City Council - Regular Meetings

Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Katie Nakazono - Public Comment for Bill #9131 From: Nikki Lemley <nikkilemley@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/4/2020 11:34 AM Subject: Public Comment for Bill #9131 I am writing concerning Parking Development Standards to indicate that I support the idea that passenger vehicles with signage are not harmful to our community and that there is an elitism to this policy that is not in the best interest of our community. Best regards, Nikki Lemley Advisor/Broker Healthcare Solutions Team Need affordable health insurance? We'll find YOUR plan today! 3149714529 nlemley@myhst.com nlemley.myhst.com file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FA291D2WG_DOMWG_P... 11/4/2020 facksQn Hotaling Exhibit B 118 West Cedar Aven e, Webster Groves, MO 63119 Jacksonhotaling@gmail.com // 313-300-4748 CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY - NOVEMBER 4, 2020 7:30 P.M. LOCATION - CITY HALL - #4 E. LOCKWOOD - (VIA TELECONFERENCE) Agenda: http://www.webstergroves.org/AgendaCenterNiewFile/Aqenda/979?html=true Teleconference Instructions: http://mo-webstergroves4.civieplus.com/568/Teleconference­ lnstructions?fbclid=lwAR2731 ZtdzEodm8Vv4NHZu8-Ly- Wp3EvZpaf1 vMn1 qK tfX7zk6FDpvbuk Regarding • 1. CONNINUIED - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Parkillg Developmmt Standards: Proposed Amendments Include Changes and Additions to Sections 53.020, 53.047, 5'3.057, 53.067, 53.077, 53.117, 53.157, 53.180 Through 53.189, 53.233, and 53.243 ofthe Zoning Ordinance in Order to Clarify and Update Regulations for Parking Development Standards in Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Multiple Family Residence Districts • Bill #9131 - First & Second Reading-An Ordinance ofthe City ofWebster Groves, Missouri, Amending Chapter 53, "Zoning," by Amending Code Sections 53.020, 53.047, 53.057, 53.067, 53.077, 53.117, 53.157, 53.180 Through 53.189, 53.233, and 53.243 ofthe Zoning Ordinance in Order to Clarify and Update Regulations for Parking Development Standards in Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Multiple Family Residence Districts and Matters Related Thereto During our previous City Council meeting I addressed how Webster Groves is a wonderful place to store cars. I provided a map demonstrating that somewhere around half of Old Webster's land area was devoted to asphalt for public and private parking, of which every separate property requires its own minimums. Here is a selection of our parking minimums: Places of worship have huge parking requirements, yet generally meet only a few isolated times a week. Drinking establishments call for one space for every three seats (and two per three employees), and because of its ease I know of people that have chosen to have a few drinks and drive rather than take a walk. Our parks require a minimum of 1 % of the total land area, when parks are inherently supposed to be for walkers. We incentivize driving, by neglecting even meters, and we are left with a sea of wasted space(s). Parking minimums help with not having to take an extra minute for walking, but they do not help with equity. Strong Towns advocates an abandonment of parking minimums entirely, citing that they "rob us of financial productivity and prosperity," "hinder small business owners, homeowners, developers and renters," and "fill our cities with empty, useless space." Where's the lie? Donald Shoup published The High Cost of Free Parking back in 2005, continuing to argue in 2016 in the Washington Post that parking minimums hurt the poor: "[they] subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion and carbon emissions, pollute the air and water, encourage sprawl, raise housing costs, exclude poor people, degrade urban design, reduce walkability and damage the economy. To my knowledge, no city planner has argued that parking requirements do not have these harmful effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown that parking  requirements have these effects and more. We are poisoning our cities with too much parking." Especially if we want to promote equity in Webster Groves, addressing our built environment is a good place to start. Yet here we are getting further entrenched in the antithetical notion that wasted space promotes walkability, livability, or particularly that Webster Groves is accessible to people of all income levels. Abolish parking minimums.  Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C Katie Nakazono - Remarks for City Council meeting on November 4 r============--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---=====-=======-====:::=-'.================:=:::i From: Blake Thornton <blakethornton70@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/1/2020 8:28 AM Subject: Remarks for City Councilmeeting on November 4 To Whom it May Concern, regarding the proposed development I live right at the corner of Oak Street and Rock Hill. The renderings I have seen appear that high rises, shops, a large number of cars and bright lights will be directly across Rock Hill from my house. In fact it appears that Oak Street or perhaps my driveway will be an extension of "Main Street". If this development occurs, I will probably be one of the most affected houses, if not the most affected house. I have concerns. 1. Traffic. Currently cars scream by my house at all hours of day or night. I hear horns honking at all hours of the day and night. Traffic is oftyn lined up in front of my house daily, blocking my driveway. Some drivers are courteous and let me out of my driveway, others do not. In fact, the city paid for large rocks to be placed in front of my house to block cars from driving into my house should an accident occur. It would be easy to say more about traffic, but suffice it to say that traffic is already a problem. To think that 1000 people will move in across the street and traffic will be "fine" is magical thinking. 2. Community input? When the new bridge went in on Rock Hill, right in front of my house, I was not consulted. I learned about this new bridge when the trucks arrived in the morning. When the road was completed a bright street light was placed right outside my windows, making it daylight in my house 24 hours a day. When I asked the city about this, a small piece of duct tape was placed on the light, presumably to shield me from some of this light. I have heard talk of consulting neighbors in the SG development, but I haven't seen anything serious. I haven't seen a history of consultation in such projects. To think serious neighborhood input will be considered seems outlandish. 3. Light Pollution I already mentioned the light shining in my house from the road project. Clearly this project isn't going to make any of this better. 4. Density I have heard numbers between 1000-2000 new residents to live across the street from my file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5F9E7198WG_DOMWG_P... 11/3/2020  Page 2 of2 house. Does anyone serious really think that housing 5-10% ofWebster's total population right here is reasonable? 5. Neighbor Support of Proposal? I have heard many people say they support this, but I haven't heard anyone living right across the street express anything but concern. I have no doubt that there are positives for those owning restaurants, or those wanting to walk to restaurants, or those collecting tax revenues. But for those ofus directly facing the project, I haven't heard the support. I have attended town halls and zoom sessions. Questions remain unanswered and everything appears to still be very vague. Answers I have heard from the developers range from "we'll work with the neighbors and city" to "we aren't far enough along to have answers." I would like to have some answers. I would like to have some input. With my neighbors, I would like to be able to say "no." At this point in time, as I understand this project, I do not support it. Blake Thornton 403 Oak Street file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5F9E7198WG_DOMWG_P... 11/3/2020  Page 1 of 1 Exhibit D Katie Nakazono - Remarks for City Council meeting on November 4 From: Mary Jo Wilmes <mjwilmes42@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/1/2020 9:13 PM Subject: Remarks for City Council meeting on November 4 To Whom it May Concern, regarding the proposed development that will impact my neighborhood. 1. Density - this project is far too dense for the area in which it is proposed. As a resident of over 30 years on Oak street, we are fearful of the impact this will have on our quality of life, the natural environment, and the wildlife we see most days. 2. Traffic - at this time it is difficult to see the real traffic patterns due to schools not being in full session, most people working from home and the general lower volume during the pandemic. I came home last Friday ( I teach) - there was a train, traffic backed up 20 cars past Kirkham, of course I have my route to avoid all of this, but imagine 2,000 + more computers in the area. It's crazy. 3. Community need- it's hard to imagine our community really needing this much of a development or yet another place to walk in Webster. We walk and run miles in Webster every week. This is already a very walkable neighborhood with enough restaurants, shops and small businesses to explore. Who is asking for 'Main Street'? We already have one. 4. We are very much opposed to this development as it stands. It's just too much, too high, too many people, and not enough input from the community. This does not feel like the Webster we have lived in for so many years. We would like the City Council to work with the neighbors in Webster to evaluate this proposal seriously. Thank you Tom Lang and Mary Jo Wilmes 428 Oak Street file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5F9F250CWG_DOMWG_P... 11/3/2020  Page 1 Exhibit E Katie Nakazono - Dave Buck "Remarks of Visitors" in November 4, 2020, City Council Regular Meeting From: Dave Buck <dave@buckstl.com> To: "citycouncil@webstergroves.org" <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/3/2020 11 :04 AM Subject: Dave Buck "Remarks of Visitors" in November 4, 2020, City Council Regular Meeting Cc: Joan Jadali <jadalij@webstergroves.org>, "njbatty@aol.com" <njbatty@aol.. .. Attachments: FOL Symbol.docx Mayor, City Council & City Staff, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM. This is simply a FRIENDLY REMINDER that I hope Council can focus soon on developing a new and needed strategic plan for the city. Actually, I think you are much further ahead on this task than you think. The City has already made the big, unifying decision to put its stake in the ground and differentiate itself by focusing on the ARTS and its tag line, "City of the Arts." The question now becomes how does this decision inform, direct and aligned with the other strategic plan elements. For example: • Vision Statement, where vision is simply defined as a picture of a desired future state. Webster Groves has never really had a vision statement. This could be 5 years, 10 years or 20 years out. What does our City of the Arts of tomorrow look like? • Re-evaluate the long-term Mission Statement. It may not need changing or maybe it is time to rethink it and update its relevancy and timeliness, particularly as it relates to the importance of the arts to our city. • No more than three SMART Goals (Smart, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) and the key Strategies to accomplish them. • Core Values that define the character of Webster Groves and guide our daily choices, decisions and actions. For example, what does our city value in its residents? Trust? Kindness? Optimism? Acceptance? Diversity? Creativity? Connectivity? Community? Etc.? • Finally, I think Webster Groves should explore creating a city logo. We have Webster Groves written in a fancy script but it is not really a logo. • Please see the attached. Google "Flower of Life" to learn about it. It is sacred ancient geometry, one of the oldest images known to man and made of only one shape: a circle. It is a symbol of community, creativity and connectedness, that we are all equal and all connected. It's a powerful and positive message and symbol. Kids of all ages can color it in like a stained-glass window. Thanks for your consideration. 1)E)lL€° l)Aue: file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FA13955WG_DOMWG_P... 11/3/2020 1  Page I of I Exhibit F Katie Nakazono - To be read at council meeting From: Rory Beelek <rorybeelek@aol.com> To: "citycouncil@webstergroves.org" <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/4/2020 4:01 PM Subject: To be read at council meeting Dear Council Members: I am writing to ask that the Council carefully consider the appropriateness of the scale and plan for the proposed development north of Old Webster to determine its safety and whether it may sacrifice any of the unique and irreplaceable assets that make Old Webster a long-term asset to the community. As a resident of Oak Street who walks regularly throughout the area and into town several times each week to frequent local businesses, I am very aware of the location and its current condition. I would like to see it improved and better incorporated into our community. However, please consider that the sections of Rock Hill, Gore and Pacific near train crossings are already risky for accidents and pedestrians. Added vehicular traffics will increase safety liabilities and exacerbate gridlock. Also, creating an "riverwalk" on the stretch of Shady Creek will replace a corridor and with unneeded artifice. The retention of old growth trees and habitat for wildlife is something that draws residents to the area. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully yours, Mr. Rory Beelek 438 Oak Street 917-749-5196 file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppOata/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FA2O04AWG_DOMWG_P ... 11/4/2020