October 17, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening,

everyone. And welcome to the Plain Commission ARB meeting for October 17. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Anyone listening virtually, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and you'll be brought in at the appropriate time. Ryan.

Steve

Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

Helen DeFayt.

Kami Waldman.

Amy Waldman.

Bob Denlow. David Gipson.

Bob Dunlow. David Gibson.

Here.

Ira Berkowitz.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on October 3rd. Are there any corrections that have not been recorded at this time? John Potter, During none do we have a motion

i'll make a motion to approve the minutes

second

all in favor. John Potter, Okay, thank you we'll move on to the first item on the agenda and that is a discussion and. John Potter, Do we have anyone here from the sustainability committee.

So if anybody on zoom who's part of the sustainability committee could raise your

hand we'll move you to panelists. If you're in the audience and you're a member of the sustainability committee, we invite you to join us and have a seat at one of the empty

chairs on the dais that you have a microphone.

Anyone raised their hand.

If you could introduce

yourself if you're a member of the sustainability committee, please.

Yes, if you can hear me my name is bill Chamberlain i'm the chairman of the sustainability committee are you able to hear me

yes.

Oh, great. Thank you. Well, I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I appreciate you taking this into consideration. As chairman, we unanimously made a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen and the mayor to update the regulations concerning the installation of solar panels on residences. Those solar panels specifically facing the street that are under some restriction at this point. I'm not sure how far back in history you want to go, but just taking a look at the world now with the droughts and heat waves and hurricanes and tsunamis. We have a global pandemic here that needs to be addressed, and although it's a worldwide issue, a national issue, it comes down to a city issue, and we can all be doing our part to change our energy source onto a carbon neutral source. So individual residents wishing to adopt solar panels where they possibly most effectively operate with a southern facing exposure should not be limited if that exposure faces the street, in our opinion. So I just think it was a little antiquated and there's some new materials, there's new solar panels, there's new equipment that's out there that makes this in our minds a fairly simple and easy decision to make. I'm not sure what the pushback would be, and I'm open to answer or address, take any questions that you might have of us, me representing the Sustainability Committee.

Okay, thanks Bill. We also have Rich Lintz here, Alderman who is on the committee.

Hi, Rich Lentz, the Aldermanic Liaison. The only thing I would add to what Bill said is that we've looked at a number of other types of ordinances and how they've been described in some other cities have them. I guess the wording would be that I think the wording is now that they can't be viewable from the street or from the public view or something. And that would be what would change. I don't think it actually says you, you wouldn't want to change it to say you can put them on the front of the house. I think you want to, simply say that they can be seen from the public view. Some of the other ordinances I've seen have restricted if there is historical designation or something like that. So they have carved that out in some places. The one I can think of most often most memorably is Aspen, Colorado, which allows them to be viewed unless they're a historic situation. So I just think that's As Bill said, it's where we're going. I just came back from a trip to Belgium and the Netherlands, where Bruges, Belgium is like a UNESCO World Heritage Site. historic site, the entire city. And I can tell you that they've got solar panels on top of clay tile roofs. And it doesn't take away from the charm of the city. It does, it's at the point where you just accept it. I mean, this may be a silly statement, a silly simile, but it's kind of like we got used to seeing trash cans in streets when you have curbside trash pickup. And that's kind of what it is. I mean, it's where we're going and where the world is. And I just think Clayton ought to do the same thing. Thanks.

Well, Rich, when you mentioned the historical parts of the city, is the committee recommending that we exclude or include clay tile roofs or any other type of roof that is in a historic designated neighborhood?

I don't think we, Bill, you might address that. I don't think specifically stated anything about the type of roof?

No, and our recommendation, we did not make a specific recommendation as to the roofing material. Rich did mention historic. I understand there's some aesthetics involved with historic buildings, but one phrase I heard Rich say, and that is you get used to it. And I'd just address that because I think when you go through a town or city and you see multiple solar panels on roofs, it's not a matter of getting used to it. It's an exhibit of a forward-looking community, a progressive community that is attractive to younger generations. That's the lifeblood of our future, our city. We need this forward-looking. Clayton's always been a... environmentally friendly uh city they prided themselves on it it's in their charter the word environment and we um need to take that into consideration this isn't something we have to get used to or have to swallow hard to accept it's something we should look forward to and adapt and adopt and take pride in

i would certainly agree with that that we'd like to um be progressive, be open-minded about alternative energy. But I do have concerns. Did you come across any information about mounting on historic structures? How you would actually mount on clay tile roofs or anything else that might have to be considered, or would that be considered by the homeowner? in that case, whether to potentially go through clay tile or any other material that might be seen as historic.

I'll take that, Rich, if you want, if I still have the mic. I think it would be left up to the homeowner to design the issue and put it through in front of the board if that was required, the architectural review board. With respect to historic buildings, I'm not sure you can say, well, on historic buildings, this is the way to do it because they vary among themselves. So I don't know that one solution is going to be addressing all historic buildings. I think they would have to be taken on a one-by-one basis, if that makes sense.

Also, anyone else on the committee to jump in? But I do have one other thing I'd like to bring up to Bill and Rich. I understand that Ameren, Missouri has a renewable energy program I believe it's called Community Solar and Renewable. Did you look into that? And I'm really not an expert on it, but it's a subscription program.

The Sustainability Committee is in frequent contact with the UE and some representatives that handle UE most recently with electric vehicle charging stations and the installation, and a lot of rebates and credits that are available through the government for those. With respect to solar panels on residences and this program that you speak to, It's almost surprising that a utility company that's based on coal energy is so progressive and helpful in getting energy changes to electric that are non-coal based and alternative energy sources. So I'm not familiar with that particular program to answer your question specifically, but it doesn't surprise me at all. They have so many programs, it's hard for me to keep track of them. They are a partner in this and a valuable partner.

Being that valuable partner would have help if our sustainability committee or the city would make that available to all of our residents, the knowledge of it?

I would never turn down knowledge on anything. So yes, to answer your question in a word, yes, it would be helpful whether it be a requirement in order to change The wording on the building code, I don't know if it would be a precursor or a deal breaker, but we're working with other communities that circle Clayton and seeing how they're doing this with solar panels and EV stations. We're always trying to learn from other people's work and knowledge base and database to move forward on the easiest basis and the quickest basis.

Carol, I see you've joined. Do you have any further comments?

Are you talking to me? No,

Carol Klein.

Okay, sorry.

Carol, this is Bill. If you can hear me, perhaps your microphone is turned off on the bottom left-hand corner of your screen.

Oh, there it is. Sorry. Yes. It was not appearing before. No, I am mostly... I am new, so I am mostly just listening in and it all sounds good to me.

Well... jump in at any time if you'd like. But let's see if there are other comments or questions. Steve,

just to interject, we also, staff did prepare a short presentation. So if you want us to.

Amy?

I'm definitely for the solar panels. I think that, you know, being environmentally sustainable and looking towards the future and things of that nature are important. Um, I'm hoping that maybe, you know, we can maybe word it to where it says, you know, not in view, you know, if at all possible, but, you know, as like the first kind of line say that we prefer it like this, if that's not a possibility, then we go to saying like, you can have it, you know, facing the street, um, to try to curtail it a little bit. But, um, I think it is something that we need to accept.

Carolyn?

Is this city going to show the presentation or?

Yes, as soon as we finish going through you and Ira and David.

Okay. I agree with the comments that solar panels are not street junk. They are things that show a progressive community. Solar panels is a start. There's also efforts that have been done by MSD with Project Clear and Botanical Garden Rainscaping Projects for sustainable mitigation of water runoff and things like that. There are a lot of things that we can start to implement that will make us a healthier community. So I think this is a good start. And for me, it's a no brainer. So I totally am with this.

Ira? Yeah, Bill and Rich, thanks for coming to the meeting tonight. Yeah, this is very, I think this is critical for us to do. We need to do this. This is long overdue. So I agree totally with Mr. Chamberlain and what he's had to say and with Rich as well. This is, you know, we have to do everything we can. Right now, especially, everything we can to promote this kind of alternative energy and having, and especially when it's a homeowner's decision to do so, just because they happen to be facing one way or another. Don Finan- doesn't make any sense that we would deny them the pleasure of having of having their choice. Don Finan- So, in any event, the world needs it, the city needs it and I think as leaders in the Community, we all need it, so I am absolutely in favor of us tearing down any rules that limit the use of solar panels.

Okay, thank you. David, do you have any comment before we go to the staff? I would just

say that I'm glad we're having this conversation. If you look at our ordinances written and I'm sure, you know, staff will include all this in the presentation. We do have that provision that allows alternative compliance that I think is a little clunky and open for interpretation and to get to a point where we have something cleaner than that, a little more clarity to what these regulations actually say and mean. I think that would be good for everyone. And I'm sure there will be quite a bit of discussion on things like the few neighborhoods we have that are on the National Register. So that'll be an interesting part of the conversation. But I do think that alternative compliance provision as it's written is a little bit difficult just because it's wide open.

Anna, we

have a

staff report.

Right, so... After the last discussion session, there was some clear kind of subtopics related to solar panels and renewable energy. So Ryan and Hobie from the planning department did some research looking at our neighbors and then also national trends to kind of start us in the direction of potential tax amendment changes and structures that we could use. So they're going to take you through a few slides that kind of outline what they found. And then we'll follow up with just a couple of questions that you could direct staff as to what to prepare next.

Okay. So based on the sustainability committee's recommendation of getting rid of the restriction to allowing roof mounted solar panels only if they're not visible from the public right of way I contacted 59 cities and counties in the metro region to ask about the state of how they regulated solar panels. So this totaled 59 municipalities, including St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and St. Charles County, and capped it at jurisdictions that had greater, more than 3,000 residents. So that was 59 total. And so far I've heard back from 37, so almost two thirds. So pretty good response. So the responses fell in three categories, three buckets. There were six based on how their regulations compare to Clayton's current regulations. There are six peers of Clayton that currently don't allow roof-mounted solar panels to be visible from the street. There's a second group that do allow them, and then there's a third group that their zoning code doesn't make much or any mention of solar. So by default, they allow solar panels to be from the street. In these three groups, it's hard to find a pattern based on population size, geographic location, and kind of general age of structures. You find municipalities... Among Clayton's peers in mid-county, mid-sized suburban cities and inner-rig suburbs. So the six that share Clayton's regulations are Weldon Spring, Lake St. Louis in St. Charles County, and then Frontenac, Fenton, Olivet, and Creve Coeur in St. Louis County.

So one of the larger topics that we've been kind of focusing on in this solar discussion is how do we negotiate this area of solar panels with historic structures. And so, one of the elements of research that we look at is what are the trends, what are the criteria, what does it look like when we're approaching historic structures with solar panels? And there's three broad questions that we kind of need to look at. And I want you to think of these as all different layers of a cake. They all kind of have a relationship to each other. And they're questions that we need to ask as we are forming future guidelines, future boundaries, guardrails for what the code is going to look like. The first is what characteristics make a historic building? Right now, we don't have a very firm designation of that. So we need to identify those characteristics. And then what does the roof look like for the building? So that's a piece of that structure. And then what is the energy production going to look like itself? There's a lot of different products out there. So again, look at these layers. You have the structure, the roof of the structure, and then the product itself. So what about those characteristics that make the historic structure? We need to look at locations, materials, and styles that should be preserved. And then the next question we want to ask is, would the installation of solar damage any of those characteristics? Because that's what we want to avoid. And then we want to take a look at the roof of the building. So is that roof going to be flat or pitched? Now, oftentimes we're talking about a flat roof, which can be very common in this area. You're not going to notice the installation of solar. They tend to have maybe asphalt roofs. you're not going to be damaging specific historic shingles or anything. And then we also want to take a look at the direction that roof faces. So say you have a historic property that maybe has a sensitive roof, but it's north-facing. Just because of our spot on the globe, you may not get a huge benefit of putting solar on that northern-facing roof. But if you have a southern or western-facing roof, maybe that's something that we need to consider because that resident will be able to get a lot more bang for their buck when it comes to that kind of solar. And then we also need to look at the evolving products for solar energy. So the typical panel that's going to draw the most ire from people that really want to preserve architecture is going to be that the big blue panel that you think of it, but that one's also going to be the most efficient. Now there are products that are generally more appealing to older styles of roofs. We have A lot of products that are coming on the markets, we have access to that look like roof shingles, but they're not as efficient. So we need to have that conversation of do we promote something that's the most energy efficient, even if maybe it's not the most architecturally preferable? Or are we going to push people towards something that brings them less of an energy benefit, but maybe looks a little better? And then another trend that we ran into often was energy audits. So if you have a historic property that has sensitive characteristics, it can be often found that if you perform an energy audit, there may be things that you can do to the home other than solar that would have the same net effects on energy, things like ACM Conference 29th, replacing your your installation addressing windows doors things of that nature, and so maybe there's a space to say improve those aspects of the property before we really approach this aspect of solar. ACM Conference 29nd, But again, just looking at those overall, we need to take a look at the property itself, what are the characteristics that we're trying to preserve or any of those going to be damaged. What's the orientation of the roof and how is that going to impact the energy efficiency? And then what kind of products are we looking at? If we take a look at those basic questions, we'll be able to form some really good guardrails, some really good rubrics to create a process by which we can start incorporating more solar into the community.

Thank you. I think that really brought it down to items we can consider as we go forward. And I would think that from what the Sustainability Committee has looked at and reported on, and what our professional staff has just shown us, the thought processes are there, and we should begin to move forward. That process would entail what steps?

Sure. Based on the research that we've done and some of the target goals that we've heard in these discussions and from sustainability, what we recommend as staff is drafting potential regulations that would replace or update the renewable energy specifically related to solar energy. What I would recommend is using a similar structure to what we already have for many architectural guidelines, we'd create a path of guidelines if you fit within those, then you could receive administrative approval. So that would be kind of our pretty straightforward scenarios taking in mind the three different kind of concepts or layers that Ryan just introduced. So under those three concepts, what would allow for administrative approval and then create some guidelines that would be more specific case by case scenarios that might require approval from this board moving forward. So we would like to draft those up and then present those recommendations to you.

Will those go back to the sustainability committee?

So as a text amendment, this is in the jurisdiction of the plan commission. So process wise we'll invite sustainability committee again here when we present those recommendations and just do it as a joint meeting as opposed to having separate sustainability committee and plan commission meetings.

Thank you. Do we have any comments from the audience on the sustainability?

Hello, my name is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Beamiston. Thank you very much to the planning department for putting together that presentation. But all due respect to Ryan, when you were speaking about the energy audit can do as much as solar can possibly do. Well, people need to be doing energy audits and they need to be doing solar. So I just, I feel like we're getting like kind of maybe caught up in the weeds about what things look like, what type of roof it is right now. putting solar on a clay tile roof would be financially prohibitive. Like no one's going to do it. It just, where the technology is right now, if someone were to do that, their payback would probably be like 50 years. So I think that we are, or the committee is kind of looking at situations that aren't really going to happen or at least aren't going to happen with any regularity. And what I think we need to do as a city is to say, please, we would like to see more solar within our city and we would like to encourage its use as opposed to you can't do it here, you can't do and they are on opposite sides of the street. Right now, one home because of the way the roof is facing would be able to take advantage of an energy system that will save them money, but the exact same house across the street is not able to take advantage that energy system. And I don't know if anyone's considering that as an equity issue around the city, Um, but I just, I just feel like there's no urgency here. There's no, um, they're not ugly. They are the future. Remember 25 years ago when no one wanted to have a garage, like you guys were saying, like no one's allowed to have a garage in the front of their house. Like look around, they're everywhere. People are just going to get used to it. So, um, I feel very strongly about this issue and I think we need to move more quickly. And I think we need expand the use and then maybe look at areas where solar would not be a good option and stop talking so much about aesthetics, because I don't know if I'm correct, but I don't think you can tell someone who lives in a home that's on the national register, they're not allowed to do something. Right, wrong?

We hear you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kathleen. Any other comments from the audience or anyone attending virtually? I don't see any other hands.

My screen says my hand is up, but apparently you're unable to see it. Can I just say one more thing very briefly? Bill Chamberlain speaking. I appreciate everybody's support on the solar panels that I've heard in this conversation, but there are other technologies that are coming and you'll need to be prepared for them, such as wind energy. And when I say that, everybody thinks of turbines with these large arms sticking out. That's not the case. They now have the static turbines that are just essentially poles and they're available on rooftops as well. So this is the beginning. That's not to deter you from taking these initial steps, but there is other technology coming down the road which is centered upon green energy. And I think that it's healthy that Clayton is willing to consider these alternative energy sources and adopt their covenants in order to allow them and perhaps even support them. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. And if I could add one thing, this is Carol Klein, and I'm on the Sustainability Committee. And I was having technical problems before, so I didn't really speak. But I do think that I agree with our last speaker that the aesthetics while important, and it's of course very important that cities have standards, we also, this is just a critical time. And as the technology develops, as Bill was mentioning, the aesthetics develop as well. I mean, look at what refrigerators used to look like compared to what they look like now. I think that encouraging this and supporting people, giving them resources, telling them vendors, etc., is all a way to encourage this in our community. And the overall look is of a forward-looking community. I will also... Second, what the person who was talking about just recently being in Belgium, I was in Germany a number of years ago and they have houses that look exactly like the little Brio train houses with those very peaked roofs. And I mean, they had beautiful patterns of their solar panels. So it can actually be an aesthetic enhancement. too. It just takes a little creativity and creative people to get there.

Thanks, Carol. More hands? Well, from our discussion, I would hope that as the draft regulation is formulated, that it would be a positive encouragement to our city and our residents to go for alternative energy opportunities and to avoid being exclusionary at this point, and really allow it to be handled once we have that in place pretty much by the homeowner as when they come for approval for it to be reviewed. Any other comments from anyone here in the room? Ellen?

I could see that occurring if it were a low slope or flat roof, that the panels may not be parallel to the roof slope. Not sure. We may have to leave that up to the drafting.

Right.

Other comments? Ira or Carolyn?

No. Well, just quickly, only one comment. We would have to make sure that we look at sun angle and things like that so that whatever you've matted on your roof isn't blinding somebody in the next building with reflectivity. So that might be something to consider. I know that they're meant to absorb sunlight, but to some degree they do have shiny parts and things like that. So I would think that that should be part of it too.

Thank you. Any further comment from Bill or Carol or Rich?

Not I. Thank you very much for listening.

Well, Bill and Carol, we thank you and Rich, you two being the aldermanic rep. And I'd like to also thank the staff for the very detailed and direct report and hopefully we'll be seeing the draft regulations come through in a relatively short time because we know there are more solar panel applications that are going to be coming in. So I'd like to thank everyone for participating. I think we had some good ideas, and now we'll get down to business with it. So thank you for participating in the discussions. And I think that will bring the discussion to an end. And we'll be able to move on to new business at this point. And our first one is 13 Dartford Avenue. Do we have the applicant from 13 Dartford here? If not, is... person representing 13 Dartford virtually?

If you're virtually, please raise your hands that we know it's you.

Are there any more names below? Oh, no. That's it. Well, since we can't identify someone, I think we should. Oh. Okay.

I see them on there.

Krister Knapp? Yes. Okay. We're going to start now, so just hold on. We'll get back to you. Brian?

Brian?

Okay.

So the subject property is located on the west side of Jarford Avenue adjacent to Fontbonne University and is zoned R2. The proposed project consists of replacing the front porch, replacing a front yard path, and removing a path on the north side of the home. The existing brick front porch is beginning to deteriorate. The owner would like to replace it with a slightly larger porch. The current home is made of red brick with wood and stone accent materials. Gareth J. Nearby properties tend to have break as a primary material in a variety of colors and front porches are common on the street and very in prominence. Gareth J. The proposed front porch will be constructed with concrete and cloud, with a red brick saw that matches the existing home. Gareth J。 The porch is proposed to extend two feet further than the existing porch extension will not encroach into the front yard setback and will not result in excess coverage. The path to be reported will be concrete and will match the same dimensions as before. Staff is recommending that the poor match the existing neighborhood sidewalk with an 8.5 sack mix with Merrimack sand and gravel. The path to be removed will be replaced with landscaping and grass. It does not connect to any adjacent properties or act as a primary access route. After all proposed changes, the property will only see a 1% increase in coverage and will stay under its limits. The proposed design conforms to the requirements of the R2 single family dwelling district and architecture review guidelines. The project is found to be compatible with both the surrounding properties and the existing home. Staff recommends approval on the condition that the concrete pour for the front yard pass shall match the city standard sidewalks with the 8.5 sack mix with Meramex sand and gravel.

Thank you, Ryan. Would the applicant like to state anything else beyond the staff report?

No, I think that's an adequate description of what we propose to do.

Okay. We appreciate that. And you're the owner, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Well, we'll go through our ARB committee. I think it will be a very positive improvement to the front facade of the house and it'll be a lot more functional also. So I really had no concern with it and I would certainly support it. Helen?

It's not a question to me or to staff.

I don't have the drawing in front of me, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but my understanding is that the front of the porch will be constructed. Well, the whole thing will be constructed out of concrete, but there will be brick facade on the front so that you will not be able to see the concrete.

That's my understanding.

Well, that may be your understanding and we will expect it because we'll be voting on that. Kami?

I was just curious if there was going to be any railing across the front when I drove by. It seems like it's a pretty high up porch.

So the current porch is 28 to 30 inches. And I believe under I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that as long as it's below 30 inches you're not required to have a rail.

Okay, so you're not that height is staying below that then?

We're not adding any height to the current porch no. Okay.

That's my question.

Carolyn.

Short of the comments that were made I didn't have any other questions either.

Okay,

thank you. Ira? Yeah, no, I don't have anything to add, but I'm sure glad he's definitely replacing the old one. So thank you.

David? I don't have any questions. I would just note the brick facade is shown on the drawing. It's the page before the detail section. So it is in the packet. It's just not on both, not on both drawings and not on the section detail. Thank

you. Mr. Knapp, do you agree with the staff recommendation about the concrete pour mix?

I'm not sure I understood what that recommendation was. Could you please repeat that?

The concrete pour for the front yard path shall match the city standard sidewalks with an 8.5 sack mix with Meramex sand and gravel. And you could certainly pass this on to your contractor, aim to amaze. And they can certainly ask the city if there's any information that's needed.

I mean, I assume he will follow specs, whatever those are. If they're to match the city specs on what the sidewalks are, then that's what we'll do. Okay.

Well, we are just reiterating it as a staff recommendation to make sure that it is followed through. Got it. Okay. Thank you. We do have that one staff recommendation that I just read. Do we have a motion for approval?

I'll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, good luck with the project. Many thanks to you and the committee. Okay, thank you. Okay, we can move on to item two under new business, which is 201 to 215 North Merrimack. And this is a conceptual review only. We will start with the staff discussion and then the applicant will come up. And then we may have a little discussion. But I'd like to remind everyone in the audience that this is conceptual only. It is basically set up to be a discussion between the applicant and the plan commission and the staff as necessary. The public will certainly have at least two times in the future if and when the applicant starts the formal review process. There would be a citizens meeting with the applicant, and then there would be the formal review process that would be back here in the chambers. But also, I'd like to commend all of the residents who have sent us letters or texts with their comments on a project. And we will keep those. Those will certainly be kept through the entire review process as it gets going. So with that, Ryan, I think you're taking this.

So, since to summarize the staff report since it's a little larger project for conceptual review i'm going to break it up into a couple sections we're going to first look at the overview. Followed by the zoning compliance and now how it relates to the goals outlined in the downtown master plan. So the subject site is a combination of properties. All but one of the properties are currently vacant. The properties with frontage on Merrimack have a zoning designation of C2 general commercial, while the property on Pershing is R4 low-density multifamily. The proposed development is for a mixed-use building, which will include apartments, townhomes with street entrances, two levels of parking, amenity spaces for residents, and one area designated for their commercial retail use. The residential component will be about 56% of the square footage with parking totaling about 33%, amenity spaces 0.04, and then the commercial space 0.003%. The current materials proposed for the exterior are gonna include masonry with textured and smooth panels as accents. Windows are dark aluminum and lighting is undetermined at this time. When we look to examine the context of the zoning, the project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development, referred to as a PUD. And this will require several public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Aldermen. PUDs allow development to deviate from aspects of the zoning code in exchange for public benefits. Those benefits have not been specified at this time, but the applicant is considering benefits such as architectural distinction, below-grade parking, and publicly accessible open space. Rezoning to a PUD is only allowed when existing zones are non-residential. The proposed development would first require that the R4 lot be rezoned to C2 and and then all parcels would need to be rezoned to APUD. The proposal complies with the height limit of seven stories or 90 feet for C2 districts. Mixed use properties are conditionally permitted provided that units are no less than 750 square feet. The current proposal does have some units that fall below this requirement. developments in C2 are eligible for PUD zoning provided they are mixed use and exceed or exceed maximum height and floor area ratios. The proposed floor area ratio is 5.4, which exceeds the maximum of 1.54 C2. And aside from residential, the current proposal includes 904 square feet labeled as a cafe on the plans. Per the code, PUD must contain a reasonable ratio of areas devoted to distinct land uses. Reasonableness in this context is determined by the boulevardment and criteria outlined in the code. In the context of the downtown master plan, this site is found to be in the Merrimack Gateway District, and this district is described as a transition between downtown and residential neighborhoods. Buildings are recommended to range from two to eight stories and incorporate multifamily housing and include some office and retail uses. This proposal has a height of seven stories and steps down to five as it wraps west along Pershing. The five stories are measured from the front of the property at Meramec and does not include the underground parking, which is visible from Pershing. Again, this is conceptual review only and therefore any comments provided during conceptual review are not binding with that staff is offering the following comments based on the plans presented. from planning, future submittal should clarify both deviations from the code and proposed public benefits. The applicant should consider strategies to further mitigate the impact on the immediate property to the west. And a mixed use component of the project provides only 904 square feet of retail space. Maybe consider ways to incorporate more commercial aspects along Merrimack Avenue frontage such as offices or services. And then there is one comment from Public Works and that traffic and parking studies are to be conducted. Traffic engineers may need certain information regarding existing and proposed uses, driveway alignments or other parking to complete these studies.

Okay, thank you. We appreciate the abbreviated report. The applicant, come on up. Welcome back.

Good to see everybody. Thanks so much for your time tonight. I'm Jason Braidwood with Keeley Properties, 222 South Central here in Clayton. You guys might know us as many former names, but the Komen Group is really our heritage. We've done several projects here in Clayton and we're so happy to have this opportunity again. One thing that I do want to echo, thank you so much for the intro in terms of this being conceptual review only. I think that step in this process when there's residential and commercial zones coming up against each other is exceptionally important. And while we're not gonna hear from the public tonight, I want everyone to certainly grab, or I wanna grab everyone's name and emails and phone numbers and whatnot. We have reached out to our neighbors, played a little bit of phone tag. This process is going to be exceptionally open book with everyone in the community. And that's really the way we've always done it at Keeley. And we look forward to doing that in the future. I'm going to let the architects kind of do what they do. We, We hired Trevor's tonight and Joe Foose and Neil Chase are here with us. I think they've designed a very nice building. They've worked for us in the past and some of their work around town is quite notable. And as we go through this process, I think you guys will appreciate the work that they've done in terms of integrating into the community. We don't take it lightly in terms of traffic, massing of the building and then retail. Retail is exceptionally tricky these days. This strip is not necessarily a highly traversed one for pedestrians. We included that cafe because we're committed to it. It's just the right way to develop to try to have interaction with the community as much as possible. We've done that in the past with actually some office space as well. Again, another very challenging asset class these days. But we look forward to working with staff and with the commission to try to have some sort of commercial component that welcomes the folks in from the street.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Good evening. I'm Joel Foose, I'm a principal at Trivers Architects here in St. Louis. As Jason had mentioned, Neil Chase and Ross Welch from our office are here as well, who have been working on the project up until this point. I will mention on the slides here, as Jason had mentioned of working around Clayton, And within the region, I think we're very fortunate to work with a developer that's civic-minded, quality-minded, is thinking about the quality of people's experiences and the contribution that architecture has in our built environment and how they can approach their work to really enhance that and to really push that ahead in our St. Louis environment. And it's not every day you find clients that are are looking to do those things. And we feel fortunate to be working with their team. All these projects always start walking around and understanding the context in which you're building. I'm sure the residents over here certainly recognize their neighborhood here around the block, but we take it seriously to take time, to spend time walking around, getting the sense of what's going on. It's not only what's written in your documents and the master plan and it's taking that in, but it's understanding that feeling of what it's like to experience the buildings across the street, the heights, the depths, the vegetation, the overhangs, all these things that really make up the character of a neighborhood. And that's really critical in how we approach the work. Obviously one of the challenges on this site that we try to make as an opportunity is the great difference Merrimack down Pershing. It's about a 15 foot grade difference from the northeast corner to the southwest corner along Pershing and so you know we're really trying to see what we can do to enhance that and a big part of that is how we approach the parking solution going ahead as well. A few more shots here. I think one of the things in the master plan That's an interesting aspect. It's really asking for some more regularity of the street, especially along Merrimack. The setbacks are wildly varied as you move up and down the street. And so that's one of the things that we are trying to address. And you'll see that in the solutions of trying to give a little bit of that continuity. And as was mentioned in the staff report, this is a a transition zone, there's a gateway from the neighborhoods to the downtown core. And it's really interesting stretch here and how we can use this structure to bridge between the commercial corridor and the residential connection. And then of course, you know, varied scales of around you know, we pay attention to the brick detailing, the kinds of brick, textures of brick, you know, and thinking about how that's used. Scale obviously is very important. I was talking to Carrie over here about her building and just the, the small nuances that are great about the shade and shadow and places where people occupy. And that's so critical in thinking about how residents experience residential buildings. You know, this is not a building to house people. It's a building that's creating homes for people and the place of it and its community. Certainly the picture here on the bottom left is an important piece as a building on the right in that image is no longer there. and its proximity to the adjacent condominium to the west, we certainly understand that's gonna be a very important solution and how that's ultimately rectified through the design. And working through this, I mean, that's been something we've talked about from day one and okay, how do we wanna approach this? And what's gonna be the best way? Um, you know, as, as we talk about, you know, site context and understandings, uh, we also talk about precedent and examples. And we're talking about materiality openings, detailing, um, you know, we love this process, you know, working through the ARB and getting, you know, the best out of your community and the best results. Um, you know we think as a, as a result of this process. Um, and so part of that is doing our homework and understanding what things are done not only in our St. Louis community, but around the United States and around other places that have been successful that we can weave into our work as well. And some of these buildings are a little bit of those precedent nods to what we might see in these elements going ahead. We never want to say a building is gonna be this building or that building. A lot of it is these elements that we see from the neighborhood or we see that work and other solutions that we've done on other projects that we find successful. As we get into a little bit of the material study, we do feel this building, we're working this right now. We're not quite there yet, but we do feel this buildings is a little lighter in nature. As I mentioned walking around, there's a big mix of different coloration of masonry that's around. You'll see some interesting masonry detailing, terracotta detailing, glazed brick detailing, The use of brick and the kinds of brick, it really, it does vary. But we do see this building in a little bit of a lighter range. You know, we feel that it creates a little bit of lighter feel. And it just, you know, feels right now that's the way we're going with the look and feel of the masonry itself. Then of course, you know, you have other elements of textured panels, accent panels of those kind of secondary and tertiary materials PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You know, give the building some some punch and some grounding a little bit as well, and so we're still exploring of what those might look like these are just some examples of how they've been used in some other projects in the past. PB, Harmon Zuckerberg, You know, as we as we went through the site certainly this is just an understanding of. of the buildings that we're surrounded by. Again, that transition, that gateway going from very commercial to the six-story buildings that are south of us and as we move towards the north and how that starts to change as you go into the neighborhoods to the north and to the west specifically of our site. Again, I think one of the benefits here is to provide in some underground parking. This is using that grade slope as an advantage for us to really hide all that parking. We really have the one curb cut off of Pershing here that brings cars in on this lower level. And then on Merrimack level, a curb cut on the north side of the site that allows cars. So they're split, so it allows traffic not to be heavy coming out of one side or another and allows those corridors to be used a little bit more sparingly. One of the other things that we like to do in these ground level circumstances is having these townhome type units. I think that was one of the things out of the gate that were like great way to activate the street, create some walk-up opportunities. for people to not only be connected to the other amenities of an apartment building, but to be able to walk outside, take your dog and then head to downtown Clayton or just walk through the neighborhood. And these elements really shown in the dark kind of burnt amber and orange allow those things to happen to activate the street, hide the parking. So you really don't see any parking on those levels. And then the violet colors are, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, amenity in the CAFE that Jason and mentioned there on the corner we're trying to activate that little pot right there at pershing and America. PB, Harmon Zuckerberg, Moving on up, this is what we call the amenity level, so this is, you know as the unit start to ring around and it's essentially a courtyard building. PB, HarmonZuckerberg, Again, you know, trying to be cognizant of the way that the building is aligned. to the buildings along Merrimack. As I said, we're really aligned into those buildings in the south and then on the other, on the north and the west, the building steps in. So it initially is 10 feet off the property line and then it steps into 25 feet off the property on the west side of the building and then 15 feet on the north side of the building. And then another 25 foot off the rear side. And this allows You know, the building to give a little breathing room to the surrounding buildings allows some opportunities for sunlight to come into the courtyard and allows those experiences for the people within the courtyard to have access a little bit outside of the courtyard as well. These are typical floors as we go up. as we stack typical three and four mix of one studios, studios ones and twos and three bedroom units. And then you'll notice as we go up to six, the fifth floor wing over here on the left side on the west to mitigate that height and with the adjacent kind of building on the west is stepped down that is removed And the building just holds the Pershing line. And this not only mitigates the height that's directly adjacent to the condo building to the west, but allows the sunlight to reach further deeper into the courtyard as well, especially in those summer months where people will be using the pools. This is the conceptual rendering as we've been working with it currently. here at Merrimack and Pershing. Again, a blend of the, PB Harmon Zuckerman, The materials the brick some accent materials creating some public feel on that corner. PB Harmon Zuckerton, And on those second level areas they're just above the ground floor entry of the town homes, those are outdoor spaces. PB Harmon Zuckerberg, That were similar to the project that was just at pershing and brentwood boulevard where people can walk out and experience some walkout spaces and covered areas. Again, activating different levels of the building, sprinkling that life of people living within the building at different locations and in different ways. This building, in architecture, I think there can be an inclination for people to do a bunch of tricks and things. I think a lot of this building is about materiality, simplicity, sophistication, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Is where we would like to see it going and we feel that it's very fitting to to the neighborhood that that it's going into. PB, Harmon Zuckerberg, This is view on pushing looking up up the street towards pushing the town homes there on the first level and the. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, upper level where the outdoor spaces would be on the second level and then the units there on three four and five and then the sixth floor pull back so you don't see the sixth floor as well. PB, Harmon Zuckleman, which the six stories on that side equates to the six stories of the building across. PB, HarmonZuckerman, Pershing at the corner of pushing in there now. PB, Harmonzuckerman, um. This is looking at the elevation of that view. Again, we do try to treat the Merrimack and the Pershing elevations differently. They are different streets. They have different fields. And Merrimack is going to be taller. It's going to be longer. And on Pershing, we have opportunities to break this facade down a little bit to introduce some balconies to have that feel a little bit more residential and repetitiveness of it. And then as well as we struck that line where you can see it aligns with the Eve to the building to the west to really kind of create that datum line that's contingent to the building on the west. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Again the Merrimack. PB, Harmon Zuckerberg, Merrimack elevation here again a little bit longer. PB, HarmonZuckerberg, You know integration of balconies outdoor spaces, the top level is pulled back so that's not exactly as visible along Merrimack as well, and those are outdoor terraces for those units that can walk out. Merrimack is the ridge for Clayton. I'm sure you all know that. So the opportunities for people to be up there and to be able to see expansive views, I think will really be really compelling for people to experience something quite special and quite unique. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And then this is really the start of the Western elevation again as Jason mentioned we're very early on this is you know as we're starting to see what what can transpire you see the stepping of the building as it goes back. PB, Harmon Zuckerberg, To the north or the i'm sorry the Northwest corner and the ability to. it's a little harder to see in the elevation here, but the idea is to create planters and to really introduce this walkway in between the buildings and really create that as a landscaped edge. So the condo owners to the west can look out and see something that would be landscaped and create a vegetation environment there that could be nicely lit and it'd be a nice experience, you know, to This is a little bit of the study for the elevations as well.

So one of the things that we looked at after we submitted and we look forward to keep working on it is actually making that a common space to the west. So right now our dog park, I think there was a site plan, it was kind of buried. like the northwest corner of our site. And we just opened a building in the central west end and has a very large dog park in the front of the building, which isn't for every community I know, but the activity is so much nicer than burying it. And we're all about having our neighbors share some of our amenities. So if this really alley that it's becoming to the west of our building can be not just landscape reusable, It could be a community dog park that we would maintain. There's a lot of different angles we can use on that back. So we're just looking into that right now. So we look forward to working with you guys to see if we can pull something off that's not just kind of a dead space.

Questions? There might be some questions. Oh, I'm sure we'll have some. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure there might be a couple

of questions. Are you finished with your presentation? Yes, sir. Before we go any further, I'd like to say we've seen that site as being a potential development for many years. When the buildings that had been there were vacated and then eventually demolished, I think there's one more building that has to come down. But our purpose is to work with you and the neighborhood to make sure that the development is the right development for that neighborhood. So that is what I think all of us are going to have to keep in mind as we go through the process of the conceptual and then any formal reviews as we go forward. But I do have some comments, I'm not sure if they're all but they may turn out to be. The first thing I'd like to bring up is the context that this proposed building is sitting in. We know it's, I forgot which area it is. It's the Gateway District, I believe. Yeah, the Merrimack Gateway District. And when we were putting that together about 12 years ago, all the different districts in the downtown area were very distinct from one another, yet they also had boundaries that had to work between them. What you are backing up to is what we have for years run into, the owned residential properties versus essentially a commercial property. and how they interact. And we see that around the periphery of downtown all the time. So when I'm looking at the context here, and having been around a long time, the neighborhood has developed along Meramec Avenue over the past 30 years with three major office buildings, which are about six stories in height. And the only other development we've seen in the immediate area are single family owner occupied homes or condominium owner occupied residences. Now, granted, there are, I believe, three or four rental unit buildings that are immediately to the north and to the east, roughly at the intersection of Kingsbury and Merrimack. but those are probably 60 years old or more at this point. So I'm not, I really can't assume that that is the model going forward, but they are there. So I think we have to recognize them. Another thing about the context is you brought up regularity on Merrimack Avenue. And I think we have gone through several stages of regularity. Years ago, before the office buildings came in, they were mainly two, three-story buildings. Those have been disappearing and now we have the six-story buildings. But what we have noticed is that those more recent additions to the Merrimack Corridor have been set back from the Build 2 line along the street, which enhances potential walkability by allowing people to walk and not have a sheer wall right next to them. If you've ever walked on Hanley Road south of Carondelet, you are squeezed between cars and a building. And we don't want that to happen, period. So looking at that context, there was one more item that I wanted to bring up. The residential neighborhoods to your west do have some design guidelines in them, which means that when a new residence is built, It has to be respectful of the adjacent residences. So if the new one is built with 10 foot ceilings, let's say, and the houses next door are eight foot ceilings. you probably have a house that's going to raise four feet or more. So there are specific guidelines where you have to have additional space between the homes, or you have to step down to them. That isn't the case here. But I think when we look at the context of the neighborhood, I would like to see a little more respect paid to the adjacent buildings. Now that is not only to the west, but that is to the south and to the north also. Because to the north, it's continually stepping down as you go down Merrimack Avenue with both condominiums and single family homes that are rarely over three stories in height. Of course, then you get to University City and they have continued that same development that started in Clayton. So that was more or less my general context, but looking at the site plan I've already alluded to, the building doesn't seem to be respectful to 202 North Brentwood. Nor is it really respectful to Meramec itself. It seems to be very tight to the street line. And when I walked down there, it seems like it would project out and appear to be even more massive than is proposed. The other site plan concerns i have of course are the street setbacks i don't see any public green space at all now maybe what jason was saying about the dog park which sounds like an interesting idea because when we get to level one uh i think the dog park's in the wrong area it's right up against the neighbors and uh i don't think we've ever had that before all of our other dog parks are um either internal or they back up to non-residential. So please consider that. I do have a concern about garage entry on Pershing. That is a lot of cars. I do use Pershing periodically, and there are usually trucks on that street. I don't know why they're there, but it's difficult to get through. So that pretty well takes me up a little. When you say we have four, you will have four floors, if I understood, facing west. It really looks to me that that's four floors over two levels of garages. So I'm reading the elevations as being more like six floors facing 202 North Brentwood. even with the step backs that do not occur at Pershing, but they occur to the north more internal to the site. I really think you need to look at the idea of being respectful to that neighbor. I mentioned the dog park. That could be an interesting discussion of where to put it. I am concerned about the lobby amenity and cafe. They seem to be, well, the lobby amenity is really an entry and probably a leasing office. But the cafe really seems to be very minimal as the staff report pointed out. I think it was 0.003 of the entire square footage. I'm concerned because I'm reading the site plan that you are going over the property line along North Merrimack. Is that the

case? That should not be the case, no.

Okay, well, you may want to respond to that. Sure. Okay. Levels two, three, four, five, it all repeats the same bulk and height. And the materials seem to be very similar. But I do have a question on level three. There's a green roof. Is that? It's sort of triangular. There we are.

Yeah.

Who accesses it?

We've talked about that could be specific to those units affronting that space alone. It's really, it's the roof of that projection of the amenity space that's onto. So as the building steps back in those corners, there's an opportunity for people there to occupy that space.

So it would be private? Yes. It's not a public space. Yes, that's correct. And then on level two, the amenity deck that is also private to the residents.

Yeah, the idea on this is that there's a ring of terraces and patios that are directly private to the units. And then the central corridor or the central core of the courtyard would be available to all residents of the building.

And they would access it through the amenity? Yes, sir. Right. If you could bring up the street view No, you're rendering.

There.

Here's where I have some concern about height, bulk, the regularity. I think the regularity is very different from the regularity that we are seeing on Merrimack. However, I do like the somewhat random appearance of the balconies in there. I think it does break it up. But maybe it's, I'm reading the building as being very, very close to the street. And of course, the higher a building goes, the closer it feels to the street. So you may want to consider that. Basically, when I look at this, it crowds both of the streets And it's much, much larger. The square footage approximates the total of the three office buildings that were built 20, 25 years ago. So there's no real relief in these facades. It's pretty monolithic. I see where the structure is. but there's no step back as we actually see in a couple of the other more recent buildings. I think architectural distinction and significance is something we will certainly consider. Many people feel that what was set up in the office buildings on Merrimack were architecturally significant. Now they might be seen as somewhat dated today, but they have an interesting solid to void ratio of window to solid wall, which may be a little more openness than what we're seeing here, but this is a different type building. We realize that, that you're really not going to have the opportunity for larger window spans due to the residential character. When we get to what's depicted in white, I don't understand what material that is.

That would be the main mass of the building would be the lighter brick. The lighter brick

and then the darker material that we see sporadically are those metal panels Other darker brick

yeah we're exploring up on the upper levels metal panel or you know textured panel of some sort between the windows and then that inset where it's going down Pershing would be something similar to that as well. Oh,

we could we decided not to just. I don't know if we have

that, do we? We're really not. I was just concerned. I didn't know if it was a metal white punched facade or a masonry one. It's masonry. Okay. Yeah. One thing I would recommend strongly is when you go back and you start applying colors, that you also include the context. This looks like it's sitting out in a green field somewhere way out in the middle of Missouri. And that's not how we look in Clayton. So

bring it back to North Merrimack.

And at the same time, we would like to see other street scenes. We have the Merrimack west side and south side Pershing elevations. But we'd also like to see street views looking south, essentially from the intersection of Kingsbury and Merrimack, looking north from where equivalent south of Kingsbury looking north, Pershing looking north, and also looking up and down Pershing. I think that'll be very telling when we actually get to

the reviews. Of course. I think I've said

enough. Let's go on.

One point of clarification. When I talk about the regularity, I do want to do want to point out that the building frontage does align with the frontage of the building to the south. So that when I talk about regularity, that's talked about in the master plan is, is the is the plan regularity of the push, you know, the setbacks and the building alignment. So this building does align with same setback as the buildings of the

south. If that's the case, that's my error in reading it.

Okay. Steve, it's probably deceptive because the buildings adjacent have landscape area and they're increasing the sidewalk width. So that same depth is there. It's just they're providing it in sidewalk as opposed to a narrow sidewalk with landscape.

So more walkability.

Correct. Helen. Okay, ditto

The lobby certainly could be open to the public, but it would have its own dedicated entrance. We've done this before. Our qualities entrance at the Euclid building is a little similar to this and you can access the back hallway from where the residents actually have their lobby and entrance as well. Those details aren't worked out yet. Frankly, any commercial interest that we have, we can tailor that first floor for that commercial interest. 900 does sound exceptionally small relative to the building size. You're putting Kingside Diner into Cortex in 1,900 feet. So you can get a lot of bang for your buck with the small. Maybe even Zoe Robinson's restaurants on Wydown are a good example. So I just want to guard everyone against an empty commercial space. It's not easy to get someone up Merrimack and shop and then Parking is an issue too. So we're committed to it. We want to do it. Maybe it's 2,000 feet. Maybe it's not 900. It certainly would have its own dedicated entrance though. We actually like the bleeding though into our common spaces too. And we don't mind people coming into our common spaces. It's not that bad.

Yeah, we're about 1.32 right now is our target. So closer to 268, yeah, is the most current

number. So per bedroom is probably a better notion in the market rate apartment space. You know, we own Clayton on the park for 10 years. I would say that that was about 1.21 per unit the entire time we owned it, which seems really low. It does, but it actually bared out that way. You know, we don't want to build more parking than we have to, but trust me when I say the neighbors are going to want us to make sure that we're self-parked and we're not going to be able to rent units unless we're fully parked. So there are projects around town and within Clayton that are not sufficiently parked and it's not what any of us want. I would say this is comfortable just for the market. That doesn't mean that we have to answer to that, but just as we design this to make sure that we have a vibrant building, that ratio is about correct with how we've designed the units.

that's to maintain that's to allow the sidewalk to continue on pershing and to hold that. corner as a viable visible corner, and then it allows the sidewalk to continue to connect down further dumpers. yeah I mean we're 15 feet from. The high point to the low point.

No, there would be a sidewalk that would continue. Absolutely. There would be a sidewalk.

Yeah, right. Yeah, and that's a big step. Okay. I mean, look at me. Okay, people to

have that division of commercial and then you know what's private as you as you go. yeah

that we would definitely not want to do okay yeah absolutely yeah yeah.

That would be, there would be a patio wall that would be at the property line and that would be like a landscape, like a curb edge landscape to hold the landscaping in. So the idea is that right now there's a curb, a planning strip, and then a sidewalk And this is to give those patios a little bit of a buffer. So that is more of a delineation of a landscape, a landscape perimeter around those patios for those townhouses. But the build wall line would be at that property.

Right.

About five or six feet, yeah.

Yeah,

Okay. I think at this point, the fact that you only gave us

the thin brick, I don't see that along that street. It's,

factor of how it was presented. So other than those

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I will just want to say the regularity. I mean, it's subtle. looking at the elevation, you see the delineation where the units are. And we do mix that up. And part of that is very intentional because when you go to a residential house, you don't see just a stack of things, right? And we're in a blend here between some multifamily residential, some office buildings that are ribbon windows that are very regular and stacked. And then you have residentials where the windows are a little bit smaller, but they may not even a line, right? You've got stairs or you've got bathrooms that are smaller windows, outdoor place, you know, spaces. So the idea on this is to blur those lines a little bit because this building is that transition state and it's very... And the more repetition that you make with that, just it creates that monotony. So by overlaying some of that playfulness within that, I think ties those together and breaks that monotony down.

see how it will look in real life. I mean, right now, it's in the middle of nowhere, you know?

Thanks,

Helen. Amy?

So I start off by I do agree with Steve and Helen. I think the scale of the building It's just too big. I know we're talking about the gateway from residential to downtown, and this is at the highest point of pretty much starting at that gateway on Merrimack. And so it's not really a transition. It's just kind of like in your face all of a sudden when you're coming up Merrimack. I also agree going down Pershing, I think it would be beneficial to have it step down more because right now what is it? the fourth or fifth floor, it finally steps down. But again, the neighbors to the west, I think that again, it's just kind of like an in your face object on them. Talking about the facade, I was saying it does have a random feel, not as eloquent as Helen. And it's very flat. I mean, there's no overall projections. I know there's some objects projecting out, but I think that it is such a long stretched down Merrimack that there might need to be, or if there could be just a little bit of a delineation in the facade that would help break it up and not again, create such a long flat facade. I do like this idea of the townhouses coming out onto the sidewalk. I think that will help engage the building along Merrimack. I think that's a really unique idea. Just having like them able to walk out of their spaces and just kind of bring things down to street level a little bit along that walk. I think also in your renderings, we talked about, Helen mentioned that curve. I think we do need to see a sidewalk because again, it just kind of looks like a drop off. And even after you're explaining, I'm having a hard time understanding how that will actually fit into that corner. Because I know the idea is to go to a PUD, which requires a lot of public benefit. And I think just ending the sidewalk or not being able to visualize what that sidewalk looks like from the public benefit is a, needs to be addressed. I miss the part of the dog park on the plans, but as a non-dog owner, that would just annoy me to no end to have a dog park back up to my residence. And so it's my own little opinion there. Yeah.

All I have, I mean, but I agree with the previous comments.

Thanks, Kami. Carolyn, are you still with us?

Yeah, yeah, I'm here. Yeah, it's really difficult going forth because I'm like, oh, they just said what I wanted to say. Oh, they just said when I wanted to say I agreed with everything you said, Steve. And Helen, the hard to see because of the color being black and white. to actually see what this thing will look like. That's really, it's hard to imagine it this way and that schematic, that's fine. All of the colors next to this proposed building are solids and voids for to some extent and they're brick with darker glass. So having this have like eight colors or whatever it is, is a little bit much unless they're all kind of muted. So to me, I would say don't go too crazy beyond the brick colors that are already existing around. The red brick, sorry. But that remains to be seen. I agree that the building mass seems a little bit aggressive, especially on the streets. how close it is to the building line. Don't forget the Hampton Inn is across the street from this building. Folks, too, that was not mentioned, but so there is not just residential. So to me, that seems like a cafe or something would be not that horrible an idea, but I also want to make a comment on restaurant and retail climbing up that far in that neighborhood adjacent. I don't as I drove it, like everyone else, I don't think it would be successful. I really don't. I think it could be a benefit of some kind for the people that live there and possibly some of the office buildings around a small cafe, but I don't think needs to be bigger. I really don. I think it's not an area that everybody walks up that far. They stay Maryland and South. of Maryland. You don't go north for retail or anything. Crushed Red is on the edge of that, right? So to me, pushing retail in that building is going to just kill that space and make it not worth even creating. Step back along the street, meet the Clayton streetscape standards, of course. I agree with the stepping down, stepping back. I agree with the dog park comment. I love dogs too, but that would make me insane. It was right next to my residence. I also want to say that we have to be careful with setting precedents with variances to give permission for one thing and not the other. It's hard to tell one kid that, yeah, you can stay out till midnight, but the other one, same age, say they're twins. Nope, you can't. So as we go down the road, if we start to accept, you know, okay, these rules have been broken, it's going to get pushed back when somebody else tries it. So I think we need to be really careful with that. Otherwise, everything else was said already. But I, oh, well, I can't say. Actually, the irregularity of the building facade here that we're looking at right now, I actually kind of enjoy it. It looks a little bit like a... an old circuit board, a little bit for a computer, old computer. But it could be very interesting. It just depends on the detail. It depends on if there's light and dark, like Helen was saying, stepping back a little bit, giving a little bit of relief to it. So to me, it's kind of an interesting pattern. And I like that it's a little bit random, but it keeps those stripes of those other office buildings. You can still see the stripes from the buildings around it. So with that, that's really everything's been said. Those were my comments.

Okay. Ira Berkowitz had to leave. but he sent a text that his only comment beyond what has been said is where's the mixed use? Is it a small cafe? And I think we've already gone through that.

David. Yes. If you can go to that Pershing elevation. So what I would just say, because I think just about everything has been said already is It's hard going forth. It's even harder going last. But on this particular elevation, I think one point of interest that's been talked about is the randomness that you see on Merrimack. On the Pershing side, you get back to the uniformity. And this is a pretty long stretch. It's more than half a block, maybe two-thirds of a block. So finding some way to break up this elevation a little bit and just bringing interest to the Pershing side I think is important, especially for the residents on the street and the people that we'll be walking up and down it. And then along that sidewalk, you know, it's always tough when you have the garage entrance on a particular street to do something with that wall and just making sure that it isn't a stark concrete wall along the sidewalk. There's something interesting on the building there. What form that takes, I don't know, but I'm always frustrated when I walk down a street and I'm just walking past the side of a garage. You know, the best example, I think, and I don't mean to point out buildings, but like the county building when you walk down that particular block, down bottom past it, you just got that stark concrete wall. So just making sure that this particular stretch of Pershing, and I can't really tell in the elevation how interesting it is, that there's something to break that up. That's all I have to add.

Okay, thank you. I have just a few other things that I wanted to say. When I look at the two major elevations, I do have a favorite part of it. that I really like, and that's the recessed portion just west of Meramec on Pershing. I think that really helps to start breaking up the mass and could be used elsewhere. Now when we, what David was just saying about the difference between the playfulness on Meramec versus the rigidity on Pershing, I actually like the playfulness. And when I look at that, I do see a regularity, but I think it's a structural regularity in it that I'm reading. And then within each structural bay, I really didn't look where your columns were. Well, no, it's a wood frame building. Yeah. So however you're replicating as if it had columns I think that the irregularity helps break down the mass. So those two things somehow I think could be put together in lessening the bulk appearance. The only other thing I'll finish with is if you are going for a PUD, which I think you really have to, really think through those public benefits and they need to be realistic. They need to have true benefit to not just the building occupants or the neighborhood, but to the entire

city of Clayton. And with that, any further comments either from the members or staff?

or any further comment from the applicant?

Yeah,

start somewhere. Starting here, obviously the economy is not what it was a year ago in terms of trying to balance costs. It's no one's problem in this room but ours. But we just thank you so much for everyone's feedback Probably the massing and the retail. And we look forward to working with you.

Well, we look forward to it also. And hopefully you will take our comments as constructive because we do see that area as ripe for development. But as I said at the beginning, we really want it to be the right development. Absolutely. Okay. So thanks very much. We'll look forward to seeing you again. Thank you very much. Steve, I will

just mention for the benefit of the public based on a lot of comments that we received, we do have a traffic consultant working for the city who's going to prepare both a parking demand study based on what they proposed as well as traffic impact based on the layout. So that will address a lot of the comments that we received.

Thank you. Thank

you

very brings us to the end of the meeting and we'll go around. Kami, do you have any further comments?

Helen?

Carolyn?

Nope. Nothing. Nothing. Brian? Nothing. Anna?

Cody? Okay, well then... We will look forward to seeing everyone in two weeks. I don't remember what the date is, but it's in November 7th. Thank you. I guess that's three weeks. Yeah. Okay. And we stand adjourned. So thank you, everyone.

Did somebody motion to adjourn? Is that your

motion, Steve? Did you motion to adjourn.

I'll make a motion to make a

motion to adjourn

Second. Second.

Aye.