August 21, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plan Commission ARB for August 21st. Please silence all the electronic gadgets, please. Ryan, we'll start roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld.

Here. Here, Ellen Gatiss. Bridget McAndrew.

Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Bob Denlo. Here. Helen DeFate.

Kami Waldman.

David Gipson. Here. Okay.

David Gibson. Here. Okay.

Okay. We have minutes from the previous meeting on August 7th. Were there any changes? No. Okay. Do we have a motion? Second. All in favor?

Okay, thank you. Is Carolyn on? Yeah, I thought so also. Well, we have a quorum. Okay, we'll move into new business. The first item is 6377 Y down Boulevard and is the applicant here. Okay, just stay seated right now.

Ryan. Subject property is located on the north side of Y-Down Boulevard, just north of the intersection of Y-Down and DeMunn. The scope of work consists of front yard alterations, including new retaining walls, new plantings, a new front path, new lighting, and minor regrading. The existing property is zoned R2 and contains a two-story red brick house with a driveway on the west side. The front yard is largely flat aside from a hump in the location of a previously removed tree. The yard is bisected by a bluestone path leading to a raised front porch with metal railings. Hedges reside on either side of the front entry, and a lantern atop metal pole sits on the west side of the porch. The terrain from the previously moved tree is proposed to be leveled. The bluestone path and porch steps are proposed to be widened. Brick retaining walls are proposed on either side of porch. The walls would house planter beds and include a panel drain system with pop-up emitter. Fronting the wall are proposed stepping stone spaces six inches apart. Boxwood hedges reaching two feet, six inches in height are proposed to ensure the front lawn. The light pole on the porch is proposed to be removed. Two wall-mounted lanterns are proposed on either side of the front entry. Homes fronting Y-Down Boulevard commonly comprise brick or stucco and include landscaped front yards. Retaining walls are common and can be found adjacent to driveways or supporting planter beds. Front lawn hedgerows can be found nearby, including on both adjacent properties fronting the sidewalk. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed materials align with the architectural review guidelines and will result in a minimal visual impact. Staff recommends approval is submitted.

Thank

you.

The applicant, if you'd come up. and speak into the microphone with the green light. Tell us who you are and add anything you'd like.

Okay. Brian Smith, Gannon Smith Architects. I don't really have anything to add, but I'll take questions if anybody has any.

And we'll see if there are any questions. It's a beautiful house.

It is. Ralph Cole Hall.

Great architect. Beautiful, updated landscaping. But of course, there has to be some questions. The new hedges that will go in in the planter box, how high will they get? Will they be above the windowsill height?

No, we want to keep them low, below the windowsill. So the windows on the first floor of the house in the front go down to the floor. And so we'd like to keep that hedge, you know, just below or at the sill so that the window height reads nicely.

So similar to what has been there or even a little lower, I

guess. Actually, we're lowering the hedges are sort of, you know, large, which is fine, but we want to make it tighter and cleaner. the owner does as well the client and um yeah so to be it's going to be more refined and it's more formalized so we're really not doing anything major as you can tell but just kind of refreshing it up a little uh facelift so to speak

look good also the two lanterns i think will update the property

yeah yeah it'd be nice uh the copper, you know, the Bebelo, if you don't know the brand that we've used in four years, a company out of New Orleans.

Well, I have no problem with it. I think it looks good. But, Bridget, do you have any comments?

you. Thank you. Bob? No questions.

Helen?

No questions. Everything's answered on the plans.

Amy?

Looks great.

Questions? Any comments from the audience? And no hands up. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve as submitted?

I move to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the application as submitted.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Okay, we'll move on to item two. And that's 735241 Langston and 8040 and 8053 Wenninger Drive is the applicant here. I think they're online. Yeah.

Okay.

Good evening, we'll get started. So I'll wait for the staff report.

Ryan. The subject area includes a combined five properties on Langton and when it could drive. Subject property share common fence line that was recently impacted by MSD improvements, the improvements required the removal of a shadow box and chain link fencing that are now proposed to be reinstalled. The wood shadow box fences proposed to be 72 inches tall and would run the length of the eastern property line of 853 when occur. A portion of the property line stretches into the front yard of 853 Winokur. Fencing is not permitted to exceed four feet in front yards. However, this property sits at a cul-de-sac, which is the terminus of Winokur. Front yard fencing is not common in the surrounding area. However, adjacent 840 Winokur includes a 72-inch wood fence in the front yard due to identical circumstances. Staff are of the opinion that the installation of the fence would result in a minimal visual impact due to the property's location in a cul-de-sac, and the fence line also serving as the rear yard boundary for 737 Langdon Drive, and the scope including the replacement of a previously existing fence with identical new fencing. The chain link fences are proposed to be four feet tall and would include locations on all properties. Chain link fences are common in the surrounding area and can be found on most adjacent properties. The fence would connect to an existing longer section of chain link fences that reside on multiple properties. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed chain link fences will result in minimal visual impact due to their commonality nearby, the presence of existing onsite chain link fences, and the scope including the replacement of previously existing fences with identical new fencing. staff recommends approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, would you like to add anything? Please give us your name and address.

Ron Wubblehooth, 735 to 741 Langton. I would like to just state that we're actually just replacing fence in kind as a standard per MSD's requirements to replace where the sewer lines were installed. That's all I have.

Okay, thank you. I have a question for staff first. On the drawing that we received, it shows... Flood areas and flood hazard areas. With the MSD improvement in that area, are these still existing? They haven't changed?

Right. There's not been an official process to change any of the flood boundaries as of yet.

Okay. I have no problem with it. The existing fences certainly needed to be replaced, and I think the plan is good. Very little of it will be seen from the street except from the cul-de-sac on Wenneker. So I had no problem. Bridget?

Bob? No questions.

Amy? No

questions.

David, no questions. Any comments from the audience? Or no other hands are up. Okay. Okay, we have a hand up online. Would you identify yourself and then make your comments?

hey can you hear me,

yes

Okay, my name is Nick coastal it and i'm the owner of seven three seven length. So I sent you earlier you guys an email regarding my concern about the elevation. After this image reconstruction. So we had the experience a few years ago when some similar work was done for the creek, for the Black Creek, where the gravel kind of elevated and the water started to not flow properly anymore to the creek. So my concern is again, I'm seeing again an elevation which might aggravate the problem we have already. So basically when you have a what's happening in the backyard for me and my neighbor anytime when we have a heavy rain our backyard are basically flooded with water. It will take time for that water to go away. So my concern is, I understand that the subject for this meeting is the fast. And we're in discuss to make sure that the fast which will be installed on the property line But also I'm concerned about the ground elevation modification after this MSD work. So I'm wondering if you guys have the option to talk with MSD. Since I mentioned my letter, I don't see anything in the drawing which received by mail related to the elevation of this area. Basically it's just description of the sewer line, but nothing about the ground elevation.

Okay, thank you. Of course, we're really only looking at the replacement fences tonight, but I would defer to staff if they have any further information on the

MSD. The MSD work...

is not something that would be reviewed by this board. That was a project that they were doing. But if you would like to contact the planning development department, we can go over your concerns and look into what we do have control over or what plans we can get for you. I

appreciate that. Can you forward the email I sent to you guys to the next person who can help us with this concern?

Yeah, you've spoken with Ryan in our department and he is a great person to follow up with on this item.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your collaboration.

Thank you. Any

further questions?

Thank you. Okay, going back to the application for the fences, we have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the staff recommendation approving the applicant's plans as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you everyone for that one and Now the next two items are a public hearing of the first one will be on 500 South Brentwood Boulevard and is the applicant here. Okay, hold on. We will open the public hearing in

Ryan.

The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Brentwood Boulevard and Roslyn Drive. The property is zoned R5 and is developed with a single-story commercial structure that previously housed a dry cleaner. The applicant is seeking to rezone the subject property to C1. Properties to the north are zoned C1 and contain commercial uses. Properties to south are developed with three-story multifamily structures and zoned R5. Properties to east contain single-family homes that are zoned R2. To the west, across South Brentwood, There is a special development district containing office uses and green space. The applicant is proposing to rezone to C1, which is described in section 405.2840 as the most restrictive commercial district intended to provide a variety of goods and services within a pedestrian-friendly commercial environment compatible with adjacent residential areas. A table of the permitted uses has been provided in the staff report. Although on-site parking is limited, those uses most likely to generate parking demand are conditional and would be required to obtain approval from the Planning Commission and Board of Aldermen prior to operation. Additionally, other C1 areas in Clayton are commonly along similar high traffic corridors and adjacent to a combination of residential office and commercial uses. The future land use map identifies the subject property as mid-density multifamily housing. The subject property's existing conditions do not conform with either the future land use map or the existing R5 zoning district. The existing lot is smaller than most lots in the surrounding area. Without combining the adjacent lot to the lot to the south, the property would not likely support the density identified in the future land use maps. The subject property is legal nonconforming with many provisions of the existing R5 regulations. Nonconformities may be maintained but not increased. the property would be closer to conformance with the proposed C1 district. Although the rezoning would not conform to the future land use map, staff are of the opinion that the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the existing property and surrounding area due to the existing commercial structure, surrounding uses, and the conformity of the existing use with the C1 district. Staff recommend that the plan commission recommend approval of the rezoning to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that a final property survey be provided to staff.

Okay, thank you. Okay, the applicant, come on up. Identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

Hi, my name is Bob Hagen, and I'll be the person responsible for redeveloping the site. I really don't have much more to add to what Ryan had to say about the property. It's been a dry cleaners for 60 years. It's been used as commercial use, and we'd like to continue it as a commercial use. Okay.

Okay. I really see no problem with it. It seems like the logical move to make at this point. Have you reviewed the permitted and conditional uses? Yes, I have. Okay. So as you go forward, that'll be a guideline for you. I have no problem and certainly support moving it to a C1. Bridgette?

Yeah, we will be using the existing structure with modifications subject to buying a tenant. But basically everything in the building is about 60 years old. So it's a complete rehab. We're basically using the four exterior walls and going from there. So.

Yeah, due to the size of the lot. And also the fact that you are on a busy thoroughfare with Brentwood, it just didn't make sense.

you. Do you know if you have any contamination issues you'll be coming across since it was a cleaners?

Yeah, we've done our phase one and phase two on the property and they're at acceptable levels for us to use for commercial use.

Okay. Ellen? No objection.

Amy?

Yeah, no problem.

David?

I don't have any questions.

Okay. Any comments from the audience? If you'd come up and give us your name and address.

Judd Calkins. I'm the owner of a condominium at 520 South Brentwood, immediately adjacent to the south. I've listened carefully to what was said and the questions asked. I have no idea what's planned for the site. I understand there are changes, often changes in the in the zoning, and I heard what you said here, but I don't understand what is planned for that corner, for that building. Is it going to be a high-rise, multi-use commercial? Is it going to Be a reconfiguration of the existing building with the same dimensions of the building? I just would like to know.

Well, we just heard Mr. Hagan explain

that I didn't understand anything he said about what he's going to do.

Well, he didn't give a final use. However, he said it would be commercial and that would fit into the C1 category. And that they would be reusing the building as is, total interior renovation, but maintaining the exterior walls and roof. So the building should look and function pretty much the way it has been. But let's ask Mr. Hagan if I

murdered that or... No, you did a really good job there. And in terms of maybe your question is what kind of use we're going to be doing there, most likely it will be an office use, law firm wealth management, maybe some sort of high-end medical by appointment type because of the tightness of the parking there. The same basic dimensions of the building? No, we're not going out. Yeah, we're using the existing structure and there'll be some cosmetic modifications to the building. Okay.

Any other comments? Okay, we have a staff recommendation. Do we have a motion to that?

I move to approve the staff recommendation that is that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that a final property survey is provided to staff.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Thank

you. Okay. We're still in a public, do we have to reopen? Okay, we'll close that public hearing and we'll reopen the next one, which is a text amendment for Chapter 410, Article 15. And Ana?

Okay. So this is a text amendment that has a few modifications to our existing entertainment overlay district. The modifications that you're looking at here really stemmed from the board of Alderman started with a few conversations, evaluating the areas that we have currently designated for the entertainment overlay district. And there have yet to be really any businesses that have taken advantage of the opportunities in this overlay district and And there is one planned unit development that has an area under that PUD that is supposed to have an entertainment use. And they were coming across various issues and actually securing a tenant for that. So the Board of Aldermen, during their kind of annual retreat and discussion sessions, we've discussed a few ways to make some amendments to our entertainment overlay district with the hopes of generating some more steam with this goal of creating kind of a vibrant and active set of uses within our downtown. So the first changes, I'll just slowly go through this red line draft. The actual boundary of the overlay district is one of the changes. So you can see on the map here is the proposed boundary that I've highlighted currently. The boundary sits roughly where I'm highlighting the cursor. So it's a small section in the northwest corner of our designated, what we refer to as the central business district. Part of the reason for the expansion of this is we evaluated some of the open areas available spaces for lease as well as kind of prime locations for this type of a use. So thinking about some of the larger spaces that are maybe removed from the residential sections of the central business district that are in close proximity to some of our centralized garages and available parking, that would be a good prime location in the evenings and also in proximity to some of hotel and hospitality uses that are good co-locators for these entertainment venues. We decided to propose expanding to incorporate almost all of the central business district. The corner that has been excluded in the northwest corner is currently not part of the district, and that was intended to provide more of a buffer to the residential uses that are on the north side of Maryland. And the section here at the southwest corner of the Central Business District, these series of properties are residentially zoned. So those were also removed as this overly district really seeks to modify commercial zoning. So the uses that we're intending to target within the overly district are not allowed uses within a residential district. Plus, these are all residentially developed properties. So that's why those are excluded in this corner. Moving forward, another one of the big items that we did here is we added a definition for a live performance venue. So currently there's an entertainment use that has a definition and it's more of a broad category that you would think of entertainment can come in a variety of forms. We've added a live performance venue, and this one's more specific in how it actually talks about having a performance that's interacting with the audience that is there to view it. And by being more specific, we've added some elements that must be present within the operation, so this will separate it from just a entertainment use in of itself. So the business and operation, again, the primary function would be this live performance venue, doing some research about these types of uses in various cities across the country that have successful live performance venues. These six items are elements that are common and necessary for those to function appropriately. and successfully. So that's how we've landed on this list here. The businesses do not necessarily need to contain all six, although it's highly likely that they would, but we did restrict it to having the presence of a few of those. The reason we added this use is if you scroll down a little further in our use permitted uses category, we've added now live performance and entertainment, but we've actually moved the section which is one of the primary functions of the existing entertainment use is actually modifying the liquor license regulations to reduce the amount of revenue from preparation and sale of food. against how much revenue you generate from gross sales of alcohol. So we've moved to this section. into a new section that we created, which is the use regulations. So here now under the liquor license, we have the existing language for the entertainment uses within this district, but we've added another specific category that modifies that liquor license requirements specifically for a live performance venue. And in here it actually refers to 20% needs to derive from some activities other than the sale of alcohol. So one of the reasons we were really specific in the function of live performance venue is a lot of times, especially given some of the spaces that we have available for these types of venues within our downtown, there are going to be smaller spaces. We will have some larger ones, but some of the smaller ones, it becomes really difficult for these smaller uses to support a full kitchen function. and the prepared food sales. So this proposed amendment would allow a smaller venue, a live performance venue is primarily focused on the performance aspects to not also have to have a kitchen. So the sales that they generate from ticket sales or other admission fees or other aspects of their business can be now part of offsetting the alcohol sale costs as opposed to just looking at the ratio of prepared food sales. In addition to that, we also have a proposed limit to a maximum of these live performance venue licenses that could be issued within the district. And the goal of this is that it's a newer program. So 12 doesn't impact the number of entertainment venues overall, but it does allow us to have some kind of control as the program grows and is based on the kind of density in a block format of what our entertainment district is. We also added a section for conditional use permits. So these uses require a conditional use permit the way it's currently set up. Instead of just kind of using the general criteria for a conditional use, we added a couple of specific aspects of this use that we want to see up front as part of that process. So the first one is the noise abatement plan. And this is inherently a potential impact of a live performance venue or an entertainment venue, is that there is going to be noise above just general speaker noise that you might hear background music of a restaurant. So identifying out front that we're going to need these sorts of plans to show how they're going to mitigate potential impacts to maybe adjacent tenants or outside of the building itself. And then also an operations plan to have a good idea of how the space will function, given the different types of performances that might happen there. Now, this does not preclude other requirements for us to evaluate for these uses when a conditional use permit for a specific venue comes forward. But these are two that we've identified knowing up front we will want information for. And so we've added them into this code now. And that is the quick summary and happy to answer any other questions you

have. Great detail, sort of a complex situation, but broken down where we can understand it. I have a couple questions when we're looking at the map. Why are the county government buildings included? I know they are entertaining at times, but I don't think they really fit into our concept.

Well, the way that it's in applying an overlay district, it is kind of a best practice to not have donut holes in it. So while I wouldn't assume that the county building is going to add a live performance venue within their police station, for example, it still makes sense to cover the entire district as that's part of the cohesive environment and area that we have set up. And so if the county were to sell one of their buildings for redevelopment or any of that land, it would make sense to have an option for it to be redeveloped in the same way that we are evaluating all of the other private property development within the area. And so while I don't think they'll take advantage of this, it makes sense still to include their property moving forward.

Thank you. When you were talking about the... food at 20% or 25? Because in the staff report, I see both 25% and 20%. Right there. Yeah,

there's a different provisions.

Let me

Okay, so right now in the kind of first clause here, so it says not more than 75% of gross sales. So that's the 25% that was referenced and that's for the entertainment uses and that's how the code is currently written. So right now we already modify liquor license requirement of 50% is modified already for entertainment uses to reduce that to a 75-25 ratio. We're further reducing that for live performance venues, that subsect of entertainment uses to 20% or $200,000 of gross income. And that 20% and $200,000, that is a threshold that's already referenced within our liquor code today. And So really the big change here is reducing from that 50-50 to the 20% and then allow or specifically referencing other elements of the business beyond just preparing food.

The final thing I had was the operation plan, if you could scroll down all the way to the end. There we are. I was curious about the maximum capacity. Who sets that? Does the city set that or will the operator set it?

Well, there's going to be some maximum capacity set by our safety, our building codes and safety codes. So there's a fire capacity and maximum capacity based on the occupancy load and the exits that are provided from different venues. So this does not modify that, but we want to have an idea. Not only what the code says they can do from a capacity standpoint, but how it will function from the business operator standpoint. So this is looking a little bit more at not necessarily in the case of an emergency, but an everyday function. How do you anticipate using the site in the space? Is it going to be a table layout? Is it a standing area? Is it both depending on the type of show? What's the flexibility? So we want to have those outlined as opposed to just the capacity based on our safety codes.

Well, I think it's a great change. I would commend the Board of Aldermen for instituting that. I think it's something maybe we should have looked at initially several years ago. That's all of my questions. Sorry about that. Bridget?

Bob? Yeah, I have a few questions. Is the entertainment district basically to protect residents from excessive noise? Is that one of its primary purposes?

Yes, that I think that's an important aspect of it. And that's one that the board was really cautious of as we introduced the idea of these entertainment focused businesses into the downtown area, because that hasn't been a primary focus for many years in the businesses that we have seen. So that's a new aspect. So instead of just allowing them to go forward, this allowed the overlay district allows us to have a But also a big piece of it comes back to our liquor license requirements where we have that restaurant bar requirement with the 50% food. And a lot of the feedback from people who run these types of venues, they are not likely to succeed if 50% of that revenue or that income source has to come from the sale of

prepared foods. Right now, if you're in the entertainment district and I want to open up a bar, I need to have 50% sales of food?

Right. We don't allow just bar uses currently.

Okay. Is there a rationale? Why not?

That's a great question. I think over the years, that's kind of what spurred this whole discussion of the entertainment district. So far in our discussion sessions with the Board of Aldermen, they weren't ready to go as far as to just say, let's allow bars. So that's kind of where we came to this entertainment venue where we're focusing on certain aspects of those uses and ensuring that they have that entertainment focus and not just the bar. But I think it is something that we will need to continue evaluating moving forward to see if we're just... more at the point where people want to allow bars.

I just wonder if the reason we don't have any entertainment is maybe we don't have a format for nighttime entertainment to work. Next question. If a hotel wants to basically turn into a bar at night. Let's say that these guys here on the seventh floor, they want to just have a bar and they want to have music. Do they have a problem right now?

Yeah. So in the current entertainment district hotels and the hotel restaurant bars, they are already addressed the way that we have it with the hotel uses and I think likely it will be a little easier for them if they fall under that live performance venue category, because again, it brings in the idea of other revenue sources beyond food. However, most of our hotels do have restaurants associated with them and room service elements. So they're likely to be selling a significant amount of prepared food.

So if you have live music, all I need to do is do 20% food. But if I don't have live music, then I eat 50% food? Is that what we- Right. You would

need live music that met some of these specific live performance venue criteria, but that would allow you to be eligible under a conditional use permit for this specific use rather than a restaurant that might have a live performance once a week that's outside of the entertainment district.

And if you're, you know that little park we're making next to the library? Is that part of the entertainment district in that park?

No, that's north of Maryland. So it's

outside. Can I hire, can Clayton hire a folk singer to go in at night and put an ice cream truck right outside that place at night? I think the answer is no, no.

I would have to look at some of our other code provisions on that one.

It just seems to me we're trying to bring life back to Clayton, and all we're doing is putting another set of regulations that just are regulations for the sake of regulations, more or less. I'm afraid. I have problems with it.

is. We made an entertainment venue, basically a conditional use. So they come in, but we don't have all these crazy requirements. You have 50% food, 20% food. If it's entertainment and it's compatible with Clayton, really uh general guidelines with the conditional use that would make a lot more sense to me that's all i'm saying

okay i hear you i just think we need to uh tear up some of the paper and ask why have we not succeeded And I think some answers are self-evident, not just because of the ordinance. It's because real estate's expensive, the nature of the occupants in Clayton downtown. We are not a Grove. We're not a Delmar Loop. I mean, I get that. But we need to do something. And I think we need to really make it inviting and... make it easier access to come in. You know, like a bar, maybe could stay to 12 o'clock at night, maybe have some kind of singing, maybe the conditional use says limited to Kumbaya music from 10 to 12. I don't know. But something needs to change. And all we're doing is just pushing the the rock up the same hill again, but maybe it's just a little smaller now, but I don't think it's going to be enough to make a big change.

That's hard to follow. I would look at it as a step in the right direction. I mean, I can remember forever that going to a place to hear music, New Jeffery Yorg city and yes, they had to serve so much food. Would you want to eat that food? No. their strength and the reason everybody went was because of the, the bar and the entertainment. So I think this is moving in the right direction, but I think we need to keep studying it.

That's hard to follow. I would look at it as a step in the right direction. I mean, I can remember forever that going to a place to hear music, New York city and yes, they had to serve so much food. Would you want to eat that food? No. their strength and the reason everybody went was because of the, the bar and the entertainment. So I think this is moving in the right direction, but I think we need to keep studying it.

Amy.

I agree. I think moving in the right, in the right direction. And just so I better understand the 20% could also has nothing to do with food, right? It could also be like ticket sales and things. So they could serve, or 80% could come from like their alcohol sale, liquor sales, and then the 20% other things. Right. So they don't really have to serve food.

Correct. That's, that's the goal of this new, the amendment. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, I, I understand what Bob's saying, but I do think it's actually a step in the right direction also.

David. I don't have any comments or questions.

Okay. Any comments from the audience? No. Are there any hands up? I can't see it. Well, there it is. Any further comments from anyone? We do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval of the text amendment back to the board. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the staff recommendation. That is, the staff recommends the plan commission recommend approval of the tax amendment to the Board of Aldermen as proposed.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. That closes the public hearing. Did you get that one? Okay, we can go on to old business now and we have five items at 7814 Forsyth and the surrounding Central Avenue addresses. But the first three are not public hearings. But Ryan, I think you'll start out with a review that will cover everything.

The

project was discussed at the previous meeting on August 7th and continued to today's meeting. No new plans were submitted prior to this meeting. The project consists of the demolition of all structures on the subject properties, the rezoning of the five lots PUD, the consolidation of the five lots, and the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on the site. Proposed development would reach 20 stories, contain 245 hotel rooms, a ground floor restaurant with outdoor dining, seventh floor bar and terrace, ballroom space, a ground level jazz club, and a task 235 space garage. An updated staff report has been provided with updates included in bold text. A revised parking study completed since the last meeting recommended a minimum of 245 spaces, 10 spaces more than proposed. The applicant has stated that an agreement has been established with the owner of an adjacent office building to access 10 parking spaces for employees or valet use. Additionally, the PUD requires approximately 15 bicycle racks. The plan proposes five bicycle racks adjacent to the entrance on South Central Avenue. The majority of the required parking for this development is to support a hotel use. Hotel visitors are less likely to have personal bicycles that would be parked in public areas during their stay. The bicycle parking requirements are intended to support local active transit with sufficient locations for people to safely park bicycles while visiting businesses and shops. Removing the hotel parking demand from the bicycle parking analysis results in a requirement for six bicycle racks. Staff are of the opinion that these six bicycle racks are appropriate for the proposed development. The additional required rack may be located adjacent to the other proposed racks or a secondary location in proximity to the site, including within the city's standard streetscape. The final location of all required bicycle racks will be determined prior to the issue of construction permits. The proposed downtown project will provide a desired mixed use development at a prominent corner in downtown. The development aligns with the vision for the downtown master plan and includes a variety of uses that will help generate visitors and pedestrian traffic throughout the day. The development is providing several public benefits outlined in Table 2 in the staff report. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed plan conforms to the requirements of a PUD and provides an appropriate number of public benefits. Staff recommends that this Board recommend conditional approval to the Board of Aldermen with a full list of conditions identified in the relevant staff reports.

Okay, thank you. The first item is the mixed use site plan review. And would the applicant like to come up and address that?

Good evening. Steve Method, Midas Developments. No further comments to add to this, but I have to answer questions for him.

Well, we did go over it pretty in depth two weeks ago. I had no problem with the site plan at this point. You heard my comments about some of the structure and the loading dock, but I think we moved beyond that last time. Let's go around. Richard, site plans.

Bob?

I assume where we left off, the back part of the garage is still open?

Well, that would be under

architectural review. I have no questions.

Helen?

Yes, I do have a question. Where are you putting the EV chargers?

Inside the garage.

Okay. That's it.

Jamie?

No questions.

David? Questions on the site

plan. See, I think we have to vote on these individually, correct?

Okay.

On the site plan review. If well, are there any questions from the audience? Or from no hands up. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the site plan as shown and discussed?

I hereby move to approve the staff recommendation that includes conditions one through six on their site plan report. No, one through nine, I take it there.

Yeah.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Gotten through that. The next item is the architectural review. And Steve, do you have any further comments or your architect? I do not.

No one else want to speak anything?

um i think we went over this last time i felt comfortable we looked at everything but i think bob you may want to uh talk again about the garage but bridget first did you have any comment on the architectural

okay bob

first of all i want to say overall it's a good plan you know i I think you guys have worked really hard. I just, this young lady gave me the idea of pursue the back of the garage. I know you were talking, the economics only goes so far was your conclusion. Are you still at the point where the back of the. Garage on the East, the East side of the garage is still just open. It is

open, but we have made several improvements to close the garage down. We've changed cable rails to solid upturned beams, et cetera. But we haven't changed since the last meeting, no. I did

mention

that at the last session and

probably a week or so ago in between then and now, I realized that the open side of the garage, the east side is visible from right in front of City Hall. So at the previous meeting, I noted that it was visible as you walk north along Bemisden from Carondelet. It is visible as you walk past City Hall. You will be able to see that exposed area. Now, you mentioned changes. You've done things. Were those things that were done prior to our last meeting?

Correct.

Okay. So what I have here from the last meeting is what we're going to get.

Correct.

Okay, I would hope that you would reconsider and take some of that budget for the south wall facing the county jail

and move it to the east. That's it. Amy? David? I don't have any questions. Any further comment from the audience? No hands up

again. I had one other thing. I don't think we spoke about it last week, but I believe your south wall art would be on a screen. Is that correct? Did we mention about how it's seen at night?

We did talk about the fact that light can be shown through it. And although it will diffuse some of the light, you will still see lights behind it.

So it may have a very different appearance day and night. And when you get to the artist, you may really want to take a look at that in depth.

We will.

OK. We do have a recommendation. One recommendation from the staff, one condition rather in the recommendation. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the staff recommendation together with the one

condition regarding the architectural review. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay.

on now to item number three, which is the major subdivision plant. And Steve, do you have anything further on that?

No, I don't,

Steve. This one, I think, is really a no-brainer. But there are several recommendations that you're aware of. I had no further comment on it. Bridget, did you? No. Bob. No. Helen. Amy. No. David. No

comments.

And no hands up online and no other comments. Okay. Do we have a motion based on the staff recommendation?

I move to approve the staff recommendation together with its four conditions. And you guys are familiar with those four conditions?

We are. Okay. which deals with the consolidation plan. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Now we'll move into two items that are in public hearings, and the first one will be 7814 on the rezoning.

Mr. Chairman, you'll actually vote on these together because the rezoning to a PUD is based on this particular planned unit development.

Thank you. We'll open the public

hearing and Steve or anyone else, any comment on the rezoning in the PUD?

This is where we look at public benefits. So

thank you guys. David, it's good to see you all again. I don't know if this is the right place to talk about this, but I wanted to just so I'm just gonna bring it up. Okay, so the parking and on and I've talked about this ad nauseum is that we are based on the code and based on the research from you guys that we are 10 parking spots short right in our garage. And My contention and having talked to CBB in the past before we did the residence in, I mean, the basic concept is really the onus is on the developer to make sure that he has enough parking, right? And that the developer knows best as to how many parking spots he needs. And surely if I don't have enough parking, it affects my business, right? So if I don't enough parking, I'm going to go get more parking. I would just ask that we not be required to go get 10 additional spots if we don't need it. I just went through this with the residence in and I ended up purchasing more parking than I need in the garage behind me that I'm never going to use. And I know three years from now, when I get ready to get my CO, I'm going to be asked for a contract saying that I have 10 parking spots somewhere else. And I would just rather not have to require that unless if demand dictates, absolutely, we will add the parking. But I'd hate today because I know I'm not going to need it. My residence in down the street, I've got good tracking. And if we're full with 170 rooms sold, well, 50 or 60% of those people are driving, right? So it's really, people don't drive to hotels like they used to. It's Uber, it's Lyft, it's cabs or whatever, other people driving them. So I just don't want to be required because I know if it's in there, it's going to come up three years from now. I know it, right? And so I want to make sure that if I'd rather not even be in there because it's going to, it's going If that makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, there's plenty of parking around us, right? And typically in entertainment venues, they'll find parking on the street or our neighbor's garage or whatever.

they'll find parking, right? And today there's a big surface lot behind us. Who knows 10 years from now if that'll be there, right? But I just would ask that... We not be required, you know, we had this conversation about building more parking and don't, it doesn't make sense to build something infrastructure that we don't need or have to pay for something that's unnecessary. To Bob's point earlier, that's just making it harder to do business here.

David are... While those guys are

debating, can I just say something? It makes a lot of sense to me what you just said.

I wonder if you would, well, we don't know what the staff is talking about, but possibly have a provision where if there is shortage of parking, that it be instituted at some other point.

Yeah, obviously, if I need parking, I'm going to go get it. And there's parking all around us. There's garages everywhere. Right. And we will. And in the evenings, they're mostly not full. Right. So I can go find parking. I just don't want to be required today to have to show a contract in three years when I open that says I have 10 additional Valley parks in some garage somewhere that I'm never going to use.

We're right in the middle of the central business district. Right. So.

You're really what we've called the epicenter.

The new entertainment district. Yeah.

Yeah. We have seen the letter from 7800 Forsyth also.

Yeah, so we can get the parking. That's not the issue. It's just I don't want to be required to have to do something that I don't need.

David, do you have a comment or Anna or Stephanie?

Yeah, we were just evaluating if the

additional points would be required for waiving, providing a modification to the parking requirement. So that's what we're looking at right now to verify.

Essentially the engineer study becomes the parking requirement. You don't want to comply with the engineer study which sets the parking requirement that that would be another waiver from a zoning standard which would require more public benefit points.

Yeah. I understand the dilemma. I'm just telling you Again, it's just we're making it hard to. I

understand. We're just trying to figure out if we wanted to consider that exception for the 10 spaces, then how would we even go about doing that? Right. It looks like the way we would do it is by requiring an additional five points. I don't see any other way in the code unless they found something else. We might be able to do that.

And so that runs us at the risk of not

having enough points then, right? based on staff's recommendation.

Potentially, I'm trying to remember how many points we ended up with after we discussed last meeting.

Three more points to give.

Oh,

sorry.

Right, and then as far as the plan commission goes, do you have that number of points?

I don't know what the points

This is the same thing as last time.

I think we adopted this staff. And how many points was that? 33. So we need two more. I think the jazz club could go up to

79. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just, just trying to be real realistic. What's going to happen in three years when I, I don't want to go pay for something I don't need.

Well, looking at the two week ago table two, I think we had several in there where we were considering additional points. And let me see which ones that I marked down. On item five, that's the third section down, The sixth one, significant use of natural light. We were considering going from zero to one. Helen, I believe you brought that up. And then on the next one, number seven, development dedicates four feet of property to the adjacent alley to the east. You had requested five. Staff had put four. Bob, I believe you suggested two to three points in there. So if we're to consider these, we may be able to find it elsewhere.

The other section too is, because I'll let Stephanie speak about the alley widening and the... implications of that but the ev charging stations originally there have been many instances depending on how many provide that more than one point is provided for that and i have a feeling that you're doing more than one charging station inside of your garage so i think that element might also be something you want to reevaluate

right and during the last discussion i think it was helen who said that perhaps more points may be warranted if the ev charging stations were put inside the garage which tonight it was confirmed that they're being put inside the garage instead of outside

Okay, so. Sounds good.

Now on the right-of-way issue on the alley, I would caution to stay away from that one because that's automatically an ordinance requirement. And so basically what you're saying is that you would be giving an award just for a developer complying with existing ordinance. And we would have to look at that then every other time when a developer came in and just their ordinary compliance with ordinance.

Well, let's avoid a precedent in that

area. So

we'll have

six or eight EV chargers in here, right? I mean, so if there really is a point per.

Yeah, previously multiple developments have been the EV charging section by the Board of Aldermen has been moved from Just the one point category to the Board of Aldermen discretion category, and they've awarded four to five points. And I can't remember off the top of my head exactly how many chargers there were for that, but I believe there were at least four chargers associated with that four points, but I can

verify that now.

So with those, if it is four, it looks like we're getting to the 35 total pretty easily.

appreciate that.

can. The other thing, too, with that is we've typically awarded three. They've provided, even at the previous meeting, they provided a lot more context to the direction they were going with their artwork. And the way that the recommended requirement is written right now is that it allows the Board of Alderman to verify that they feel the end result of art matches the points that they have granted. So if based on the scope of the art pieces, the sizes, the number for this development, if you feel that it actually is worth more than three points, there is still that piece that it would come back to the Board of Aldermen once they actually have selected the artists and go through the Public Art Advisory Committee to verify that it would be the value of maybe a four or five or however many points you feel that this scope is worth.

So then we have at least two items that will be decided at the Board of Aldermen. Right,

I think it would be helpful for staff and for the Board of Alderman if you recommended a number tonight for those two items, but it will be pieces that when we follow up with the staff reports for the Board of aldermen to review, we can provide more context to them on those elements. And then ultimately they'll be able to determine what they feel the point value is for all of the categories.

Does staff feel that we need to review each line item? Yes.

Oh, no, I don't think we need to review a each line item tonight just if there are line items that you would like to change so if you want to change the EV if you want to But I don't think we need to go over every item. We did that the last meeting.

I think those are all good ones to modify. I would also say the significant use of natural light should go up one point.

That's fine. Or the EVs.

Two points, I thought. Correct.

natural light evs one one i think we're there um

i think that instead of trying to say we need one point or we need two points we should evaluate these for the weight of what you feel the aspects of the project are worth and so if you feel that the EV charging stations based on the number that he is providing is worth four points and we should go with four, not just one, because that's all they need. And same with the art piece.

I think the four for the EV is good and the art piece, I forgot where we were. We had three last time, but we were going with four this time, I believe. I would be comfortable with that.

it's a five edition. Yeah. So plus five minus

five.

Right.

So you still have a buffer of three roughly going into the Board of Aldermen meeting? Yeah,

I understood. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So that'll get removed then, that number eight or whatever it is, or is that what happens? Correct.

Yeah. Well, you'll make the motion, but you can make a motion with removing that number condition in your motion.

Thank you very much, I appreciate

it.

Thank you. We'll modify the table to add this as a waiver request and then we'll modify the points table, but in your motion, if you could address the staff recommendation as well.

Okay. Okay, so we have

the required code alternatives. We had five, four

in there, right? Correct. Yes. Okay. And

the public benefits, did we cover everything in the rezoning and the PUD? Or did I leave

something? No.

I think we've gone through it

all. We went through them all line by line at the previous

meeting. which

is

the other thing, Steve and David, we do have the several items under the staff recommendation that I'm sure you're aware of.

It

hasn't really changed. chair if i could on a number nine which is the condition relative to a jazz club there we don't have any kind of time frame on that jazz club actually getting an occupancy permit uh relative to the hotel so we do have this requirement somewhere else but it's really open-ended we just say you have to have an entertainment use but there's no time frame associated with it so i didn't know what the feeling of the plan commission would be as far as having a requirement that within six months of occupancy of the hotel, that the jazz club get an occupancy permit, something like that to actually have a finite amount of time for them to put that use in. I don't know if that's something we want to consider or not, but just to have that protection.

I think the protection is good, so it isn't open-ended. I don't know whether it should be six months or 12 months. Other comments?

That's not something I've discussed with the developer either, so I don't know what their thoughts would be on that. But rather than just saying a jazz club at some point.

The six months would be pretty quick, I think. It's just being honest. Because I can see that area being used for staging and stuff to get the rest of the building open. It's going to be the last thing that gets an occupancy. And there's going to be quite a bit of work to happen down there to make it a club, right? So, I mean, I prefer not to have a date, you know, at all. But if there has to be a date,

if it was a year out, I think that would be fair.

Comments?

gonna be down there making

taking tickets at the door and so because it can be 20 percent now of my ticket sales at the front door right that's what i heard and so yeah

can i ask this though um I really hope you succeed with this. Me too. But I'm just thinking, let's say three years from now, the numbers just don't work for whatever reason. Tell me what you see then. And what is Clayton's duty

at that point? If any.

I think technically I opened a club, so

I fulfilled my requirement, right? So I don't know that But I mean, I think the nice thing about it is it will be designed as a club, right? I mean, that will be its highest and best use after we build this thing the first time. So it will end up being a club. I don't think there's any doubt about it. It just will be hard to convert it to something else because there's not going to be a big kitchen down there. There's not going to feel like a nightclub. Anna, what are your comments on this?

Well, I think that is one of the big pieces that we've heard is kind of a barrier to entry for some of the other potential tenants. This will be designed for that purpose from the beginning as opposed to trying to retrofit it, which can be expensive for that type of a use. But it will be in here as a requirement of an entertainment use. Obviously, with any other zoning district, things change and new uses appear over time and Other uses that might be more of a trend go away, and there's always the opportunity to amend the PUD ordinance the same way that we might amend a zoning code to allow for different uses if we needed to.

Does the PUD code approval that we will be giving, does it restrict that jazz club use to an entertainment

venue? With the proposed recommendation from staff, that would be a condition is that they maintain an entertainment venue there.

So if you would come back and let's say 10 years. Okay. And, and you say, you know it's time to move on because the numbers don't work. Would they have to come back here to say, we're going to turn this into a Walgreens and, and we need your approval.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? And

David, from your suggestion, are you suggesting that we do mark that in and say one year? Did we

modify that condition that would now be condition number eight at the 12-month limitation on there? Or 12-month requirement?

occupancy of the hotel. Right.

And wouldn't that

be number nine? Oh, number eight will go away. Oh, I see. Number eight will become a requirement in the zoning table. Right. Okay.

Well, we're going to, in essence, delete number eight.

Number eight will be deleted. Okay. Number nine will become number eight. And then we'll add the within 12 months language on that. Within 12 months of the hotel occupancy.

12 months to open up?

Correct. They have 12 months after the occupancy permits issued for the hotel to open the entertainment use.

You give an

occupancy permit when you're ready to open or just when you give permission to go ahead?

The occupancy permit would be after the building's complete. They checked off all the building inspections and the fire inspection as well. That's when the building is ready to be occupied and opened.

But not the jazz space?

The entertainment use will have to open 12 months after the hotel has opened. And again, that time frame just gives us an enforcement mechanism where if it's open-ended, we really can't enforce anything because the entertainment use could come 20 years from now and they'd be complying at that point

okay got it okay you got it all bob no but i could fake it right

um i hereby move to approve the staff recommendation uh and that includes conditions one through eight and with and uh The staff report actually shows nine, and we're eliminating eight regarding the parking agreement. And so what is shown on the report as number nine is moving up to number eight. And number eight deals with a jazz club. And we also add to the written condition of number nine, the jazz club, that the jazz club will be opened up 12 months will be will will have a duty to open up 12 months after the hotel opens up.

Second.

I think I need to use the phrase occupancy permits somewhere in that sentence, but.

waiver

the additional waiver and then the additional points in the motion or.

Anna, you're going to amend the spreadsheet to reflect the additional waiver and the points. So what I would probably do is just say in the motion and approving the point spreadsheet as amended.

And that I hereby submit that we approve the point sheet as amended, which includes that the light condition is increased by one point, that the

EV charging stations.

The charging stations are increased by three points. And I believe there's... The

artwork was changed. And the art

line item is increased by another one point.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Smile. We got through it. So we can

close the public hearing and say congratulations. What is the next step that we will see after you get through the Board of Aldermen?

Can I ask one more question too? Let's say the Jazz Club is getting ready to open up And these guys want to promote it by having a couple of jazz musicians on the street, on the sidewalk, to let the world know that it's for real. How does Clayton deal with that? I'm thinking I'm going back to the entertainment district concept.

Are you thinking more of like buskers or just somebody singing outside at Outdoor Dining?

No, let's say they bring like a three-piece band and they They want to kind of perform maybe on the corner, which has the most visibility.

We have options that could accommodate those types of special events or activities. We have some noise and hour regulations that would apply through permitting, so it could be addressed.

Okay. Thank you.

We're off. Glad to see you here again. And hopefully we'll see you again in the future.

And good

luck

to you. Good luck with it. We're excited to see that corner redevelop. Okay, well, we've come to the end.

uh cami any further comments nothing further helen

nothing further

bob nothing further but i just came back from bentonville

oh fabulous place

fabulous i recommend that we send the staff down there to show what a town center how it operates and ice cream trucks and entertainment and walking trails with public art just blew me away really did and i know it's different from clayton high rises don't get me wrong but it's got something to teach us

um it's a great environment the way you've described it and i've been there but also it's very different because they're somewhat isolated they're not in a metropolitan region

Absolutely true. I mean, but you know, in terms of walking out your hotel and you see a lot of movement, a lot of activity at night, it just is a

terrific feeling. That's all. Richard?

David?

Nothing else tonight. Brian, any update on the next meeting? Pretty standard. Nothing too crazy. Okay. Oh, the norm. Anna?

No updates. Stephanie?

Thank you for your help. And we'll be back with Labor Day. What date do we come back? When is that? September

5th should be the next meeting date.

What is the next meeting date? I don't think.

September 5th. A Tuesday.

I regret I will not be here. I'll be out of town.

Okay, so we'll see most of you on Tuesday the 5th. Okay, we're adjourned.

I do have one item. The dashboard is online on Engage Clayton from our consultants for the comprehensive plan. So if you are interested in exploring some data, there's a bunch on there. It does not include some of our foot traffic data and other cell phone generated data because the contract with the company they source that data from They can't include it in this sort of dashboard, but it will be part of our report and our analysis. So that's why if you look at the dashboard, you won't see some of the elements that have been presented by the consultants during other presentations.

Thank you. Okay, we'll see everyone.

Thank you, Steve. But.