May 20, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for May 20th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss.

Kim McAndrew.

Helen DiFate.

Ellen DeFayette.

Kami Waldman.

Amy Waldman.

David Gipson. Here. Okay, we have minutes from our previous meeting on May 6th. Are there any changes or additions? Seeing none, do we have a motion? I'd

David Gibson. Here. Okay, we have minutes from our previous meeting on May 6th. Are there any changes or additions? Seeing none, do we have a motion? I'd

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll start out with new business. Item number one is 118 South Hanley Road. Is the applicant here? Okay, if you'd hold off, we'll start with the report.

The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a marijuana dispensary on the subject property, which is located on the east side of South Hanley Road between Cronallet Plaza and Bonham Avenue. The property is zoned high-density commercial and is in the Clayton Plaza Overlay District. The site is currently developed with a one-story commercial building previously home to Palm Beach Town. They propose hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m to 8 p.m. on Sunday. The structure measures roughly 3,611 square feet and will include a lobby, sales floor, private employee spaces, and restroom facilities. The site contains 23 space parking lot that may be accessed from South Hanley and from Colorado Avenue. Deliveries will be handled via Colorado Avenue, which functions as the rear alley to buildings along South Hanley and Grand Ole Plaza. Refuse will be stored and handled via an existing dumpster on Colorado Avenue. The applicant has stated that marijuana products will be rendered unusable if they are required to be discarded and have provided supporting documentation regarding the process. A security plan has been presented to the Clayton Police Department without concern. Staff do not anticipate adverse impact with regards to noise, odor, traffic, utilities, or emergency services. Staff recommend that the Plan Commission recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Now we're ready for the applicant. Please give us your name and relation to the project and add anything you'd like.

I'm sorry, the proposed owner of the site. They are under contract to purchase the property. My client who is here is on his way and he says he will be here in about five minutes. So I'm happy to proceed. And if anyone has questions of him, I suspect he would be here at the end. He's the director of compliance. So it may not even come into the play this evening. We have provided a PowerPoint to just set forth things that have been already outlined and presented in the staff report, but just to a little bit more detail. The proposed site at 118 South Hanley is zoned in the high density commercial district. Our use is a permitted conditional use under the city of Clayton zoning code in that district. And in addition to meeting the numerous requirements and the standard set forth by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the site will also comply with all of the requirements of your city's zoning code. There are no schools, churches or daycares or other marijuana related uses within 500 feet of the site. And as a fact, there are no other marijuana facilities in the city of Clayton. This site has actually already been approved for a conditional use permit to operate as a marijuana dispensary less than a year ago. As the staff report indicates, the proposed use complies with all the zoning code criteria and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The site exceeds the number of parking spaces which is required for the use that we seek. We've included the preliminary layout of our proposed site and the building inspector just provided his inspection report today and after the inspection approved um after the inspection As indicated, our security plan has been presented to the Clayton Police Department and they have expressed their approval. Our procedures for disposing of any marijuana products have been provided as part of the application process. They're very lengthy, so I will not go through them now, but I'm happy to provide copies to anyone should they want. All discarded products will be rendered completely unusable before disposal. And they're based on the guidelines that are rendered from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. So we appreciate the opportunity to appear this evening and we welcome any questions that you would have. Rhys, would you be comfortable speaking that?

Hi, good evening. Rhys Williams with Armstrong Teasdale. And like Amy said, our Director of Compliance, Paul Rocker, should be here any moment. He can weigh in further on this, correct me if I'm wrong. But in the typical situation, a customer or a patient would enter into the vestibule area of the dispensary where they would have to present valid identification to an on-staff security officer and assuming all checks out, that is at that time the patient or the consumer would be allowed into the limited access area of the dispensary floor itself. State regulations provide that the ratio cannot be more than three customers within the building to one employee. So there is always a managed number of consumers that are permitted to be within the dispensary itself. The typical transaction is five to seven minutes long where there's either the ability to place an order and go in and pick up that order that has been already placed online or they can do their shopping or in person. So that's kind of how the typical flow of traffic would be at the site.

Can the purchasers come in in groups?

So they're welcome to come in in groups, but they have to wait in the vestibule and would only be allowed in as a group if the amount would satisfy that mandated ratio of three to one employees or customers to employees.

And then we understand that there's no use of the product on site.

Correct. It's strictly prohibited by DHSS regulation and on staff security and employees monitor that along with the on-site camera footage could cover the parking lot or up front in front of the store as well. So that is monitored and would be handled swiftly by staff on site.

So that would include monitoring cars on the parking lot.

That's correct. That would be within the auspices of the security.

Let's go around. Carolyn?

No questions. Amy? Just your onsite security. Can you kind of describe that, what that looks like?

So there, and Paul hopefully will be here and he can speak more to this. I think he is. There's Paul. Paul, you're here. Well, then you can come on up and you can answer that question. He's the expert, not me.

With regards to the security cameras, the rules require that you have to have two camera angles anywhere a product is at on the facility, external around the facility as well. And then we have to have a security manager signed up with the state, and they have to communicate directly with the state. And their responsibility is to monitor the cameras at least four or five times a day, doing deep dives into the cameras, constantly have the cameras up. We have a monitoring station. And so that monitoring station is going to be up, and someone will always be at that station monitoring the cameras.

Okay, so it's just someone kind of watching what's happening. There's not like an armed guard or something. Correct.

Some facilities do, but we do not have the armed security guards.

like. The sign's going to look similar to the good day farm logo, it's going to be white and black. And so, but the exact. It's not a

subtle it's going to be black and white just like that no no strong lighting just enough to be visible

um yeah we definitely don't want to have that vibe right

thank you david

i don't have any questions

paul could you give us your name for the record

yes uh paul rockers uh director of compliance for good day farm

Okay, thank you. Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Please come on up to the microphone.

They had mentioned that IDs had to get checked when they came in by a security officer and then she just asked, is there a physical security officer on site? Am I missing something there?

We have to record it.

There is a security manager that manages all of the cameras, monitoring of the cameras, but we do not have an armed security guard. Who checks the ID? The individuals at the reception desk that are looking at security. So we have a VeriScan system that we scan all Missouri State or not Missouri, but all government-issued photo IDs as well as patient identification cards, and they have to come up as valid on that Periscan system.

Sir, before you go back, if you could give us your name.

Brian Sheldon.

Thank you. Do we have a hand up?

Jeff, do you hear us? Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you guys could hear me for the Westmoreland because, I don't know, this Zoom platform looks different than what I'm used to for some reason. So if it's not the current project.

We'll get back to you, Jeff. Thank you. Okay. in no other hands. We do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen. Do we have a motion? I

All in favor?

Opposed? Okay. Thank you for coming tonight and good luck. And we'll move on to item 2, 605 South Central Avenue and is the applicant here. We'll start with the report.

Property is zoned R2 and is located on the west side of South Central between the streets terminus at Meramec Elementary and Davis Drive. The property is developed with a two-story home and detached garage. The project consists of the addition of a new rear patio roof and the renovation of the existing garage. The architectural review guidelines require that at least 75% of a facade comprise of a primary material. As proposed, the garage renovations do not comply with the requirements for the architectural review guidelines. The applicant is seeking approval to allow the garage primary materials to compromise less than 75% of a façade. The existing garage comprises of brick with siding on the roof gables. The renovation would include increasing the height of the garage to 13 feet and 9 inches, and the additional facade created by raising the height of the roof and the roof gables would be infilled with LP Smart Siding Painted White. The use of siding is less common on front facades on this block of South Central, but can be found on rear facades of nearby structures and throughout the Davis Place neighborhood, also as well as on some roof gables and residential additions. Siding is presently a prominent material on the front and rear facades, but not on the side facades. The addition of siding on these side facades in combination with the increase in height is likely to add some visual impact. However, staff are of the opinion that this is not likely to alter the visual character of the area given the use of siding on nearby structures. The front facade has increased visibility given its orientation to the street. Given the limited brick and prominent siding present on the front facade, staff are of opinion that the increase in the use of siting will have a minimal visual impact as perceived from the street. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay, thank you. Come on up. Identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

Hi, Nick Wienbermele, owner of 605 South Central. Very well summarized there. We're adding a back patio roof and renovating the garage. One thing to add is that the color of the siding, we're matching that to the front columns of the house. You know, having it look good from the street was a big part of what we wanted to do for the project. And there was an existing kind of addition on the back that's siding right now that part of our plan is to redo that siding and also have it matched kind of the garage siding. So even kind of the neighbors looking at the backyard would have a good cohesive look as well as we get to enjoy that cohesive look as well.

Can you describe the color?

Yeah, it's kind of a cream color, not too dissimilar from the trim behind you there. It's called Roman Column from Sherwin-Williams. It's kind of that tannish cream.

So the color on the front of the house, which I'm familiar with, will not change. It'll just be updated.

The color on the front the house for the columns won't change. That color will be added to the, that's what the color of the siding will be painted on the garage in the back.

It is a little different to have a garage added onto vertically. Um, what will be used? Uh, what will the second floor be used for?

It's still just one floor. Um, so the, the current structure, the garage door height is about six and a half feet. So part of what we're doing is making that garage door up to eight feet, which is a more modern size. Um, and then as we were doing that, we just wanted to give it a little more, there's, you know, obviously the cost of going a little bit higher and giving a little more head space in there isn't, isn't that much. So give it a little

So really it's nothing more than storage potential

above. Yeah, storage potential above. And it is that we'd have, it's right next to our pool. So we'd use it for like kind of a pool house area, do a renovation to have a usable space next to the pool that we, you know, more than just a garage. But yeah, that's the idea.

Carolyn?

Richard?

you. Ellen? No questions. Kami?

I had no issue either, but it's nice to hear that you are trying to make it a cohesive look, and I think that's really important.

Thank you for your... Yeah, we're trying hard to keep the neighborhood nice. David? No questions.

Any comments from the audience? No. No hands up. We have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

All in favor?

Okay. Good luck. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to the third item, 8125 Westmoreland. And is the applicant here? Oh, okay. That's right. Thank you. Okay, Ryan.

Property is located on the north side of Westmoreland between North Forsyth and North Brentwood. Property is zoned R2 and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Property is developed with a two-story single family home, and the applicant is seeking to construct a brick two-car garage. The proposal would meet the height setback and material requirements, but would result in the property exceeding the maximum amount of impervious coverage allowed on the lot. The garage would be accessed with a new section of driveway constructed of a permeable paver system. The applicant is requesting approval of alternative compliance for the use of the pervious pavers. Permeable pavers are not specifically addressed in the material guidelines. However, given the limited size and distance from the streets, staff have the opinion that the pavers would result in minimal visual impact. The zoning regulations establish coverage requirements to prevent an overabundance of impervious coverage, manage stormwater, and to ensure the preservation of green space. Pervious papers are not recognized as pervious due to their variable permeability, largely dependent on maintenance and specifications of the papers. Under the R2 and Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, the maximum impervious coverage allowed is 55%. As this property is located in an urban and design district, the plan commission is not authorized to increase the maximum lot coverage. As proposed, the applicant is requesting approval of alternative compliance to measure the papers as 0% impervious. Alternative compliance is intended to apply in unusual circumstances that might arise when an alternative approach would provide a result that is equal to or superior to that which would be provided by the approach outlined in the zoning code. The pavers consist of a structural grid that may be infilled with grass or gravel. The per manufacturer specifications, they can infiltrate 298 inches of water per hour, have an open area of 40%, and can support a weight of 173 tons per square foot. If the pavers were to be counted as 100% impervious per the code requirement... the lot coverage would increase to 57%. If the pavers were counted as 60% impervious, as indicated by the 40% open area, then lot coverage would increase 56.2%. And if measured as 0% for the applicant's request, the lot would increase to 55% impervious. Given that the manufacturer documents identify the pavers as 40% open or 60% impervious, staff are of the opinion that the paver should be considered as 60% impervious. The site is relatively flat with a slight slope towards the front of the property. The lot size is similar to that of nearby lots and does not appear to contain any unusual geographic features. The previous garage was converted to living space in 2012 and a new detached garage was approved as part of that project but was never constructed. Presently, the site has no garage. Although uncommon, there is no requirement that homes have a garage. Staff are of the opinion that there are no unusual circumstances regarding the geography or development of the lot. A detached two-car garage project qualifies for administrative architectural review. However, the request for alternative compliance for lot coverage requires PCRB approval. If the design is modified to comply with the lot coverage requirements, then the project could be processed administratively. Staff recommend that the item be continued to a later meeting date to allow the applicant to consider revisions to the proposal.

Okay, thank you. Jeff, do you have anything to add?

I don't believe I do. I think what he has said is well said. I guess I'm not familiar with the final statement that he asked or stated about considering other options. I don't know that I was a part of that conversation with my project manager that drew this.

Okay, well, that is part of the staff recommendation. To have alternative compliance is one thing, but the way I understood it is that a different method so that we don't go over the 55% impervious coverage is what we're looking for.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. And with that, that's the staff recommendation to continue this to a later date. Gotcha. And I'll be honest, I agree with that. I'm very hesitant about giving alternative compliance when I would think there should be other ways of accomplishing this task. The other thing... whether it's our 50% impervious plus a 5% addition, we may be looking at that in the future. But right now, that is the rule we're working under. So I do have a problem. But I think you should hear from everyone else on the Planned Commission. Carolyn?

richard

Helen?

I too would agree. And what I would like to see is a site plan, something that clearly indicates what materials will be from the back wall of the house to the north property line. There's things being taken out and in very light lettering, it says concrete patio. But is that staying or is that leaving? Or is that where you can pick up trade off pervious and impervious? So I think that needs to be clearly presented.

Amy.

I'm in agreement with staff. I think we need to have it looked at to be redesigned because I think even if we approve the pavers, I would never approve it for 100% impervious. It would go with what the manufacturer is saying at 60%. So I think that's an important delineation. Even if we approve it, it would not be at 100%. It would still be at 60%. But I'm in agreement.

David, I also agree with the staff recommendation.

Okay. Any comments from the audience? Jeff?

Yeah. Yeah, I guess I would just really want to understand before I go back to my client with bad news, where you guys are in the process. I mean, if you're not going to adopt the pervious pavers at 100%. Is it possible that if we back to the patio, which they do plan to keep as concrete because it'd be too hard to put chairs out on the product where we're gonna use as driveway and that line that you see there is where the patio will sort of extend to. But I guess my question would be Would you consider it at 60% and then we just – because there's really not many other alternatives short of not having a patio and things like that. I don't know. I would just need some direction because we looked at a lot of different ways. We're even removing some of their – air conditioning condenser pads in order to get to that 55%. It's a very tight lot. So is this something that is up for a vote sometime soon, that the city is fleshing out? Or just fill me in on it because it sounds sort of like too many things are up in the air for my client to know whether or not to even resubmit anytime soon.

Well, we would recommend that you do take a look at what the alternatives could be to maintain it at the 55% maximum impervious coverage. We can only review and eventually vote on whatever is submitted under the current rules that we're working under. Yes, anything could change in the future, but we cannot guarantee what changes may come or when they would go into effect.

Okay, and so what you're saying is pervious pavers of any kind are not an option today?

Would

that be accurate?

Well, no, we would still be able to consider it under alternative compliance as long as we maintain that 55% impervious coverage. Or when we see if it can work, we would look at it at that time. However, apparently as a group, we did not feel comfortable with it going forward

tonight. Sure, I understand that. Okay, so with this product saying that it has a 40%, back to my original question there, if we come back with a presentation that effectively moves people out more concrete and replaces it with this product, you would be more likely to approve that?

We might be more likely to improve it. I think we'd have to see the totality of the project. Sure.

I totally understand that, that but my question is, if we came back with something that used it at the 40 calculation meaning we take more driveway out and replace it you guys would because i understand what you're saying too uh i just want to make sure if we're going back to our client he understands either it's not going to be approved or it's a whole lot more likely to be approved if we move to the calculation being the 40 pervious aspects of the Jeff,

I think we can't ask the board to make a decision to give you any sort of direction on that response right now. There's a few questions that staff identified that it seems like the board is upholding. One, you have to provide the calculations. A lot of this research... staff had to do to figure out what this product was. So you first have to provide us with more calculations that show how the system would actually function. So it says it's 40% open. What's the actual function of stormwater control? And then also the maintenance requirement. So how is this maintained by a single family property owner and how long is this product intended to last for? and provide this infiltration system that it does at the beginning. Those are all the questions, the longevity of it, that need to be addressed before the Planning Commission can make a better decision on it.

Sure. Okay. So you're saying you'll consider it though?

We consider everything that you propose, but it's your job to provide the burden. I

mean, like yes or no, like the ag tech product, if you don't want to consider it, we will move to something else. So I just, I don't want to keep spending the client's money. We're not going to design it

for you, but alternative compliance is an opportunity for you to propose better solutions. But the burden of proof is on you to show that it meets or does better than meeting our code. Okay,

so ag tech is still on the table. All right. Well, that's...

second.

Please do.

yeah sure sure and i would i'm sure making sure you come back with that and all that so would you guys have uh inspections through that process as well just so you know it's being installed properly We

don't provide stormwater inspection, so that's why it's important that you provide us with how you're installing and maintaining so that burden would be on the homeowner. And that's why it is a little bit of a higher level because the city does not have, we don't have inspectors for stormwater best management practices here right now, which is part of why we can't just accept these alternatives. and how they will operate because we do not have a system for inspecting and maintaining them. Yeah,

no, that wasn't really what I was asking. I was asking as it's being installed, just like you do with foundations. We do not

have the inspection system for stormwater best management practices.

Okay, so then we wouldn't really even know if it was installed right. Okay, well, that's good. That's good information. So I guess I'll try to get back on the docket next month. Appreciate your time, guys. Thanks. Okay. We'll

look

forward

to your return.

All right. Thank you.

Do we need to continue this? Okay. Let's continue this to a meeting in the future. A

All in favor?

Opposed? Okay. We will then move into our Clayton 2040 comprehensive plan.

Great. So we have our consultants here from PJV. Catherine will give a presentation just so everybody in the audience knows that this is not up for adoption this evening. And so we have a presentation and we'll entertain questions and comments from planning commission as well as the public. And I'll turn it over to Catherine. You'll just have to wake the computer back up.

Okay, thank you. Okay, let's see here. All

Hello, everyone. Good to see you all again. Catherine Homaker of PGAV Urban Planner. I've been leading this process with you all for the last... year-ish. So I am here tonight to give a final presentation to you all about the comprehensive plan. So you have heard many things about this over the last year. I'm going to kind of very quickly run through some of the stuff you all have heard before and mostly just get to the meat of the plan itself, but feel free to ask questions throughout. So what is a comprehensive plan? Hopefully you all know this as the plan commission, but I know you all haven't done a comprehensive plan process in a long time. Not when any of you have sat on this commission. So just wanted to reiterate again that this comes from a Missouri law. Every community like yours is to have a comprehensive plan, a zoning ordinance, and then some kind of planning and zoning commission. The city plan is what provides the basis for that zoning, which is the implementation tool. So a comprehensive plan is required to be adopted by resolution of the plan commission. We also recommend that the board, while not necessarily required to do so, ratifies it by resolution just to sort of reiterate support for the document, but it is really the power rests in your hands. All right, so the planning process, you all have seen this graphic a million times, but We did the existing conditions report back in the late summer and fall, which sort of gave a baseline review of what Clayton looks like today. Lots of community engagement throughout the process, but the bulk of it happened sort of in a fallish timeframe. Then we moved into the land use planning process where we sort of thought about what parts of the community might be changing in the future, where land use conflicts exist. what people sort of had a lot of thoughts about being different or the same in the future. And then that all wraps up into the final plan document that you all have seen. This was guided by the steering committee made up of residents and other representatives of sort of relevant Clayton bodies and then city staff. So we would meet with the city staff every week and steering committee about once a month. Um, lots of engagement happened through the process. So the steering committee had 10 members. We met 10 times during the process and then there were five regular staff attendees that would come to all of those meetings. There's a planning website. About 2,700 people visited. Lots of different surveys. I tried to do this math in front of the board last time. I think it's like 800 or something responses to surveys. We had public open houses. So we had three big sort of more general open houses for the public. And then we did those ward meetings. So one in every ward. with 50 to 80 attendees at each. There's pop-up tabling at 11 events, so we reached about another 400 people that way. There's a coloring contest for kids to participate in the process, committee and commission conversations with the Mayor's Youth Advisory Council, sustainability, equity, you all, Board of Aldermen, and then we did 25 interviews with stakeholders. So Those were folks that either the steering committee provided or city staff provided. They ranged from residents to developers to business owners throughout the community. So just to give another perspective on what people would like to see in the future. So again, we did lots of different engagement in lots of different ways in hopes that we could touch people. If you wouldn't come to a pop-up event, maybe we could get you at an open house. Maybe we could get you on the website. So I feel pretty good about the broad level of engagement that we did during the process. So the plan itself, I'm sure you all have reviewed it. It's a lot, I know. It is set up using this sort of framework, objectives and key results. So there's the City of Clayton's mission. There's a vision for how that mission would come to be. There's Categories, sort of the housing and neighborhoods, commercial development and the economy, those sort of four categories. And then there's objectives and key results that fall underneath those sort of chapters of the plan. The objectives are those clearly defined sort of big goals for the community. And then the key results are those things to help you get there. So something where you can answer, did we do this or did we not? That's the framework of the plan. I know it's a lot. So we're going to run through some of these as an example. But if you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer. Again, this is the city's mission. You already had this. The 2040 vision did come out of the engagement during the plan. So we sort of worked on this based on what we heard from the community, worked with the steering committee on kind of fleshing this out. And then as you'll see in the implementation matrix of the plan, we've tied each of the objectives and key results back to some of these vision statements so that we could sort of make sure that the next steps that we're outlining for you all or for staff or for the board to take is tied back to one of those vision statements that the community wanted to see. So housing and neighborhoods is sort of that first big category, that first big chapter. And what you'll see here are all of the objectives that fall underneath housing and neighborhoods. I guess i'll read these clayton contains a diverse housing stock, providing attainable and quality housing options for a range of ages income levels and life stages. clayton preserves and enhances the unique identity of each neighborhood with relevant and compatible standards. Our neighborhood development patterns and body sustainable principles and seek to minimize impacts on the natural environment and plan for future resilience. And people choose to live in Clayton because it is safe and provides convenient access to first-rate schools, services, shopping, dining, parks, and community amenities. So these big picture objectives we crafted based on what we heard and best practices around the country, but then also worked with a steering committee and the public to kind of wordsmith these. So these have gone through many drafts before sort of being in their final form here. And then in the plan, how it flows, as you all know, is an objective and then a series of key results that supports that objective. So what I'm going to run through with you today is just a few of them. So you can sort of, I pulled out some that you have either asked about before or something the public really had a lot of feedback on. Just to give you kind of an example of a few. But again, if you have questions about others, let me know. So under housing and neighborhoods, one key result was modifying lot size and setback regulations to better align with historic neighborhood patterns where applicable. So we heard a lot from the community that people were concerned that current regulations, so the regulations we have on the books are inconsistent with what existing neighborhoods feel like. So when people come to you, you have to follow the current regulations. That isn't really reinforcing what they feel like it is on the ground today. And so thinking about how you could align those two things, align lot size and setback regulations with what exists today so that your regulations then enforce that pattern that people really like to see. There's a real desire to retain that neighborhood character, so allowing for appropriate infill but making sure those regulations make sure that it's consistent with what's there today. So one of the things we are recommending that you all think about is investigating a reduction in minimum lot size and some of those residential districts, where that incompatibility exists today. And then thinking about modifying setback regulations to allow for more consistency with that existing context so where there's neighborhoods exist today making sure those regulations match so that anything new is consistent with what's already there. The next one is develop an affordable housing program that utilizes parking reductions, density bonuses or financial incentives to encourage mixed income developments. So in the existing conditions report, you may remember that 27% of Clayton's residents are experiencing a housing cost burden. It's a relatively expensive place to live considering neighbors. That is obviously a bigger market consideration that you all can't independently solve. But thinking about 75% of residents said they would trade additional height or density for or financial incentives for more affordable units so there is some openness to based on folks we talked to, to thinking about what what you possibly could trade to try to encourage something like that. So things you all are going to have to consider in the board or, you know, is there a certain geographic eligibility would you want that and only certain places. Is it a set aside requirement. Do you require these things to last forever or only for certain years? Are there design standards associated with affordable units? What kind of incentives do you think you'd want to offer? And then, you know, you could go as far as mandatory affordable housing policies. So lots more in the plan about this subject, but this is one thing that we heard a lot from the community about. Um, establishing appropriate infill development standards for building form and materials. A lot of people would like to see different housing types in Clayton. There was a lot of interest in single family townhomes, duplexes and triplexes and small apartment buildings for four and eight units. Um, but there's also some concern around where those infill developments might go and are they consistent with current neighborhood fabric? And so thinking about, you know, some communities have transition standards to help ensure projects consider adjacent properties. So thinking about if an infill house matches the ones next door or the ones across the street. You could think about compatible scale and material requirements to, again, encourage that consistency. Some of these could be as part of specific guidelines in your urban design districts. And then as part of the comprehensive plan, there are character areas in a future land use map, which I'll get into in a few minutes. But a lot of that provides more information about the context of different parts of Clayton. And so that would be a place to look when you all are thinking about beefing up some of those urban design districts or thinking about other ways to put those standards in place. And then reviewing the tree and landscape regulations to further protect and enhance the existing neighborhood tree canopy, especially during construction activities. I would say the least controversial thing we heard during the whole process is everybody loves trees in Clayton and they want more of them. And so thinking about how your existing tree canopy is seen as a strength and that people want to see more of them, it's not a... You know there's trade offs, obviously, when you have more trees and more tree canopy and what does that mean for building and land use and density. But thinking specifically about how your tree regulations are implemented during construction projects is one sort of next step. And then amending regulations may be in certain areas to be more stringent perhaps if they're coupled with other pieces of regulation that might be sort of a push and pull with some of these things that may be hard for folks. The next big chapter or sort of theme of the comp plan is commercial development and the economy. So the city maintains a strong economic base by supporting commercial development at a variety of scales. Clayton promotes vibrant and attractive commercial nodes with creative enhancements to existing corridors. The city builds economic resilience by valuing and fostering a diversified revenue base. There is intentional development of areas between residential and commercial uses that ensures thoughtful transitions. Downtown Clayton is an active and inclusive place that provides opportunities to live, work, and play, and Clayton facilitates development opportunities with a clear regulatory process. So again, many of these were combined and separated and wordsmithed and all of that with residents and with staff and the steering committee. So this is another one we heard a lot about during the process develop an affordable commercial space incentive program for new development that utilizes parking reductions density bonuses or financial incentives to encourage attainable rents for small businesses and target uses. So we did a lot of research as part of this process about how rents compare in Clayton to other communities. It is just more expensive to have a retail space in Clayton than it is in other communities. That is just sort of a fact based on the market. It's also not necessarily a good or bad thing, right? It's as a result of having a strong downtown, but it does add a sort of a dynamic when people are thinking about kinds of businesses they wish they saw in Clayton. So It's just a stronger retail market than adjacent communities. And so if residents really want that kind of retail, you all have to think about what decisions need to be made to try to encourage it here if the market doesn't necessarily have local retailers pick Clayton versus somewhere else. So 86% of residents that we talk to are interested in trading either reduced parking, additional density or height or financial incentives for affordable commercial space. So that's a pretty high percentage of the people we talked to. There is a pretty wide agreement that people would like to see more local businesses in Clayton. And so because of that research and that feedback that led us to suggesting that you all think about maybe trading increased FAR for affordable space, thinking about a subsidy or a temporary grant program to facilitate some affordable retail space. So I think it's certainly something there's a lot of discussion of in the plan because it's something we heard a lot from residents. Encourage publicly available open space as part of new commercial developments in downtown, either through updating the setback and building coverage requirements or allowing public use of private green space. This one is really, we heard a lot from folks about downtown needing to feel like a well-rounded neighborhood. While it is the business center for your community and lots of employees come in every day, in recent years, lots of new residential has been added in downtown. And there is a desire to feel a little bit more well-rounded as an area, as a part of your community, kind of the shift from downtown. central business district to downtown so that it feels a little bit more well rounded and one of the things that people feel like would help do that is adding more green space so making downtown feel a little softer whether that's through landscaping or a little pocket parks or some sort of open space that just makes it feel less like. Really tall towers that are sort of imposing they don't feel overly pedestrian friendly so thinking about opportunities to create small scale green spaces were possible in downtown so that might mean updating lot coverage. To encourage some open space as part of new developments, it could also just mean working with private developers to ensure that some of that green space that they're including in their new developments is open for public use as well. So it doesn't have a fence around it or it does allow for some private public use so that there you sort of get the best of both worlds in terms of that. create an incentives policy for developments in key areas of the city that diversify the city's revenue base. So the city's revenue-base is heavily reliant on sales and use tax and property tax, and residents feel very strongly that the high levels of service that they receive from the City of Clayton as residents is one of its greatest assets. And so it's important to them to maintain those levels of service. And so there's some openness to considering incentive use in specific situations when it's tied back to that revenue growth for the city so that we could maintain those standards that we're used to as residents. So creating an incentives policy that encourages some of these sales tax generators that are also what people asked for through this process. So entertainment uses, filling some of these vacant storefronts, thinking about those significant sales tax generators that could locate in a place that have minimal impact on surrounding communities. So again, lots more of this in the plan, but the idea of trying to combine sales tax generating uses with uses that people really want to see in the community and then trying to find places in the community that are sort of the least amount of impact on existing residents. And then prioritizing roadways in downtown for different modes of transportation. So there's a general concern about pedestrian and bike safety all over the city, but especially in downtown where there's lots of different modes all the time. You know, there's a lot of folks walking around, but there's also delivery trucks and people coming and going from work every day. So while people want to continue to encourage the office and business environment downtown, that seems like an important thing for the city, developers like The street network, they feel like the sort of traditional street grid that you find in downtown clayton is an asset in terms of future development potential. There is sort of a concern from residents that it's a lot of different modes and sometimes it creates a lack of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and so we have. there's lots of Richard research in the report about prioritizing streets for different users so coordinating improvements that the city of clayton is making. On certain roadways so that you can sort of think strategically about the users on those roadways so you all have some prioritize delivery routes think taking that a little bit further to. Where does it make sense to put different modes of travel, so that everybody remains safe but everybody still gets to move through downtown. So we focused on the automobile piece in this graphic here but as part of the livable communities plan there's obviously a big robust map of pedestrian and bicycle circulation throughout the city which we coordinated with for this piece as well. And then revising the zoning regulations to remove conflicts between base zoning districts and overlay districts. So this is one very relevant to you all here. So again, The city has 13 zoning districts, two TOD overlays, 10 other overlays. It's really confusing. It's a lot going on. Even when Ryan was giving his report about homes on the agenda, he said it's in this district and it's got this overlay. It's just a lot to keep track of. And oftentimes it creates confusion and conflicts. And so a lot of recent developments have utilized a PUD, which creates yet another sort of level of confusion. things to track. And so, you know, one next step is really aligning the zoning code with community goals and how development patterns look today. So it is there are less exceptions needed, there's less overlays that add another level of regulation. It also could potentially reduce the need for PUD use, it's probably still going to be used in large projects. But it may reduce that because some things are just a little bit more streamlined. And then it would encourage easier implementation. So a lot of the conversations we had with developers during this process said there's just a lot of regulations and we don't know where to start. And it's hard to make our way through all of them and which ones are more important and which ones they always give exceptions on. And, you know, how do we track all of that? And so thinking about how to make implementation and the conversation they then have with you all a little bit easier are one of our big recommendations is to task. Anna and her team were thinking about what zoning regulations look like to try to streamline that a bit. The next one is transportation and connectivity. So development adjacent to Metrolink stations is designed using TOD principles to increase density and capitalize on transit access. Clayton fosters a vibrant public environment that encourages community connections, and Clayton is a multimodal city with networks that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient transportations. So one of the key results is encouraging redevelopment and reuse at the Forsyth Gateway area adjacent to the Metrolink station. A lot of research went into determining that Clayton residents really don't use very much public transportation, although you are very well resourced when it comes to public transportation. And a strong desire to encourage a mixed-use redevelopment approach near the Forsyth station so. we showed many, many maps to the community and asked many times where you'd like to see redevelopment. And this was one that came up over and over. So it feels like one opportunity in the community where there is land for redevelopment and potential for some of those things people talked about. So thinking about revising the TOD overlay to encourage this type of development, supporting housing development in this area is something people were open to. And then thinking about design standards that might encourage people Some more transit oriented development in the area. Another one was coordinating with the livable Community master plan to identify priority areas for widening sidewalks to allow for safe pedestrian access, as well as outdoor dining and additional green space. in place of on street parking. So you all did a little bit of this during the pandemic, taking away parking spots in favor of those sort of temporary parklets for additional dining space. There are places in the community where the sidewalks are very narrow. And so dining space starts to encroach a little bit on sidewalks and makes it hard for people to pass in wheelchairs or strollers. And so when we talk to the community, 80% of the people that we asked were in favor of wider sidewalks and outdoor dining space in favor of on street parking so as a trade off in some places they would be willing to do that. And so that's part of the livable community master plan is locations for where that makes sense. So supporting As you all think about next steps as a plan commission supporting land use changes that encourage the creation of this type of space so parts of the Community that have certain types of land uses that might be more. suitable for this outdoor dining environment or for a place where maybe less parking is necessary, because we take it away from the street. And then the last one is community character. So Clayton Government is a regional leader with mutually beneficial partnerships with adjacent governments and institutions. Clayton is a dynamic center of economic and cultural activity for residents, businesses, and visitors. Our colleges, universities, and schools and institutions play a leading role in the cultural, social, and economic fabric of the Clayton community. And Clayton is on the forefront of planning for a sustainable future. So update the public art master plan to include strategies for aligning public art and private art adjacent to public spaces throughout downtown. You all have a 2017 public art master plan update, but there was also a lot of discussion during this process where people were really interested in. More public art, especially in downtown feeling like you know if we're looking for ways to soften the downtown environment and make it feel like a more well rounded approachable neighborhood public art might be one way to do that. And then those publicly accessible spaces as part of private developments. So for you all, thinking about strategy or some guidance related to encouraging private developments that allow public art access. So there's lots of private developments in Clayton that have a lot of public art. They maybe don't have any public art access. And so could you all think about a regulation or a strategy around that as part of a public art master plan? And then guidance related to large-scale public art. murals or temporary art or some of those sort of bigger public art efforts that you don't really have in your community but people have talked about lately as being a piece of what they might like to see so thinking about those two pieces as part of an update to the public art master plan. Ensuring Clayton has a strong identity that's reflected in the built environment. So I'm sure you all feel the same way, but residents feel a strong sense of community and attachment to Clayton. So whether it's their neighborhood or the city as a whole, people feel like there's a distinct identity and feel a lot of pride in that. And so thinking about ways that that could be put into the built environment. Whether it's gateway treatments at city access points, so people know they're entering Clayton. expanded branded wayfinding signage in downtown, so people know they're in downtown Clayton and it is a neighborhood. And then adding character elements in individual neighborhoods. So whether it's bike racks that tell you that you're in Daman or, you know, something in Clayton Gardens, something that sort of adds those character elements to individual neighborhoods to reiterate that sort of sense of pride people have in their individual neighborhoods. Okay, that was a lot. We're almost done, I promise. So after all of those objectives and key results in the plan, there is then a future land use map. And so a future land use this is a requirement of a comprehensive plan. It is a map that depicts all of the parcels in your community with the future land use associated with them. And so you can see on the map here, the yellow and orange is residential, the purple is mixed use. A lot of this was aligning your future land use map with what actually exists today. So same thing with that regulation piece, trying to align regulations and what it looks like to what it looks like today um so i'd say that's the biggest change in the future land use map is just aligning that to what looks what it looks like in reality today and then to add on to the future land use which is the only requirement as part of a comprehensive plan We also have these character areas because a future land use map just talks about land use. It's just those six land use designations, and it sort of leaves out a lot of the other components that make parts of Clayton really different from other parts of Clayton. So the context, the density, the height, the architectural character, all of those pieces that make Some of these neighborhoods feel really different than some of these other neighborhoods, even if it's single family. So the character areas is sort of that whole last section of the comprehensive plan where we go through each of these and talk about the land use environment, but also the density, how it feels as a pedestrian in the street, sort of those aspects that make these places feel a little bit more unique. Okay. And then there's also a density map, which talks about kind of the connections between different areas where activity happens, where places are gateways to the city, how density relates to each other in some character areas versus others, where redevelopment opportunities exist, all of those sorts of things. And then at the very end, it all wraps up into the implementation matrix. And this is sort of the quick guide to the comprehensive plan. In 10 pages, you can get through all of the objectives and key results and then how those tie back to the vision statements from those 2040 vision statements that we got from the community. And then a timeline, who's in charge, what partners might be relevant. And essentially this last 10 pages should be used as both your guide and the Board of Aldermen's guide when they think about decisions. So how do the decisions that you make relate to some of these next steps? And then are any of these next steps assigned to you they are. So it provides some guidance for future things as well. And then we recommend that this gets reviewed annually to revise actions for the coming year. So if things have been assigned to the plan commission or to the board or to the mayor or any other department in the city, you all have a clear expectation for who's accomplishing what in the coming year. And then a comprehensive plan is a 10, 20-year document. So the development patterns in Clayton may lead you to shift some of these one way or another. And so that's why it's important to look at this annually and make sure that you're still sort of on track and that these objectives and key results are still getting you where you want to go. So I think that's it. All right. Any questions?

Well, before we get to questions, I have a few comments.

Okay.

And that is... I was amazed by the 180-page book that we received.

187, okay. Thank you. Plus, I think, an index and a few more pieces. Well, the

appendix is many, many, many additional pages.

And having sat through so many of the meetings, the way you brought together everything, and of course, you've more or less summarized it step by step tonight. I know I and everyone else probably has more detailed questions, but I have to commend you and the planning team for listening to us because I think everything that was brought up in the various meetings that I heard or listened to, it's in there. And I was a little hesitant to think that we would get to this point even in a year, but apparently we did. My only downside in general is when we get to the matrix. To me, it really blew my mind. I had a lot of trouble really relating many of the points back to the written portion. But what I realize is that's something that we, the staff, the board, the various committees in the city are going to have to work on together. It's not a given document. It really is a guideline. But the detail and the complexity is there. And it does go back to the body of the plan. So I think it's a great outcome. I hope that our citizens will look at it, comment on it, because we are going to be discussing it for quite a while. And I do feel fairly confident that we'll be able to make some very progressive changes going forward. A lot of the things that I see in here are relating to incentives, which of course the plan commission cannot solely do that and sustainability. We talked to affordability came up Of course, impervious coverage. We've heard that tonight. That's wrapped up in the whole thing. So there are many things that we'll be drilling down pretty deeply in here. So let me stop there and let's move on and see what other comments and questions we have. I'll come back later. Carolyn?

think it's a

You know, I'm not suggesting you should change it to vinyl siding everywhere, but that's an example of something that like maybe in certain places you would want to change your material requirements to think about how that balances with affordability. You also might change material requirements depending on how it balances with sustainability, for example, if you're thinking about permeable pavers.

Yeah. I think the idea is just to think about the requirements you have in place now in terms of regulations and then think about how they tie to some of those other themes that we've talked about through the process.

That's hard to follow. No, I think it was incredibly well done. I did read all 187 pages, and what stood out to me was I liked the sustainability aspect for the older buildings, both the residential, commercial, because I think today... There's too much emphasis on it's old, it's not good. And you lose a lot. And there are many times sustainable buildings. So I didn't focus as much on the high demolition cost. But that might be effective. So excellent job. Thank you.

Amy?

So I read through the entire thing too. This is like five for five. Right. It took me almost a week, but I was very impressed. I think when I was sitting through like the previous meetings that we went through, it seemed like a lot of just kind of giving back information that you gathered. And I remember just kind of talking with Bridget. I was like, I want some real ideas of like what to do with these issues. And I think that this really gave us that. I like how you had some of the real world examples about other cities are handling this and what they've done, whether it's with different laws and things or how they've implemented. I think that was really smart. That was really what I was looking for. And through each of the areas, you really nailed a lot of great examples. I'm really excited about the zoning and getting a cohesive look. I think when I first started on this board, it was like, oh, it's in this circuit, but this overlay. And I was like, I don't really know how that all works. And so I think just a lot of people don't. And I think with developers, I think that will be huge. And so it really is exciting to kind of see, you know, as a member of this board, but just as a member of community, what this can really do for us all. I mean, it's really exciting. And you really did a great job with it.

David, I spent a lot of time with the plan. I think it's a great plan and I'm really mentally focused are shifting my focus, I guess, more towards that implementation at this point. We started some some really good conversations with the Board of Aldermen just taking a high level high level view at this last week at our annual retreat and We're excited to sit down and figure out how to prioritize these things and start having those conversations. But there will be a lot of smaller meetings when you go through this and you start looking at those key strategies. I mean, there is a lot to tackle here once we get that figured out. So, you know, we're going to have a lot of monthly discussions with the Board of Aldermen on these various topics, the Plan Commission as well, trying to organize this and figuring out how to break this off into chunks that are manageable for the discussion. But we've got a major zoning code rewrite in our future, and... looking forward to all that so um this has been a lot of work getting through this process but the bulk of the work is actually coming so

don't tell them that

look forward to it no it's exciting it's all good it's positive so thank you

i had a few other comments Had I started at the back with the implementation matrix, I think I could have maybe understood a little better by here's what you need to do. And then everything in front of it was the why. But of course, I read it backwards. But that's my problem. But what I did notice in the implementation matrices is many of them really overlap. And you could see that concepts like sustainability, preservation, affordability, economic development, incentives, they all have to work together. None of them are individual. And I think, David, from what you're saying, you were saying the same thing, where I don't think there's going to be one answer for anything. I think it's going to be a multiplicity of answers to get where we need to go. So I really think we have to hang our hat on the last 10 pages or so. And that's what we're really going to be working on. I did have a couple other questions. I know we talked about the character neighborhoods, and it didn't dawn on me what I was missing. And I don't know if you saw the New Jeffery Yorg Times this weekend. They produced this defined by you, which was absolutely fascinating to go through. It's extremely complex. And I began thinking that even our neighborhoods could be broken down even further. Because when I went back in, our neighborhoods individual character neighborhoods, some of them are divided by major streets within them. Some of them have multifamily on one side, single family on another, a whole range of differences. So I think as we go forward, we may want to modify that a little more, that our understanding of our own character is just beginning at this point.

i had a few other comments Had I started at the back with the implementation matrix, I think I could have maybe understood a little better by here's what you need to do. And then everything in front of it was the why. But of course, I read it backwards. But that's my problem. But what I did notice in the implementation matrices is many of them really overlap. And you could see that concepts like sustainability, preservation, affordability, economic development, incentives, they all have to work together. None of them are individual. And I think, David, from what you're saying, you were saying the same thing, where I don't think there's going to be one answer for anything. I think it's going to be a multiplicity of answers to get where we need to go. So I really think we have to hang our hat on the last 10 pages or so. And that's what we're really going to be working on. I did have a couple other questions. I know we talked about the character neighborhoods, and it didn't dawn on me what I was missing. And I don't know if you saw the New York Times this weekend. They produced this defined by you, which was absolutely fascinating to go through. It's extremely complex. And I began thinking that even our neighborhoods could be broken down even further. Because when I went back in, our neighborhoods individual character neighborhoods, some of them are divided by major streets within them. Some of them have multifamily on one side, single family on another, a whole range of differences. So I think as we go forward, we may want to modify that a little more, that our understanding of our own character is just beginning at this point.

Totally. I think during the process, it was sort of a slippery slope of like how small do we break up Clayton into which already is sort of a small community. And so that's how we landed on the ones we did just because it had to be big enough to still be workable. But I do think that the character areas can be a starting point when you start thinking about the zoning regulations. So What is the context and the character and the feel in some of these character areas? And then how can you use the zoning code, which obviously drills down much further to figure out how to enforce those regulations and that character in those different pockets of those areas. So I'm with you.

So many of those items are not the purview of only the plan commission. And I don't think we can really get into them, but we'll have to be talking with staff, the board, and the other department heads. But I think either you or The commission have covered everything that I sent in, plus many other things. So what I'd like to know is, are there anyone in the audience who have comments? Even you, Stuart? No?

Okay.

Okay. um were there any uh hands up none okay well um let me just run through my notes oh yes um there was a con there were comments that came from citizens about open space in the downtown area. That I think really comes back to a zoning issue and you had a very good graphic that we've talked about previously, instead of covering an entire site with a building where if you hold it back, there should be a trade-off. The square footage that is lost could be given to greater height Do you see that as a real natural way to go for a city of our size with our relatively small downtown plots?

Yes. I think we talked about that a lot during the process, that because of the market, you are not going to get a full parcel as a park. You are just not. And I'm not sure that it would be recommended anyway if you're trying to create a really lively street-level experience. But pushing a building back slightly, or even if it's a corner... could allow for some street level activation and some of that kind of softened feel, that warmth that people are looking for in downtown. But, you know, it is, it's a market. And so that does take space out of the building. And so thinking about what you can trade, that residents are kind of okay with the idea of to get that extra green space, you know, the height and density was one of the big ones.

Yeah,

communities have thought about as part of their downtown zoning, a specific corridor where you would want to prioritize that or certain corners of buildings that you would want to prioritize it maybe you don't want to offer that option in all of downtown because it doesn't make sense in certain places that might end up being dead space you could also think about how it relates to the public art master plan and are certain places going to be prioritized for larger scale public art that might activate the space so it speaks to steve it's all connected point but i do think you would want to think really strategically around that not being a regulation that applies sort of blanket

Right, and the city doesn't need to maintain those if they're part of a larger development where it becomes private space that's publicly accessible.

We talked about the character neighborhoods. The downtown one, when we're talking about open green space, we don't seem to have a center sort of an iconic center. It's covered with buildings right now. Do you have any further comment on that?

The vast majority of people did not ask for any sort of like central public space because people feel like Shaw Park is that public space adjacent to downtown and And the ask from residents was more for these smaller scale opportunities that sort of filled in around the entire downtown area to make downtown as a whole feel like a well-rounded neighborhood, as opposed to having downtown feel like a center of office adjacent to a large park. Does that make sense?

The reason I bring that up. I've been around long enough to remember, and maybe some other people in the audience do when the Justice Center was a parking lot. And before that it was a park. right in the middle of downtown. Of course, we gave those up as county government grew. So I'm not saying we need to recreate the past, but there was definitely a use and a meaning to having that. And it made me think when you go out into rural areas and you come into a county seat of a small county, you will find the courthouse and there's always green space around it. That's right. And it's always ringed with retail, commercial, some activity, which gives it sort of a central node. And I'm not sure we can ever get back to that or, you know, if it's even possible.

Well, following up on that, the Buzz Westfall Park is somewhat secluded from everything. It's a great place to walk my dog when I still have a dog. But it just seems to be in the wrong place. It's hidden. Unfortunately, it can't be moved. But maybe there's an opportunity when the county government begins seriously looking at what they're facilities are going to do. Maybe there's a joint effort between the county and the city to come up with some meaningful space as well as satisfying their needs. One other big thing I'd like to bring up, and that's our PUD process. It's complex. It confuses everyone. It's full of trade-offs. We've used it. We keep modifying it. Is there a way to get rid of it?

Good question. So I don't know if you want to get rid of necessarily, but I do think by streamlining some of the regulations that you have now, you could make that process a bit more predictable because you will have a more clear zoning code that really outlines what you would like to see, perhaps with less layers of additional regulations on top. And then you all would have a clearer picture because right now your PUD, you can trade a bazillion different things right? There's lots of different points that people can get as part of a process. And so it is really confusing. Even me looking at these things in other jurisdictions, it is confusing. And so I think the more you can streamline the regulations to make them predictable for people, residents and developers, the less you have to rely on the PUD. Well,

Well, what I think you've developed is something that's really workable. And I think it puts a lot of burden on our staff. I have every confidence that it will be handled to the benefit for the entire city.

Was there a second? But I, I really, I appreciate all the effort, not just of the planning team, but of our staff who were really in there all the time. Some of us were somewhat involved at times, but they were in there the whole time. So we thank you for all of that. Any other comments? As Anna indicated at the beginning, this is going to be an ongoing process. We'll be looking probably piece by piece in how they intersect and in the code revisions and everything else. So I think we've got our work cut out.

Thank you, Catherine. Other comments? Amy?

nothing further

Ellen

nothing further

Richard

nothing further

comments

David not tonight Anna

Yeah, just for the public. So the draft is still available on EngageClayton.com. You still can submit comments through that process or my contact information is also on the website. If you have questions or comments that you want to send directly to me, this plan, the public hearing has been advertised for the first meeting in June for this meeting or this board. So that's also that meeting date and information is on EngageCayton.com. So we'll be back in June to hear this. plan

to

move forward. CHRISTOPHER

COLEMAN- Ryan, any updates for us? RYAN

GRIFFIN- Nothing too exciting. I expect the next agenda to be pretty light, only a couple items.

CHRISTOPHE COLEMAN- OK. Obi? Nothing? OK. OK, thank you everyone for attending. We're adjourned.