March 14, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Well, welcome everybody to our March 14th meeting of the Board of Aldermen. We're glad to have some visitors tonight. And I think the first order of business would just be to have the discussion session and Would we call a roll for that? No, it's not necessary. Okay then. So without further ado, just to say that every year we do this sort of exchange and get a report from our illustrious plan commission ARB. And so we're excited to hear what you all have to say. So take it away.

So I

say I'm gonna take it away.

I can

get started. So in your packet there's a really broad summary of all the categories of items that the plan Commission architectural review board look at every year, based on application types. We also have to just summaries go back a couple of years to show how it's changed, but we do have a few members of the plan Commission here with us. as well as Carolyn online. So if there are any topics that you would like to discuss based on the type of projects that they're reviewing, we can go through that, but I'll just quickly give an overview of the two summary charts that we have here.

That one, yeah.

So I pulled data. We use a permitting software called CitizenServe that tracks all of our building and planning related projects now. We started transitioning to this software back in 2018 and have slowly gotten to the point where now we actually have an online portal for all of the applications to go through that. So we're still working out some of the kinks, but it ultimately is going to allow us to do a lot better more data tracking and comparison over time for all different items, depending on what we put in from the types of projects to the cost of projects to the number of times it takes for them to get approved and so on. So I pulled some data going back to 2020. In 2019, a variety of projects went on to CitizenServe. But as far as the planning projects that go before the Planning Commission Architecture Review Board, It was more 2020 when we started using CitizenServe to track those permit types. So if we pull CitizenServe data from before 2020, there's going to be some inconsistencies as far as what permits are within CitizenServe and what permits we were just using a typical kind of file save to look at and process. So if you look at 2020, you can see we saw a little bit of a dip in 2021 for the permit types. This is not to say that we saw a corresponding dip in the What scale of projects, this is just sheer number of applications that went before the plan Commission architecture word and then that rose back up again and in 2020 the large share just in terms of count. Our architecture viewer applications that covers exterior alterations. additions, new construction, signage, outdoor dining areas and patios that are new, retaining walls, anything that really falls under some sort of architectural design scope is under the ARB. And then you can see that some of the smaller categories include conditional use permits, planned unit development and rezonings, site plan review, text amendments, special antennas, And the way that some of these are tracked, there could be one project. So for example, Bemis in place across the street, that's counted a few times in here because they had architectural review, they had a planned unit development application, and so on.

And then if you go to the next one, here's a breakdown

if we look a little deeper into what the ARB category is, so that larger blue sphere and broke down what those are into smaller categories. That includes additions, exterior alterations that might be painting, changing a facade from brick to adding siding, moving windows and doors, retaining walls are under that category, paving areas, new construction, that would be a full new building. So a new single family house or a new office building, public art, we have a few of those that were recommended separately from an ARB application, renewable energies, that's solar panels, signage packages, and then we had one time extension where they were previously approved and went back for that. So A large share is that exterior alteration category, which is kind of a broader catch-all for smaller scope projects that ARB approval is required for.

That's a good summary. So if anybody has specific topics they want to talk about, I'll open the floor.

Do the members of the plan commission that are here have anything they wish to share with us at this point?

I'd like to say that for large projects, one other thing I would like to say is Very good, thank you.

Any questions or discussion? I can go in order of seniority perhaps. I know Becky is always watching me on that. Go ahead.

I was just curious, where are we on the fence issue, composite fence issues? PB, Peter Vitale & discussion we that's always

probably provide a better update and again it's a good question, so we actually have started that process i've assigned that to Ryan our planner he is right now going to. PB, Peter Vitaneo & Work on a few slides similar to the presentations he made for solar solar panels to kind of go over. what we've been seeing as far as materials here and how we might consider them to help, one, reevaluate our existing architectural review guidelines and some of those standards so we can get up to certain practices that align with our sustainability. So hopefully that will be coming here in the next few weeks to month before the ARB.

Thanks.

Anna, this is probably a question for you as well. Given that we are going to have more big projects coming to us, do you feel like, and I know you and I have talked a little bit about developers providing a 3D view of their projects so that when they come either to the plan commission and then to us, that we can actually see their project in scale so that when we, you know, in terms of like looking at it with other buildings, existing buildings around it and heights, is that something that you're just telling developers now that they have to come in and they have to provide that? Or is that dependent on, you know, if a project's a PUD or not, or how do you...

Yeah, right now we're kind of gauging it based on the type of the project. So the PUDs, we're asking for it. We don't have any real prescriptive directions for them that's included within a checklist for the application, which is why sometimes we see a variation in how they present it from an animation to just still rendering. So we're still working that out, the details of creating more consistency but we do want to keep the ability to view the project and then decide whether or not to add that we don't need it for some of the smaller scopes where the form of the building's not really changing very much but it is very helpful for the drastic changes where we're going from a couple-story building to a significantly larger one

so you feel like um because again, I don't have an architectural background. So it just seems like there's a program that is particularly suited to that, that it would seem like most architectural firms would have that. So do you think it would be helpful to just tell people, please provide your rendering in this particular format, or do you think it still varies? Again, that's not my background.

Yeah. From our purposes, they'll, whatever they use to get there, whether it's Revit or, you know, Unreal Engine, or we can go into all those, but they're providing it to us usually in some sort of movie or image format. So I don't know that we need to get into the details of how they create it. Hopefully sometime in the having their models given to us that we can incorporate in a larger city-owned and maintained model of the city. We don't have that now, but that would be ideal for us because then we can really manipulate the viewpoints of the images that they're providing instead of relying on the viewpoints that they're sharing, if

that

makes sense.

Yeah, so like a city-owned meaning like potentially staff would create, is that what you mean? Like you would create a model and they would kind of put their project...

Right. That's part of what we're working in negotiating into the scope for the comprehensive plan is to get that base data built for us. Then it would be turned over to us and then we would be able to make changes to evaluate a variety of ideas from a specific building all the way through just trying to visualize potential zoning amendments and how those might impact the overall feel and character of an area. on a different level. So I think in the next year, maybe we'll get a little bit more refined year to two years with how we require that. But the idea of some sort of animation and or 3D model will still require for a PUD. The other thing that we are, that we've been discussing on a staff level before COVID, the majority of the time when someone went before the ARB, they brought physical samples of materials. So they would bring their brick sample. During COVID, that kind of stopped because people were making a lot of their presentations virtually. Now that we've returned to most of our applicants, especially for the bigger projects coming here in person, that's another element that I think will help some of our ability to evaluate the materials being proposed is to, again, have them bring those actual material samples in instead of relying on colors that you see in a rendering.

And the last thing I just bring up from a sustainability standpoint is do you foresee that members of the plan commission will still get big thick folders or do you think we'll try to move to more to an electronic version of things or do you think that it's still helpful for people to get the big giant pieces of paper i know

yeah we can provide either way at this point um like i mentioned with with the uh citizen serve portfolio everybody replies to us through a portal so we're paperless now right um as a department so so that's something we'll have to discuss with the

Okay,

with ARB and see where they want to head.

Great, great questions. Now that you're the liaison, you just have all kinds of questions. Yeah, it's good. Susan, anything? Oh, hey, wait a minute. I forgot Ira. Ira, I forgot you. I'm so sorry. Would you do you have any comments or questions for this on this topic?

Yeah, I wanted to ask Anna. You know, we've had this point system in place now for a little while and I wondered if that's something you could comment on as to how developers are seeing the point system and whether or not you think it's working.

Yes, it is something on the list that we've been discussing internally. I think now we have a good number of projects that have gone through the point system. And so we can start to evaluate that. the majority of the projects that have gone through the point system happen to have the same architect firm. So we won't have a very large breadth of comments to get back from people who have been on the other side, from the development side as we're using it. But I do think before we make any changes, it will be important to have discussions with both the private side as they interacted with the point system, as well as you know, an ARB discussion and a Board of Aldermen discussion to see how they align. That's also one of the items that once we have a comprehensive plan or if there's any new strategic plan updates from any of our other commissions or the board, those will also be really important documents for us to help evaluate what categories we have For point systems and how they relate to key strategic idea items that have been identified for the city moving forward is right now. You know we're kind of a lot of those items that are listed in the point categories were pulled from lead standards, which is important sustainability is important, but I do think there's a lot of other equally important initiatives going along in the city that aren't. Really represented or highlighted the same degree within that point system so that's definitely a conversation that will need to have here. Sometime before we do a code analysis.

Well, which raises my next question. So I'm glad you kind of hit on it, which is there's been a lot of talk of us trying to work in some kind of fair housing or low income housing or workforce housing. Do you see a place in the points system for that kind of an incentive for a builder? Sure.

I can talk about that a little bit, I think, just because we...

We do have that provision in the points and the list of things you can get points for. But in terms of it's there, but how does it get implemented? I don't know.

And we had talked about that extensively with the Equity Commission and actually brought some developers in and had a conversation on it. We looked at it a lot of different ways, but in the end, the points alone aren't enough to... incentivize a developer to put affordable housing in. Because when it comes down to it and the overall scope of development, there are other ways to get points that are quite a bit cheaper than setting aside a certain percentage or number of units for affordability. So we have looked at some different ways to put that together at the Equity Commission. Ultimately, it's a conversation that We're still having, I don't know what that will ultimately look like, but the points may have to play into a more systematic approach to affordable housing. But points alone aren't going to do it. During that comprehensive planning effort that we have coming up, I think there's going to be a lot of discussion on affordability. So we'll see what comes out of that. But it is something we've explored, but something we haven't moved forward with at this point. just because again, it doesn't appear to be enough of an incentive. Thank you.

I'll just bring this up now, though I don't know enough about it to give a lot of detail, but I was just doing some research on things that are going on in the city of St. Louis and with regard to zoning. And one of the things they did was to develop, and they did this with their community, I would imagine it's part of some bigger planning process, but they developed something called the equitable development plan equitable economic development plan i think it was and and it's on their website and so i'm actually gonna as we get move forward into the comprehensive plan i was going to talk to everyone about it after i read it and see if it if there's something similar that we could do because um apparently they base a lot of their decisions on um project approvals on what is laid out in this sort of master plan that they've developed. So I just think that that's an interesting aspect. I've never heard of such a thing, but I think it sounded like a really interesting thing that could benefit us as we strive toward doing something more in terms of housing diversification.

Okay, your turn. I appreciate a lot of the discussions already happened and the city also started a reparations committee which will be interesting and how that uh impacts with the housing development and i'm really excited to think about iris point looking at the point system and coordinating it with that bigger picture of the comprehensive planning so i don't have any specific questions um but i it is it's great to hear you have such a great handle on it and steve your comments about staff being so capable, which also indicates that you all are so capable because you're able to work together. So that's really all I have. Thanks. Becky, any thoughts?

Yeah, thanks. I just have, I think, one question. Thanks to all of you first for your service on the plan commission and ARB. I know it's one of our most demanding roles, probably is the most demanding. volunteer position that we have. So thank you for that service. I have one question. I really appreciated the work that you did on and the plan commission to move the majority of renewable energy approvals to staff review and approval in many cases. And I'm curious about whether there are other opportunities for that type of transition. And if you're looking at that

Yes. And I will say on that note, we've had, I think, three solar panel permits approved since moving that to administrative process. So that's good. Yes. Similar to on the same vein as looking at the materials that Rich was talking about, at the same time, Ryan's also doing an analysis of the ARB applications to see there is definitely a handful of that ARB exterior alterations category that are pretty small projects. And so our hope is that by updating and reaffirming the material guidelines, we can also use that same opportunity to potentially move some of those smaller projects out of the ARB full ARB category because it does add time and money for smaller projects that are people are trying to do to, to make minor updates to their property. So recognizing that and understanding the shift is probably beneficial for everyone involved. We are doing that evaluation. So around the same time as the material guidelines will also present some of those additional items that we think would be good fits for administrative review.

That's awesome. Thank you. Clarification comment on that. Um, So I noticed on your graphs that the solar panel sustainability was a smaller wedge one year after the other. Is that partially because it has moved to administrative or do those things still show up on the- So those were actually

all before administrative was enacted. So we just really get one, before now, we were getting really one a year for one request for solar panels a year if that. So this year we've seen significantly more. I think we had two or three that went through for ARB approval before we did the administrative process, and now I think we have three more that we've approved administratively. So there's definitely been increased interest in solar panels this past year. I couldn't speculate on how much the three that came after administrative were influenced by that administrative process being an option now, but we've seen an increase for sure. Thank you.

Alderman Gary Feder, any comments, questions?

Alderman Fader, any comments, questions?

Just an observation. I'm glad again, we're looking at the PUD. I've made the reference before, so I'll make it one more time that when I sit in the audience and we go through the PUD process, to me, it's always dancing with the stars, which I don't watch very often, but the whole, I think the whole process by which people give grades to certain threes or fours, it never seems to me to be the most sensible approach, but I know it's an effort to try to be objective rather than subjective about these things, but I still think we ought to do a better job. I guess my general comment is that I still wish we could figure out a way to make not only Board of Aldermen meetings, but planning and zoning ARB meetings more inviting for the general public and more accessible when people come to these meetings. First of all, we hear a lot from people who don't like a particular project. but never attended a meeting and for whatever reason. But I think part of it is we don't make these meetings as meaningful or inviting as they should be. And for example, my thought is like at planning and zoning, and I've sat in the audience sometimes even now as an alderman just to get what that experience is like as an audience member. And I realized, but for the fact that David is nice enough to give me his packet because he's looking at it on screen, that if I was sitting in the audience and I just came to be interested in something, but I sat through a lot of it, I wouldn't know what the heck was going on during the whole meeting because unless someone has a PowerPoint presentation, the only people who know what's going on are the people on the commission who obviously need to look at this stuff. But I think we need to figure out a way to put everything up on the screen, everything so that if you come to a meeting, you actually know what's going on. Even if there are five drawings, if you put one of those drawings up, so at least when you're talking about making improvements to the house at this address, you would get some notion of what you're talking about. So to me, it's still not, it's not a good experience for a typical audience member. And I think if we get people here, we have to be glad they're here. These aren't the days like it was in 2019 where we had a a reporter from the Post-Dispatch who would write articles about what's going on in Clayton. They don't have those anymore. Hybrid meetings are a lot better than no meeting at all, but it's not the same. And so I think we really need to work on how to make these presentations more meaningful for the people who come. And that's, you know, I'd be interested if the people on the planning and zoning or ARB have any sense of that, but I think we need to make it a better experience. So people, and finally just communicating, I still think we don't communicate enough through like the Clayton connection to say, you know, have a little article at next week's meeting. The big item is X or Y, you know, all we at best we have is like a one liner on each item that's on the agenda. If you want people to come, you got to somehow get them interested and we're not doing that. So I think those are all things we could do to make this a better experience for our citizens.

Good, good ideas. I think, you know, that kind of ties into the whole idea of making Clayton a more welcoming community so that the more that when we have meetings, the more that we can put up front so that people can understand fully what we're talking about without having to ask is good. So we can take a look at that. Yeah. Okay. I do

not have, oh, I'm sorry. Oh, there is, thank you. And it is Mr. McCool, Bob. Hi, Bob. Hi

there. Would you like to address us? Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said, but I just wanted to make a note that I think when Steve Lichtenstein was at the podium, that mic isn't on.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, Mr. Lichtenstein.

Mr. Lichtenstein, you failed on that.

We couldn't hear anything out here in the ether.

Okay, well, thanks for speaking up. Steve, as I recall, really just was commenting on the good work of the staff and how much improved it seems to be in terms of helping the plan commission and ARB do their work. And that was pretty much what you had said and also that the PUD point system is a work in progress. Yeah, okay. There you have it. All right. Any other comments from you all? No, I don't really have any questions. You guys hit on everything I had ever thought of. So just to say again, thank you guys so much for all the time you spend. And we know it's a lot and we know that you're very thorough and I know when you give these stacks of plans It takes a while to go through them. I've never actually been the liaison, but I've been in plenty of situations where I was trying to go through the plans and figure out what was going on. So thank you very much again. And I want to, and to you, Bridget, and all the other liaisons that have liaisoned, it's a big job and we appreciate it. I do want to kind of throw something out to you for the future, which is I know we're about to go into this comprehensive planning process and you all will be very involved in how that runs, how that flows. But over time, there have been different times when bigger picture topics have floated to the fore. The one that comes to mind, which may not be one that we want to pursue at all, but is kind of the... the pervious versus impervious allocations that we have for buildings and do we, you know, the impact on stormwater and on and on. And so I just want to encourage you as we go through this process to keep a short list of topics that have been, you've been thinking about over the past few years and things that we ought to be considering or learning more about because I think, you know, you'd be such a great resource for us in terms of hitting on those things will be really important. So thank you. Okay, that concludes our discussion session. We have a couple of minutes until it's time for our seven o'clock business meeting. So anyway, everybody have a ball until then. You guys don't feel compelled to stay.

You had a country named after you, didn't you, in Europe? Isn't there a country named

Okay, all right. I don't do that too often because there's never anyone here. It's kind of fun. All right, kids, you

ready? Okay, welcome to our March 14th Board of Aldermen meeting. I will start by asking the city clerk to call the roll.

Alderman Lynch? Here. Alderman Berkelich? Here. Here. I want to make Andrew. All the one view. All the women tell. All of them in favor. Mayor Harris. City manager get in

here.

The attorney OK

here.

Thank you

very good. Now's the time in our agenda for public requests and petitions. So if anyone is here or on Zoom tonight to ask us or make a comment about something that is not on our agenda tonight, now is your opportunity. So I'll see if anybody's looking like they want to say something. Not too much. On the attendees list, anybody? Okay. Okay, very good. So moving on then, our first order of business is some unfinished business. which is the article about the Williamsburg shops.

Yes, this is a public hearing to consider a text amendment to chapter 405 zoning regulations, article 14, Maryland gateway overlay district related to a specific block known as the Williamsburg shops, the board of Alderman has held discussions over the last year related to historic preservation and options for regulations related to specific buildings, neighborhoods or districts with specific characteristics. This block of commercial buildings has unique scale and architectural character that differs much from the Clayton downtown area. At one time, there were examples of the scale and style throughout Clayton. However, many of those have been replaced with larger buildings. The Board of Aldermen discussed elements of the Williamsburg shops that provide a desired character that would be worth preserving and protecting in the future. Based on this discussion in earlier sessions, staff summarized the Board of Aldermen's goals to be the following. First, to ensure future development or renovation matches the scale of existing structures. And second, protect the historic character of the block. On January 17th, 2023, staff presented a summary of the Board of Alderman discussion and a potential route for implementation of the goals that the plan commissioned. The implementation plan included text amendments to the existing regulations for the Maryland Gateway Overlay District to address the specific concerns for future development of the block. On February 21st, 2023, the Plan Commission held a public hearing to solicit public comment regarding the proposed revisions to the Maryland Gateway Overlays District. The Plan Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. A red line version of the proposed amendment was included in the packet The plan commission considered the request on January 17th and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Actually, I just had that above on the 21st, but on February 28th, 2023, which was the Board of Aldermen's last regular meeting, we did open and continue the public hearing for this item. So tonight is a continuation of that. Staff does recommend that the Board of Alderman conduct a public hearing and approve the amendment as proposed.

Okay. I would open the, for discussion for the board. First though, I just know that there may be a person or two in the audience that would like to address us about this or would they? Simon? No? Okay. Alrighty. So I'll ask the board going around, starting with Mr. Lentz, if there's any comment or question about this particular ordinance. Ira, anything from you?

Well, I just had a point of, I know, David, you and I talked yesterday. And I was just a little confused about the reference in the building height. It talks under 410.815 paragraph A1. It talks about the height of properties north of Maryland Avenue. And I wondered about that phraseology if that might not be confusing.

I think it's confusing potentially if you're not looking at a map that shows the district boundaries themselves. If you look at a map of the district boundaries, it actually stops immediately at the northern edge of these particular properties. So when we say north of Maryland Avenue, we're talking about properties north of Maryland Avenue but within the district boundaries. So it actually doesn't go that deep into the neighborhood. Does that make sense? We don't have the map here to show the boundaries. So when we say north of, it sounds like it's just north all the way to the northern city limits, but that's not necessarily the case.

If you are okay with it, then I am okay with it.

Yeah, after I looked at it again and thought about it in the context of the actual district itself, I don't have concerns with that current wording.

Okay, very good.

Okay, very No, I think my concerns have been addressed. Thanks. Alderman Gary Feder?

Okay, very No, I think my concerns have been addressed. Thanks. Alderman Fader?

I think in an informal meeting that Alderman McAndrew and I had before this was, I think, formalized when we were talking to at least one of the property owners, the concept was mentioned that the property could be developed in a way which I guess would be most logical given that it's not a PUD and the overlay would apply where you'd have essentially retail on the first floor, and then you might conceivably have condominiums or apartments on the second floor. And I think one of the representatives said, well, you know, we might want to, in that case, put like Structured part small structured parking behind the building, I think the theory was if you had a condo owner apartments are certainly a condo owner, you might want those folks might. expect to have a reserved space, so I guess my question about the height is I didn't see anything in here and I think David and I talked about it yesterday I didn't see any thing in here that how you would deal with a building or a structure. that is behind the frontage in terms of what the height limitation would be. And unless I'm missing something, it still seems to me, it's unclear to me whether this restriction on height, which obviously applies to the frontage, would it also apply if you had some kind of structure on the back? Because obviously one of the questions about the heights is the closer you are to Westmoreland, which I think is the parallel street there, the residential street, obviously the closer, for example, that garage would be that might be even more of an issue. So I wasn't sure that that had been dealt with in this. If it hadn't been, I was thinking it ought to be.

The maximum height for a parking structure would actually be the same as the maximum height for the building at the frontage. So the ordinance as it's written doesn't distinguish between the two. Even though it doesn't

say it, we could feel safe that the same restriction would apply. The parking structure would still be

subject to the maximum building height for that area within the district.

Okay,

good question. All right. If that's everything, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and take a motion.

I'll introduce Bill 6950 to approve an amendment to Chapter 405, Article 14, Williamsburg Shops, to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6950, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending the Maryland Gateway Overlay District regulations in Article 14 of Chapter 405 of the Clayton City Code relating to the Williamsburg Shops area on the north side of Maryland M.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right, great. Alderman Lentz?

I'll move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6950 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

Is there any problem?

No, I didn't know. I thought we had read it first time last meeting, but that's why I said second reading and that was wrong.

Remember that? I'm proud of you.

Okay. No, that's fine.

And we had a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, very good. Let the minutes reflect. The board is giving unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6950 to approve an amendment for Chapter 405, Article 14, Williamsburg Shops to be read for the second time again. By title only. And I will second

again.

Any discussion? All right. All those in favor? Oh, wait. How about Mr. City Attorney? Mr. City Attorney first.

Thank you. Bill number 6950, second second reading, an ordinance amending the Maryland Gateway Overlay District regulations in Article 14 of Chapter 405 of the Clayton City Code relating to the Williamsburg Shops area on the north side of Maryland Avenue. Alderman Lynch?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Butte? Aye. Aldemans Patel? Aye. Alderman Sater?

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on to the CUP for Native Foods, I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

This is a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit submitted by Bridget Holden of BHT Licensing on behalf of NF Missouri LLC doing business as Native Foods to allow for the operation of a 2,126 square foot plant-based food restaurant at 25 North Central. Proposed hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m to 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The applicant has stated an intent to apply for a liquor license, which is on our agenda this evening. The restaurant will have 65 indoor seats. The proposed restaurant is located in the Central Business District and is less than 3,000 square feet. Therefore, no off-street parking is required. The Planning Commission considered this request at its March 6, 2023 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve a conditional use permit for the operation of Native Foods at 25 North Central per the conditions outlined in the resolutions.

Very good, thank you. Open discussion. Is the applicant here? Oh yeah, would you like to come and address us? Tell us about your restaurant? Okay, come on up to the microphone and please make sure

the green light is on the microphone.

Thank you. Appreciate

the opportunity. We're very excited to bring a 100% plant-based food restaurant to the city of Clayton We made an investment in this company in 2018. We started to expand only to find COVID hit the industry pretty hard. We've relocated the headquarters here to St. Louis, and now we're trying to bring the great food that our chef actually, who is also from St. Louis, is producing. And so can't wait to bring, based on the public request of people who have experienced the brand elsewhere. We thought it would be great to bring it

home.

Wonderful. Thank you. And is this your first restaurant opening?

First restaurant in St. Louis.

Okay, very good. And just not to correct Alderman Gary Feder, but earlier, we did make the post-dispatch today and it was about your restaurant. So yeah, it was good. It sounds like it'll be really great stuff.

Okay, very good. And just not to correct Alderman Fader, but earlier, we did make the post-dispatch today and it was about your restaurant. So yeah, it was good. It sounds like it'll be really great stuff.

I think you're all welcome to come and try it. One of my favorite things is the fact that I happen to have some dietary restrictions. And going to this restaurant, I can eat everything. So it's kind of fun. So happy to have you all.

Very good. Thank you. We'll be in. I'm sorry if you said it, but when are you opening again?

depends on our construction plans. I think we're looking probably the first part of July.

Okay, great. Well, we will be on the lookout for it. All right. Thank you. Can I say

something before you step down? I just have to add that My kids have all moved out of town and I told them you were opening up in Clayton and they know your restaurant from other places. And thank you very much for one more draw to get them to come visit, if not come back and wait. So thank you.

Yeah, we hope everybody's a frequent customer. Thank you.

Very good. Any other discussion or questions from you guys? And I don't see any on Zoom. So I will close the public hearing. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve resolution 2023-07, granting a conditional use permit for native food located at 25 North Central Avenue.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. Next would be, is that the end of our public hearings?

No, we actually have two plans. We have

two plans. Okay, that's right. Okay, so moving on the, oh yeah, I see it now. The public hearing, I'll open the public hearing and request proof of publication for the lot consolidation on Davis Drive.

This is a public hearing and subsequent ordinance to consider approving a subdivision plot for consolidation of two existing lots. The subject properties are located on the north side of Davis Drive at the intersection with South Central Avenue. The properties are zoned R2 single family dwelling district. The lot address 7827 Davis Drive is improved with a single family home. property addressed 7855 Davis Drive was previously right away that was vacated by the city in 2020 and is improved with the driveway. The owner of both properties is proposing to consolidate the lots into one lot measuring 19,602 square feet. The proposed lot conforms to the lot standards at the R2 district. The applicant went before the Board of Adjustment on November 3rd, 2022 to request a three foot six inch variance from the side yard setback for the existing home which would otherwise become non-conforming should the lots be consolidated. The Board of Adjustment unanimously approved the variance request. The Plan Commission considered this request at its meeting on February 21st, 2023 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the request for lot consolidation.

Okay, I'll open the discussion. I don't, is the applicant here? Oh yeah, oh hello. Hello. Would you like to come up and talk to us? And please make sure the mic's on and say your name and address, please.

Excuse me. My name is Tom Eon. I'm in the 7827 Davis Drive. I want to thank the long process that has taken some time. But I think we're on the right course. And I just want to say thank you to all the workers that are behind the scene that helped me. Thank

you. Thank you. I'll ask also if there are any questions or comments from anyone else in the audience. Any discussion up here? I'll go around. Ira, anything from you? Questions? Okay. I will then close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

I'll introduce Bill 6956 to approve a subdivision plat and lot consolidation for 7827 Davis Drive to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6956, first reading an ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to consolidate certain property located in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6956 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6956 to approve a subdivision plot and lot consolidation for 7827 Davis Drive. To be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6956, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval of a plan to consolidate certain property located in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Alderman Sater? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

Okay, moving on. We have a public hearing, so I'll open the public hearing and request proof of publication for a lot consolidation for 21 Dartford.

This is a public hearing in subsequent ordinance to consider approving a subdivision plat for consolidation of two existing lots. The subject properties are located on the west side of Dartford Avenue, adjacent to the intersection with Aberdeen Place. Fontbonne University is located to the west. The properties have a zoning designation of R2 Single Family Dwelling District. The property address 21 Dartford Avenue was devolved with the existing single family house in 1901. The northern lot, 21A Dartford Avenue, remained vacant and was at some point reduced to a 30-foot wide lot for access to Fontbonne University. with the remaining 20 feet combined with 21 Dartford Avenue. The owner of both properties is proposing to consolidate the lots into one lot measuring 15,000 square feet. The proposed lot conforms to the lot standards of the R2 district. The plan commission considered the request at its meeting on March 6th, 2023 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the request for lot consolidation.

All right, open the discussion. Any comments or questions from the audience

first?

Okay, any questions or comments up here? No, okay, very good. So I will then close the public hearing and Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6957 to approve subdivision plat and lot consolidation for 21 Dartford Avenue to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Mr. City, I mean, Mr. City Attorney, sorry.

Bill number 6957, first reading, an ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to consolidate certain property located in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6957 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board is given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6957 to approve a subdivision platen lot consolidation for 21 Dartford Avenue to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6957, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval of a platen to consolidate certain property located in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

Alderman Lynch.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Butte. Aye. Aldemans Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Butte. Aye. Aldemans Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, very good. So now we're going to make a little adjustment in our agenda because we have some guests and we don't want them to have to wait throughout the entire, very exciting rest of the agenda. But we will move up the Clayton Equity Commission recommendations now and discuss that. And I will ask the city manager to give his report.

Yes, the Clayton Community Equity Commissioner CEC has a subcommittee that discusses law enforcement and municipal court. The subcommittee submitted recommendations to the entire CEC for consideration in January of 2023. On February 9th, 2023, the CEC unanimously approved transmittal of the following recommendations to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. First, we recommend that principles of equity and transparency consistent with Ferguson reforms be embedded in the selection of Clayton's judge. And second, we recommend that a member of the CEC be included in the selection committee to assist in the evaluation of applicants. The current selection process for the municipal judge was included in the packet for reference. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen consider the CEC recommendations.

Okay. I'm going to open the discussion, but I also first want to, I know that you all are here and would like to address this, so I'm going to ask you to do that first. Before you do that, I'm going to make one really quick comment, which is that as the mayor who helped spearhead the creation of the equity commission i just want to make it known that i am very proud of the work that you have done in this last couple of years and you've tackled a lot of tough tough issues but in depth and and you've tried to be thorough and i'm just really uh thank you for that thank you for all the time and hard work that you have put in because i know it's substantial and um i did attend one of your meetings recently and i i just want to say i learned so much so With that being said, I'm going to invite you to come up and address this group on your recommendations. And then we will go ahead and have our discussion.

I guess now you can hear

me. Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen. We

all know who you are, but just for the sake of your name and

your address. Kevin, I haven't seen you in a while, but it's nice to be on the same side of the table. I'd also like to introduce the people to my right. That's Lauren rodriguez goldstein francis powers and christian ease also ben is zooming in ben you to tell and zooming in so let me just say that they're not here to support me or anybody else and here to support what we're doing and to impress upon all of you that we've thought carefully about this recommendation we're making we want the spend some time to go over exactly what a rationale is, big time for any questions. But Lauren will come up in a minute or two to really explore our thinking and rationale for what we're thinking. But let me just explain my background, why I'm feeling so strongly about this recommendation. When I came to St. Louis in 1970, I went to law school. My first job out of law school was at the legal aid program in East St. Louis. And then went to the legal aid program and St. Louis, and I've always done pro bono work since I went into private practice. One of the things I learned very quickly, and I think is indemnific in our entire justice system is that I think all the lawyers here would agree with this. If you have a lawyer, you're in better shape than if you don't have a lawyer, okay? Now, I always think that if they hire me, they're better off than if they don't hire me, okay? But working through legal aid and pro bono work, those are people who otherwise can't afford an attorney. And clearly, if they can't afford an then they really have no alternatives and not gonna have the same result if they can get an attorney. Now, municipal courts fall in the crack between where you can sometimes get an attorney and you can't get an attorney. The reality is that it's a black hole. The vast majority of people in municipal courts do not get an attorney. Here in Clayton, as Lauren will explain a little bit more, 90% of the people who are charged in our municipal court do not even live in Clayton. Most of those people are low income, maybe black, and can't afford an attorney. There's no such thing as a public defender system in municipal courts. It doesn't exist. So the question that we have to try to wrestle with is, Do people who have an attorney, who can afford an attorney to go into municipal court get treated the same as people who don't? Mostly people can't afford an attorney. Do people have ties and jackets who have good jobs, can afford an attorney? People who live here in Clayton, as opposed to people who come in corduroys or working clothes, they're going to be treated the same as anybody else. And quite frankly, we don't know and we never will know. So that's why the selecting of that judge, the principles of equity, whether the kind of community we want to be is reflected by the judging that our municipal judge does. And they do it on an individual basis behind every case there is a person. Okay, so. All we're saying is that consideration of whether or not that judge understands all the principles of equity before they're hired by our city. should be embedded in the selection of that municipal judge. And this has nothing to do with the current judge, okay? We made a recommendation two years ago that ought to be a selection process for our municipal judge. In the past two years, we've reflected on that process that we recommended and we want to improve it, okay? And we feel that equity needs to be embedded in that selection process because That will reflect the kind of community we are in the selecting of that judge. Approximately 3,000 cases a year go through our municipal court. 3,000 people, vast majority of which do not live in Clayton and are low-income people. Many are black. They go out to a wider community and how they are treated by our city reflects how they're going to feel about, go back to their communities, tell their friends and family how they feel about our city. Okay. I didn't know anything about municipal court before I went on the commission. I really didn't. The most I knew was sometimes a client would call me and say they had a speeding ticket. Okay. And I thought I knew a lot about the courts. Okay. And if I didn't, okay, I guarantee you, You don't either. Okay, but we have looked at it. Okay. So before I go on and on. Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Lauren, who has some further remarks to take and then we'll hopefully we'll have time for questions.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Lauren. I'm a licensed

clinical social worker, and I live here in Clayton. The Subcommittee of the Municipal Court of the CEC was formed shortly after the CEC was informed and held its first meeting in March of 2020. The equitable administration of justice is one of the core foundations of any community that is aspiring to be fair even handed and welcoming to all it requires constant self examination communication. and sometimes change, consistent with the collaborative spirit of reducing bias and resulting inequality, and in the context of law enforcement, inequality, and the justice system. The bottom line is that our municipal court must reflect the fair and welcoming spirit of the Clayton community. Clayton's municipal court is primarily a traffic court. Cases brought by the city and our municipal court are the result of violations of city ordinances. While the state of Missouri does allow municipalities to charge minor misdemeanors, As a practical matter, Clayton doesn't have a jail or the resources to incarcerate people beyond detention for a short time for processing to St. Louis County or for release. Approximately 90% of defendants in Clayton's court are charged with minor traffic violations and these are typically related to licensing violations and an inability to pay. Approximately, 90% of these people are non residents of Clayton, many of whom are lower income or people of color. There is a myriad of reasons why someone might be unable to appear to court and be issued a bench warrant, and the consequences are significantly more dire than most people realize. People with a lower income and people of color bear a greater and significantly more profound burden of these consequences. The primary purpose of municipal charges is simply to encourage compliance with city ordinances, and as made clear by the Missouri Supreme Court prior to Ferguson, Municipal courts strayed from their limited non-criminal purpose through excessive fines, court costs, and bench warrants. Following Ferguson, the DOJ recommended major reforms, and the Missouri Supreme Court adopted recommendations focused on limiting fines and court costs designed to increase revenue and the issuance of bench warrants to aid in that goal. In this light, municipal courts, particularly here in Clayton, are more analogous to courts of equity where principles of equity must dominate operations. It's simply impossible for any municipal court to operate with full dedication to the pillars of equity without input from someone from the community committed to the community with expertise in the area of equity when it comes to selecting a judge. In a community like ours, which tries to serve as a leader in the St. Louis region in terms of progressive and welcoming values, it is imperative that our court reflect these values. But how can we be an equitable community if we don't respect that each of the approximately 3,000 cases brought before Clayton's court annually are not just data points. These are people with their own unique circumstances. We're here to urge you to recognize the importance of including a community member who's an expert in issues of equity and the selection of our judiciary because we believe that from every one of these seats tonight, this is power and this is privilege. And we risk losing sight of the individual circumstances behind these cases, these data points, and sometimes these headlines. While similar recommendations were made two years ago by the subcommittee, data indicates that we have significant work to do should we actually aspire to be an equitable community in the way that we address our justice system. Adopting these recommendations would also be novel in the region and it would further situate Clayton as a leader in equitable matters in the area. As such, again, we recommend that principles of equity and transparency consistent with Ferguson reforms be embedded in the selection of Clayton's judge. And we recommend that a member of the CEC be included in the selection committee to assist in the evaluation of our applicants.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Chris Schmees and I'm on the Community Equity Commission. And I just wanted to what may seem like a bold move to ask for a member of our commission to be part of this decision, but let me tell you why. We were created to be an advisor, to bring two matters of equity to the board and to the mayor. And I think we've really tried hard to do that work and do that research. We make it our business to know what we're talking about. You may not have read the whole Forward Through Ferguson report, but members of our commission have. So I just wanted to remind you what the recommendations were from the Forward Through Ferguson report on the justice issue. And I'm quoting now from the report. Judging nonviolent offenders can wreck lives. When someone is jailed for failure to pay tickets, the justice system has not removed a dangerous criminal from the streets. In many cases, it has simply removed a poor person from the streets. In these cases, the justice system only removes that poor person from their family, from their community, and in many cases, from their job. These sentences can have long-lasting, widely felt consequences, none of which directly impact community safety. So we want to bring that the signature call to action that addresses this sentencing reform is to eliminate incarcerations for minor offenses. Quote, municipal courts shall not incarcerate individual for minor nonviolent offenses. They should also not issue failure to appear warrants on such charges as these often lead to incarceration. If you know how this process works, people can be apprehended because they have a bench warrant in Clayton, they can be picked up in Ferguson. And without a quick response, they may be jailed. People have been known to lose their jobs, their families, their homes, their cars. Our interest in this is to say we need someone who's an expert in equity to be on this and not saying that I personally am the expert in equity, but there are those people in the community legal experts on this to be part of this and the Equity Commission is a voice of citizens in the community. So humbly ask for your support.

Thank

you.

Thank you. Anyone else want to, okay.

Okay, very good. Thank you very much for all of that input. We really appreciate it. I think at this point, I will open the discussion for the board and I will just kind of go around now in order of seniority and ask the board, well, backtrack, sorry. I forgot one thing. I did want to ask, our city attorney has looked at this as well and I wanted to ask if he would review his thoughts on it, which he has circulated to our board, just as a matter of transparency so everyone can understand that perspective.

I just

have to add a comment here.

We received an email from our attorney mid-afternoon, which some of us read on the way in here. If there's going to be legal discussion, I would request that we break and have that legal discussion. I think that's

exactly what we would need to do, but in order to just lay that information out, I would ask him to just beat it essentially

i i would be happy to address any issue the board wishes in any forum i think however i understood the older person's comment was if we're going to discuss legal issues to do so first at least in a closed session so that there can be confidential attorney client communications and after that

You

all are the client. You all will decide that.

My goal is to share the opinions with everyone. So in the case that it is true that we got that information just this afternoon, would you like to, I think maybe it would be a good idea to then break and hear from our city attorney on what he had to say? I am happy to go ahead, and as a

liaison committee, I'm happy to go ahead and make my comments now, I think perhaps. And again, I don't have a plan for this. It came this afternoon. But we may want to take some time before we actually go down the recommendations. We can see at that point. But having a discussion on it now as a board, I have no problem. I'm ready to tell you a view from a liaison viewpoint.

Okay, but I would like, I think it would be important for the board members to consider our city attorney's input before we make comments and make decisions. So that is my request. If we need to break into a legal session to do it, then I'm happy for us to do that. Does anybody have an issue with that?

I'm not sure what you mean by break into a legal discussion. We would

go to a closed session in order to hear his input.

Yeah, I guess I would just wonder about the, I think this is an important topic and I want to talk about it and I want to consider it. I agree we have not had sufficient time to consider the lengthy legal opinion that we received late this afternoon. Some of us work, and so too, so we weren't like just ready to take that in. And so I also, I guess, I'm not quite sure the point of procedure here, but it would seem to me like perhaps this is something that we could table, like we could do executive session tonight at the end of the meeting. We could conduct the rest of our business and bring it up again in public at our next meeting versus like stopping. I don't know what's being proposed, but like, I'm not going to be prepared to make a decision tonight probably based on just learning this legal information. So, and everything else.

All right. So that's an idea too. What we could do is- having heard from the commission, we could table this matter until our next meeting and at which point we will have had time either at the end of this meeting or at a future date to have heard from our city attorney. That seems like a very reasonable idea too. So if anybody disagrees with that, speak up. I

think that makes a lot of sense to me. I think there's questions and I agree with Alderman Patel, I'm not sure I'm ready to make a decision at this point. So I would like the input and the time because it is an important issue.

Yeah, it really, really is. And we really want to give it thorough consideration. I

would want to, depending on how obviously how the meeting goes, but this would be on our next docket then, correct?

It could be as long as we've had the opportunity either at the end of this meeting or at the beginning of the, I think we have to be at the end of the meeting to consider our city attorney's comments. Yeah, okay. So if someone wanted to make a motion to that effect.

I'll make a motion to table the recommendations, the CDC recommendations until the next meeting.

I need a

second. I'll second that. I had a comment about when we have our executive session since I haven't even had time to read through that email either. But yeah, I second that motion.

Okay, we can talk about when we do that going forward here. But we have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Any

opposed? OK, that motion passes. Do we need to do anything else with that? Can we decide now when we would like to have our executive session? How would you like to? What's the process there?

Well, whenever the board would like to have it. If you'd like to have it this evening, we always post the language that's required to go into a closed session on all of our agendas. So we could do that this evening. Or if everybody wanted some time to digest this, we could have an executive session on the 28th, I believe we do have a discussion session scheduled where Chief Smith's going to talk about LPRs and flock cameras. We could do that during the regular portion of the meeting if the board wanted to meet in a closed session beforehand.

I would suggest

that option up to the board.

I would suggest that I think this has been a long ride for the commission members involved. And if we can wrap it up as soon as possible, go ahead with the session, the closed session tonight and have it rescheduled so that this can have some closure. It's, it's been, I don't think it's been easy for them.

Ira, you had a question about the closed session.

Right. I mean, I don't even know it was there until you guys just mentioned it. I mean, on a subject that's on this agenda. And apparently, that opinion was sent to the mayor a month ago. We didn't see it till an hour ago, or me just a minute ago. You know, I just don't feel prepared. If I'm going to pay attention to the rest of the meeting, I don't feel prepared to go ahead and have executive session about that email tonight.

And I will say, you know, we could always go into a closed session on the 28th and have this on the regular agenda later that evening. So we could just table it. It'll be on the agenda for the 28th and we could have that discussion beforehand.

I mean, I just feel like is everyone going to be here? If everyone wanted

time.

I mean, is everybody going to be here on the 28th?

I will. I will

know I just want to make sure I feel like we're all here tonight so it's an important topic so we're going to talk about it in, I just want to be sure everybody's here I don't, you know, we don't want to delay it again because somebody isn't going to be here until.

Right, but we're tabling tonight no matter what, apparently on the issue. So, it's just a matter of whether we have the executive session tonight or we have it prior to the next scheduled meeting. And with that as well on the agenda.

Well, so just one question for you all. If we want to discuss the legal opinion with our city attorney and then have time to think about it before we meet and discuss and ask questions or further discuss the whole thing, it wouldn't be really prudent to do it, the discussion session and the topic all in one night. I mean... Or what do you think? I mean, you're saying that you don't want to do it that fast. You want to think about it? We would need to schedule it in separate meetings. I'm all for speeding this up. I totally understand the length of time.

I would suggest that we have the executive session tonight. People probably saw this email at different times today. I did have a chance to read it. I don't think I would necessarily feel rushed, but Certainly in fairness to everybody, it seems that we ought to have the executive session if people feel like they need to think about it some more and then sort of renew the executive session prior to the meeting on the 28th. We ought to try to move this thing along and we don't do that by doing nothing. So I would say we ought to have an executive session tonight and see where that takes us.

I mean, I agree. I mean, I think it's better to talk about it now and then again. Yeah, and we could, yes, potentially talk about it in two weeks again but I think it's important to continue this discussion tonight so we all tend to think about it. I don't want to hear from Kevin two weeks from now and then have to make a decision based on what we're talking about two weeks from now.

um ira is that okay because we we can talk about it again on that night and certainly you're free to always call our city manager and city attorney in between with your questions as usual um

and i

will apologize thank you for uh bringing that out ira that i did ask about this about a month ago and i will say i completely forgot that i had done that um i just got sort of wrapped up in the other pieces of the puzzle here. So my apologies there, but as it turns out, you have plenty of time to digest it. So that's good. All right, so we had a motion and a second to table and we voted yes to do so. And then we have, I think, decided to have an executive session after our business tonight. Do we need to vote on that?

That's fine. A motion for a closed session would be required, but it doesn't have to be made

now. Okay. Okay, very good. All right, you all. We want to give this all the attention it deserves. So appreciate it. Appreciate you coming. And I think

we're going to just move on in our agenda. Okay. Thank you. Find my place. All right, so

the next thing on our regular agenda here is something called the consent agenda and the city manager will report.

Yes, so this is a new one. So again, we got authorization for this at the last board meeting when an ordinance was passed to establish a consent agenda. So tonight is our first look at it. Essentially, if anyone wants to pull an item off and talk about that particular item, you could make a motion to do so now. We'll remove that item, place it in the city manager report, and take it up individually. If no one wants to remove any items, a motion could be made to approve the consent agenda in whole, and if it's seconded, we'll have a roll call vote, and the entire consent agenda will be approved without any further discussion on those items.

I just had a question, David. If somebody just has a question about an item, not necessarily just asking a question about any item, does that automatically remove it from the consent? If there's a

question on any of the items, I would say to go ahead and remove it and place it on the city manager report and discuss it separately.

If I may, in some other client communities, if it is, is this the same thing we did last year? That sort of thing. Many boards will just entertain that question so that it doesn't

Right, and that's kind of what I was wondering if it was something that was...

It depends on the nature of the inquiry and how much discussion is involved. But if it's point of information that's readily addressed, many boards

will just indulge the question and move on.

Okay. Any other discussion about the consent agenda? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll now move to approve the consent agenda with the five items listed.

Second.

Any discussion? Alderman Lynch? Aye. Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Butte? Aye. Aldemem Patel? All right. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Good. Next, the amendment to Chapter 100 on subpoenas.

Yes, the Charter of the City of Clayton authorizes the Board of Aldermen to issue subpoenas. The attached ordinance establishes a procedure to issue and enforce subpoenas for matters of city interest under investigation by the Board of Alderman. A majority vote of the Board of Aldermen would be required to issue a subpoena. Subpoenas must be signed by the mayor and served by the city clerk. In the event a witness fails to comply with a subpoena, the city may seek enforcement by the St. Louis County Circuit Court. After hearing, the circuit court may determine that the subpoena should be sustained and enforced. And in that case, the subpoena the subpoena will be enforced in the same manner as though it had been issued in a civil case and the circuit court. Failure to comply with a subpoena would also constitute a violation of city ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance, establishing procedures for the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas.

Very good. I'll open the

discussion. Any questions? Not seeing any. Ira, any questions?

No? Questions over here. Discussion.

Can you give us an example?

Sure. So essentially the charter allows us to do this and no process is in place to actually issue a subpoena if we wanted to. But if the city was deliberating on a business item and wanted to bring in someone to speak on it, whether they're an expert or they're somehow a party to it and we needed to talk to that individual as a part of our deliberations, the Board of Aldermen could issue a subpoena for that person to come in and participate in those deliberations.

It's not unlike a congressional subpoena where the folks want to do fact-finding. It has both an investigatory and a legislative role as a subpoena. For instance, if you were considering action on a license, that is a liquor license or something else, you can subpoena witnesses to come in and testify so you can hold a hearing on If you are considering legislative action and want to talk to folks who are involved in that arena of the city's business activities in the city and say, how do you think we should legislate in this arena? Tell us about your experiences. You can compel them to come in and testify so you can make an informed decision on the legislation. So it serves both an investigatory and a legislative role. It's just the reason for these ordinances, you haven't thus far in just the past. You've had this in the charter for probably 100 years and haven't had occasion to use it yet. But when it comes up, you'll be ready. That's why it's here.

It's interesting because I try to picture that situation where a subpoena to me is where there's a reluctance. witness someone who's not voluntarily coming or they cover or something else so they

may be reluctant it may be you know you you've um you violated our ordinances eight times with regard to this subject we want to know how we can make the ordinance better and stronger so you won't do it again maybe that's the question

so this is merely just to give us a tool in the there's no specific use in mind but we have the authority so let's authorize

Very similar to the debarment ordinance, we passed a few meetings back. It's something that the board hasn't done historically. It's something you're authorized to do. We just need to establish a process in case we would ever want to use it.

Can I just say something also? I don't think subpoena power is only used when somebody is unwilling. Very often people are at work and they need to have a subpoena to show their boss that they have a reason to be somewhere other than at work. And it can be very helpful to them, the person who we want to talk to. It could be very helpful to

A quick question. I may be mixing apples and oranges here, Kevin. But so one area I know we have a lot of frustration with is housing enforcement, particularly rehabbers who start on a house, don't do anything. We seem to be very limited in our ability to get people to show up in court. If they do show up, we give them minimal fines because we got limits from the Ferguson rules. In theory, it sounds to me like being able to subpoena someone who doesn't show up would be a way to sort of put some teeth into this, but I have a feeling I'm mixing sort of metaphors here. So is housing enforcement, is this just a whole different area and we have to deal with that separately?

No, it's within the range of legislative inquiries that you can legitimately make. Yes, sir.

I mean, to that extent, I would find it very helpful in that area.

If we can only find out who to subpoena. A lot of these property owners are LLCs and we don't know. Okay. I was

just going to ask a question. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. David's point... in answering Alderman Buse's question. So is it, are you or your office like doing some sort of like review of our charter to help us establish provisions for things that we have the right to do? Like I'm just interested that these, I think it's great and I'm just nosy about it.

No, not at all. Our city attorney was actually reviewing some things and noticed that we had that in the charter and we didn't have a process established and let me know about it and It makes sense to try to establish a procedure in case we wanted to utilize it at some point.

Great, thank you. Okay, shall we have a motion?

I'll introduce Bill 6958 to approve an amendment to Chapter 100, Article 4, relating to procedures for issuance and enforcement of subpoenas to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6958, first reading an ordinance relating to procedures for issuance and enforcement of subpoenas in furtherance of Board of Aldermen proceedings.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

Move the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6958 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favour?

Aye.

Any oppose? Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6958 to approve amendment to Chapter 100, Article 4, relating to procedures for issuance and enforcement of subpoenas to be read for the second time by a title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6958, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance relating to procedures for issue and enforcement of subpenas in furtherance of Board of Aldermen proceeding.

Alderman Lynch.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldowoman Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Alden Bader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda, on-call services for landscaping.

as the city has been engaged in a contract with Kristner for landscape architecture services for a number of years. In 2016, Kristner supported the city in drafting the adoption of tree and landscape regulations and has since operated as the consultant completing review of landscape and tree protection plans. Staff is proposing an updated contract to continue engaging Kristner for consulting services. There have been changes in staff and rates since the on-call contract was last revised in 2019. Rates for Christner staff working on city projects has increased from $160 per hour to $165 per hour. The cost of consultant reviews associated with site plan review projects, which accounts for the majority of the work completed, are included in the permit fees collected by the city. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the execution of a contract with Christner to provide professional services related to landscape architecture and tree preservation.

Well, Matt isn't here for us to ask questions of. It would

actually be Anna. It

would be Anna, okay. Planning and Development Services.

I'm just trying to

give Matt

a

hard

time. Matt is online too.

Oh, Matt. Oh, there he is. Okay, good. All right. Well, I'll open the discussion then. And does anyone have questions for our staff or discussion? No?

I guess the only question I'd have for Ana is how well their reviews have been received by those who are, by the applicants, I guess. And I know they help our committee, but sometimes there's questions by the applicants. I mean, are they doing a good job?

Yes, I think they are. Most of the time it's receptive feedback. I would say the majority of the time every once in a while you're going to have disagreements from anybody who provides review of a private project. But the majority of their comments are, and we've recently, part of what perceived doing this amendment to the agreement was talking about what the comments have been, how they might have changed since the original agreement in 2016. There was a time period that think really started with the Centene project, where the scope of their review comments started to go outside of direct related to tree preservation per ordinance and landscape requirements per ordinance. So we've discussed kind of an evaluation based on the fees we've been collecting and how those relate to the permit fees we've been connecting their hourly rates. So I think right now we've narrowed it back to their reviews really targeting specifically what's written in our ordinance as opposed to some of the other review comments that are more personal preference related.

Let me ask it another way then. Are there comments reflective of what the ARB really is looking for?

Yes, I think so. I think some of the areas where maybe there's more discussion are related to items like how landscaping can relate to stormwater runoff and best management practices around dry wells and other items that are not directly outlined within the tree and landscape regulations. And so that's where we've directed most of their comments to steer towards what our current tree and landscape regulations are, which don't address some of those areas. So that is an area that we have listed on the code for when we do our zoning code rewrite, which won't be started for another year.

I guess that makes sense. My impression is, and maybe it's different than it used to be, that we get the review and then certain people on ARB who have deep landscape background go on and make suggestions that seem like the christener might have caught but you're saying that would be out of their scope to say what's invasive what's not invasive what's

no invasive but not invasive is is those are items that they do they will look at um and they'll they'll you'll see every once in a while on comments where they when they do a site analysis they might see large growth areas of honeysuckle for example and they'll recommend removal of the honeysuckle as part of the project so that They're commenting on those or changing species of trees to align with native species. But as far as how those items relate from an urban design perspective or from a stormwater management perspective, those are the areas that they're more maybe just making recommendations as opposed to calling out issues that are not compliant with our code. Thank you. Good

question. Anything else, guys?

I have a question. So... Maybe I should know this, but I don't. Similar to what Rich was asking, if we're trying to move more toward native plantings, which can be much more cost-effective, longevity of the plants and everything else, as well as help with stormwater one-off and all those bigger picture items, how do we get there? Is that

Sure. Well, I think those are very interconnected ideas. Right now, the tree and landscape regulations really approach it from native species being important, but those are really triggered related to the canopy coverage. That was one of the main driving factors of the analysis in 2016 that ultimately set up this code. So that has to do with long-term when we see new development, removal of trees, making sure that we're requiring planting of the types of trees that will grow to provide the canopy coverage that was removed as part of that development project. And so there's also a percentage within that of the number, the 33% of the trees you plant have to be native. So we can adjust that percentage to gear a little bit more towards native. As far as the landscape requirements, Those are really more basic to make sure that there's some coverage, minimal planting so that when a new house is developed, it fits in a little bit more with our landscape. So a lot of areas where you see massive subdivisions built west, you know, you see a few shrubs planted with some of the new houses, right? So you can tell where the new house is. So that's really what the landscape portion of our code represents. right now triggers is making sure that they're planting a variety of shrubs and ground cover and those types of elements that it from day one the house fits in a little bit more but hasn't gone into so far as to analyze the types of plants native or not and how those plants specifically would do better with stormwater management. So that is an area that moving forward when we look at our code and I know the mayor brought up impervious and pervious coverage questions that is kind of a you know, we'll take a hundred degree view of that when we do the comprehensive plan. And then when we actually sit down to rewrite our code, we'll probably go back to Kristner to kind of evaluate where we were in 2016 and where we are now and changes that we can make.

Because even with canopy, a fast growing canopy may not be the most sustainable option. or longest lasting, the fullest canopy over time. Right.

The canopy coverage is really important for some aspects, you know, heat island effect and others. But those trees aren't necessarily the best when it comes to other aspects of sustainability. And so we do need to evaluate whatever, you know, goals and priorities come out of this comprehensive planning process with sustainability and equity and land use in mind will be the guides we use when we, right, when we look at our zoning code as the tool that it is to kind of enforce those principles.

Okay, thank you. Questions though? Any other ones? Okay. Alderman Lentz?

I'll introduce Bill 69-59 to approve a contract with Christner Architects for an on-call services for landscape and tree preservation to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Oh, Mr. City Attorney, sorry.

Bill number 6959, first reading an ordinance approving a contract with Christler for professional services for landscape architecture and tree preservation.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6959 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 69-59 to approve a contract with Christener Architects for on-call services for landscape and tree preservation to be read for the second time by title owner.

Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6959, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance approving a contract with Christner for Professional Services for Landscape Architecture and Tree Preservation.

Alderman Lynch.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldewoman Butte. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldewoman Butte. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

I think last not least the Maryland Park construction contract.

Okay, so in 2018, the city of Clayton acquired land at 7811 Maryland Avenue with the intent to create an urban park in downtown Clayton. The conceptual design for the park was approved in 2019. And since that time, the Clayton Community Foundation or CCF has been raising funds to help pay for the project. The city of Clayton was also awarded municipal park grant and the amount of $225,000 for the new park on Maryland Avenue in 2021. The request for bids for construction of the park was issued in March 2022, and although minor changes were made to the scope of the project to reduce costs, the bid still came in over budget with the lowest bid at $454,900. To move this project forward, and with approval of the Board of Aldermen, city staff applied for additional municipal park grant funding for the new park. Staff is notified in October of 2022 that added funding had been received and the total grant funding for the park at 7811 Maryland Avenue was awarded in the amount of $455,000. During this time, the CCF continued its fundraising efforts and has currently raised over $123,000 for the project, bringing the total funding available to $578,000. On January 31st, the city issued a request for bids for the pocket park and three sealed bids were received and opened on February 28th, 2023. Vernon Jones Construction submitted the low bid on the project and they've been selected to be awarded the contract for this work. The Department of Parks and Recreation is requesting approval of the contract for $526,400 plus a $26,300 contingency, which equates to 5% of the project cost. This contract price includes the bid alternate of $14,100 to replace the concrete paving at the center walk with paver stones, which was included in the original design. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve the ordinance executing a contract with Byrne and Jones Construction to construct a park at 7811 Maryland Avenue.

OK, very good. I'll open the discussion. Questions or comments? OK, very good Thanks to the Clayton Community Foundation for pulling that rabbit out of their hat. And also for the Parks Commission, what do we call them? Pat Kelly for giving us that great grant. Mayor, quick question. Oh, I'm sorry.

I just thought, and I didn't see it mentioned here, I thought there was like a water feature or something that we didn't have the money for at some point that was still out there, but is that now covered?

Yes. So we tried to engineer and get that cost down the first time we bid it out. We removed the water feature. We added it back in this time that we bid it out and it should be covered. Yeah. And the living wall did have a sponsorship through CCF.

Thank you. You're welcome. And I was just going to point that out, that thank you so much, because it had been scaled down and still didn't quite fly, and then everything's back in there, and you got a bid that covered it all, and it's going to be great.

Yeah, Vernon Jones is really excited for the project too, and so we're happy to hopefully get it started. Thank you.

Tony? Well, we have, is there going to be a water bottle filling station? Yes. Awesome.

for

all the people riding the bike lane. Correct,

and as a reminder, the bicycle repair station for our previous city manager will be there as well too. Wonderful.

Am I correct that the amount raised is slightly more than the amount needed at this point?

Correct, but the city was to pay for some of the site furnishings, so the tables and chairs that are all one piece together, the bike repair station, and the drinking fountain water bottle filler. Yes, those were owner-furnished.

found a purpose yes for the dollars

yes

when will the park be open

um well actually burn and jones they knew that they're on the agenda tonight so they're going to get together uh some dates that they think they can kind of squeeze the project in since it is smaller but we don't have that yet hopefully um this summer but we want to make sure we are trying to get on their agenda sooner rather than later and squeeze it in

very good thank you you're welcome Okay. I think we are, we've discussed it. Mr. City Attorney.

I didn't introduce it first. Oh, I

thought you did.

Bill 6960 to approve a contract with Vernon Jones Construction for construction of a pocket park at 7811 Maryland Avenue to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Do

I have to ask for more discussion? Any other discussion? No? Okay. Mr. City

Bill number 6980, first reading, 6960, excuse me. First reading, an ordinance approving a contract with Vernon Jones Construction for construction of a pocket park at 7811 Maryland Avenue.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6960 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Let the minister reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6960 to approve a contract with Vernon Jones Construction for the construction of a pocket park at 7811 Maryland Avenue to be read for the second time by a title owner.

Second.

Discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6960, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Vernon Jones Construction for construction of a pocket park at 7811 Maryland Avenue.

Alderman Lynch.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldermen Sater. Aye. Hi. Mayor Harris. Hi. Thank you.

Okay. I think that concludes our official business. David, do we have anything else?

We do not.

Okay. So just before we have the closed session motion, I would like to propose that we forego our roundtable. and just go do our closed session business. Does anybody have problems with that? Or is this something you really want to talk about? Okay.

All right, great.

All

right. I move that the Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by section 610.021 subsections one, two, and three revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate owner personnel negotiation of a contract pursuant to section 610.02.1 subsection 12, and or proprietary information pursuant to section 610.021, subsection 15, and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to 610.0201, subsections 18 and 19. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. A

roll

call. A roll call, okay. Alderman Lynch? Aye. Alderman Arkowitz? Aye. All the women McAndrew. Aye. All the women Buse. Aye. All women Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, June. You're welcome. Thank you. So there'll be a new link.

call. A roll call, okay. Alderman Lynch? Aye. Alderman Arkowitz? Aye. All the women McAndrew. Aye. All the women Buse. Aye. All women Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, June. You're welcome. Thank you. So there'll be a new link.

So Ira, I sent you a new

link.

Mm-hmm. Okay.

Okay, so both your city account and your personal. So we'll log out and log back in.

Yeah,

of

course.

I'll leave that up to you all. I'll need to bring up a new link. Yeah, you can end this meeting. Yes.