City Council - Regular Meetings

Page 1 of 1 DRAFT Exhibit 1 Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting From: David Rabenau <david@amplewriting.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/21/2020 1:51 PM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting I am against the proposed Webster Redevelopment Project. Increased traffic on W. Kirkham Ave. west of Rock Hill will result, making an already untenable situation worse. There is virtually no traffic control along this stretch of Kirkham which borders Larson Park. Speeding and truck traffic is rampant. There are NO crosswalks, NO stop signs, and no police presence. This already makes it difficult to cross the street from the north side of Kirkham, which has a sidewalk, to the south side where Larson Park is located (and which has no sidewalk). In June 2019, Meredith Gugger submitted a petition with over 75 signatures from the neighborhood to the WG police department with these complaints. Yet, nothing was done about it. (The department determined that speeding was not "excessive" (i.e., the speeds had to be over 45 mph in this 25 mph zone), ignoring the 75 people who live here and who disagree. Additionally, the speed detector strips the police used to measure traffic were placed on one of the sharpest bends in the road, resulting in somewhat lower speeds than occur elsewhere on the street. There are so many other reasons I'm opposed to the enormous size of this development. It would damage the Shady Creek environment. I also especially oppose subsidizing businesses by using TIF funding and taking property through eminent domain. Webster Groves government seems to put business before its residents. That needs to stop. Webster Groves needs to start listening to the people who live here. David Rabenau 571 W. Kirkham Ave david@amplewriting.com 314-723-0808 file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FB91B61WG_DOMWG_... 11/23/2020  DRAFT Exhibit 2 Personal Letter My wife Asher and I have lived and worked in Webster (almost) our entire lives. We own a business here and have been very active members of the community. I am the finance chair on the board of the Webster Groves Chamber of Commerce and Asher is on the board of the Historical Society, so we try to give back to our community as much as possible. We also consider ourselves to be law-abiding citizens. When we decided to purchase a golf cart, I did research to confirm that they were legal to operate on Webster roads. I did not find anything to the contrary, along with the circumstantial evidence of seeing many people driving them around. Imagine my surprise when we were pulled over three times within a couple of weeks. I will say, the police officers involved could not have been nicer and did not issue any kind of fine or ticket. I was definitely impressed by their handling of the situation. Due to these incidents, even though I believe golf carts to be one hundred percent legal in Webster, we are now paranoid everytime we have used it since getting pulled over. It takes the relaxation out of driving it to our wife’s parents house a few blocks away for dinner, when we are hoping we don’t see one of the police officers who believe it to be illegal. Sometimes we do pass Webster police officers who just wave and smile, which makes the situation even more confusing. Selfishly, I would obviously love to see the changes proposed above to be accepted for my own family’s enjoyment, but I would also love to see them implemented for the community at large. We keep seeing more and more golf carts in Webster and I don’t want other people to suffer from the same confusion. Webster seems like a perfect community for golf carts so hopefully the proposed changes in this petition can be implemented. Sincerely, Tim Hebel  DRAFT Introduction This document seeks to guarantee the legality of golf carts in Webster Groves by the following proposed actions: 1. To issue a directive to the Webster Groves Police Department to cease enforcement of contested ordinances as they relate to the question of golf cart legality. This order shall remain in effect until the conclusion of objective #2. 2. a. Future inclusion of a new ordinance addressing golf cart legality and regulation b. OR the addition of clarifying language to Section 60.635 of the municipal traffic code. It is our belief that: ● Golf carts ​are ​currently legal in the City of Webster Groves. ● Pervasive confusion exists among Webster Groves Law Enforcement as to whether or not golf carts are legal in the City. ● Golf carts are not play vehicles and do not belong in the same category as ‘.​..Motorized Play Vehicles, Roller Skates, Coasters and Similar Devices​’ (Section 60.635, Webster Groves Traffic Code). ● Golf carts are a safe, economical, and environmentally friendly method of travel within the borders of our City. They help people appreciate the “slower side” of life. ● Webster Groves is an ideal city for golf cart use; it is primarily residential and contains mostly 25/30 mph roads. ● Many golf cart owners and operators already reside in Webster Groves. If golf carts are in fact illegal in the City, the law is being ignored or confusion exists among residents. It is fact that: ● Golf carts ​are ​currently legal in the State of Missouri. They are not classified as Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs). ● Not being defined as a Low Speed Vehicle, the State of Missouri does not require golf carts to be registered or licensed. We implore the City administrators, law enforcement, and legislators to guarantee the legality of golf carts on City roads by enacting the suggestions within.  Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Exhibit 3 Katie Nakazono - RE: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting- Redevelopment Project From: Christina Shmigel <christinashmigel@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/29/2020 4:00 PM Subject: RE: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting - Redevelopment Project Dear City Council Members, As a professional artist residing in Webster Groves, I am deeply concerned about the appropriateness of the proposed Redevelopment project. I was Associate Professor of Sculpture at Webster University for 10 years before moving to China in 2004; when my husband and I returned to St Louis in 2017 for his professorship at the Olin School of Business at Wash U, we knew without a doubt that we wanted to live in Webster. We loved the modest scale of the built environment here, the city's attention to historical preservation, the walkability and spaciousness of the neighborhoods, and the pockets of wild areas in amongst the housing that allowed birds and wildlife to thrive. The recent development choices the city has made have been a disappointment to us: the hollowing out of the four comers at Elm & Lockwood for the parking lot surrounding Regions Bank; the lack of connection to local architecture in the design of the Elle Apartments; the permitting of massive amounts of new construction in the less affluent areas of Webster that replaces modest/affordable homes with huge/expensive houses that are inappropriately scaled to their neighbors and are too large for their lots thereby destroying the green space that makes Webster so lovely to live in. The proposed project is the most egregious example of the insensitive development yet. The development is utterly out of scale to its site: buildings at that height will loom as high rises when seen from Kirkham or even Lockwood; the density of population will increase traffic and create the need for more parking areas. Extremely worrisome is the destruction of the wildlife corridor that is created by Shady Creek & its underbrush. How will the city will justify levying fines for cutting down historic trees when it is willing to decimate an entire wildlife sanctuary. But most worrisome of all is the relationship of the development to Webster as a community. The one thing we have never liked about Webster is its lack of ethnic, cultural and socio-economic diversity. Especially, in this period following the re-awakened awareness of the racial inequity that is at the core of American life, it is shameful that Webster is not using this opportunity to work with the historic community of North Webster and of the Old Community Baptist Church. This high-end development will tower over the church and its community garden and be of little service to them; ignoring this community is a perfect example of how insidious our racism is. It really pains me that the city is catering solely to wealthy developers and a wealthy tax base in developing this area. And even there I'm baffled: do wealthy people really want to live in 7-story high buildings immediately on a functioning rail line? The project really seems truly misguided and file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC3C5B9WG_DOMWG_... 11/30/2020  Page 2 of2 DRAFT I hope that the City Council will reconsider it entirely. I am not at all against development in Webster Groves but I would like for new development to enhance the quality of life in our city. Sincerely, Christina Shmigel file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC3C5B9WG_DOMWG_... 11/30/2020  Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Exhibit 4 Katie Nakazono - Dave Buck's "Remarks of Visitors" for December 1, 2020, City Council Meeting From: Dave Buck <dave@buckstl.com> To: "citycouncil@webstergroves.org" <citycouncil@webstergroves.org>, "lchapm... Date: 11/30/2020 12:24 PM Subject: Dave Buck's "Remarks of Visitors" for December 1, 2020, Ci Council Meeting Cc: Joan Jadali <jadalij@webstergroves.org>, "njbatty@aol.com" <njbatty@aol.... Mayor, City Council, SG Collaborative & Standpoint, This remark is a suggestion from several residents, including me, who responded to my recent informal Facebook survey. Given that it has been 7 full months since the first virtual town hall was held on April 23, this specific suggestion was for City Council and SG Collaborative to go back, revisit, re-evaluate and, if necessary, refocus and revise the City's primary objectives listed in its original Request for Proposals which SG Collaborative responded to. The second paragraph on page one of the RFP reads: "The City's primary objectives are to remediate conditions that could lead to the area becoming blighted, remove conditions that constitute an economic or social liability to the City, promote new development, and enhance stability in the area. To facilitate the redevelopment of the area, the City will consider the use of redevelopment incentives. Any proposal must demonstrate that "but for" the use of the proposed incentives, the project is not feasible and will not be completed." Given the learning from three virtual town halls, the engagement and knowledge gathering from the community and SG Collaborative's preliminary conceptual design plan and resident reactions to it, is there a benefit for the good of the project and the good of the City to re-evaluate the objectives of the project and, if necessary, to clarify, change and focus them? In short, what do we know today that we did not know or could not have predicted 7 months ago? Here's my own personal view: we should strive to establish SMART Goals for the RFP, that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely. Such goals do not exist in the original RFP. As such, in my humble and imperfect opinion, SG Collaborative's design plan has reacted to community input but has no real focus and is trying to do way too much and be all things to all people. As such, to me, this project needs real FOCUS: do only a few fundamental things, but do them extraordinarily well. file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC4E486WG_DOMWG_... 11/30/2020  Page 2 of2 DRAFT So what is the REAL focus and goal of this project? Affordable housing? Build the Old Webster Business District? Maximize tax revenue? Eliminate blight? Etc., etc., etc.??? I think it would help everyone if we knew and be fair to SG Collaborative. My apologies, but it is the way I feel. PEACE. Dave file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC4E486WG_DOMWG_... 11/30/2020  DRAFT Exhibit 5 I know there have been many letters about the proposed redevelopment of Old Webster, and I'm grateful to live in a community where we strive to progress forward with careful consideration. After watching Town Halls and neighborhood discussions, and hearing many new perspectives, I see that there is much to like about the expressed goals of the project; affordable housing, new amenities and businesses, and new residents to support our existing businesses, and a potentially more diverse community. All of this is desirable. Is there a way to achieve these goals a little more organically than the current proposed plans and without losing the wooded corridor along shady creek? We are Webster "Groves," after all, and the various wooded and green spaces are one of the most unique and attractive things about our town. The "Liberty Oak Tree" at the end of my street is literally older than the country itself. Can we fight climate change on a local level, and still have community growth? That, to me, is "cutting edge." Why not improve and clean up the green space and wooded corridor on Kirkham like the Nature Sanctuary one block East, using similar community support for stewardship? Maybe the farmers' market/outdoor venue idea could be worked into this space or perhaps at Barbre Park. This could be a great way to connect the greater community more. The remaining wooded corridor could buffer the new building scale of the development (which I do hope can be smaller) and the green space would be an attractive amenity to the new residents. Why not build along the existing footprint of Pacific and face the new retail toward the city? Perhaps landscape the track side with natives and build a foot bridge connecting to Old Webster with an observation platform for watching the trains, celebrating another unique characteristic of our historic town. Maybe consider adding some green rooftops if we are looking for something cutting edge. I've heard it suggested that plans could include the area around Thornton and Kirkham, which also could use improvement. Perhaps using both sites for housing and retail without removing everything existing could feel a little more organic and create some continuity along the lengthening Greenway, connect the community more and spread out the added traffic that so much new development will bring. Could something like this be less wasteful and possibly less expensive than buying everything on the proposed development site and redoing infrastructure? Could it also allow for more existing businesses to stay where desired? Consider extending the Greenway past Rock Hill along Kirkham, creating a needed continuous pathway for walking students and avoid cutting trees along Shady Creek. The unique character of our town is not just our historic architecture and strong community (though we can always be better), it's also the natural spaces. Webster is a unique and special place to live and I'm excited to see efforts to make our community more accessible. I hope that we can consider more options to achieve the growth that our community wants and improve and protect the old growth and wooded spaces that we already have. I do understand that there are many factors that impact the viability of various ideas. I just hope that we will seriously consider the environment and the benefit that wooded spaces can bring to the community, and also the possible benefits of spreading out this development. Thanks for listening, Lizz James 443 Oak Street  Page 1 of 1 DRAFT Exhibit 6 Katie Nakazono - Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting- Webster Redevelopment Project From: Angela Niebruegge <abelding4@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 11/30/2020 8:02PM Subject: Remarks by Visitors - City Council Meeting - Webster RedevelopmentProject Hello, Thank you for considering my opinion and the opinion of others in the community. I am urging you to downsize the Webster RedevelopmentProject proposal. The current proposal is too big for the Webster footprint. First, please consider the increased traffic. I have heard the developers are conducting a traffic study. Currently, in this COVID era, traffic is around 20% of what it was a year ago, in pre-COVID times. On a "normal" weekday rush hour, the intersection of Brentwood and Newport is at capacity, as well as the intersection of Elm and Kirkham. The turn lanes are at capacity, resulting in the straight lanes backing up to the railroad tracks by Brentwood Material, or sometimes further. It is not uncommon to be stopped for an accident at Brentwood and Marshall. It is a dangerous stretch of road during rush hour. These intersections cannot take an increase of over 2,000 additional residents trying to return home. Again, please recognize COVID traffic is not comparable to normal traffic, and we all hope to return to our previous normal soon. Second, a 7-story building is ridiculous. I don't believe there are any other buildings that tall in Webster and clearly it doesn't belong. I understand the proposal details the building to be at a lower elevation, but that does not hide the fact that it is still a monstrosity. Please consider downsizing the overall footprint. This will also help aid the traffic issue. Remember the compromise made a few years back with the Elle apartments on Lockwood? A 4+ story building proposal to just a 3 story, the building fits in more with the Webster architecture and was a good compromise between the developers and the community. Third, please consider the green space being eliminated. Webster does not have many parks, or public areas where wildlife can thrive. Building over the green space will eliminate wildlife, trails, and the beautiful lush greenery. Lastly, please consider the small businesses who have occupied the current stores for generations. They have been loyal to Webster, please be loyal back. They need all the help they can get right now. Why eliminate many established businesses just to fit in a few new? I appreciate the want to grow Webster and make room for new residents. However the current proposal is too egregious. Please consider downsizing to keep the quaintness and character of Webster. There is a reason we all don't live in Kirkwood. Thank you, Angela Niebruegge Newport Avenue file:///C:/Users/uakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC54FF0WG_DOMWG_P... 12/1/2020  DRAFT Exhibit 7 To: citycouncil@webstergroves.org To: Webster Groves City Council. Remarks by Visitors - Cit Council Meeting December 1, 2020 RE: Old Webster Redevelopment Project and GRG Riverwalk The Webster Groves Nature Study Society (WGNSS) is a 100-year old natural history organization with a wide variety of interests including birding, botany, entomology, conservation and nature photography. WGNSS is concerned about the proposed Old Webster Redevelopment Project, which would affect the human and natural environment of Webster Groves. Webster Groves is a pleasant place to live, in large part due to its shady, tree-lined streets, large yards and greenspace. This large-scale project would dramatically increase the local population, traffic, noise and storm water runoff, changing the character of Webster Groves. The proposed Great River Greenway Riverwalk would directly impact the Shady Creek Natural Sanctuary and other natural communities along the Creek. WGNSS has documented 180 birds in the Nature Sanctuary, with several identified as conservation priorities. Webster Groves residents have worked hard to replace invasive species with native species, creating high quality habitat. The removal of natural cover along Shady Creek will directly impact bird and other wildlife use. Parts of the Creek will be moved or placed in culverts. Birds commonly avoid high-density urban areas, due to increased noise and light pollution; collisions with high rise building windows are responsible for high bird mortality rates. There are existing, dedicated bike lanes on Kirkham Ave. The proposed Riverwalk would be an expensive duplication. We are concerned that engineered storm-water detention systems will not be sufficient to compensate for the significant increase in the amount of impermeable surface area and the loss of the pollution removal capacity and ecological functions of the natural cover. When making your decision, please consider the environmental impacts of the Webster Redevelopment Project and GRG Riverwalk. We appreciate this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lisa Nansteel President - Webster Groves Nature Study Society CC: Great Rivers Greenway: Tom Schweiss tschweiss@grgstl.org  Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Exhibit 8 Katie Nakazono - Remarks of Visitors From: Farrell Carfield <farrellcarfield@gmail.com> To: <citycouncil@webstergroves.org> Date: 12/1/2020 3:08 PM Subject: Remarks of Visitors Good evening Council members, The week before Thanksgiving, the Alliance for Interracial Dignity hosted a community meeting with members of the Webster Groves Police Community Engagement Board as our guests. We started the meeting with testimony from community members of color about local police encounters that created apprehension and distrust. They gifted honesty to the community, offered with hope for healing and progress. Representatives of the PCEB then gave remarks, sharing the learning they’ve been doing and some of the challenges they have faced. They shared gratitude for the testimonies, and acknowledged that some members have realized they came to the Board unprepared and/or uninformed as to what their work might be. In many ways this reflects a broader learning curve in our community -- amidst a national reckoning around race and racism in America -- and we appreciated the honest exchange and the willingness to bring some Board vulnerabilities to light. In part because of this lack of preparedness, the Board in its first 18 months has focused on learning police department policy rather than engaging with the community. The time that Board members and department officials have invested will undoubtedly prove valuable, however, operating in a bubble has hindered the Board’s ability to understand what is needed to build new bridges. The disconnect between what was shared in the testimonies and the work of the Board to-date leads us to conclude that the Board may need additional supports and/or some redesign if longstanding community priorities are to be addressed. In particular, we likely need an updated ordinance that specifies that a major purpose of the Board is healing past injury and rebuilding trust with communities of color. And we likely need a prescribed process to ensure Board leadership has a demonstrated capacity to lead toward that purpose. This could include adding a Council liaison who is a person of color and/or a person with experience in leading racial equity initiatives, adding a chairperson or co-chair who is a person of color or has experience in the same, and/or hiring an experienced outside facilitator to design a work plan for the Board. (Could we look to the ~$1 million Proposition P funds allocated to Webster Groves annually?) file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC65C59WG_DOMWG_P... 12/1/2020  Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Finally, the Board must act with urgency on its commitment to anti-bias, anti-racism training. Dr. Dietra Baker of Eden Seminary, who gave the first testimonial at the meeting, has a team willing to offer the Board training in the near-term. We hope the Board will take advantage of this opportunity and continue to pursue longer-term training plans. Unless reauthorized, the Police Community Engagement Board is set to sunset on October 1, 2021. We ask the City Council to make a plan for the coming months to ensure that this Board is better positioned to fulfill its promise. In gratitude for your service, Farrell Carfield The Alliance for Interracial Dignity Coordinating Council file:///C:/Users/nakazonok/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5FC65C59WG_DOMWG_P... 12/1/2020