May 16, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening everyone and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for May 16th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them. If you have iPads, please do not connect to the webinar that will be going on due to the feedback that will happen. If you want to raise your hand at the appropriate time, we'll recognize you. Anyone on the virtual Zoom at the appropriate time, raise your hand and we will let you in. So with that, let's start with the roll call.

Here.

David, do you hear us? No, I do not. I don't. Ana, is your mic on?

Yeah, city manager David Gipson.

Yeah, city manager Gibson.

All right, here.

Okay. Bob Denlow.

Okay. Bob Denlo.

Here.

Carolyn Gatiss. Helen

DeFate. Here. Kami Waldman. Kami. Oh, shoot. I was like, sorry about that.

Okay. We did have the regular meeting minutes, but I haven't seen them. Were they sent out?

HAB-Juliette Boone, Those those are emailed so they probably went with the rest of the emails i've sent you. HAB-Jacques

Juilland, yeah um is everyone else seen them any changes, no, do we have a motion

to approve the last time

second

all in favor. HAB-Judy Nogg, opposed okay. We'll move on to new business. But before we do, David Gipson, our city manager is on virtual tonight. So we do have a quorum to proceed. So with that, I believe we go to item number two, which is 20 Ridgemoor Drive. And before we start is the applicant here. Pedro Suarez,

all in favor. HAB-Judy Nogg, opposed okay. We'll move on to new business. But before we do, David Gibson, our city manager is on virtual tonight. So we do have a quorum to proceed. So with that, I believe we go to item number two, which is 20 Ridgemoor Drive. And before we start is the applicant here. Pedro Suarez,

they might be on. Yes,

yes, okay he is. Okay, we

can get going. Okay, so the first item, well, the second item on the agenda is 20 Ridgemoor Drive and this is an architecture review board request for a front yard retaining wall. The property is zoned R2 single family dwelling district and is improved with a two-story single family house. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing retaining wall along the north side of the driveway, extending beyond the front line of the house into the front yard. In your packet is the criteria for review of front yard retaining walls. The proposed three-piece block system will match another wall along the driveway that's found in the rear yard. The proposed wall also conforms to the city's architectural guidelines. Staff's recommendation is to approve as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Pedro, could we let him in? Do you have any comments?

No, I... I don't, I appreciate the expediency of the approval. Thank you.

Okay. I really have minimal comments. I looked at the site as well as the information given. I think it's the proper use of the material to match up with the existing walls. So I have no problem. We'll go down the row.

Bob? I don't have any problem with the project as well. and no further comments. Ellen?

Nothing further.

Amy?

No comment.

David? No comments. Okay, do we have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted? We have a motion.

I move to approve the staff recommendation to approve the plan as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. PB John Gerstle, opposed Okay, thank you, Pedro. PB John Gerstel, Good luck with your work. PB John Gerстle,

Thank you so much

you're welcome. PB John Gerestle, We can move on to item number three. PB John Gerastle, 750 when occur drive.

Okay,

this application is for architecture review board approval associated with the proposed installation of building mounted solar panels on a single family home. The applicant is proposing to install six rooftop solar panels on the west front facing portion of the pitched roof of the home and eight solar panels on the east rear facing portion of the pitch roof. In your staff report there's the criteria for review for building mounted solar. Other than the six proposed panels located on the front elevation, the proposed design conforms to city regulations. Solar panels on a roof are not permitted along a front elevation visible from the street. Section 405.3920 outlines a process for approval of designs that do not comply with provisions of the renewable energy system but meet the intent of regulations. The Architecture Review Board may approve an applicant request for alternative compliance if, in the board's judgment, the purpose of the regulation will be satisfied and alternative design will have no adverse effect or impact on other property or unreasonably disturb the peaceful occupancy of adjoining or nearby property. So while installation of solar panels has grown in popularity across the country, there is still a relatively small number of single-family homes with renewable energy systems within the city. Given the location and orientation of the house along with the style of the roof and adjacent existing mature trees, the proposed location of solar panels would likely yield the best results for success of the energy system. However, the low slope of the roof and the location of the one-story structure, the proposed solar panels will be highly visible from public right-of-way. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following conditions. The six solar panels proposed along the front-facing slope are relocated to the rear-facing elevation north of the chimney. And two, all references on the plan documents to the City of St. Louis as having authority or jurisdiction over the property shall be revised to save the City of Clayton.

Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? Brian Law? Would you come

up please?

And if you would give us your name and speak into the microphone with a little green light on it.

My name is Erica Goosby.

And you're the representative of the owner or power

home? Power home solar.

Did you get her name? Okay. Do you have anything to

add? Well, we designed the structure based on where the sunlight will be most exposed to the panels. So they do receive the alternative energy. to produce the energy for their home.

I noticed that the panels are installed already.

Correct. I actually was hired after the fact, so I'm here local and I'm here to correctly apply for the solar panels to be installed onto the home. We already have the permit from St. Louis County But we fail to clarify between my company and St. Louis County that you guys are Clayton, City of Clayton is the jurisdiction over that property.

Well, as you heard and probably read in the report, we do not allow front-facing panels that can be seen from the street. It is... a very low slope, one story roof and it is very visible as you walk or drive along the roadway. So I think we have to discuss that but let's get some other comments while we're up here. Okay.

I just want to make sure, Erica. So if we would approve it with the solar panels going on the other side, does that mean you would have to take them out where they are now and put them on the other side?

So are you asking us to like make the changes that are proposed or recommended? Okay. Are we able to do that? Yes.

And is it your position that if you were to do so, we would not be maximizing the sunlight on the solar panels?

Well, I'm not certain of all the calculations, but I can double check on that.

Well, I guess I want to make sure that the homeowner...

Hi, can we speak? My name is James. Homeowner?

I'm sorry. The

homeowner

is speaking. James?

Yeah, can I speak? Can you hear me? We hear you. OK. So first of all, I didn't know that we have to have a permit from Clayton. When the power home solar was installing, they got a permit from St. Louis County. But in terms of the construction itself, our neighborhood is a semi-private neighborhood.

And so I understand, we understand that, you know, let's say Clayton, the city of Clayton has a jurisdiction and regulations, but in terms of affecting the value of our, maybe the view or aesthetics, we have not received any complaint from our homeowner association. If anything, our neighbors have shown a great amount of interest. And to answer your second question, we personally believe that by simple science, I believe it will significantly limit the efficiency of the solar panels because our house is basically sitting east west. So in the morning, we get sunlight on one side. On the afternoon, we get someone on the other side. So this splitting over the panels makes perfect sense. We are right now at maximum capacity, I think, of our solar panels. I do believe and Erica can correct me, but I think by simple science, if we move all of it onto one side, we're basically getting a lot of good use on part of the day and then not a whole lot of use on the second half of the day.

Yeah, especially on the summer, we're getting less if we put it on the west side of it. A lot less.

Okay, so James, are you suggesting that you have half the panels on one side and the other half on the other side?

Right now we have six panels on one side, and eight panels on the other side.

Okay, now I understand what you're saying. I have nothing further.

I guess my concern is that this installation was done without any permit or anything. We received

a permit from St. Louis County electrical permit, but it was failure of communication that we needed a building permit from the city of Clayton.

Okay, that's what concerns me in going through this is that A big concern is really the building, the code that was referenced in the structural engineers notes is 2012 IBC. Clayton has not been on the 2012 ever. We're on the 2015, so there could be structural changes. We're not here to discuss that, but I see a number of places where this happened without any real oversight by people who know what should be done.

Usually the ZAN team try to use what, what jurisdiction requirements are when doing the structural. So that can always be updated and we can abide by the city of Clayton structural. But far as the communication goes with St. Louis County in a permitting, we apply for both building and electrical there, but we was told that It was two and one. And I kind of picked on up it wasn't. So I had went back and, you know, tried to figure out what was really going on. And we did need one from the city of Clayton.

Okay, well, the city of St. Louis is referenced in the documents, not even St. Louis County. So that's all I have.

Jamie.

I'm assuming that you have to have six panels on the front side of the house to get the maximum amount of sunlight so that the whole system works. Is that accurate? Correct. So if you move them to the back, it would no longer... It

just wouldn't be as effective as best where they are placed now.

Sorry, and add to that, initially we were thinking about put everything in the back, but we decided to put a few in the front is because there's a big tree on the back. And then there's the only area that's blocking those six panels if we put it on the back. Basically it's almost like useless because the tree is covering it.

Well, I guess my question is, could there be an option to put everything in the back and get the power? I know it might not be the most efficient way of doing it, but would it, in the end, create enough power?

It could be an option, but like you just stated, it wouldn't be the most efficient, and we try to give our customers the best.

Right. I guess my concern, it would set a precedent to say, okay, it's okay to have panels in the front when, you know, as a city, we don't like that. So if there is a way to, you know, because I love the green you know idea of getting electricity through the sun but if we can can do it through the back even though it might not be maximized but it could still be utilized something to think about it's

a thought but um they said that their neighbors is happy and they are happy so um is it a possible consider to leave them place where they're designed

I mean, I have no further comment right now. I would prefer it to get in the back just from a visual standpoint.

Well, we went through homeowner association, so they wasn't.

Yeah,

I'm so sorry. I have to say this. Are we certain? Are we sure that in Clayton we're saying that we would not be supportive in full support of green energy technology because of aesthetics? We're asking homeowners to place solar panels in places where we cannot get 100 percent efficiency out of it. Is that the Clinton policy? I'm so sorry if I sound a little upset. I just wanted to understand that. If the evidence suggests that we need them to be distributed on the front and the back for full capacity, we are now almost 100%, depending on solar panels. Are you asking us to go back to 80, 20, 70, 30 already on day one?

Well, I think that's what I was asking for clarification. Could you still get the full use out of them in the back?

No, we cannot. We would have to spend almost $10,000 cutting a tree that our neighborhood is not happy about cutting. These are really old, beautiful trees. I'm sorry. I don't mean to show disrespect. No, it's just a question. You're fine. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Crane.

Our policy in Clayton is based on not seeing the panels from the front of the house. And looking at what was submitted, you have eight on the back side, six on the front side. They could all fit on the backside over the house or they could be over the garage also. So there is ample space. If you were to put the six over the garage, you don't have a tree there either. So as far as efficiency goes, we would have to have the electrical statement showing what the efficiency differences would be from the way it is shown right now to conforming with the Clayton ordinance. The other item, as Kami has indicated, it would set a precedent against what our rules are at this point. Now, I think we do have to think for us on the ARB that we may have to reconsider that at some time in the future, but we're not doing that tonight. So I think we have one more comment from the ARB and David. I would just say

that the ARB has been consistent in the past when it comes to the placement of solar panels on the front of a structure. And to my knowledge, the ARB has always followed that particular ordinance. I do think it's interesting that this conversation is coming up this evening because the Sustainability Advisory Committee is actually meeting later tonight to talk about this very issue and whether or not they want to send a recommendation to the ARB to have a discussion about that particular ordinance. But in the meantime, that ordinance stands as written, which prohibits the placement of these on the front of a structure. So again, interesting timing here, but with the code the way it's currently written and past decisions in this particular body, I would be inclined to be consistent with that and ask that it be moved to the rear of the roof.

Thank you. Sorry, just one last comment from outside. And as a matter of fact, putting on the front has encouraged a lot of interest in the neighborhood. And our neighbors are actually considering adding the solar panels for themselves as well. And we had three back out last year and our neighbors are actually pretty excited to say, well, you guys are doing this and we'll come to your house to charge our devices if there's a backup again. And then some of them actually considering if you put everything in the back, they cannot see it and then it's not helping with the promotion of the renewable energy, right?

We also have a homeowner association meeting coming up. I'm more than happy to actually ask people to see if they feel as our neighbors that placing the panels on the front have actually affected the aesthetics of our neighborhood. I do think that the policy feels a little bit not arbitrary. And also, I just wanted to say that comment again. Let's say we don't have a tree blocking, but it still gives us only the east or the west side of our house. And we know that the sun goes around during the day, even right now. Right now, our front of the house gets great exposure, but there's nothing going on in the back. So from now on for the next few hours, we're still benefiting from the panels. But if we move them all to the other side, the last few hours till the rest of the day is gone, I think, at least not as strong.

Okay. We do have another hand that would like to speak. Kathleen. Kathleen, thank you.

Thank you. I would just like to, I guess, register my support of the homeowners while I understand that they did not get the required permits and what they should have done is gotten a permit and requested a variance. There are homes in Clayton that have solar panels on the front that are visible from the street. There are two within not really throwing distance of my house, but I'd like to, if the homeowners would like to walk over to North Central Avenue and see one of the new builds, that's on the west side of the street, they could maybe say, hey, ARB, what about this house? Or they could walk up on Bemiston and on the east side of the street the house that's two south from Um, Pershing has solar panels, a huge array that's visible from the street. And I understand that the ARB deals a lot with aesthetics. And I can understand that they don't want people to just go ahead and violate code. But I think you're you might be being a little harsh with the homeowners and maybe you could require them to get the required permits and apply for a variance, but asking them to move solar panels at this point in time just seems counterproductive. And they are doing the right thing for our community and for our climate. And I will shut up now. And that's all I have to say. Good job, homeowners.

Thank you, Kathleen. We do have another person who would like to speak if you'd come up.

Ms. Gunn, may you provide your address for the record?

Am I still muted?

No.

Okay. 329 North Beamston Avenue.

Thank you. If you'd give us your name and address.

Yeah, my name is Stacy Weems. I actually work for Pink Energy. We were doing business as Power Home Solar. So we are the company that installed the panels. And I just wanted to talk a little bit about like the placement of them. It's not really so much choosing like putting them in the front or the back. It's They're supposed to be south facing and basically the engineers look at the pictures of the house look at the directions, and then they come up with the design for it and then you know we're supposed to get them stamped and stuff like that from you know city of Clayton or whether it's St. Louis County or wherever. So it wasn't, I don't want to say intentionally trying to not pay attention to your city ordinances, it was just for like the best and most efficient way to get them the most possible sunlight during the day. That's why it would be split because if they're, you know, they don't have sunlight in the back and they have the sunlight in the front, and it just evens it out during the day. Now, if we were to move the panels to the back, it would definitely take away from the efficiency of it because the way that their design is for max efficiency. All of our designs are like that. So it's our own company, our own engineers, our own design team. So I mean, if you guys wanted it to go into revisions, then it would be a lot. I don't want to say it would be a because if we had to move them, we could, but it just wouldn't give them the best. of what they already have, you know, so.

Thank you. Did you get the name? We heard from the city manager a minute ago that the sustainability committee is going to be meeting later this evening. And I'd like to ask council, would it be proper to Table this until we can see what the sustainability committee might be suggesting and then work on it from there.

Certainly, because given that the solar panels are already up, you won't be causing any kind of unnecessary delay on construction or anything like that. I think it would be a good idea to see what the sustainability community comes back with. Also, it might be a good idea to table because I believe that the idea was raised that the applicant could also consider a variance. They might want additional time to consider that.

Thank you. Do you agree with that or have any questions? Yeah, I

definitely do. It's a community and city issue. We were supposed to go through you guys originally, and we can't get them on the grid without your approval. So they're going to have to wait regardless.

The bottom line is we do not want to turn you down.

Right.

So we're looking for a way to get around all the issues. So do we have a motion to table?

I make a motion to table this matter to a date after the committee meets. I don't know if we have to name a date.

Do we name a date on that or?

Well, I think it would be a good idea to at least put it out to a date certain, so then we don't need to send out the notices again. If you were not ready to act on it at that point in time, then we just leave it on the table until the next meeting.

Okay. How about if we do it for the first June meeting? That sounds good. Which I think is June

6th? June 7th.

7th? I

believe so. June 6th. You're right. I apologize.

Can I say something before we move on?

Yes.

I just want to tell the homeowners, I think your argument of aesthetics versus solar efficiency really hits home a bit in this day and age. I do believe that the homeowners never intended to not get the proper permission And maybe this is the city's opportunity to say in this day and age, solar energy should maybe command a little more respect than it has in a pass over aesthetics, but it's something to be reviewed. And as the chairman here said, regardless of the outcome of that, you can always come back as a variance, which may be under the hardships and everything I don't know how it would end up, but I think you'd get a better ear for sure.

Thank you so much.

No, that was just running commentary.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Okay, thank you. We'll look forward to seeing you again and hopefully Sustainability Committee will give us a suggestion. Thank you. Okay, we can move on to 14A North Merrimack. And is the applicant here?

Hello, we're here.

Thank you. We'll start with the staff report.

The next item is 14 North Merrimack Avenue unit a this is consideration for a conditional use permit for the operation of a coffee shop and restaurant. The property is a zoning designation of HDC high density commercial and is in the Northeast downtown overlay district. The restaurant is proposed as a coffee shop with a food menu happy hours and small retail area. The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are Monday through Friday, 7.30 a.m. till 10 p.m., Saturday, 8 a.m. til 10 p.m. and Sunday, 9 a.m. until 10 p.m.. The restaurant measures just over 1,500 square feet and will contain roughly 60 seats. The applicant plans to operate an outdoor dining area as well. Off-street parking is not required for restaurants located in the central business district measuring less than 3,000 square feet. Trash and waste will be handled using the existing dumpsters in the rear of the building Deliveries will be made to either the front door or the rear off of the alley. In terms of compatibility, the property has previously occupied a restaurant use and is located adjacent to other restaurant uses as well as hotel, office, and retail uses. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. In terms of traffic and parking, as previously noted, additional onsite parking is not required due to the size of the restaurant. The proposed use is not likely to affect transit movements. Staff is of the opinion that there will not be significant increases in demand for fire and police protection services. As far as noise, lighting, and odors, the proposed restaurant is not likely to generate more noise than adjacent restaurants or coffee shops. The site is also surrounded by office, hotel, and retail uses. At this time, there did not appear to be any adverse impacts associated with the restaurant use. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses and staff recommends to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to Board of Aldermen.

Okay, thank you. Ashley, do you have anything to add to the staff report?

Hi, we just wanted to introduce ourselves. My name is Ashley Morrison and I'm Julie Keen.

Together we have 25 years in the restaurant business

and we're super excited to introduce this concept into Clayton. We feel it'll be really, really well received both with the residents as well as with the staff in downtown Clayton. You know, depending on whether or not you guys would like to hear it, we're happy to go through our business plan and give you more information if you would like.

Okay, thank you. I thought the staff report covered everything very well. I looked at the site. I see you already have the name up on the window, not a permanent sign. but I think it's a great use for that location. We do have other restaurants and a hotel and office buildings that are contiguous to it, so I think it could be a very good addition to that area on North Merrimack.

Thank you.

So I'm definitely in favor of it, but let's see what our other planning commission members say. Bob?

Ashley, you can't have enough coffee houses in Clayton. I wholeheartedly support you.

Thank you. We agree. It's going to be the best coffee. In a very slinky environment. We're excited to show everyone.

Ditto the previous comments.

Amy?

Yes, I'm very excited for you guys to be in this space. It's a great location and Again, more coffee shops, the better really. Thank

you. David. Looks good. I don't have any comments.

Thank you. We do have a staff recommendation to approve the conditional use permit and send it to the Board of Aldermen.

I move to approve the conditional-use permit and As per the report, we have it sent to the Alderman.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Good luck with it. When will you be open?

Well, hopefully a month. Yes, we're just waiting on a permitting issue for, you know, but yeah, we are shooting for June 15th. We're running. We'll be in line. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay, we can now move on to items five and six, 8120 Kingsbury. Looks like Mike. Yes. Good.

Yes, I'm Mike Thompson. I'm the architect Thompson Design Group for 8120 Kingsbury

Okay, we'll start out with the staff report on the site plan.

So this is a review of a site plan associated with a new single family residence. The 6,000 square foot site is located on the south side of Kingsbury Boulevard between North Forsyth Boulevard and North Brentwood Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R2 and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing house and construction of of a just over 4,000 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29.9 feet as measured from average grade to the mean height of the roof. In terms of compatibility, the surrounding properties contain single family homes. The project meets the setback height and impervious coverage requirements of the R2 district and of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The plan shows AC units to be located at the Southwest corner of the house screened by landscaping and fencing. In terms of stormwater drainage, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40% of the total lot area and allows an increase in that coverage based on garage placement. The existing impervious coverage of the site is 48.7%, and the new plans increase the impervious coverage to 49.9%, which does conform with code. The front yard coverage is proposed at 25%. Existing stormwater runoff, according to MSD 15 year 20 minute calculations is 0.36 cubic feet per second. The proposed runoff is the same. The public works department finds the stormwater plan acceptable. The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and ground cover. The proposed plan provides 240 square feet of canopy coverage above the minimum requirement. The plan also provides for 40% native trees which is also above the native requirement. As far as utilities, the proposed plan has been deemed acceptable. Exterior lighting is proposed at all doors, including gas lanterns to frame the front door. In conclusion, the height setback and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R2 single family dwelling district and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site and the character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval. Staff recommends to approval with the following conditions to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Revise the civil demolition plan to include the tree protection fencing located inside of the front yard in addition to the fencing in the right-of-way, with a note that fencing must be in place prior to the start of any demolition or grading.

Okay, thank you. Mike, do you have any comments?

No, I think they covered it. And yes, we have no problem at all with those stipulations.

OK, thank you. I do have a couple of questions. One of them is about water containment on the site. Because when I looked at the lines on the site, it looked like water would be going from your site to the south and to the west. And I don't know if the engineer is here with you.

No, he's not, unfortunately. I just got what they said that, yes, it was all going to be contained on the site.

Well, could you give me a little more positive feeling that we're not going to be shedding water from this property to the properties to the south and to the west? And if you look at C4, It looked to me that the two lines at the top, which is the South on this drawing go from 622 to 621. And then I don't see anything after that. So I began to feel that the water is going to the South and the West and the same thing on the West side, which would be the right side where I see a 624 and a 623, et cetera, potentially sending water to the property to the west.

I know as they've stated in their design that yes, they're dealing with all the stormwater on site. I guess I didn't question them further on that. I just kind of accepted that, but

Steve, if I may, I can explain it a little bit further. Okay, so on the drainage area map, you're correct about the slope of the property. The map on the left shows the existing conditions where you can see over 75% of the property is currently flowing to the south for stormwater. What they're doing in the new design here is that they're capturing over half of the roof of the new structure, and it's going to go to a... out to the front through a drywall system with a pop up emitter. So it's actually taking all that stormwater along with any water that runs down the driveway will also come to the front yard via a pop up emetter and the way that the front yard is sloped along with the capturing of that pot of the drywall, it's actually going to create less stormwater than currently flowing off of the south and the west of the property.

Thank you for that explanation. You're now a civil engineer. Okay, I think that answers that question. Then I'd like to look at the retaining wall at the east side, that would be the left side of the drawing. And that related to the height of the first floor And this also will come up in the architectural view because when you look at the front elevation and I think that would be on a two of three. If i'm reading it correctly, we have about five and a quarter feet from the. elevation at the property line, at the sidewalk, up to the front door. And we have had other houses similar to this where the first floor level appears too high in relation to the rest of the neighborhood. And if you look at a three of three, you will see that the first floor of 8120 appears to be almost in the middle of between the first and the second floor of 8124. So those two items, the height of the first floor, which then raises the garage and compounds the retaining wall on the east side of the driveway. Seems to me the house should be lowered.

And from the civil engineer, I had that same question for him of why does ours sit so high? He came back and said he's basically getting the two driveway pads to match up between the new house that's going to be on the left side of us and our house. And so matching those up, and so this was what produced the elevation that we have.

Well, we don't even see the driveway on the west side of the house. but there would still be a retaining wall between the two driveways. Is that correct?

Not on the plan that I saw, no, it would not be.

And why are we talking about a retaining wall at all?

Well, there's a retaining wall from the backyard of our house, of course, because the driveway is a story down, is going down to the basement level. So there's a retaining wall there that works its way out to, same as the house next to us will, works its way down, starting fairly tall, about six feet tall, works its way to nearly nothing where the two pads match up.

Okay.

So then if we go back to A3 of three, I'm still reading that the first floor of 8120 is above the first floor of 8116. Is that correct?

John Potter, And that's I know that's a question that the staff came back with and I again I asked a ask of the civil engineer and and hear that that was the answer I got back to he's he's matching up the two driveway pads.

John Potter, Well. John Potter,

Which is, which is what we would want to happen now that can be checked and if, for some reason. Dave Kuntz, Ours is above the other one know that's that's not what we want certainly will look better both driveway pads essentially match together.

I would agree it would. But at the same time, 8120 looks much higher than both the new house at 8116 and the existing house at 8124. And just down the street, we went through that issue a year or so ago. And the house was lowered, so we didn't have such a high grouping of steps. And it wasn't five feet higher from the sidewalk up to the first floor. So let me leave it at that and see what our other plan commission members have on the site plan. I don't have any comments. Helen?

No questions on this side.

Okay. Amy?

No questions either.

David?

I don't have questions, thank you.

Okay, we do have... Ana, do you have any further questions on that? PB John Gerstle, Okay, on the site plan review, I can certainly. PB John Gerstel, understand my the answers to my question on the water containment, so I, I thank you will be dealing with the aesthetics in a minute again, but we do have a staff recommendation with one condition Mike are you familiar with that condition.

PB John Gerastle, Just as she read it there yeah

yes.

And we would have no problem with that.

Do we have a motion on site plan review?

I move we approve the staff recommendation to prove the site plan review with one condition that is to revise the civil demolition plan to include. The tree protection fencing located in the front yard, in addition to the fencing in the right of way with a note that a fencing must be in place prior to the start of any demolition or grading operations

second.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, All in favor, aye. Opposed, nay. PB Harmon Zuckermann, And now we can move on to the architectural review for 8120 Kingsbury

So for architectural review, the basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows and doors. The proposed massing and appearance are similar to other newly constructed homes in the area and on the subject street. The home to the east is under construction and roughly the same height as the proposed home. The existing home to the west, 8124 Kingsbury, was constructed in 1938 and is approximately five feet shorter than the proposed home. To help mitigate the difference in height and design of the proposed house compared to the adjacent house to the west, the applicant has proposed increasing the side yard setback by one foot, resulting in a setback of six feet instead of the minimum five feet required. In addition to the increased setback, the applicant is proposing to plant four evergreen trees along the west facade. An increased setback and landscaping are recommended techniques outlined in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed house features gray and taupe brick as a primary building material with limestone and stucco board accents. The front elevation features large window and door openings with transom windows on the first floor and Juliet balconies on the second. Two stone accent bands are also proposed on the front elevation with the banding continuing to the edge of the left and right elevations. The side and real elevations also incorporate the use of stucco on the cantilevered portions. The proposed roof is clad in asphalt shingles, charcoal in color, and double hung windows are proposed. A nine foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the east side of the home that leads to the side entry grade garage, and a black paneled garage door is proposed. A stone retaining wall is proposed at the end of the driveway. A 42-inch decorative metal fence is proposed along the top of this retaining wall. In conclusion, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R2 single family dwelling district, the Clayton Gardens urban design districts, and the architectural review guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass height and design with existing nearby homes and recommends to approve as submitted.

Thank you. Mike, any comments on the ARB?

No, I don't think I have anything to add. I think you have the rendering that we have at the front and, of course, the elevations.

Yeah, we do have the elevations, and we also have the context drawing. So that's what we're going on. PB Harmon Zuckerman, I think it's a good looking house. My only concern is it seems too high related to the rest of the houses on the street and I go back to the five feet three inch plus or minus differential that puts that high stairway in the front of the house and that stairway. Um, PB John Gerstle, We have about two feet of rise from the sidewalk up to the baseline of the stair and then the stair is about three feet three inches high up to the first floor so that's a pretty good change but i'm concerned about that. PB John Gerstel, The comments on the architectural.

Generally speaking, I will say no, but I am hearing what you're saying about the height definitely being an issue. And I'm wondering, is it going to be like a mountain on the hill sort of or the block? Or is it just a minor issue? I don't have a good feel for that.

Well, when we look at the drawing, The way I'm reading it is there's a gentle slope from the sidewalk up to the stairway. Some of the other houses mitigate that by making a steeper slope and a shorter stairway, which makes the house look lower on the site. But when I compare it to the houses on the context drawing, it just seems to be very high.

I would agree that the house does look too high. And I think if you look at 81 16, you see that the grade there slopes higher. And it really helps. The other thing is that the band, the detailed bands, which look great. But they emphasize the distance between grade and the first floor. So I think if you could do something to reduce the height visually, that would be good. The other thing that really bothers me is you've got so many bays and two of them are true bays with windows. The other two are really appendages. If you could get windows in them or eliminate them, I think it would be better, but it does give you extra square footage. So no further comment.

Amy.

When I was reviewing this the other day, I did notice the height too. And I guess the question is, you know, on the A3 of three, you have a 28 foot dimension. I just don't understand, you know, that's, you're saying your house, the house will be 29. It just seems much higher than that. You know, when we're looking at it, it doesn't look like it's just like a one and I don't have a scale on me. So I'm not quite sure how you're mentioning a 29 foot high house with that dimension of 28 from the ground. So again, so it does dwarf the other homes. So that is a concern of mine. I actually agree with Helen also about the appendages. I think one is off of the master bathroom. It's just with the stucco board. It just seems odd to have that just kind of sticking out rather than having a window there or on the left elevation. It just seems kind of random to me to have that there. Those are my concerns.

David? So, you know, as far as the height goes, I think when we look at it on that contextual drawing, it really stands out because it's lacking the landscaping that's shown on the landscape plan there. And so when we're looking at it, we're just looking straight at those bricks. without the landscaping or anything else to kind of soften it or reduce, I think, the visual impact of that difference. So, excuse me, I'm just getting over a little illness, but unfortunately we don't have Carolyn here to look at the plantings on that landscape plan and try to figure out what might be a little bit taller or might blend a little bit better or mask that height differential. But I do think looking at the site plan If we were to change that height, it could have a pretty big impact in that driveway.

Thank you, David. Anything further?

No. Thank you. Okay. Mike, any further comments?

I mean, my only comment is, and I've gone to him and asked once, but I could go back and then I guess more forcefully say, okay, we need to drop the house. What does that take to do it? I think now, obviously I don't think we can drop the house by feet or the driveway really doesn't work, but could it drop a foot or maybe even two feet? I think that's possible kind of thing. I think the grading can be still worked out then also.

I think if you were to look at dropping it some small amount, as well as reconfiguring the land in front and bring it up a little higher, we might get to the point where the house doesn't look so high. And it's actually a little lower than it shows on A3.3, A3 of three, rather. I agree with David on the landscape plan, but we really cannot tell what the height or the density of the bushes that are called out there. I believe they're two-inch caliper bushes, but...

It looks like some boxwoods and hydrangeas.

Yeah.

I wouldn't know anything else to recommend in that situation.

No. So Mike, if you'd like, we can certainly table this, let you get the answers together and come back and hopefully finish it up.

Or could we just work with the staff to, I mean, certainly raising the front yard is not a problem at all. I think the reason they left the front yard where it was, was to match into the house, to the existing house to the right. Um, without, without raising it at all. So, so that, that becomes very easily, uh, if you prefer to do that, we can certainly do that. Um, uh, I was hoping maybe we could work with staff as far as if, uh, if the house could be dropped a foot or two kind of thing to, to work that out.

I would be comfortable if you could drop the house, if you want to leave the landform as is. If you could drop the house a minimum of 18 inches, I think that would probably help the appearance because then it would allow whatever the landscaping is more ability to cover up the distance from the first floor down to the grade at the front of the house. Right, that

would at least take two steps off the front of the house. And if we increased the front yard another foot, we'd probably lose even three or four steps off the front the house.

Yeah, if you could get a minimum of two steps off the of the house, I think it would look much better and it would fit much better in the neighborhood. We rarely have more than three steps on a residential house unless you're going up to the, essentially to a second floor entrance. And we do have that in certain areas of Clayton, but not in Clayton Gardens. Any other comments from the ARB?

So Mike,

if we can leave it at that and that we make a recommendation that you can lower the height of the house up to or approximately 18 inches to cut the number of steps down to the front, which in turn would lower the first floor level.

Uh-huh.

Is that what you're looking for?

Yes. I think that we can do it. That shouldn't be a problem.

Then we could leave it for the staff review.

I do suggest that you use the phrase at least 18 inches instead of approximately, so then they would know that it was 18 inches or more.

Did you hear that, Mike?

Yes. Yep. And that would be fine.

So that would be at least an 18 inch drop and a maximum of three steps up to the first floor. Okay. Now let's talk about the bays. You've heard a couple comments about those. John Gerstle, That they are blank because they don't have windows and that occurs on.

Well, you know, one of the one of the courses, you have the bay on the one side that's the stairway next to it, you have a fireplace um. John Gerstle , yeah I don't really know if there's any chances for windows on that because it's a fireplace i'm on the opposite side on left elevation which was mentioned. The one is basically we're increasing the size of the master bedroom shower by cantilevering out there. I guess there is a possibility, yes, for having tall like transit windows in that element.

Okay, well on the first one you said that shows on the right elevation PB Harmon Zuckerman. Okay, I see the fireplace and I also see on the left elevation the projection for the PB Harmon Zuckerson. Yes. PB Harmon Zuckerton.

Yes, they are

on the side of the house and or the back

right

I really don't have a problem with that. Helen or Jamie, do you want to comment further?

In the master shower, you have windows next to the tub. Could you put some high windows in the shower?

Yes. I mean, in that element, there could be transom windows. Because it's a shower, we wouldn't want to put any other windows, I think, in it. But transom windows would work, yes.

Any other comment on the fireplace one? I don't know what we could do there.

No, with the fireplace, the alternative would be to move it into the space. There appears to be room to do that. But if the one for the shower had some windows, even if they were up at the high point of the shower, which is where you would want a window if you put a window in, Um, at least it would give a reason for the bay other than to pick up some square footage.

I mean, yes, we could. The most of the windows on the second floor of that house, it's a nine foot second floor. They start out at eight foot three inches. So I could do a two foot tall window there and still the bottom of the window would be six foot three. Obviously, somebody showering there wouldn't feel like they're standing in front of a window.

No, that would be fine. It would look more like a bay usually does.

Okay.

The fireplace one I can live with. We see that all over the place. So it's just... Upstairs, you have the two bays almost next to one another. They're perpendicular to one another. And they're about the same size. So seeing one with windows and then the other one just blank looks strange. So I think the windows, I'd be fine with that.

Okay. Thank

you. Any other concerns, Mike?

No, I don't think so.

Any further comments from the board members or David? No. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve is submitted. But I think we have two conditions that we're going to consider. One being windows in the left elevation at the shower projection. And the second to lower the height of the first floor 18 inches minimum. and have the front steps be three steps maximum, which might require a little bit of raising the land mass slightly. Anything

else? I think you said it. That is a motion.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, Mike. Good luck with it. The staff will certainly be looking for your response. And when will you break ground?

I believe he's trying to break ground as soon as possible. So yes, we'll, I haven't started on the working drawings yet, so it'll probably be a month or two, but yeah, something like that.

Okay. Well, good luck with it.

All right. Thank you.

PB John Gerstle, And now we've come to item seven, which is 8254 side. PB John Gerstel, ready.

PB, Lupita D Montoya,

So this is a request for review of a subdivision plot to combine two parcels into one lot. The subject property is located on the west side of Forsyth Boulevard between Maryland Avenue and Parkside Drive. The lot consolidation request is in conjunction with a new development on the property. The plan commission and architectural review board recommended approval of the development at their previous meeting. The proposed plot will consolidate the existing lots into one lot to allow for this mixed-use development. The consolidated lot will measure 50,000 square feet, just over. Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area in regard to size, frontage, and arrangement. The recommendation is to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with two conditions. One, that the applicant provide a MILR for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance. And two, the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Reporter of Deeds Office and submit proof of filing to the city within 30 days of Board of Aldermens approval.

Okay, thank you. It looks like Lenny Meares is here. Is that you, Lenny?

Yes, I'm here.

Okay, do you have any comments on the staff report?

Nope, we agree with both conditions. So I'm just here to answer any questions you might have.

Well, as you know, we have gone over this project Uh, quite a bit recently. And I think we're to the point where, um, we need to consolidate the plant. Uh, I have no problem with it. It seems to be clear cut. The drawing is easy to understand and, uh, you're aware of, and do you agree with the two conditions? Yeah. Okay. Uh, any comments then? Helen.

None.

Amy.

No comment.

David. No comments. No comment, okay. We do have the staff recommendation to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with those two that were already read into the record. Do we have a motion?

Steve, there's an audience member at their hand

up. Peter Smith.

Yes, thank you. I wanted to ask for comment on item number five, the plan commission consideration, specifically preservation of vegetation. It's my understanding that the city of Clayton is directing the developer to underground the power lines, which we understand would require the removal of 23 plus trees that are on the site currently. So I'd ask the commission to explain how Section 5 is being addressed in terms of preservation of vegetation in this

lot consolidation plan. I don't think

I understand where Section 5 is or even how it affects the lot consolidation.

Well, it's listed under request for city plan commission review on May 16th by applicant crimes consulting. And it's a document that lays out the background and project description, the plan commission consideration, the conclusion and staff recommendation. So item number five says that in considering and acting upon flats and other applicable plans, staff and the plan permission shall take the following objectives into

consideration. Lock consolidation itself is necessarily causing the removal of any vegetation there. It's more related to the development itself. And again, that will be considered at the board next week.

Well, I understand, but it is listed in the document for tonight's meeting. And it says in considering enacting upon class that the staff and the So I repeat, what is the staff and the commission's position on item five? But that's part of the consolidation of the lots. That's from you, the city.

Correct. And stemming from the requirement, the ordinance requirement, the utility lines be buried underground. And so again, tonight, this is the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen and those lines are gonna be discussed at the Board of Aldermen, and those can be discussed with both the plat itself and with the development through the PUD. But I think it's a larger discussion than just the discussion relative to the plat. Again, it's not the consolidation that's causing those lines to go underground, but rather the PUD application, the rezoning application that the board will be considering.

Well, I understand that it's just, it's on your document from the city. So I wanted to check it out.

Understood.

If it's not for discussion, then it shouldn't be on the document. So I understand you're not going to discuss it, but I protest the decision.

Okay. I think absent a development, if someone were to just consolidate two pieces of property together, that's a little bit different than when it's happening in while at the same time that a large project's being considered. And I think it's an appropriate discussion, but I'm not sure that the plat is the appropriate place for this particular project. I understand what you're saying. It is listed on here, you're absolutely right. And I'm just stating my own personal position as a member of this commission, not speaking for the entire body, but I see this as a matter that's going to be addressed TAB, Mark McIntyre:" With the PD. TAB,

Mark MCIntyre:" Okay well, then I would recommend that you don't include things like promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better site layout and development in a lot consolidation meeting because it's misleading when you when you put it on your document and then you don't want to discuss it. TAB, So either don't put it on the document or be prepared to discuss.

Okay. Thank you, Peter. We'll take that under

advisement.

And we'll go.

Were there any other comments? No.

We do have the staff recommendation to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen. And as you've heard the city manager say, the PUD will be considered at the next Board of Aldermen meeting. And we do have the two conditions in here. We have a motion.

I hear I move to approve the staff recommendation to consolidate the plat with the following conditions that the applicant provides a miler with the surveyor's signature and the property owner's signature for the appropriate city of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval, and that the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of filing to the city within 30 days of the Board of Aldermen approval.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thanks, Lenny.

Thank you.

Now before, let's see, we have We have five more items, including a public hearing. And I'd like to take a 10 minute break and then come back and we'll go into the second half of our meeting.

So we'll see you in a few minutes. Let's see if we can get the big one. Thank you. You or do I or? There you go. Awesome, thank you. Jason. We're on the next one. Oh, that's good. Thank you. I heard what you guys like. Yeah. Oh. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you everyone

for giving us a break. And now we'll move into the second half of our meeting tonight. And the first part of it will be a public hearing. And that will be on the rezoning and the planned unit development. And our director of planning will be outlining all of it as we go forward. So We will open the public hearing and then start with item one. One question is David still on.

Yes,

I can't see

here.

Yes, we switched the projectors your screens over to the

presentation.

So the first item is, this is a request for a public hearing to solicit input for a plan unit development and subdivision plat for a proposed mixed use development. In this staff report, we are considering the rezoning requests, the plan unit development and the site plan review together. The proposed project will also require approval of architectural plans by the architectural review board and of subdivision plat approval by the Board of Aldermen. The 38,505 square foot site includes seven parcels and an alley. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection between South Central Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard and is adjacent to the St. Louis County surface parking lot. The properties have a zoning designation of HGC High Density Commercial District and are located in the northeast downtown overlay district. The site is currently improved with two-story buildings and an alley. Adjacent land uses include retail, office and governmental. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing buildings, relocation of the existing north-south alley and the construction of a 25 story mixed use building with restaurant, retail, hotel, condominium and parking uses. The proposed development includes construction of 180 hotel rooms, 73 condominium units and 430 parking spaces. Off-street parking for the public and hotel guests is located at an above grade structured parking while private parking for the condominiums is located in the below grade garage. The total height of the structure is measured from grade to the top of the flat roof is just over 294 feet. Access to the parking garage is proposed off of South Central Avenue. Access to the other uses are spread between South Central and Forsyth Boulevard. The loading dock is proposed along the relocated alley at the east side of the site. City standard streetscape will be installed along the project limits. The proposed project includes modification through the shifting of the north-south alley east and also includes the closing of the northwest access point to the St. Louis County surface parking garage. The proposed project seeks relief from certain development standards that are set forth in the current zoning district, HUC and other requirements of the Northeast Downtown Overlay District. All planning and developments shall provide at least one public benefit or a combination of public benefits that total at least 10 points beyond those additional points required for each of the code alternatives. After that minimum of 10 points are reached, Each code alternative requested shall be associated with five points of public benefits. For multiple requests of the same alternative, for example, a side yard setback on two sides, only one public benefit totaling five points is required. In your packets, there's an outlining of all the code alternatives being requested. This project is requesting relief from the parking garage setback requirement, relief from the upper floor step back requirement, relief from parking garage location access from an alley, as well as relief from the access drive area. The public benefit requirements for this project is a minimum of 30 points based on those requested waivers. A PUD must provide public benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods and the city above and beyond what can be reasonably achieved by application of the zoning provisions applicable to the original zoning district. The Board of Aldermen may approve alternatives to zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or design standards applicable to the property proposed to be rezoned to a planned unit development in exchange for developer provided public benefits as authorized in section 405.1380. In your staff reports, there is a table that outlines the public benefits being requested by the applicant as well as the recommendation of points awarded to that by staff. I'm just going to summarize the staff analysis for each of the public benefits requested by the applicant's application. The first is under the public benefit for construction buildings exhibiting architectural distinction and significance that would make the development unique. The staff analysis is that the proposed building features a contemporary design with high quality building materials of glass metal and masonry. The tower will differentiate itself from other glass towers in the Clinton skyline and the region through the use of recessed balconies and projections of different material to create horizontal and vertical shadow lines. The design of the first floor creates enhanced public spaces to support the outdoor dining experience desired within the downtown area. Staff has recommended awarding four points. The next public benefit is the provision of new or enhanced public infrastructure greater than the minimum requirement. Staffer says that in addition to the expanded sidewalk area created by the first floor terraces, the public right-of-way environment will be enhanced by the addition of planter boxes and landscape buffering of the adjacent surface parking lot. The development also includes a new widen alley and will remove adjacent vehicle access points to be replaced with street parking and sidewalk area and staff recommends the word of six points, which includes the use of two points per enhancement. Next, the project provides and protects green infrastructure. Staff analysis is that the provision of green and blue roof elements will introduce green infrastructure for stormwater management on a mostly impervious site. Given the size of the site in the central location in downtown, reserving ground floor area for open space and green space would be difficult. The use of roof space to reintroduce natural elements and areas will provide a nice view from upper floors of the development and of adjacent developments. And staff has recommended... awarding four points, excuse me. For the inclusion of parking spaces specifically available and designated for public parking, staff concurs with applicants allotment of five points for including a significant number of parking spaces for the public, for inclusion of below-grade parking facility that meets the parking requirements. Staff concurs with the applicant's allotment of two points for fully underground parking. This underground parking will be provided for the private use to serve the condominium use. For a significant form of public art in any media that has been planned and executed. The inclusion of public art along the facades most readily accessible by the pedestrians is a benefit. That plan has also added a custom mural feature as part of the garage facade screening. However, the exact art is yet to be identified. Staff is of the opinion that allotment of the full five points for public art can only be granted when the art and artists are fully identified. Furthermore, said art must be exceptional in scope and design. Without knowing such information, staff has allotted three points for this public benefit. An appropriate amount of open space is provided and available for active or passive use by the public. Staff's analysis is that public terraces and the public space in the seventh floor will provide enhanced opportunities for the public to interact with the development. The public space in the upper floor will also offer options for different experiences and views within the city than typically provided at the street level. staff has recommended five points for this public benefit. So the point summary, 30 points are needed for the approval of a blind unit development based on the waivers requested. Staff's analysis has recommended an award of 30 points. In the next section of the staff report is the criteria for approval and this considers criteria for rezoning requests, plan new developments as well as site plan review. For the Downtown Master Plan, the site is located in North Central District as identified by the Downtown Master Plan. The vision of this district is to grow at a human scale along key pedestrian streets with fine grain development, active streets and walkable commercial areas. The proposed development provides a mix of public and private uses that will draw residents and visitors into downtown. The increased density of the site is balanced by the enhanced public spaces offered along the first floor and the upper floor terraces. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the downtown master plan. In terms of compatibility, the surrounding land uses include retail office, governmental and parking. The building is taller than the buildings being demolished on the site. However, the site is adjacent to multiple office towers, including the St. Louis County Office Tower. In terms of stormwater, the green and blue roof elements will provide some stormwater mitigation or detention to slow the flow of water into a sewer system. The Applin is also prepared to provide additional onsite detention or channel protection should it be required by the Metropolitan Sewer District. For open space and landscaping, while there's not a significant landscaping provided on the property, the use of planter boxes along the public sidewalk will bring a natural element into the public realm. That one is also proposing a row of evergreen trees along the south facade to provide additional screening of the garage. In terms of lighting, the applicant has not proposed a detailed lighting plan at this time. During review of the building permits, a detailed lighting and photometric plan compliant with the city's regulations for outdoor lighting standards must be submitted. The applicant did provide conceptual lighting diagrams and cut sheets at this point of review, and no adverse lighting effects are anticipated by staff. As far as external circulation, the city's contracted traffic engineer completed a traffic impact study for the proposed development. The proposed development should generate similar levels of traffic to the existing mix of uses and should have limited net impacts on the adjacent public streets and intersections. The development has received approval from St. Louis County to close the Northwest entrance to the adjacent surface parking lot to remove potential turning conflicts with the new garage access. There are comments resulting from this traffic impact study that will require additional details and information. Site distance triangles should be provided at the garage access and alley points to verify any impacts of street parking. Additional turning templates should be added to verify the delivery and trash trucks will be able to properly maneuver the alley and loading area. As far as internal circulation, the traffic impact study recommends that additional analysis of the internal circulation under both entry and exit lane combination scenarios is provided to ensure there are no conflict points with vehicle paths for the upper and lower garages. For parking and bicycle racks, the development will have access to the garage from South Central Avenue. A drop-off area is also proposed at the northwest corner of the site just north of the garage access. The traffic impact study indicates that the study intersections currently operate at desirable levels of service. The proposed development is expected to generate minimal new vehicle trips during peak hours and can be handled without any re-signalization of the adjacent intersections. The proposed parking garage will have 430 parking spaces secure parking for the condominiums will be located in the below grade garage with 154 parking spaces. The remainder of the spaces 276 will support the retail restaurant bar and hotel uses and will be available to the public parking study performed by the city's traffic engineer. found that the proposed number of spaces, should be sufficient to serve the proposed uses. Based on the configuration of the uses, 16 bicycle racks are required for this project. The location of the racks were not noted on the site plan. Four of the required racks may be located within a secure area to serve the condominium use while the remaining 12 bicycle racks should be located with public access. As far as design, the proposed project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of intensity of land uses by providing a mix of uses and increased density at a central location within downtown. In conclusion, the proposed development will provide a desired mix at a prominent quarter. The development aligns with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan and includes a variety of uses that will help generate visitors and pedestrian traffic throughout the day. The development represents a unique and efficient design conforming to the requirements of planned unit development. Staff is of the opinion that the permitted uses, public benefits and design of the site and building are compatible with code in the context of the neighborhood. staffs recommendation is to recommend approval the rezoning and planning to development, the board of aldermen with the following conditions. One streetscape plan to be approved by the public works department prior to commencing installation of activities. Two, any encroachment of the private improvements, for example, the overhead awnings into the public right-of-way shall require a use and maintenance agreement. Number three, the note on sheet C6 should be corrected per the Public Works recommendation. Four, new manholes located within the street surface are to be located outside of the vehicle wheel path, preferably moved into the parking lane. Five, on the landscape plan, two proposed species of trees are susceptible to disease and damage from de-icing chemicals. Please replace with one of the following species. List has been provided by the public works department. Six, on the landscape plan item number eight notes or states soil mix in the tree wells to be CU structural soil. Soil mix in the tree well shall not be CU structural soil and should be revised to match public works recommendation. Number seven, from the traffic impact study, the developer should develop a plan for the internal circulation of the garage under both entry and exit scenarios to ensure no conflict points within the vehicle paths are created, which would lead to unsafe operating conditions where vehicles are attempting to cross between the lower residential parking and upper commercial parking. from the traffic impact study, training templates and site distance triangles at the entrance and alley intersections are to be shown on the supplemental drawings to verify that vehicles can maneuver safely and efficiently through the intersections with adequate visibility based on the posted speed limits and physical restrictions. Nine, from the traffic impact study, verify the turning templates that delivery trucks can reasonably access the proposed loading docks and that a trash collection vehicle can properly maneuver in the loading area to service the compactors and bins. 10, from the traffic impacts study, approval of the valet operation shall be incorporated into the city's Approval ordinance is a mandatory condition. A detailed plan of valet operation shall be submitted and subject to public works approval. In particular, the areas of concern are the use of retail valet zone on Central Avenue directly adjacent to the through right turn lane and non-valet patrons attempting illegal U-turn movements into and out of the valet area to access the drop-off. 11, a temporary bicycle and pedestrian pass shall be established and maintained during demolition and construction. 12, add 16 bicycle racks to the development with the location and design provided with submission for building permits. 13, public art on the property shall include at a minimum a monumental piece of the entry and several complimentary pieces along the pedestrian walk. A specific plan or rendering for the public art shall be submitted to the Public Art Advisory Committee and the Board of Aldermen for approval. In the event such artwork does not merit three points and the applicant does not make timely changes, the PUD development plan shall be reconsidered by the Board of Alderman. 14, all signage shall comply with chapter 425 unless a separate signage district specifically for the project is developed and approved by the architectural review board. And 15, lighting facilities shall comply with the whole city codes and shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or interference.

Thank you. Who would like to speak for the project?

Come on up. Hi, I'm David Robert

with Midas and I'm representing Green Street as well in this project. I'm back.

Well, welcome back. Do you have any comments on the staff report or questions about it?

No, sir. I've got a short presentation. I don't know if now's the time or if I do that later.

Let's do it now.

OK. All right. We'll go through pretty quick. The staff did a really good job of identifying the project. But just real quick, wanted to share with you, this is the existing location. So it's Central and Forsyth. It's many two- and three-story buildings, retail, and office that we're looking to develop on. The yellow area there, just make sure it's clear as to where exactly we're developing. So when we were right beside the surface lot for the county, our vision always was to do something bigger here. And so we've been thoughtful in our development so that someday we could maybe connect it to something that would happen on that surface lot, which would then be connected to the Sterling Bank side, which is also being redeveloped. So there'd be something much bigger and better here if we could think farther out. This is kind of just giving you an idea of what it would look like on the site, a computer-generated version. You can see that our parking access is off of Central, so Central's right here. So this will be our parking garage access right here. This is the valet area right here that was mentioned in the commentary. And then this would be kind of our rendering of what we anticipate building. So it's 25 stories, it's 73 condos on the top half here. You can kind of see we've kind of denoted this top half as the condo area. All those have large balconies. And then on top will be the community area for the condos only with a rooftop pool, fitness area, community room for the condos that'd be private for them. 180 room Hilton Canopy Hotel, which is a branded boutique hotel, which would take up these lower floors right in the middle here. Our garage is over to the right, so it's all hidden behind glass. And then on top of the garage, we actually have an outdoor terrace area, which would be sitting in this area right here. And then a seventh floor bar, which will cover this area right in here. And then on the first floor, we've got mixed use. So we've got at least one restaurant that will be on Central here with outdoor bistro seating. And then we've also got another retail outlets along Forsyth as you're going down the hill from Central. And then the hotel lobby will also be on the first floor here. So the condos will be, you know, there'll be upscale condos up on the top. The hotel is, will be one of the nicer hotels in Clayton. So it'll be something everyone will be very proud of. This is a site plan, just kind of give you a visual. So this would be Forsyth up here. I'm sorry, this is Central up here, Forsyth on the right. And then you can see how our garage entrance is there. We've intentionally recessed the first level backs to kind of create a better pedestrian experience on that first level. We'll also have outdoor seating out there for our restaurant. The residents, the condo residents will have their own separate entrance off of Forsyth. So they'll have their own lobby and their own dedicated elevators that will take them up. And then we've got this additional retail space that's down on the corner of Forsyth, we are relocating the alley the alley sits somewhere right in here today. And so we're relocating the alley down here between us and the Bank of America building. kind of gives you a visual. This would be Forsyth. Again, we're going downhill on this one. So Central would be up here. Again, the goal was to recess the first level back to make it feel warmer. So we're using a lot of brick, a lot of wood to kind of make it feel a little more homey, a little more warmer for that pedestrian who's walking by. There'll be a lot of areas here for people to hang out on this area for sure. And then we've got a lot of planters spread out. And again, we'll have the the art that was mentioned that will be throughout the first level here. This would be the residential entrance right here. The restaurant will be up on the corner and then a retail down as you're going down the hill. And then this would be looking at the corner straight from, so central is on your right. This is looking right at the corner. Again, this is a great way to see how we recessed the building back so that you create a lot more opportunity for people to hang out and do things. Street side, the bistro area will have some seating over in this area. Then our garage over here. And then this is straight on looking at it from central. And really you can see the garage area here. This is the valet. And then up top here, you get a good visual of what that outdoor terrace area. It's about a 6,000 square foot outdoor terrace that will be up there. And then the bar will be in this area right in here, which will have some great views. And just want to kind of give you a visual of that seventh floor. So this is that terrace area, that outdoor terrace area, which will be facing central. You can see the event space behind it. We'll have an event space for about 400 people behind it. And then the bar area on the hard corner of Central and Forsyth will be in this area here. This is the actual bar right here in the middle. So half the seats are going to be inside and half the bar stools will actually be on the outside in the outdoor outside, which would be kind of very cool. Oops, wrong way. And then just want to kind of share with you what the kind of typical condo floor would look like. The condos themselves will be anywhere from 2,300 square feet to 6,000 square feet at minimum two bedroom, mostly two to three bedroom. All of them have a nice outdoor deck area of their own. This really helped us kind of distinguish the outside of the building too. So it didn't look just like a big glass box. It really allowed us to have some ins and outs to kind of give a little more perception. And then this was, so this would be the side of the garage facing the surface lot, okay? That's there now, the county surface lot. So what we originally proposed underwhelmed staff, okay? So we came back with this and we're gonna look at putting a large mural on the side of that, which would be facing the surface lot. Okay? And you can kind of see the outdoor outdoor space above that will also have views to the south and to the west. Again, we spent a lot of time. We've listened. I've been here enough to know what we've really tried to listen. And so we wanted to do something unique on this corner because we think it's a really special corner. It's a very important place here in Clayton. So we've done a lot of things to kind of create some ins and outs, as staff had said, to kind of create We think this is going to be, it is Maine and Maine, and we think that this hotel represents that very well. So thank you.

Thank you, David. That was a good, concise presentation. The one thing that I think is missing is showing the broader context. You've shown us elevations on the two streets, and of course an overhead, which we have a print. But we really could benefit by some fly-throughs, motion as if you were coming on Forsyth or Central in any of the four directions, which would then give us a feeling of what's there right now, what could be there, You know, when you talk about the county parking area, we really don't see that. And I noticed that you have dotted in the county police headquarters. Right. And it was a phantom view on one of your renderings.

Right. We wanted to recognize it was there, but we wanted to show you our building, right? So that was why.

Yeah, we... We like seeing your building, but it's not being built in a void. You do have a neighborhood around it. So that is constructive criticism probably for the future. But when we're looking at rezoning planned unit development and site plan review, I think the site plan right now, I have a few questions. I've already gone into the context of showing the immediate neighborhood in more depth that you've had. Staff brought up the entry and circulation into and out of the garage. Could you make that clear? I was having a little trouble following it on the plan.

Well, here's the site plan. So it is a similar... or access as other locations in Clayton, but it's three lanes that one, the middle lane is a switch lane. So it can be in or out, right? Okay. And then when they do get into our building and CBB looked at this and they were comfortable with everything that we were doing, but the residential owners spaces are in the basement. So they'll go down a ramp, all right? everyone else who's not a resident will actually go up a ramp. So there is the potential for some traffic jam here. I think that's what they were talking about, okay? But we have talked to some traffic consultants and as far as people that are gonna be doing the systems, we think that this can be handled through gates and things that lets people into certain places and limits access so that we don't have that traffic jam.

Well, looking at that drawing where the fire... area is, that could have been a

fourth lane. We needed a place for the fire

because that was important too. Tom, you got any thoughts? Did we discuss having a fourth lane, Tom? This is Tom. He's our architect.

It was discussed. I think we struggle with on this site plan is getting all the back of house program off the alley and then that fire access room um when talking to the hotelier like trying to have that as this open restaurant concept we ended up placing the fire command room over on that end and even now based on some engineering feedback we may have to move that further over to the other stair just to have a sheared wall so there's I don't see us adding a fourth lane. I get it as the simple diagram, but as the plans develop on the interior, it may change a bit.

I think the other thing is when the CBB did their review too, I mean, I think three lanes will cover our demand. So I think that was part of it. I mean, this is a very similar concept to what's in other places in Clayton. So we felt like it would work well.

I'm only bringing it up because it's a little confusing right now. But if CBB says it'll work, yes, it will. Okay. I really like how this site plan has the recess on both the north and the west. But we really don't have much area for outdoor dining.

There will be, I mean, there will be Mr. Chairman. So that's still our dining restaurant is still being developed inside, right? And the way we're working it now, we think that we'll have about 60 dining seats outside. And so it doesn't show up really well on this rendering, but that's the late and literally that's just off the presses this week. So it will, I think we'll have, it'll feel like a bistro out there. I mean, it will be quite a bit of outdoor seating along Forsyth for sure and probably some along Central as well. So I think Central will end up being more just regular seating where the bistro will actually gonna be along Forsyth. We think it'll go all the way to the corner there.

Well, my next comment is sort of architectural in nature. But when I look at the building on Forsyth, where the road goes from a low to a high, from east to west, I really like the height of the ground level at the east end. And I find that the height feels really crunched when you get up to central. On the corner? Yeah.

What is that height, Bob?

the 20 foot floor to floor at the entry, the northwest corner.

Well, I'm thinking about it with the mass above it. And when you look at that, it seems like it's really very low, very tiny, even though it may be 20 feet floor to floor. It won't be that high up to the underside of the structure, but Had you considered maybe a two-story height there on the corner? And where I'm going is, could your restaurant be up there with a terrace that would have views much greater distance than you would get on the ground level?

We've had a lot of restaurant conversations with restaurant operators and to a man, they've all said, do not move us off the first level. Okay. Cause we, we had this conversation originally about putting them on that second level right on the corner. Cause I had the exact same thought you did. They told me I was wrong. Okay. So that it needs to, they need to be on the first level being upstairs. We'll put them out of sight in their head, out of sight, out of mind. And I'm going to struggle to get a, a first rate operator to come in to do the food and beverage. So we did have that conversation, and based on the experts, we were told that that was not the right thing to do.

Well, I'm only going from personal experience in Chicago and Washington DC, where you have a restaurant primarily bar entrance at the ground level and dining and outdoor terrace at the upper level, because you can see much more from up there.

No, I agree with you. I was just outvoted by the guys that are going to be running the restaurants.

There is a chance for that opportunity up on the podium level, up in the terrace. So there'll be a bar with...

Up on the seventh floor. The seventh floor will have we'll have that terrace level up here. So they'll have some great views out this, the bar up this up on the seventh floor.

How do the public get up there?

Walk up steps. No, they have, there's elevators. They have elevators. So the lobby elevators take them straight up to the seventh floor. Is

that in conflict with the guest rooms?

No, the guest room floors basically have, if it's a guest, he has a room key, right? And that the elevators won't stop at any floor, guest floor, unless you swipe your room key to let you off on that floor. So it'd be basically a straight shot up to seventh floor without stopping.

So there is a control.

Right.

Okay. It goes back to...

remember where it was but um

you would be including that seventh floor as part of your public green space right right

yes sir and how will the public really use it

I mean, there's six out. I mean, this was this whole area down here in the corner. I mean, it is designed as a, as an outdoor park up on the seventh floor. So I think it's not going to take, I mean, it's not gonna take long for people to figure out it's up there. I don't think, I mean, we're going to try to tell as many people who can, because it's an, it's an attraction for the, for the building. I think there will be a lot of functions that go on up here. So there will be people that will find it through that. I think there'll be a lot of people that will find by coming up to the bar because the bar will be out there marketing itself too. So I do think that it will be known or will be known very quickly.

I have some concern about it being perceived and used by the public as a public space. And we have another one being built right now that's up in the air. And I'm not convinced that that will be usable by the public either.

they'll be able to get to this without any restrictions from us. So there will be complete access. They don't need to stop at the desk or anything to get to this space. They'll be able to take the elevator right up to the seventh floor and walk out and enjoy the space.

So neighbors walking their dog would be able to come in and enjoy the space? The hotel is pet

friendly, yeah. I mean, so I would expect they could.

Well, I do like if you go back to the ground level. I do like the setback. I'm just concerned that it may feel relatively short up near the corner of Central and Forsyth.

Yeah, we I mean, we've I mean, it goes downhill pretty quick there so that it's. I mean, we don't want it too high either because we still want a little bit of shelter for the people that are underneath their dining. So we felt like that 20 feet was the appropriate height. I

think

that covers my initial site plan, which relates to the rezoning and the PUD. Let's go around.

Bob? Thank you. You're smarter than you look. Thank

you.

Bob, I'm sorry to interrupt.

Is it possible that your mic is off at the moment?

I think he turned it off before I got to the mic. Thank you. No, I'm sorry. The entrance along Central, the idea is for it to carry a lot of pedestrian traffic ultimately. and you have a somewhat of a big traffic entrance along central. And I think I read, you guys don't want to put it in the alley because it didn't really make sense for the marketing of this place and the type of people you're trying to attract. Did I understand that right?

Or is the parking access? Yes. Yeah. People that are paying millions of dollars for condos don't want to exit or enter in the alley. That was, that was, I can't

blame you. I mean, that is kind of logical, but it just concerns me nevertheless, that it's such a big moat to cross to continue from one side of the sidewalk to the other. I don't know what the answer is. I don't go down to two lanes. Is that really being silly for the type of operation you're going to have there? Access lanes? Yeah.

We'd have to go back to CBB again, but I would think they would say that won't work. Okay, well,

having been in Clayton myself I think that would be kind of hard considering the number of people you're going to be using who are going to be using the building, but that is a concern to me, but I do understand why you did it. I don't know what the alternative is

something the other thing we did is right next to us the surface lot for the county. They have two exits out of there today. So we went to the county and surprisingly got them to agree to close one of them. So there will be one drive lane that's being removed right beside us, all right? So it will be a little bit more pedestrian-friendly right beside us there. So we try to make it better to help people get across there. So I do think that that will make a difference. It was a lot of time went into that traffic and that analysis and the garage. And this is by far the best functioning garage that we've come up with. And so I understand your concerns, but it really, I think will work very well. And because we've made it so the sidewalk so wide there, I believe, I hope that it will be still very pedestrian friendly, even in front of those gates.

Well, let's talk about the pedestrian friendly. I mean, it looks like you have a cover. You recess the first floor and you have a cover and you have some restaurants and all that kind of stuff. But it's not really for moving pedestrian traffic, you know, except maybe when it's in the rain. You're in the rain, you want to get out of the rain. But otherwise, it's just the existing sidewalk we'll be using. And the truth is, it's not very wide. And we're putting 25 stories, which is just the beginning, I hope, of more development in the core there. And it's going to be a tight squeeze. It's hard for me to imagine two people going one way, two people going another way. You really have a tough time doing that now on today's sidewalk. And when this is built, we're going to be in the same situation, really.

I think that sidewalk's wider than you think. The sidewalk up here, is that, what is that? That's

especially true on Forsyth. It's even narrower, you know?

I mean, looking at the door here. Yeah, so that's probably 12 foot.

And then you're going to have trees and landscaping there. It'll squeeze it even more.

Right, it will. But I mean, I think we have about a 10 or 12-foot sidewalk there. I don't have the dimensions off the top of my head, but I'm just trying to gauge this. So I think it's, especially on Central, it's definitely a wider sidewalk there than it is on Forsyth. It skinnies up on Forsyth for sure. Right, but

it's going to be a tight fit.

There's a lot of people moving there. You're right.

So... Anyway, I'm a little concerned about that. As for your design of the building, so you have a very nice rectangular design. You do. I mean, you try to break it up a little here where there are terraces and white border lines and you break it up a bit, but basically it's kind of like your nice And I'm not just talking about you guys, but just Clayton in general. It's the nice suburban office park design. And we're trying to be a viable, walkable downtown community. And you really don't have any step backs as you go up. And to give you some respect, it's a small lot and you're trying to do a lot on it. And I think if that's your goal, I think you guys get an A. But from sitting where I'm sitting, we're trying to see where is Clayton's future as a viable downtown? What I see is a step back absence so that if I am walking, grandchildren, whatever, and I'm walking along your building I say, look at that 20 foot high point. Isn't it wonderful? But then I keep walking and I feel like I'm against a tall wall. And if we're in Chicago or places with the old buildings, that's kind of cool. But in Clayton, we don't have that. We got a lot of glass, a lot of metal, a lot of cold looking materials we're walking up against. And to solve that, we try to have setbacks like on the first floor, which you do, but we try to have step back. So there's a more of a, so that we remember that the purpose of downtown is for us. We're not for the buildings, they're for us. And having that human scale is so important. And I, And I struggle with that with your building. I do. Like I say, I think you maximize your space and all that kind of stuff. And you do a great job with that. But it comes at a price. And I'm just wrestling with that.

Understood. So we started out looking at setbacks because that's the code, right? And so we started out looking we couldn't get enough useful square footage when you start setting it back. So I understand you and I don't disagree with you, all right? But it just economically didn't work. And so that's when we approached it, okay, what can we do to make this thing look special and look unique without having to reduce the floor plan so much? And so that's how we got here. So, I mean, you're correct. I'm not disagreeing with you, but that's what made it work. I truly believe we're going to do something special here. I mean, I wouldn't be part of this if we weren't doing that. So I appreciate your comments.

Well, I do believe you're sincere in trying to make the best of the situation. And I don't and I do think you have an eye because you're proud developers of making a contribution to the community, too. It's just it's a tough because you're on such a small lot trying to put so much on it. with regard to the garage. So you have a garage that faces this parking lot

and, and,

You have a mural you're going to put there, but I guess the rest of it looks like just a normal parking garage on that side. It's hard to tell. I know on the central side, you have an office facade. That looks pretty

decent.

But on this side, it's just a garage with a mural covering part of it, I guess.

Well, I mean, there's a lot more than just a mural. I mean, these columns, we've added these columns here to hide most of the garage. You're correct. There's still... a glimpse of a garage behind there. But most, a lot of garages would not have near this much covering. So, I mean, we did come back and try to do something here to hide the garage. And the mural was the biggest piece, but the landscaping was part of it. And then the other materials that we added really kind of, we felt like kind of helped dress it up significantly.

I mean, when I saw that mural, I thought of, you know, remember the old Roberts high rise downtown where they put a movie screen on the side of it. And on like Friday night, you could go down there and watch movies on the screen. What otherwise was one of the most hideous buildings I think I've seen in a long time. And yeah, I was saying, oh, maybe that's going to be a movie theater. No, that's

not. I mean, the intent is it to be a mural and it's to be termed. I mean, we're already talking to artists. I don't have anything I can show you. So this is just kind of something to fill it. But I mean, it will be approved by the Art Commission. That was our goal. But we wanted, I do, I mean, what's there now is really, really pretty ugly. So I thought we made quite a step improvement here by doing this, so.

I mean, now I'm gonna project my own personal thing here. I think something needs to be built and I think your building is very ambitious. I really give you credit for that. I think it's gonna accelerate development right around you very quickly. I think it's going to cause certain people among the Clayton administration to start pushing really hard to find some public space to make a heart and soul of Clayton before it becomes all commercial warehouse looking, kind of like the Kirkwood Commons or something. And like this property, although it's owned by St. Louis County, that area is like a perfect area, which if it did get become common public space, it would raise the value of your building substantially.

I know we wouldn't be opposed to that. So we do think you need to say, I mean, we live here too. I mean, we're, we're part of the community too. So we want to see everything else around us could be improved. I mean, that's good for everybody. So if that becomes a park, that's great.

Right. Everybody talks about having retail. And of course, nobody can find retail. And I never blame the developer. That's simply market. And so lately, the ploy is we're going to put a fitness center in there. Is that what you're

doing? So we've got a restaurant operator on the hook. Forget restaurants.

Everybody puts restaurants. I mean, retail.

Yeah, so you're right. It's hard to find retail, okay? So I envision that there will be a restaurant on this corner, that retail site that is down Forsyth in this corner here. I don't know what that's going to be yet, okay? I'm pushing hard to make it retail, but I don't have a user yet for sure.

And with regard to what Steve was saying about the seventh floor, you know, I have been to cities recently where that has really worked, especially like in old hotels where people know you go to the top and it's a real great ambiance and something. But I have not really seen it succeed in modern buildings very often. I mean, I hope you will.

But I'm... No, I agree with you. You're rolling

the dice

there. It's cool in historic buildings, but we actually have done this near SLU's campus in a brand new building and we have a bar on the seventh floor and it does really well. So I think it's how you do it. And I think Clayton is dying for something like this. I mean, I think this bar... is going to be hip and cool if they still use the words hip and cool, you know? So I think it will be the place where people go, especially that young professional.

Will you have entertainment? Do you project having entertainment in your building?

It won't be big entertainment. There may be singles, duos kind of things, but it will not be big entertainment. It's not a club. It's a rooftop bar.

Okay.

I mean, your $25 martinis. No, I'm just, you know, cool drinks.

Okay. I think Clayton could use some entertainment. That's why I'm asking. Yeah, we've actually been

approached by somebody who wanted us to put a club in here. It was just way too big. It just was way too big. Okay. And he wasn't, well, he wanted it cheaper than probably this location could afford. Okay.

All right, I'm done.

Thank

you. Thank you.

Ellen?

Okay, I am not convinced that the seventh floor qualifies as public space in the way we mean public space. I doubt that you would want some of the high school kids stopping by on their way to wherever. It will be public for maybe afternoon or coffee or the bar. And I think the bar, it's a great idea, but I don't see people as knowing about it. And I think the idea of walking into a building, taking an elevator and getting out to go outside is not the way most people think of public space. The idea is great, but I would give you zero points for public space. Sidewalk width, especially on Forsyth That, I mean your renderings look fantastic, plenty of space. But when I talk about sidewalk width, I'm talking about the clear width, not where I have to stop, move over between two trees to let you walk in the other direction. And I think there's an opportunity there. You have planters that are probably about two feet wide, get rid of the planters, put something else because I realized there is an elevation drop that you need to accommodate. But if I'm the pedestrian, you haven't done anything for me. If the building could be back further, and I know some of our sidewalks in Clayton are 10 feet wide, but you take out the curb, the decorative element, the planter, and all of that. And even with the improved planting grates, you don't have the problem. Kami and I would have the problem women have the problem high heels and women do a lot of walking. They're, you know, I don't know, 50% of the population. And a lot of times if it's not comfortable, then my husband will not walk there either because the two of us are walking together. So You really can't count that part of the sidewalk as usable. Elevation wise, I have no problems with the building going straight up and the height of it is fine. It is just the front, the north elevation looks mundane, the other elevations, central, from the parking lot and I love the mural. If you could do that on the north, you know, the north is just so kind of symmetrical.

Try to make sure I understand where you're talking about. Is it this view you're looking at or this view? Okay.

Yeah, it's the north elevation, foresight.

Foresight, okay, all right.

It lacks the character that the other elevations have.

Okay. It's just blah, where the

others are more articulated.

Yeah, I understand. So this over here is where you're talking about, right? And so that- Well, the whole

building.

Yeah.

When you look at, okay, sheet A3-02.

That's the whole building.

That's the front view from the north.

Right.

And that's... the main street foresight. And that just doesn't have any character to it. The other elevations do. The one that you have on the screen now, there is, in essence, trim pieces defining the masses. You don't have much of that on the north facade.

I think I don't have a nice color rendering of that to show you, so I can't tell you. But it does have very similar blocking along just like it does on this side. There is more, I think, texture to it than what you're looking at because that's a 2D rendering, obviously. But I understand where you're coming from. Also with the patios that are on that, the condo patios, that mid-level is all outdoor space for a condo owner who happens to be on this floor. So they'll have outdoor space all the way around their condos. So there is stuff going on for sure on that level that doesn't show up very well on the paper that you're showing. But I hear where you're coming

PB, Lupita D Montoya, No, and I think it's interesting and maybe telling that you don't show on you know your presentation, the head on front view that anybody coming from the north walking down in a central. PB, Lupita Д Montoya, will say

you're giving me more credit we didn't do that just this is just the way the renderings came down we didn't there was no intent to it so but. I can get you a rendering. You know, whoever

does the renderings, they...

I think they thought this was the... You know, renderings are meant to look good, right? This is what they thought was a good-looking render, right? So that's...

This looks great.

That

is nicely broken up. The masses are well articulated.

But... Yeah, sorry. So, I mean, I think... Part of the thing with this building is there's a lot of active program. So we started with all these gestural massing studies and we ended up with this. And these are large terraces. These aren't market rate apartment terraces. They're like six foot by 11 feet. So they're nice, large features. And at a certain point, the pedestrian ground floor is very active. It's pushed and recessed in certain zones. There's nice entry elements that mark the residential entry and also the hotel entry. And then to me up above for it was nice to have a break, a clean break. We articulated the entry by pulling down two symmetrical elements to accentuate the residential entry. But then up above that again, massive terraces with dark shadow lines and to me like the facade wanted to be symmetrical because everything else is asymmetrical on the other facade. So it just became a way to like settle the building down for a little bit the base because there's so much going on above A giant recess that Steve mentioned for those larger units that kind of, as an architectural element, like break the building into its program uses. So that, to me, the hotel above, and it's not illustrating that rendering, but there's also going to be things like curtains that activate that facade. So it's a nice glass facade that will have a subtle pattern to it. So to me, it was not everything had to be super active about the building, and that's kind of how it ended up this

way. Okay. No, those are my only comments.

Thank you. Amy.

So I agree with Helen with the seventh floor terrace. Can you explain to me how that would be public? I understand that there's a bar, but I mean, the bar is not going to be open, you know, at nine o'clock in the morning. So how would that space be utilized for someone

I mean, it's open. So people would come up the elevators here in the middle, right? And they could just walk straight through here to the space. It's not keyed down or locked down or anything. So it will be open. It won't be open probably after a late, I mean, overnight, right? And we probably will lock it down overnight. I don't think that that seems like a bad idea to leave it open overnight. But and so it'll open at six or seven o'clock in the morning for people to come out because a lot we think a lot of A lot of the hotel guests will walk out here with a cup of coffee or something to kind of, you know, check on the news or just hang out for a little bit.

Sure. Well, besides hotel guests, I'm talking about just the average Clayton person, you know, who's going out for a walk. Are they just going to go up there and utilize it and just sit there?

Yeah, no, I understand. I think people will figure it out. And I think, I mean, I don't think you get, I think those Clayton people are smarter than you give them credit for. I think they will figure out a way to utilize the space. That's our intent anyways, is to have this space available for people who want to use it. But

anybody.

What's that? So

like anybody could just go up there.

Yeah. I mean, we're not, yeah, it's, it's open to the public. Yes. So

I'm just picturing me with like my four kids on a Saturday. There's no way

6,000 square feet. We can find a corner for you and the kids bother anybody else. All right. It wants to

know if it's going to double up as a babysitting.

No, but I mean, to that point, you know, like when we walk downtown Clayton, which we do all the time, you know, I do have concerns about the width of that sidewalk, you know, kids, you know are on scooters you know riding their scooters and bikes and you know it's definitely a walkable community um and you know when you say that there's going to be 60 people out here on this is that right on the

there's i mean this is there's there's some 60 seats that are in these areas here but it's inside this red line

right and so there's and so then pedestrians are well i mean yeah it's it's very tight you know and i think you know what as Helen mentioned, like the planters and everything that is just a little bit more obtrusive. And I get that you want to separate this, you know, eating component from the walking component. But it's, I mean, it's a heavily, you know, walked area. And I, you know, just from my perspective with kids, you know, crossing over, you know, the garage and all that. I mean, we walk this all day long, you know, you go up to Starbucks, you go up the library, everything. It is heavily traveled. And I think, you know, along the terms of a public benefit, We're kind of missing the mark on that for all those people walking through. That's my concern. All

right, thank you. That was the thought we did we did recess the glass facade the first floor in and then add a planter the idea of bringing the scale down. Because that brow that rides above, we started that 20-foot line at the northwest corner. It steps up to like 30 at the low end of the side, 30 plus. So we thought by adding a planter, bringing the scale down as the pedestrian is walking by, at least you're not walking by a solid glass wall. It's pushed in another 36 inches with landscape to soften that experience. It's still wider than what's currently there, but it's not a solid masonry wall. It's a glass reflective surface that's pushed back 36 inches plus with some nice landscaping.

I think to Helen's point, I think we can definitely look at the planters and see if we can't do something a little bit different. Part of it is there to, because this is a step down street, right? I mean, it's going downhill. So we have to kind of block it every once in a while. But I think we could probably do that in other ways to kind of open up the sidewalk a little bit. I think that's possible for sure.

I don't think you can underestimate the significance of the narrowness of the sidewalk. And when you go on Central, you say you widen it for use, but the truth of the matter is if you have a hotel there, you're going to have the hotel people out there waiting for their cars and you just congregate outside the hotel. It's not going to be for the Claytonians walking by.

No, I mean we're trying, I mean we were trying to activate the corner to write the corner is, I know it's. I know there's a lot of sidewalk there now because there's not a lot of people work, you know the businesses, there's not a business is there so we're trying to activate the Corner and we do think as you guys said earlier that activating this corner will will spawn other things around us that are going to be really great for the community and. Everybody wants retail in town, but we need, you know, in our head, you need people here first. So we're trying to put condos in hotels so we can bring people to this site, which ultimately hopefully will bring some more retail to the community.

But I want to make sure that there's sunshine that reaches down to the people that walk by you. Yeah. And that's where the 25 story vertical wall concerns me.

Yeah. No, I understand. Um, You know, I hear you. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But what we've done, we put a lot of thought into it and we're trying to do what we think is the best given the economics of the site too, right? It's not a cheap site, okay? And it is... And we're trying to do, I mean, we really are trying to do something special here. We're trying to do something that is a mark for us in this community too. So, because we're from, this is home for us too. And this is part of our mission is to do things like this. So we want to do something special.

David? I

think a lot's been covered and I agree, especially with the sidewalk on Forsyth, that there's any way to get closer to 10 feet between the planners and the, uh, the tree grates. That would be excellent because it is relatively narrow there. I guess the next question would be, um, related to the ballet parking spots. It looks like there's maybe three on central and then a residential drop off spot on foresight. Is that correct? Yes. Was the traffic engineers have anything to say about that particular arrangement, whether or not that's, that's enough. Um, Or just having the valet on the central side, I would imagine people coming into Clayton that aren't familiar with the site are probably going to try to access that hotel off of Forsyth before they realize they can swing around the block and pick it up on central. So I didn't know if you'd given that any thought or not.

Yeah, so I mean, they did evaluate the locations. I mean, we think that we need a valet location in front of the residents because there will be, the residents will be dropped off there by Uber or whatever. So we think that's important. I think we can ID it or sign it too. We've done that other locations to make sure that we identify clearly where the hotel valet is versus where the residential is. So I think we can mark that to kind of help police it.

I know there are always vehicles, if you go by Limeridian or go by the Ritz or any of those downtown Clayton, there's always typically a few cars in those circle drives or in those drop-off areas. So I just want to make sure that you've had sufficient capacity for that here. Other than that on the site, the one thing I wish we had, we've got this point system, which is newer. This would be the fourth project now. where we've dealt with this. We had another one that had a rooftop terrace that was the Forsyth Point project, and I can't quite recall how we treated that as far as public space, although I will say, I believe on your project, it's probably a little bit more accessible than theirs. I think they had set aside a certain number of times per year or something else that would be set aside for public use. I wish I had that information handy so we could take a look at it and use it a little bit of as a template for this, but I do know it's something we've addressed in the past. And those would be my comments, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you, David. Thank you. Before we go on, I have a few other comments. Bob, I understand your concern about the wall being tall, but whether it's 25 stories or two stories, there won't be any sun on the sidewalk there.

Well, I was just saying that, but there is something about human scale. It goes without saying, I don't go through it, but having to step back is to give that human scale feeling.

I agree with that. And let me go back to the human scale. That's where I was going at the corner. To me, with the bulk of the building, the scale of that corner, even at 20 feet, floor to floor, seems very tight and crunched. And the other thing when we've, and now I know I'm verging into the architectural, but somehow it all goes together. I felt that the North facade was somewhat dull compared to the West facade. And I began thinking that if we had a more vibrant corner that would both be physically and visually open to people wanting to be drawn in, that visible or visual should go all the way up to the top of the building and have something at the top of the buildings saying, this building is special. Right now, I think the building is quite unique, but I think doing something like that would help the north facade look a little less rigid and plain if it were less symmetrical than it is now. I do think that the condominium balconies are very nice, but they stop. They have no connection to the corner, which we really want to energize. We want it to be a people drawing space along with the two sidewalks. So visually, I think something needs to happen that draws your eye up. If you're coming from the west on Forsyth, when you're down at Brentwood Boulevard, you would see it and you would see something at the top, some roof element that would then bring you back down to where you're focused. Same thing if you're coming south maybe walking on Central, that you see that, but it draws your eye up and it makes you realize, yeah, this is a really unique project right here at the epicenter of Clayton, whether you call it Main and Main or whatever. So I know that verges into the architectural, but I thought I should bring that up. Now I want to go back to the seventh floor, which I started with. saying, I'm not sure it's really public. And when we go back to our points table, it could have zero to five points. You've requested five points. Staff has indicated five points. I'm not comfortable with that. I felt that it was two or three points at best because I'm not convinced that it's really a public space as we see public space in the city of Clayton. And I'm not trying to put a problem on the points because I know you need 30, but I really have a problem with giving five points

there.

I understand what you're saying. Our intent, I'm just telling you what, I mean, it is a giant space. It's like a little park up there. So our intent is that it is for public use. And yes, we need 30 points. So you're absolutely right. And this was a place where we thought we could get some points. It's a hard place to get 30 points.

And those of us that walk in downtown use Starbucks across the street or the library up on the next corner or any other place. I can't imagine coming out of the library, maybe stopping at Starbucks, and then trying to go up to the seventh floor. If there were some delightful green area that I could sit in before I start my walk back home, I think that would help me give more points than I'm really seeing.

Yeah, as mentioned earlier, the site's only so big, right? Right. And you're right about the activation of the corner. That's our intent too, is to activate that first level, that first floor. I mean, it's going to be busy. I mean, that is our intent with that first level. We want people to walk by and want to come into the space because that's our goal here. So we're going to make that first level very active, very exciting for people. And we think people are going to enjoy it because I think we want to bring the neighborhood in. That's really one of our goals.

I hesitate to say that maybe you should pull the building frontage back on that street level to give it even more space. But if you're going to have dining out there, a bistro on one side and other dining, that first floor space is already pretty tight as it goes around those two. Yeah, see the purple?

I mean, I'd hate to lose any more of the first floor inside, just being honest, because it's shrunk down already.

I mean,

our goal is to really have, I think we're going to have something really cool on that inside. And I think that out that corner is going to feel very special when we get done with it. So I understand the sidewalks. I get that because I walk in Clayton too, and you run into a landscape tree every 20 feet or whatever it is. I don't know what it is. It seems like a lot, but that's the requirement. So that's why we have them. And that's kind of what's there now. So it's not, we didn't take away from the sidewalks, but we didn't, and especially on Forsyth, but we did enlarge them a little bit on the central side.

So overall, I see it as a unique dramatic use of this space. It's really using every square foot of it. But I think right now the physical usage of the central and Forsyth facades at the first floor are a little bit underdeveloped at this point. How much? I'm not sure. And creating that dramatic eye-popping corner that is more than just what we see and maybe relates to the top could really be, could put this on the map as something really special. Not saying a pyramid or anything or a swoopy top. That's up to you. I'm just saying conceptually and visually, I think you need to draw the people in at the corner and let them see what the entire project is. So that has gotten off of the PUD and the site plan, but somehow it all relates.

I respect your opinion. I do think we're doing something special. So I do, we've put a lot of energy into this and it is, it's come through a lot of gyrations and I think we're going to do something. And maybe it doesn't show well on what we're showing you. Maybe that's part of my shame on us, but I think our vision, what we visualize here is going to be, it is going to be something you guys are going to be pointing two years from now saying that's what we want to emulate.

Well, I would agree. The direction it's going is great. Hopefully all of our comments are taken constructively. I think the only negative that I've really said is I can't give five points on the seventh floor, right? Understood. Before we open it up to the public, any further comments? Well, we may have some public comments here in the auditorium and I'm sure we may have some online. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Anybody in the chambers? Elizabeth, come on up. Give us your name.

My name is Elizabeth and I live on Brighton Way here in Clayton. I'm impressed. Positively impressed. I'd like to know how much higher this building is planned to be than the building at the northwest corner of Beamiston and Forsyth. And I want to know how high this is planned to be compares to the Commerce Bank building at the northeast corner of Merrimack and Forsyth? No, I want the down and the up. I want to know tall this building is going to be, how much it's going to loom over the building on the Bemiston side because there's that very steep hill there and this is going to be very much taller. And then I want to know how much this building is taller than or as tall as the Commerce Bank building across the block to the west.

Please.

I know you probably don't have that now, but I would like that to be made available at some point.

Tom, you may be able to answer how much higher you are compared to the building to the east, which has been Bank of America. Oh, you're right. Sheet A302. It looks like, of course, we have the building to the east would come up to the 10th floor, if I'm reading it correctly. Right? To the 10th floor. So there would be approximately 15 floors above that.

And then compared to the Commerce Bank building?

David, you may have to help me on that. I believe the Commerce Tower as part of Forsyth Point is 14 stories high or 16?

Is she referring to the Forsyth Point project or the existing Commerce Tower? The existing one is 15 floors, but I'm not sure what the actual height is. feet wise, and then the foresight point building on the other side. I want to say it's 14, if I'm not mistaken, but I don't have that in front

of me. And I appreciate the floors, but again, this is, I would like to know how high it is up because quite honestly, I do believe either the commerce, the existing commerce bank building, or this building will be on the highest point in the central business district land-wise contour. topography wise

it is one or the other right maybe both because it seems relatively flat

yeah because i walk i walk foresight too that's a hell of a climb up to merrimack and front coming from the east it's a hell of climb up to central so um i just don't want this to be the start of really tall buildings in Clayton. So that's why I'm asking these questions. I don't think they should be towering over everything, but I don't think we should be building everything so that these buildings don't power over the others. I don't that everything in Clayton should be 200 feet tall because that would make us just like downtown St. Louis on Pine Street from Tucker to Broadway which is a canyon surrounded by 30, 40 story buildings, which have no attraction to them at all. And because they are so close to each other,

you

can't even appreciate the good ones that are there. So that's one reason why I would like to know that. At this point, I'm not sure I understood how you are moving the north-south alley on the Forsyth side. Are you moving it that much closer to the Bank of America building there? Or is it just that that alley is not necessarily centered on the block itself? In other words, I thought I heard Steve say that you were moving the alley. And I may have misheard. I'm sorry for that. But what I'm trying to get at is are there still going to be the smaller building between the Bank of America building and this? So they're going all the way down to the Bank of America Building.

Right. And David, correct me if I'm wrong. The alley that is to the west of the small building immediately adjacent to the Bank of America building before you get to break an egg in the building that goes up to the corner, that alley would be closed and moved east to be adjacent to the Bank

There's no alley today right beside Bank of America.

We would

be adding one there.

But you would be taking away the alley that is there. The alley that's about

30, 40 feet the other way, right? So

there's

no additional alley space. I understand that.

OK, so then that means that not just the two-story, three-story buildings, east on Forsyth from Central and south from Forsyth on Central, that it currently exists. And the businesses that are on this first and second floors of those buildings will now be gone. And when this building or any other new building is built, If those businesses still exist and want to come back into Clayton, there won't be places for them. There won't be places they can afford to move into. And this is why I want to ask this question. How much retail space? What is the square footage that you plan to put in on the east side of your building for outside retailers of whatever kind to come into? Yes, where there will be the new alley will be moved or the old alley will be

moved. Please speak in the microphone so that they're recording and those can

hear you. So how much square footage for retail on the first floor on Forsyth?

Can you come up to the microphone for the recording please?

So on... On the very corner, right next to Bank of America, there'll be 1650 of retail. Then there will also be the restaurant location that will be on Forsyth at the corner of Central and Forsyth. And that'll be a couple thousand square feet of restaurant on that corner. 1650 of retail in the corner by Bank of America and about two to 2,500 restaurant. Actually, it's more than that. It's probably about 3,500 square feet of restaurant up in that corner. I'll face Forsyth also.

So we will have lost two stories of restaurants and businesses on the central side, and we will have lost to stories of restaurants and business on the Forsyth side. And for a 601,000 square foot, 100,000 square foot building to say 5,000 of that is going to go to restaurant and retail. That seems like not a very large percentage. And we are losing a lot of businesses on that half of a corner, on that corner. So I just want to point out Everybody says they want to bring businesses and restaurants into Clayton because you're bringing that many more people into Clayton, but you're pushing them out of Clayton and there's no place for them to come back into. Because 5,000 square feet, most of which is supposed to be taken up by one restaurant and no room for the businesses that currently exist in those buildings. There was a music shop in this. in that building, do you remember that? There will not be a music shop in this new building. I can guarantee you that. I also am very concerned about how many of these buildings are going to be in the Central Business District. You and I talked on the way in here, Steve. To be the new downtown is not something to be emulated. We don't have the crime yet, but we do have the homelessness in this city already. And we don't need to push out all the existing retail that we have just to bring in more people who have nowhere to go to buy anything other than Richmond Heights. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the council chambers? Ana, do we have any hands up?

There are not currently any hands up on Zoom. If there are.

Yeah, I'll let you know if that changes.

Well, I think we may need to go through the points table. We've talked about the analysis of it, but not completely getting comments from the Commission. So I would like to do that. And I've already sort of tipped my hand where I stood. But let's talk about it. Does anyone have general concern about the points table? of the requested points, staff points or where you may feel points are valid.

Steve, one thing that

stands out to me is on 405.1380B5A-H, which is the third one on the table, sustainable building design and construction. In the code of ordinances, on that A through H, there's essentially an itemized list of some sustainable features that you can put into buildings and receive points for. In this particular case, and you get one point per standard, we've allowed or we've suggested one point it looks like based on the LEED Silver requirements. I think there are probably some other points there to be had if the developer would go back through and take a look at that I don't know if, for example, charging stations are being proposed for this site, especially if they're going to be in that garage and made available to the public. That's something that would be an easy point to pick up. I think there are a few others within the code that they could probably take a look at and maybe try to attain some more points there because I do share your concern on the terrace portion. And again, I'd love to see what we did for Forsyth Point. I'm not sure that it's worth a full five, but if we were to reduce there, I think there is an opportunity to pick up some other points in that other area.

Tom or David, did you get the gist of that?

To answer Dave's question, I mean, yes, we do have charging stations in the parking garage. So there could be potential for additional points there for sure. As far as I agree that we're eliminating some of the retail bays that are on the street now, many of those are closed. So I mean, it isn't like they're active retail bays now, but we're also adding the bar up top, which is an additional retail outlet if you want to think of it, the bar up top. And I do think the event space is going to bring new people into Clayton that aren't coming in now because their option really is the Ritz or nothing else. So I think that I guess the roots and Lumeridian really. And so they, they're going to, there's going to bring some extra people in who are going to experience the event space that will be new to Clayton and, and, and bring additional foot traffic and people to the community. So, you know, I, I'm not sure what's more important. It's because I hear retail and I hear green space, right? So it's kind of hard to tell what's more important, but yeah, our super duper architect just drew something over there for us. And we, we, if we, if green space is more important on the first level, I, we can accomplish that, but it has to come at the expense of something else. And that's probably that 1650 square foot of retail. All right. And we could add green space on the first level on Forsyth. Uh, but we, we'd have to, we'd have something else, right? We can't, can't add square footage that we don't have. So if that, if that is something that, um, helps, um, Because I understand, I'm hearing it from the group that the seventh floor outdoor space is, I don't feel the love. So I get that. So if we can do some green space down on that first level, it'd be on Forsyth. That probably helps dress it up, which is another concern that we've heard on kind of dressing up that north side. It definitely will improve the sidewalks. Okay, so there's probably a lot of pluses to doing that.

I think you have the opportunity, possibly to do both, to improve to some extent the green space at the ground level. And also to gain more points on the sustainability building design and construction. Now they may balance each other out. helping to get you to the required points in our points table. So I think you need to take a look at that closely. Okay, got it. I think David's suggestion was very good and I did not realize it was one point per standard. I'm not sure we did either.

Yeah, I think we can definitely look at that line and probably add some points.

Any other comments? Or

let's just take item one. It's the parentheses. The exhibition of architectural distinction and significance. And of course, requested was five. Staff offered four. Where does everyone else feel that

they belong? I'm at two to three. I would say three at this point.

I would say between three and four. I

was three. David, did you have a?

I would say three or four right now. I think there's some points to be had there as well.

Okay. And my three was mainly, I've already commented on you know, the rooftop or the actual appearance connecting to the ground, simplifying the north facade where it becomes less symmetrical and a visual and physical connection from the ground all the way up. Okay, so we're, I haven't heard a five from anyone on the commission The second one, terraces provided on the first floor that extend the sidewalk. The site will also feature planter boxes and other landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way beyond the minimum streetscape trees. And there you could have up to two per enhancement. and you requested two, and staff felt that they could give six points. And honestly, I did not write down the three specific that you, I believe, called out. We have

the- So the two were awarded

for the expanded terrace area, the planter boxes, and then the landscaping.

Oh, okay. Um, comments on

that? Well, yeah, you do have all those green improvements. But the idea that these improvements enhance the sidewalks is it's just the opposite. And there's no way I would be giving six points for this. Not even

close. I would say two with the hope that what we've discussed will materialize. Amy? I would agree with two.

David? Two for now, and I think that could be improved as well if we could get some more sidewalk width there with some of these landscape features. I think certainly an opportunity for more points.

I was at a three, hoping that that area could be improved somewhat. If we go to the next one, that's parentheses number five. That was the sustainable building design and construction. And there again, we'll leave it up to you. I think we could probably get many more points in that one if you look at all the detail of your project. Right now it stands at one. I think we'll leave it until you come back and let us know how to augment those. If we go to item six, and that's a provision of green and blue roof systems. And we haven't talked about that before. We have heard about We know what green roofs are. And some of us have heard what blue roofs are. But if you could give us a quick download so everyone else understands what the blue roof is. Are

you...

So you're all aware of what green roof elements are. There's really two kinds of green roofs. There's the extensive systems that are spread over a wide area. Usually it's sedum trays or some other low growing, easy to maintain system. There are also blue roof systems which are A lot of them are trays as well, but what they do is they hold rainwater for a period of time, either allowing it to evaporate or release slowly onto the roof system, thereby reducing the surge of storm water to the system.

Is that clear?

And with all the roofs have either green or blue except where people are going. So what we

looked at is that one of the big benefits of having green roofs is being able to see it and so putting that on the top of a 25 story building. doesn't much make a difference because not many people, the planes flying over can see your green roof. And so we were looking at adding green roof to the ballroom structure, which would be the hotel would look down on it, the condos would look down on, but the blue roof would be utilized on the top of the 25 story tower to again offset the storm surge. So the combination of the two of them would both assist in the stormwater issues as well as provide beautification to the lower roof.

Okay. Thanks, Steve.

Comments on the point

system there? I don't have much problems with what they recommended. Helen? I would give five. Amy. I would do four.

David. Um, you know, I, I would say five and we start looking at those sustainable elements. Um, this is where we'll start to see some things double dip and the ordinance, you know, it, it specifically calls out green roofs and similar things, both in that a through H and, uh, this one we're currently talking about number six. So, um, Yeah, I think the accommodation of green and blue roof systems, I personally would give it five.

I agree with that, David. I had it at a five also. Let's go on to item nine, and that's the above grade garage levels will be available for public parking. And comments on that? I believe we've heard that public parking will be accommodated in there. It would be both hotel, restaurant, and public access?

I don't have a problem with the five. Helen? I would do five. Five. David? Five. Yep,

I was in five also. Item 10, 35% of the overall parking for the development will be below grade. which also represents all of the private parking for the residential use. And there, it could go up to five and you've requested two. Bob? I'm

just trying to understand why they only asked for two, I guess.

Same with me, but I took that as being 35% of the overall parking.

Can I ask how many floors of parking

do you have underground? Two and a half. Two

and a half, two and three quarters depends how far you consider below grade because the parts of the site sloping to these.

And what I know this is a tough question. What do you anticipate to be the amount of public parking available?

Up above in the garage? Yeah. I have a number on my Yeah, so we have

allocated 276 spaces approximately to upgrade for hotel and restaurant use. Okay.

So that's approximately 100 spaces over the number of hotel rooms.

Correct. We're parking the hotel as required per code, and then we have a 300... approximately 300 seat event space. So that's also we're parking for code. So it's that and the restaurant use or what are filling those spaces.

I could probably go three to four. Helen? I would say the two that was requested. Kami? I would go three. David? Three as well.

Okay, I was at four also because I thought it was well parked. Okay, moving on to number 12, this is public art. We've certainly talked about it before. You requested five, staff suggested three.

I would agree with three. I think the lesson I've learned is when you're in this phase of development, you cannot really imagine what the right art is going to be. And I think we have an art commission and the final say so from the city. And I think if we just take a middle of the ground approach right now, that would acknowledge that you're going to act in good faith And we have trust but verify down the

line for you guys. I would agree with three. Amy?

Three.

David?

Three as well.

I was there also. OK. And then the final one, 13, and that's the seventh floor terrace to be available to the public. Five were requested, staff suggested five.

I love the fact that David and his crew are really going to go to bat. I really think you will. I mean, you're putting your money where your mouth is and you're really going to do something. And I do want to give some acknowledgement of it. I'm going to just

give it a three. Helen? I would say one. PB David Ensign & Amy I would

say one. PB

David Ensign – David to be honest, I couldn't tell you, I think it's important with with items like this with the point system to try to have some consistency so i'd love to go back and look at that other project. PB David Ensigne & And I think I would probably get this one point more than that other project would get just because I don't think that one's accessible to the public with nearly the frequency that this will be, which is all the time so. I'll need to go back and review that one.

Okay. I was giving it a three, but that brings us through the points table. I did not keep all the numbers. Did you?

Well, a lot of you guys gave ranges this time. So I'm not really sure how to put that in an average when you're giving ranges. So it would be nice if you either stuck to one number and just, I mean, otherwise, I guess I can just give it off the 0.5 of the range. If

you gave it the higher number, you're still going to be shorter than 30. but at least you have some guidance of where our heads are at.

I think the main one that could really pull you up is the sustainable building. Anything that you can pull in through there will get you more than the one point

that we have. And I think that probably

ends the points table communication at this point. Did we leave anything out on

there, Ana? No, I had right around 24 based on just kind of averaging the ranges, 24 points, the charging stations I left on the bottom of my list, which if you included now would be it to 25. So there's that. And then I think we'll just make it clear in the motion if depending on what you do, we might need to firm up that

point count.

I believe that probably is all that we had to review on the rezoning PUD and the site plan review. However, we do have staff recommendations and there are 15 of them. I'm sure you've read through all of them. Do you have any comments or conflicts with any of those? Good. That's quite a lot. We'd like not to have to go through them again, so. Terrific. Okay, well, we do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval of the rezoning and the PUD to the Board of Aldermen with the 15 recommendations. And I think we should add a 16th for the point count to be confirmed and added up in whatever order line item you want so that we can make 30 points for it to go forward. That'd be the proper description.

So are you

editing the points or I'm a little confused on how the points are changing for condition number 16?

Well, PB Harmon Zuckerman, they're going to need more points you you estimated that you think it was about 24 total right I estimated 25 so somewhere we need to have additional points. PB Harmon Zuckerton, Added to it, and I think we need to make it part of the recommendation.

Yes, you can make it part of the recommendation so ultimately the points are at the discretion of the board of aldermen. So you would be pass if you were to pass forward any sort of recommendation to them, you could be recommending that it does not meet the public benefits and then the 16 condition would be that they need to add to that public benefit going before the board of alderman I do not believe, and I confirmed this with our city attorney before she left. I think that you can, if you wanted to, still move this forward to the Board of Aldermen explaining that. I don't think it has to reach 30 points in your discretion before it's moved forward. But if there are other conditions that you feel you need to re-review as your plan commission related to this request, then obviously you don't have to move it forward.

I feel comfortable moving it forward with that caveat that you would need to come up with the 30 points to be approved by the Board of Aldermen to allow it to go through. Understood. Any comment on that?

I'm just not all that familiar with the process. If we support the staff recommendation, do we approve the project as is?

we are recommending approval to the Board of Aldermen.

Of the PUD,

the architecture

and everything?

Right now, it's only the rezoning in the PUD. The PUD designation. That's correct. But not the structure itself. That's

right. We will get to the architectural. That's item number five. Any other comments? Yeah.

Are we, some of the points are related to the site and if we proceed with a yay vote, then we will not see the site again or be able to comment on it.

That is correct.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, yeah we're we're i'm personally struggling a little bit is some of these points do relate to the architecture of the building we haven't we've discussed it some but we haven't gone through it in detail if. HAB-Jacque Juilland, For some reason, we were to make this recommendation right now, but then when we do an architectural review here in a few minutes if, for whatever reason, it was postponed or wasn't active upon tonight and those plans then change, I do have some concern that. whatever changes would then occur could impact the points that are attached to that recommendation of the PUD. I'm just wondering if we want to break it into pieces like that, or if this is more of a package deal?

Well, I think we have to realize that they overlap. The rezoning and the PUD does overlap somewhat with the architectural review. So From your comment, David, I think it might be best to hold off on voting on this until we have gotten through the entire package, which may then say that we may have to potentially table it to the next time when you may have to come back.

Is that correct,

David?

Yeah, I mean, I just look at some of these points items. For instance, you know, the first one on there is architecture and that's something that's kind of in flux. They had requested five and I think the commission is somewhere around three and staff is at four. But if we start talking about architecture and they change the exterior of that building, we're then changing the PUD point count that we've already sent the recommendation forward on while we have held the discussion on the architecture back. That's just where I think it gets a little a little clunky, so to speak.

I mean, if I could just jump in here and I'm talking to you too, David, I know time is money and all that stuff. I really do get it. But I think we've been studying this, your plan before we came in here. And then tonight we have really been doing some serious soul searching. We want you to succeed. Let me start with that. but we have some concerns that I think are quite doable to solve. And I would like to make sure that we have something great for the city of Clayton that has your signature on it. And that's a win not only for you and your clients, but also for the city of clayton. And if we rolled it over one time until the next day, I mean, you know, I think we can accelerate things thereafter

well i'd like to hear about the other architectural comments because we're trying to make sure that we gather all the notes no we could still go through with it

today but

um

i will be hesitant to vote

yeah i mean to your point time is money we're running out of daylight on that because this process does take longer than than i thought it was going to take but it is what it is and uh um I do want to make sure that coming out of this, we have a clear direction though, right? Because I think there's a lot of different things and everybody, because I love you all, but everybody has different opinions, right? And I need to know what's the most important or what the group wants so that we make the right edits. I think

that is being very fair and reasonable.

I would agree. Bob, and I just wanted to make a point related at the time. If PB John Gerstle, If we start talking about the architecture and the ARB is not ready to move forward with what's in front of us this evening. PB John Gerstles, And they need to make adjustments to that you know I can't see the board of all them and doing anything with the PUD until the architecture issues settled. PB John Gerustle, In a RB and those questions are answered, so I think it all all the timing is going to hinge on the architecture review, along with it, so I don't know that you necessarily lose time at the board. PB John Gerastle, understood.

We do have two other items. One is the plant consolidation and then the architectural review. And that, I'm sure, will take quite a bit of time to get through. So going forward with it, I think at this point we should move on with the next item. Is everyone in agreement with that?

The

public hearing is still open. Need to close the public hearing.

Right, okay. The public hearing is now closed and we'll move on to item four for 7814-7820 Forsyth and that is the plant

review.

So the proposed plat will consolidate the existing seven lots and shift the alley east to allow for the development of the mixed use hotel. The consolidated lot will measure 38,505 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with lots located in the immediate area in regard to size, frontage and arrangement. And staff recommends to recommend approval to the Board of Alderman with two conditions. One, that the applicant provides the appropriate mylar for signatures and two, that the applicant files the plat with St. Louis County Reporter of Deeds and submits proof of filing within 30 days of Board of Alderman approval.

Okay, thank you. Any comments on the plaque consolidation? It seems straightforward. The only thing that I did not understand is why we have

botanical items connected to it.

That might just, is that on everybody's? Do you have something on the

back?

It must have been

from the printer. I don't know. Okay.

Well, I have no problem with the plant consolidation or the staff recommendations. But are there other comments? No, no, no. David?

No comments on that.

Comments. Okay. Do we have a recommendation to approve to the Board of Aldermen with the two recommendations, conditions?

I move we approve this staff recommendation regarding the consolidating plats. Consolidating plats with the condition set forth in said staff recommendation.

second

all in favor

aye

opposed okay we got through that one we have one more left would you like to continue the architectural this evening

i do need feedback

so i mean in order to come back prepared the next time so i would like to get some architectural feedback if you guys have time.

That's fine. I'll speak for all of us. I think we should tie it all together. You've heard some architectural comments, but let's go through it right now.

Yep. So, I mean, I've done my spiel, so I got nothing else to say. So you want to start giving the feedback or? No, we'll start with the staff report. Okay. Sorry.

I'll keep the staff report brief. I think a lot of the architectural elements have been summarized earlier in the report and then also during the discussion. So I will just mention a few things that haven't been focused on yet. So overall, the building materials for the property include the window wall and glazing system, concrete rain screen board, metal panels, brick, and patterned concrete. These are compatible with other materials found within the downtown area. Specifically, the parking structure, it will be exposed facing the public parking area. The south facade of this garage is proposed to be treated with detailed metal paneling, painted and patterned concrete panels, as well as concrete rain screen boards. And the applicant is proposing to commission a large mural design to cover a portion of this facade. The different panel systems create some patterns along the facade, and the mural would provide some color interest to the otherwise grayed muted facade. ACM Conference 29th, And that I think is everything else within your staff report has kind of been touched on as far as the architectural features and other elements of the design. ACM Conference 29nd, So, in conclusion, the proposed design conforms to the requirements of the city's zoning regulations, the proposed development incorporates elevated architectural design that is compatible with surrounding development and will also enhance the appearance and feel at this major intersection. Staff recommends to approve with the following condition. One, the garage mural will be submitted to the Public Art Advisory Committee for review and approval prior to installation.

Okay, thank you. One difference with the ARB consideration is this will not have to go to the Board of Aldermen. However, as we've been talking, many of the items in the architectural review relate to the planed unit development that we were just discussing. So they are tied together, but they have different ends. So with that, do you have anything else you want to say before we start comments?

I just want to give a little summary on the mass scene again as an architectural concept. So like the party of this with this project is there are a lot of uses, and we illustrate that through simple volumes. And I think of architects like Getsch Partners that are world-class architects out of Chicago. They do that with clean systems and clean diagrams. And yes, the north facade's symmetrical, The opposing facades are not. And I think you need some, not every facade should be super active and asymmetrical. Like we want some rational diagrams occurring with this project. And I think that said is if you look at all the buildings in Clayton, most of them are just for the most part are boxes that just go up and they're symmetrical on every facade. And I would say this is a drastic improvement to that. And I almost think it would overcomplicate it to over-activate every facade. We're already doing that with our massing diagram and massive cantilever balconies, even the architectural element, the corner is important. And I think we've illustrated that. It's just high. I think because our program is not consistent, it's okay to illustrate it as inconsistent with the massing structure. So that was the idea is we have a major element at the northwest and northeast corner, which is that brow high that's acting as a screen for outdoor terraces for the private condo residents. And then to me, the corner move is that large cantilever balcony, which is a major structural move and can be difficult to pull off. And then all the facade systems, again, I talk in terms of precedent and Gets Partners is a firm that comes up to me that They just have very clean, well-engineered facade systems. We have fritted glass that will glow at night. There's a lot of depth and richness in this facade that is just simple, and that's OK. So I just want to give a little background on that as far as an architectural concept. Thanks.

I agree, it's a unique building and it really does avoid the shoebox on end appearance so many other existing and proposed buildings will look like. I'm comfortable with the banding which helps delineate the different uses. At first, I didn't understand why the hotel was in two separate bands but I understand the verticality that you wanted right down the middle of the building. I hear your plea for the symmetrical north facade. I certainly understand it. I wish that you would consider something on the roof to make this building stand out from a distance. In other cities, we see buildings that do something in In Chicago, you find many different roof designs. And I think something up there to indicate this building is special, different from all the others. I do think that the eyebrow is well on the way to that and hopefully it would be visible from three directions, probably not the south. I can't tell that. But then I worry because I believe the elevator shafts poke up above that. Is that correct? So hopefully they will not be as visible from a distance as will the eyebrow. So I'm looking for something to... enhance the top of the building even more. I'll leave it up to you. You talked about the fritted glass. I did not really realize it, although I think I saw it somewhere. Will that be in both the hotel and the condos as well as the garage? And will we recognize the frit versus the glass

totally visible parts of the glass. Correct. If you see the rendering, and I don't know if it's on your screen, but all the white banding, it's a translucent pattern. That's what you see that, again, because of all the active uses and moves, like we wanted to make consistent diagrammatic elevations that tied everything together. And we did. We studied darker glass on certain volumes and all these And we came back to this system thinking that, again, it's a consistent element that could help tie everything back together. And it occurs, yes, at the hotel program. So it'll screen for the condos, like if you had a desk chair or a piece of furniture up against the glass. Again, the idea being that band would be down 30 inches approximately and same thing with the hotel. But not 100% opaque.

Is there a horizontal mullion between the frit and the clear?

Correct. Again, I reference if you're not familiar with guest partners or some of these firms that they're unitized window wall systems and their specialty like projections. That's what we're calling out on our elevations is like this is an elaborate system that's nicely detailed and engineered. And to me, I just find beauty in that. And some of that is the simplicity then with just a simple that simple. I mean, it's a very. dynamic north facade. It just happens to be symmetrical because we added the two bands mid-block to accentuate the residential entry, and we're certainly open to studying it. That's just how we got there.

Well, the frit, when you're up in the condo levels, will that frit continue across the balconies?

And that was the thought, was the glass for the balcony would also have that frit as well, again, so that to obscure whatever, maybe there's a lounge seat or some sofa beyond that there's a consistent kind of white band that you would read and perceive in the renderings. But there's a lot of layering and depth to these facades. And again, the massing. There's a lot going on. And that's where I worry adding too much more to the system. I used to work for Gene Mackey, and he referenced a camel is a horse designed by committee. And that's something, at some point, like where do you stop? And I'm not saying we can't continue to edit this, but I can tell you, as David said and the team said, we've been looking at this thing for nine months and really refining it with the program, getting a hotel on board, a high-end hotel. So there's been a lot of effort and we continue to refine it, but it's also like at what point does it get taken too far? I don't know until we get there, I guess.

Well, thank you for defining that subtle detail. I really like it. I

think that's the idea. And again, if you're not familiar with Gatch Partners, I could send a list of great architects that have these engineered. And we also thought a glass building because it is a tall building and we thought reflective and reflecting the sky. Like if it was a precast panel or brick or something else, maybe it'd be too heavy. So that's kind of where we started with this.

I like the glass. I like the description of the frit, as well as the balconies and

You can see there's the there's the subtle heavier band of frit and then below that at the floor line. There's an aluminum like protection like a blade projection. So there's a lot of Interesting details going on, I guess, as an architect,

the material for the banding

Or The linking elements that are like the garage frame and that for now we've called out a composite metal. And we'll continue to develop it, there was at the base we'd introduce masonry pilasters and then we also. were proposing a David mentioned wood earlier, we had talked about high performance like concrete panel that has textures to it. and with those textures come subtle color variations, so it kind of looks like a real wood, but it's more of like a contemporary architectural element that would occur where all the sign-in bandages would occur, and then the soffits underneath those metal ceilings that we talked about there, about that 20-foot floor. And David and Steve mentioned too, I mean, we could potentially go higher, but we did like the idea of keeping that scale low. We even had like an architectural fin that's above the storefront at each one of those spaces to, again, bring the scale down as you're seating out at the bistro. And then also with the ceiling being high, there's potential to hang heating elements or something without getting too tall. So there was a lot of thought about setting that location. And again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just explaining some of the rationale.

The freestanding columns

that come down on the first level Are those metal covered?

Correct. Right now we're calling out for that same, some composite metal detail.

Typically, we take a look in the ARB review at all the colors and the textures. But I don't think we've seen them. We don't

have a material palette in there as far as like selecting the brick and so on. But yeah, eventually

we will need to. see a material palette. On Bob, I like what you said, Steve, I want to see what the other

architect has to say.

Oh,

well, thank you for the description of the elevations and materials because I'm liking the north elevation better now. It may suffer from the fact that it's two dimensional and head on, still not totally convinced. A point was raised about give and take the sidewalk versus green space. at the first level. I would vote for the sidewalk for the pedestrian, because if you don't accommodate the pedestrian and make it pleasant, they will never use the green space. They'll never get there.

And that's where David mentioned earlier was maybe there is potential for this, but then we're sacrificing retail. And we already pushed that first floor envelope in so tight we're having a hard time with the restaurant and we're adjusting and getting the seat placement we need. But we're definitely open, but something has to go away. At

a certain

point that retailer gets so small if we pushed in that maybe it does make sense to be an outdoor green space. I can't speak to the pro forma and what rents element, but I don't disagree with anything you're saying. It's just how we get there. There's gotta be some sacrifice somewhere else, I'd say.

Yeah, the retail is important. Because it brings people and we are displacing a number of retail operations. So I would sacrifice green space personally for the retail and the pedestrian, I think, are key. Because if you don't get people, the green space is useless. I mean, there's nobody to enjoy it. So I'm liking the north elevation better. The other elevations, I think, are great. And the mural, I think, however that plays out, I think that's fantastic.

And I think we're making efforts on that south facade. And I think some of this feedback is based on the Centene phase one parking garage because there is a rating requirement and openness factor on a zero lot line. We're not zero lot line on our facade, but hopefully something will be built there someday. So. We wanna make it interesting in the meantime. So that's kind of where we started to add some of your feedback.

We appreciate you making it interesting because we've lived with uninteresting for many years at another location. Yeah, I'm very

familiar.

Nothing more.

As far as that, and you may have mentioned this, but my first floor concept, the restaurant is a breakfast, free meal concept so as far as like walking your kids in the more like it's tied to the hotel program so it's open all hours so they want their hotel guests that's their restaurant for breakfast, you know, lunch and dinner so the idea is you could grab a coffee and yes go up to the top floor so I didn't hear you mention that earlier.

Yeah, so it's a good point. I mean, so the Canopy brand, it's, I mean, what they would tell you is that they want their hotel lobby to feel like you've walked into a busy restaurant and bar and there just happens to be a front desk there, okay? I mean, that's kind of how it's going to feel when you walk into this place. And it'll be three meal restaurants. It'll be very active, especially on that corner. And yeah, there will be a front desk over to the side somewhere. So it'll have a lot of energy.

And it is open to the public. Yes, sir.

Yeah, we would love the public to come in and spend money. Yes.

This is a third party restaurant requirement of the hotel to have meals served at all hours. So it is just a large lobby that you can go in and eat

breakfast. Amy.

So I happen to really like the north elevation. I like the cemetery because I noticed, you know, the other ones that you were saying, you do have a lot of depth and changes in that elevation. So I think there is a nice simplicity about this. I love that 12th floor, you know, terrace that kind of breaks up the two halves of the building. I find that very interesting. I love the west elevation of this. Again, it's just the different depths that you're seeing and the different materials and, you know, just like that little backwards C shape. I love that. It's a great design there. I do love the idea of the terrace on that seventh floor, whether it's public use or whatnot. I think that's great that people will have views off of that, just kind of out into the open. I think a great feature of it. And I do understand the glass situation a little bit, but I like it even more now.

So should we vote? I will say that terrace that breaks the hotel program from the condo program, like, you know, to David's credit, like to a developer, that could all be interior condo program that sells. And instead we decided to make an architectural move and break and give shadow line and depth to the facade. So there's a lot of expensive moves that are being made here where most developers would say, just create a box and go up with it and then put awnings on the glass or, you know, like, so I, you know, To your credit and the team's credit, there was a lot of effort here to do something nice. And I think we're on the way to getting there.

Well, we definitely appreciate avoiding the shoebox. And it's really working out very well. But we still need to hear from David. Still there, David?

I'm still here. Yeah, so, you know, I think as we were going through points and we talked about architecture, I said three to four. I think with your context and explanation, I think I'm leaning closer to that four at this point. I do think the one thing we need to take a look at, though, that is so kind of anxious to see the way it turns out would be that first floor along Forsyth. and what adjustments can be made to try to enhance that pedestrian space, or at least get some more width there. With Helen, I'm willing to trade some green space for a usable sidewalk, but also at the same time, you know, not wanting to impact the retail. So what form that first floor takes in the end, I'm not quite sure. That'll take a little bit of work, and I'm sure some further discussion. But the building as a whole. I think it looks great. I do love the mural facing the parking lot there. And I think that side of the building, even though we keep looking at this same image here, at least I am on Zoom, kind of looking east on Foresight. I do think that the south elevation is just really cool on this building. And I don't really have any issues with the north elevation on here, especially with that explanation

I think it's well done.

Going back to the mural, I think we all like it. Is it ventilated or is it solid? So

the garage, because of, again, we're putting a nice window wall system on the west side of the garage. So we're losing all of our natural ventilation. So we are going to have some openings there to provide some depth on the other precast vertical elements. that'll help with exhausting with our fans. But the idea was we would pull that metal frame down from the event space programmatic element up above and then frame like a precast facade that then somebody could come in and then provide a mural over the top. It's solid. He likes me to give short answers. I try to expound.

but the east side of the garage is open.

Correct. The east side is open. Anyone in the audience? I don't think

anyone has left. Do we have... There are no

hands up in Zoom. There are people left. A hand just went up.

One second. I can't see who it is. Hank, you can speak now.

Hey, I'm not sure where you are in the approval process. I wanted to just say the expression by the individuals that are part of the committee, the PCRB were so articulate about the site and the narrowness of the sidewalks and the importance of creating a public movement and enjoyment of our city. And I was astounded by the resistance of the developer who expressed my opinions about this on many times. And I find myself very, very concerned about the city planning process that has lumped us all together and a presentation and an approval process. It's very, very discouraging and the design needs to have an incredibly inviting base. So just imagine driving along Forsyth and turning to get into either one of these areas. The design for this building is horrible, okay? Not from an upper level architecture, from a ground level experience. That's

what I wanted to say. Thank you, Hank. There are not any other hands up. Okay, thank

you. Ana, we can go ahead and approve this with the material palette to be submitted later. And that would then give you more information to go back and work on the PUD rezoning point system. I just want to make sure we're all on the same track. David, are you in agreement with that? I can't see you anymore.

Yes, I guess my question would be if we went forward with the architectural approval, just whether or not anything reworked there along Forsyth impacts that architecture.

It very well could. As we have held off on the PUD and the site, I think it might be best to allow the developer to take all of our comments and but we should come back and look at everything as a whole package. I

agree. I would agree with that.

So with that in mind, in lieu of approving with conditions, I think we want to table... And how did we do it for the previous?

We need to also do an official motion. Yeah,

you can. The table, all items one, two, three, and five. Correct. Okay. And that would leave out item four, the plan consolidation, applied consolidation. Okay. Let's move forward with... a motion to table items one, two, three, and five that we have discussed tonight to the next meeting, which I believe was June 6th. I repeat said motion just made by Steve.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Thank

you, guys. We will look forward to seeing you again.

Thank you. We'll be back.

Thank you for a good presentation and good discussion. Okay. Well, we've come to the end of our agenda tonight. Kami, any further comments? No comment.

I

would like

to make one comment. We'll get to you. No, no, no, go ahead. I want to make these

guys

go.

No comment.

Bob, Tom, Steve, David, we have a comment for you. No,

you guys did great tonight. I want to talk to these guys. I've heard you guys enough. But thank you for your patience tonight. I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, this is the first time I really feel it.

I thought the

commission was great tonight. You know, everybody really, but I really want to say the two architects here really drilled down. I'd be more proud of you two guys. Do you feel that? I mean, they really went right You didn't let them off the hook. You said, this is what needs to be done. This is the kind of changes I would like to see, or this is what I like about your plan, but you know, this, this, this. I really felt you guys dug in.

Well, thank you for the comments, but remember you're still being recorded.

This is a commercial.

No, seriously, thank you. I do think it goes beyond the two of us that are architects. I think the expertise that you and Kami and absolutely David with his background bring, as well as when Carolyn is with us. I

always think you're a top notch. project in the Well, true.

But before we go on with this, I'd like to end the meeting so we can turn off the recording. Thank you, David. If you'd like to stick with us, it looks like

we're still talking. Yes. Do we have a motion to adjourn? All in favor? Aye. Thank you.