December 19, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, both in person and virtually. Welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for December 19th. If anyone online wishes to speak, please raise your hand and you'll be let in at the appropriate time. With that, we'll start with the roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Bridget McAndrew. Here. Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Bridget McAndrew. Here. Bob Dunlow. Here. Helen DeFate.

Kami Waldman.

David Gipson. Here.

David Gibson. Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on December 5th. Are there any changes?

No. Hearing none, do we have a motion?

All in favor?

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. We'll start with a public hearing on text amendments to Chapter 405, and we'll open the public hearing now.

Great. TAB, All right ryan's going to pull up the proposed code so at the previous meeting we did a presentation with some of the text elements that staff was looking into for. TAB, Building upon the original recommendation that came from the sustainability committee to look at our renewable energy code, the recommendation from sustainability really focused on expanding where solar panels would be allowed. And then we've had multiple discussions since then, including some with the Sustainability Committee. So I'll just briefly go over again some of the staff recommendations pretty quickly and highlight some of the changes that have been made since our last discussion. So we're expanding, like I mentioned, solar panels to be allowed on additional roofs. So since we last spoke, Ryan and I went through the code to kind of clarify some of the language, make sure that it was consistent with other sections of the code. So we are now allowing solar panels to be located on all roof aspects. So in this first red line version here, one of the conditions that we talked about was still wanting to put a preference on the less visible areas, but highlighting the operation and efficiency of those solar panels as being more of the priority. So we've almost just kind of switched how this sentence was worded. We played around with it a little bit and it just made sense to do that. And so previously it put the biggest visibility as the biggest priority, and then kind of said, you know, reasonably functional panels. So now we're making them as functional panels with some reasonable consideration as far as how they're viewed from the street. So you'll see through here, we've also moved some of the language related to mounting brackets. That was some clarity that we talked about at the previous meeting. Again, we're now allowing them on all roof slopes as opposed to just rear or side.

moved that language here. So talking about the architectural features and that kind of gives instead of a really prescriptive manner in which the solar panels respect those features, we're just kind of calling out that those are our items to keep in mind. Then we go through to the ground-mounted solar. So we just modified some of the language related to the conditional use permit process, so that requires approval from the Planning Commission and the Board of Aldermen, but here we're outlining some criteria that would again allow for expanded locations for

the solar ground-mounted systems. And this is for similar language, but now we're in the non-residential section.

And then with the procedure for review another section that we've added here is outlining the administrative approval process, so that was another element that we discussed with sustainability in the public and this board was expanding that option to make solar. and renewable energy more achievable program by removing some of the barriers, such as additional meeting requirements for systems that would be approved. So we've added in the city manager language, which is very similar to the language that we have in other elements of the code for that administrative process. And it also clarifies which types of systems or modifications would be eligible for that process. And then finally, we added some more criteria for review. So this is the basis for decision making to modify some of the preferences and considerations that we've discussed, and then also creates the historic context piece. So this is element where we would send projects here to the Architecture Review Board for consideration just to respect some of the the architectural or the historic context of those specific properties. So right now, the only projects that would be considered to have historic context, we're not designating them as a historic structure. That happens through other elements of the code. We're just recognizing the context of these. And those are properties that are specifically listed on a national state or historic register. properties that are certified as contributing to the historic significance of a district that exists, or property that might be located within a local historic district. So that local district, we currently don't have any residential that have done that through our city's process. But if a neighborhood were to go through the process of establishing a local, that would be another

criteria that would send a project to the architecture review board.

Don't we have one more page?

Here we go. This historic context continued.

Can we make comments? Okay, my first one was on the idea of building integrated solar energy systems and it's on page

two, I guess it is.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, And I guess I may not really understand what the building integrated me does that mean it's on a wall.

So we do have definitions for that. Building integrated could be essentially replacing elements of the structure. So if it was an awning, that's solar panels that operate as an awning, or it could be glazing that operates as solar panel. So other elements that are part of that building, but they also provide that solar panel elements. They're kind of integrated into the design as opposed to racks of panels that are just added on top of a structure.

Okay, now it makes sense. Further down there, item B3, second line, it says a front and the front is crossed out but there's a red line under it. I didn't understand if that's in or out.

Everything that's in blue is out. So that was from the, or that has the blue line through it is out. So, that's kind of part of the confusion of having multiple layers. So, in the first iteration that was shown, we added the word front. But then kind of when we went through and refined all the language, it seemed a little bit unnecessary to specifically say a front side or a rear. And so the language was then refined to

just allow any roof face. Well,

it

was confusing. I see what, yeah, I can see that.

On page three, I'm not sure why I marked this. It was

under 3A1II. Oh, that was the

ground mounted and that would allow it to be in the front yard,

correct? Correct. Why?

So this criteria, so through the conditional use permit process planning commission architecture review board can consider requests for front yard locations when that criteria is met. So they would need to show that the function or efficiency of the system is increased by being located in a front yard. So if a rear yard is completely shaded or it's a commercial property and there's not a location within a rear yard to put a ground mounted system, then they could That would be kind of the first criteria. They still at any point wouldn't be able to, according to this, locate it within five feet of those property lines. So they would have to have another part of the front yard. Then there need to be some incorporation of landscaped area surrounding that ground-mounted system and

any screening or design that would also require the architecture view board approval.

Okay.

Correct. And the city attorney also mentioned the example of a corner lot where there's two front yards.

Let's go on and see if anyone else had issues. Bridget.

I just wanted to clarify. So then for the administrative review, so basically the only, I guess the times where It would not have to come before a RB or the Commission would be if there's a new is presumably in the construction phase, like a new building would already. Like the plans would already be approved for whatever solar they're incorporating in their project right is that, like the new building mounted that's what that would mean or no.

So sometimes they will we might have the solar panels called out with a new building. Really, the it would be for that historic context would is going to be what's going to trigger a lot of the projects to have to come here if they do meet that criteria for historic context or if that somebody who looking for approval for the front yard. like we just kind of mentioned, but any of the solar panels that are on, let's just say a single family home, for example, and they meet all of the criteria for review and other locational requirements that are outlined and design requirements that are outlined, that would be eligible for the city manager approval. If it was that same single family house with a design, but that house is contributing to the historic significance of a district, then that design would require ARB approval.

I think when I was first reading that, I put the stress on the new building rather than the new building mounted energy system. So I thought it was related to new construction. So there are, I guess, a lot of ways that you feel like through the administrative review process will be able to, other than the historic context or perhaps the front yard, that you'll be able to do this without having it go through

Yes. Out of the, in the last few years, the projects, the requests that we've had for solar panels, the majority of those would be eligible to have gone through an administrative process had this been outlined already, including last meeting we had the Bank of America is adding solar panels. So that is an example of an existing building. They're adding the panels on the top. That orientation would

now be able to go through an administrative process.

Yes.

Correct.

Yeah, so the conditional use permit process is already outlined as a requirement for those ground mounted systems. We've just clarified some review criteria for the design of those specifically.

Thank you. Allen.

think it's very well written.

Any, oh, David.

No, great job by staff, no questions here.

Any comments from the audience or anyone online? Elizabeth. We need to record you. Is the green light on?

It is.

Great.

Thank you. When you mentioned the Bank of America, my building, the building that I live in, but the unit on that end looks over the Bank of America. Would the people in that unit have been would they be informed of this change to what they might be able to see out their window. I'm pretty sure they don't, but for me, that was the only thing I could relate this to because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of trees there which would block their view of the roof of that building. But at the same point, it's a low building. I don't know how they're going to get any solar energy off of something that's got some pretty tall trees in front of it.

Right, so in the revisions proposed, there is not any sort of notice requirement for the administrative process. So it goes through the building permit process, but the administrative approval does allow us to send an unusual prospect up to the architecture view board for approval. So it says there specifically that administrative can choose that process. So if there was something where we felt there might be potential additional impacts to an adjacent property, Maybe the angle of the panels, that was something that we've talked about before where there's concern maybe if a certain angle were to direct reflection into the window of a residence or something like that, you know, we could, we would discuss that but currently there are no notification requirements for administrative process.

Would there be, is there any process for ensuring that the people who might be impacted, i.e. the people who live on that end, in that end unit, might receive some kind of notification that the city is considering the application for solar panels facing south on the the bank building so that they would have some knowledge about it. I'm afraid most of the people in the building that I live in are my age or older, and I'm not sure how much they do online looking around and whether they get notices from the city of Clayton or not.

Well, the Bank of America property and the solar panels proposed in question were already heard by this board for approval. And that was before the administrative process was in place. There would have been the courtesy mailings that we do for agenda items, but that there are no requirements. That was

just a courtesy mailing for that agenda.

All right. Thank you.

I don't see any hands up. Is that correct, Ryan? That's correct, yep. Thank you.

In response to your question earlier, that both the term is building integrated renewable energy system and building mounted solar energy system are defined in the general definitions in the code at 405-390. So they're not in the renewable energy area, they're in the general code definition.

Okay, thank you. Any further comments? No? Well, we can close the hearing.

Are we to vote on this tonight to recommend? OK. We will need a motion having reviewed it to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen.

Renewable energy amendments.

attached to the report submitted this evening and recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. Well done,

staff. Okay, we can go on to new business. First item, 7512 Cromwell Drive. Is the applicant online? So please raise your hand. We see a phone number. Could that be Christopher Crawford? Mr. Crawford,

unmute yourself and let us know that you're representing 7512 Cromwell.

Okay, let me

ask it again. Are you representing 7512 Cromwell? Oh, okay. It's okay. We're

glad you're here in

one piece.

Okay, then we can go ahead with 7512 Cromwall.

This property is located on Clayton. It's located between Clayton Road and Cromwell Drive, just west of Glenridge Drive. The property is zoned R6 medium density multiple family dwelling district. It is developed with a multifamily apartment building. This property includes a below grade parking garage that has access to be a driveway from Clayton Road. In early December, the retaining wall at the driveway failed and is needed immediate replacement. All properties within this block contain dual frontage and are multifamily. and are usually constructed of red brick with stone accents. These properties all have the underground garages with parking access via driveway with retaining walls. Most walls are made of stone or brick, matching or complementing the primary structure. The architecture review guidelines limit new retaining wall materials to brick, stone, or stucco, and the proposed material for this new retaining wall CoB, Jay Sugnetthi Mishra- Is a pecan highland stone, this is textured brownstone of varying block sizes with tumbled edges the material chosen does conform to the architecture guidelines for new retaining walls staff is of the opinion that the chosen materials are compatible with the property and surrounding area and recommends approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Please come up, identify yourself in the microphone and make any further comments.

How are you guys doing today? Sorry, my voice is gone too. All I do is work. So yeah, this wall is being replaced. I guess about a month ago, the actual concrete wall fell over and I got a call from the homeowner that owns the building. He says, we've got to get this moved out of the way. So We were just going to go there and try to repair it, but everything started coming and the rest of it was falling over. So we dug it out and then the city came by and told us we have to get a permit. So then I just called him and then figure out what you guys needed. And we got the, uh, I guess the block, you know, everything approved by him and whoever else is going to approve it, I guess, and try to stay with them with all reason of your guys guidelines and get this done. So got all the engineer drawings done and we're ready to get it knocked out. It won't take us very long to do this. It's not super big project.

Well, thank you. If you could give us your name.

It's Christopher Crawford.

Thank you. You'll be using the pecan color?

That is correct.

The material looks fine to me. Went over there and I thought it looked like a bigger job than you say, but whatever you say, we'll go with. It's absolutely necessary.

Yes, it is necessary.

I have no problem, but we'll go around. Sure.

I also don't have any, no comments, no problem.

Bob? Okay, thank you.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you.

David?

No comment.

Anyone else online or in the council chamber with any comments? Seeing and hearing none. Do we have a motion?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Good luck.

All right, thank you very much. And we'll stop it and get the permit and we'll get rolling on it.

All

right, Thank you so much guys.

Okay, we'll move on to new business number two. That's 114 and 134 Gay Avenue. And do we have

anyone online? Mr. Thompson. Yes,

this is my Thompson with the

architect. um we'll start with the staff report.

Brian. For the subject property is a townhome development on the east side of gay avenue just south of university drive the property is owned our foreigners in the clayton gardens design district. The project which was approved in 2021 originally incorporated the use of mainstream materials in the construction of the stairs that will lead to the front porches of the homes. The developer is applying to modify the stair materials to be an exposed aggregate rather than the masonry. No other front facade changes are being proposed at this time that would deviate from the original application and the renderings. The exposed aggregate stairs will include a variety of light to dark brown rock. The exposed aggregate is used on other portions of the development, such as the porch and the driveway. The townhomes under construction are composed of brown brick with stone siding The stones inciting and bronze accent materials. The exposed aggregate is common in the surrounding area with many driveways pathways stairs porches incorporating the material exposed aggregates in the surrounding area is very similar as far as the browns and earth tones that uses. permitted materials are not outlined for porches in the clayton gardens urban design district guidelines for our four. But exposed aggregate is mentioned and recommended as a driveway material in the city's architecture guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed material change is compatible with the townhome development and surrounding area, since the change is limited to the stairs and is complimented by aggregates in the surrounding area. And staff recommends approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Thompson, do you have anything to add?

I guess the only thing I would add is we would actually like to do, and should have mentioned this before, but both the stair in the exposed aggregate and all the walks. And of course, the driveway will be exposed to aggregate also to match the terrace.

What walks are you referring

to? From each stair that comes out from each unit, there's a walk that proceeds out to the city walk. So there'll be 10 of them along the line. So it would be all those walks also would be exposed to aggregate And then, of course, the two driveways on either end of the site would be exposed to air grip.

What were those walks from the base of the stair out to the city sidewalk originally to be?

Actually, on the plans right now, it isn't mentioned what they are, so I would guess they would just be normal.

Okay. I have a concern about the exposed aggregate on the stairs and the two drawings you've given us showing building A and building B. I went over there to look, to take a look at it, and I notice on building B, the the cut stone veneer with sandblasted face is already in place. And that appears to be on the vertical retaining wall halfway between the property line and the building.

Well, yes, on the terrace wall there is.

Okay, the terrace wall. And I think that has set the appearance that we approved two years ago or so. And we also approved that there would be cut stone treads and risers over a concrete slab at the steps to grade 12 inch treads and seven and three quarter risers. That's what we're expecting. that the stairs will match the terrace wall in the material?

No, the cut stone for the stair is a limestone, kind of a whitish or more of a whitish stone. The terrace walls and basically all the vertical walls are a pink granite. So no, they were never intended to match. With this change, what we were hoping to do is to match both the terrace where we were doing exposed aggregate and just carry that on through which we felt like would more match what was happening in the neighborhood.

Well, I certainly understand your point of view. However, I think the natural stone is what we approved initially. I see the removal of the cut stone on the stairs going to a exposed aggregate material is a less expensive solution and a less architecturally visual product. So that's my concern. I do not like getting rid of the stone on the steps, even though, and I agree, they may be slightly different in color and texture. One I'm reading is sandblasted. I'm not reading that the other one said sandblasting. But I think for the architectural integrity, the But stone treads and risers should be retained, but let's go around the room Richard.

I you know i'm I feel like i'm a little bit i'm a little unclear here in terms of the materials and what's being used so. My concern related to this project is not necessarily related to you guys switching to an aggregate material. So I mean, I'm happy. It seems like staff was okay with the switch. I was not on this board when we originally looked at the specifics of this project. So I do hate to take away the appearance, what sounds like a better architectural product, but I will defer to staff here and they seem to be okay with switching to the aggregate material.

Bob?

I kind of feel a little bit like Bridget, you know, Chairman Steve walks on water in my book. As an architect, I always give a lot of deference to him. At the same time, the staff, there are permissible uses and I'm just assuming this could be a cost factor. Mike, is this a cost factor going into play here?

I think it is.

OK, all right. I'm going to hold my opinion until I hear another architect speak.

Amy?

I'm curious, why are you changing it to the aggregate?

Dave Kuntz, Oh mostly timing issue is going to take several months at this point in time to get the stone. Dave Kuntz , So it in we're we're trying to get the project finished so as quickly as possible and that's that's kind of a driving factor there The other thing is just the consistency in the project right now the terrorists floors are exposed aggregate. Um, and like I said, we were planning on doing that for the walks. So it would, uh, uh, it would just follow through there. It seemed a little odd to make the one, uh, just the steps be a, uh, it'd be a light colored stone, um, when everything else is exposed aggregate.

Okay. How do your homeowners feel about that switch?

I I don't have any information. I don't know who the owners are.

Okay. Because yeah, I would be disappointed if I, you know, is this, you know, having already probably bought this house thinking that I'm going to get stone steps and then I get an aggregate. I do, however, understand, you know, your timing dilemma. So, and I a hundred percent agree with Steve that I think aesthetically like the stone would look nicer. So I wonder if there's some sort of option to where like The truds could be a stone and the risers aggregate if there's some sort of like inlay stone system. I don't know that where you could get like the appearance from the front where you get that line of stone across the top of the step. I don't but something kind of like in between. So we get the appearance of stone, but then you also get your timing.

Yeah, the stone, as Ben pointed out, also brings in that, yeah, it is considerably more of a maintenance issue as far as the joints will need to be redone every few years, that type of thing. Which the exposed aggregate, I don't know, it seems to be what everybody does in the neighborhood and it would match in with everything around it.

Anything else yeah yeah so

David. I realized we had approved the stone previously, I do think, and it might go back in time, but had we seen this project initially that would have had the aggregate it isn't approved material and I don't know if we would have had concerns at that point in time. With it not being stone So if it was a new application and the building was before us, I think we would probably go along with that so i'm. I'm going to kind of stick to the staff recommendation here and I'm okay with the aggregate.

Mr. Thompson, I will admit I was contacted by a potential owner. I don't know if they've closed on it yet. And he was very upset. And I don't know. If he had spoken with any other owner. But he felt that's what they were buying was the cut stone treads and risers.

Oh,

yeah, I wasn't

aware of that.

Can I ask the architects one quick question?

Sure.

The fact that other parts of the front are already the aggregate, for aesthetic consistency, does it not make sense to allow the aggregate to go through besides the fact it's already an improved material? Now I'm talking about just aesthetics here. His last point.

I do think what you're saying, Bob, and what David said, there was some consistency there. But when we originally approved the drawing, I don't believe we were told what the sidewalk, what the walk was from the stair to the city sidewalk. So that's only conjecture.

But at this point, Mike is saying I have other aspects of the facade John Gerstle, or the front here that are going to be aggregate, just like what i'm proposing for the steps if I understood Mike right. Yes.

John Gerstle , But Mike I thought it was only the porch the horizontal porch surface at the top and apparently the walk from the bottom of the stair out to the city sidewalk.

Correct um I mean you see a small about a four inch. edge of the exposed aggregate as it turns down and the pink granite comes up to the bottom of that. The railings will still be the light colored stone with the stone balusters and all of that. It just seemed like the floor system being the same consistent all the way down the stairs I thought would be the best look.

I, I guess I'm just wondering to in this case, you know, we've got an approved project. And we have a developer who has sold townhomes in a, you know, they're, they were supposed to look a certain way and, you know, be constructive certain materials. So I mean, I'm also a little concerned about changing the project. I mean, perhaps that's the developers problem who might be subject to a lawsuit or, you know, the potential people who have bought these properties are saying, well then I shouldn't pay as much if you're gonna put in this aggregate that's gonna cost you less. So they may also be happy if the project is going to take less time and they can move in faster. So I'm also a little concerned about that. These are potential people that are gonna live in our community and I hate for them to think that we've already changed a product, changed their home that they thought had already been approved by this board.

Bob, Bridget, what you say is very true, if it's true. But Mike, my understanding is nothing is occupied. Is anything sold?

I don't have information. I think they do have clients. Like I said, I'm not sure if they closed on anything. Mike Manlin has told me They have not represented to anybody that there will be stone treads there. There's nothing nailing down that those have to be sewn.

Well, Mike, the original drawings indicate cut stone treads and risers.

Yes.

We do have another person. It's a phone number. Would you like to speak?

Looks like a phone

number of 868-6905, area code 452. It

looked like the hand was briefly raised earlier.

If you hear us, we see your microphone is on or connected.

No.

It's not okay. I'll ask one more time. Anyone else in the virtual audience wish to speak? So raise your hand. No? Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion? We'll make a motion. to approve as submitted. Is there a second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Ryan, would you take accounting? Okay.

So you want me to take a roll call, please. David? Aye. Dave? No. Bridget? No. Bob? Yeah. Ellen?

No.

Amy?

No.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Thompson, did you hear that? It did not pass?

Yes, I did. Yes.

Okay, well, thank you for coming and explaining and we wish you luck with the project.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we are down to our discussion session. and we have two items. And the first one is on the community equity commission recommendation.

So in your staff report, this kind of

the first staff report serves almost as an introduction to both. discussion items that we have. So the Clayton Community Equity Commission, CUCI has been meeting to talk about various topics as they relate to our community and equity and diversity and other elements. And some of these topics of conversations have crossover into what has impacted what our zoning code looks like. So there are a few different topics that they've really gone into as it relates to affordable housing, single family zoning districts, the history behind those districts and how they relate to different practices of exclusion and their impacts on affordable housing. So those conversations are large and are gonna be very much part of the comprehensive planning process that we go into, but out of some of the initial conversations and recommendations that the CEC has made to the Board of Aldermen, there are kind of a few of the little smaller text amendments that were recommended to be made and looked into by staff. The first one relates to the single-family zoning district, specifically R2, and how existing duplexes are addressed there. So really what this starts is taking an existing provision within the R2 district and proposing some wording that will expand the protections of existing duplexes or attached single-family units. The original recommendation from the CECU was actually to look at our non-conforming provisions to make some changes there that would allow an existing duplex to be enhanced, expanded, potentially rebuilt if there were damages that went beyond the protections that are already granted to that non-conforming use and structure per the non-conforming section of our code. In reviewing what their recommendation was, I think staff decided to go a different route and essentially add some of those same protections but house them within the R2 district. The non-conforming provisions that add protections to existing non-conforming uses and existing non-conforming structures cover a really large variety of non-conforming situations throughout the code, throughout different zoning districts, and different types of structures. And so instead of trying to address a really specific situation which are existing duplexes and two families that are located within the R2 district. By modifying such a broad section of our code, we wanted to target those uses specifically to ensure that the protections that the CEC is looking for would be provided. So there's an existing R2 section that talks about non-conforming set to setbacks. And essentially what we've proposed here would be a text amendment that expand that and touches on the uses. So a duplex and an attached single family unit, those are kind of two slightly different scenarios depending on how the lot is formatted. Those are uses that are not allowed in our current R2 district, which requires single family development. However, there are a handful of existing duplexes and attached single family homes that are already in existence. The majority, actually all of the ones that when staff looked into it that are non-conforming in the R2 are located in Davis Place. Some of those are constructed as an attached single family where they're each kind of located on their own lot. They are located on their own plot, but they share an attached wall. So that's what we're referring to when we say attached single family. And other ones are duplexes where they're part of the same structure, they might be located adjacent to next to each other sharing the same wall or maybe one on top of the other and they're on one lot that's what we're referring to when we say duplex. So here we basically allowed some conditions as to which people can continue to invest in those existing structures that are not conforming for that use that use of the duplex, which is not conforming so they may expand the structure but they're still have to do so in a way that conforms to all the other separate provisions of the R2 district. So that means that when we take a lot, other than that shared wall, the side yard setback, the rear yard setback, all of that would be established the same way as if that use was a single family home. The only difference in the setback is that shared wall that allow those two units to... to be touching. So right now with the non-conforming provisions that duplex is a non-conforming use can't be expanded if there were damage over 50% of it, they can't rebuild the certain features. So here we're allowing them to do so still within the larger bubble that's created by our regulations within the R2 district. We also have provisions that specifically say if somebody purchases a duplex, converts it to a single family house, they lose that ability to convert it back. So there are a handful of homes again in Davis Place where they were at one point duplexes that have been converted to single family. As of right now, those aren't allowed to go back to duplex just because of these provisions. So we're really, the as of date would only protect those that are existing as of the date that we put into the code. So that was the recommendation from the CEC. So should you choose to move forward with this, we'll set up the public hearings. It'd be required as a text amendment to do this, but we really wanted to introduce the idea of these provisions to this board, even though it came from the process of the CEC to the Board of

Aldermen. Thank you.

I think it's going in the right direction, but I do have a question about one word and that's in paragraph B, the second line reconstructed. Does that mean I can understand if there were a fire, it could be reconstructed? Could it be demolished and be reconstructed? And if so, if it were a duplex, could it become a new duplex? And if it were a single family combined former duplex, it would have to be a single family. Is that correct?

Right. So we can add further clarification on that reconstructed depending. So currently, if it's a single family house that was originally built as a duplex, but as of today is not a duplex any longer, it could not be torn down and replaced with the duplex again. The reconstructed term really pulled to provide that protection in the case of a fire or other damage. But I see we would want to clarify if it was the choice to demolish compared to maybe a natural

impact, okay. And

then the word date. that'll actually have a date put into it at some point. Okay. Bridget?

I also, I think it's moving in the right direction. I think these are good changes. And I do, I'm glad Steve asked that clarifying question because I was curious about that too. And I think it is basically on the date of whatever we decide to adopt, it would be kind of structures moving forward versus like if as Steve mentioned, if something had been a duplex, but it was a single family home currently. So moving forward, that's kind of, it would be on the date of the ordinance.

Right, right. So it's really tying similarly to how we decide that you have protections as an existing non-conforming use. So we're not adding duplexes as an allowed use within the single family zoning district at this moment. So it really is only if you're an existing non-conforming and you have those protections already established under that non-conforming section, we'll use the same eligibility criteria to establish the protections of these existing duplexes.

Okay, and I just want to, I mean, I'm certainly supportive of, you know, someone that has, you know, kept up their duplex and wants to, you know, perhaps tear down their duplex and build a different duplex. I think that would be absolutely fine. So I think, again, I think we're, I think these are good changes.

Okay, I do think we'll want clarification on what you just said. So if somebody's house duplex catches on fire and they rebuild from scratch compared to them choosing to demolish it and rebuild, those are a little bit different. So if we want to just provide clarity on how we want that written.

Yeah, I mean, I would be, you know, I know these are things we plan to talk about in our comprehensive plan, but I do, I would be supportive if we have a duplex in the neighborhood. I would be supportive of somebody wanted to either tear that down and build a single family home or they could tear that down and rebuild their duplex. Or again, I mean, there could be a fire, but they could also decide, you know, this duplex is 100 years old. I can't do anything more with it. I want to rebuild a duplex because I think the surrounding you know, neighborhood has seen it that way. And that is what, you know, that's kind of what they were used to. So I would be supportive of that.

Bob? I don't have a problem

with what you have, but I would just say, you know, I'm just trying to think all the cities I've been traveling to the last many years and in older cities like the San Francisco or whatever, even cities like St. Louis, you'll always find areas where there's, Apparently not as nice homes, but duplexes next to a single family. And I kind of like that.

Right about that. For Clayton, this is a start. Helen. Nothing further to add. Amy. Amy.

Just hearing the questions. So if you, whenever this is approved, if you have a duplex and you knock it down on your own accord, can you build a single family home in its place? Or does it have to say duplex? Okay. But you cannot knock down a duplex and put back up a new duplex? Currently, you cannot. Oh, okay.

It would be allowed under this.

Oh, you could... That's part of what we're proposing changes. So currently with the duplexes are non-conforming. So really within that non-conforming, you're not supposed to structurally enhance, expand. So if they wanted to add an addition to an existing duplex, those things are not allowed for the non-conforming uses of that. variance from it. So this, the proposed recommendation that came out of CC is to expand to allow people to improve the properties of those existing duplexes. The way we're proposing it right now doesn't allow any new properties to be converted to duplexes under this code, but it would allow them to maintain and enhance those existing ones. Yes, I like this direction.

David, no comments?

Ben, do you have any comments to add?

Thank you very much. Let me see if I can. You can hear me. I guess you can't see me. We hear you.

But anyway, I'm here. And thank you very much. I think these changes make sense. The existing situation that we ran into is that if you had a duplex and wanted to add a porch or a significant other addition to it, you could not do so because it was a non-conforming use. The whole thrust of the CEC is to try to make our community more available, more open, more equitable perhaps. So this is a small but important feature, allowing existing duplexes to be updated, to be remodeled, to be repaired, to be structurally altered in the same way that single-family homes are. And we believe it's a small plus.

Thank you. Thanks, Ben.

This, I think all you were asking is for comments tonight, correct?

Correct, some comments and it sounds like we'll move forward with getting public hearings posted for a text amendment process. But

we do have another one.

Yes, the other item which I'll let Ryan introduce stemmed from another recommendation from the CEC.

So the other recommendation that came was regarding the use of the different terms of vocabulary around what's now predominantly referred to as second units. But we actually use a variety of terms in the code. We have second unit, we have carriage house, we have granny flat. So we're using a variety of different terms. We're using some terms that may be more modern, some more dated. And so what we want to do with this particular revision is just update it to be a consistent vocabulary that is the modern term used by the industry, which is accessory dwelling unit. What these changes are not proposing to do is they're not proposing a change in the definition, they're not proposing to change in the user or you know where things would be allowed. The definition right now is actually consistent for all three terms that are used. And so what we want to do is just update it so that that definition applies to accessory dwelling unit. So no changes to the uses where it's loud, the definition, it's just standardizing the vocabulary so we don't have different words referring to the same thing across the code.

Thank you. I thought that cleaned it up very well, and I really have no problem with it. And that goes through even the zoning table attachment. I was fine with it.

Richard? Also fine with it, good changes.

Bob, this is form over substance. I have no problem

with it. Looks good. I have no issues.

Amy?

David? No comments.

And we do need to... We need to vote on

this? No, both were just being presented as recommendations from the CEC that we've been working on, so... They'll both be set now for the text amendment process, and you'll see both come before you as text amendments for recommendation of the Board of Aldermen.

Okay, thank you. So now we've come to the final item about the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Preliminary

Overview.

Okay, so I just thought it'd be good idea to kind of run through just a high level overview of the comprehensive plan and the process here as we set to embark on this very exciting process. I know Ryan Hobie and I over in the planning department are ready to get going on this one. So a few things I'll just cover generally what a comprehensive plan is, some highlights between planning and zoning which overlap a lot. And then who's gonna be involved in what that process will look like. So what is a comprehensive plan? So it's really a guiding document that covers all aspects of a community and really creates that vision of where we're headed. originally comprehensive plans were really basically future land use maps and guided that physical development. As we've moved forward in time, the modern comprehensive plan covers a lot more than just that physical development and that future land use. And so that's something that we'll be going into that includes affordable housing like we've talked about and sustainability and transportation and what elements of living in a community. So currently we have a comprehensive plan that was more or less approved in 1975 for the full city with some updates made in 89. And then we have a downtown master plan that's part of that, that was approved in 2010. So it's been a little while. We're definitely with comprehensive plans, kind of a rule of thumb is that you're looking 10, 15 years into the future, 20 years maybe for this plan, but the life of it should really not be more than 10. So we're definitely ready for some updates in terms of where our big vision is headed. The planning and zoning is really set up with a few different things. So there's some Missouri statutes that outline the plan commission, the zoning plan that has created that physical development for municipalities. That's outlined within our Missouri statutes and also talks about the Plan Commission being the authority for adopting this. So that's you all, that's why I wanted to make this presentation to you. And then it talks a little bit about how a plan is created within the statutes and what it should include. So it talks about the study of existing conditions, looking at the probable growth for a municipality and understanding how this plan sets up kind of the vision for the general welfare and the efficiency and economy of development. So kind of interesting wording there within the Missouri statute. So this kind of is the baseline for where we started, and then Missouri further goes into the zoning code. Within our city charter, we have a lot of very similar language. So when we look at the planning and zoning section of the city charter, most of this is pulled almost verbatim from elements of the Missouri statutes, which is common. for a lot of municipalities. There's also some slight variation in that in our charter, it talks about the plan commission presenting to the Board of Aldermen for final approval of this plan, whereas in the Missouri statutes, it's really the final approval rests within the plan commission. So we'll go into that difference a little bit in the future. So what are we looking for when we think about a comprehensive plan? Really what it comes down to is the vision of how you're creating your specific community. So when we think about what a community is made up of, there's kind of these five general categories that come up over and over. So we have the economy, what that looks like, the job market, the price of land here, what kind of things are being developed. And that relates into the built environment, what you physically see in the streets, the sidewalks, how tall are buildings, where different uses are located and how they relate to one another. And then our regional context, what's bringing people here? Is it that they're working here? Are they choosing to buy here? How are we connected in terms of a larger transportation network with what's going on around us? That leads in then to our social environment. So what makes people spend time in this community? We're unique in that we have huge population of just daytime population. And so when we think again about our regional context and our social context, it's really important to understand that aspect of it, especially now with how the office climate has changed so dramatically within COVID. We so many businesses now they're choosing where their offices based on where their employees want to be, as opposed to deciding where their offices and then bringing their employees there. So when we think about the longevity of our community here, how do we make sure that we're creating a place that people are still choosing that they want to work. which then is how people are choosing where to locate their business, as opposed to a lot of comprehensive plans that really just focus on who lives there. We have both elements that are really vital to the community that we've created. And then also that natural element, sustainability, our natural features, our land coverage, our energy efficiency, all of solar panels, all of those elements. So all of those big picture items within the vision are what come together to create that comprehensive plan of where we're going. So included in your packet, we provided part of the RFP that's now live looking for consultants. And there are some categories in the plan content section of that that you all saw of really what we're looking for respondents to address, how they would include that in the comprehensive plan One thing I'll point out in the way that we have it set up is that we put sustainability and equity guiding principles there in the beginning. Some communities organize their plans differently, but I think especially given what's been coming out of our different committees, the CEC, the Sustainability Committee, the Architecture Review Board, a lot of what we do in terms of policy decisions are done with the lens of each of those elements, as opposed to having its own section for sustainability. So what we're proposing or kind of hoping that obviously when we choose consultants, Some of this could change, but what our ideal goal is that sustainability and equity principles will be used to create this overall lens and that will thread between all the segments instead of being their own individual categories. Extensive public engagement, it's really important. Like I said, we have so many different types of people interacting here to create that community. We need extensive public engagement to make sure that we're contacting each of those groups for their responses. The community needs assessment, a lot of that is more moment in time elements, maybe looking at some trends as it relates to our market opportunities and our economy, our jobs, that type of element, what we look like at this moment in time. And then future land use planning, transportation. So this piece is going to be an important part of how we make decisions for our transportation network. What's a little bit different is that the pedestrian and bicycle plan is part of the livable communities plan, as well as the parks plan. master planning. So those elements are, they really need to make sure that they work well together, even though they're going to live in that livable community plan, as opposed to living within our comprehensive plan, but they're all networked together. And then performance management and implementation, that's really the piece of the comprehensive plan that helps us get to that vision. So how are we going to track our progress? How are we creating ownership over aspects of the comprehensive plan, and then ensuring that in the life of this project, we reach some of those goals. Some of the deliverables, those are just little elements that we want to make sure. Obviously, the plan document, what form that takes. Is that a PDF? Is that a website? A living document? Those are things that we'll have to decide. All the data from the engagement, really updating our mapping GIS program. We have... We have Esri services here. Public Works and Planning have access to using that mapping service. We're using about a drop in a bucket worth of what that software can do as far as mapping. So this is a great way to have some power behind us with consultants who can get us going in terms of some of that layering. So that's another kind of element we can get checked off when we do a comprehensive plan. as well as that 3D model that will help plan review moving forward. So when we think about that, the comprehensive plan and those big vision ideas, that's the guiding policy direction, as opposed to zoning, which is one of those tools for implementation. So here, kind of an example and easy example is with our downtown master plan I pulled out a page from the Maryland gateway district so that was a part of our downtown master plan that called out a specific corridor and talked about a vision that it wanted for that corridor. highlighted some action steps. So that's our guiding document that created our vision, that's our policy where we want to go. And then that translates into an overlay district which then starts to pull out really specific code tools that we can use to oversee and guide and enforce that vision as development occurs. So really what we're doing with this comprehensive plan is creating a new guiding document that will then allow us to do some more of these wholesale code rewrites to make sure that they line up and that we're kind of reinforcing that plan within the implementation tools. So, okay.

Does that mean that the overlay districts will remain to be modified if needed or disappear?

That will really depend on what the results of the planning process are with the comprehensive plan and what some of our goals are for the downtown. There could be less overlay districts in the downtown if I had to venture a guess on what happens, but either way there's gonna be some pretty large code rewrites as we think about it because right now one of the things that we have within our downtown district specifically the majority of our new developments to go through a planning and development process. And a lot of that is because the base zoning districts and the overlay zoning districts kind of fight each other on different aspects of what development is approved. So ideally, we'll use this planning process to really figure out which is the direction that we want. And then we can rewrite codes that we're not constantly fighting what we want to see happening and what is happening with different levels of code to create a little bit more consistency and direction moving forward. So those types of elements along with some of the little stuff that we've been doing here as it relates to recommendations coming out of those subcommittees in that this is kind of the opportunity to get public consensus on some of these larger topics that will guide larger redevelopment of code as opposed to waiting for somebody to try to propose a project and then trying to fix the code when we realize that's a project

that we want to actually promote.

Ana, can I? So, you know, we in the when Red Run, you know, when we did those downtown architectural kind of guidelines that we did, which I can't remember the firm's name right now.

It was with H3.

Right. So when H3 came in and we engaged them, I feel like they really, you know, they met with a core group of people, talked to the board, but then really did a, they did a lot of the, um, and not like we even changed the code, but is that like the people that we bring in to do this, do they write or are they more like, we have met with these people or we've met with the community. This is what overwhelmingly people want to see along Merrimack. You know, I'm just making this up like five stories. So is that where you go in and start rewriting zoning stuff? Or is that more of the firm that comes in that we

engage? We're likelihood a lot of the rewrites will be in staff in their in-house, sorry. So the comprehensive plan is going to give us some larger guiding ideas on where we're headed, maybe for specific areas. It might call out zoning districts that are in direct conflict with the consensus of where that area is headed or the opportunities that that area might have for uses or for development or providing, you know, uses that maybe aren't specifically in a zoning district, but relate to those other elements of what creates the community that we want here. So they'll call things like that out within the comp plan and might say, you know, look at this overlay district for conflict or rewrite this could be a corridor, this node or, you know, the zoning district. And then we'll go in and actually look at those specific details as it comes down to what does it say within site plan review requirements? What does it say within setback requirements? or impervious coverage. The comprehensive plan, those consultants aren't going to go so far as to say, all right, in this block, you need to allow 10% more impervious coverage than you were. Those are the next steps that we'll have to do as a staff to dive in to the code.

So then you'll kind of dive into those different sections and then it will come to this board and then .

Correct.

So who's going to be involved? The consulting team. So as I said, we've got the request for proposals out. So we'll choose a consultant through the interview process. Staff's going to be heavily involved in this. That's really a big part of why we wanted to get the planning staff established. So now there's three of us that have plenty of background so we can provide a lot more ACM Conference 29th, Support to consultants to fill in gaps of engagement at certain times or whatever it might be with that relationship to make sure that this process is really focused on our Community. ACM

Conference

29nd, yep and then we'll have the steering committee so that's going to be. TAB, made up of different stakeholders representative groups, so we have a variety of commissions and committee is already established here. TAB, That focus on really specific elements of our Community and so making sure that they're involved with this comprehensive planning process by having representation on the steering committee board will be really important and they'll kind of be that sounding board as we go through. with the consultants to make sure that the plan is going in a direction that makes sense as they're hearing or passing through different phases. So the plan commission, which is already up here, which is you all, the adopting authority, as that authority, this is not your, the plan's not your responsibility to oversee or to make. Really, you're part of that guidance throughout the plan and then ultimately adopting it. So there will be representation from the plan commission within that steering committee, but you are not going to be the ones that need to make sure that the consultant is showing up to different meetings or making recommendations sure that they're talking to people. That kind of management, day-to-day management will be done by staff and the steering committee won't just solely be the planning commission. So I did want to make sure that you guys understood that while you're a very, very, very important part of this process, you're not responsible solely for the whole thing. The public, and this will be one of your most important roles if I had to choose one, is helping us make sure that we are engaging the public on a really large basis. So like I talked about before, the public is going to be residents of all ages, as well as people who just come here, spend time here, work here, the business residents, so to speak. And when you think about comprehensive plans, like I mentioned there, you're thinking 10, 20 years ahead, a plan's going to last 10 years. So when we think about who's there when this plan should be fully implemented, it's the people in high school, it's the college students. So how can we get them engaged in understanding that this is the time when their young professional life is being decided almost, what environment Clayton's becoming? And when we think about our legacy within the region as a community. And we're now targeting those people that we want to make sure are continuing to come back. There's a lot of, you see it in the news all the time, people from WashU, people from Fontaine, all the universities are talking about how do we get our students to stay in the St. Louis region? Well, this is comprehensive planning with our attachment to the universities like this is the perfect time to have those types of conversations so those types of outlook as we're thinking about what engaging the public is is a little bit different than some other communities might have when they think about that and so we need to be really intentional about those conversations and you all are the face of a lot of projects you know developers come in residents know you because you might be their neighbor and they see that you represent a different project that was approved. And so being out there and talking about this process as being really important for that public engagement is probably one of the best things that you can do to help make sure that we have a good process. So I just really wanted to throw that out there for you all to consider. And then the Board of Aldermen. So they'll be presented with their approval after the plan, but this is really being presented to them as the final approval, not as an opportunity for them to make changes throughout the plan. So just as anybody else, they're welcome to be a part of the participation of creating this plan, but it's a little bit different from, for example, a rezoning that you might recommend approval to the Board of Alderman and they might make changes on what you've recommended to them. This is a little bit different in that really the Missouri statute gives you a lot of authority. The charter says that you should present it to the Board of Aldermen at the end,

so that's what we'll be doing.

Yeah. So, you know, I feel like there have been... So I don't want to be said... The plan will, after this board approves it, then it goes to the board. Ideas then that the members of the board or all of them don't need. So I'm just curious, so will it be, and I'm, you know, so will the idea be that we are kind of updating them so that they're aware of what's going on so that they can process before it comes to this board? I mean, is that how you would envision that? that I would perhaps provide updates to the board. So we don't get in a process where we get to the end and they're like, oh, I'm not so sure about

this. Yeah, right. Yeah, you and the rest of them should be involved throughout the whole process. It's not one of the things where you need to kind of stay away from it because it's the planning commission's responsibility. So it's a very open public process, participate throughout, but ultimately, yeah, the way it's set up because there's a little bit of that conflict between the Missouri statutes and our charter, you know, I'll let the attorneys give them more.

Yeah. And I'll just say there, there, there won't be changes because we need to comply with that state law. So this body will approve the comprehensive plan. The charter requires the board to approve it which they can do but there shouldn't be any changes between that statutory approval by the plan commission and what the board does. The board's approval per state law is gonna be largely symbolic. It's unusual to have a charter that says that the board will approve it. Typically, it's pretty silent on that. And most boards will just ultimately pass a resolution adopting it since our charter requires the approval, we'll bring it to the board for approval, but we shouldn't make any modifications once it goes through this process. we will we will make sure that we communicate it absolutely

and that's also part of why you have it's helpful to have a consultant team that leads it because they'll engage you know they're almost like a little bit of a neutral party so to speak so as the process is ongoing and they're engaging they're hearing from people just because the board doesn't have final approval in this scenario doesn't mean that they shouldn't be actively participating and contributing throughout so This is just a really highlight overview of some big dates that relate to this process. So right now, as of the 14th, RFP was available. Proposals are due on February 1st. So then in February, we'll finalize who's gonna be on that interview panel and have the interviews with the consultant teams that we select. And then in March, we'll go through that selection process, the negotiations with who the consultant is and determine the steering committee. So this is where we'll need some... commitments from people within the community. So some representation from this board would be really important, I think, but we don't need all of you to sit on that steering committee as well as some of the representatives from our other commissions that have more focus areas, again, to be that sounding board. So the steering committee will be important because it's a little different from somebody who's just saying, yes, I'll show up to different engagement sessions and This is a commitment in terms of providing some feedback, additional meetings throughout that timeline. And then the goal is to have this process, the actual planning process and engagement and all that fun stuff start in April. The process we expect will last somewhere between 10 to 15

months typically. Yeah, all right. Can I say something?

Sure. You know, I reviewed a million comprehensive plans in my career, and generally speaking, they're really effective when you've got open land like farmland out in St. Charles, and you're trying to figure out if it should be commercial or residential, something like that. I understand areas of a city where it's just worn out and tired like the cortex area was, and still is to some degree, you know, where we step in with a big picture. Let's figure out where we want to go with this. We have development overlays, which basically work as comprehensive downtown overlays, which, basically, work as comprehensive plans from, you know, when you really get down putting your foot to the ground. That's how they really kind of operate, and they tell you what they do and cannot do. There's a number of comprehensive plans where I'm always scratching my head whether in fully developed cities, especially affluent cities. And you know, my block on Whiteown Terrace, it's not gonna change the comprehensive plan. Most residential neighborhoods are not gonna change for the comprehensive plan. And often they're painted with such generalities, they mean nothing. It's like a feel good document. And... I'm not saying you don't need one here. I'm just giving you my gray hairs. And so my question to you guys, you three guys right there, tell me a specific problem you think the comprehensive plan can address in Clayton that already isn't kind of resolved with overlays of some sort or another.

Well, I think there's a few different answers. A lot of what you're saying is the historic use of a comprehensive plan really rested in that guiding that physical development, the density and the uses like you're talking about. And we are built out in many aspects in that way. But now comprehensive plans are used for so much more than just to guide that physical development. When we talk about our zoning code and how many different areas it touches, just think about the different text amendments we've been discussing in the last couple of months. A lot of those are just scraping the surface on elements that will be further explored within our comprehensive plan. Affordable housing is one that could touch so many different aspects of our zoning code and our policies. but we haven't had a larger community discussion about what that looks like moving forward. So when we talk about affordable housing within the regional context, within our local context, how do we promote it? If it's something that the community wants to see promoted and more of, then we need to understand what that looks like in terms of that implementation tool. Right now, we don't have anything that prohibits affordable housing. In fact, it's one of the potential public benefits that you could use to gain points within a plan unit development, but nobody is using that. So those are the type of conversations that we will need to have to see, is that a direction that we want to go? If so, how do we do it? If you could stop right there. So let's talk about affordable

housing. So we have a A rezoning process where we give points to affordable housing, which is a concrete incentive. Okay, now let's switch to the comprehensive plan. Are we going to designate an area that says this is an affordable housing district?

So I think the difference is in the comprehensive plan, we don't specifically outline how the tools are made up. What we do is we guide to say that we need tools to help achieve certain aspects. So affordable housing might be one of them. If that comes out of a comprehensive plan with consensus that we want to We in 10 years we want to have affordable housing units or developments or some other measurable aspect of it within our comprehensive plan, then going into a tool discussion about how to do it, and it could be that we say here's a district that. has it. It could be that we make a requirement of rezoning in certain districts that they do that. There's a variety of different ways to look at it, and it goes beyond just affordable housing and into sustainability. You know, we think about some of the concerns that we hear from our community. We hear people talk about stormwater management and flooding related aspects, but we don't have a larger plan that's looked at that and has any sort of guide on how we should address it. So this is another topic that likely will be part of that sustainability lens throughout the comprehensive plan. And then that will guide us should we have a more in-depth analysis on what our coverage requirements are or what our requirements to use a best management practice, such as a dry well. Right now we kind of are getting people that are using those for certain reasons, some personal choice, some triggered by aspects of MSD requirements, but we don't have a policy document that we've used to really create code updates related to some of those topics in a while. So those are some of the areas that this plan will address for us. Well,

Anna, I think the train has left the station and this is going to happen And so I want to see it work. I mean, really say something concrete. And here's my punchline, David. If there's a committee where a citizen can help hold the consultants to the fire, I'd like to be one of those guys.

That's great. One other thing I wanted to mention is, and I think this is one of the really important aspects of this, is we need to get back to viewing the community differently big picture as a system. What's happened is, because we haven't had a comprehensive plan update since the 70s, is it's been, I don't want to say haphazard, but it has been to some extent with some of the things that have happened over time. We've looked at pieces of it. So an overlay here, an overlay there. Maybe we put something in that almost is a defensive posture. We're putting this in place to stop this thing from happening that we don't want to see. But little pieces have kind of been addressed over time but i think we need to step back and look at everything larger see the interplay between these overlays and and look at everything holistically as a system and that's the most important thing for a built-out city when you get to this kind of interval at 40 years is you you lose sight of that so we do compartmentalize things and so when you look at individual elements within the zoning code it happens all the time where people say well how did this get here how did that get there you know what was the thinking behind this well this doesn't work anymore So, things have been put in place over the last 40 years but nobody's really checked up on those. I make sure that they still fit where we're going and make sure that the regulations in place are first aligned with the community, the people that live here but also aligned with the market generally. We have regulations that are misaligned with the market, and that leads to things like PUDs. It leads to variances. It leads to people coming in and seeking certain exceptions. So this is our chance to kind of step back, big picture. Let's take a look at our systems, take a look at what's in place, and make sure that it fits the community need and market reality.

I respect you guys a lot, and if you feel it's needed, you know, like I said, the train's left the station. And All I want is our mantra should be a practical big picture document and not just a touchy feely. So people who had the hearings could feel good. And then we all go home and now we're back to the zoning map, you know, which is really what controls so much of it. And anyway, I could help. Okay.

Well, that's pretty much the summary presentation. So now

hopefully we'll get some great responses here by February 1st and the next stage we'll go into interviews and the steering committee. So definitely if you think of other questions as you're pondering how involved you want to be through this process, feel free to reach out to myself or Ryan and let us know.

Well, having gone through this tonight, Anna, and also speaking with you before, I think one of the biggest things is getting a valid group of the public to be involved. I think we've had two volunteers here tonight. I know Bob has already volunteered, and I think Elizabeth Green has already volunteered. She indicated that earlier. And I think we really need to work very hard on that. But beyond that, when we're looking at the big picture of a comprehensive plan, you mentioned MSD. What about the county? What about the county for transportation? What about MoDOT? Because 170 goes right through. Will they all... would they have a seat potentially somewhere or would they be used as a reference?

Yeah, I mean the important part of this plan is that nobody who wants to participate is kept from it. So to the extent that they want to participate or contribute to our plan, they'll be invited to do so. I know specifically with the TAB, traffic network analysis that will do that will be specific outreach to those you know they control very major. TAB, roads and connection points for us so definitely no dot and transportation St Louis county and obviously is the seat it's also important when we think about. how development occurs around the county seat that it's done in a manner that aligns with them. So we'll reach out to them. They'll be invited to participate, encouraged to participate, and hopefully we get some good collaboration.

How are we to go about encouraging people to step up and participate?

Yeah, I think that will come into focus a lot more once we have a consultant chosen. We're able to really talk about our strategy as far as outreach and engagement. I know just in-house, Ryan Hobie and I have discussed a lot of different ways to engage different types of people and really coming down to that base of meeting people where they are. I know it's also something that Public Works and Parks Department are talking about with their consultant for the livable community plan. So we want to make sure to the extent we we can, we make sure that we take advantage of opportunities together during this process, but a lot of it will be providing different platforms for people, website platform, presentation style, pop-up attending events like, you know, soccer games where there's going to be people and get, you know, over at Shaw Park with all their kids that, you know, having, so having those different opportunities for people that have different comfort levels of speaking up during large group settings or meeting in smaller ones or contributing via comment card or survey or whatever it might be. So how that strategy works and when we deploy different engagement strategies at different times throughout the phases, that will be something that we'll have to work out with the consultant once they're chosen. But resharing those opportunities with people that you know and encouraging them to take advantage of those will be really helpful.

Is this going to be like a quarter of a million dollar

bid?

Yeah. Then I have one recommendation. The guy that did, the company that did the downtown overlay, very competent. They really knew what they were doing. But man, were they the master of double speak when they gave presentations.

You mean the one that was done 18 months

ago? Yeah, yeah. He didn't want to hurt anybody's

feelings. So he wouldn't commit to anything in public.

All

right.

Okay.

Will this be put online?

This PowerPoint? Yeah. Sure.

Yeah, we'll put it online and it will go to the Board of Aldermen January, I can't remember what the date is, 19th or- The discussion session. A Friday discussion session. The board will see this same information so they know what to expect. with this process as well. We'll add it to the website and we do have an Engage Clayton website now. We have some information related to waste collection and other things that we're going to be adding there, but when bike plan on and this is going on, we really want one clearing house for community input. So we're going to pushing that really hard from a communication standpoint. All of this will be easy to access.

We are going to do a spread in the next city views too that will come out this spring. So hopefully that will align well with the start of

the.

Yes, yeah

so.

Right

right yep school district they'll definitely be involved with them with representation as well.

Well, thank you for the. direct and clear introduction to the process, we'll be ready for the next step.

All right.

Thanks. Anything else or we're done with our agenda? That

is

it

from us.

Well, I think we've come to the end of the year and I certainly wish everyone a happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, all of the above, none of the above, whatever you're into. Just enjoy the holidays. And we'll see our Planning Commission ARB back on January 9th? Somewhere around there.

January 3rd, I believe.

Oh, immediately. It's quicker. It'll be Tuesday. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. That's why it was on. We'll

be meeting at Martin Luther King.

No, we do have, is the calendar updated? We do have our updated schedule posted. So there's quite a few Monday holidays at the beginning of the year that we've moved

for. The 3rd and 17th of January.

Okay, any comments?

Nothing to add, just happy holidays.

Helen.

You, Steve, I always say the same, captain, my captain.

Richard.

Nothing, happy new year to all.

David.

Happy holidays and thank you everyone for all the hard work this year. We've had a lot of projects, we've had a lot text amendments, we've had turnover and things are good. I'm really happy with the direction we're headed going into this process. I think we got a great group here. So thank you all very much, appreciate

it. And we all thank you for all you do. You don't say that enough, but it's true. Make us look good in spite of ourselves.

follow up on Bob. I think our staff is the best we have had. And I've been involved in this since 2003. So it's coming up on 20 years. So thank you for all of your leadership and decision making. It's really appreciated. Brian, anything further?

Nothing further. It's just been, I can't believe six months went by this fast. We're already this far into it.

Yeah, six months from mine. Well, thanks for the kind words. We appreciate it. And I know that we're pretty excited about this process getting started. So hopefully

this is the first of many conversations like this to come.

Well, thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth, for sitting in. And we're adjourned.

you know that i'm feeling it's not