bahilit 4" John T. O'Connell Comments to BOA Regarding Publte-Brinkmann LECC Property Development Proposal BOA Meeting - May 19, 2015 'have a number of comments that | have patiently waited to make regarding this proposal. So now it’s my turn to express my view of the swirling issues surrounding this proposal, | attended the initial public open house, most of the Planning and Zoning meetings, the public hearing and all the Board of Alderman meetings where this project has been the topic. | tried NOT to speak ~ early on so as to not appear to be an Alderman attempting to influence the P&Z process and later because | have been waiting to see the FINAL plan before drawing a final conclusion. | did not make up my mind, | did not make a final decision until now when | am able to view, digest and understand the final proposal. THAT'S HOW | MAKE DECISIONS. Many, many folks have expressed opinions and suggestions regarding the proposal as it has continued to evolve from that initial view presented last spring, and it HAS evolved significantly. If this is the FINAL plan, then | am prepared to speak and when our discussion is over to vote. As | HAVE said previously, please understand that | did not run ona platform of “decision by popular sentiment” nor one of “decision by loudest and most vocal.” If that’s what you thought you were getting, | apologize for your misunderstanding. | do not believe that popular sentiment outweighs truth. | offered my service to use my mind and experience to weigh the facts of any issues and make the best decision | am able to. That’s who you elected. So now, lest you think | have not been listening at the many P&Z meetings, the public hearing, and the BOA meetings, let me recap the issues that have been raised and my view of their significance for Frontenac.I'll start with the Comprehensive Plan. This was a great accomplishment in 2006 by and for the citizens of Frontenac. 40% of our households answered a survey. Led by outside consultants, approximately 70 people attended each of the first and second “feedback” sessions. And then the plan was drafted. Contrary to some assertions, there never was a city-wide (or even a BOA) “vote” “adopting” the plan. As stated in its introduction, the Comprehensive Plan “establishes a long-range vision for the changing land uses and design of new buildings with the community, Itis a decision-making guide... {it] provides a framework for making development and zoning decisions...” It is 33 pages long, with another 100 or so pages of appendices. Some see it as a sort of bible for Frontenac development. And like the Bible, if you look hard enough it can tell you almost anything you want to hear, and it has contradictions within its content that we faithful have to reconcile ourselves to and interpret, and there are many questions left unanswered when you finish it. With regards to this project, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan does certainly identify the project zone as an area for special consideration regarding development. It identifies the area as an opportunity for change and improvement. It recommends that the area be classified as “Planned Development Residential” and that provisions be made for future development NOT POSSIBLE under the current R-1 zoning. It calls out that “..residents are split on the issue of offering “Life-Cycle Housing”; [whatever THAT is] however a majority believes the addition of high-end villas would have a positive impact on Frontenac,” [CP Pg. 5] It even made the following a “Goal Statement”: “Supplement housing types with high- end villas as needed to meet the needs of the community.” [CP Pg. 7] It even called out “2-unit attached villas” as an example. [CP Pg. 9] This is NOT R-4 Zoning by anyone's definition. Assisted Living Facilities enjoyed some support. In the survey, 45% responded that “Frontenac benefits from additional housing options to meet residents’ lifestyle changes (e.g. assisted living, senior housing,)” Not a majority, but a strong minority. [CP App. B Pg, 3] The sometimes alleged “only 3% support Assisted Living” is purely a misreading of the report. [CP App. B Pg 5].So my consideration of the proposal in view of the Comprehensive Plan is that the Comprehensive Plan is clearly encourages consideration of villas on the site, and is basically “mixed” as to support of the ALF. Qn Traffic: The proposal as it impacts traffic has evolved significantly over the time it has been under consideration and review. Regarding possible traffic/congestion on Spoede Road, as | HAVE voiced, | believe a round-about will alleviate the already EXISTING issues at the South Outer Road, whether or not they were compounded in any way by the proposal. Regardless, there’s no longer any curb cut or driveway onto Spoede, so there’s no funding for such a change and that issue is moot. Regarding possible traffic problems/congestion on Clayton Road, | am more convinced than ever it will not be an issue at all. We had far more traffic concentrated twice a day IN HIGH VOLUMNN TRAFFIC PERIODS when the LECC operated as an elementary school and then as a LECC with 230 kids attending, Was it wonderful? No. Was anyone seeking to close the LECC for the traffic inconvenience? No again. Did property values and the essential fiber of Frontenac suffer? No a third time. A professional traffic engineering firm (hired by the developers which is the customary practice), with a scientific approach and their professional reputations on the line, provided a report supporting the ability of Clayton Road to absorb the impact of the development. Their conclusion: a manageable 4.7% increase during the AM peak hour and a smaller 3.4% increase during the PM peak hour. Because of questions asked by citizens, the City spent the money to hire a second traffic engineering firm to double check the first’s results. Same answer. | believe their reports. I'm good with that. Traffic is not an issue.On Vista’s or Sight Lines or Visual Appearances — on WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE: First as to set back distances from Clayton Road: This is a great example of the proposal evolving over time, in large response to concerns raised and opinions expressed in the many gatherings. The now- proposed setbacks from all surrounding property lines conform to CURRENT City codes, as is. No variance, no concession, and no longer a concern. the proposal has evolved significantly, as to proposed style of the structures, the heights, the positioning on the lots, etc., etc., etc. Townhomes — Out. Residences in banks of 3 or 4— Out. Units stacked close with backyards fronting on Clayton Road — Out. Attractive villas in pairs? In. First floor living with masonry exteriors and landscaping maintained, In. A new format for living in Frontenac —In. A new subdivision, with FEWER homes than Hermitage Hill, Frontenac Estates, Countryside, Frontenac Woods or Twin Fawns, In. ‘A “Slash at Frontenac’s ambiance” — not to my way of thinking. Third, as to the ALF: Regarding objections to the height of the building and the view from the south: hear and recognize the concern of some of the property owners across the street directly south of the ALF. What matters to ME is not some absolute height measurement — but rather relative heights. Again from reviewing the plans and drawings: The ALF is what we used to call a 2 and a half story (with the third floor set within the rooflines.). It is no taller than City Hall; it is set back from Clayton Road about the same distance. It extends LESS far west than the existing school. Said another way — the villas will bring residential homes further EAST on Clayton Road than any of us have ever seen. It provides a step-down bridge from City Hall down to the villas and residential — a far better bridge than an abandoned school building. | know some have advocated for moving the ALF to the northeast corner of the property. | did not favor that because the villas will become a new Frontenac neighborhood, part of our community. | did not prefer the idea of the ALF traffic running thru a Frontenac neighborhood. [But, if that’s the proposal before us, | will not vote no for that single reason.]As to Density: J appreciate the P&Z Commission’s efforts, and the Developers’ responses in achieving changes through the various iterations presented — changes to density, materials, elevations, roof lines, etc. The density now-proposed for the villas is. now LESS THAN in our R-2 zoning in West-End Park (which is 6 residences per acre.) This is down from the original proposal of 7.32 residences per acre to now be at 4.5. Does this match what the Comprehensive Plan Committee suggested as an example of density to consider? [3.5/acre — CP Pg 32.] No, but it’s pretty darn close. The current zoning of the site is R-1, meaning 4-acre, free-standing residential lots. There have never been 1-acre homesites on the property in the history of Frontenac, and | am sorry but | believe there NEVER WILL BE 1-acre free-standing homesites, 1-acre homesites to me is an unfortunate, economically infeasible pipe-dream, regardless of the underlying land acquisition costs. | believe this site will be remain abandoned, deteriorating, eyesore of a school, until it someday is developed in some planful way, or it is rented out to some third party school and we're back to the good old days of traffic snarls twice every weekday, or worst yet — the School District repurposes the property to their own use ~ an office building, a bus parking lot, a maintenance yard ~ all of which they can execute on without so much as a nod to the City, the neighbors, or anyone else. Two years ago, based on drawings of an aggressive developer's own pipe-dream the City shied (really galloped) away from an overblown commercial development, Plan A was dead before it ever reached City Hall — which in fact it never did. Now we are poised to decide on Plan B. With all due respect | do not think there’s a Plan C coming. The Ladue School District has put that in writing. There’s just the status quo until the roof caves in, the school is rented out, or the property is repurposed,There have been quite a few folks who have expressed skepticism regarding various inputs to our decision. The have doubted our public safety departments’ capacity, the traffic studies, they have doubt the staffing plans and the parking provisions, they have doubted the design themes, they have doubted the number of beds in the ALF, Let’s go through those QUICKLY. Fire/EMS/Ambulance Capacity Our Fire Chief reviewed the development plan and has approved it. The stub streets are acceptable to him. Our ambulance capacity is far underutilized. ‘Ambulance trips to Frontenac residences and businesses averaged less than 1.5/day last year with about 0.6 trips per day requiring transport to a hospital. The City has polled other cities with similarly-sized ALF developments and they report 3-6 calls per week. Using the high-side estimate, and assuming ALL those calls require transports we would be up to about and 2.4 total runs including about 1.5 transport trips per day. | am confident that our public safety team Is correct - they will not be taxed by this development. Not an issue. Staffing and Parking Some expressed doubt regarding the staffing and parking needs of the ALF. The proposed staffing meets with state licensure requirements for an ALF. Not for a licensed Nursing Care facility, but Yes for a licensed ALF. Further the City staff polled other cities with similar ALF facilities which resulted in confirmation of the staffing levels. Apples to Apples, ALF to ALF, not ALF to Nursing Care, the staffing expectations are credible. Parking in the proposal is higher than in comparably-sized ALF developments. | know—| COUNTED SPACES! Will there be busy days ~ holidays... etc.? Yes, that’s comprehended in the Ordinance. Might there be overflow onto City Hall’s lot on holidays? Possibly. Might there be overflow onto the ALF’s lot when we have large meetings at City Hall? Possibly. [But maybe not given the longer walk now contemplated] (We have overflow tonight onto the church lot next door.) Would | prefer they build a parking lot big enough to handle their ANNUAL PEAK parking? Build it for Easter Sunday & Passover? Absolutely NOT. Not an issue to me.Design themes Some have said “those pictures ~ that's not what they'll really build. That may very well be true. In the City’s process of development, a step that comes AFTER approval by the BOA has the developers seeking approval by our Architectural Review Board. So are these drawings the final renderings? No. Will there be final design specifications approved by the ARB? Yes. Will the developers conform to the final specs — you betcha they will or they'll never be allowed occupancy. Not a real issue. Number of beds in the A 106. 106, 106 max. That's what the Ordinance provides for. The potential for expansion provided in the licensure process from Jefferson City has NOTHING to do with our Ordinance. Our Ordinance says 106. The building will be bullt for 106. The capacity cannot be expanded without City/BOA approval. The occupancy cannot be increased without City/BOA approval. They CANNOT do it on their own and nothing in the Ordinance allows them to, Not a real issue, General $ & cents This is NOT a proposal that is being entertained by me for its financial benefits, but let’s clarify the actual financial impact on the City, Sales Taxes Other than perhaps a gift shop, there will be NO sales tax revenue generated from this site. Effectively: Revenues from Sales Taxes are unchanged.Real Estate Taxes The villas and the ALF will be subject to real estate taxes, assessed per state regulation at the residential rate. WHAT I’M ABOUT TO SAY MAY STILL SURPRISE SOME OF YOU, SO PLEASE LISTEN: The City’s revenues will benefit from the real estate taxes on the development — both villas and ALF — for ONE YEAR ONLY, if the total real estate taxes assessed in the first year totaled $60,000, then IN THAT FIRST YEAR the City will receive a ONE-TIME $60,000 boost. Under Missouri’s Hancock Amendment (passed in the 1980) the VERY NEXT YEAR, the development property, and ALL OTHER properties in the City would enjoy a reduced real estate tax rate — wiping out the extra $60,000 to the City by sharing it back to all tax payers. So... Real estate tax equals aone time/one year benefit to the City, and then about a 5% reduction in every property's City real estate tax rate, and some further reduction other real estate tax rates — the Ladue School District real estate tax, for example. Utility taxes To the extent the development uses taxed utilities — electricity, gas, phone, water — there will be a minor benefit to the City. Pilot — Payment in Lieu of Taxes This is the only material permanent financial benefit the CITY enjoys from the proposed development. $125,000 to $135,000 per year. It will be written into the Ordinance. It will be unavoidable. It is a pleasant bit of revenue. It is not enough to get very excited about when some in the state senate want to take away $800,000 in sales tax revenue, but it is a positive payment. PILOTs are voluntary (until they’re put in writing) and are a way to get cities to accept development when the city might otherwise prefer development that generates sales tax revenue. In this case we're offered a PILOT even when we've shown a clear preference AGAINST retail development on the site. Added Expenses to the City. Ican’t find any.‘ifs, Abatements, street Improvements, etc. The CITY is NOT granting any tax abatement, it is not creating a TIF. The required street improvements will be on the developer's nickel and NOT expenses of the City. Have I left anything out? | hope not. Ido have one last comment to make. It is a personal disclosure. | have reviewed this with the City Attorney, and he concurs with my reading of the situation. Lam in no way required to make this disclosure, but | am doing so anyway. Here goes: lama friend of Bob Brinkmann. That does not disable me nor disqualify me from exercising my independent judgment of these matters. It does give me insight into the man and the insight is positive —he is an ethical, responsible, caring man, and a reputable builder and developer. Bob Brinkmann is also a party to a financial transaction | am entering into. Either Bob or one of his companies will likely be investing ALONGSIDE me in a transaction to buy and lease out an airplane. NOTHING in that transaction has anything to do with this or any other Brinkmann project or development, financially or otherwise. The success or not of Brinkmann financially has nothing to do with my investment or its outcome. | am not investing in Brinkmann in any way; lam not receiving any benefit from Brinkmann in any way. We are two of several equal partners buying an airplane, This also does NOT disqualify me from exercising my duties as an Alderman on this issue. Ido have a duty to make independent decisions based on the facts, and that’s just what | am doing. {will vote Yes on the Ordinance.