Holman) (1st reading 10/14/19) Mayor Dalton called for a second reading, without objection. Without objection, Bill No. 19- 63 was read for the second time and placed upon its final passage. Alderman Frautschi moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Holman. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, none; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. The motion carried unanimously and Bill No. 19-63 became Ordinance No. 4319. BILL NO. 19-64, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HR GREEN, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TOPPING ROAD RESURFACING AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AMENDING THE 2019 BUDGET BY INCREASING A ROAD FUND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO COVER THE INCREASE (sponsored by the Board as a Whole) (1st reading 10/14/19) Mayor Dalton called for a second reading, without objection. Without objection, Bill No. 19- 64 was read for the second time and placed upon its final passage. Alderman Frautschi moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Holman. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, none; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. The motion carried unanimously and Bill No. 19-64 became Ordinance No. 4320. Alderman Allen recused herself and left the dais. Board of Aldermen Page 4 of 5 October 28, 2019 BILL NO. 19-65, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SCHOWALTER AND JABOURI FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2019, 2020, AND 2021 (sponsored by Alderman Frautschi) (1st reading 10/14/19) Mayor Dalton called for a second reading, without objection. Without objection, Bill No. 19- 65 was read for the second time and placed upon its final passage. Alderman Frautschi moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Holman. In response to Alderman Reuter, Finance Director Pam Reitz explained that requests for proposals are typically done every three years. She added that it is good practice to consider alternate proposals every few years, though it might not be critical to actually change firms with each evaluation. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, none; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. The motion carried unanimously and Bill No. 19-65 became Ordinance No. 4321. Alderman Allen returned to the dais. RESOLUTION NO. R18-2019, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY BOARD OF ALDERMEN ADOPTING THE ST. LOUIS REGIONAL ALL-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2015-2020 Alderman Frautschi moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Holman. A voice vote was held and carried. BILL NO. 19-66, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY, MISSOURI, APPROVING A PETITION REQUESTING THE CREATION OF THE BRYN WYCK COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT AS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI; APPOINTING THE INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO NOTIFY THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT; AND TAKING OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (sponsored by Aldermen Allen & Benigas) (1st reading 10/14/19) Alderman Allen moved to continue consideration of Bill No. 19-66 to the meeting of Tuesday, November 12 for second reading and consideration. Alderman Holman seconded. Alderman Allen noted that new questions have been raised and additional time to receive further clarification would be beneficial. In response to Alderman Butler, Ms. Reitz noted that the loan total won’t be known and/or reflected in the budget until the subdivision receives construction bids and knows the number of residents that will pay their assessment up front. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Allen, Butler, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, Frautschi; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. The motion carried 5-1 and Bill No. 19-66 was continued. Board of Aldermen Page 5 of 5 October 28, 2019 RESOLUTION NO. R19-2019, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF FINAL COMPLETION FOR THE ESTATES AT TOWN AND COUNTRY CROSSING SUBDIVISION Alderman Mortland moved to continue Resolution No. R19-2019 to the meeting of Tuesday, November 12, seconded by Alderman Holman. In response to Alderman Reuter, Public Works Director Tim Gregowicz stated that discussions are ongoing but he believes two weeks will be adequate for resolution. A voice vote was held on the motion to continue and carried. NEW BUSINESS WARRANT LIST-10/28/19 Alderman Allen moved for approval, seconded by Alderman Frautschi. Mayor Dalton called for any amendments. Hearing none, a voice vote was taken on the warrant list of October 28, 2019, in the amount of $118,302.74, and carried. OTHER Alderman Butler requested an update about the nonfunctioning bio ponds at Town Square. She further inquired about dead evergreen trees at Town Square that need to be replaced. In response, Mr. Shelton explained that payment is currently being withheld to ensure that the bio ponds are repaired and brought up to MSD standards. He further added that the evergreen trees will be replaced because they are under warranty. ADJOURN Motion was made by Alderman Mortland and seconded by Alderman Frautschi to move to closed session pursuant to Section 610.021 (2) to discuss real estate and attorney/client privileged communications. The roll call vote was as follows: AYE, Aldermen Allen, Butler, Frautschi, Holman, Mortland and Reuter; NAY, none; ABSTAIN, none; ABSENT, Benigas. The motion carried unanimously and the Board moved to closed meeting at 7:48 PM. The Board did not return to open regular session. Ashley McNamara City Clerk  lntro Name/address/trustee I am here to present concerns on behalf of Buckland Road subdivision regarding the 8-ft sidewalk on Mason Road and multiple signs proposed in front of all entrances and exits along Mason. To date, no one has contacted Buckland Trustees regarding the plans to remove or alter the fence at the front of the subdivision or whether the trustees' consent is required for work on the property for the construction of the sidewalk in front of their fence. We have also not been notified about the location of the multiple signs planned at the entrance. We believe our subdivision fence is going to be involved in the work in some way, but we have not been informed of what that is going to be. There is permanent open space in that area, and we don't have anything to show us where the STL County ROW exists and how that affects our fence and property. I would like to address some issues about the proposed stop signs, hatch marks, No Motor Vehicle signs , cross bars, and bollards which are planned at every entrance and exit to Mason. When I asked city staff which new signs would be placed on Mason, I was told the previous city planner wanted the signs on Mason to mirror the signs on Clayton . ../ ,I 1 So I walked the length of Clayton from Mason Ridge to the Outer Road , and determined there was no consistency in the placement of the signs. In fact, there are 10 different configurations such as no signs at all , stop signs, bollards, yield signs, No Motor Vehicle signs, watch for cross traffic signs, and two different kinds of hatch marks. And there are 9 entrances with absolutely no signs at all. This is not consistent with Mason Road having signs at every entrance and exit. If Mason has to mirror Clayton, Buckland is requesting to mirror one of the 9 entrances with no signage or bollards. Our second choice would be to mirror the entrance and exit to Longview Farm or the exit to the Outer Road. Our subdivision has far less traffic than those areas and signs and bollards are not present there. It is obvious there is no standard signage. Who or what determines the sign requirements on that sidewalk, if any, and why would our city want more signs than are required? To that point, there are currently approximately 70 signs on Mason Road between Clayton and the end of the proposed sidewalk which is a distance of 0.6 miles. The new sidewalk proposal will result in an additional 54 signs for a total of 124 signs in a 0.6 mile distance. That does not include whatever will be required for the crosswalk. The significant amount of signs is unsightly and seems unnecessary, not to mention expensive. How can the city provide Beautification Grants for subdivisions and then place 4 signs, two bollards, two cross bars, and white hatch marks across the subdivision entrances? Buckland Road subdivision is opposed to the 8-ft sidewalk that does not meet the original plan proposed to the residents wh ich was a trail to Queeny Park that was less than 8-ft wide. The current plan doesn't get anyone any closer to Queeny Park and ends in a turnabout at someone's yard. Buckland Road subdivision is opposed to the excessive signs on Mason and at our entrance which are not consistent with the entrances on Clayton and are going to further clutter the area and distract drivers on already dangerous stretch of road. Thank you . We look forward to a response. These are copies of emails about these issues. It has greater detail than I could provide in three minutes. 10/28{?01,9 Gmail - Buckland Road easement concern M Gmail Susan Crandall <crandallsusane@gmail.com> Buckland Road easement concern Susan Crandall <crandallsusane@gmail.com> Man, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:46 PM To: Bob Shelton <sheltonb@town-and-country.org>, "Randick, Tim" <randickt@town-and-country.org> , gregowiczt@town- and-country.org Cc: "Butler, Ald. Lindsey" <Butlerl@town-and-country.org>, Aid Tiffany Frautschi <FrautschiT@town-and-country.org> Dear All , Please see my responses in red below. Our residents still have concerns, and I have summarized those concerns in my responses. Thank you, Susan Crandall On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:38 PM Shelton, Bob <sheltonb@town-and-country.org> wrote: Susan, I have discussed your concerns with staff and please see our responses below. Bob From: Susan Crandall [mailto:crandallsusane@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 2:56PM To: Shelton, Bob; Randick, Tim; Gregowicz, Tim Cc: Butler, Ald. Lindsey; Frautschi, Aid Tiffany; b Subject: Buckland Road easement concern Dear All, We recently completed repairs to the fence at the entrance of Buckland Hall subdivision due to cars hitting it in two separate areas. During the repairs, discussion arose regarding the upcoming changes being made to the sidewalk which currently runs along the outside of the subdivision fence. It is our understanding that the city obtained an easement from the property owners at 13351 Buckland Hall and that the easement was required because some part or all of a retaining wall will be constructed on that land for the new 8-foot sidewalk. Our concern is that the fence at the entrance was constructed by, is maintained by, and is insured by Buckland Road subdivision, yet there has been no Tim Randick communication or discussion with the subdivision regarding the fence removal and/or its relocation. indicated he spoke with you regarding the damaged fence at 13351 Buckland Hall. It was the subdivision's desire to wait until construction started to have the fence repaired in this location. The City has obtained an easement from the property owner. When Tim spoke with me it was Spring 2019, and he believed the project was going to be underway shortly. The subdivision did want to perform the fence repairs after the project was finished. However, when five months passed wi th no start date in sight, we completed the repairs. The homeowners at 13351 have a dog, and we were concerned for its safety. I understand the city has an easement from the homeowners at 133551 Buckland Hall, however, the fen ce along that property does not belong to those homeowners. It belongs to the subdivision and was in place prior to their purchase of the lot. https://mail.google .com/mail/u/O?ik=3c38608bb 1&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar9066408750886131543&simpl=msg-a%3Ar90664087 ... 1/4 10/28/20113 Gmail - Buckland Road easement concern An additional concern is the signage noted on the plans we have. It appears as if there will be two 18-inch stop signs , two 24-inch "No Motor Vehicle" signs, two removable bollards, and two 24-inch stop bars at the entrance to our subdivision. This is not consistent with the signage on the path along Clayton Road. Clayton Road project is where the specs for signage and bollards were pulled from. Craig was very clear he wanted to mirror Clayton Road striping and signage for consistency in appearance and maintenance. I apologize for the next comment because there is no kind way to phrase it. I don't understand why Craig's wishes are relevant, particularly if the reason is the that striping and signage would be consistent in appearance and maintenance. There is absolutely nothing consistent about the signage on Clayton Road. There are 10 different configurations of signage (or lack thereof) along the 8-ft sidewalk on Clayton Road with no apparent consistency at all. In fact, two of the areas of highest traffic, Longview Farm entrance and exit, have no signage at all! It is unclear how it was determined when only a stop sign was needed, when a yield sign was needed, when a stop sign on the back of a "No Motor Vehicle" sign was needed, when the stop and "No Motor Vehicle" sign would be separate or on the same pole, when the hash marks would be thin and widespread or when they would be thick or when they would not be present at all, when it would only need hash marks, when it would need only bollards, or when it would need nothing at all. I personally walked Clayton Road from Mason Ridge to the Outer Road. I have attached a document of the different types and different combinations of signage, bollards, and hatch marks (or lack thereof) for every entrance and exit of the sidewalk to Clayton Road. You will see the inconsistencies which make it impossible to understand what is being mirrored on Mason Road. We would like the following questions addressed: 1) Would you please provide to us the documents that were referenced to determine no easement or signatures were required from Buckland Road subdivision to construct the planned 8-foot sidewalk? The plans are too large to send via e-mail, but are available in the office We will stop in the office to review them. We would specifically like to review the area of the trail outside the fence owned by Buckland Hall as it relates to the easement obtained by the city as well as any existing easements related to the subdivision and designated permanent open spaces. We would also like someone to indicate to us where the STL County ROW is located as it pertains to our subdivision. 2) Was there a review of the Buckland Road subdivision plat and/or indentures which are filed with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds? If so, what were the conclusions from that review? Other than the area at 13351 Buckland Hall, we will be in County ROW I'm not sure the response answers the question. It is unclear what is meant by "other than the area at 13351 [you] will be in County ROW." What exactly is happening in "the area?" Did someone review Buckland Road subdivision plat to determine easements already in place? If so, what were the conclusions from that review? 3) As it pertains to this trail project, what is your opinion of the area which is indicated in hatch as permanent open The space on the Buckland Road Subdivision Second Supplemental Indenture recorded on July 24, 1990? retaining wall will be outside of the fence which appears to be in the POS. The fence was present in 1988 prior to the designation of the permanent open space in 1990 and prior to the current homeowners purchasing the lot at 13351 Buckland Hall Road. The wall can remain 100% within the County ROW and just requires working room. Do we understand it correctly that no structure, walls, or durable items, including any portion of the sidewalk, will be constructed in the permanent open space and the easement is just required for the workers to perform their jobs? If not, please explain how th e easement will be used and what is meant by "working room ." Do the plans for the project involve moving or removing and replacing any part https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O?ik=3c38608bb 1&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar9066408750886131543&simpl=msg-a%3Ar90664087 ... 2/4 10/28/201,9 Gmail - Buckland Road easement concern of the fence that belongs to Buckland Hall subdivision? If so, what is the plan? When will we be informed of that plan? 4) What is the location of the planned retaining wall in relationship to the permanent open space indicated in hatch on the Buckland Road Subdivision Second Supplemental Indenture? See #3. As we will field adjust the retaining wall outside the POS. It would be beneficial to have someone come out to the property and mark the area with spray paint so our residents can understand the location of the work and plans. At the time I met with Tim Randick, I was under the understanding that the retaining wall would be just inside the fence at 13351 Buckland and that is w hy the easement was req uired. A visual aid for everyone to review would resolve many of the questions. 5) How was the size and type of signage determined to be necessary on Mason Road if it was not previously required on Clayton Road? Size and type were used from the Clayton Road project. The size and type may have been used on Clayton Road, but there is no consistency to their placement on Clayton Road . If the signs were actually required, it would seem the signs would be consistently placed at the entrances and exits. See attached document. In fact, the trail at Mason Ridge, Longview Farm, and the Outer Road have no signage or bollards at all! Principia School entrance and exits do not have any "No Motor Vehicle" signs. If the vehicle sign was deemed to be an important sign to have at a subdivision, it would seem that is even more important to have at a school or the locations with high traffic where a car is much more likely to drive on the trail. Why are there so many signs planned for the entrances and exits off of Mason when they are not present on Clayton , and it was previously communicated to me that Craig made it clear the signs on Mason would "mirror" those on Clayton? 6) Are the same signs, stop bars, and bollards required on the path at every entrance and exit to Mason Road? If not, why not? Yes Who or what "requires" them? The plans I have f or Mason Road are NOT consistent with the signage on Clayton Road. Again, please reference the attached document for a detailed descri ption of every entrance and exit to Clayton Road between Mason Ridge and the Outer Road . If our entrance has to mirror entrances on Clayton Road , we are requesting Buckland Hall mirror the ent rances at 12901 , 12827,12725, 12715, 12667 , and 12655 Clayton Road and the end of the trail at the Outer Road which have no signage or bollards or hatch marks. Our second choice would be Longview Farm entrance and exit with the narrow hatch marks which are widespread and no signage at all. 7) If the path would be decreased to a width of 5-feet, would those same signs still be installed/required? A 5 foot sidewalk does not require the same signage as an 8 foot multi-use path. our subdivision would like the sidewalk to be decreased to 5-feet to avoid the signage and cost of an 8-foot path. Is there any requirement by STL County (or any other en tity) regarding the signage, bollards, and hash marks for an 8-ft sidewalk? If so, please provide a link or contact person so we can review. 8) What is the current timetable on this project? Permit from St. Louis County is anticipated as SOOn as the end Of this week. Please let us know the planned start date when you receive the permit. Beginning at Clayton Road to the end of Buckland Road subdivision, the distance on Mason Road is 0.6 miles. In that short distance, there are already 70 signs(+/- 3). Some poles have multiple signs. According to your response that the signs are required at every entrance and exit, the current project will require 54 more poles/bollards (9 entrances with 6 signs/bollards each). In the span of 0.6 miles, we will then have over 120 signs distracting drivers in an area where cars are already distracted and go off the road. This does not take into account the additional hatch marks and signs which will be placed at the cross walk. We would like this project to be reconsidered from all perspectives. It was originally presented as a trail to Queeny Park, and now it is an 8-ft sidewalk in the same location as an existing sidewalk. All the residents gain is more signs, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O?ik=3c38608bb1 &view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar9066408750886131543&simpl=msg-a%3Ar90664087 ... 3/4 10/28/201,9 Gmail - Buckland Road easement concern distractions on the road, and clutter at the entrance to our subdivisions. The focus has become too narrow, and so much time has passed which has presented extenuating circumstances. We respectfully request our additional questions be addressed and the project be brought before the Board of Aldermen with a review of the cost and scope of the project as well as an evaluation of what will be gained by completing the project. Thank you for your responses. We appreciate your time and attention to the concerns of our subdivision. Thank you again for your responses. !Quoted text hidden] https:l/mail.google .com/mail/u/O?ik=3c38608bb 1&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar9066408750886131543&simpl=msg-a%3Ar90664087. .. 4/4  .. SIGNAGE ON CLAYTON ROAD related to proposed signage on Mason Road 10-28-19 Mason Road has 9 entrance/exit places on the sidewalk Along Clayton Road, there are 31 entrance/exits to the sidewalk from Mason Ridge to the Outer Road Those entrance and exits from Clayton Road to the sidewalk are as follows: 1) Mason Ridge- hatch marks only- no signs or bollards at all!!!! 2) Longview Farm exit- no signs, no bollards, thin widespread hatch marks 3) Longview Farm entrance- no signs, no bollards, thin widespread hatch marks 4) Entrance to trail and field at Longview off of Clayton - 2 bollards 5) Entrance to trail and field at Longview off of Clayton - 2 bollards 6) Intersection of Mason and Clayton/west side - 1 ballard, 1 "No Motor Vehicle" sign 7) Intersection of Mason and Clayton/east side - 1 ballard, 1 "No Motor Vehicle" sign 8) Firehouse- yield signs x 2, bollards x 2, hatch marks 9) 13305 Clayton- 1 stop sign on east side 10) Unnamed road across for power tower- 2 bollards only 11) Principia (west entrance) - 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, hatch marks 12) Principia (east entrance)- 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, 2 "Watch for Cross Traffic" signs, hatch marks 13) Vandiver- 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, 2 "No Motor Vehicle" signs, hatch marks 14) Roclare- 1 stop sign, 2 bollards, 1 "No Motor Vehicle" sign with stop sign (on one pole), hatch marks 15) Claymark -1 stop sign, 2 bollards, 1 "No Motor Vehicle" sign with stop sign (on one pole), hatch marks 16) Town & Country Ln - 1 stop sign , 2 bollards, 1 "No Motor Vehicle" sign with stop sign (on one pole) hatch marks 17) 12901 Clayton - no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks 18) Oak Springs- 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, hatch marks 19) 12827 Clayton (semi-circle drive)- no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks on either end 20) Unnamed road across from Highland Point- no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks 21) Wexford Woods- 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, hatch marks 22) 12725 Clayton - no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks 23) 12715 Clayton (semi-circle drive)- no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks on either end 24) 12667 Clayton (two driveways) - no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks on either one 25) 12655 Clayton (two driveways)- no signs, no bollards, no hatch marks on either one 26) White Stable- 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, hatch marks 27) End of trail at Outer Road- no signs, bollards, or hatch marks at all!!!! There are 10 different configurations of signage (or lack of signage) on Clayton Road 1) No signs at all 2) No signs with thin, widespread hatch marks 3) No signs with wide hatch marks 4) Yield sign and 1 ballard 5) 1 stop sign only 6) 2 bollards only 7) 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, hatch marks 8) 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, 2 No Motor Vehicle signs, hatch marks, 9) 1 stop sign, 2 bollards, 1 No Motor Vehicle sign on pole with stop sign on back, hatch marks 10) 2 stop signs, 2 bollards, 2 "Watch for Cross Traffic" signs, hatch marks Interestingly, all of the sidewalk entrances with the highest traffic count DO NOT HAVE ANY BOLLARDS OR SIGNAGE!! This includes the Longview Farm entrance and exits, Mason Ridge entrance to the sidewalk, and the entrance at the Outer Road. Principia School has no signs indicating "No Motor Vehicles."  From: Patrick Stokes <ptstokes@sbcglobal.net> To: butleri@town-and-country.org <butleri@town-and-country.org>; randickt@town-and-country.org <randickt@town-and- country.org>; sheltonb@town-and-country.org <sheltonb@town-and-country.org>; frautscht@town-and-country.org <frautscht@town-and-country.org> Subj ect: Proposed project Date: Mon. Oct 14, 2019 12:39 pm This email is from the Stokes fam il resident at 13303 Buckland Hall Road in Town and Country. We would ask that this message be communicated to the full Board of Aldermen and the Town and Country Mayor. We have been made aware of a proposed project to complete a 8 foot wide sidewalk along Mason Road from Clayton Road and stopping past the Buckland Hall Road subdivision, The sidewalk woul d require extensive signage prohibiting motor vehicles and also stop signs for traffic. While we feel that a sidewalk enhancement would be appropriate we question the need for the 8 foot dimension and the accompanying signage requirement. The resu lt would be a forest of signs at the entrance to our subdivision which could potentially block visibility for cars entering and exiting Buckland Hall Road. At a minimum the extensive signage would be unattra ctive at the subdivision entrance . We suggest that you consider scaling back the project which would both save money and still provide a safe pathway for pedestrians. Thank you for your consideration. Patrick Stokes  From : J. Larry Vowell <jlarry@aeiou 18.com> To: Earlene Vowell <eav@aeiou18.com>; Susan C <Shop2spend@aol.com> Subject: FW: Multi-use pedestrian facility Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2019 4:51 pm FYI. .. From: She lton, Bob <sheltonb@ town-and-country.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 0 I, 2019 12:46 PM To: J. LaiTY Vowell <j lany@aeiou l 8.com> Subject: RE: Multi-use pedestrian facility M r. and Mrs. Vowell, l appreciate your input and will fo1ward you comments to the Board of A ldermen. Bob Shelton , City Admin istrator City of Town & Country 314-587-2802 1011 Municipal Center Drive Town & Country, MO 63131 www.town-and-count[Y..org ~ Please consider the environment before printing this email. From : J. Larry Vowell [mailto:jlarry@aeiou18.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01 , 2019 11:45 AM To: Shelton, Bob Subject: Multi-use pedestrian facility Dear Mr. Shelton: I have recently learned about the plan details of the proposed multi-use pedestrian facility as it applies to the area in front of our subdivision, Buckland Hall. I am also at lost to understand why. We already have a "concrete" sidewalk that when properly maintained is more than adequate in providing a pedestrian walkway. Who needs an 8' eyesore of a walking asphalt "highway" complete with traffic signage? Where did that come from? Though perhaps not totally relevant, I understand that the manager of this project is not even an employee of the city any longer. We are sure you are aware of the above normal number of accidents occurring on the cur·ve parallel to the proposed enhanced walkway as evidenced by the increased warning signage, etc.. It's a precarious place to be walking anyway without seemingly encouraging increased pedestrian activity We have been a resident ofT &C for close to 35 years. Twenty-four of same in the Buckland Hall subdivision. And, are routinely not that involved in the politics of city projects, primarily because you all do such a great job of keeping this community a joy to live in. However, this one seems so out of character with the general scheme of things, we wanted to voice our concern for public safety and common sense. If someone is so inclined to laying asphalt, may we suggest that you take the funds aJiocated for this project and apply it to one for repairing and resurfacing Mason Road north of Clayton up to Mason Ridge road? I think that one, Mr. Skelton, might get a standing ovation. Please pass along our email to all members of the Board of Alderman. Thanl<ing you in advance for your consideration, J . Larry & Earlene Vowell 13314 Buckland HaJl Road October 28, 2019 To: Mayor Jon Dalton, Alderwomen Pam Holman. Lindsey Butler, Tiffany Frautschi, Sue Allen , Aldermen Matt Reuter, Ryan Mortland, Jon Benigas Buckland Hall Road Trustees, Susan Crandall, Cheryl Schmid, Susan Yoshida From : Jana and Kevin Hunt 13320 Buckland Hall Rd. Town and Country, MO 63131 314 409-0381 janahuntstl @gmail. com We are Jana Hunt and Kevin and we live in Buckland Hall subdivision, which is oo South Mason Road. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed reconstruction of the existing sidewalks by the City ofTown and Country, along South Mason Road. We understand the project would include an 8'ft wide noncontiguous asphalt trail with multiple east/west crossings, required motor vehicle signs. markers, and white pavement markings which would end at Buckland Hall Road subdivision. The existing land topography, beautiful wooded areas, handsome subdivision entrances, private fencing and large residential lots along South Mason Road make it a unique and picturesque secondary road in Town and Country. However. we believe this proposed trail, would greatly and negatively impact subdivisions and South Mason Road. Our reasons are as follows: • The varied topography along Mason Road makes construction of a contiguous asphalt trail NOT feasible. The trail plan would only remake existing sidewalks in a larger format, with many signs and markers at subdivision entrances. Please note that there is a continuous concrete sidewalk runs from Longview Farm Park to 141 on the north side of Clayton Rd. This sidewalk does not diminish the overall ascetic appeal of the subdivision entrances along the road. • Currently usable concrete sidewalks exist in subdivision easements along both the east and west sides of South Mason Road. They fit nicely with the ascetic appeal of that stretch of Mason Road and the subdivision entrances. The concrete sidewalk on the west side of Mason Road around Wheatfield subdivision looks good and works with the ascetic of their subdivision entrances. Removing the concrete subdivision sidewalks and boundary fencing along South Mason and then replacing them with 8 ft. wide asphalt, markers, and signs would be unsightly to the entrances to these neighborhoods. • An 8 foot wide walking trail is NOT necessary for pedestrians. It allows access for motor vehicles and requires signage for drivers not pedestrians. The project is not visually pleasing and is built at the expense of losing trees and existing mature landscaping. • Encouraging the use of South Mason Road as a noncontiguous walking trail to St. Louis County's Queeny Park is dangerous for both walkers and drivers. South Mason Road has no shoulder: it is narrow: and it has several sharp turns with limited sight distance for drivers. It is a risky road for walkers to cross from east to west. The 90 degree turn near Buckland Hall and Lochinvar subdivisions has seen numerous accidents by drivers losing control on the curve and hitting subdivision boundary fencing. • The Mason Road entrance to St. Louis County's Queeny Park is located well beyond the end of the proposed asphalt trail at Buckland Hall Road subdivision. Building the trail on the east side of Mason would be encouraging walkers to cross over Mason Road in unmarked spots that they might deem as an easy access point to the Queeny Park trail. • The 'temporary' asphalt sidewalk at Weston Park subdivision, that was started as part of the trail plan, should be replaced in concrete. This would be a lower cost to the city than the plan's new asphalt trail and signage.  • On November 4, 2019, Buckland Hall Road will entirely repave the subdivision road. It is a privately maintained subdivision road. Our trustees have been planning this work for a long time and the expense is funded by a large assessment to all the homeowners in the subdivision. We will have new roads. and an improved entrance to our subdivision. We do not want a large trail. signage and painted white lines on new asphalt roads to alter our subdivision entrance. We think the plan is not ascetically pleasing . We have enjoyed the current trail system in Town and Country. Our family uses this all the time. The beauty of this plan is that it truly provides connectivity to key Town and Country locations along Clayton Road and fosters a sense of community. In other words, it passes the "common sense test." That is certainly nQ! the case with this proposed trail along Mason south of Clayton Road. This is a trail to nowhere! Sincerely, Kevin and Jan a Hunt  From : cds1350 <cds1350@aol.com> To: cds1350 <cds1350@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Mason Road Sidewalk Plan Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2019 11:37 am From: Michael Schmid Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 2:29 PM To: sheltonb@town-and-country.org ; frautschit@town-and-country.org; butlerl@town-and-country.org; rand ickt@town-an d-cou nty.org Subject: Mason Road Sidewalk Plan To: Town and Country Representatives From: Mike and Cheryl Schmid , 13302 Buckland Hall Road Town and Country, Mo. 63131 In regard to the proposed "multi-use pedestrian facility" proposed construction planned for Mason Road, we wish to express our opinion on the practicality of the project. We feel both the plan and scope of the project are unnecessary and without value. The project wi ll only improve the walkway cosmetically and not provide and additional functionality. It will, in fact, eliminate a significant amount of existing green space. We are opposed to the implementation of the project and feel the City would be better served if the sidewalk were repaired and left in its present dimensions without change. Additional signage would then become unnecessary nor would there be a need to construct the cross walk on Mason Road . The tax payer funds saved by this alternative approach cou ld then be applied to more important needs in the City of Town and County. To be clear, we intend to strongly oppose the construction of the "multi- use pedestrian facility" on Mason Road.