December 5, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the plan commission ARB for December 5th. If anyone is on virtually, raise your hand if you want to speak. Thank you. We'll start with the roll call.

Ryan. Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Here. Bridget McAndrew.

Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Bob Denlo. Here. Helen DeFayette.

Kami Waldman?

Amy Waldman?

David Gipson? Here.

David Gibson? Here.

We have meeting minutes from the previous meeting on November 21st. Are there any changes? Hearing none, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Start. We'll start with the public hearing. It'll be on chapter 425, sign regulations, and it'll be a text amendment, and the public hearing is open.

Okay, so Sorry, did you open the public hearing? I did. Okay. So before you, we have some proposed revisions to our sign regulations. Instead of reading the memo that you got, I'm just going to kind of walk through some of the larger changes that happen within each section. So the draft is not a red line version. The reason for that is that a lot of the modifications included reorganizing sections for moving pieces from where they were and modifications. And so providing the red line version would be very hard to follow and actually understand what content would be left at the end of the day. So instead, we provided, and that's also on the pending application site, the draft version without any red lines, as well as the existing regulations as they stand today. So the reasons that staff proposing modifications really comes in twofold. One, a lot of it has to do with trying to remove content-based regulations, which are not legally enforceable based on case law and protections related to the First Amendment. So we really wanted to clean a lot of that up. We do have a lot of existing references within our code that are content-based, meaning that in order for staff to decide how to enforce the signed code, we technically need to know what the sign says. and then we would figure out which regulations apply to that. And those are really not anything that we can be enforcing. And so the result of that is that staff is having to essentially not enforce large sections of our code, which makes it very difficult for applicants as well as staff to always understand what the options are for signage because we're trying to remove and not enforce pieces of those regulations. So what you have tonight is essentially removing all of that content-based language, and remaining is really what the sign code still says today and how staff's been enforcing it for a number of years. It's just in a much cleaner version. In addition to that, we also have added and modified some of the definitions. So as we look through that definition section right now, we've added a few, and then we've also added some diagrams and example language to show how staff is a applying these definitions, which is another piece that will really help clarify for applicants, for businesses, for sign contractors what the regulations are. At the same time, some of the proposed definitions are a slight modification and sign area is one of those. Right now in our code, the sign area has historically been determined using a rectangle. So the far left one here, we basically take the measurement of height from the maximum height there is and then the length is the maximum of that sign. So what you have is, for example, the second one here with sign in two different where it's offset. Right now, the way historically we've been doing it is we would take a rectangle that would be that largest rectangle of the two. So it ends up with a large amount of kind of negative space, so to speak, within the sign. And that isn't really very friendly to the kind of the creative different type ways that people brand themselves. So again, it ends up kind of negatively impacting people that do not have just a standard rectangle as their logo or their sign name, right? And so in some cases, that results in signs that appear much smaller and are harder to read. So the wayfinding benefit to the public when it comes to signage is decreased because they're trying to fit within this box. So sign area is another one that kind of in the best practice of sign regulations now is to modify that shape to follow whatever the sign logo or wording might be. So within this first section for general regulations, a lot of this language, again, is really similar to the language that's currently within our sign code. We've just kind of clarified a few things. So with sign permits being obtained, so highlighting here kind of what requires a permit, what can just... be installed without a permit, the lighting categories that kind of making sure that that is compatible with other sections of our code that we have that address lighting. We've also moved some aspects from these general regulations into other sections. So one example is our sign district currently within our sign code. There's just kind of a one line that allows a sign district to be created for a section of property with approval from the architecture review board, but there hasn't been any regulations as to what you'll submit. As part of the package for sign district, what should it show etc so we've pulled that out from just a general context and given its own section with some review criteria and application criteria, so that we start standardizing what those packages look like. Permanent sign areas so here, this is probably where the biggest change has occurred within what's proposed before you so currently within our sign code. It basically establishes the sign options based on the use or what the sign says. And that's where you go to locate where the sign can be, what size it can be, et cetera. Instead we've reorganized the permanent sign options based on zoning district. So this really removes that direct link from what the sign says or the user and taught and reinforces that idea of character and the way finding. Within a certain area so it's recognizing that in non residential zoning districts, so our commercial districts, the way finding that we need there for businesses that are more visitor based heavier traffic flows in those areas, those stats signage. kind of is needed to address different issues than in a residential district, for example. And so we've broken them down here. The overall amount of signage that's allowed within what staff has proposed really has not changed other than we have a few regulations where if you looked at strictly what it says right now, We are actually, the signage for a retail tenant on a first floor could be greater than the signage of an office tenant located in the exact same tenant space. So right now there's kind of that different treatment for what the sign user is and what they say. So we've really created more of a uniform approach to our signage within the downtown as it's used for multi-tenant buildings and single-tenant buildings for those ratios. Any questions so far? Okay, so we highlight the permanent sign options which are pretty standard to what you see now so we have wall signs, blade signs, ground signs, which in the code right now are referred to as like alternate ground signs. So instead, we recognize that that's a really common concept of signage that we have, especially within our larger multi-tenant structures. So we've addressed that slightly differently here. Instead of saying that ground signs can only say five different tenant names, we've removed that. It's the same 25 square feet. They can put, you know, we're not going to regulate what they say within that area. So now we're just saying you get 25 square feet kind of like it always has been. If you can fit six tenant names on there instead of five or you only want to put one, that's kind of up to them. And then we've also added in a little bit to talk about electronic message boards within that ground sign category. Okay. And then the accessory signs, which we do see a lot of as well and are really important as some of the way finding, especially within the downtown. So that's kind of the directional signs, the awning signs, those sorts. And then within our residential zoning districts here again it's the same options that we had before. But we are now addressing them just as residential districts, as opposed to saying well if it's a. In a single family residential district and it's a for sale sign in the front yard, then it can be this size, but if it's just an electric or an election based sign, then it says, then it can you decide so. We again remove those content-based regulations to just establish the location, the size, and then the time of how long signs can be out to be considered temporary versus permanent signage. The off-brand and missed billboards, we haven't touched anything within that section in what's proposed. We did do some clarifications as it relates to flags and flagpoles again just to kind of address some of the regulations right now which allow different flag options depending on if it was a state flag or a company flag, etc. And then here within our temporary signs so like I was talking about before we clearly established the timeline as to how to differentiate between temporary and permanent signage and then addressed some of the. Based on the location of that sign or the type of sign what the options are for size. We also put in here, the special event sign so that was a. kind of a reoccurring approved temporary program that some of you might recall having, it's been renewed by this board and the Board of Aldermen multiple times now. And so clearly there's kind of support for that program. So instead of continuing every two years to reapprove this temporary program, we've added those regulations in here. So that matches up with our special event sign or display. Sidewalk signs, those are the A-frame signs. We haven't changed anything within those. Those are still allowed with kind of a renewable permit. And then here with our illegal signs and devices, this is basically the same as what has been sprinkled throughout the existing code. Same with vacant ground floor. For modifications, this would be the sign modifications which we do see every once in a while for buildings. We kind of updated the language here to instead specifically refer to public bus structures as being a reason for moving a sign location in terms of the height, we've removed that language and just kind of updated it based on the issues that we currently see that impact some of the regularly occurring side modification requests that we have. And then the last section is the one I mentioned earlier, which establishes the assigned districts or sub-districts and kind of outlines the specific criteria that we should be looking at when we review those packages as well as some minimum application requirements to create consistency with those. That's the summary of what the sign regulations.

You ready for comments? Yes. Okay. I thought it was great. It is so well organized. And I'll have to admit that I have never read the entire existing until this past weekend. So I did my own red line, and it is incredibly simple and straightforward now based on the zoning district. So I thank you for doing it. Hopefully applicants will find it much easier to wade through it. What I don't remember is there, I guess it might be an auxiliary signs or accessory rather parking signs. And we were talking about the big P parking sign recently. Is that mentioned in here?

So in the accessory signs, there is some directional and parking signs that are listed as options. I do think probably moving forward, we'll continue to see like the most recent one you're talking about is a planned unit development. I think those types of projects will likely continue to see them use that sign subdistrict option. path for right now when they're creating uniform signs specifically for their building. But we do have options. So the triangle garage, so to speak, that is doing some parking signs that was just recently for you, those signs would have fallen under what we are allowing here under the accessory signs.

But most of them would come under the new section at the very end.

That's how most of our larger PUDs have been operating recently. They don't have to. Some of the modifications that we made in here make it a lot more clear as to what their tenants would be allowed, which was part of the reason why we were seeing so many of our mixed-use buildings go through the sign subdistrict process because it was just really hard for them not knowing exactly what that tenant was going to be in some of their, especially their retail bays. It was a lot harder to understand what their building signage comprehensively was going to look at. like with our old code. So that's another one of the goals here is to streamline it to hopefully we won't have as many individualized sub districts, but some of the ones with the shared parking still might have to go that route or the alternate ground sign route depending on how their entrances and exits are organized and how people are maneuvering between the sites.

Oh. It'll come back to me. We'll go around.

Carolyn. I

had a question about the accessory signs to the wall sign rear building entrance wall signs not exceeding eight square feet. That seems pretty large.

That we didn't, I don't think we changed that size from what it is right now. We don't see as many of those requested anymore. Some of the examples that have them were like along the Maryland Avenue with the shops, some where there's kind of parking stage behind buildings and they need to go through those little alleys. Those are the ones that usually use that option for signage. Most of the new developments don't have parking and access coming from outside of the main sidewalk so i think that size is compatible with where we've seen it being used it does does seem to work there

okay the other question i had is how does the ground sign the pole sign actually work just for one business or what if they have like three businesses on it

So that's where we wouldn't regulate, we wouldn't determine what the content of that sign is saying. So the way it is right now, the property would be able to put the one pole sign of the six square feet, but which is actually a fairly large area. So the pole signs for the triangle garage area those were six square feet. So you can get a pretty good amount of information within that pole sign for that size. But again, if they felt the need to have more pole signs, then we would want to look at that in a more holistic way for that property, which is why we would use either the sign modification or the sign sub-district avenue for that. Because I think Most of the time, just this one six foot pole sign will be sufficient for those uses.

And Carolyn, I did confirm that the rear building entrance wall sign has not changed. It was eight square feet in the original and it's still eight square feet.

That was all I had.

I just had a question about, we have screens of centene building on handling flashing lights. Is that? I mean, I know that there were some questions when they first kind of constructed as to where that fell in our sign guidelines. Does that is that part of us on modification? Or have we done anything to tighten that up at all? Or

are you talking about the one on the roof or which

Just the one that you can see that you can do from Hanley that's constantly moving.

These are the large screens that are actually set back several feet from the glass that you can see from the road.

Yeah, I

have

an electronic message board. Is that what where that falls in? I'm just trying to I mean, I know there was some right.

I would I'm not really familiar with how that particular one was settled. We can look at that after the fact, but moving forward, we did put some of this electronic message board regulations that are in here and some of these are newer than what we had before. So these would apply to typically what you see as a ground sign. There was a section in here that provided for kind of public messaging being required to be part of it. Again, that's really content-based and hard for us to enforce. So we removed some of that and allowed this with the condition that it doesn't have some of those features like the movement, the message has to be displayed for a certain amount of time. Really what that comes down to is the location of these signs and their proximity to traffic, vehicle traffic, and that kind of can cause impacts safety-wise with messages flashing and everything as cars are driving past plus maybe conflicts with traffic signals. So that was really the goal of this section, but the property and specifically that you're asking about, I would have to look into that. I was just kind of

curious if we, but it sounds like we've added a little bit more related to the electronic practices. Just moving forward, you know, with the ground floor, you know, tenants and it's new development, just making sure that we are providing for, so that we have the ability to control what will happen in the ground floor.

I think historically, Clayton's done a great job in regulating signs and keeping any areas looking like Manchester or Olive. And if you're telling me we're basically making this content free and reorganizing, but continuing that tradition, I applaud you. One question I do have, Anna, is billboards. As my profession, I've had battles with billboard industries. Do we have any billboards here in Missouri? I mean, here in Clayton, the long half

170? No, not that I can think of. The only place, yeah, no, I don't think we do. We didn't change anything within our off-premise signage area, which is the billboards and Stephanie, I'm sure could speak a little bit more to that. But one of the things that we don't allow for those, a lot of our buildings that have secondary front, you know, kind of start to back up to 170. We don't allow the signs to face the highway. So if they're a taller building, we don't have a lot that have direct frontage on the highway. Usually they're separated by some sort of smaller parcel, but the few that we do because of our signage not being allowed on a roof line combined with that, our definitions of frontage, most of the time we don't end up with signage facing 170. Okay.

I mean, personally, I think they should be just

banned. We do have billboard regulations. I just don't know that we have any here.

A lot of cities have engaged in that, especially with digital billboards because they're very bright and they intrude too close to neighborhoods. And plus it's so damn ugly. That's it.

Ellen? I think staff did an incredible

job of just really consolidating and getting to the meat of the matter. I was looking for things, you know, did you forget about this? Did you not include that? And I couldn't find anything. So wonderful job. I do share Bridget's concern about electronic messaging boards. I'm sure it's a cat and mouse game is for tenants. The one that Bridget and I are referring to is if you were in this space, it would be right in your face. It's much larger than it would need to be to give a tenant a message. So I don't know how you control that. I'm sure it's going to be a challenge.

Yeah, we'll look into a few things. I know they had a signed sub-district, so I'm wondering if within their specific one, that's how that was established. But we'll make sure that we kind of have within the powers of signed relations that we have something in there.

Okay, great job.

Amy?

In agreement, I think this is very well thought through, very concise. I did kind of... An overall question, if we ever thought about like standardizing signs, like, you know, like when we were going through like the parking garage, like should Clayton have like a parking sign so that it's kind of universal through the city or, you know, specific signs are kind of used a lot with different businesses that kind of point people in the right direction. If that's something we should think about just so we're not having all these different parking signs all over the city looking different.

Did everything else look great?

David? I really don't have any questions or anything to add. It's a great job, and this is something that's overdue as far as getting back to content neutrality and being compliant there. So this is great. Thanks.

I do remember the other item I had. I use E-code 360 online. Will these graphics show up there? Yes. They will? OK. I think that's very important because they're very descriptive. I don't know, does anyone else use E-code online? It's a great resource. Okay.

So one more question, sorry. There is a section 425.05 off-premises billboards section. It says billboards shall be allowed with a 660 feet of nearest edge of the right-of-way of Highway 170, an area zone C1, C2, C3, C4, S1 subject to the following regulations. So do we have any areas that are within 660 feet though?

We have a lot of them. But what I would direct you to is item 3 on there. So if you look at B3, which is spacing, it talks about the proximity from one billboard to the next, proximity from a billboard to an interchange, proximity from a on-premise sign. When you start applying those provisions to it, I don't think there's any space that would actually accommodate a billboard.

That's actually funny. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that they're allowed, but it sounds like they're really kind of not.

And I was just gonna add to in the in the part of the front, the bill off premises, billboards is 425.050. But then later on, it's it's under point 090. Like 425 points. Okay,

yeah, we'll make sure all the numbers align. Right? Yeah. Before you code records.

Yeah. Any other comments? Or from the staff? Acting more?

Okay. Well, we do need the staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Board of Aldermen.

The hearing is now closed. Now we can proceed. Did he ask her? Did

not. Yeah. Okay. We are reopened at this point. Do we have any comments from the public, either here in the chambers or online? And this is on the text amendment to chapter 425.

Any hands going up virtually?

No. Let's back up. We'll close the hearing and We do have the staff recommendation. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion

to recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment to chapter 425 of the city's land use code.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay,

terrific. We can now move on to new business. The first item is 8100 foresight. Do we have the

applicant online? We'll start out with the

staff report. Brian, I believe this is you.

The property is located on Forsyth, just north of Shaw Park. The property is zoned C1 Neighborhood Commercial and is the site of Bank of America. The applicant is proposing the installation of 45 solar panels on the building's roof. The roof is separated into two flat sections of differing height, and the panels are proposed atop the higher 25-foot eastern roof. This section of roof does not include a parapet. The placement of the panels is symmetrical and set back from Forsyth Boulevard by 17 feet and the panels are proposed to be set back four feet from the remaining roof edges will not extend more than 14 inches above the height of the roof. The proposal is found to comply with all the criteria for commercial building mounted solar energy systems, which is outlined in the staff report and staff recommends approval of the proposed solar panels to be installed and operated as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Drilling, do you have any further comments?

Thank you for the time. I really do not. I just wanted to make sure I was available in case there were any questions.

Well, I do have a question. These appear to be relatively flat. Is that

correct? They are set at a 10-degree pitch. So yes, is the answer relatively flat, but the leading edge of the panel, the Southern edge of the panel is roughly four inches off of the roof deck. And then the Northern edge of each panel is roughly 13 and a half inches off of the rooftop. So it's a slight tilt, 10 degree pitch.

And it's tilted toward the South. Is that correct? Correct. What about reflection? Will there be any solar reflection going into any of the nearby buildings?

You know, the front side of a solar panel is tempered glass like a windshield. And so... I suppose, depending on the angle of the sun, there would be the potential for reflection the same as there would be off of a windshield or a window. But it would be a moving target, of course, as the sun moves across the sky. Generally, that's not a... I've yet to have a complaint about reflection from solar panels. other than we have to do a study when it comes close to building near airports and so on.

Well, I was just curious because it seemed like as the sun gets lower, like we have right now with the 10 degree slope on the panel, that it could reflect into the hotel across the street. Did you look at that at

all? I did not. Is the hotel to the south of the building? No, to the north. To the north. Okay. So you're considering the angle of the pitch. Okay. No, I

did not look at that at All. Well,

it is a hotel. It's not an owner occupied building. I don't want to make it sound worse. But that was my only concern about that, if there were any potential reflection problems.

Sure. Generally speaking, I mean, there is, like I say, there is the top coating of the panel is tempered glass, but they're also dark cells, you know, nearly black cells. So there doesn't tend to be a ton of reflections. for what it's worth.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go around the room. Carolyn?

Yeah, I mean, typically they want to absorb the sunlight, not reflect it, so I hear that. I didn't have any comments at all. Thank you.

Richard? I was also just going to ask about the reflection, since there is the, you know, there are homes nearby, you know, right next to Bank of America, but, you know, I think Again, like we talked about at the last meeting, I want to be certainly supportive of solar panels and I do applaud Bank of America for installing these. And so I hope that more of our businesses take advantage of it and keep installing them.

Bob? No comments. Ellen?

I would just like to compliment you on the completeness of your submission. It analyzed everything that I could think of with regard to the structure and its ability to support the panels. And it's there, so very complete. Thank you.

Jamie?

No comments, but I'm really happy to see these going in.

David? Nothing to add.

Any comments from anyone else in the audience, either in person or virtual? No. We do have a staff recommendation to approve the panels to be operated as submitted.

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Drilling.

Thank you all folks. I appreciate it very much. When will

it be

installed? So the next step, once all this, so I've got 26 of these banks around the countryside to build. And once the permitting process is complete, the next step is to submit interconnection applications with the utilities to get permission to tie into the existing grid. and do all of the electrical analysis on that end. So if I had to say, I'm hoping for February, that would be optimistic. March might be more realistic.

Well, good luck with it. We're glad to see you proceeding with it. And we hope to see more of it in the city.

Well, I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

We'll move on to Item 2 in New Business, 600 Francis Place. And we'll start with the staff report. Ryan?

So this property is located at a cul-de-sac just north of Clayshower Park, right at the intersection of Francis Place and Langdon Drive. The property is owned are two single family is located within the clay Shire urban design district. The property is developed with a single family home it sits on a hill resulting in the eastern half of the home presenting into one story in the western half presenting as two stories. The elevation change results in the need for retaining walls on portions of the property. So the project was previously before the board in April of 2022 where it was approved the project originally consisted of their placement of several retaining walls. One such wall supported stairs leading to an entrance in the side yard frontage of the home. The wall was not constructed as originally approved, but was instead constructed as a porch with stairs. And so the applicant is now seeking approval for how the stairs were constructed. So hilly terrain is common in this surrounding area. However, this property has an extreme slope that trails down from east to west. Any entrances on the western half of the property would be requiring stairs. The cul-de-sac, which the stairs front is only accessed by two other homes. So there's a minimal visual impact from that side. The porch and stairs are brown composites supported by two natural wooden posts. And the railing is a black metal and that black metal railing is similar to what was on the previous stairs. The primary structure as well as nearby properties are constructed of brick and stone of varying reds and browns. Porches are pretty common as well, but are often constructed of a stone or brick. The property is in the Clayshire Urban Design District, and the previous project was approved according to those district standards for the retaining walls. But material guidelines for porches are not specified. Other material sections permit the use of wood, but they do not mention composite materials. The code states that foundations are also not permitted to show more than a foot of exposed concrete, and the new stairs expose a foundation that is greater than what is permitted And so staff is going to recommend shielding the exposed concrete and posts with a lattice. To conclude, it's the staff's opinion that the use of the stairs and the porch are appropriate within that side yard frontage due to the severe slope and the limited visual impact. The design district references a variety of materials but does not specify on porches or those composite materials. The natural posts do not match the stairs and do not shield the exposed foundation And so staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, that the concrete foundation below the stairs shall be shielded with a permanent facade material or lattice that complements or matches the existing materials used on the porch or home. And the second condition being in the circumstance that condition one is not approved by the architectural view board that the porch supports be painted a color that matches the existing materials on the porch.

Okay, thank you. See Stephen Musial is online and this is Camerata. Yes, would one of you like to speak to it? Please come up and check that the green light is on. Okay, so speak into the microphone.

Mr. Musial, can you clarify your part in the job?

I do the drafting for Missouri Constructors for Gabriel, who is the owner of the company. I do all the drawings. That's who I've

Yes, you've dealt with Gabriel. I do the drawings. And I take complete responsibility for the porch being wrong. I was going off the site plan line which is from 1974, and it only shows four steps coming off of the side porch. So I was under the impression that it was at that elevation. That's why I designed it with the wall and pavers to match everything else. Gabriel- That is

it was drawn wrong in 1974 when they did the survey. Oh,

And so that's what I based my drawing off of. So when they got out there and they're building everything, There was just, they knew what they were going to build and they weren't going by the plans that I had drawn showing the retaining wall there. That's why there was a miscommunication. So it was 100% on me as far as thinking that there was only four steps from the porch down to the walkway.

I think we're beyond the four steps now. We can see that it's a much higher area. So, okay. We do have a staff recommendation that the stairway be enclosed with a latticework because we do not allow more than 12 inches of a concrete foundation. However, I do have a question to the staff about that. if they were just to enclose below the steps in the porch, beyond it where the air conditioning unit is, is still... concrete exposed. Was that considered?

There are a lot of examples, especially in Clay Shire due to the grade changes where there are exposed existing foundations that are exposed and do not meet. So those are typically we don't go back and make people cover other portions of the foundation staff specifically referenced the area under the stairs because that was not previously exposed foundation and now it is based on the new design. And so the lattice would cover the new exposure of that non-conforming status, but they could extend it to create a shield of the air conditioning as well. That's just not in the scope. So historically we haven't made them do that. Okay,

thank you. My feeling is that... having the porch supports be painted a color to match the stair structure would be sufficient for me, and also from the view of your neighbors who have already commented to that effect. But let's see if there are other comments. Carolyn?

Do you foresee using that underneath area for any kind of storage of anything?

We have an area underneath our concrete and stone steps that is not as steep as that, but we store our cord of wood under there and actually looks quite pretty. I was also wondering if you could somehow screen and tuck away your recycling or something in there.

It looks like it's got the height.

just do a little bit of lattice and color, you know, whatever. But I agree with Steve. I don't think it's a redo. I think it's more of, you know, if your neighbors are fine with you painting the poles, I have zero interest in making a change.

Okay, thank you. Bridgette?

I agree. I think painting it's fine. I'm not certainly right is

Okay. Like installing the lattice either.

Oh, he's there.

Steven, that was a question for you. Are you related to Stan music? Oh,

I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. That and $50 will get me into the ballpark. So not that close.

Okay. Ellen?

I would agree with painting the posts. I don't know if you realize it or not, but the drawing submitted Doesn't, oh, that is not what was built because the drawing submitted has posts that would be wrapped in white PVC. And they're six by six. These appear to be four by four posts. Yeah. That's what the drawing says. I don't remember the original submission.

That was submitted after the fact. Gabriel just asked me to submit something. I had not seen it, what was built, so I just drew a standard package, so to speak, for that size and submitted that. Then I went out and looked at it and saw that that's not what was there, that there were actually four by fours, not six by sixes. They weren't wrapped in PVC, they were exposed. And so no, the drawings that were submitted need to be revised to what's actually there.

Okay, I would paint the posts and instead of trying to match the wood, I would do black. a good idea I like that and it's probably easier because the wood will age it will turn a different color over time and if you paint to look like wood it'll look like it'll all match now but depending on how the sun hits it It won't and it'll look terrible. So I'd go with black and-

was just gonna suggest that as well to paint it black. Yeah, I think it looked nice with the railing so.

David, I don't have any questions.

Yeah, so part of the reason the, the photograph was requested from staff to submit is because we were aware that the drawings, which called for white PVC were not what was completed. So now, or if the board approves this from a material standpoint with any conditions, then the next step will be reviewed by the building, the plans reviewer or the building official will review the actual construction of your deck. And then once that is permitted, then they'll go out and complete site inspections to ensure that it was constructed to match

So we'll take a vote in the next few minutes. Okay, so then

to wait for the on site. You'll have to wait. I can follow up with you about how the permitting will go after that this board is just looking at essentially the aesthetics of the material types and how the overall design is the permitting process will have to look at the building codes to make sure the deck is safely constructed. for your use so we can i can follow up with you about that

no i would i would hold back the money what if they approve everything as is i will submit the drawings and then once they approve the drawings and come out and inspect everything and give you a final inspection everything is good to go then make your final payment to gabriel

One comment to Steven though, I do want to say this isn't entirely on you. It should have been requested to have an updated survey before you guys started your drawings. So don't be so hard on yourself. You should have requested that. I'm sorry.

Okay. Any further comments? I see no other hands raised. So we do have two staff recommendations. I would suggest we avoid number one and go with number two, modify.

I'll make a recommendation to approve omitting staff recommendation number one and modifying staff recommendation number two. The porch support should be painted black to match the railing color.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you for coming in.

Yeah,

we'll

follow up

with you tomorrow.

all very, very

much.

Thank you. Okay, our third item under new business is 16 North Central. I think Cameron Loyette is online. So Ryan, we can go ahead.

So the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to add a restaurant use to the existing Honeymoon Chocolates business located on North Central. The property is zoned high-density commercial and is in the northeast downtown overlay. The restaurant would operate 2 to 10 p.m. every day and serve both food and alcohol. The restaurant area would have about 40 seats and measure 2,500 square feet. Off-street parking is not required for this use and deliveries would be made in the morning via the street. existing waste services will be used. Conditional uses are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community by which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demands beyond the development's capacity and or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise pollutants or other characteristics associated with a particular use. And the criteria for review are outlined in your staff reports. And to summarize the criteria, the CP is compatible in terms of use and size with the existing structures in this running area. The CP is not anticipated to have adverse impacts on traffic parking noise light odor utilities waste collection or emergency services. Staff is of the opinion that CP meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The use hours of operation, the use itself, the hours of operation and methods of delivery are consistent with other uses nearby. And so staff recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Thank you. Mr. Loyette, do you have any comments?

I don't have any comments right now, but I do hope that you guys find that it would be a good addition to the City of Clayton.

Okay, thank you. I can answer that. I think it would be a great addition to the City have looked into your current business. And I think expanding it could be very nice. Can you give us an idea of what you will be serving in the restaurant?

You bet. So we would be serving alcohol-based beverages such as chocolate martinis and other chocolate-based beverages, as well as bonbons, truffles, and other chocolate-related products using our in-house manufactured chocolates.

Okay, so would you say it's more of a dessert restaurant? Correct. Okay. It sounds exciting. I'm very familiar with one very similar to it in Washington DC and it's a go to place all the time. So I am certainly PB Harmon Zuckerman, In favor of it. It looks from the plan that was submitted that the seating is basically on the north wall. Is that correct PB

John Gerstle, Correct. PB

Harmon Zuckermann, And the bulk of the middle of the building. Is that your prep area. PB John Gerstlem,

Yes, yeah, that'll be the prep area in our current manufacturing space for for the chocolate.

Okay. And then you will be changing the front doors, right?

We had the front doors changed, or at least our landlord did earlier this year. We went from having doors on a track to double doors facing the west of north central. Okay.

I think it looks quite good, but let's go around the room. Carolyn.

I had no comments actually.

Bridget.

Nope. Just happy to have you. And hopefully, you know, especially once that construction finishes, hopefully business will be booming for you. So happy to see you.

Thank you. I think it's a great complimentary use to the existing restaurants that are there and give people another reason to stay in the area. So I think, Ryan, what you do is great. Ryan, wasn't there a chocolate bar or something in Lafayette Square a few years back? I have faint memories of that.

Yes, yes. Chocolate, chocolate.

Something.

There was one in Cortex, too, called the Chocolate Pig. That's gone.

No, no, no.

That was more a restaurant.

Anyway, Ryan, good luck to you. I think everybody applauds what you're doing. Thank you.

Sounds

delicious.

Amy?

Yes, very excited to have you here.

David, no comments. And we do have a recommendation to recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Well, good luck with it. When will the restaurant be in operation?

I believe it's all based on when we get approval from the alderman, but it should be sometime around Valentine's Day.

good luck with it. We're looking forward to it being operational.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Thanks for coming. That brings us to the end of our line tonight. Any comments, Amy?

Nothing further.

Helen?

Nothing.

It's just nice to be back.

Glad

to

see you. Bridget?

No, nothing.

Carolyn? No.

We have another meeting before.

On the 21st.

Oh, I'm not here

on the

19th. Okay,

good.

Maybe

you're

here.

David, nothing further. Ryan?

Nothing further. Stephanie?

Nothing this evening. Thank you.

Anna? No? Well, no. Thank you for that signage change. That was really very good. Hopefully we'll see other parts of the code updated.

Yes, the renewable energy tax amendment will be back before you the end of the month at our next meeting. Most of the changes that we're making now within tax amendments are things that we feel we need to clean up. I think the larger changes tax amendment process will be the follow-up to our comprehensive planning process.

And where does that stand now?

um right so finishing up the rfp we also at the next meeting we'll do a kind of comprehensive planning 101 presentation for you all to gear up for that and outline what our goals are going into that process what your role will be the kind of the overall process as it stands for the community and then a timeline

Okay, well, thank you for that update. If nothing else, we'll see you all in two weeks. Meeting adjourned.