City Council - Regular Meetings

CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES December 7, 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 7:30 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 A motion was made by Councilmember Arnold, seconded by Councilmember Franklin, to move the Remarks of Visitors portion of the agenda to after Unfinished Business. Mayor Welch called for the vote to move Remarks of Visitors on the agenda. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that Remarks of Visitors would be moved to after Unfinished Business. PUBLIC HEARING 55 West Moody: An Application by Sunshine Peak, LLC for a Change of Zoning from “D” Commercial to “PC” Planned Commercial District on an Approximately 1.3 Acre Tract of Land Located at the Following Addresses: 55 W. Moody Avenue and 34 N. Gore Avenue Mayor Welch opened the public hearing, and Mara Perry, Director of Planning and Development, gave a presentation. [Exhibit A- Copy in City Clerk’s office] on the proposed change in zoning. She stated that it came out of Plan Commission with an 8-0 vote to move it forward to Council. Ms. Perry explained the existing zoning of the property [See Exhibit A, page 2]. Most of what the applicant wants to do is already allowed under the Code. The reason for the change in zoning is specifically to ask for two uses that are not included. She reviewed surrounding uses, the history of the property, and existing conditions [See Exhibit A, page 2-3]. She reviewed the Comprehensive Plan analysis and the Zoning Analysis [See Exhibit A, page 4]. Permitted uses are to be requested from “C” and “D” Commercial District regulations [See Exhibit A, page 5]. The only drive-thru would be the ATM. December 7, 2021 Councilmember Franklin asked about parking. Ms. Perry explained the parking restrictions and requirements. Ms. Perry reviewed recommended setbacks, height, and intensity of use [See Exhibit A, page 6- 7]. Ms. Perry reviewed parking recommendations [See Exhibit A, page 8-10]. She stated that parking is a really delicate balance right now. She reviewed access and circulation [See Exhibit A, page 10-11]. There is a lot of flexibility in this, we are not saying this is exactly where ingress and egress will be. She reviewed tree preservation and landscaping, and stated that they will have to meet the current requirements. They are not asking for a reduction. She reviewed performance standards, the ARB, and Historic Preservation [See Exhibit A, page 11-12]. A question was asked about lot coverage and stormwater. Ms. Perry stated that we are trying to add additional information to the Code on pervious pavers and green roofs. Ms. Perry reviewed staff recommendations [See Exhibit A, page 12-14]. Morry Cole, applicant, stated that when you hear Sunshine Peak LLC, what you're really hearing is me and my wife Elizabeth. We're 20-year Webster residents. Three kids here in the Webster Groves schools. I'm not sure exactly how I drew tonight for our modest project. Being mindful of the 90 people on zoom and folks here I’ll be very very brief. I'd like to offer my compliments to Mara Perry and also particularly Danny Jendusa. They are very user friendly and have helped neophyte folks like this get to you with relative efficiency. Our goal here is to eliminate an obsolete motorbank and do something complimentary for our hometown. We believe this accomplishes that. I know you have a long evening in front of you and a lot of fellow citizens participating so I’ll be quiet and just answer any questions that you may have for me. Dave Buck, 124 S. Elm, stated he’s said it before, communities and their people move forward at the speed of trust. If there is no trust there is no progress. I have known Morry a long time. I trust him implicitly. I think this would be a great development. Chris Earp stated that he has previously come before the Council and said he is not against development, however, in this case, I think this could be a strong project. As this develops I urge Mr. Cole and the Plan Commission and others that this will impact the back yards of the people living on Marshall Place. Please remember sound and light levels. I look forward to monitoring this project as it progresses. Councilmember Alexander asked about the makeup of the buildings. Mr. Cole stated that preliminarily they anticipate each residential unit will be approximately 1,475 square feet. These are planned as condominiums. City Attorney Neil Bruntrager entered the following into the public record: 1. Plan Commission staff report by Danny Jendusa, Planner, for meeting date Nov. 8, 2021 2. Applicant’s written statement, proposed uses and Preliminary Development Plan description 3. ALTA/ACSM Land Survey Title, with subject properties highlighted 4. Conceptual site plan and floor plans 2 December 7, 2021 5. Photos of architectural concept examples 6. Parking study, November 2, 2021 7. Draft Minutes of the November 8, 2021 Plan Commission meeting 8. Director of Planning and Development’s Powerpoint before the City Council December 7, 2021 9. Zoning Code of the City of Webster Groves Mayor Welch stated that the Public Hearing was closed. BILL #9175 – FIRST & SECOND READING Councilmember Richardson introduced BILL #9175 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 53, THE ZONING CODE, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM “D” COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO “PC” PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 55 W. MOODY AVENUE AND 34 N. GORE AVE., ON AN APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO, and at the Councilmember’s request, the Bill was read twice, first and second times by title only, and placed on the agenda for future consideration of the Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS BILL #9166 – THIRD READING On motion of Councilmember Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Arnold, 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, having been introduced and read twice on November 2, 2021, was taken up its title read a third time and placed upon its passage to become Ordinance #9166. Mayor Welch called for the vote on Bill #9166. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: NONE NOES: BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, ARNOLD, WELCH 3 December 7, 2021 Mayor Welch stated that Bill #9166 failed. Prior to the vote on Bill #9166, Councilmembers made the following statements: Councilmember Bliss read a statement [See Exhibit B]. Councilmember Franklin stated, I just want to begin first by thanking our city staff from Dr. Peoples to Neil to Eric to Mara and her team, to every board and commission that weighed in on this to the TIF Commission. I think throughout this process we've demonstrated that we have some very highly qualified intelligent, creative city employees and we should be grateful and thankful for that. And we should reward them as we go forward because what makes this city churn on a daily basis are the city's staff. I also want to thank the SG Collaborative team for coming forward despite how I’m going to vote. SG Collaborative engaged with us - I think that's a process and a paradigm that Webster has not seen in quite some time. I also want to thank the citizens of Webster Groves for getting engaged and staying engaged throughout this process. Obviously, the importance of what our community looks like is of the utmost value and character to this Council as we determine how we should vote. I encourage you to stay involved and to keep voicing your opinions as to what you want to see and what you don't want to see. You know there's a lot that could be said about the negatives throughout this process, but frankly I look at this entire process and see a really well-functioning government, a Council that has attempted at every level to engage with the citizens and to hear from them in order that we come to the right vote. I think that Webster Groves has demonstrated that we are a city open for development, open for new ideas - they just have to fit what Webster residents want. So, I think we have a bright future here in Webster Groves and we have that bright future because of all of you the citizens and because of the leadership in this city. And so with that I will vote no on this proposal. Councilmember Smith stated that before I take my vote I want to make sure that we do understand what we are now voting for. Listening to the citizens and the neighbors of Webster is what we're here to do. That's our job to listen to what you say you want in your city. Throughout this development it showed us some imperfections that we had. We need to fix the flooding. We need to fix the traffic. We need to fix all the negative concepts that were brought up in this development agreement. Now as Webster we need to roll up our sleeves and get that done. I think we had a preliminary cost of fixing the culvert where the flooding is like $1.25 million. So somewhere along the line Webster Groves must come up with that to fix it. The Old Community Church is still there and so nothing would happen -- it would still remain flooding. The residents in that area on Gore, they're going to still experience flooding. So, since this was not the objective of the community to do this development, so we can have a current revenue stream for future Webster and have our business development improve, we must roll up our sleeves and do what we need to do to provide the funding to get some of these things done. So when it comes time for us to come to the residents for specific funding for specific projects to solve some of these issues like the parking, the traffic, the flooding, we need to become Webster and vote in favor of these items. I am supportive of the development because I look for the future of Webster. You know I probably might not be here in 20 or 25 years but I think we're laying a strong foundation for the future of Webster. Some things that I did on my own for us -- it was about two three years ago our children graduated from our schools. They graduate and they stay away they don't come back. You know we lose almost 2,000 or 2,500 students a year just to that. So following Pam's comments that she made I'd be looking 4 December 7, 2021 forward to working with the residents of Webster so that we can solve some of these problems that came up during this process. But my vote is no. Councilmember Alexander stated good evening and thank you to the City Councilmembers. Thank you to our city administrator Dr. Peoples, our staff, and thank you to the citizens of Webster. Like many of you, my family has lived here for a long time. For 57 years. I've listened to the plans I've listened to the citizens and I think many of us agree we are not against redevelopment in this area. We want to see redevelopment, but this is not the redevelopment that many of us want to see. I've been told and it's been said repeatedly that if we don't do this we won't do anything. I refuse to accept that. I believe that we have enough of a desire, enough talent, and enough will to pull together as a community and to determine what's possible in terms of redevelopment. So for that reason I am not voting for this development. My vote is no. I look forward to working with the community and the citizens on what's possible for the city. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson stated yes, I just want to say that for me this last year has been a process of watching good faith engagement from all sides. In addition to some of the maybe less good faith engagement we've seen. But I've seen city staff dedicate numerous extra hours. Our new City Manager who walked into this project not knowing what she would be getting into necessarily, and our assistant City Manager who have provided over and over again the expertise and the time that we've asked of them. In addition to the rest of our city staff and Mara Perry in particular. We are so lucky in this city to have these people here and that's the main thing I want people to take away. We're also really lucky to have a group of citizens who can engage and can organize and can say to the Council this is not what we want. That's something else we don't take for granted that matters a lot to me and so I see you and I hear you and I also really appreciate the good faith effort by the developers who live in Webster and who want what's best for the future of Webster Groves as well. This has been an educational process for all of us. It's been a hard process it's been I would think a lot of sleepless nights for many of us in trying to determine what really is the best plan for Webster Groves. This is not an easy question and so for those of you who think this is crazy that we're even considering it, I ask you to think again. We have to consider these kinds of ideas and we have to start really thinking about the future of Webster Groves but unfortunately we are not ready. I echo many of the comments of my fellow Councilmembers who I also really appreciate and respect the way that they have taken on this challenge in this project and really seen it through in terms of making the best decision possible. But I also will vote no. Councilmember Arnold read a statement [see Exhibit C]. Mayor Welch stated that I will echo a lot of the thank yous here for everyone who participated in this proposal. I want to thank SG Collaborative for coming forward for responding to the RFP and for putting all of their interest and time in this and certainly our staff. Again, I echo everyone's thanks to the staff. To my fellow Councilmembers and to our residents you know I've been around for a long time but this has drawn more community interest than anything I have ever seen over the decades. And what is really a bit heartwarming to me is that people have been very respectful during this process. We've been respectful of each other's opinions and with very very few exceptions people have worked hard at thinking this through and talking with each other. You know there are a lot of things here I think part of what happened here was that this project is misaligned with our community values. There are things that we value here you know. We're a 5 December 7, 2021 community of small businesses and the loss of so many of the businesses in that area with the possibility of eminent domain I think was misaligned for us. We love our neighborhoods and the prospect of traffic and destruction from construction was really difficult. We value our natural assets. Shady Creek is something that a lot of communities would love to have. This is our only water stream in this community and the value of that cannot be denied and I think that had an impact here too. Finally, I think there's a lot positive to come from this project. I see this community coming alive with really good ideas for appropriate projects in the redevelopment area, including a conversation I had this afternoon with a proposal that really surfaced because people got involved. We've learned a lot. I think people have participated in government processes and I hope people don't go home and say I'm done because local government is all about participation from all of you. So while this is a disappointment to so many people this really is a process that brought a lot of increased understanding and participation and I'm pretty hopeful that all this creativity is going to result in something positive for the community and with that I vote no also BILL #9172 - THIRD READING On motion of Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Bliss, BILL #9172 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LOT SPLIT DIVISION OF LAND AT 402 E. GLENDALE ROAD, ZONED “A4” SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL, having been introduced and read twice on November 16, 2021, was taken up its title read a third time and placed upon its passage to become Ordinance #9172. Mayor Welch called for the vote on Bill #9172. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that Bill #9172 was approved. REMARKS OF VISITORS Dave Buck read a statement [See Exhibit D]. Jackie Olson, 318 Simmons, stated that she wanted to implore all of you not to take away the Saint Louis Gym Center by eminent domain. I won't go down that road. I want to thank you all for your public service. I know it's very hard, and I can see that thi s has been a difficult project for all. So, thank you for the work that you're doing for our communities. Councilmember Smith, I heard everything you said about we still need to fix these problems, and, if we the community can help in any way let's get together and do that. Thank you each of you, and Mayor Welch you were the one person that did respond to my letter in the last two weeks, and I was quite impressed to have gotten a response from you, and thank you all for your votes tonight I appreciate it thank you. Mayor Welch stated that I think we've all had so many emails, and letters, and I think on behalf of all of us I apologize for any of them that we missed because there were days when there were 50 emails that popped up, and sometimes it was just hard to answer all of them. 6 December 7, 2021 Ralph Hoffsten, 629 W. Kirkham, stated that I was taken by the comments of Mr. Franklin, and other people about something positive. I don't know if this is feasible, but it seemed to me that what the school district did [regarding elementary school redistricting] -- I know it displeased a lot of people. They didn't want their kids to walk, whatever it was, but it worked, and it worked because let's say they were patient. Now this is not a small development, I mean we were talking about something big the school district moving buildings around and that, but it worked because they took the time and there was a constant feedback process and then it came down to two choices that was months after that, and that was something import ant. This thing that happened -- this big project took months and months too, but the feeling was always that we were never in the loop, and that the email comments went into this deep vat . I'm glad to hear the comments were read, so I will continue to hope for the best. And I’d like to take part, like many others. Bud Bellomo, 118 Summit Ave., stated he was disappointed, as you know, just a little bit of history for the folks up here, we started this when I was on the City Council, and the Mayor and I are the only ones in here from that original beginning of this whole thing years ago, but I understand you worked hard, I understand the issues in the community. I was hoping for a different outcome because I think this is a very important thing for the futu re of the City. A very important thing. The thing I disagree to some extent is what Laura says, that I don't believe anybody else is going to be interested in developing this, but what I want to say to finish just quickly is that I appreciate the work you've gone through, and really do appreciate that the work of the people that were against the project from the start, from the start of the information flow at least they worked hard, and they were very successful at getting the outcome they wanted. So my view now is it's done it's over let's get on with business and look for the future. Thank you. Larry Chapman stated, good evening everyone, let me just say this, I of course respect your decision, and the one thing that I'm disappointed in is that in all this time that we've spent over the last two years, the one thing we never heard was what you would accept. Yes, I told you that for all the things we were giving this was as far as we could go, but I never once heard, well this would be okay, and this would be okay, I just didn't. If you could show me where that was done, and we could have tried to accommodate, but it didn't. So, if you're going to go forward you're going to need to send a clear message to others of what you will be willing to accept and allow to go forward because without that I don't know how you're going to attract anybody. I just don't. It's very complicated. It's super expensive. We had to spend more than a million dollars just to get you the information that you wanted. Other people are going to have to do that too. How are you going to encourage them to do that, if they don't know what is going to be okay? So the first thing you need to do is encourage all of you to put together a set of things that are in fact acceptable so that yo u can actually get somebody to come to the table. Because without it, I don't think you're going to get anybody. As much as you believe that, I just don't think you are. That's 42 years of experience in this business talking. So appreciate what you've all done. Have a good evening. Thank you. The Mayor stated, Mr. Chapman, thank you very much for all your efforts. David Suttle, 2386 Robertsville Rd, stated that many of you may know me from Suttle Mindlin, the design firm, that was here many years, and my partner was on the Architectural 7 December 7, 2021 Review Board. We love Webster Groves. We did the Straub’s redo, and on the corner the bank, and love the streets and the character of the city. Having said that, proposing a major development in a community like this is just very difficult. It's a horrendous thing to do, and as has been said the amount of effort and money that it takes to do it, and you come up with an answer like this, I would say that from experience in Highland Park , Illinois, the city paid for all of the structured parking and therefore the development that built on top of it could be affordable. So there's going to have to be give, to get what you want, a bit smaller, a bit more this and that. It doesn't happen, because people have to make money at what they're doing, and you can't just tell somebody to make a park out of it, and it'll be what the community wants. So it's a real challenge, but I know that from a density point, and all of these things that you're talking about, that'll take care of itself. The one thing I would like to suggest, and I haven't looked at the plan, other than just a simple view, the plan that shows the meandering street and so forth, I think the most important thing to me as a planner is to look at how the existing city has a continuous unbroken fabric that connects whatever is new, with the old. The minute you stop and put a break in a shopping street or a mall or anything else -- people just stop. There's no continuity. So to worship at the altar of continuity of sidewalk s, amenities, retail, whatever, that's important -- I would suggest that it seems difficult to have a single street paralleling the existing street -- doesn't exactly suggest that maybe it could happen, however continuing that great effort the grid of the streets, of the city pulling the two together might be a place to start. I haven't studied it, but those are my thoughts, and I wish you the very best because we love the city. Thank you. Jean Hudson stated that I have nothing but accolades for you all. I hate that it has been so arduous. You all are worn out, but so are we -- going back and forth and not knowing which way we were going from time to time. I applaud each of you. I know your decision was very hard tonight. Laura something you said before really stuck with me, it's not that we didn't want it, it was too big for where it was, and the TIF bothered me, in that the night of January the 1st you won't be able to get TIF in a floodplain. I don't know about planning, I don't know about building, I don't have to worry about it, because I live in the historic district, and you're not coming to my area, you're not going to go to the Park, you're not going to involve any of us, but it did not mean we didn't care, and it did not mean because we were not going to be involved that we're not here tonight -- because we all care about Webster, and you're right we've got to put our minds together and figure out what we're going to do, but two stories underneath, and great gigantic buildings looking at each other, and our poor little shady creek, without our deer and our little turtle and beaver, and whatever, and goats eating up the vegetation. Like I said there's so many of us who were not involved -- you're not coming to my area -- it's coming down Kirkham, coming down on those little homes. You made it arduous, not you all, I'm not employing each one of you did it, but you made it arduous for those people to do certain things in that area. I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart because I know this has been a long arduous process and thank you for listening to the people who love and will support you in this community. Thank you. Mary Becker on zoom said she hit the wrong button, but would like to thank you for all your work. 8 December 7, 2021 NEW BUSINESS A motion was made by Councilmember Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Arnold, to postpone indefinitely Bill #9169, #9170, and #9171. Mayor Welch called for the vote to indefinitely postpone Bills #9169, #9170, and #9171. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN NOES: SMITH Mayor Welch stated that Bill #9169, 9170, and 9171 would be postponed indefinitely. BILL #9169 – FIRST AND SECOND READING – NOT READ – POSTPONED INDEFINITELY #9169 – AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING A PORTION OF THE CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES, MISSOURI, AS A REDEVELOPMENT AREA; APPROVING THE DOUGLASS HILL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1 AND ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WITH RESPECT THERETO; MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS BY CITY OFFICIALS BILL #9170 – FIRST AND SECOND READING - NOT READ – POSTPONED INDEFINITELY BILL #9170 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 2 OF THE DOUGLASS HILL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WITH RESPECT THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS BY CITY OFFICIALS BILL #9171 – FIRST AND SECOND READING - NOT READ – POSTPONED INDEFINITELY BILL #9171 – AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 3 OF THE DOUGLASS HILL TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WITH RESPECT THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS BY CITY OFFICIALS BILL #9173 – FIRST AND SECOND READING Councilmember Bliss introduced BILL #9173 – AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES, MISSOURI, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SUBMISSION OF A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES, MISSOURI, ON APRIL 5, 2022, TO CONSIDER IMPOSING A LOCAL USE TAX AT THE SAME RATE AS THE LOCAL SALES TAX OF THE CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES, MISSOURI, FOR PURCHASES FROM OUT- OF-STATE VENDORS, and at the Councilmember’s request, the Bill was read twice, first and second times by title only, and placed on the agenda for future consideration of the Council. 9 December 7, 2021 Resolution #2021-67 – Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase an Ambulance for the Fire Department A motion was made by Councilmember Arnold, seconded by Councilmember Franklin, to approve Resolution #2021-67. Fire Captain Grossenheider gave a brief presentation on the new ambulance. Councilmember Franklin clarified that this is a replacement, not an additional ambulance. Mayor Welch called for the vote on Resolution #2021-67. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that Resolution #2021-67 was approved. BILL #9174 – FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #9151 DEFINING THE COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN SAID CLASSIFICATIONS A motion was made by Councilmember Arnold, seconded by Councilmember Bliss, to conduct all three readings of Bill #9174 this evening, due to the compelling reason that this was a pending personnel matter that needs to be resolved. Mayor Welch called for the vote. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: RICHARDSON, WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that all three readings of Bill #9174 would be conducted this evening. BILL #9174 was read twice, on December 7, 2021, first and second times by title only, and placed on the agenda for future consideration of the Council, and then was taken up its title read a third time on December 7, 2021, and placed upon its passage to become Ordinance #9174. Mayor Welch called for the vote on Bill #9174. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: WELCH, ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that Bill #9174 was approved. CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Councilmember Alexander, seconded by Councilmember Arnold, to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Welch called for the vote on the Consent Agenda. MEMBERS VOTING: AYES: ARNOLD, BLISS, FRANKLIN, SMITH, ALEXANDER, RICHARDSON, WELCH NOES: NONE Mayor Welch stated that the Consent Agenda was approved. 10  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 December 7, 2021 City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody First and Second Reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 53, The Zoning Code, by Changing the Zoning from “D” Commercial District to “PC” Planned Commercial District and Approving a Preliminary Development Plan at 55 W. Moody Avenue and 34 N. Gore Avenue, on an Approximately 1.3 Acre Tract of Land and Matters Related Thereto. 1  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Existing Zoning – “D” Commercial District Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Surrounding Uses – • Old Webster • Office, restaurants, retail, personal services, etc. • Banks • Elementary school and place of worship • Surface parking and structured parking • Union Pacific Railroad 2  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody History– • Subject properties zoned “E” Industrial from 1923 to 1983 • Existing office building at 34 N Gore built ca 1880 • Drive-thru bank teller structure at 55 W Moody built in 1973 • Subject properties rezoned to “D” Commercial District in 1983 • Sept 2019, Bank of America closed their business license with the City of Webster Groves. The timing for the non-conforming use of the ATM facility is tied to when the business is no longer operating within the City. That use expired in September 2020. Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Existing Conditions – Looking at 34 N Gore from SW Looking at 55 W Moody from SW Looking at 55 W Moody from South Looking at 55 W Moody from SE 3  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Comprehensive Plan Analysis – • General Objective is the “…development and maintenance of a residential community” • Mixed use in Old Webster Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Zoning Analysis – • “PC” Planned Commercial Districts allow for integrated mixed use districts • Districtsare to be developed according to a Development Plan referred to the City Plan Commission for study, public hearing and approval 4  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Use – • Permitted Uses are to be requested from the “C” and “D” Commercial District regulations. a. Multiple Family Dwelling for up to seventeen (17) dwelling units b. Accessory Parking Lot c. Art Gallery d. Art Studio e. Bakery, retail f. Coffee Shop, no drive-thru g. Financial Institution, drive-thru h. Office for the conduct of any lawful business or professional pursuit i. Parking garage j. Personal Services k. Retail Sales Establishment, no drive-thru Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Use – • Staff recommends requiring all non-residential uses at 55 W Moody Ave to be restricted to the first story • Maximum 5,000 sqft commercial use at 55 W Moody • Reduction of 2 dwelling units for every 1,000 sqft of commercial use at 55 W Moody 5  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Dimensional Regulations– Setbacks • Staff recommends maintaining the “D” Commercial District regulations on setbacks and yard projections at 34 N Gore Ave. • At 55 W Moody, staff recommends maintaining the “D” Commercial District regulations on side and rear yard setbacks • 55 W Moody front setback • 15-ft, if incorporating functional front balconies w/ up to 5ft projection • 10-ft, if no front balconies Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Dimensional Regulations– Height • Staff recommends maintaining “D” Commercial District regulations on height, allowing a maximum height of four(4) stories and fifty-six (56)-ft • To establish the desired massing and scale, staff also recommends establishing a minimum allowable building height of two (2) stories 6  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Formula Calculation Preliminary Dimensional Regulations– Development Intensity of Use Plan Lot Coverage Building 15,981 sq ft/ 34.44% Lot Footprints 46,409 sq ft lot Coverage • Lot coverage is the percentage divided by of the exterior footprint of Total Lot Area buildings in relation to total area Floor-Area Ratio Total Adjusted 39,733 sq ft/ 0.86 Floor-Area Gross Floor Area 46,409 sq ft lot Ratio of the lot divided by Total Lot Area • Floor area ratio is the ratio of Minimum Land Total Lot Area 46,409 sq ft / 2,730 sq ft Land Area divided by 17 dwelling units Area per Dwelling internal gross floor area of # of Dwelling Unit buildings in relation to total area Units of the lot • Minimum land area per dwelling unit is the lot area divided by the number of dwelling units Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Formula Calculation Preliminary Dimensional Regulations– Development Intensity of Use Plan Lot Coverage Building 15,981 sq ft/ 34.44% Lot Footprints 46,409 sq ft lot Coverage • The “D” Commercial District divided by does not establish maximum or Total Lot Area minimum allowable lot Floor-Area Ratio Total Adjusted 39,733 sq ft/ 0.86 Floor-Area Gross Floor Area 46,409 sq ft lot Ratio coverage, FAR, or minimum land divided by area per dwelling unit Total Lot Area Minimum Land Total Lot Area 46,409 sq ft / 2,730 sq ft Land Area divided by 17 dwelling units Area per Dwelling • Staff recommendations: # of Dwelling Unit • Max lot coverage of 40% in Units PC District • Max Floor area ratio of 1.0 in PC District • No set minimum land area per dwelling unit • Maximum 5,000 sqft commercial use at 55 W Moody 7  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Parking – • 54 existing off street surface parking spaces at 55 W Moody and 14 existing off street surface parking spaces at 75 W Lockwood, used by existing office tenants at 34 N Gore and 75 W Lockwood • 34 currently leased • Up to 46 leased historically Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Parking – • 72 off street surface parking spaces to be provided at 55 W Moody • 40 surface parking spaces • 32 structured parking spaces • 14 existing off street surface parking spaces at 75 W Moody • Total of 86 off street parking spaces to be made available to tenants at subject properties + offices at 75 W Lockwood 8  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Parking – Use Type City Code Requested Units Recommended • 72 off street surface parking Parking Standard Parking Spaces spaces to be provided at 55 W Multiple 1.5 parking spaces 17 dwelling units 25 parking spaces Moody Family per dwelling unit Dwelling • 40 surface parking spaces Requested 1 parking space for 8,233 sq ft & 73 parking spaces • 32 structured parking spaces Commercial every 300 sq ft gross 13,919 sq ft • 14 existing off street surface Uses floor area commercial floor area parking spaces at 75 W Moody Total: 98 parking spaces needed • Total of 86 off street parking spaces to be made available to tenants at subject properties + offices at 75 W Lockwood Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Parking – Use Type City Code Requested Units Recommended • The applicant has requested a Parking Standard Parking Spaces parking reduction of twelve (12) Multiple 1.5 parking spaces 17 dwelling units 25 parking spaces parking spaces, or approximately Family per dwelling unit Dwelling 12%, citing the following reasons: Requested 1 parking space for 8,233 sq ft & 73 parking spaces • The amount of common space Commercial every 300 sq ft gross 13,919 sq ft found in the buildings Uses floor area commercial floor area • The historic parking lease Total: 98 parking arrangements at 34 N Gore and spaces needed 75 W Lockwood which have utilized only forty-six (46) spaces at peak • The potential for shared parking between office users during the day and residents at night • Six (6) additional bicycle parking spaces beyond the minimum required two (2) spaces to offset three (3) vehicle parking spaces 9  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Parking – • Based on a review of the mix of uses, the shared parking in the “D” Commercial District and the Parking Study, Staff recommends approval of a maximum parking reduction of twenty (20) percent. The parking required will be based on the uses submitted with the final development plan. Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Access and Circulation – • A single curb cut and drive aisle on the west end of the site • One way drive aisle for the drive- thru ATM station. • Access to the development will need to meet standard access and circulation calculations, including minimum turning radius into the development and parking structures, as reviewed during the Final Development Plan and building permit review stages. 10  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Access and Circulation – • Public Works noted that the applicant will need to add a new street curb along the north frontage of 55 W Moody and sidewalk may need to be replaced to meet city standards • The drive aisle for the drive-thru ATM should be striped and/or signage added to prevent vehicles from entering the wrong way. • Staff also recommends incorporating an outer lane to any drive-thru lane of at least eight (8) feet width to allow for emergency exit of vehicles in the queue. Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Tree Preservation and Landscaping- • Per the Tree and Landscape Ordinance, a set formula of landscaping will be required based on several factors integral to the Final Development Plan. • A set amount of landscaping and trees based on the amount of building footprint facing streets, sidewalks and parking areas • Minimum landscape buffer around the perimeter of surface parking lots • Minimum number of landscaped islands within every set linear feet of parking rows • Screening around proposed trash enclosures and exterior mechanical equipment areas • Only approved plant types and species will qualify as fulfilling the landscaping requirements where necessary. 11  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Performance Standards – • Staff recommends applying the Performance Standards of the adjacent “D” Commercial District. Architectural Review Board – • Renderings are conceptual. Final elevations will be required to go through ARB Historic Preservation– • 34 N Gore Ave is located within the Old Webster local and National Register Historic Districts and would require Historic Preservation Commission for any demolition. • 55 W Moody is not within a historic district. Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Recommendation – Staff recommends approval of the application of the rezoning and preliminary development plan. Should the Plan Commission wish to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, staff would recommend the following conditions to be placed on the request for a Change of Zoning: 1. All provisions of the City Code shall apply except as expressly modified in this Ordinance No. 9175. 2. The permitted uses for the “PC” Planned Commercial District shall be limited as follows: a. Multiple Family Dwelling for up to seventeen (17) dwelling units b. Accessory Parking Lot c. Art Gallery d. Art Studio e. Bakery, retail f. Coffee Shop, no drive-thru g. Financial Institution, drive-thru h. Office for the conduct of any lawful business or professional pursuit i. Parking garage j. Personal Services k. Retail Sales Establishment, no drive-thru 12  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Recommendation – Staff recommends approval of the application of the rezoning and preliminary development plan. Should the Plan Commission wish to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, staff would recommend the following conditions to be placed on the request for a Change of Zoning: 3. Should commercial square footage be developed on the first floor of the structure proposed at 55 W. Moody Avenue, a reduction of the allowable number of dwelling units will be two (2) dwelling units for every 1,000 sq ft of commercial use added. 4. All non-residential uses shall be limited to the 34 N. Gore Avenue structure; the drive-thru ATM and not to exceed 5,000 square feet of the first floor of the new structure proposed at 55 W. Moody Avenue. 5. Every use shall be so operated in compliance with the Performance Standards of the “D” Commercial District. 6. Total gross floor area of all structures within the “PC” Planned Commercial District shall not exceed floor area ratio of 1.0. Structured parking accessory to the development shall not be included into the gross floor area calculation. 7. Total site coverage of all structures within the “PC” Planned Commercial District shall not exceed 40% 8. The height of all structures shall not exceed four (4) stories nor be less than two (2) stories Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Recommendation Continued – Should the Plan Commission wish to forward this to the City Council with a recommendation of approval staff would recommend the following conditions to be placed on this rezoning: 9. Parking for each permitted use including 75 W. Lockwood Ave. shall be calculated per Section 53.180 et. seq. of the Zoning Code with a maximum twenty (20) percent reduction of the total required amount of parking and should 75 W. Lockwood Ave. be moved to a separate owner a shared parking agreement must be acquired for 55 W. Moody. 10. A minimum of eight (8) bicycle parking spaces shall be established, in accordance with the city’s bicycle parking facility design standards. 11. A minimum of two (2) vehicle stacking spaces shall be provided in the drive-thru lane behind the ATM station. A minimum eight (8)-ft wide additional outer drive lane shall be provided along the ATM drive-thru lane to allow for emergency exit of vehicles in the queue 12. All structures shall follow the “D” Commercial District setbacks with the exception of the following: a. A front building line of no greater than or less than fifteen (15) feet from the front property line with functional open, unenclosed, and uncovered front balconies allowed to project up to five (5) feet beyond the fifteen (15)-ft front building line at 55 W Moody Ave. b. If functional front balconies are not incorporated into the design, a front building line of no greater than or less than ten (10) feet from the front property line shall be met at 55 W Moody Ave. 13  Exhibit A 12/7/2021 Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Recommendation Continued – Should the Plan Commission wish to forward this to the City Council with a recommendation of approval staff would recommend the following conditions to be placed on this rezoning: 13. Any retaining wall that is greater than three (3) feet and less than six (6) feet and used to elevate a site above the finished grade of a neighboring property shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from a side or rear property line. Any retaining wall that is six (6) feet in height or greater and used to elevate a site above the finished grade of a neighboring property shall be located within the buildable area of the lot. 14. Signage: All signage shall follow Chapter 54 Sign Code. Any requested sign package shall follow Section 54.103. 15. Lighting: a. A lighting plan shall be reviewed with the Final Development Plan approval meeting all lighting requirements in the Building Code. b. Light fixtures, whether stand alone or attached to the building shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. 16. Opportunities for recycling shall be provided in the development. 17. Any restrictive gates or similar devices, either temporary or permanent, shall be accessible by the Fire Department at all times. Any padlocks must be able to be opened with Knox key (Knox lock). Any restrictive gates or similar devices shall only be permitted after the review and approval of the Fire Chief. 18. Additional fire hydrants, sprinkler, standpipes, Knox boxes and Knox locks shall be installed throughout the site at the direction of the Fire Chief. Bill #9175 Public Hearing – First & Second Reading City Council 21-PC-08 55 West Moody Recommendation Continued – Should the Plan Commission wish to forward this to the City Council with a recommendation of approval staff would recommend the following conditions to be placed on this rezoning: 19. The Fire Department shall have full access to the building during all phases of construction. 20. Any driveways or entrances/exits and canopies shall be able to accommodate the Webster Groves Fire Department ambulance and other emergency vehicles. 21. All curb cuts and driveway approaches on W. Moody Avenue shall be to City standards and meet ADA requirements. 22. A 6" barrier curb shall be installed along the north street frontage of W Moody Ave to match opposite side of street. 23. On-street parking spaces on W. Moody Avenue shall be striped at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. 24. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained with a Final Landscaping Plan in accordance with city standards. 25. All mechanical equipment, trash receptacles, storage of materials and equipment shall be permanently screened from view, from all four (4) sides, one side to include a workable gate or door, with wood or masonry walls. The walls shall have a minimum height of six (6) feet. All screening required by this section shall be comprised of a color and composition similar to that of the main structure of the premises. 14  Exhibit B Pam Bliss 12/7 DH statement at the time to vote: Final. When discussing the future of Webster Groves, Douglass Hill doesn’t need to be a community- dividing topic. If we look at this project without the doomsday light or calling out the fears of what could go wrong, it opens us up to the possibility and the subsequent reality that this project would truly be transformative, and bring forth gains that wouldn’t otherwise be realized for decades. If we paused to challenge our assumptions of what is “right” or “in character” or what is “the Webster Way,” we could become a more open and prosperous city for every member of our community. After all, Douglass Hill is to be built FOR people, ALL KINDS of families including those who may choose a new and different type of housing. Douglass Hill, as with any development, is full of both pros and cons. The critical pros and cons are: PROS • Revenue: The project would ultimately create more than $35 million (conservatively) for all the taxing jurisdictions, including at least $5+ million for our schools. For the City, this project would have at least added $2 million during the life of the TIF plus the potential sales tax growth from increased population and number of retail shoppers. • Next, PC zoning would once and for all create a single zone in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Site coverage of the building footprints is 27%, less than 40% of the maximum allowed. Parking minimums are met most of which by putting the parking underground. • A thriving community to attract new neighbors that’s full of new sustainable building practices as well as better bike and pedestrian transportation. A live/work community built with multi-family housing that attract a younger population. • The bump in population would deliver hundreds of new customers to the doorsteps of businesses in the Old Webster taxing district and our 4 other commercial districts in Webster Groves. Especially for businesses, and even nearby churches and religious communities, who deliver everyday goods and services such as groceries, household goods and healthy living. Plus new customers from an expanded Great Rivers Greenway - it’s documented that biking trails along business districts lend a significant increase in sales. • Green roofs. Pervious pavement. Below-grade water retention systems. Clearing excessive vegetation. Rebuilding the failing creek retention walls. And widening Shady Creek’s pinch point at Gore and Kirkham are all planned for in this project. All together these measures in  Exhibit B collaboration with the city staff, respected organizations such as the Deer Creek Watershed Alliance, though I am not speaking for them, and the development team, I am convinced the watershed of Shady Creek and ultimately Deer Creek would improve and thrive. • Finally, the development team who has been instrumental in other projects is among the best this region has to offer, with a track record of hitting the mark. This is a local and high-quality team that I believe has the best interests of Webster Groves in mind. CONS • Some of the cons include building height - In my opinion the maximum building height should fall within the ordinance of 56ft. and not be raised for this project. • I am also concerned whether the 30% tree canopy will be retained because site prep near the creek would occur by clearing nearly all at one time. Throughout this process, we have attended many meetings with business owners, neighborhood residents, environmental organizations, the development team and fellow council members. I also submitted numerous questions related to identifying alternative no-build scenarios for zoning the site, city funding of critically-needed new infrastructure, and discussing options for reducing the building height. For the redevelopment agreement, I’ve sent in numerous bulleted items as a wish list from staff and the Green Space Advisory Commission, and more items to help ensure protections for existing business owners in Old Webster. Additionally, I created my own opportunities to engage in our community through office hours, knocking on doors, and standing with residents during Town Hall and commission meetings, and exchanging emails and phone conversations. “The Webster Way” and “character” is not created by using hyperbolic language or by bullying one side of the story through bold full-page ads and matching yard signs. We as citizens know that we have the capacity to create a more prosperous city. But I have learned from community that for you, it is a matter of taking the steps incrementally. I listened carefully to the stated concerns from the School District during the TIF commission meetings and from you, that our community is not prepared to take a bold step such as this. While it is disappointing for the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Development Commission, the TIF Commission and to those individuals who stepped forward to give the project their full endorsement, I do hear you. However, this evening, I must vote “no.” It would be not be the vote I would prefer to take, but it is important to recognize our community’s pace of change. Thank you.  Exhibit C Statement of Laura Arnold on the Douglass Hill development proposal 12/7/21 The Douglass Hill proposal has been challenging for me. It is easily the most difficult decision that I have made as a member of the City Council. There is a lot to like about this proposal: • More customers for many local businesses • Long-term tax revenue gains • More housing options for our community members, including limited workforce housing • Public gathering space that we currently don’t have However, there are real costs and questions associated with moving forward, including: • Displacement of current businesses • What impact the size and scale of the project will have on our community and the clear discomfort many in the community have with that size and scale—for our quality of life and for the environment • Use of eminent domain and TIF for a project that is essentially a private rather than public enterprise • Concerns about the lack of agreement with the WG School District It leaves me with two questions: • Is the public investment worth the long-term benefit of this project to our community when we take into account the very significant concerns of our community members? • If not this project, then what--because there is a real danger to saying no and expecting another project to easily emerge. While many residents have commented that they want a development, as the history of this site suggests, that it will not be easy. After much consideration, I will vote against the bills. I had hoped for some way forward with SG Collaborative but do not see it at this time, which is incredibly disappointing and more frustrating than I can adequately describe. As Mr. Chapman has made clear, the size and scale of the project is what makes it economically feasible. That does not mean that the size and scale of the project are appropriate for that site. I appreciate those members of the community that weighed in on both sides of the proposal, especially those of you who took the time to examine the project closely, ask questions and give us thoughtful feedback. I have weighed all the questions, concerns and opinions and tried to at least acknowledge your thoughts, although that has become impossible with the number of comments that we’ve received over the last two weeks. I greatly appreciate the work our staff has done throughout this process. They have been unfairly maligned for doing their job. We would not be in a position to make a thoughtful decision without their hard work. While many staff members have worked to get us the best information possible, I’d like to especially thank Mara Perry, Eric Peterson, Katie Nakazono and Marie Peoples. I challenge those in our community who said that they want to see development in this area and our community more generally to stay engaged and help us find some solutions. We will need your ideas and support in order to find an alternative. Community character is about a lot more than just buildings. It is about who lives and can afford to stay in our community.  Exhibit D From: Dave Buck To: Welch, Gerry; Laura W. Arnold; Pam Bliss; Alexander, Karen; Richardson, Sarah; David Franklin; Emerson Smith Cc: Peoples, Marie; Peterson, Eric; njbatty@aol.com; Perry, Mara; Starkey, Jenny; Nakazono, Katie; Conrad, Jennifer; Curtis, Dale; Sebastian Bellomo; RONALD ZAGER; Clark Hotaling; lchapman@seneca-cre.com; phil@greenstreetstl.com; liz@greenstreetstl.com; joel@greenstreetstl.com; Jaime Mowers; Drilingas; newsroom@timesnewspapers.com; Melissa Wilkinson Subject: Dave Buck "Remarks of Visitors" City Council Meeting, 12/7/21 Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:11:17 PM I respect the Council and respect your vote. But I am very disappointed in your votes and in your explanations for your votes. I am always very suspect whenever Council votes 7-0 either for or against. It's like decision by committee. I simply cannot believe that not one of you voted differently given the significance and importance of this project and the two years and all of the activity and communication that have transpired since SG Collaborative was first awarded the project. In your comments explaining your votes, two immediate observations: - For YEARS, Council's #1 most important goal, above all others, has been "Ensure Financial Security". And Council's #2 most important goal is "Foster a Strong Business Community." Yet not one of you even mentioned how Douglass Hill could dramatically help achieve both goals. - I have shared the following quote before with Council because I agree with it and have experienced its truth first-hand: "An elected representative owes the people not only his industry but, more importantly, his judgment. And he betrays the people if he sacrifices his judgment for their opinions." Yet every one of you referenced the people's opinions as major influencers in reaching your vote. What happened to your own judgment - Susan's judgment; Emerson's judgment; Pam's judgment; Laura's judgment; David's judgment; Karen's judgment; and Gerry's judgment. But your decision has been made and it's time to move on. I would, however, suggest that you start having some deep and serious with the developer community in St. Louis. Webster Groves already suffers from a negative  Exhibit D perception as a very difficult city for developers to do business in. Now, given SG Collaborative's stellar reputation and two years of time, effort, creativity and community engagement - not to mention investing $1 million of its own money to date developing the project - good luck immediately finding another developer to step up and risk waiting into Webster's unfriendly shark pool. PEACE.