City Council - Regular Meetings

Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Mara Perry - Dave Buck Public Hearing Comment, Parking Development Standards From: Dave Buck <dave@buckstl.com> To: "citycouncil@webstergroves.org" <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/17/2020 12:45 PM Subject: Dave Buck Public Hearing Comment, Parking Development Standards Cc: Joan Jadali <jadalij@webstergroves.org>, Mara Perry <perrym@webstergrove... To Mayor, City Council & City Staff, This is a simple parking question, out of curiosity: Before COVID, it seemed that everyone was up-in-arms about the need for more parking in Webster Groves and searching for new ideas and solutions. One such solution was using the Bristol Elementary School black top for after-hours and evening parking. This seemed like a win- win idea. Then COVID hit and, amazingly, Webster's parking problem seemed to vanish overnight, judgmentally because residents were driving less and going out less. But now, even with COVID spiking again, one look along Lockwood in Old Webster and the big restaurant crowds says residents are definitely coming out again. And one of these days, COVID will end and life will go back to normal. Thus, my question is when it does, will Webster once again have parking problem and should we be getting prepared for it? Or, should we hold tight on parking and let residents walk a little bit more in our "walkable" community? PEACE. Dave file:///C:/Users/perrym/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB3C5CDWG_DOMWG_PO... 11/17/2020  Exhibit B Jackson Hotaling 118 West Cedar Avenue, Webster Groves, MO 63119 // Jacksonhotaling@gmail.com // 313-300-4748 CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 17, 2020 7:30 P.M. LOCATION – CITY HALL - #4 E. LOCKWOOD - (VIA TELECONFERENCE) Agenda: http://www.webstergroves.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/991?html=true Teleconference Instructions: http://mo-webstergroves4.civicplus.com/568/Teleconference- Instructions?fbclid=IwAR2731ZtdzEodm8Vv4NHZuB-Ly-_Wp3EvZpaf1vMn1qK_tfX7zk6FDpvbuk Regarding  1. CONTINUED - Zoning Code Text Amendment – Parking Development Standards: Proposed Amendments Include Changes and Additions to 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 of the 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 of the City of Webster 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 of the 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 In my previous two letters regarding our parking development standards, I addressed how Webster Groves is a wonderful place to store cars, and that it would be wise to join a growing number of cities that are removing parking minimums. After multiple meetings, we are still discussing driveway widths, but avoiding a review of parking minimums altogether. Serendipitously, Strong Towns hosted an excellent webinar today that featured a panel of Edmonton, Alberta planners and advocates that described why and how they abolished their parking minimums. I will synthesize their rationale in this letter, and I will also share the webinar recording once it becomes available next week. Edmonton is in the province of Alberta, the Texas of Canada. It is conservative and hosts an oil-dominated economy in a wintery climate, and 75% of trips are done by car. It even holds the Guinness World Record for the largest parking lot. Why would it decide to abolish parking minimums, not only in its urban core but also in its residential areas? In short, they realized that there is a triangle of factors that make up city livability— abundant parking, economical options, and walkability—and they can only choose two. Edmonton is thus choosing to take the first step towards an economical, walkable city because parking is important, though not as an exclusion to everything else. Through several studies and input from the public and businesses, they made 1,800 observations in 340 unique sites, and found that only 7% of their lots achieved optimal occupancy. Other indicators suggested business was being held back, and the parking minimums themselves seemed arbitrarily chosen. The opportunity to abolish parking minimums is a first step for Webster Groves to be more walkable, equitable, sustainable, and open to business. Walking around now, I still see many empty parking lots. The truth is that the pandemic didn’t make these parking lots empty—there was empty space before. Please review photos in the appendix to see our empty lots. Let’s be creative and fill the empty, wasted space with opportunity. On an unrelated note, I am particularly proud of our City Council’s unanimous vote for our new city manager! Appendix: Over 3 separate periods, there is ample evidence of vacant lots during business hours 1: I took photos of every Old Webster lot on a business day (1:30-2:30 PM, Monday 9 November 2020), and found that every single lot had some empty spaces. Some were completely empty. Here is a collection of eight of the images: 2: Here are Google Maps Screenshots, from either 2018 or 2019: 3: Here are up-to-date Google Streetview Screenshots, from September 2018 and May 2019:  Page 1 of 1 Exhibit C Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting From: AJ AngaJala <aj@nextdoorstl.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org>, <mayor@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/16/2020 11:33 AM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting As an immediate neighbor on West Kirkham, I wanted to share how extremely displeased my wife and I are about the new development of 8 7-story buildings. · We are NOT in favor of these tall structures, population density, additional traffic, stress this new development is going to inject into our quiet neighborhood. · We DON'T need the additional 10% of the population that our school systems cannot support. While many other developments in Webster Groves are limited to 4 or 5 stories, why should this project get a special treatment? · We are NOT in favor of TIF funding towards this project which would result in increased property taxes and diversion of future tax revenues. · The gain for the developer cannot come at the expense of our privacy, quiet enjoyment, air and sound pollution, ruining our picturesque neighborhood. · Quiet, low-key, picturesque, quintessential neighborhood. Isn't this the very definition of Webster Groves? Isn't that why people choose to live here? Why are we trying to change that? Who asked for this new development? Other than one private enterprise's desire to benefit from it? · There are over 200+ houses sold in the area with less than $200,000 price point in the last 4-5 years. As a licensed real estate broker, I am happy to provide that data. The developer's statement of "workforce housing" is just a PR stunt. AJ ANGAJALA I PRINCIPAL I BROKER �- DIRECT 314.930.9991 I MAIN 314.930.9990 I EMAIL AJ@NextDoorSTL.com NEXTDOORSTL.COM I VIEWSTLOUISREALESTATE.COM file:///C:/U sers/nakazonok/ AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB263 7FWG_DOMWG_... 11/16/2020 11/17/2020 Katie Nakazono - Remarks b Visitors - Ci Council Meetin Pa e 1 Exhibit D From: Sue Brady <suebrady2008@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/16/2020 6: 19 PM Subject: Remarks l:Jy Visitors - City Council Meeting Dear City Council, I am asking you to reconsider the current plan for the new development near the Shady Creek Preserve. It is much too large for the space that it will be built on. I fear this will impact our school in a detrimental way. There is much more I could say but I am sure you are hearing it from all directions. I thank you in advance for your consideration to downsizing the project. Sincerely Sue Brady 329 Newport Ave 63119  Page 1 of 1 Exhibit E Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting From: Steve Braun <brauns2.mobile@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/16/2020 7:44 PM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting Dear Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the SG proposal for Old Webster. The proposed density is unacceptable and in no way consistent with the character of Webster Groves. The addition of that many people and cars would greatly diminish the quality of life for surrounding residents. Community assets like Larson Park and Barbre Park, which are already heavily used, would greatly suffer as a result. Some aspects of the proposal, such as building heights of "7-story plus parapet", are absurd. The lack of a current traffic study, to establish a baseline for neighborhood functioning under non­ Covid conditions, should preclude the City Council from advancing this proposal any further. Thanks for listening to this concerned citizen and Old Webster resident. Sincerely yours, Steve Braun file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB2D699WG__DOMWG_... 11/17/2020  Page 1 of 1 Exhibit F Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting From: Bo Roche <bo.roche@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/17/2020 9:28 AM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting My dear council members, Given the size of the proposed development off Kirkham and Gore, how can the added traffic be addressed given the multiple choke points with the train tracks? Several times a day, frequently coinciding with high traffic periods, a train disrupts all traffic crossing Lockwood from Elm to Berry (really Sappington till 2021 due to closures). During these regular events, adding even tens of additional regular commuters to Rockhill and Gore would seem to regularly push the existing traffic to the next intersections, inviting cross traffic issues further complicating the flow across the city, creating clogging and a rippling set of unintended consequences of the traffic. Funneling all of this traffic through Elm see similar issues arise. This would seem to be a problem, and I'd like to know what planning has been done to evaluate the impacts. How many new households will need to cross the tracks for school or work? How can this existing choke points handle the proposed increase in population and corresponding traffic? What disruption to existing traffic will be caused by any required roadway changes, and for how long? How will any such changes be paid for? Thank you for your time. Bo Roche file:///C:/U sers/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB397A8WG_DOMWG_... l 1/17/2020  Page 1 of 1 Exhibit G Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting From: JMH <blueshattrick@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/17/2020 11:49 AM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting Reading about the potential monstrosity being planned for the Old Webster district. From what I gathered in the W-K Times, it seems like some local residents made their concerns about the size of this project known to the developers - who then responded back with essentially the exact same plan (no changes). Their message seems to be: "Sorry, folks! But the only way we can make enough profit $$ on this project is by fundamentally changing vour neighborhood." Because let's be clear: that is EXACTLY what this massive developement will do. This will add thousands of cars to local roads. Traffic lights will certainly need to start going up after this is built. Current businesses that have supported Old Webster for years will likely go under. There's a reason why nothing like this has ever happened in Webster before. But a few people (mainly, non-locals) stand to make quite a bit of money on this deal, so I expect it will likely move forward regardless of how much residents oppose it. Just never thought I'd see this in Webster Groves. Jim Jim Haynes 432 Barron Ln (314) 494-3494 file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB3B8B3WG_DOMWG_... 11/17/2020  Page 1 of 2 Exhibit H Katie Nakazono - Dave Buck Remarks of Visitors at City Council Meeting, November 17, 2020 From: Dave Buck <dave@buckstl.com> To: "citycouncil@webstergroves.org" <citycouncil@webstergroves.org>, "lchapm... Date: 11/17/2020 2:02 PM Subject: Dave Buck Remarks of Visitors at City Council Meeting, November 17, 2020 Cc: Joan Jadali <jadalij@webstergroves.org>, Mara Perry <perrym@webstergrove... To Mayor, City Council, SG Collaborative & Standpoint, First, congratulations to Marie Peoples and City Council on her hiring as Webster's new City Manager. And congratulations to Joan on her great job as interim City Manager. Second, regarding the redevelopment project, I believe in keeping a finger on the pulse of the community on major issues by conducting periodic informal research. So yesterday, as a private citizen, I asked three simple questions to the four major Webster Groves Facebook groups. Their answers are still coming in, but here are the answers of the 52 people who responded within the first 24 hours: Question #1: Do you have enough awareness and familiarity of this project to have an opinion? YES - 47. NO - 1. DON'T KNOW YET - 4. Question #2: If YES, what is your current opinion of the project? SUPPORT - 24. OPPOSE - 23. Question #3: Would you like the opportunity to review and compare at least one additional plan option to the current SG Collaborative plan? YES - 30. NO - 17. This is obviously a very small, informal and unscientific study. But, for me, it does provide some interesting insights: • The vast majority of residents are aware of this project and plan SG Collaborative has presented. • Residents currently seem split right down the middle on supporting or opposing the plan. • Residents are indicating a desire for an alternative plan to be developed and reviewed as an option and choice. While 52 residents voted, over 40 other residents made comments that I would encourage you to read. Concerns went far beyond just height and density to include the use of eminent domain, TIF, eliminate residential and have the plan be 100% commercial to further build the Old Webster Business District, and don't rush into any decisions but give residents the time to review the independent planner's report, the traffic studies and any new plan options. file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB3D7F1WG_DOMWG_... 11/17/2020  Page 2 of 2 I'll likely do this again in few months. PEACE. Dave file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB3D7F1WG_DOMWG_... 11/17/2020