City Council - Regular Meetings

DRAFT CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES November 2, 2021 The City Council met this date in a regular session, in the City Council Chambers, which was available to the public in-person and via teleconference, at 7:51 p.m. Present at Roll Call: Mayor Gerry Welch Councilmember Laura Arnold Councilmember Pam Bliss Councilmember David Franklin Councilmember Emerson Smith Councilmember Karen D. Alexander Councilmember Sarah Richardson A quorum was present. Also present: Dr. Marie Peoples, City Manager Mr. Neil Bruntrager, City Attorney Ms. Katie Nakazono, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) 21-PC-04 Douglass Hill: An application by SG Collaborative, LLC for a Change of Zoning from “A4” Seventy-Five Hundred Square Foot Residence District; “B1” Multiple Family District; “E” Industrial District and “PC” Planned Commercial District to “PC” Planned Commercial District on an approximately 15.1 acre tract of land located at the following addresses: 55 Lincoln Ave, 62 Lincoln Ave, 49 N. Gore Ave, 51 N. Gore Ave, 61 N. Gore Ave, 65 N. Gore Ave, 69 N. Gore Ave, 79 N. Gore Ave, 40 N. Rock Hill Rd, 200 Sherman Place, 201 Sherman Place, 203 Sherman Place, 205 Sherman Place, 207 Sherman Place, 200 W. Kirkham Ave, 204 W. Kirkham Ave, 234 W. Kirkham Ave, 240 W. Kirkham Ave, 242 W. Kirkham Ave, 320 W. Kirkham Ave, 340 W. Kirkham Ave,107 W. Pacific Ave, 109 W. Pacific Ave, 111 W. Pacific Ave, 115 W. Pacific Ave, 125 W. Pacific Ave, 147 W. Pacific Ave, 207 W. Pacific Ave, 209 W. Pacific Ave, 211 W. Pacific Ave, 227 W. Pacific Ave, 315 W. Pacific Ave, 325 W. Pacific Ave, 341 W. Pacific Ave. Mayor Welch reopened the public hearing and asked that if speakers spoke at the last meeting, that they not repeat themselves. Those that have new information to add or have not spoken are welcome to speak. My name is Lizz James and I live at 443 Oak Street and I’m here tonight to ask you what it is that we hope to gain from this project. At this point it doesn't appear to be city revenue, as the additional cost to the city would likely outweigh any small revenue during the 23-year TIF period. It does not appear to be affordable housing, or an answer to the statistics that show we are increasingly becoming wealthier and racially more homogenous. Webster would instantly become wealthier with 700 to 900 expensive apartments and condos relative to 53 workforce housing units, with 17 lost during the five to seven-year construction, and won't this likely also increase interest and  DRAFT November 2, 2021 development of adjacent more affordable north Webster properties? This plan does not appear to increase sustainability as this project would wipe out a large swath of green space, which is an essential part of the riparian corridor of shady creek and overall deer creek watershed. The game does not appear to be regional flood control as this project would add to the collective channelizing and engineering of urban streams, which only contributes to the overall problem of urban flash flooding, according to many local experts. TIF funding has been banned in flood plains in Missouri from the first of the year, as you know this law was passed with bipartisan support. Why would we attempt to bypass this, especially amidst local discussions of trusting in our electeds, over working around them. The gain from this project does not appear to be inclusivity, as the plan targets already thriving businesses, some multi-generational that contribute to the community, and would be driven out. Claims of blight is questionable given not only the condition of most properties, but also the lack of open fines against them, or any extensive history of citations, this plan also includes land owned by a historic 154 year old church with deep historic cultural roots in our community history, and who were not included in the initial process of planning for this development, and only learned of it in the local paper that also leads me to believe that this was never about inclusion. I’ve heard the questions over and over about who we want to be as a community. I’ve heard the accusation that we're stagnant, or letting other communities pass us by, are we afraid of change? I’m not, and I really don't think that most are either. Do we welcome new residents and want a community where anyone can live and work -- I do. Will this project accomplish any of that? It won't. It doesn't. Why has it gotten this far? Please don't approve this just so we can say we aren't maintaining the status quo. Let's use what we've learned from this process and do better. Please don't do this. My name is Alex Guffey, and I live at 425 Oak Street, with my husband and two little kiddos. As someone that will be an immediate neighbor to this development I’ve been watching this process closely, with first excitement and curiosity, and then a growing sense of dread. Most recently we chose our home partly because of the history and character that come with owning a home that has sheltered many generations before us. I have come to see us as stewards of our home, and these places that will be here long after we are gone. This area of Webster is much the same, and the changes made here will impact us in the short term, and will have ripple effects into the future. As a close neighbor I feel the same responsibility to be thoughtful in the development of this space as I do with my own home. I actually have SG to thank for making me feel that ownership when they first reached out to hold a close neighbors input meeting at the beginning of this process, but to my dismay very little of our feedback at that meeting was considered, or seems to have been involved in the plan. So, I do appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns that were dismissed in that meeting -- here with all of you. This space has incredible potential; however, a development here should prioritize supporting and complementing the buildings and businesses that exist in this space already today. Seizing viable businesses through eminent domain is not the solution. A development here should carefully consider the existing wildlife, concrete culverts, and removal of existing mature trees as a drastic measure that will alter the watershed, and habitat of the variety of wildlife that wander from the development area through my backyard that backs to shady creek. Every day I don't know if the deer and owls know that that area is blighted. A development here must consider the impact to daily traffic in an already overcrowded intersection that's compounded many times daily by long trains. I envy those that say they can take an alternate route when you live across the street. That's not an option. I walk my three-year-old to preschool many mornings over the train tracks, and that section of the walk is already a nerve-wracking experience. I can't 2  DRAFT November 2, 2021 imagine the result of adding 700 more cars onto that route. The proposed density is simply not supported by the area. My family would welcome a development that weaves small businesses, affordable housing, and accessible public spaces into that area that is within eyesight of our front porch, but this plan is clearly not that development. The cost of this proposal is too great for Webster, for our natural wildlife, and for the real neighbors of this space that will be here long after this project is complete. Sarah Paradoski, 340 Hillside, stated thank you for letting us make comments. I know this is extremely complicated, and I’ve been as a new resident trying to figure this all out too. I do have many objections to this potential development. I do not believe it will be beneficial overall, or that it is a good avenue to increase housing equity and affordability. I don't believe that the net economic benefit is anywhere close to worthy. I do not agree that this will be an aesthetically pleasing and attractive structure that will be complementary to this historical home environment of Webster Groves. I do think it is obviously far too large and dense for this space, and that it will have a hugely negative impact on resident’s narrative footprint. I live on Hillside Avenue, so, I’m pretty close. Not as close as Oak Street, but close enough. I don't believe that just because it's the only proposal on the table that it's the only solution. I’m also very concerned about the ecology of shady creek in the area. I just do not have faith that the flood assessment done by Stock and Associates accurately represents risks, nor does it adequately address downstream and upstream potential environmental harm and flooding. In the October 5th meeting Q&A, concerns raised were skirted in the answers in several places. Stock and Associates did not really answer questions about effect on the water quality or mitigation to the impact of the stream from flooding, and erosion in regards to their answers. MSD won't remove foliage downstream, but also certainly will not remove other flood debris that might come from this development. A green space provided by the development, and a manufactured stream bank, especially as the pace of revegetation will slow, and density will be much less than what exists now, won't solve issues of erosion upstream that will very likely be caused by that channelization in Douglass Hill. I don't believe there's enough input and assessment from anyone besides engineers -- like Stock and Associates and Army Corps of Engineers, neither of which really works, especially in the interest of ecology. Despite what the developers might say, the Corps is not known to be tough and demanding in that regard, by those involved in conservation. In fact the most recent revelations in the Corps involve increased acknowledgement of the need to incorporate more nature-based solutions to flood management. I don't think this serves that end properly, despite the assertions that the infrastructure will be an improvement on nature. Fifty feet is already a very minor buffer distance that is not protective of the banks or water quality, let alone reducing that further. There are ways that development can be done incrementally, in conjunction with real conservation measures, which would lead to a much more attractive area in our city. In a myriad of ways, I believe this is a huge risk for the ecological welfare of shady creek, and for future damage potentially to the areas surrounding the development. Lindy Carroll stated, I live at 358 Hillside Avenue. I am here tonight to express my concern about the proposed SG development project. Although I do think a redevelopment plan is a good idea for this area I do not think the scale of the proposed plan is appropriate for Webster. The influx of residents will result in traffic issues, especially with the proximity of the train, where trains cause frequent daily backups, though that has not been included in the traffic study. Also I feel that the additional residents will contribute to not only more of a congested neighborhood, but a much 3  DRAFT November 2, 2021 noisier neighborhood, and it will also add more students to the Webster Groves School District, and stress our city services. The proposed apartment towers will be too large and loom heavy over the church as well as Kirkham Avenue creating a wall separating north from south Webster. Why has there been no rendering of this vantage point from the developers? The towers will add to the impression that there is an “other” side of the tracks. If those towers are built in Webster Groves it will only add to the psychological separation between the neighborhoods, walling out North Webster. Eight apartment towers will not bridge the north to the south, they will do the opposite: they will separate and they will isolate. I am right up against the natural area of this proposed site every day as I sit in my office overlooking the wooded corridor. I see all kinds of wildlife, so claims that there isn’t any wildlife are simply false. This project would greatly disrupt the natural pass through for that wildlife, and once that area is gone, we will not get it back. Additionally, the natural area adds to the character of the neighborhood, and is a refuge for humans as well. I don't expect there will be any tax relief for area citizens, and if anything, this additional luxury living will only increase property values and taxes in what is now the most affordable area to own a home in Webster Groves. Any small revenue the city may expect over the next 23-year TIF period could instantly be absorbed by the need to hire additional city staff to support the influx of new residents. Webster Groves is open for business, and I am for a new development, just not this current SG plan. If this goes through at the proposed size, we will rob ourselves of the character that makes Webster a great place for commerce. Let's open the RFP again, or take an eraser to the current proposal, if it's NOT that easy, and if it has to be, go big or go home, then I say to the SG development, go home. Brett Rufkahr, 625 Sherwood Drive, stated that when we moved here 20 years ago to Webster, we moved here because we saw a community that had a small town feel it had significant diversity in many respects, especially in terms of the variety of housing that was available to prospective residents. This variety of housing provided socioeconomic diversity which was very important to us. We looked at a lot of other areas Frontenac, Clayton, Ladue, Creve Coeur, Town and Country, and everything, all these different whole areas, those communities did not possess the diversity of Webster. We chose Webster. Sadly, there now exists a relatively small but fervent group within Webster for whom the diversity we so cherish isn't enough. This group seems to be more interested in an etiological based diversity -- keeping with the culture wars that are so aggressively tearing our society apart. Webster was never perfect, it will never be perfect, but in the past, it has been a very welcoming area that seems to have changed, however, I’m not on Facebook, but my wife regularly shares with me the postings on the Webster Connect. I’m sure many of you have read them, and as you know, there's a small but exceedingly vocal group. They seem to be closely aligned with certain people on the city council, and certain unelected leaders. Unfortunately, members of this Facebook group often post hateful and intolerant messages. It is shocking to read the vitriol, and incessant condescending attacks against those who do not agree with the push for apartments, duplexes, seven story buildings etc., and sadly, if you do not agree, you are often called a racist, which is really terrible. This is a wonderful community, but this wonderful community is changing, where it was so welcoming, it is now seemingly in attack mode. The motto of Webster Groves is becoming hate thy neighbor -- that is sad, and that is very regrettable. As for the TIF, from what I’ve been able to gather, this TIF represents everything they decided. When the abusive use of TIFs are presented, the area in question is not blighted, far from it. It is an area with multiple businesses, a church, apartments, warehouses, etc. These entities, other than the church, pay taxes. If those businesses are removed from Webster, their taxes, their tax dollars, go away. Moreover, 4  DRAFT November 2, 2021 if the SG Collaborative has its way it will add hundreds of apartments -- which undeniably means a large number of children who will seek to attend Webster schools, but families as apartment dwellers, will pay zero in property taxes, and that's no money for Webster schools. Simple economics, and of course a big portion, or a big point rather, of tax increment financing -- the TIF means the exceedingly wealthy developers will also effectively pay no taxes on their investment. So, with all these children, Webster schools, fewer tax dollars. Does the removal of tax paying businesses, 23 years effectively, who is going to pay for the increased resources required by all these new children -- the rest of us. Norma Rufkahr, 625 Sherwood Drive, stated, first of all I want to thank you for trying to lead us through a tumultuous time, and I’m hoping that you will keep an open ear and eyes to what your constituents are trying to share with you. Our family moved to Webster Groves about 20 years ago because I grew up in a small town, and wanted our children to have a small-town feel, a smaller school, smaller classrooms, and less traffic, so they could ride their bike and feel safe walking. We definitely knew that we didn't want the urban feel. We wanted some place that gave you a sense of community, and a place where people took ownership in their surroundings, not people moving in and out. I’m here because this new development is a mistake for Webster. It offers the current citizens nothing, but additional costs. For example, a new million-dollar fire truck to reach the seventh floor of the new apartment buildings, additional traffic and the overuse of our current resources. This project will have a negative impact on our community, and here are just a few reasons why, and by the way, the information I’m sharing comes directly from the Webster Groves website, the current plan isn't reliable. We really don't know what we are getting. They have painted a picture to us that is at best fictional -- showing us these pictures of wide-open walk spaces, interesting retail areas, but if you read through their plan, they really don't have one. The building design will be up to the builder, for example, take a look at the current market for office space. What they have earmarked to be office there, will this most surely become apartments? And we will need to accommodate 900 plus apartment units in this very small area. The Collaborative is also not promising us retail space at all, but yet is giving us a spin that we will have these wonderful shops, and restaurants. Larry Chapman is answering questions, but are we listening? Another concern should be parking for businesses, two spaces for every three employees, and for the supposed restaurant microbrewery, one parking space per three seats. Well when was the last time you drove to a restaurant with three people in the car, and which of these employees will be walking to work? The town homes are allowed one parking space per unit, but the town homes are designed with two to three bedrooms -- so tell me where will these people park? I have three older children that have bought homes in Crestwood. They looked at Webster, it wasn't the cost of the home that kept them out of Webster, it was the real estate taxes. Our real estate taxes are much higher in Webster than surrounding areas, and with this additional development to support, they are guaranteed to go up. When my husband and I first of the idea of creating a new space we were excited, thinking this could be a place for us to downsize. Looking at this plan is so discouraging. Many of my friends and neighbors are not against change, or development, just not this monster. Toni Hunt, 649 Sherwood Drive, read a statement (See Exhibit A in the City Clerk’s office). Carol Hodson stated she and her 19 year old daughter live at 422 Oak Street, just three houses down from the area that we're discussing, and I have been watching from my house every one of 5  DRAFT November 2, 2021 these people in here attend these meetings, sit on zoom, debate, strategize, and seek to be heard and seen in what I see as very sincere desperate, almost quest to be recognized as members of a beautiful community, who want the best for their children their families and for all of us, and I haven't weighed in, and I’m here tonight because we're coming out of a pandemic that has been threatening our psychological and physical health for two or three years. We all want us to thrive and be healthy and survive, but there's a proposal on the table right now that is so unhealthy in so many ways. I could speak to the specifics of being three houses down from the train tracks, and all the cars that have not been counted because the survey was done during Covid, or they can't figure out the template for the train crossing. I could talk about the fact that I can go to bed and hear the owls in my community singing to each other, and they'll be gone, as will the wild turkeys, as will the range of birds the flora and fauna in fact the gardens of any area surrounding that development will be dramatically affected and we're a garden community, but where we've had sun we'll have shade, where we've had shade we've had sun, but mostly I want to say I see no fiscal benefits. I see no psychological benefits. I not only do not see a coming together of the community, but I have witnessed, and I’m standing here now saying that you talked about “revive”, that word came up, but all I see is divide. We're talking about gain, or possible credit, or fiscal improvement, and all I hear is anger and frustration and nitpicking, and it's not where I moved to, and it's not where I want to raise my daughter. More often than not, proposals like this are viewed quantitatively, and the logic and the percentages are what makes the difference in swaying the final, and I’m here to speak to the human element at stake. This proposal not only checks “no” in almost every category, including kickback to our community, but it checks no real violently and boldly against the mental health of our community. Please don't pass this. Carol Truesdale, 14 Cheyenne Ct., Glendale. I’m in Glendale, but I travel often down Kirkam. I’m sad every time I drive by the site -- thinking what it might become, and I think people have already gone through all the possible traffic nightmares. The traffic backs up several times a day. It's horrible waiting for the trains. The floodplain issue, even if the TIF is approved, the flooding will remain, and it's a big issue. You take out all those mature trees it's going to be worse than it is now. What I’m most concerned about is the character and the scale of this proposed project. I think of the homes right across Kirkham. They're very modest sized. Can you imagine if you lived in one of those homes, and you're looking out your kitchen window or your bedroom window every day, and looking at these seven story buildings looming over you, and even if you took some of the bigger homes off Elm or Lockwood, and put them there, or any of the Mcmansions that are being built, they would also pale in comparison to how tall these buildings will be. It's just wouldn't be a nice place to live, to look out and see that every day, or walk by it every day, and my biggest concern is the Old Community Baptist Church. They're right there -- think of them on Sunday at their services -- you know looking out their windows -- what about the sanctity of their congregation and their service and they've got this big looming development staring over them or looming over them, and I just think out of respect for the church if nothing else this project should not go forward. AJ Angajala, 251 W. Kirkham, stated as residents of West Kirkham Avenue, immediate neighbors and potential victims of this proposal, I would like to reiterate and emphasize how displeased the overwhelming majority of the community is about this massive development. Over 820 residents, like David Franklin brought up in the previous session, have signed the petition opposing the overall project or the scale of it. For environmental concerns or for moral convictions in reference 6  DRAFT November 2, 2021 to using eminent domain etc. My wife and I moved to Webster Groves because it's a picturesque quiet neighborhood -- that's what we signed up for. We didn't sign up for being surrounded by eight towering buildings, three thousand people being added to one block, or hundreds of cars on our street -- that's not what we signed up for, or living through a multi-year construction project, however, we've been patient because the communal good has to be greater than our personal loss. We were okay with that. If any of the developers are willing to swap houses with us we'll be glad to accept that. We oppose the variance to the Shady Creek, like a lot of people said, the TIF funding for private acquisitions, and using eminent domain to forcibly move out property owners who are not wanting to move. We oppose all of that. And small businesses, we love them in our community. The collateral damage from this project outweighs the communal benefit. Instead of a developer proposing a massive project based on what financial models work for them, and what profit margins work for them, what I’m suggesting is, and what I’m urging the city council and the members to do is, come up with a proposal that works for the community. We spent a lot of time over the last almost year and a half with a lot of ideas, a lot of input, communal feedback, so take that and look at a project that fits the neighborhood, serves the purpose, enhances the existing businesses, and based on the collective feedback, forcing the project against the will of the community will be met with fierce opposition. Andrew Yee, 639 W. Kirkham, said good evening everybody thank you for your time. I was asked to speak by a lot of friends tonight. I’ve been very quiet about everything, and I was not sure if I should speak up about it because I am a developer. I’m a real estate investor. I live in Webster. I’ve been here for 12 years; my wife's family has been here for over 30 years. I love Webster. I love the feel of it. I want it to retain the same values that it has. My late wife actually served on the planning commission for several years before she passed. What I feel about development is that it has to go with the community. It has to work in conjunction with the community. You have to please the neighbors. The fact that you can talk about not going with what the neighborhood can agree with, it just doesn't work. I mean the City Council has obviously heard plenty of times that it's not working. Plenty of petitions have wasted a lot of time and the city's resources. We should not pass this. There is a right way to develop property. I’ve developed property with my family for the past 20 years without TIF money. If it's so good, sometimes yes you need TIF money, but if it's so good you can do it on your own. You don't need the TIF money to make this project happen. The project has issues with the sizes of homes. I’ve heard that okay well there's four buildings on each street. Well, yes, it's going to tower… all these streets on Kirkham. I live on 639 Kirkham, and I bought another house on 16 Hammel just to develop. I’m for development, not to this scale. Another architect friend of mine brought up the fact of maybe doing a sun study. What is it going to do to block out the sun, the southern exposure from all those folks on Kirkham. I thought, a sun study, that seems silly. But it actually makes sense because seeing sunshine every day is a joy. Everyone has already talked about the traffic. I understand the traffic as well. I hate sitting behind the trains. A lot of my friends didn't arrive on time in order to get here because of the trains. Yes, it is an issue but you know it's going to get worse. If they are to do this project, there are certain parameters that have to be met in order to please the community, and work with the council, with the government, with the neighbors. Maybe there is a happy medium to it. Maybe there's not a win-win but I hope there is, thank you for your time. Mayor Welch stated, Mr. Chekoudjian if you have something you want to add to what you said at the last meeting, you may do so -- we're going to move on. 7  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Developer Larry Chapman stated, you know it's kind of interesting how people really started attacking me over this thing. You know we were invited here by the city to respond to an RFP. We were the only one that responded actually the way the RFP was written. Of the 20 other developers that were approached only one submitted something that was not anywhere near what it was. It was just a single apartment building plopped down like every other apartment building in west county. We've tried very very hard to do what the city's asked, but we've run up against some problems of feasibility. And that's just what it is. You know we have the support of the Chamber of Commerce, we have the support of the Old Webster business district, because they believe it's going to be good for them. We just do. So there are a lot of people who do support this. I understand the immediate neighbors are nervous. You know when I look at things like this I worry about how people will perceive it and then I think about places like the Riverwalk in San Antonio where all the buildings are seven, eight stories right next to that. We have engaged more professionals than I can count. I understand there's trains and traffic. If we knew exactly when the trains were coming, the traffic engineer could do a better job. I’ve encouraged people to hire another traffic engineer that would come up with a different result than our traffic engineer did. They haven't done that. As far as flooding, we have a civil engineer who put a seal on it, it's been approved by MSD. We've had other civil engineers look at it. We've not seen a single civil engineer, a professional, that would put their seal on it and say professionally that what we're telling you is wrong because it's not. It's correct. Flooding will get better not worse. You know everybody has lots of good opinions and all those opinions are fine but they're opinions, they're not facts. We've had every bit of our financial analysis reviewed by a third-party financial consultant. We're doing all we can to try and do a good job and I believe when we're done not only will it be a benefit to the community, it'll fold right into the fabric and people will point to it as a really great thing to do. In terms of financing, you know TIF is a tool that can be used to help cities and municipalities leverage developer’s money instead of their own. The city can always elect to do it on their own and spend their money. Part of what we patterned this after was in Dublin, Ohio where the city did all the infrastructure on their own and then brought the developers in. Then they can set all the rules they want. But until then it simply has to be financially feasible because if you can't finance it you can't build it. If your goal is just to kill it that's fine. But one last thought is if we can't find out some way to grow the population of Webster Groves, the same 23,000 people will just keep paying for services that go up over time and so eventually only the wealthy can live here. I think that's true. Mary Culler from Stream Teams United read a statement (See Exhibit B in the City Clerk’s Office). David Lauver, 201 Innisfail, said before voting on the current rezoning request I strongly request that all Council members consider the precedent a yes vote will set for future development. The current rezoning request ignores many of the height and setback requirements that exist in our current city code. Approving seven story buildings and this density buildings especially this close to residential housing could open a flood gate for this type of development. If you approve this what is there to stop the next developer from tearing down the buildings at Big Bend and Elm and constructing seven story mixed use buildings? Or from doing it where the old Subaru dealership is or somewhere else in Old Orchard? By what grounds will the city be able to say no to future requests that are similar to this proposal? We are not an island, we are one of 88 municipalities in St. Louis county. We are only approximately 2.4 percent of the population of St. Louis County, less than one percent of the metro region. Webster is only slightly more than one percent of the 8  DRAFT November 2, 2021 total area of St. Louis County. Webster Groves currently has a wide variety of housing options both in type and cost. Adding more cookie-cutter apartment buildings does nothing for our community. It is redundant and unnecessary and subsidized developments like this are partially to blame for the inability of the metro region to grow. I hope each and every one of you is asking yourself why would you approve this zoning change in its current form. Even if the tax projections are spot on and magically all the residents of the new development are transfers from New York, but only moved so they can move into these new luxury apartments, so, it truly is all new revenue and not just shifting sales from other Webster businesses. The projected tax revenue isn't worth the destruction to the natural environment, nor the nearby residents’ and business owners’ lives. The quote-unquote affordable housing argument is just a red herring. There are more than 1200 apartments in the immediate area that are more affordable than what these so-called affordable apartments will be. I am not opposed to rezoning of this area in general, but I’m absolutely against the resilient proposal in current form. I request that this area be treated like any other commercial area in regards to height of buildings, above grade and setbacks, including stream buffer. I’m also requesting no sales tax TIF be offered as it is a net loss for the region. I don't believe in eminent domain to steal private property, and give it to another private citizen is the right thing to do. I also asked if property tax TIF is used, that it's limited to no more than 10 years, and then gradually decreased so that babies born this year won't have to wait until they have kids of their own before a school district sees any real revenue from redevelopment. The rezoning and proposed redevelopment are way out of character for this area, and instead of cleaning up the allegedly blighted area it may just become a new type of blight that we'll all have to live with for long after it is built, thank you. A motion was made by Councilmember Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Arnold, to close the public hearing. Mayor Welch called for the vote. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH NOES: NONE Prior to the closing of the public hearing, Mr. Bruntrager entered the following into the public record: • Plan Commission staff report by Mara M. Perry, AICP Director of Planning & Development and Danny Jendusa, Planner for meeting date June 7, 2021 with the following attachments: 1. Written statement from SG Collaborative, LLC 2. Exhibit A – owner list 3. Exhibit B – Proposed Uses 4. Exhibit C – Existing Boundary Survey; Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan and Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Stock & Associates dated 3/31/2021 5. Exhibit D – Cross Section through the site prepared by Cedergreen 6. Exhibit E – Renderings, Imagery examples and photos of the development model 7. Exhibit F – Structured Parking layout drawings 8. Exhibit G – Traffic Impact study prepared by T2 Traffic and Transportation dated 4/1/2021 9  DRAFT November 2, 2021 9. Exhibit H – Road Circulation drawing 10. Exhibit I – Tree Stand Delineation Plan and Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Loomis & Associates dated 4/2/2021 11. Exhibit J - Flood Study Narrative prepared by Stock & Associates with Appendix drawings dated 3/17/2021 12. Spreadsheet of rezoning feedback received through May 28, 2021 11 AM with attachments • Plan Commission staff report by Mara M. Perry, AICP Director of Planning & Development and Danny Jendusa, Planner for meeting date July 12, 2021 with the following attachments: 1. Written statement from SG Collaborative, LLC 2. Exhibit A – owner list 3. Exhibit B – Proposed Uses 4. Exhibit C – Existing Boundary Survey; Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan and Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Stock & Associates dated 3/31/2021 5. Exhibit D – Cross Section through the site prepared by Cedergreen 6. Exhibit E – Renderings, Imagery examples and photos of the development model 7. Exhibit F – Structured Parking layout drawings 8. Exhibit G – Traffic Impact study prepared by T2 Traffic and Transportation dated 4/1/2021 9. Exhibit H – Road Circulation drawing 10. Exhibit I – Tree Stand Delineation Plan and Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Loomis & Associates dated 4/2/2021 11. Exhibit J - Flood Study Narrative prepared by Stock & Associates with Appendix drawings dated 3/17/2021 12. Spreadsheet of rezoning feedback received through July 6, 2021 11 AM • Plan Commission staff report by Mara M. Perry, AICP Director of Planning & Development and Danny Jendusa, Planner for meeting date August 9, 2021 with the following attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Recommendations dated August 9, 2021 2. Comments from SG Collaborative received on August 2, 2021 3. Memorandum dated July 30, 2021 from T2 Traffic and Transportation 4. Spreadsheet of rezoning feedback received through August 2, 2021 11 AM • Plan Commission staff report by Mara M. Perry, AICP Director of Planning & Development and Danny Jendusa, Planner for meeting date September 13, 2021 with the following attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Recommendations dated September 13, 2021 2. Draft Exhibits A Site Coverage and B Height and Street Section 10  DRAFT November 2, 2021 3. Shady Creek Flood Study Executive Summary dated 08/19/21 (Full flood study is available on the City website) 4. Spreadsheet of rezoning feedback received through September 7, 2021 11 AM 5. Letter from the Sustainability Commission received 8/30/21 (was not read into the record on 8/31/21) 6. Letters and e-mails that were sent directly to the City Council for Remarks of Visitors that were about the rezoning dated from 4/20/21 through 8/22/21 • Powerpoint presentations before the Plan Commission from the June 7, 2021; July 12, 2021; August 9, 2021; August 31, 2021 and September 13, 2021 Plan Commission meetings • Minutes of the June 7, 2021; July 12, 2021; August 9, 2021; August 31, 2021 and September 13, 2021 Plan Commission meetings • Written comments submitted to the Plan Commission between June 7, 2021 and September 13, 2021 totaling 178 instances. • Written comments submitted to the City Council between September 12, 2021 and November 2, 2021 5 PM totaling (approximately) 108 instances. • Director of Planning and Development’s Powerpoint before the City Council • Zoning Code of the City of Webster Groves Mayor Welch stated that the public hearing was closed. BILL #9166 – FIRST AND SECOND READING Councilmember Richardson introduced BILL #9166 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 53, THE ZONING CODE, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM “A4” SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE DISTRICT; “B1” MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT; “E” INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND “PC” PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO “PC” PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESSES: 55 LINCOLN AVE, 62 LINCOLN AVE, 49 N. GORE AVE, 51 N. GORE AVE, 61 N. GORE AVE, 65 N. GORE AVE, 69 N. GORE AVE, 79 N. GORE AVE, 40 N. ROCK HILL RD, 200 SHERMAN PLACE, 201 SHERMAN PLACE, 203 SHERMAN PLACE, 205 SHERMAN PLACE, 207 SHERMAN PLACE, 200 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 204 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 234 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 240 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 242 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 320 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 340 W. KIRKHAM AVE, 107 W. PACIFIC AVE, 109 W. PACIFIC AVE, 111 W. PACIFIC AVE, 115 W. PACIFIC AVE, 125 W. PACIFIC AVE, 147 W. PACIFIC AVE, 207 W. PACIFIC AVE, 209 W. PACIFIC AVE, 211 W. PACIFIC AVE, 227 W. PACIFIC AVE, 315 W. PACIFIC AVE, 325 W. PACIFIC AVE, 341 W. PACIFIC AVE. ON AN APPROXIMATELY 15.1 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AND REPEALING ORDINANCES #3835, 3900, 6467, 7320, 7369, 7424, AND 7519, AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO, and at the Councilmember’s request, the Bill was read 11  DRAFT November 2, 2021 twice, first and second times by title only, and placed on the agenda for future consideration of the Council. Councilmember Alexander stated that she has a question and I will totally acknowledge my ignorance but I’ve asked a similar question before but why is it that we have not been able to make zoning changes that would have allowed residents or owners or current businesses in that area to do other types of development other than the zoning that's there, that I understand restricts their ability to do improvements? If we can do this why can't we do that? Mayor Welch stated that that's probably a good question for Mara to answer because we are getting that question. Can you explain what it is that is keeping the current owners there from adding to their businesses, investing in their businesses, etc. Councilmember Alexander clarified, my question is, if we can make these types of zoning changes that are in this Bill #9166, why is it that we cannot make the type of zoning changes in that area that will allow individual developers or businesses or existing businesses to redevelop and do things to improve that area now? I mean if we can change the zoning, why can we not change the zoning in a way that allows for development from the current business owners or residents? Ms. Perry stated, in order to do a change of zoning you either need to have an applicant who has applied for that request for change of zoning, or when you are moving forward with the change of zoning, if you're doing a planned commercial district for example you have to have someone produce a plan, and that plan gets put in place. Back in the 1980s when they put in place the PC zoning that's in the far corner of the property, they put it in place with a “someone will come in and provide that plan”. So, when that zoning was put in place it left everyone in that area in a limbo. They can continue to operate. They can continue to operate those businesses that are there. They can renovate the interiors of their businesses. They can't expand physically the footprint of those businesses because no plan ever came in at that time in order to provide a list of what someone would use, or what they would request for that area. The rest of that development area has its own zoning, and over the years people came in and applied for rezonings to make changes. So, for example the condos on the corner - someone purchased that property, someone rezoned that property. They came in with a plan of how they were going to build and they developed a series of condominiums on that corner. So as different people have come in and have requested changes of zoning there's elements that they've been able to do. Some of those zoning categories allow a more expansive use. Some of the zoning that's industrial allows for things that might not be allowed in other areas. Many people did not want to change that zoning because it would then restrict some of the things that they could currently have on the property. I don't know if that completely answers your question. Councilmember Franklin asked if she’s saying it's possible to re-zone this, but you just need an applicant. Ms. Perry stated, you need an applicant. Which we have an applicant at this point and our applicant came in with a plan and we moved forward with a rezoning based on that plan. If someone comes in with a plan, there's a differentiation between - there's not one zoning district that's going to allow everyone that's in there right now to operate as they're operating. There's just not. There's such a 12  DRAFT November 2, 2021 mix of uses that are in there, and there's currently multiple zoning districts in there. There's industrial, there's some multi-family, there's single family residential, there’s so many different things that are in there. There is not going to be a particular category that a city could just re-zone everything and allow everything to continue as it as it is today. Councilmember Arnold stated that it sounds like the biggest hindrance on current property owners is the PC that remains in place. Ms. Perry stated that that's only on a small corner. There are many other businesses there that are not in that PC. That PC does not go past Lincoln. It doesn't go past Sherman. It's only that very tiny corner. Only the southeast corner. It covers the vacant piece and then one of the warehouse buildings. It only goes part way. It doesn't cover the other side of Lincoln. The other side that has Webster Window and Door and the school district, that's zoned industrial. That is not zoned pc. Mayor Welch asked how far north the PC zoning goes. Ms. Perry stated that it only goes to the cell tower and then it takes a jog and continues a little bit farther north on the other side. Councilmember Franklin stated, we could get rid of zoning in this tract of land right, and test out the theory of no zoning. Let's get rid of zoning in this area and let's see what happens. Councilmember Alexander asked what do we do to create some options? Because what I do see with this is that what appears to be the current situation is that we can't do anything because of the way it's zoned. Well then let's change the way it's zoned so that we have more options. Because it looks like the only way we can change it is if we do this. Well that makes no sense to me. Ms. Perry stated that if someone wants to come forward with a plan, or the owners of the property want to come forward with plans of what they would like to do, that gives that opportunity that they can rezone their own property and that area is designated as mixed use so it gives a lot of flexibility that if someone wants to come forward with a potential rezoning. Councilmember Alexander asked if it is possible for that area to be zoned mixed use. Ms. Perry stated that mixed use is PC Planned Commercial so that is what the attempt is right now is to zone it to a PC planned commercial which allows for mixed use which allows for a series of uses that can be selected from either the C or D commercial which also includes residential. Mayor Welch asked if the Council can initiate a zoning change. Ms. Perry stated that she thinks that's a legal question that would probably need to be asked and researched. It appears that in the 80s that was what occurred but because there was no plan put forth because they didn't spend the money to create a plan to explore what could happen there they were hoping that someone would come in with that plan after the fact that is what has left us with that odd PC in that far corner. Mr. Bruntrager reminded Council that the charter requires that you go through planning and zoning, so, the odd part would be how does council approach planning and zoning to make a recommendation to council to change the zoning laws. 13  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Councilmember Franklin asked in regards to how design of the buildings would work along with the architectural renderings and the final result. Because right now we just have pretty much the idea of seven buildings, but not what they're gonna look like, so, can you explain how the community would have input on that. Ms. Perry stated that once the rezoning is put in place it creates an ordinance of additional regulations that would be similar to if someone was going straight through what's in our zoning ordinance. So those additional regulations would require that within 12 months a final development plan comes before the Plan Commission. It does come before the Plan Commission without a public hearing. If it meets everything that's in the ordinance it can move forward with a plan of how it's going to be developed. So that plan is a site plan essentially, that shows the footprints of all the buildings, much more specifically how the transportation system is going to work, it goes through and has the approval of a floodplain development plan, it would require a whole series of the different approvals that have been listed in that report, and it gets reviewed by all of our various departments. Fire department, my department, through reviewing against building codes and building permits -- all of those things get reviewed. So this is reviewed as a final development plan. Then each phase would come in with a specific site development plan. So we would review each element as it comes forward again to ensure that it meets all of the regulations in the code and meets the building code. That would get more specific than just the footprints of the building and the overall infrastructure. Then as that moves forward, as each plan comes in for a site development plan it goes before the Architectural Review Board. Each individual building would be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board for approval. Once it's been approved with a site development plan with the Architectural Review Board review, it will come in for full permit review. That's when we receive land disturbance permits, we look at electrical, we look at plumbing, we look at fire suppression systems, we look at all the details. And then construction can start from that point. In the county, they also have a PC Planned Commercial for multi-phase developments. It's a very similar process. Councilmember Franklin asked what changes were made from the initial submission to the plan commission versus what is before us in bill number 9166? Ms. Perry stated that changes are not supposed to be made. What you're supposed to do is come in with an idea of what you would like to build. Using that as a format or a framework, we develop a series of the regulations which are reviewed by the plan commission and that is moved forward as a recommendation to the council. Once you make that recommendation and agree to what all those regulations are, that's why they have to come back with a final development plan. So essentially the process is that they bring in what's called a preliminary development plan. You are only approving the regulations and using the preliminary development plan and whatever regulations you put in place. When they come back with the final development plan, if they're showing something in preliminary and you've changed what the regulations are going to be, that final development plan has to show that. So, for example, there was some conversation about a particular setback of a building. We didn't require them to come back and amend every time we started thinking about what those regulations might be. We put in some setbacks. What those setbacks are, or what they are established through the ordinance will be what they have to come back with. 14  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Councilmember Franklin stated, this might be a Neil question, but are we prohibited from making amendments to what was brought up to us from the Plan Commission? Ms. Perry stated, you're not prohibited from making amendments, but we always recommend that you, if you make an amendment that you need to give staff time to review whether that amendment is going to cause some other issue to occur within the ordinance. So, for example we're working on the tree ordinance. My understanding is that when the tree ordinance went to city council a number of years ago there was a last minute change to a particular number, and that number has caused problems over the last decade or so because it conflicts with another number in the code. So ensuring that, if you did want to make some changes, that you would need to give us some time to ensure that there aren't conflicts with what we are proposing or conflicts that could cause issues with other ordinances. Councilmember Franklin stated, my question is probably more fundamental. What if I wanted to propose an amendment for taking these buildings from seven stories down to three stories. Is that prohibited? Ms. Perry stated, I don't necessarily have an answer for that. I mean what the request is if there's a reason behind why you are removing it to that height -- we always try to provide the reasoning behind why a particular element can't be met. I always think of this as a series of puzzle pieces. It's a 3d puzzle, so once you say a certain thing can't be met, when we review something and we say it can't be met because parking can't be met or setbacks can't be met or this item can't be met. Just arbitrarily saying I’m not going to do a certain element, there's important elements that you need to provide to understand why you're saying that that particular thing should not be met. Because it is a PC planned commercial. There are not restrictions in our ordinances that require a particular height or a particular density or a particular set of elements. It is a planned district. It's very similar to other planned districts in the county and across the country. Councilmember Arnold stated, so what I am surmising and you can correct me if I’m wrong here is in terms of procedure or process, if I want only five story buildings and I just think seven is too dense, rather than change the ordinance I'd vote against the ordinance. Ms. Perry agreed. Councilmember Arnold stated that she just wanted to make sure she understood. Mr. Bruntrager stated, part of the reason is if you were to make a decision that simply said I’m going to reduce it down to three -- you haven't had a public hearing on that. You haven't heard voices on that. And one of the things that we're supposed to do on each of these elements, particularly something as significant as that is have the public hearing. Secondly, I would say that that's the QuikTrip case. If you simply picked a number, why not four. Why not five? Why not one? That's an arbitrary decision and you haven't given anyone an opportunity to be heard on that. But again if it is as simple as ‘it's what I would prefer’ then you run directly into QuikTrip. Councilmember Franklin stated, I am interested in the public space that is proposed. Will that be public land or would that be privately owned? 15  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Ms. Perry stated, that is something that would come with the development agreement and not with the rezoning. Councilmember Franklin stated, see this is where I struggle right because the development agreement is obviously a very important facet of this. But to me it's like I’m voting on the whole planned community. If I don't know these fundamental things on such an alleged transformative proposal, how can I make an educated and informed decision? Ms. Perry stated, a zoning ordinance is supposed to establish physical square footages, locations, heights, setbacks. It doesn't designate whether something is privately owned or publicly owned. So it's establishing the element of requiring a certain amount of open space. Requiring a certain amount or square footage of building in relationship to infrastructure -- you are requiring those elements but who owns it should not be put into a zoning ordinance. Councilmember Arnold asked if that's true for the street itself too. Ms. Perry stated that it was. Typically, what we've required in the ordinances is that they do have to plat that, and in platting that, that plat goes before the city council. So the platting of it will establish the roadway, it will establish right-of-way, it will establish easements, all of those elements. Councilmember Franklin stated, in a world where this wasn't in a flood zone we could be able to do this contemporaneously. Do the development plan and also you know vote on the development plan and the zoning at the same time. But because of the new state statute, we're under a time crunch. In your experience, Mara, does the development plan and the zoning come contemporaneously usually? Ms. Perry stated that each project is so different. I’ve worked on a number of them but every single one has been different. Many have had floodplain issues. Some have had TIF issues. Others have had other elements. So they're all very different from one another. Each one has its own intricacies. Mr. Peterson stated that Mark Grimm and I had a TIF member asked that question. So development agreements, as Mara said have happened at different times. Some with zoning some not. The only thing in the timeline that has a deadline is if the council wishes to have TIF. So if the council decides, you can move votes out on zoning and development agreement contemporaneously and such. TIF can happen and wait, meaning that the vote has happened positively, obviously if this is going to go forward. But sit there and wait for those other elements to be passed. Councilmember Franklin clarified that the only vote that we are under a time crunch to do is the TIF. The other two could occur whenever. Mr. Peterson agreed, yes, in terms of a statutory requirement. Councilmember Franklin stated that by the developer's own statement, this is going to be a big project -- you know go big or go home. It's transformative in the aspect of what it's bringing to Webster Groves. It seems to me difficult to vote on zoning and/or TIF without having the development agreement to back it up. Why would I vote yes on something where I’m gonna guess what the negotiations are gonna be? That's what I’m struggling with. 16  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Councilmember Bliss stated, if you reduce the height it's a geometry problem. If we reduce the height then we need to increase the surface area or the footprint. We're limited to only 30% of the site to be covered with buildings, it does not count in other impervious surfaces. Ms. Perry stated that that was a limitation we put on it. It's not necessarily the limitation. So if you were to reduce height, again puzzle piece, you'd have to increase the impervious surface or you would have to decrease the setbacks, there are those pieces. Councilmember Bliss stated, so it's a math problem. Secondly, I think we talked about this last week, and maybe we weren't at a conclusion. But as I understood it we wanted the zoning and the redevelopment agreement to be on a parallel path moving forward. So that we would have a development agreement underway at the time that we vote on the zoning. Is that not where we landed last time? Other Councilmembers agreed that was their understanding. Mayor Welch clarified that we would postpone any votes on this structure. The third reading would wait until we have a redevelopment agreement. Councilmember Bliss stated that in the redevelopment agreement we can cover the percentage of work force housing. We can cover perhaps where the million dollar fire truck comes from. We can cover some of these other items that come up as questions in the public hearing, we can address those in the redevelopment agreement and come to an agreement between the city and SG Collaborative. Is that correct? Mr. Peterson agreed that is correct. Councilmember Franklin stated that the financing aspect of it we have to get done. Councilmember Bliss stated, yes, that's separate. Councilmember Franklin stated that I think that it's part and parcel to the whole thing. I guess what I’m asking is are we going to have a development agreement before this council votes on either a TIF or a Zoning. Mr. Bruntrager stated, not TIF because you won't get both. Mr. Peterson stated, I think to clarify, you would have many conversations. We intend to begin conversations with council at the next meeting regarding the development agreement including the staff drafts from the perspectives we have heard. So you will have seen many of the things which we have talked about as staff and this council, ahead of those votes. The timing of how quickly the deal comes together, that's really a conversation between the council and the developer in that regard. Mr. Bruntrager stated, remember David, TIF doesn't come into being if you don't have everything else. So you can vote to do the TIF or set up the project for the TIF and if you don't come to a redevelopment agreement and vote and approve that or come to zoning and vote and approve that, it doesn't happen anyway. So again the TIF itself, other than the timing that's placed on us by the change in the statute, you can do that and set that aside and then address these other issues. 17  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Councilmember Arnold stated, I would only add that I think as much as I agree about the redevelopment agreement I think everyone in the community and those of us here on the dais as well are fatigued, and at some point we've got to just make the decision. Whether that means waiting for the redevelopment agreement, if that's what the council wants to do that's fine I’m fine doing that. But let's not drag that negotiation out a long time because we do need to have some resolution to this. Mayor Welch stated, that's sort of why I was hoping we would either go forward or not with this zoning agreement, because it is the first step. If there is a negative vote on the zoning agreement, there's no reason to spend all that time and energy doing a redevelopment agreement. Councilmember Bliss stated, but I see some of the things in the redevelopment agreement as points that can address some of the concerns. Not all of them, but some of them. Councilmember Franklin stated, if that's the case I'd be happy to ask my questions and if those can't be answered, or they can't be answered in the manner that I think is appropriate then I will know the way I’m going to vote on this. In other words, we don't have to sit down in a room and negotiate, we can do it right here. I think we all have our independent things that we want in a development agreement, and if the developer can't satisfy those then I know how I’m going to vote on the zoning. Mayor Welch clarified, let's get this straight now. We're gonna do the second reading of this tonight, but we're going to postpone any vote on this until we do a redevelopment agreement. Councilmember Franklin disagreed. Mayor Welch stated, that's what I’m hearing. I'm hearing that we're tying the two things together. Mr. Peterson stated that on the 16th, should the TIF commission act affirmatively, the TIF recommendation would be in front of you for first and second reading. We would also have a closed meeting with our counsel about the redevelopment agreement. Should all things come together, either the first meeting or the second meeting in December, take your pick we can work through that next step if we want to just take one step at a time, we could be prepared for actions on all three or if the council decides just one and hold on to two as we continue negotiation. Mr. Bruntrager agreed. Councilmember Smith stated that we still have the agreement to get through to get out. It's just doing the pre-work we need to make a decision. That's been the ongoing discussion and that was actually what we decided on last meeting, just to have a time frame to get all of this done. Councilmember Franklin stated I guess what I’m saying is they all for me, despite them being separate votes, they're all one in the same. Councilmember Smith stated that, unfortunately David they're not, and you were not here at the last meeting to voice your opinion. But that's the timeline the council decided last meeting. Councilmember Franklin stated that I respect that decision, but I don't understand how I as a council member can make an educated and informed decision without that third piece. Which is the finalized development. If I don't have that, I have no choice but to vote no. 18  DRAFT November 2, 2021 Councilmember Smith stated, all I can tell you is throughout this entire process the final piece of this work was the agreement. It never was going side by side with all the others -- the agreement was the final piece that the council would work on to get the final agreement with the developer. Councilmember Franklin stated, my follow-up question to you then Councilman, is how can you make an informed decision without the development agreement? How can you make an informed decision about Bill #9166 or a TIF without the development agreement? Councilmember Smith thanked him for asking the question. Bill #9166 went to our planning commission, and the plan commission moved it forward to the council. When my questions are answered, the things that I need to make the informed decision, when I see a traffic study, when I see what benefit is going to be to the city, what's going to happen with the buildings, when all of my issues have been answered which most of them have, that's when I can make an informed decision. I like to have all of my information in front of me but I don't need to stop the progress of the process to make a final decision. Mayor Welch stated that at the next meeting we'll know what the TIF commission has to say and that'll be another piece in the puzzle as we move forward into December. REMARKS OF VISITORS Dave Buck, 124 S. Elm, read a statement (See Exhibit C in the City Clerk’s office). Clark Hotaling stated, kudos to the city manager, the staff, the mayor, and the entire city council for diving into the strategic planning, and addressing diversity equity and inclusion. In my opinion, we need a good dose of both of those in our fair city. Who are we, how did we get here, where do we want to go -- that's all really really important stuff, so, thank you very much for diving into that, and we all know it's very hard to always live your values. As a student of history, I spent a lot of time reading about and researching the how did we get here question. I think some of the inequities we see in our community didn't just happen. The built systems worked exactly as planned, and set up, and thus we need to understand what happened, and what to do, and what we can do to both heal the wounds and to move forward as a more diverse equitable and inclusive community. There are two things I believe the city could do relatively quickly that I think would go a long way towards education, as well as openly addressing who we strive to be as a community. I hope the first is addressing land acknowledgement, and Mayor I really appreciate you bringing that up today in the work session. It's really more than just an indigenous people's day. I think it's something that a lot of cities and organizations are doing across the country, and I really hope we take it seriously and form a committee to research and come up with a policy to acknowledge and honor and hopefully reconnect with those that came before us on this soil that we call Webster Groves. The second idea will be somewhat more controversial, just like you guys need some more controversy in your lives, but I hope, my hope, is that excellent conversations, education takes place, research, discernment, followed by our city replacing all street names named for people that enslaved human beings with names that honor people that were ahead of their time in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. I understand that some of those streets are named after our city's founders, and that was a totally different era, I get that, but why do we honor them today. I’m not about changing history, but I’m all about living our values visually and in practice. If we truly are interested in DEI, I think we should change those street names, Lockwood, Bompart, etc., how 19  DRAFT November 2, 2021 cool would it be to walk cycle or drive on streets named after people like Rosa Parks, Emmeline Pankhurst, Frank Kameny -- think about that, and taking these bold steps I think will go a long way towards healing and living our lives, and living our values by honoring and hopefully reconciling with those that were forced off these lands, as well as honoring people ahead of their time working tirelessly towards a society today, thank you, I appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Charter Amendment Petition Certification Related to Amending Article 11 and Article 15 of the City Charter Resolution #2021-60 – Regarding the Proposed Charter Amendments A motion was made by Councilmember Arnold, seconded by Councilmember Bliss, to postpone the discussion of Resolution #2021-60 – Regarding the Proposed Charter Amendments to the next Council meeting. Mayor Welch called for the vote to postpone Resolution #2021-60. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that the Resolution would be postponed to November 16. Mr. Bruntrager stated that there's the certification that Katie has done the count, so the signature count has been determined. He stated that this has two parts. One of them was whether there were sufficient signatures by electors as required by Article 15 of our charter, and there were sufficient signatures. The second part of that was the legal sufficiency. So again, the certification is there, we're prepared to do it, but I would recommend we do it at the same time that we do the resolution. Ms. Nakazono stated that it did say that I needed to report it at the next regular meeting. Mr. Bruntrager stated, I indicated that there was a petition for charter amendments that had been filed. We needed to have the city clerk certify to the council that a sufficient number of electors have signed the proposed charter amendment petitions that were filed. The petition itself has been submitted to the St. Louis County Election Board to determine whether they had an adequate number of signatures of registered voters as is required by our charter, and then the City Clerk reviewed each of the petitions for the statement of circulators. Ms. Nakazono stated, thank you Neil. As required by the charter, I am hereby certifying to the council the results of the determination by me and upon the advice of the city attorney as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the charter amendment petition filed on November 8, 2021 in my office related to amending Article 11 and Article 15 of the City Charter. The determination contained in the certification, which is hereby entered into the minutes of the November 2, 2021 council meeting (See Exhibit D in City Clerk’s office), the first regular meeting since completing the examination of the petition, is that the petition contains the required number of elector's signature and is procedurally sufficient under the charter. The city attorney will address the other issue (legal sufficiency) with the resolution at the next meeting. 20  DRAFT November 2, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Bliss, to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Welch called for the vote on the Consent Agenda. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that the Consent Agenda was approved. The following consent agenda was approved: • Approval of Minutes – October 19, 2021 • Resolution #2021-58 – A Resolution Providing for the Holding of a Regular Biennial Election on Tuesday, April 5, 2022, For One Mayor and Three Members of the Council (For 4 Year Terms), in Accordance with the Rules Promulgated and Adopted as Provided by State Statute, and By the Board of Election Commissioners of St. Louis County • Resolution #2021-59 – Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for Updates/Expansions of the Magnet Software System with Computer Software for Permitting and Inspection Use APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ● Corin Pursell was appointed to the Green Space Advisory Commission. ● Bob Buckman was reappointed to the Architectural Review Board. ● Kyle Wilson was reappointed to the Architectural Review Board (Alternate Member). ● Centron Felder was appointed to the Police Community Engagement Board. ● Michael Johnson was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission. EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION Councilmember Arnold made a motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Smith, to go into Executive Closed Session per Attorney-Client Privileged Communications [MO Statute 610.021(1)], Personnel [MO Statute 610.021 (3)]. Mayor Welch called for the vote to go into Executive (Closed) Session. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that they would go into Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further regular business to come before the City Council, the regular meeting ended at 10:41 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this _______day of ____________________ 2021. ____________________ Mayor _____________________ City Clerk 21  Exhibit A Thank you Mayor Welch and Council members for this opportunity to speak. My name is Toni Hunt, 649 Sherwood Dr, I am a past member of the Webster City Council and current member of the Planning Commission. I felt an obligation to speak tonight to relay my concerns regarding the proposed Douglas Hill development. While on Council, we as a group decided to undertake the due diligence to explore the opportunities to develop the proposed development area. The main objective of selecting this particular site, was to add additional retail/commercial space and create additional housing choices as an enhancement to the Old Webster Business District. Specifically we wished to address the need for additional sales tax income and to provide housing for downsizing seniors and younger singles, couples, and small families. So, overall, the motivation was to revive the Old Webster business district. This proposed development, while it may address-some of the stated goals, it is not in keeping with our Comprehensive Plan or the Development Foundation Plan. The Development Foundation Plan (Gould Evans Area Study) outlines developing this area with 68 multi-family housing units and approx. 130,000 sq ft retail and office development. The proposed development, at over 700 multi-family units and over 100,000 sq ft retail, office and restaurant uses, instead, could potentially overtake and overwhelm the existing Historic District. There is no transition in height or setback between the adjacent single family residential neighborhoods or any obvious connection with the existing business district. This "New Town" style development in many ways ignores the "Old Webster" which it seeks to recreate. No doubt this is an extremely difficult and expensive site to develop, it has steep grades, environmental issues, infrastructure challenges and more. There is a reason this area has been underutilized for so long. But, I do believe that there is a right mix of retail/office and some mixture of multi-family housing that can be developed successfully at this location. I am also very concerned that the lure of "work force" housing should not be used as a carrot for. approval of this project. I am in agreement that affordable housing options in the City of Webster Groves is very much needed and opportunities should be seriously considered. However, I am not convinced that "maybe 50-60" affordable units (out of 700 plus) is worth the cost of losing our Historic Downtown identity. There are other ways we as a community can look at to provide affordable housing options perhaps by working with developers and maybe promote diversity by providing incentives to minority businesses to locate in a community that they might want to work and live in. It was shared at the Business Development Commission that there are a couple of sites within the City that are under consideration for development of multi-family housing units. In my mind the opportunity to distribute multi-family housing at any rental or purchase price would be far more desirable spread throughout the City versus 700 plus units in one location and especially one without access to public transportation and/or direct access to an Interstate or State Highway. Based on current conversations in the City, this development has already has stirred up emotions in the community, some good, some not so good. We should be questioning who we are and what we don't want to be. Whether to dream big or keep Webster the same is our choice. But ultimately what we all want and will have to come an agreement on are changes that we can all be proud of, even if it takes a little time to adjust. THIS development is not that change moving forward that I think we will be proud of.  Exhibit B PO Box 483 Shelbina, MO 63468 www.streamteamsunited.org Webster Groves City Council 4 E Lockwood Webster Groves, MO 63119 October 28, 2021 Dear Mayor Welch and Webster Groves Councilmembers, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment about the proposed Old Webster Redevelopment /Douglass Hill Project. The Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition is a non-profit, non- partisan coalition of Missouri Stream Team Associations located throughout the state of Missouri, with eight of our member Associations located in the greater St. Louis area. Missouri Stream Teams are individuals who care about our state’s river and stream resources and volunteer to improve the quality of streams for the benefit of both the aquatic environment and people in the adjacent and downstream communities. Our organization has concern over the proposed development and plans that would disrupt the Shady Creek stream channel, riparian corridor, and create development within the creek’s floodplain. Specifically, a natural creek channel, vegetated riparian corridor, and undeveloped floodplain in an urban environment, such as the proposed site, are valuable resources that should be maintained. Specifically: • Disturbance of the stream channel by modifying the natural channel, concreting, or channelizing the stream is disruptive to the native stream ecosystem and is not beneficial to the aquatic integrity of the stream. • A vegetated riparian buffer of at least 50 feet is critical for maintaining health of the stream’s water quality and aquatic ecosystem. Buffers of this size, for this size of stream, filter pollutants from runoff, slow stormwater, and help reduce downstream flooding. • Development should not occur within a known floodplain. Our state precipitation data is showing that our state is receiving more frequent and more intense rainfalls. Floodplains are the natural areas where rivers and streams can flow out of their banks during high rainfall events, where water is allowed to spread out and dissipate energy, allowing the velocity of water to slow down, and therefore reducing damage from flooding to downstream areas. Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition, DBA Stream Teams United  PO Box 483 Shelbina, MO 63468 www.streamteamsunited.org Intense rainfall events and flooding of communities in the Midwest are becoming more commonplace. The effects of torrential rain events are further exacerbated by poor floodplain and stream corridor management that encroach upon the natural floodplain. The result of stream channel disruption, removal of riparian corridors, and development in floodplains is not only destruction of these important habitats, but also increased flood intensity and flood risk for downstream and adjacent properties. Progressive communities in the Midwest are realizing the flaws of development within floodplains and are taking measures to give the needed room to our rivers and streams, so that future floods will have less destruction on their communities. Also, some communities are now trying to restore stream channels that have been previously damaged by actions that encroach upon and alter the natural stream channel and corridor. The City of Webster Groves should be commended for having in place Stream Buffer Protection Regulations Sections 83.010 through 83.070 for the Code of Webster Groves, which explain the benefits to people and the environment provided by those regulations. The city should ensure that the Stream Buffer Protection Regulations established are followed for the protection of Shady Creek and for the benefit of people downstream. The proposed proximity of the development to the stream will undoubtedly result in a negative impact to the stream and its adjacent corridor. Development within a stream’s floodplain has led to many of the problems we see in communities related to flooding. We encourage the city to maintain a natural, undisturbed stream channel, a vegetated riparian corridor, and space for the stream to flood. Proposals that do not maintain these features are not beneficial to the stream environment and will degrade water quality, aquatic and terrestrial life, and downstream properties. Thank you for your consideration of our comment, Mary Culler, Executive Director mary@streamteamsunited.org Mobile: (573) 586-0747 Office: (660) 284-6185 Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition, DBA Stream Teams United  Exhibit C From: Dave Buck To: Welch, Gerry; Pam Bliss; Alexander, Karen; Richardson, Sarah; Laura W. Arnold; Emerson Smith; David Franklin; Peoples, Marie; Peterson, Eric; njbatty@aol.com; Perry, Mara; Starkey, Jenny; Nakazono, Katie; Conrad, Jennifer; Davis, Scott; Rehg, Todd; Curtis, Dale Cc: Farrell Carfield; simpson.john@wgmail.org; addison.david@wgmail.org; stroble@webster.edu; Mark Hinkle; John Barr; Rev. David Denoon; Sebastian Bellomo; Rebecca Now; Eric Hayes; Perks, Greg; Jaime Mowers Subject: Dave Buck City Council Mtg. "Remarks of Visitors", 11/2/21 Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 2:02:32 PM Caution: This is an External Message - Please be cautious when opening links or attachments Last City Council meeting, a very good former Council member asked, "What's going on at City Hall?" She was obviously entitled to her opinions but I felt her criticisms, prticularly of Marie and Eric, crossed the line in this public forum, especially when they were sitting right there and could not respond because of Council's code of conduct during remarks. However, I must relate that in 2002, I directly criticized the Mayor from this same pulpit and she immediately and forcefully responded and put me in my place. Maybe Council should think about responding once again to criticisms after 19 years. Seating in the audience, the former Council member's comments made me mad, the same kind of mad I felt when Neil was unjustly jumped on & dumped on after his hiring as City Attorney two years ago. As such, I would like to share a different perspective. I have lived in Webster Groves for 20 years and yesterday was one of my best days ever, as Marie asked me to serve on the panel of 7 to help interview the 5 finalists for Fire Chief. Thank YOU, Marie! This was the first time in 20 years that anyone from City Hall has asked me to participate in anything! The day could not have gone better. The process was flawless & fun, everyone played a role, the candidates were AWESOME, and Eric was our good shepherd dressed in, YES, casual attire! So, what's going at City Hall? Leadership, that's what, provided in large part by Marie and Eric. I am a "promote from within" guy and I was a little suspect when Marie and Eric were brought in from the outside. But no longer. Because, in a very short period of time and from one resident's perspective, they have worked tirelessly to elevate City Hall's leadership, sound thinking, discipline, organization, coordination, communication, technology, processes and ACTION in tackling the city's top challenges and moving forward, from the annual budget, diversity, equity & inclusion work, first time ever strategic planning, Douglass Hill, the TIF Commission, to the Fire Chief search. What's abundantly clear to me is that they, like Neil before them, have earned our trust, they know what they are doing, they are doing a great job and we are lucky to have them on our side. That's what is going on at City Hall and I, for one, cannot wait to see what's next. So, Marie, Eric and Neil, my hat is off to you. Thank YOU.  Exhibit D DETERMINATION AND CERTIFICATION REGARDING CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION Having received on October 8, 2021, a petition consisting of 99 pages to request that two Charter Amendments related to Article 11 and Article 15 of the City Charter be submitted to a vote of the electors per Section 15.21 Amending the Charter, by the power specified in the City Charter, the City Clerk of the City of Webster Groves hereby determines and certifies that this charter amendment petition is procedurally legally sufficient under the City Charter, however, the petition subject matter is under review by the City Attorney, and an opinion will be rendered at the November 2, 2021 City Council meeting. The petition contains the applicable Charter sections, contains the names, signatures, and residence addresses of at least 10 percent (428) of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election of the City on April 7, 2020 (conducted on June 2, 2020 due to COVID) (4,271) and contains proper statements of the circulators. The Board of Election Commissioners office of St. Louis County has examined 816 signatures on the petition, and has determined that 782 are registered voters in good standing residing within the City of Webster Groves, a number in excess of the number required. Attached is the determination of the voter registration status of each signatory to the petition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Webster Groves at this office, #4 E. Lockwood Avenue, Webster Groves, MO 63119, this 21st day of October 2021. CITY MAJ:,IA.Gll.R CITY CLERK l'lNA.NCll l'UllLLC.W-.ORKS PWl.fil,IJNG fQI.J.CE .l'.IBll PARKS& RECREATION 4 E l.OCJ..WOOD AVE. 4 E. LOCKWOOD AVE. 4 E. LOCKWOOD AVE 4 E. LOCKWOOD AVE. 4 E. LOCKWOOD AVE. 4S. EI..M AVE. 6S. ELM AVE 33 E. GLENDALE (314) 963 5303 (314) 963-5319 (314) 963-5324 (314) 963 5315 ( 314) 963-5332 (314) 645-3000 (314) 645-3000 (314) 963 5600 �AX 96.1 3398 FAX 963-7561 FAX 963-7561 FAX 963 5399 FAX 963-7561 FAX 962 6204 FAX 962 4504 FAX 963-5685 Webster Groves, MO 63119  COUNTY ROBERT L. CHAMBERS Chair Saint Louis PATRICIA YAEGER Secretary MARSHA E. HAEFNER FLORENCE HILL Commissioner Commissioner ELECTION BOARD RICK STREAM ERIC FEY Director of Elections Director of Elections Results for City of Webster Groves Petition to Amend City Charter Total Pages Submitted 99 Total Lines Submitted 829 Total Signatures Submitted 816 Minimum Signature Requirement 428 Accepted Signature Reasons Registered Voter 780 Registered Voter at Different Address 2 Total Accepted Signatures 782 Rejected Line Reasons No Signature 6 Crossed Out 6 Missing Address 0 Blank 1 Total Rejected Lines 13 Rejected Signature Reasons Not Registered in St. Louis County 14 Registered Outside of District 11 Duplicate 2 Exceeded allowed sig on Grouped Petition 0 Wrong Signature 7 Wrong Address 0 Total Rejected Signatures 34 �-;;r- y--- Signature of Election Official(s) &�� Date BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS 725 Northwest Plaza Drive• St. Ann, MO 63074 • PH 314/615-VOTE • FAX 314/615-1999 Relay MO 711 or 800-735-2966 • web www.stlouiscountymovotes.gov