There is so much information on EngageClayton.com - where should I start?

The last discussion on this topic was at the Board of Aldermen meeting on 12/10/24, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHvy7OvtuO8. The public hearing on this topic continued during that meeting, starting at about 52:35 in the recording.

I also recommend listening to comments from the Concordia Seminary President, Tom Egger, at the 11/26/24 BOA meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg6qSKBnX_M), beginning about 4:30.

Because there is so much information to review, I encourage you to look around the EngageClayton.com website and email me directly at bpatel@ClaytonMo.gov with any questions you have. I can help direct you to specific documents or answer your questions without you having to review hours of meetings and all the documents.

Why is the Board of Aldermen even considering allowing athletic uses on the western half of Concordia’s campus?

Athletic uses are allowed and exist today on and near the site. The current zoning on the site allows universities and their accessory uses, which includes housing, academic buildings, student activities, and athletics. The existing use of the site by Concordia includes housing and athletics – a general use athletic field, playground, tennis courts, sand volleyball, and a field house. CampusMap2021.png (3300×2370)

Athletic uses exist on and near the site today, having been approved through the Conditional Use Permit process: 

• Gym with 1,500 permanent seats adjacent to homes on Dartford

• Fields across the street from homes on San Bonita and St. Rita with lights on until 10pm

• Noise permitted until 10pm or even midnight at multiple sites

• Gyms and auditoriums of 45'-55' height adjacent to homes on Dartford, Aberdeen, and San Bonita

As WashU proceeds to develop the site, these existing approvals would provide precedent for approval under the CUP process and make it harder for us to enact some of the stricter restrictions we have heard that residents would prefer be in place.

Who is advocating for the Overlay District?

Our professional city staff.

WashU did not ask for the Overlay District. They let the city know they wanted to pursue athletic uses on the site, and our professional staff recommended we pursue an Overlay to regulate the use of the site as opposed to the Conditional Use Permit process, which has been historically used in Clayton to regulate institutional uses and developments.

The CUP process requires detailed plans be submitted by the applicant for the city staff, PC/ARB, and elected officials to review and respond. Our power under the CUP is an administrative power. It is reactive, designed to mitigate any adverse impacts of development and not proactive. We cannot simply reject uses that are allowable uses under the existing zoning. What we can do is require that impacts of noise, light, etc., are mitigated for neighbors. Once the applicant addresses those impacts via a mitigation, they have essentially met the standard of submission.

When enacting an Overlay District, we are using our legislative power, and we are being proactive. We are anticipating potential negative impacts of development and applying regulations that restrict the development. We can layer multiple mitigating requirements such as setbacks, transition zones, retaining wall height restrictions, limitations in modification grading, hours of operation, tree protection, etc., to achieve a more restrictive starting point from which the property owner must design proposed developments.

Why would the City of Clayton green light this development by WashU?

If an overlay is established, it authorizes no development. WashU would submit detailed plans (exactly like they do today under the CUP process). The specific plans would be evaluated by staff for compliance with the overlay and then subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review. These reviews include public hearings and votes by the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board. Neighbors would be notified and able to provide feedback on the specific proposal and identify impacts that may need to be addressed based on the specific plan. These are exactly the review processes during which residents raise concerns about developments proposed under a CUP.

What is in the Overlay proposal that is not in the current zoning?

Examples of regulations imposed by the Overlay not in place today:

Allowable Primary Uses will be limited to Athletic/Recreational and Playgrounds

NO Outdoor Band Playing, NO Commencement Ceremonies, NO Outdoor Pickleball, NO Musical Performances/Concerts, NO Full Graduation, NO WILD, NO ThurtenE

Outdoor Events are restricted in size, require event permits, and limited in number per year

Building height limited to 55’

Variance from existing grade level is limited to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of extensive grading

Extensive Tree Protection Areas are defined to protect existing trees and Transition Zones require additional levels of tree planting and maintenance

DarkSky Outdoor Sports Lighting Program: https://darksky.org/what-we-do/darksky-approved/outdoor-sports-lighting/

Decibel-specific noise restrictions that match the existing conditions at the boundary of the site - meaning the development cannot measurably increase the noise heard by neighbors

No amplified noise outside of a Varsity Baseball or Softball game

No amplified noise or field lighting after 9:30pm (except where governed by NCAA to conclude a game in progress)

Requirement to minimize traffic and parking on the site by leveraging the use of existing parking on the Fontbonne property and shuttles to/from the main campus

Notification of public hearings for any development application will be sent by mail, to addresses within 200 feet of the site, 10 days in advance of any consideration by the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS CAN BE RECOMMENDED FOR INCORPORATION - Let me know what ideas you have to share!

When will this development take place?

It is mostly likely that development on the Big Bend Overlay site would not begin for ~3 years. Concordia is building new housing to relocate the students and families who live on the western portion of their campus today as the first step of this planned development.

Why approve the Overlay now? Why not wait until we know more?

Establishment of the Overlay allows Concordia and WashU to finalize their agreement and commence with their plans. Rejecting or waiting to pass the Overlay does not require or incentivize WashU or Concordia to tell us more about their plans. It will most likely lead them to plan around the CUP process.

We also know a fair amount about the desired uses of the site from WashU and Concordia. They would like to develop facilities for baseball, softball, tennis, soccer, and gym sports. They’ve provided or confirmed information about attendance and hours of scheduling. They’ve agreed to minimize vehicular traffic to the site through the use of their shuttle service and pedestrian paths.

Why isn't the Fontbonne property part of this overlay?

The WashU purchase of the Fontbonne property has been incorporated into the overlay in that we identify and allow access points through that boundary. We encourage the use of that property for parking, construction staging, and other uses we'd prefer be limited on the Big Bend Overlay site.

The Fontbonne property is largely developed with existing uses and the plans WashU has shared at this point indicate they are likely to continue the same uses for some time. As we learn more about those plans, we can consider the establishment of an overlay for that site, as we propose here and recently established through an overlay for the South 40.

Why can't we get a more detailed plan from WashU for the Big Bend Overlay site?

While we would like to know more about exactly what might be developed on the site, there is no mechanism we can use to require a full set of plans be submitted. Though it has been painful to elicit information from WashU over the last 18 months, we have managed to gather a good deal of information about their plans through this process. WashU has indicated they will develop a baseball field, a softball field, a multi-purpose/soccer field, tennis courts, and a gymnasium. They've also provided information about the attendance numbers for each activity.

- Varsity Baseball field, seating 275

- Varsity Softball field, seating 275

- Multipurpose / Soccer field, seating 50

- Tennis Courts, seating 125

- Gym with Indoor Track, seating 475

Abandoning or rejecting the Overlay proposal does nothing to incentivize greater transparency from WashU. I believe passing the Big Bend Overlay is the best path to an attractive, useful, and mutually beneficial development of this site.

What happens if the Overlay District is not approved?

We can’t know precisely what WashU and Concordia will do if the Overlay is not approved.

If we do not enact an overlay with the restrictions identified, WashU and Concordia have both indicated intend to proceed with development under the CUP process. The CUP Process will administratively review the proposals in comparison to existing uses in the area and we would be challenged to enact guidelines much stricter than what is already approved in these nearby developments.