August 16, 2021 — Meeting Transcript

And Susan, you're going to have to help me along here because I just rely upon Steve and I think of myself as the yes man. That's all. First call of business is see who is here. Who's going to do the roll call? Anybody? Anybody?

We have lost Susan.

Susan Buse fell off there.

Susan just fell off there.

Let's see if we get her

back.

You shouldn't have said anything to her, Bob, about relying on her. I think that got her a little skittish and she disappeared.

Anissa, do you mind calling the roll real quick?

Yeah, I can do it. Hopefully I don't forget anyone's name. I'm just going to read off the screen. George Hedick.

Here. Here.

Ira Berkowitz.

Here.

Bob Denlow.

Bob Dunlow.

Here.

David Gipson.

David Gibson.

Here.

Helen DiFate. Here. Steve Lichtenfeld. Carolyn Gatiss. I think that's everyone.

Helen DeFate. Here. Steve Lichtenfeld. Carolyn Gatiss. I think that's everyone.

All right, perfect. Thank you.

Yep.

And the next order of business is Are the minutes, I assume everybody has reviewed the minutes. And does anybody have any corrections to make with regard to those minutes?

We did not have minutes available for this meeting, so we won't have anything to vote on. Like

I said, we'll pass it to the next time. Okay. Next, we are at new business. Are we open to the public at this time? Is that? Yes, we are. Can everybody hear what's going on? And is there anybody in attendance?

We do have eight attendees on.

Okay. The first order of business is 6428 Cecil Avenue and this is for the request for city plan commission review, the site plan review. And Do we have somebody to give a summary of that application for approval of the site plan for 6428 Cecil Avenue?

Good evening, Anissa Cumroe, Principal Planner with the City of Clayton. This is for 6428 Cecel Avenue. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing garage and porch and the construction of a 1600 square foot detached garage a new terrace and patio at the rear of the home, a new side entry steering canopy, and a swimming pool. While the detached garage contains a second level with a bedroom, gym, and bathroom area, the garage is not considered to be a second unit per city code as there are no permanent provisions for cooking facilities. The staff report details the criteria for review. In terms of compatibility, the surrounding properties contain single-family homes and the project meets the setback height and impervious coverage requirements of the R2 zoning district. In terms of stormwater, the proposed project results in an increase of 0.096 cubic feet per second. A dry well in the rear yard is sized to handle the additional runoff. The project meets code requirements for landscaping in terms of canopy coverage and native tree requirements, as well as code requirements for lighting. On the third page of the staff report are considerations that the plan commission should take into account. In conclusion, the height setbacks and coverage as proposed are in conformance with the R2 district. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following condition to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the drywall, the applicant shall report the approved site plan with St. Louis County and submit proof of recording to the city. That concludes my presentation on the site plan.

Thank you very much, Anissa. Just so the public and the swanks know, this is a two-stage process this evening. We start with a site plan review, and assuming we approve that, we move on to the architectural review that you had submitted to us. With that, Susan, do I open it up to the applicants to... give a response to the application and give us just a general idea of what they're trying to do. And then we can maybe ask some questions.

Yes, now would be the time for the applicants and their representatives to make a brief presentation before the plan commission. And then the plan commission would have the opportunity to ask them questions. And then you would open it up to the public if there was any public comments.

Thank you, Susan. Diane and Peter, do you have anyone besides yourselves here? We do. Okay. And how would you like to make your presentation to us? We would like Doug to kick it off. And that's Doug Leipziger? Correct. Yes. Doug, can you hear us?

I can. Can you hear me?

You got the floor.

Great. Good evening, everybody. As Anissa summarized, the site plan is mainly the new garage in the rear of the property as well as a pool and a modification to the rear patio area and there are the the existing drainage for for the site kind of goes from the front yard to the rear yard mostly if you um are looking at drainage area map one, that's the existing condition showing most of the stormwater draining to the rear of the property. And the proposed condition is DAM two, the proposed drainage area map. And that shows all the new improvements as well as the information about what stormwater is being captured. So there is an increase in impervious area for this project and it is being captured, the increase is being captured by the roof of the new garage is being all captured and directed to an underground drywall system in the rear of the property. It is sized to handle the increased impervious area and it still will drain to the rear as it has been before but the differential will be lower during normal rainfall because of the dry well system.

OK. Peter, Diane, do you have anything else you would like to add?

No, thank you. We appreciate you having us tonight virtually. Just that our intention with this entire project has been to keep the historical look and feel of the neighborhood. It's very important to us that the house blends in with the homes that are nearby, and we've worked really carefully with our architect, Mark and Doug, and the contractor to ensure that that look and feel remains the same. It fits in very well with the neighborhood.

Don D' That look and feel has more to do with our second phase we're really more concerned with the height setbacks and.

Don

D' The drainage, but I do appreciate your comments at this time as well that's very nice.

Don D' I can also mention that the garage is as an accessory structure is is outside of the accessory structure setbacks on the rear and side yard okay.

Very nice. Are there any members of the commission this evening who have any questions of either Doug or Peter and Diane?

I have just a couple. Just

with regard to the site plan.

I have just a a couple. So you talked about a well. Can you tell me how that well works, Doug?

Yeah. So most of the time it's dry. It's basically Chris Wanner, A underground almost class it's kind of a plastic kind of structure underground that is surrounded by clean gravel, which means it. Chris Wanner, Is gravel that doesn't have really small particles in it it's so it has a lot of void space open space in between the gravel to capture water it goes down approximately let me scroll to that page. Chris Wanner , If you look on page. You can see a detail of the drywall. And it goes, the rock and the drywall together act as the storage area for stormwater. And it goes around the drywall for three and a half feet of rock and then below the drywall for four feet of rock. So that's the entire storage area underground. From the surface, you wouldn't even know it was there. Almost just looks like a, a clean out from the surface.

So the water sits in the well until when? It

slowly infiltrates into the ground

or evaporates. Okay.

It's kind of just a place to hold water instead of it just running off right away.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, And the capacity for that. Well, PB David Ensign, Yes. PB Harmon Zuckerton, What is that what is it said, how do you figure on making sure the capacity. I mean, we've had some pretty driving rains. Sure. PB David Ensign

, You have PB Harmon

Zuckerson, To do with those. PB

John Gerstle, Yeah, and we've done many of these and Clayton for previous projects, but basically how it PB John Gerstleg, It basically we find out the difference in impervious area for the entire site. And then that tells us a cubic feet per second of stormwater that comes off the property. So that increase is what the drywall is sized to handle. So in theory, after the project's done, there's no increase in stormwater runoff from the side. It's the same as... Actually, it's gonna be a little bit less during most conditions because the drywall is a little bit bigger than it needs to be.

Wouldn't it have to be, but you'd have to base it on a certain level of average water runoff, correct?

Correct. It's the 15-year, 20-minute MST design storm.

Okay. All right. That's what I was looking for.

Anyone else have any, thank you, Ira. Does anyone else have any questions?

Can I ask that Doug identify, Doug, are you a civil engineer or an architect?

I'm a civil engineer with civil design. John Falk is the engineer of record, but he is out of the He's out of the office this week, so I'm covering for him.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anybody else? Okay, as I look at the request for the site plan approval, I see that the staff had recommended the approval of a site plan.

Bob, before you get there, you might want to ask if there's anybody in the audience who has any comments.

And plus, I want to ask if anybody in the audience would want to make a comment or have any questions regarding the SWANKS application for a site plan. Is there anyone raising their hand, Susan? Or Anisa, I don't know who. I cannot see. I therefore, go ahead.

Nobody's raising their hand. David usually monitors that. So he'll check for you.

No hands up. No hands up, okay. Thank you guys. With that... With regard to the materials we have in front of us, I see that the application by the Swanks has been recommended by the staff with the condition to ensure that the future maintenance and operation of the dry well shall be recorded with St. Louis County and that proof of the recording shall be submitted to the city. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion with regard to the site plan application at 6428 Cecil Avenue.

I'll make the motion to approve with the recommendation from the city.

Any second? Second. Ayes. Aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay. Peter and Diane, it looks like you'd be playing for the Cardinals. You're getting a thousand right now. Okay. Next we go to the request for architectural review board where Peter gave his some comments about keeping the architectural character with a neighborhood in that we have plans before us that show the garage And what I see here, we're going to demolish the existing garage and porch. We're going to construct a new detached garage. It's going to have a gym and a bathroom area, no kitchen. Okay. Mr.

Chairman, Anissa can summarize for you. That's kind of how we usually do it. Sorry to interrupt.

That would be great. Please. Okay.

This is for the architectural view for 6428 Cecil Avenue, which we just discussed the site plan aspects for. In terms of compatibility, the proposed addition and modifications will maintain the existing traditional style of the home. The Skinker Heights neighborhood contains many similar style homes. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing rear porch and replace it with a terrace porch. Staff is of the opinion that the massing of the porch is compatible with others in the neighborhood and that the design and materials are complementary to the style of the existing home. The applicant has also proposed a detached three-car garage. The proposed location is partially screened from the north by the principal structure and screened from the east and southeast by landscaping. In terms of building materials, the porch addition is comprised of red brick veneer with gray shingles to match the principal structure and contains several attractive design elements as noted in the staff report. The primary material of the proposed garage is red and brown brick veneer to match the principal's structure with white azic board trim. Gray tab roof shingles are proposed. The garage is articulated on several facades with aluminum-clad dormer windows and the east facade also features a trellis with a planting bed. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to add a pool south of the proposed terrace addition, which will have limestone coping and a six-foot black aluminum fence, which will enclose this area. The driveway is proposed for expansion in the rear of the property and will utilize exposed aggregate concrete to match the existing. In conclusion, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R2 district and the architectural review guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that proposed terrace porch garage and other exterior alterations are compatible with the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood. And our recommendation is to approve as submitted.

Okay, Anissa, thank you very much. We have had plans provided to us Peter, Diane, is Doug going to carry the football for us and try to explain the garage and the pool? Or do you want to say something first?

Sure. Doug, I can't

remember.

I'm not sure if Mark was able to join, but either.

I'm not. Sure. Either. I usually just do the site plan review, but since I'm not an architect, but. Is

Mark, is Mark available? I'm sorry. I'm having trouble seeing who's on the call. or architects. I

don't see any hands up or anyone named Mark on there. There's one phone number that I'm not familiar with. It's a 314202 number.

I think actually Mark, I think Mark must think that it started at 6 p.m. because I just got an email from him.

Yeah, he was supposed, I think he's just running a little behind. We will do our best to answer any questions anybody has.

Well, are there any comments you would like to make about your detached garage? Let's start with that, the construction of it and the planning.

Sure, yeah. So it was important for us to have the garage fit the home and look as if they very much go together. So we found the brick that would match the front of the house. So when looking at it, the two... go together. We very much wanted a three-car garage, but we didn't want to have the garage look like it was overwhelming the land. And so we worked really hard with Mark to take out a lot of room there and some of the revisions before we sent it officially to you folks. We're very happy with it. We're going to have a smaller pool so that the yard We still have a lot of green space and a lot of nice landscaping that we think will fit in. So hopefully it's in keeping with the standards of what you all look at, and we feel very good about it. You have a pool

there now?

No, we do not. Okay.

You made the reference to a smaller pool, I suppose.

Oh, as opposed to a large pool. We're adding a pool for the first time. Okay. All

right. Is there, and with regard to the pool, the garage, and what about the canopy and the side stairs? The

canopy and the side

Yes, we're looking forward to building a terrace that extends off of the back of the building, back of the home, and to be used for a seating area and entertaining. Yeah. That will be covered.

And there's wrought iron that matches the front of the home. It'll be a small sitting area back there as well. We want it to be a nice stairwell that comes down with some plants and... It's on the diagram, but some landscaping that kind of goes down as well.

Well, I'm looking at plans. I mean, it looks nice. And the second floor is going to be a guest house without a kitchen as well as a gym.

So we decided that we wanted to make it kind of more just like a bonus room. So we do not yet have a family, but one day it would be fun to kind of have a TV rec area. That's one thing that we don't have in the inside of our home. So the intention was to kind of make it kind of an office area with a gym there too and kind of have it just be a little extra space.

My family lives in Wisconsin and hope to have them for holidays. It's a nice place for them to stay as well.

Very nice. Is there anyone on the commission who has any questions to ask of Peter or Diane? Ira, you're on mute. I'm on mute. Mark is available.

Yeah.

Oh, he is? Mark, are you there? Are you there? I don't see a phone number up there. I'm attempting to move him over now.

Mark? Mark, can you hear us?

Mark? Can you hear me? I can hear you now. Mark, welcome. Are

you the architect? Yes. Mainline Group is the architecture firm. I'm the principal at Mainline.

Yes. And we're now reviewing the architectural aspects of the Swank's plans. And maybe you can inform us a little bit about the project. Okay.

Well, the Swank's bought 6428 diesel a couple months ago, and they would like to add a swimming pool, a formal raised terrace on the rear of the house, and also help them design a three-car garage, okay? Okay. Um, and we're, um, you know, we're very sensitive to the context of the neighborhood, the architecture of the residence. Um, we've been very diligent and looking at very compatible materials, which we've sent, we sent a material palette, some photographs over to Anissa this morning. I believe she has those also. Um, I joined in late because my audio was not working on my computer, so I apologize for that. I'm assuming Peter and Diane gave you some background on the project? Okay. Yes. Okay. So we also have invited our civil engineer, Doug Leipziger with CDI to join in case you had any questions about the site plan. I would be glad to answer any specific questions you have about the designs.

Let's find out. We do have your plans, Mark. We're looking at the proposal. It looks pretty good to me, but I want to know if there's any commissioners who have any questions or would like to get some information about some aspect of this project.

Karen Hollweg, No, I have no questions or my only comment is really I think it's well done and I, like the way the details have been handled on the brick and the railings I think it's it's going to be an asset. TAB, Mark McIntyre,

Thank you

much. TAB, Okay, anyone else.

Yeah. Do you offer pool passes to the commissioners? You got

it. Well, okay. I like that. Anyone else? Okay. I think with the commissioners, we are done. Is there anyone in the audience who would have any questions or comments for the commissioners? Is there anyone with their hands updated?

Not seeing anyone.

Okay. With that, with regard to the application to the Architectural Review Board, the plans have been recommended by the staff. And with that, do I have any motions with regard to the Application to the Architectural review board

I'll move to approve as submitted.

Second.

Okay.

Ayes?

Aye.

Nays? Okay. Just Peter, Diane, just let Ira know when the pool party is. Thank you very much for your consideration. Okay. Good evening.

Thank you very Much. Appreciate

it. Mark, thank you. Doug, thank you very much. Okay,

no problem.

The next order of business is 420 Oakley. Okay, I'll

go ahead and give the presentation on this one. The address is 420 Oakly Drive. This is for the review of the design and materials associated with the retaining wall. The property is located south of the intersection at Shirley Drive and Oakley Drive. The project consists of the installation of an 18 to 24 inch retaining wall in the front yard adjacent to 424 Oakley Drive along the southern portion of the property. The proposed wall will be constructed with modular block. In October of 2020, the adjacent property at 424 Oakley received ARB approval to install a 73 foot retaining wall, a portion of which is located on the subject property. The proposed retaining wall materials and color for this are proposed to match the formerly approved wall. Typically, the ARB prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards. Modular block walls are permitted if they contain three different block sizes, a varying color pattern and tumbled or rolled edges. The applicant has proposed the use of bell guard ashlar tandem modular block in beige, which contains three different block sizes and a varying color pattern. But the proposed wall does not utilize tumbled or rolled edges. Although the board usually prefers tumbled edges, staff believes the proposed retaining wall is comparable to and complements the stone found in the neighborhood, in addition to matching the existing retaining wall. As preferred by the ARB, the proposed retaining wall will be set back from the sidewalk approximately 27 to 48 inches based on the structure of the existing Pinocque route. Staff's recommendation is to approve as submitted with the use of bell guard ashlar, Shelby blend and beige per the applicant's request. This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Anissa, very much. With that, do we have the applicant here? Todd, you're on mute. Todd, can you hear me?

Are you

there?

Yes, I'm here.

You have to speak up just a little louder for at least me to hear you.

Okay, well, I'm

using

my phone. There

you go. I cannot, you were in for a brief second and then you went back out. Now you're on silence.

How is this?

A lot better.

Okay.

Are you on a phone? Awesome. Okay, just speak as loud as you can so we can hear you. Basically, it sounds like you are extending a retaining wall that you had recently built on your home. Is that correct?

That is exactly correct. In conjunction with construction going on next door, which my neighbor Ira has been

witnessing. The good news is you're here. The bad news is we can't hear you very

well. I don't know what to tell you. I can see all of you and I can hear the echo of my voice. Well, if

you keep your voice where it is right now, next to the phone like that, we can maybe get by. Okay?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, my pleasure. What would you like to tell us about your application to extend your retaining wall? And I also notice you have a recommendation by a neighbor, is that?

Yes, so as part of construction next door, I had installed a 73-foot retaining wall, which replaced old railroad ties on top of a concrete pad. As the project has gone on, I had removed ivy in my front yard to sod it in conjunction with my neighbor. As it turns out, sod is not recommended for that area. And now I have mud runoff onto the sidewalk. So to remedy that and solve for that in an aesthetically pleasing way that is consistent both with the existing wall and the retaining wall alongside my entrance to my basement garage, I would like to do another 20 feet plus or minus around everything

else. Okay. I have the application. It basically said in October of 2020, you installed a 73-foot retaining wall. Is that correct?

No, it was installed in March

of 2021. March of 2021. And the length of the one that you wish to do now is how long?

A

total of 20 feet. How many feet? A lot. 20 feet. And the main purpose of installing the second phase of the retaining wall is to accomplish what purpose?

To prevent mud from running onto the sidewalk and to effectively frame in the southwest corner of my property. So

it's to control the water runoff?

Yes,

which

was

not previously an issue when I still had the ideas. Okay. And you submitted to us a picture of the retaining wall material I'm looking at. And you also gave us a kind of like a handwritten diagram showing where this retaining wall was going to go. Is it going to look the same as the one you recently installed?

Exactly.

Okay. and your neighbor has approved it, is that correct? Or recommended

it? Okay.

I think I understand it. Are there any people on the commission who have any questions for Todd?

I just have one. Todd, how you doing? I've had a little trouble hearing you as well, but I think we got the gist of it. So obviously I can look out my window and I can see your front lawn and I can see what you're doing. And I absolutely approve it. I think, but I think I have a I'm just wondering, and I think you may have the same concern. You have a you have a pin oak tree that sits somewhere in that patch of ground and You know, I would hope and I'm sure you will be very considerate of that tree. It has actually some good function in the neighborhood. It actually does provide great shade onto Oakley at various times of the day. And so I would hope that we could make sure that we don't do any damage to that tree. But otherwise, I think your project makes a lot of sense. And so I'm glad you're doing it. So,

okay. The wall along the sidewalk. And I was told that would not be viewed well by this committee. So as you can see from my proposal, I'm looking to do hopefully only 27 inches in, but perhaps further back if need be. But if the commission is going to report that mention, it's only going to have minimal success.

Okay. Todd, in all honesty, you're coming in and out, but I do think we have a good gist of the plan. And it's not every night we have somebody on our panel who can look outside and see what it looks like.

So... Bob, I just have one. Once again, it's because I'm having trouble hearing. The trustees have looked this over and approved it?

Unanimously.

unanimously. Okay, thank you.

Okay. It's on the application, George.

Anyone else? Okay, with that, I'm going to ask David, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to say something with regard to this application?

I'm not seeing any.

Okay. With that, I will note that the staff has recommended to approve as submitted with the use of Bellegarde, Ashlar, Shelby, Blen and Beige per the applicant's request of the applicants submittal. Is there anyone who would want to make a motion on this panel at this time?

I'll move to approve as submitted with the use of the Belgard, Ashler, Shelby blend and beige per the applicant's request.

Is there a second? Second. Ayes. Aye. Any nays? So approved. Todd, thank you very much for your hanging in there with us. Okay. Next, we have 7600 Wydown application accessory structure. Anissa?

Yeah. The project address is 7600 Wydow. The 1200 square foot restaurant is located in the southern tenant space of the building located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Wydown Boulevard and Westwood Drive. The restaurant owner is proposing to construct an awning over their 192 square foot outdoor waiting area located in front of the restaurant facing Westwood Drive and adjacent to the existing outdoor dining area canopy previously approved by the ARB. In combination with the existing awning, the total area of the awnings will span 534 square feet. The awning will extend towards Westwood Drive, but will remain behind the front building line of residential buildings to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the color and material of the proposed awning is compatible with the surrounding area. Staff has some concerns regarding outdoor dining and parking at the time that the staff report was finalized. We had not received an outdoor dining permit application, despite this being an annual requirement for the conditional use permit. Staff also has concerns regarding the parking layout. If you look to the site plan included in your packet, staff is of the opinion that spot seven would impede access to the parking lot. At the time of writing the report, we were still in need of additional information regarding the minimum employee parking requirements per code. However, since then, we have received an outdoor dining permit application that provides additional information. While that application is still under review with staff, it does impact the staff conditions that I had noted in the report in terms of parking and outdoor dining. Additionally, the submitted outdoor dining permit application notes that the hours of operation are until 10pm, while the approved conditional use permit lists 9pm as end of business. I would therefore like to make the following staff recommendations in lieu of what is noted in the staff report. First, a site plan showing the proposed parking configuration shall be included with the building permits submittal for the awning. Second, an application for an administrative amendment to the CUP for the hours of operation shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit submittal. And three, that concrete boards as indicated on the plan shall be included in the building permit submittle. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Anissa. If I understand, there's an awning there now and this is an application to extend the awning more or less over the waiting area where people sit and waiting to later eat?

That's correct.

Okay. And I see Pam is with us. Is that correct? Pepe. Pepe, Pepe, you there? You're on mute. Yes. Welcome, Pepe. What is your relationship to the owner? Yes. Okay. And I have been there and it's a wonderful place. So let me practice that. Thank you. Do I understand the nature of the application? You're just trying to basically extend over the waiting

area? Yes, sir.

Okay. And that would also call for putting up bollards to separate the parking. Excuse me? Are you in your restaurant, Pepe, by some reason? I'm sitting outside. Okay. Because we can hear background noise sometimes.

Yeah. I'm

sitting

outside

now. It's great. Okay, thank you. Can you just briefly tell us what you're trying to accomplish here?

Just some seating for waiting and weather for weather because I don't have anywhere to have people wait when it's weathering, winter, raining. We just need that basically. So we're trying to mirror the overhang that we have right now.

And if you're sitting outside, I assume where you have the awning is a primary source of your seating, especially during this COVID period.

Yes. Well, that was seating, yes, for inside or for dining, but this would be just for waiting.

Right, right. Okay. Anything else you would like to tell us about this project?

No, I think that... You know, as far as the barriers going to the new part of the awning, I mean, they weren't required for the first one. And I think it's the same mirrored one that we would ask. We put them in there, but I would think that we would ask for them not to be in there if possible just for the aesthetics of it because they weren't required in the first place. And it's the same type of barrier coming down the driveway from the first one aesthetically. I don't think it would be look right so okay

i should point out to you uh pepe the staff has recommended these uh bollards to be put in i'm looking at a picture of your place i don't see one any there are these like the large concrete bollards you would see in the street

right but that's what that's what i'm saying when they first built that out they weren't required

okay because you know i recently went down uh into the loop and in the U City part of the loop, they have put many number of Bollards like across from

of Blueberry

Hill to extend the seating area into one lane. And they are large and they're not the nicest looking, but they do provide protection. And I know the staff has recommended even though you are not on a moving thoroughfare, it looks like would cars be pulling in at first to park there?

Yeah, they used to. That would have been the first parking spot. They would be going into what would have been the second parking spot.

What I'm trying to figure out is where the waiting area is, is that where people walk only on that surface or are there cars actually coming across that surface?

I'm not understanding the question. One

more time. If I want to walk on one of those couches right now, would I have to walk through cars that are parked on that surface parking lot to get there?

To get to the... No, you would come up the sidewalk to get to that waiting area. And so is the waiting area surface...

just all people walking and standing?

No, it's elevated. So the waiting area is elevated to the same size as the other to the other area.

What I'm trying to figure out is what are we using the bollyards for if we impose them on you? That is Why are we needing to protect people sitting in couches with bollards? And the answer is what, Pepe? Why are they being put there? Why would we impose them on you to protect the people from moving cars?

That's what I'm saying because there's raised concrete. So there wasn't imposed there before because there was also raised concrete. So I don't know why they would be there. Um, I believe Lawrence had maybe put them in there. I believe Rick, uh, is on from Lawrence, but we would ask them not to be, if we had to, that would be, you know, the final thing, but if not, um, we would ask for that. And who was Rick? Rick gang law from Lawrence fabric.

Mr. Chair, I brought him over from the attendee list. He should be able to answer questions at this point. Okay. Uh, Rick, you there?

Yeah, I was listening to your question and answer there. If you can review the photos from like a front elevation, the existing canopy is elevated. The concrete's elevated above the parking surface. This will be on the same grade as that. So it will be elevated also directly to the north. So that very first parking spot that they'll be able to pull up to next to it It will be considerably lower than the grade of the canopy. Rick,

if I may interrupt you, are you referring to what looks like a two foot tall retaining wall, but it's made of concrete?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, so they'll get out of their car and they'll walk up to the sidewalk towards the building and they'll enter that way. They won't be able to just walk right onto that canopy.

Okay. So are you telling me that I'll call it a two-foot retaining wall is going to be extended across the waiting area where people will be sitting in couches?

It will be underneath all of those couches. It will extend from the existing canopy over to that first parking spot, and the second canopy will fit on top of that.

And if I get to the bottom line, will there be a concrete barrier that looks like a retaining wall separating people sitting in the couches from the rest of that surface parking lot?

Oh, I see. You mean above grade?

Yes.

So then a

car could not just accidentally drive a little too far. I'll put it that way.

I don't know because I'm not pouring the concrete. We illustrated those bollards because there was a condition after the application was turned in. I know people would prefer not to have them if they're not needed. On the right side, the north side, I guess they could extend that concrete and have a bit of a lip higher than grade instead of the bollards. Would there be

cars on that north side of that blue car that's parked there right now? Yes. Is there a reason to be concerned?

Maybe when you open a door to possibly hit the concrete or the bower would be the only concern. I don't think it would be a person thing. If Pepe can get back on, I can't recall if we're putting up a handrail there or not on that north side.

Yes. Yeah, there would be a handrail. So the reason I'm just going over is originally when the canopy was put up on the first patio, whenever they built out the first patio, the first parking spot to the patio with the railing, there was never required any kind of barriers besides the elevated concrete with the railing. So it's the same elevation. with the railing, then the parking spot next to it. So it'll basically mirror the same canopy and the same concrete. So people won't walk in front of that. They'll walk the sidewalk into the restaurant.

So there'll be a barrier across the whole width there. Yes. Is

that right? It's the elevated concrete that the canopy sits on.

and hand

wrap. Susan, are you following this? All right, David, go

ahead. I was just going to ask, Mr. Chair, if I could suggest, I'm having a little bit of a hard time following and the plans don't really show, they really don't show what this will look like ultimately. I don't know if Rick, it's possible, there's nothing in the plan set that would even indicate that this is going to be on some kind of elevated surface. There's nothing that shows what the walls will look like. I'm having a tough time understanding exactly what... what we're trying to approve here. So I don't know if it's possible to maybe postpone this and get better plans.

I have a question on that. Is there, I'm not, all I'm seeing is the seven of you. Is there a rendering that I provided that showed the canopy next to the other

canopy?

No. And they were with the 10 sets of plans that turned in. There

is a plan with a proposed canopy.

This is a rendering, not a drawing.

Received from Case Engineering Inc. It's two pages. It's actually

the two, it's photographs. It looks like photographs, not renderings. Just another comment. The applicant put the bollards on the plan. Staff is not requiring those, so I'm not sure why all of a sudden they don't want to have them. That's fine, but they're the ones who put them on the plan. So I think this plan needs to be cleaned up quite a bit because nobody seems to know what's going on here.

I think I see the picture now you're talking about the rendering, but it's difficult to discern what's happening there. It's just kind of a It looks like your structure there, but it's just all black with no real detail to it. I'm just struggling a little bit to figure out exactly what this will look like and what that elevated surface will actually be.

Okay,

well, I

can change a drawing and note the concrete, but I'm not providing the concrete. So I'll check with the detail on it in the handrail as well.

Right. I think Pepe and Rick, I think David and Susan as the staff members just want to make sure that we know exactly what we are approving so that you feel satisfied and the city feels satisfied that everybody is going to enjoy the restaurant and be safe at the same time.

That'll also give an opportunity to show the revised parking spaces and everything else that's a condition of the approval on the report here.

I don't

want to speak as the only one. I don't know if Helen or...

No, I agree, David. Thank you for saying what I was thinking. Another thing that concerned me is the way the two awnings coverings will meet They come to a valley, and unless that valley is sloped, water will sit there.

Well, there's a gutter up there now. The second canopy will also go into the same gutter.

Okay, I would want to see that. How are the two canopies going to be connected together?

They will not be.

They will not be, so if it's raining, then conceivably, if I'm in the waving area, and want to go to outdoor dining, I may need an umbrella too.

Well, you'd be walking under the gutter, but I can illustrate that better.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would want to see more information in that area.

Okay. I have a question on the parking comments that you've made. We're going to go with We're going to go through this. I'd like to hopefully do this just one more time. Is that a parallel parking spot number seven that we show that's in front of the canopy? Is there a problem with that spot?

Yes, we reviewed that spot with our public works department and determined that there would not be enough access. If that spot were installed, it would create a pinch point, essentially.

Should I take it out for the next submittal?

Yes.

PB

Harmon Zuckerman, So is that is that this you're talking about the spot where we see that Lexus. Is that what you what you're referring to. PB David

Ensign, I don't have that like Lexus in front of me but PB David Ensign , Just wondering where you PB

Sarah Silver, Look at the there's a site plan was included i'm kind of perpendicular to the proposed canopy it's labeled number seven.

okay

it would be that lexus if it pulled up about 10 feet or so you can see the curb line there and where that causes an issue

yeah i just okay now i'm looking at i just want to make sure it wasn't that number one because i think that looks i mean that's yeah good that's a good spot for people to pull up on and take their you know to go to go boxes um

Okay.

Yeah. My only comment is, yeah, I think since, yeah, if there was, I'm with everyone else here. I think that there was no, I didn't see a raised deck or anything on which this would sit. And so I didn't catch that either. And so it would be good to see that. And I think it would help with the argument regarding the bollards as to whether or not they would be needed. Okay.

Well, I'm going to resubmit without those. Knowing that we can add them, I guess, if it's recommended. Right.

Yeah. The argument is good, but the drawings don't support the argument. So anyway, so I would just recommend that you notice that, and I think we'd have a better idea about whether ballers would be an easy target.

So gentlemen, Pepe, Rick, it looks like you've just got perhaps a little more work to do. But I think you're definitely on the right path to make something happen sooner rather than later. If we could just postpone you to the next meeting. Would that be right, David? Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'd make a motion to table this to September 6th.

August.

August 6th.

I believe it's September 7th.

September 7th. Okay. Rick, you'll be in contact with the staff with your paperwork and we will see you September 6th, provided we have a motion to approve the rescheduling of this meeting. Mayor Mrakas, matter to September

six and Mr chair just just to clarify that will be September 7 September six is Labor day.

Mayor

Mrakas , Is there a motion to move this matter for hearing to September seven. Okay

guys.

Mayor

Mrakash , Okay gentlemen see you in September,

thank you, thank you.

Okay. Next, we have 7600 Y Down, an architectural review. We just did that one. 7676 Forsyth Boulevard, the application with regard to signage.

Subject property is part of the Centene Clayton campus and is located at the corner of Forsyth Boulevard and South Family Road. On June 18, 2018, the ARB approved regulations for a signed sub-district governing signage for all properties within the Centene Special Development District. A copy of the approved signed sub-distric is included with your packets. The request is for six interior graphics, all to be located within the building with no signs proposed for the exterior walls. The dimensions of the graphics are included in a table within the application materials. Although the graphics are located interior to the building, they are classified as signs per city code, which states that any identification, which is visible from any public place or is located on private property and exposed to the public, which directs attention to a product, service, place, or business. Additionally, per sheet 2.7 of the approved sign subdistrict for Centene, all interior wall graphics require ARB approval prior to submittal for sign permits. With the exception of one graphic, all graphics are proposed to be LED illuminated. The larger lettered graphics will be located along the windows on both the Forsyth and Hanley facades and will be black during the day and will be illuminated with white letters at night. These two lettered graphics will the most visible to pedestrian and vehicular traffic due to their size and position. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a wood wall to be located on the interior of the window along the Forsyth elevation. The wood wall measures 20 feet in length and 19 feet in height. The wood wall will be a fixed graphic piece and will not change in the future. Should the applicant wish to remove the wood wall and replace it with a different graphic, approval would be required from the ARB for any changes. The applicant did not specify the specific material or color of the wood. In total, 469 square feet of graphics are proposed in association with this request, including 380 square feet for the proposed wood wall. Staff is of the opinion that the majority of the proposed interior graphics are consistent with one another and with already approved signage that exists throughout the Centene campus. However, staff believes that further information is required on the material and design of the proposed wood wall, given that it will comprise a large portion of the facade. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following condition to be addressed prior to issuance of a sign permit. Provide further information on the wood wall in terms of specific material, color, and design. This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Anissa. As I understand it, we're basically talking about the signage for the Chase Bank that is to go in at the corner of Hanley and Forsyth.

Yes. And what

I call the second tower of Centene. Okay. And I do believe we have some people with us. Chris Smith, are you with us on this matter? Chris, you're on mute.

Am I there?

You are here. Can you tell me, Chris, what is your role with regard to this project?

I Dale signs have been hired out by a national sign company. We install quite a few of the Chase Banks locally here in the St. Louis and East St. Louis area. And we've been chosen to install the Clayton site.

Okay. Are you the designer and installer at the same time?

I am only the installer.

Okay. Yeah. We have been submitted some plans. Chris, would you like to give us some comments that you would like us to hear about this project of yours?

Yeah, well, most of the lettering that's going to be proposed is on the display walls on the side elevations. They sit back, the display walls sit back. 10 or 12 feet from the window glass frontage. They were typical LED lighted channel letters with the only difference is they will have a black what they call a day-night film on the letters. So during the day, as you can see in the front windows, they look dark or black, and at night they will illuminate white. As far as a wood wall goes, that is a wood veneering that's on that section of the display. It doesn't change colors. It's not a It's just a standard wood wall. If I need to propose exactly what Chase has in mind, I'll get a product for you. I do not know that at this time.

Okay.

And there are several other pieces to the project.

When you say there are several other pieces to the project, what are you referring

to? I think we, and this can help her a little bit if she wants. I think there's a total of six signs included. They called the Hello Clayton individual acrylic letters on the further back interior wall. There's a Chase Octagon logo that's illuminated above a TV and kind of the reception area. And then on the back entrance wall, we're wanting to propose another set of lighted LED letters up on the interior inside that entry door.

Chris, can I just ask you, if I walk past this place at night, is it going to look like a Nashville's downtown area that goes all night?

I do not believe so. No, the day-night film that's on these letters, a decrease decreases the total illumination of the LEDs. I'm not saying it's, you're not going to see it, but it's not as bright as if it was a white

white. Okay. And is it like, are you gonna have like one large monitor? With a sign on it? I'm just trying to figure this out. There's like a large TV screen were you referring to or what?

I'm not following that. The interior wall Octagon logo is illuminated. It's just an interior dress piece. Okay. Below that is a TV by somebody else that as people are sitting and waiting their turn can, I don't know what they're going to put on Chase ads. I'm not sure.

Okay. All right. Is there anybody on the panel who has any questions with regard to the application for signage primarily dealing with the Chase Bank facility?

I've got a few. I don't think I, you know, signage is really a big deal in Clayton. People care about how it's going to change the, just the, I guess I could call it the attitude in Clayton, in the downtown area. And so I don't know what, I think I heard you say something about you're going to have some kind of TV or some kind of, I guess, messaging that's going to be occurring at some point on your building. Did I hear that right?

I have no idea what the Chase people do with the TV. I do not know that. It's back in the office area in the reception area. I do not and

how visible would it be from traffic?

I don't I mean, I don't have the floor plans. That's probably I would guess 50 feet off of the windowsill. I have no idea. I mean, I didn't propose a TV. That's not what I'm proposing.

Right. I didn't quite see that on any of the plans, but I just heard you say it. So

yeah.

Yes. It's my, it's my concern.

Yeah. I don't think it's going to be, I mean, that I drove by there the other day, that, that wall sits 10 to 12, that the display wall sits 10 or 12 feet back off the windows. And then you're going to look inside for that. You would have looked very deep. I think driving by to even think that that TV was even there during the day.

So let me ask you about the stationary type signage. Yeah. So is it capable? I mean, are you going to install any kind of flashing? Is there going to be different colors coming at us with those signs?

Not at all. Not at all. It'll be a simple on during when it's on. It's white at night and black during the day. And the blue, the illuminated octagon on the inside of the TV is just an illuminated dress piece that all their locations have.

All right, Bob, you can ask if anyone else has questions.

Does anyone else have any questions on these chase signs? And I just want to say, you know, as you think about this, what would concern me is I don't want something jumping out at me, you know, like I'm going to be mugged by a sign so big or so lit at night that it's going to create a momentary daytime as you walk by at night. That's all I want to say. And I think, Chris, what you're telling me is that that is not going to be the case.

I do not believe so. I mean, you folks have lighted channel letters throughout the entire area for all signage on the exterior of the buildings. These sets are even set back inside and deeper. I don't think there's going to be an issue with that whatsoever.

Okay. I appreciate your comments, Chris. Thank you. Anyone with the comments, please? Helen?

Yes, Chris. Just to clarify, the TV is going to be under the Chase logo, the octagon logo.

On the same wall, yes ma'am.

OK. That's not that far from the window where pedestrians are walking by and then you have the sidewalk and then the street. I know the TV is beyond your realm of involvement. Yes ma'am. But that is a concern.

it's off to the one side as you're looking if you're looking at the corner of the building i'm just trying to help this out i'm not i'm not the tv guy here i'm not even putting it up okay but as i'm looking at uh go to page four you have page four in your drawing it kind of kind of uh tells you where all the signage is going at one time Well,

that is quite visible from if I'm going south on Hanley or if I'm going east on Forsyth, that will be very visible. And that is a concern because while it may be fine during the daytime when you don't really see into the building as much because there's activity at night, If that's used as a moving display, a rolling display, then it's beyond your domain, Chris, but that does present a concern to me. The logo there is fine, but it's the addition of the TV with the logo. And then my other concern is really the ARB signing off on a wood wall that we really don't know the design of the graphics. And that is a major, it's 380 square feet. So it's a major feature along that facade.

Okay.

So those would be my two concerns. The other concern as long as what you are doing on the exterior and the interior is not going to be like create a mini Las Vegas at night, I'm okay with that.

With all due respect, I don't, I mean, typically what are bank hours? I mean, right now my banks are closing by five o'clock, to be honest with you. So how late are the TV's gonna be on at night? I don't think they'll be running through the night. And I don't know that, I don't know their answer. At this time I don't know they're hours. But I, go ahead, I'm sorry.

They do have, as you go north on Hanley approaching Forsyth, they do have the rolling banner that is lit all hours of the day and night.

Who has that, ma'am? I'm sorry.

It's the same tower. It's 17 and it's a rolling LED banner.

To the south. Yeah, I'm not

familiar with that piece.

If I'm headed north, I see that. And living in this area, I see it a lot.

I'm sure you do. I mean, but what... I mean, you have a monitor in the back of a room that's probably 40 to 50 feet from the main glass. I don't think that's going to be an issue. But once again, I'm not the TV guy. I didn't propose a TV. I'm sorry. Maybe I should say I don't know anything about TV. All right.

If I could, Helen, I truly do appreciate your comments on this, but I think we're dealing with an application for the signs tonight. And as much as Chris is trying to help us out and understand the TV and everything else, we only have so much time and we need to get focused on whether we're going to approve the signs tonight, but your words are very well taken and It makes me think twice about it, the TV issue. Any more comments, please?

I was just going to say, I also have a concern about the wood wall and just not having any detail on that. I'm not quite sure what that is.

Okay. Once again, I will ask them for more information for you. I'm not putting that up.

I understand. It's just we're giving an approval for the sign package and that's included even though it's outside of your scope for the

install. Is it possible to possibly approve the signage portion of it and we'll table the wood wall thing and I'll submit drawings for that?

I think that would be okay. I'm sorry, gentlemen. Or we could just entrust the staff to approve a wood wall that is suitable so we keep the project moving. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.

I'll be glad to send some drawings of what material they're planning. I do not have that at this moment. Once again, it wasn't under my scope of work.

It seems to me if we were to approve the signs tonight, the wood panel issue would be a subject for the staff's approval.

I almost wonder, and I'll let Susan answer, if the wood walls should not be a part of the sign package, if it's just a wood wall and there's no graphic on it or there's no, it's not really a sign at that point, I think it would be a separate ARB review. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Okay, is that is that correct. Am I looking at this correctly.

HAB-Juliette Boone, And I want to ask Anissa to confirm. So at one point there was some graphics on that wood wall. HAB-Judy Nogg, And we kind of went round and round about how we should approach that, but I don't see the graphics there now and he says that is that true. It was just more of a decorative element than HAB-Julie Tchebolle, Any type of graphics or do you know in conversations

Yeah, so originally there actually wasn't a wood wall proposed there. If you look at the bottom right, it says DRC page four and you look to where the wood wall is pointing, you can kind of see that there is a graphic shown there. So I've worked with the applicant to try to get clarification on what that graphic would look like. And they ended up deciding on a wood wall since it is HAB-Juliette Boone, Interior to the building and kind of you know fits that definition per the sign definition of you know visible from a public right of way we included it as part of the sign package. HAB-Jacques

Juilland, yeah I okay so.

HAB-Michael Leccese, Go ahead interior but okay go ahead. HAB-Danny Teodoru,

So if i'm looking at Dr see five. HAB-Daniel Teodoru, i'm seeing a wood wall through the windows. which I'm not willing to leave it to staff for the approval. I'd rather have it come back to me if this is what's being proposed.

So can I speak? Please. So the wood, so the wood wall as you're looking at on that page you talk about is D5. So the wood wall is just a, I'm not going to call it a standard. My understanding what they've told me, that's a standard wood paneling going up from floor to ceiling and the blue lighting that looks like it's fading, that is actual lighting, interior lighting. I hope that don't get me in trouble. I'm not doing that. But I am willing to get you whatever, you know, I'll reach out to Chase and find out whatever specs you want to know about that wood wall. Miss Anissa knows that when it was originally proposed that they wanted the option to change that square footage every quarter or six months or yearly, right, Anissa? And then she spoke to us and We just, Chase decided that they didn't want to deal with that. And they decided on this wood paneling or wood wall.

Yeah. I mean, I'm torn personally between having a dead corner and too much signage or signage that may be too active or too monochromatic.

Well, somehow this got lumped in signage and it's not signage.

Well, that was the other piece that I'm kind of thinking too.

Yes, sir.

that some of this is actually internal to the building.

Actually, all of it is.

You know, this project is in the process of being constructed as we speak and they have schedules they're trying to meet so they can open up on time and everything else. Our concern here are the signs with regard to the wood panel. Maybe we should go ahead and vote on the signs and the wood panel we just leave to the staff and if it And if they do something to the panel that requires it to be in conflict with an ordinance we have or a requirement, then it comes back to us. But if it's just a wood panel, no signage, no nothing like that, then we just let that go for now.

That's unfortunate, but I think the wood panel is what I really don't want. But I don't know that I can do anything about that. It's too bland.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think the point you're making is spot on, and I think that the motion to be considered by the commission should include that neither the installation nor the finish of that wooden panel is a part of this approval, and when and if it is the property owner intends to place some attention-getting device or graphic on there, it will be considered at that time and may require an amendment to the signed

package. Spoken with great Shakespearean prose. I like that. Ira, you're on mute. I'm going

to say thank you, Stephanie.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Stapp, Stephanie can you repeat your wording for that motion for us. Stapp,

That the. Stapp, Commission's action. Stapp, Today does not include approval of the installation. Stapp, or appearance. Stapp,

Of the item mark wouldn't wall. Stapp, And when and if.

That is to be constructed. Staff will review it, and if there is a signage, it will require an amendment to the signed package.

Okay. Question, please.

Question? Anyone have a comment to that?

Can I speak one more time?

Chris, go ahead,

please. Yeah, I'm sorry. I want to make sure that the wood wall is not... I know the wood wall was on the drawings of the plans originally, but the wood wall has nothing to do with the signage.

Well, it may, sir. It may? Yes. And keep in mind, it was brought before us with asking our approval for the wood wall.

Understand.

And it was originally, as I recall, from what Ms. Kummerow said, it had graphics on it. It was intended to be an integral part of this package.

Okay.

So yes, it may well be part of the signed package. At the moment, it is dormant. But what it's doing there and what it might become is of concern.

Yes, sir. Understand.

So if I understand, what we are considering is approving the signed permit application, excluding matters pertaining to the wall, such as its installation. Yes, very good.

All

right. You know, you've learned a lot from Stephanie. I can tell this is good. She's dragging me into the 21st century. Okay, any other comments before I see if the public wants to say anything on this matter? Okay. Is there anyone in attendance who would wish to make any sort of comment on the signed application? With that, is there anyone prepared to make a motion approving the application for the signed permit as submitted for the request, as submitted to the Architectural Review Board excluding the wood panel.

And may I also add that we exclude the TV since I don't think that's part of this thing, but I want to make sure that we're not approving something that shows itself on these drawings.

And to emphasize that this approval, that the vote on this matter in no way relates to the TV. Right. I so move. Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

Ayes? Aye. Nays? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much. I'm afraid Stephanie has to leave.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you. Have a good night. We have

a last matter today, tonight, and that is regarding something that has been a long time process for the city of Clayton. And that is the proposed amendments to Chapter 410 overlay in urban design zoning districts. We had a public hearing on this last time. We continued it. There was a lot of discussion about the sidewalk width, if you remember, and a couple other things. And if I understand, maybe Susan, you can make sure you correct me or Ira, we have to vote on this before the city council gets to vote on this. Is that right? Is that the ultimate? Okay. That's correct,

Mr.

Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before we get started, I do want to remind everyone I'll be dropping off here shortly and I want to make sure that we have a quorum before I have to go off.

Or we may just have to talk fast. With that, Tim, are you here? Tim, you hear me? Yes. Okay. You know, George is the one who really is our good detail man. So I want to try to keep him as much as possible here. You were here for the last meeting. This is a continuation of our hearing on this matter. I know you were sent home with regard to some issues to consider and review and report back to us. And we are waiting for your words of wisdom.

Thank you very much. Let me just make sure I have the document open here real quick. Great. JoAnne Hanrahan,

Okay, while tim's doing that you all have a copy of the memorandum set dated August 5 on the setback matter and that really was, I think the last matter that generated quite a bit of discussion at the last meeting, but I do believe that's probably the last outstanding matter so TIM. Mark Warren, Before Tim you

talk Susan is there any parameters that you want to tell us before we let him talk about what we should be looking at tonight, a little bit or. some concerns that that we we have

no um just really this is the third public hearing um the outstanding item that was left unaddressed from the august second hearing was when the commission discussed the possibility of modifying the current draft ordinance to require a six foot setback from the front build two line as opposed to a zero foot setback so that the you asked him to go back and take a look at that And he did, John and Tim did, and they drafted a memo kind of summarizing the objective and the background of the proposed revisions and their design considerations and then their recommendations. So all of that is in the memo dated August 5th that was contained in your packet. And I believe that's really the last item that's left unresolved. I think if Tim wants to summarize his memo or just be here to answer questions, that's fine. Whatever it's the desire of this board.

Well, Tim, Susan, thank you very much. Tim, if you could just summarize your conclusions that you're drawing with regard to the six foot setback, zero foot setback and you have the floor.

Yes. Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, everyone. So yes, in the interest of time, I'll just give a quick summary of our evaluation of the proposed amendments. dealing with a mandatory minimum percentage of the ground floor build two line that would require to be set back by a minimum distance, which were discussed at the last public hearing. it's important to note that we noted the contents of the conversation in the memo, but that there was no real decision made or specific dimensional recommendation made. But this idea that there be, instead of a permitted percentage of the ground floor facade that was permitted to be set back, that a minimum percentage of the ground floor facade would be required to be set back at a minimum of six feet in order to provide outdoor program use and more fundamentally to keep that outdoor program use out of the public right-of-way of the sidewalk. And of course, the reasons given for that dealt with the fact that there were concerns that in certain parts of the district, the sidewalks were too narrow to adequately support outdoor dining or outdoor retail use and still maintain a comfortable, clear pedestrian area. So in our evaluation, and we looked at a variety of considerations in terms of the overall district urban design, the impacts on buildings, the impacts on the desired use of the district as articulated in the entertainment overlay, etc., And what we really came down to were, again, some of the items that were discussed at the public hearing on August 2nd, which deal with really how this inset setback at the ground floor is required to be treated and addressed. and how the use of that is enforced over time, as well as the impacts that these requirements would have on smaller lot or smaller incremental developments. I think that everyone's thought is probably around the large sorts of half block developments that are increasingly common in Clayton. But of course, the overlay, the development standards have to address a variety of conditions as well. And we also wanted to be sensitive, although a lot of the discussion dealt with outdoor dining areas. One of the hallmarks of a form-based code overlay district is we are trying to achieve here is that the building forms can support a variety of uses over time and that the building, that the design elements are not so narrowly confined to a particular use that it makes adapting a building to other uses in the future difficult if not impossible. And so The ultimate recommendations that we've come up with, we really think that there are two potential ways that this issue that was articulated, which we do think is a very valid issue, could be addressed. And those are recommendations number one and number two in the memo. Recommendation one, we believe that through enhanced detail in the approval of outdoor dining permits, that where outdoor dining is desired and permitted on public sidewalks, that the city should, can and should take a more active role and a more detailed role in ensuring that things like table position number and arrangement are appropriate for the existing sidewalk width, that a comfortable clear minimum walking area is maintained. and that management and enforcement of dining as approved in the permit be done over time to ensure that those standards are maintained. So on the one hand, we do feel that there are some enhanced operations and management approaches that the city can take to address some of these issues. Secondly, we do believe and we stand by our recommendation that came out of the planning process that incremental upgrades of sidewalk widths specifically along North Central through and during the development of adjacent properties by private developers can be used over time to provide wider sidewalks. And we understand that this has been done with the Ceylon development. And we propose two potential solutions for that. One, a requirement that the developer reconstruct the sidewalk adjacent to his or her property. And that works well for larger developments, typically one quarter block or larger. or that there's a requirement that the developer would be required to pay into a fund for future reconstruction of the sidewalk in lieu of replacing the sidewalk as part of their development, which works well for smaller developments. We would also recommend, and I think one of the things that came out of the discussion, and it is an interesting discussion. It sparked a lot of internal discussion and debate in our office after the meeting on the 2nd two weeks ago. But we do feel that if the Planning Commission wishes to continue the investigation of these revised setback requirements, particularly when it comes to requiring a mandatory ground floor setback of a minimum percentage. We feel strongly that the implications of this need to be modeled using 3D digital models as we had done for other questions and proposals during the planning process to fully understand the form implications of these requirements on different sized parcels or different size developments. And unfortunately, in the two weeks since we met, we have not obviously had the time to do that. We also certainly want to understand from the city's perspective and from your all's perspective if that is something that you wish to proceed with, because it does obviously require an additional level of effort within our contract with the city for this project. But we do think that and we feel very strongly that if if the Planning Commission wished to move forward with this type of recommendation, as was discussed at the last public hearing, that we will need to do some three-dimensional modeling of the physical form implications of these conditions on different sized parcels in order to understand exactly what the form implications are and that that exercise would be necessary in order to determine what the dimensional requirements that ultimately could be incorporated or revised into the new overlay development standards, what those specific dimensional requirements would be. So I'll be happy to try to answer any questions based on the memo that was submitted, any specific questions about any specific points or general discussion about the approaches. I'd be happy to try and answer those now.

OK. For the commissioners as well as for this manner for David and Susan as well. I would really like to have your input because it's quite detailed and definitely requires some a full background to make sure we understand where we're heading with this sidewalk issue. And Tim, I appreciate all the work you've put into this and I appreciate the memo. I've done some looking at it, but it's probably giving me a couple more gray hairs trying to understand all of it as well. Anybody please on the commission.

Okay. I guess I would have this question for the other members of the commission. We're talking about changing these setbacks potentially, and as Tim mentioned, we haven't modeled this. We don't know really, or at least I don't know PB Harmon Zuckerman, Exactly what those those implications would be what we've done to the the massing of buildings. If we've done that, what, what it will actually look like on the ground. PB Harmon Zuckerton, You know, I have an idea in certain places or what it may look like. But if we have that requirement. that we set back certain areas. I just don't know what it looks like. And I don't know what the comfort level is of everyone moving forward with changes in that regard without visually seeing some type of representation of what that looks like.

Personally, it

makes me a little nervous, but I wanted to check with others.

I mean, it's important we bring this matter to a close at the planning commission level. But it's also important that we feel comfortable on an issue that has increasingly become more important to what we hope will be our identity in our downtown.

So... Well, David and Robert, if I may offer two examples of where I think, again, this issue of modeling these is very important. And these are two examples that were outlined in the memo. So for instance, we mentioned in the discussion of the design considerations that for example, there are lots that are 25 feet in width in this district where the overlay standards would apply. And I know one of the discussions at the last public hearing which was articulated on the first and second pages of the memo revising it to state something to the effect of ground floor facades must be set back from the build two line for building entrances, open air seating areas and their programmatic uses for a minimum average of six feet to a maximum average of 12 feet for a minimum of 25% of the total facade length up to a maximum of, and I know the figure of 75% of the total façade length was thrown out. So on a 25-foot lot, the minimum setbacks would result in a 6.25 by 6-foot inset, which really wouldn't be useful for any of the programmatic purposes that were discussed amongst the commissioners at the last meeting. Likewise, we decided to look at the Ceylon property, which does have some facade insets relative to its storefronts and its entrances. And while While we are fully acknowledged that those insets are not the six foot minimum depth that was discussed, there's approximately 60 to 65 feet of total ground floor facade length that is set back on the North Central Avenue facade, that total facade length is 218 feet. So that means that somewhere between 27 and 29% of that total facade length, is set back, which if it were set back six feet, it would essentially meet the minimum requirements that were suggested at the last meeting. Again, we think it's important to bring that up because those are our individual storefront insets. And they don't, even if they were set back to a depth of six feet as opposed to the current three to three and a half feet that they are set back, We don't believe that that would fulfill the intent of what was being discussed at the last meeting in terms of providing programmatic space. So again, I think if we are going down this path, there needs to be some very careful consideration, number one, of how these programs percentage setbacks are orchestrated in order to make the space usable. And then also how the space is treated and how the ongoing enforcement of the use of that space occurs from the city side in order to ensure that what is intended by these updates is actually achieved.

Tim, I appreciate what you say. I think at the last meeting there was a strong sentiment to protect the free mobility of the public sidewalks and not to have them encroached for private use and that to use setback and figure out a setback formula so that open air uses, obviously like a restaurant or maybe other things would be available to this generation of buildings going up and perhaps for the next generation of buildings going out. And that the uses we think of restaurants, but as you said, we're not sure what's gonna be in the future. We don't wanna handcuff future uses or our future developers at the same time. So my question to you is, if you assume our goal is to protect the public sidewalks for the public benefit and not have private uses encroaching the sidewalks, do you feel we're at a point where we have something, if we took basically your recommendations would we have a formula to move forward with, or do we have to do this modeling and other stuff still? Because at some point we have to bring things to an end and move forward and vote. So- Absolutely,

absolutely. So I think there are a couple of components to that answer. First of all, I think it's important to... to make a distinction, and I certainly would be interested in this clarification from the commissioners as well. And that distinction is, are there certain types of sidewalk uses in the public right-of-way, outdoor dining, et cetera, that are considered, that the commission would consider to be a possibility positive contributor to the character and vitality of an entertainment district. Our opinion as urban designers would be that having outdoor use, having outdoor dining in particular on the sidewalk is something that's very important for having a vibrant and active sidewalk environment. Now, that being said... It doesn't need to occur everywhere. And in fact, it works best when it's concentrated on a particular block or on a particular street. Um, and, and it, it, it of course has to be done. It has to be implemented and managed and operated in a way that still preserves, um, the, the public use of the sidewalk. But I, but I think that that would be one, that would be the first question is, is, is the opinion of the commission that any side, any use of, of the sidewalk by private business for outdoor programmatic use? Is any of that use undesirable or is it more of an issue that we want those uses, but they have to be done in such a way that there is a comfortable free free use area of the sidewalk that is maintained for pedestrians and wheelchairs and other mobility on the sidewalk. So that would be question number one.

If you could just stop right here, I'll just speak for me. You know, when we talk about sidewalks, it's more than just people walking. I definitely want the freedom to move. But if there is some entertainment on the sidewalk for a lunch hour or something like that, or whatever that brings life to the community, that is great. As opposed to having tables onto the sidewalk permanently there obstructing a free flow of traffic. of people walking. That's a big distinction. I mean, we want to bring life. If I saw a piano, I remember one time, I think I was telling Ira a couple years ago, I saw a piano player on a sidewalk downtown Portland playing. And it was just a wonderful, wonderful effect on the people nearby. But that's different than, you know, having the sidewalk block 24 hours a day with tables and something like that. I do want the disabled to walk down the sidewalk. I do want babies and carriages to walk down. And I do like to have two or three people walking abreast if that is possible. Those are the healthy things that build community. So I don't know if anybody wants to jump in on this point as well.

I'd like to jump in just because, Bob, I want to give you a lot of support for this, your position. I mean, I think, you know, Tim, I think the point is, in terms of saying, well, you know, the sidewalk has to be, we have to figure out ways to use the sidewalks if we're going to have an entertainment district. I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. But I think having stationary objects that actually do preclude people's free flow is I think that doesn't, again, that's not exclusive of having an entertainment district. You know, what we have to find are the necessary pockets of areas and spaces for these things to occur. We want to see that occur. Bob and I are in total agreement with that. We'd love to see people just spontaneously start you know, playing music on streets. I mean, that would be great for Clayton. You know, we have in the loop, there's an area in the loop that if you, you know, almost any weekend day, you can find entertainment going on, music being played. It's over by where Chuck Berry's statue is. But it doesn't obstruct anybody's traffic. People are moving constantly. They're stopping and they're listening or they're walking and and it becomes a whole part of the environment, but they're not playing out in the middle of the street or in the middle of sidewalk where people need to get by either.

No, and I appreciate that. And Ira, one of the positions that we are coming from is maintaining consistency with the other existing overlays, which the entertainment overlay is one of them. And in our reading of the entertainment overlay district, that ordinance... seems to pretty clearly support and encourage outdoor dining and retail uses. So because that's part of what we were tasked with studying in terms of formulating this new overlay, that is certainly a priority that we were being responsive to. But I understand if that maybe is no longer the desired condition or if there are concerns, as you've stated, about the impacts that outdoor dining and retail uses can have, the negative impacts that those can have on the broader use of the sidewalk.

But if we're going to have a six foot or 12 foot setback, why is what you're saying exclusive, mutually exclusive of having entertainment district, which is vibrant and lively and with tables and dining and everything else? I'm not sure. Why is it mutually exclusive?

So again, I think this really gets us to the crux of our concern with the recommended revisions, which is number one, understanding what the form implications of those are going to be. And number two, understanding how the how the long-term management of those setback areas is going to be or what it's going to be rather. So from a form standpoint, I think it's fair to say and I think that you would all probably agree that what a boutique or a retailer, a storefront retailer is going to want in terms of their storefront accessibility and visibility. They're not going to want a mandatory six foot setback for a portion of their facade. particularly if that setback area is not treated as a public sidewalk, effectively required to be maintained as a publicly accessible sidewalk on private property. And the reason for that, quite honestly, is it's going to reduce the visibility and the perceived accessibility of a retail storefront. Now, for dining, it can be a different situation. And, you know, you can certainly have a very accessible patio area that starts at the property line and then goes back some number of feet to the facade, the actual building envelope facade of the restaurant space on the ground floor. And that can all be, you know, particularly when the weather is nice, that can all be made very welcome and very inviting for passersby on the sidewalk. Again, I do think though that one of the questions comes into play is what happens six, five, six months out of the year when it's might be too cold for outdoor dining. How is that space then activated? What is it used for? And then the other question is, and really that kind of comes to the broader concern is in any of these cases, what are these spaces used for? And this is why I think it's important when we think of, and when we kind of look at the principles of form-based coding, the principles of form based coding are not to develop form regulations that are specifically tailored to particular uses, but rather it's to provide contextual and compatible building forms that are durable in nature and that can support a variety of commercial uses in this case on ground floor commercial uses over time. Mark Benthien, ECA- And and again I think you know this is, this is one of our one of our concerns with with this approach is that you're you know you would be tailoring a building for a specific. Mark Benthien , ECA- Use in this case dining by providing by providing outdoor. open-air dining areas within the parcel boundary, but that is a form condition that is not conducive to other non-dining areas. commercial or retail uses on the ground floor. And so would that then make those ground floor units less desirable if a boutique or some other retail establishment was to want to come in if there was not a market for a restaurant? And then you have a building that's designed for a very specific set of uses that then becomes much less adaptable over time. And that in some ways is the complete opposite of what a form-based code is trying to achieve.

If I could just jump in here, I mean, you're really making me think this through. I think our conversation started, how can we make a wider sidewalk? And then we went to the second point was, how do we just protect our existing sidewalk? And then once we decided our real goal should be to protect our existing sidewalk, then what are we doing to the private developer by mandating that they expand out for outdoor space part of their frontage? six to 12 feet. We're telling them, well this is not gonna be a sidewalk, it's gonna be your space. There'll be 25% of your frontage may be recessed back but the rest of it will be up at the street level so it's not a straight path for walking. And so why are we mandating the developer to recess back when that use may not be usable eight months out of the year or six months out of the and it may be only usable for restaurant space. And we don't know what the next usage will be. Am I getting it right, Tim, from you?

Yes. Yes. That's a very concise summary. Absolutely.

And so the question really becomes, If we are going to somewhat concede that the existing sidewalk should be preserved and not be made permanently blocked as we see it now, that's the minimum we're going to do. The next question is why do we want to mandate buildings to have part of it recessed back And then the other issue would be, I think you were talking about a fund where developers would be put in to maybe at some future time actually push out a little bit into the streets as you see in the loop, perhaps?

Right. And so, again, this was using... essentially the built model that, that, that Ceylon has done where, where they were required and they, they did rebuild, um, the portion of the sidewalk along North central in front of that, in front of that proper in front of that project. Now I know that that's a little bit of a different situation because that was done as a PUD. And my assumption is that, that that was, um, that was required as part of their, their PUD approval. Um, And so then the question for David and Susan would be, is it under an overlay district which is essentially by right zoning as opposed to a negotiated PUD process? Is it possible to require these types of public infrastructure improvements on the part of the adjacent property developer um under a buy right overlay i don't know the answer to that question but um but you know we did want to bring that up as an example of of how how it has been done and completed and and then again obviously there are there are two approaches uh that that that can be uh that can be taken one one being particularly for larger developments, if you're developing half of a street, half of a block or more, require the developer to make the sidewalk improvements. If it's a smaller development, then in lieu of those actual improvements, collect a fee from each developer along there and put that into a fund for future, to support future improvement of those adjacent sidewalks.

I thought, Tim, that I remember Steve was saying to require a large project to recess its entire frontage back would not be a desirable result, perhaps aesthetically. And You know, like the whole front, the whole first floor has got to be reset 10 feet back to widen the sidewalk, which it would accomplish. But aesthetically, is that really what we're going for? On the other hand, do we really care if the building is big enough? So part of the street would be, part of the sidewalk on that street would be recessed back and for the older buildings, it would still be up. And I thought... there was a feeling that that is not where aesthetically we would go. I hope I'm not putting words in people's minds from last time, but that was my reaction.

I think Steve's comment, if I can remember it correctly, was he was concerned about it being basically the form throughout the city. He thought that might not look good. PB Harmon Zuckerman, He wasn't saying that there might be some pockets where the area might look fine. He was having a hard time envisioning it all together as as a totality throughout the entire city, how that would look so

David Ensign, That's probably more accurate. Yes. David Ensign, Um, Any comments on it? This is a tough problem. And the easiest thing is always to punt to the city. Well, we've had our shake with it. You know, we got some plans that are recommended. Let them argue a little bit. But you're the city council too. What are your feelings?

So I think the board's biggest desire is for a pedestrian experience. Um, I think when you have buildings built up to the sidewalk, um, no matter what that building is, no matter what it, it just, it doesn't, it doesn't add to your, to your sidewalk experience. Uh, and you're going to, you know, I'm thinking in terms of Merrimack and I walk on Merrimack and We've got Avenue over there and that has a dining area. But when I'm looking on Merrimack, just the fact that that building isn't built right up to where I'm walking, it's a little bit like what we're requiring for retaining walls. My wife and I were walking here in White Owl Forest, and I told her we like to have the walls so there can be a little bit of a garden. between the person walking and that retaining wall. You know, it's kind of the same situation. It's kind of like throw something a little visually nicer at the pedestrian so that when they're walking, they're not just walking along some wall of building that goes up 13. And so we're walking wide out and she said, you know, I don't think we should force people to do that. And I said, okay, fine. So we walked on wide and we walked down one of the streets And we noticed that the sidewalk where there were retaining walls that were right next to us were definitely less pleasant than the ones where we were walking in and the retaining walls were pushed back. It just widens your view as you walk the street. So it's the experience of walking and not having a building just in your face. I guess that I think is what the board is kind of trying to... Well,

what you're saying, Ira, if I may say is... At the end of the day, let's just stick with the entertainment area. Are those areas where we really want to encourage walking?

Definitely.

We want wider sidewalks. in recessed areas that would encourage cafes or some kind of private activity that is outdoors for the passersby to enjoy, whether it be music, whether it be just watching people drink lattes or have a wine or a meal. And we have limited space for it. Under that scenario, Ira, preservation of the existing space as a minimum, but the goal is to widen it.

Definitely, definitely. And the

way to do that is really not going to be so much. I mean, this is me now. It's going to be very hard to require developers to basically dedicate And I don't want to talk about the legal. In other words, you know, you're going to like give us some land for an alley winding, give us some of the frontage for a sidewalk. Is that what we're going to go down that path?

Well, it's not for sideways widening. It's actually for you to sort of bank some space in case so that it increases your... Look, I mean, if we talk about restaurants in Clayton, I don't know what the percentage is of how much restaurant space there is as opposed to a store that's selling some kind of gadget. I mean, I'm going to guess out loud. I'd say we might be close to 50-50. Okay. you know, between restaurant space and then a retailer who doesn't sell anything like food. I mean, you know, we even have we have a wine merchant and that's that's not a restaurant necessarily, but he serves food. These are places. So I don't know the percentage, but I think we have a larger percentage than a lot of cities that I've been to. um because that seems to be the trend is to is to establish even more and more places to eat in clayton but so when i when you're looking at at who we are and you know you have to consider that this is something we're telling the developer you know we're getting we're asking you just to banks bank a little space you want to go another floor that'll that'll that'll easily make up for that little space we're asking for. That's six feet down on the ground. I don't think that's a big ask, you know, because they can always build up and they can always build another floor if they want some more space, you know?

So it sounds like a PUD project where we're going to do a little horse trading. We will give you another floor. If you give us a space on the first floor, I have no problem with that. I'm just saying that which is basically to a traditional PUD type setup. David? Well, I think

so when we think about this project generally in this overlay, you know, we're trying to discourage the use of PUDs. And so if what we put together doesn't work, we're going to end up right back where we were with everybody applying under a PUD. And we talk about the entertainment area, especially along Central there, right? So where Ceylon's at, that half block, that's been developed. That's done. Bemiston Place is going to come in and that half block is done. But when you look at the half blocks that are left on that portion of Central to the south there between the alley and Forsyth, unless you have full block all the way down to Bemiston development on that side, Those lots themselves as they exist where Starbucks is at and everything, they're incredibly, they're not deep at all. There's no depth there. So once you require the six foot setback, and then we require an upper floor step back that's above that lower floor setback, and we're going back even further. I mean, I don't know that you really have much, and this is where the modeling gets important.

I'm

not sure that you even have the capability to go up in those particular spots if we were to push things back. Sam, on the other side where JP Fields is at and Chipotle, I don't know that we have the depth to move the building back and then require on the upper floor a step back before it goes vertical. I just don't know that you have much usable space there. And I just want to make sure that whatever we put in place works and that we don't drive people to a PUD because they're trying to avoid our overlay that yields them very little usable area. That's what concerns me, especially in that section. I think it works well in some areas and others, I'm a little bit concerned if we just have a blanket setback. I feel a need

of trying to bring this to a close, but at the same time, the fundamental question of how do you treat the sidewalks and what are we going to do with these developers to treat them reasonably and not encroach into the streets by widening the sidewalk, which I guess is not on the table so much right now?

It's an option. You know, depending on where you are, it could have some pretty big implications, though, on how a street would need to be reworked to bring the curb line out further. Right. So, I mean, there's a lot of implications depending on where we draw this setback line.

I mean, if we were to approve something tonight and punt it to the, is it city council? It's the Board of Aldermen. Board of Aldermens, I'm sorry. To the Board of Alderman. The discussion is just going to start all over. And we need to be at a point to resolve something, to go to the Board of Aldermen and say, this is the vision we think we should adopt. And that's really what we want to say. This is the vision. And I don't hear us there. I regret to say that.

I think we all recognize, we all want the outdoor dining capabilities. We want the better pedestrian feel. And we're trying to balance that with the fact that we have incredibly narrow sidewalks and narrow public way that exists downtown right now. And it's... it's how do you balance those things and to just do a blanket setback through the whole downtown area i think there are some areas within the downtown where that's going to be a detriment or hinder development or push somebody to do a pud because they won't have much usable space i think and i hate to say this i think it needs a more detailed look um and i think personally rather than than uh punting it to the Board of Aldermen or sending it that direction, I think maybe we almost go the other direction and get back together with that steering committee and let everybody in that group sit down around a table for a couple hours and really sink into this thing and think about what the impacts are on these different blocks. It's hard to do in a meeting like this on Zoom. It's difficult to just talk about it.

I think this way.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Helen. I'm sorry. You were wanting to talk.

I would agree with David that as soon as you start making the building footprint, the allowable footprint smaller, there's a ratio with the core of the building where you have your mechanical, you have your toilet facilities, you have your elevators. that has to be a certain size and going up an extra floor may not be economical when everything is weighed. So there is a ratio of floor area to core that works. And if we start making the buildable areas smaller, that can discourage development and then as david mentioned some of the lots are shallow so pushing it back six feet and the area on central that really bugs me is where they have the seats with their backs to the building and then they have the opposing seats have their back to the sidewalk well That requires a minimum of seven feet. When you start laying out a restaurant or eating, you have two feet for the person, three feet for the table, and then two feet for the purse. That's seven feet. And then a casual leisurely dinner, people will push their chair back and they want to be comfortable. So I don't know that setting it back six feet is going to gain us what we think it is. You know, if we move the building back six feet is not really going to allow dining without encroaching on the public right of way,

public sidewalk. Helen, I think your comments are very well taken and I think they They're kind of like saying what we're kind of trying to say, you know, for the last half hour. I just want to say this because I don't want us to keep going in circles. I think Clayton has committed to a downtown being residential entertainment, working, you know, one-stop shopping for living. And part of that has got to be creating a walkable community where people feel invited to come out during the day, at night. And a key element of that is having an adequate walking space that allows for various uses. and that the storefronts or whatever you want to call them along somehow tune into that kind of style. And it just seems to me, we haven't hit the bullseye yet. I don't know if we're trying to fit a square in a circle, but Tim, I'd like to think that Clayton has come so far in integrating the various different lifestyles a human being has that we're going to create an outdoor living style where they will love taking a walk and someday there'll be an ice cream place. They'll get an ice cream or whatever it is. And, and they're going to be able to sit outside and, and, and then their children are going to come down, call them and say, it's time for dinner. Let's go back to the condo or whatever. And it will work. I've seen this before. And I just don't think Clayton is so unique, but we do have some real problems with sidewalk lane, you know, and our downtown is quite small. We have to marshal every inch sort of.

So- Nicely said, Bob. All of that, very nicely said. Thank you.

And so with that, let's not blow it. Tim, I was hoping when you were giving your assignment that you'd make our job so easy for us. Are we whistling in the wind or are we just chasing windmills kind of thing? Or is there something... I'm not an urban designer. You know, I know about walkable communities. I follow this and everything. I love the idea of one-stop living that Clayton has done. The idea of, you know, bicycles coming in eventually. We are going to go, streets are getting narrow, streets are shrinking, you know, for various urban planning reasons. You know, a lot of streets go from four to two to make it more livable But we can't do that with one block and not the other blocks. And Nick, you know, David, you know how that causes, you know, how does traffic get through? I mean, I see kind of big picture, but I'm not smart enough to figure out the solution

And I do echo that too. I think if we keep doing things the same way as we've done them the last 50 years, we're going to end up in the same place. And so I think it really does demand some kind of creative look. And Helen, I completely appreciate what you're saying in terms of what the developers are facing. Right. I get it. I totally get it. And we have to find some way around making everybody happy in some way. But the general feeling of the board of Alderman is to make Clayton more vibrant, more livable as Bob is suggesting. And we have to do whatever we can to encourage that. And I don't know the solution either. I'm not a solution, man. I can tell you all the problems. I can point out the, you know, well, this is why we can't do this. And this is why we need someone to say, you know what? Here's how we can do your vision. You know, so.

Sam, I'm giving you the floor for the last few minutes. Can you be our savior?

Mr. Chair, I was also going to remind you this is a public hearing. We do have one hand up and I did receive a comment through email as well.

Oh, okay. It is getting a little late. Is it okay for me to have public comments at this time?

Unless you'd like to hear from Tim first. I didn't mean to cut you off there.

Okay, Tim, then I won't go to public comments. So this is not a meeting that's going to run to midnight.

Tim? Oh, I'm sorry. No, I think, again, I appreciate all of the comments and I think all of the considerations that have been raised by the commission and by the members of the public that have been participating relative to this issue are incredibly important. It's not an easy solution necessarily, but It's also important to know that this is not something that is unique to Clayton. This is something that many communities are grappling with. There are a lot of precedents of how this can be resolved. I think ultimately, as David suggested, what we need to do is to just get everyone around a table and sort of understand what are the various stakeholder perspectives and what ultimately are we trying to achieve? And that will help to point us in the direction of the most appropriate solution for this. So again, I just wanted to say thank you all for your insightful comments and your deep passion for these issues. And we'll look forward to working with David and Susan to get another meeting and hopefully try to get this hammered out, so.

Tim, thank you. I would like to open this up to the public. I would love to hear if they have any comments on this topic.

Yes, we'll start with Kathy Beeline, who was a member of the subcommittee on this project.

Hi, I have a lot of comments, but I really think that David's suggestion and also Tim's is probably more appropriate. I mean, I could go on and on about my thoughts and all of the above, but I know Tim and John have worked really hard on this. I think they've done a lot of good things to move Clayton forward and refine things. But I think it's a really, really complicated set of facts and issues. And I think it just deserves more time. You know, I've heard a lot of focus on the design portion of it, the sidewalks, etc., And, you know, I'm a girl that likes my accessories. You know, I love my shoes and I love my jewelry, but really the meat and potatoes is the development side. And I just feel like more time needs to be spent on all of the above. And I think David's suggestion is well taken to go back and sort of try to regroup and get more focused.

Well, Kathy, thank you. Since you've been on the committee, I take your words to heart because you've really put the sweat equity into these issues. So thank you very much. Is there anybody else?

The other comment to receive again was over email and let me take care of this real quick. Anyhow, it was over email. It was actually a nine-page presentation that was sent to me by Hank Wieckelman. I believe he's on the attendee list. He did state that it would be OK to kind of summarize some of his thoughts. A few of the things in here, again, the Bill 2 line which we talked about, it was his previous comment. He wanted to see that located inward six feet from the property line to allow for the sidewalk pedestrian safety and also allow for the projection of balconies and bay windows. He reminded us once again about the corners at these intersections, that we have corners with invitation and place. that the openness of new structures at the intersection should be a priority. Thinking about engaging the architecture with the sky and also with art, and that the sky and art basically form your place and identity for places. And then finally to use the topography that we have, basically that the hill that runs east to west through downtown, so to utilize that for uniqueness was another one of his comments there. I just wanted to mention that Hank had sent that along with some slides. I will forward that on to Tim and John at H3 as well so they can take a look at that because it starts to get a little technical with some things that Hank had modeled out. But all that being said, and with what Kathy said, I do thank Alderman Berkowitz and Mr. Chair as you talked about these things. I think we all understand the city's intent and what we're trying to do here It's really, as Ira had pointed out, trying to find that technical solution that works and that works with the development community ultimately in the end so that they're not driven to do PUDs and this whole thing starts to fall apart. And we spent all this time talking about this and working on it very hard with no end result because they're just going to revert back to their old ways. So my suggestion, again, would be to go back to that steering committee and sit down and let us do some technical work on this and bang our heads on the wall a little bit trying to figure out exactly how to make this thing work because it's going to be tough. But then come back to the commission and back to the board after that. But I think we can figure it out here. So

David, what we do is continue The proposed modifications until some uncertain future date?

It would be a date unknown. We would actually advertise for a separate public hearing, I would think, at this point. Correct, Susan?

Well, David, let me ask this question first. So we're on this track and we have this schedule to get before the Board of Aldermen. And to get before the board, we need a recommendation from this group. um would it not be more prudent to at least have uh take a vote and a recommendation from this group if it's to study it further than so be it and bring that before the board or or just go ahead and table and not even discuss it with the board i'm just throwing that process question out before we make a decision

Speaking on behalf of the board, I don't think it needs to come to the board just for the board to vote on whether or not it's going to get further study. So I don't think that's worth the time of the board, frankly.

There's a cost involved. So I would assume that that would be OK as well, Ira.

Yeah, I think that's the sort of thing, you know, I think that might go into our discussion on Friday maybe if that needs to be. But I think, you know, if you're asking for, if you're saying, gee, we need to have some kind of a resolution to approve of an additional amount that would go towards, you know, Tim's company, et cetera, et cetera. Well, then that needs to be separately obviously agended, you know, an agenda item for us to look at. But just to come to us and say, we're thinking we need some further study. We're going to send it back to, you know, this other committee. I don't think we need to hear that. But if you're saying it's going to require an additional expenditure and the board needs to vote on that, well then definitely present it to us on that basis.

There would be additional costs. It would hit the 21 fiscal year, not the 22 fiscal year. So on Friday's discussion, we're really focused on 2022. This is something that would occur before October 1st. So the money's basically been appropriated just within the larger budget, even if we needed to find a little bit through a transfer. We can certainly talk about that with the board. There would be additional expense with it. I don't think it would be a... you know, a huge amount that really changes things much in our general fund. So, um,

then my recommendation without it,

we're kind of, we're kind unfinished here. So that's the path forward. It's.

I definitely believe, uh, David, your recommendations are the right way to go to basically go back and make, uh, bring this to a resolution at our level so that the Board of Aldermen has something to do and work with. So in doing that, assuming that's the way we go, am I just tabling this hearing to some unspecified date? Because we're not making a

motion. Well, yeah, you would table it indefinitely for further study And I would say per the discussion of the plan commission tonight. Is there anybody here? An attorney.

No, and we'll just re-advertise the hearing date so the public has a date for the public hearing.

So are we prepared to make a motion to table the proposed modifications to chapter 410 zoning regulations article 3 and article 4 and the proposed adoption of design standards to an uncertain future date. And somebody had something else to add to that. And refer the matter back to the steering committee. And refer the manner back to the steering Committee. Does somebody make said motion? So moved. Second? Second. Ayes? Aye. No nays. Thank you very much, Tim. Always appreciate your insights and appreciate you carrying the water for us so often.

Thank you so much.

And Alderman Berkowitz, you will be the representative now on the steering committee as the board liaison to the plan commission.

Oh, well, I take that. You get to help us. A second in my eye. I don't want to do it. I don't know. No, that's great. No, I'm glad. I'm glad for that.

Absolutely. Yes. We'll be a part of that discussion.

Yeah, no, that's great happy.

If you have an opportunity for one more seat, I would also help at some point. But that's for another day, another matter. I think this concludes the hearing for tonight. And is there a motion to adjourn? Go

ahead, Susan.

We did have one other item on the agenda, and that was the discussion about selection of topics for member presentations of predetermined code sections. If you want, it's not necessarily a public item. It's really just for our own benefit in a work session. I can send you an email of the list if you want, and then you could select what you want discuss and then we could get you on, we could get it on a schedule when we have a lighter agenda rather than, because we're still, we're missing three people at this point anyway. So would that be okay, Mr. Chairman?

Ward's well spoken. I agree. All

right, we'll do that.

Okay.

Thank you. So is

there a motion to adjourn the hearing and the public hearing for tonight? So moved. Second? Second. Aye. Aye. So approved. Thank you. Those in the audience, thank you for attending tonight.

Thank you all

very much. Have a good night.

I want to say something first. I was impressed with Robert this evening. He didn't even know he was going to have to run a meeting. And I'll tell you, you did a magnificent job. Thank you so much. Well, thank you guys. It's good.

I just... Okay. And Ira, I appreciate your insight and all of you. What a fun discussion. And we could really make a difference. And that's why we're all here. That

is right. We really think that would be unbelievable.

And especially David and Susan and Anissa, always thank you for trying to make us look good.

You

know, it's very kind and your insights and knowledge is always appreciated. Anything else for anybody to say for tonight?

No.

Okay. Have a lovely evening and until next time, two weeks from now. All

right. Good night, everyone.

Good night.