Removed references to architecture and building materials (former number 6). Those items are considered in the Architecture Review Board phase of the project review; not the PUD rezoning.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REVISING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS PROPOSED.”

Those items are considered in the Architecture Review Board phase of the project review; not the PUD rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REVISING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS PROPOSED.”

13 SUSAN ISTENES – DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ANNA KRANE – CITY’S PLANNER

SUSAN ISTENES – The changes are going to be kind of hard to explain, because not only were there changes, things were combined, eliminated, rearranged, moved, reworded, etc. so your staff report identifies which ones were removed, added or revised. *Reads through the staff report points and asks for questions and input from the Commission.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Having read the new document and compared it with the old one, I cannot understand how we operated under the old one. This new one appears to be very straight forwards and easy to understand and I hope our applicants agree. I feel it will be easier for us to apply it up here also. I found it easy to understand. I have a few questions, not in any order. Section 405.1410 Criteria: I didn’t fully understand the internal circulation in there and access to green areas and open space reserved on the site. Are we recommending or requiring that that open space be maintained or is that brought by the applicant.

SI – This is under the criteria that you are to consider when reviewing PUD – reads criteria. The goal here is if there are green areas and open space we would like them to be publicly accessible. If intended to be public the public should have access.

RON REIM – Preserve onsite for the public, might be a way to make that change. I think it is difficult where we are at I think having open greenfield sites, ours are handled on case by case of the site. Question on Public Benefit – is there a benefit to getting their projects certified that we give?

SI – I think it could be listed as additional consideration. It somewhat makes the other one a weakened position, expect we just aren’t getting anyone doing the LEED Certs. I’m open to working on it/incentivizing it.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I think the checklist should be filled out and we get to review it as if they were going to get it certified. As a part of the application process they should point out to us and complete the checklist to show us what they are doing.

PUBLIC BENEFIT – how do we define these benefits and the scale of what they should be I think if we could be a bit more descriptive that might help in the judgment of benefits like public art. Ron and Carolyn talk about LEED for Neighborhood Development and how the defined public benefits help with decisions.

RICHARD LINTZ – I would like to clarify that the public engagement is a requirement?

SI – Correct, as drafted it is a requirement. Again, this is something we ask that they do and that it is very important. The conceptual review is usually what the developers choose to do in order to get the feedback before they officially apply. We recommend they go through this process. The public interaction process is something we recommend before they start the conceptual review process.

CRAIG OWENS – There is a reason why we have all these laws and rules and attorney’s everywhere because prices of land are very high and I think it’s a good conceptual idea but understand there could be a time where you require it and they could be bad at public engagement and their neighbors hate it or them and then ask us to do something illegal and so it’s shouldn’t be required. Now were making it a legal requirement that they cannot proceed until they go talk to their neighbors who might have unreasonable requirements. The ones who do well and they get it it helps, there could be some who don’t do it because they are bad at it and it could make this process much worse for them.

15

The City of Clayton is comprised of 2.5 square miles of urban area which is primarily built out. Additionally, the City does not have large land areas that could accommodate cultivation and manufacturing facilities. For these reasons, staff believes that dispensary facilities and testing facilities would be the only practical and appropriate medical marijuana related uses that can occur in the City. The existing zoning regulations lend some guidance to where the dispensary and testing facilities would be most appropriate. Specifically, these uses are most appropriate in the commercial zoning districts, C-2 and HDC and in the Service zoning district, S-1. Dispensaries are similar in nature to pharmacies and retail health related establishments, which are allowed in C-2 and HDC. The S-1 zoning district allows related uses such as testing labs, retail, pharmacies and medical offices. The HDC district is the most intense zoning district, located primarily in the center of Downtown Clayton and could accommodate a testing facility with minimal impact to neighboring commercial land uses. Staff suggests neither use be allowable in the C-1 district due to its proximity to single family residential zoning. The Zoning Table will be amended as follows:

Article XXIV.