January 6, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, good evening everyone and welcome to the Snowy Plan Commission ARB meeting for January 6. We'll allow anyone that's online to speak by raising their hands so we'll take everyone in turn. Ana, we'll get started.

Sure. So Steve, just before we get going, you as the since control went to you as the host, you're the only one that can mute or unmute people. You can transfer hosts to me or you can do that when we get to that point.

Okay. Can I? Oh, I can see participants.

Yes.

Okay. Well, we can start with a roll call.

Okay. Bob Denlow.

Okay. Bob Dunlow.

Here.

Helen DiFate? Here. Jim Arsenault?

Helen DeFate? Here. Jim Arsenault?

Here.

Kami Waldman? Here. David Gipson?

Kami Waldman? Here. David Gibson?

Here.

Steve Lichtenfeld?

Here. Okay. We have minutes from the previous meeting on December 16th. Are there any changes or corrections? Seeing no hands, do we have a motion? I move that we approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Then we'll move on to new business. And Ana, this is probably the appropriate time to switch it to you. How do I do that?

It looks like... It actually went back to Ryan. Ryan is the

host again. Oh,

okay.

Well, maybe he is not able to speak. So I'll go. We do, Ryan, if you can hear us, Bridget is in the, if you can promote her to a panelist or transfer over to me so that I can do that. I have to be the host to do that though. Okay. So the first item on the agenda, one second while I pull that up, is 123 Lancaster. I've got the staff report here. We'll start with the site plan review. So the property is located on the west side of Lancaster Drive between University Drive and Maryland Avenue. The property is zoned R2 single-family dwelling district and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is currently developed with a single-story, single-family home, and the applicant is proposing demolition of the existing structure to construct a two-story, single family home. In terms of impervious coverage, the property is, impervious coverage is limited to 55% and the property proposal meets the criteria with impervious coverage measuring 54.8%. Stormwater runoff is controlled through the use of a drywall in the front yard. And I can pull up more details on that if you would like. The existing canopy coverage is 6,337 square feet and proposed all to be removed. The plan proposes adding 4,250 square feet of canopy coverage, which exceeds the minimum replacement requirement. And the plan also exceeds the native species requirement with 73.3% native species. The existing structure is a front-entry garage into the driveway located on the north side of the home. The proposal would move the garage to the rear, and a driveway has been proposed on the south side of the home, though site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters will be installed in accordance with standards prescribed by Public Works. The height setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R2 single-family dwelling district and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size and site and character of the neighborhood. Staff are of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall record a deed restriction with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds noting the location and maintenance requirements of the drywall system and shall submit proof of filing prior to issuance of a building permit. And two, the applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The report must assess the performance of the proposed dry well based on the anticipated impact of a 15-year, 20-minute storm event. Should the results indicate that the proposed dry well is insufficient to accommodate the stormwater runoff generated by this event, the applicant shall be required to upsize the dry well accordingly to ensure adequate performance and compliance with the applicable stormwater management standards.

Okay. I see, Lauren, your hand is up. Are you going to take the lead on this? Oh, okay. Oh, the engineer is ready. Well, could we let both of them in one at a time?

I think unless... Does it allow you to do that, Steve? Because I'm still not the host, so it's not giving me the ability.

I can... touch it but it doesn't seem to do anything i still get just right um

ryan are you able to transfer host over to me since you're i might have to call him

so i can you hear me yes okay so it did ask me to transfer over the host to you um so i'm not sure I will, you know, I'll just try signing back in guys. I'm sorry.

Well, can you first see if you can unmute them? It thinks you're the host still. So we just need them to be unmuted for this before you sign up.

Well, I'm logged in currently as a guest. It's like the Ryan Helle profile that you see up there is not me.

Well, I'm logged in currently as a guest. It's like the Ryan Helly profile that you see up there is not me.

You're speaking on a panelist currently as a panelist. Oh, well, Because we didn't. Okay. We didn't let you. Sorry for the technical difficulties, everyone.

Okay. I think I got it figured

out.

Sorry. Yeah. You're the host now, Ryan.

Can you hear me now?

Is that you, Lauren?

This is Lauren.

Oh, hi. Welcome.

You can't see me, but you can hear me. That's good. Eric Vietmeyer is going to speak about the stormwater, and I do want to just start out by saying this is a pretty special house. It's a new home for Mark and Debbie Melman. They're moving out of condos into a single-family home. We're very proud of this home. It's not an overly large home, and I'm not going to talk about the architecture yet, but Eric is going to start by talking about the stormwater.

Hey, everybody hear me?

Yeah, welcome.

Great. I wasn't sure I was logged in properly here. As Anna stated, you know, we were some minor changes to the site. We are increasing the runoff a little bit. We're increasing it by, I believe it was 0.07 CFS. But to counter that or mitigate that, we designed the site to have the entirety of the roof area go to the drywall in the front yard. And that is a volume of 0.21 CFLs. And the drywall is sized to accommodate that entire runoff for the 15-year, 20-minute rain event. So we're detaining exactly three times as much as our differential. We have one neighbor to the south that had runoff going to them, and we dropped that from 0.27 to 0.03 CFS. No other neighbors were getting any direct runoff. Everything else is going out to the street. If the geotech report indicates that the drywall needs to be upsized, there's still plenty of room in the front yard that we could be able to expand that drywall as needed, if needed. If there are any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Well, you know, there are certainly always questions. Since we aren't sharing the screen, but hopefully everyone will have a drawing. Could you just go over where all the yard drains and everything, where they go to? Because we have three on the north side of the house, one in the driveway, one in the backyard, one in the front yard. Sure, yes. Just a quick summary

Well, it's actually very easy. All those yard drains go to another yard drain that's out in the front that will act as a pop-up emitter. The size of the pipe is larger than the available pop-up emitters. NDS makes pop-ups in sizes of three inch, four inch and six inch. We have an eight inch pipe going out to the front coming around from the back, the backyard and the driveway. So we can't use a pop-up. What I did was use a yard drain as an emitter, and I've used this on a few MSD approved projects coming out of MSD bioretention basins, and they've approved those in the past. Not that they were, they probably weren't looking that closely to this, but MSD has already approved these plans. And like I said, it's a solution I've used a few times when we have pipes that are larger than we can normally put a pop-up on. So all five of those yard drains go to that one in the front. And that's a final discharge point. And we had to do this solution because there's not a whole lot of slope on the site to be able to allow for daylighting a pipe once you get drain basins deep enough for them to actually function and convey just as they're manufactured.

Oh, okay. So they're all going out to that blue drywall, dry well. No,

no, they're going to, there's an 18 inch yard drain just north of the driveway. It's highlighted, there's a red rectangle around the 18 inch yard drain note on the screen. It's on the other side of the yard from the drywall. I try to keep yard drains out of drywalls whenever possible, just because that surface debris clogs up a drywall much quicker.

Okay. Okay, now that makes sense. Thank you for that.

My pleasure.

Okay. Good. Well, reading it on an 11 by 18 was a little difficult.

Yeah,

the screen has made it better as well as your explanation. Well, thank you, I'm glad. Let's see, are there other questions,

Bob? There must be some real concern about the water runoff. You're gonna do a percolation test by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Your intention is to do that as soon as you get approval of this. Is that where we're heading?

Well, that's staff's recommendation. So if staff is recommending that we need to do a soil infiltration or percolation test, then that needs to be done. The staff report did not specifically state when that needed to be done. Usually that would probably be closer to the time that we would be digging for the dry well. That way, construction traffic doesn't alter the soil characteristics. You know, you could get a very favorable reading right now. Once all the construction traffic moves through there, you could get different readings. So I would suggest that the city allow us to wait until prior of construction of the drywall to do that percolation test rather than doing it at the onset of construction. But that is up to staff.

Okay. I think that kind of makes sense to me. I have no further questions.

Bridget, are you with us?

I am. That's me. Yeah, I appreciate all the explanation about the drywall. So thank you, Eric. Thank you. No further questions. Helen?

No questions, Eric. You've answered my question already. So thank you.

All right. Kami?

Just one quick question. Just when I look at the proposed drainage area map, so is all the stuff in the purple that's encapsulating the house, that's all going to the drywall? And then all the pink is going to be to that pop up in the front of the house is that right

yeah everything all the pink is going out to the street

so then what are the other drainage in the backyard

Everything in the backyard is being piped out to the street. There's a little sliver of green on the south side of the proposed house that goes to the neighbor, and that's where that significant reduction from 0.27 to 0.03 is found. Everything else goes out to the street, and there's a street inlet just south of basically in front of the neighbor's house to the south. So it just has to pass one driveway before it gets into the MSD sewer system.

Okay. And so then all the pop-up in the front yard, that when it pops up, you don't want to get filled, that goes where?

Goes out to the street and then into the sewer.

Okay. And so what is right to the south of that driveway on this property?

It's the neighbor's driveway.

Okay. So is there any concern that when that pop-up pops up and the water comes out of it, that that'll flow over this person's driveway into their neighboring driveway?

No, no. Anything that comes out of what I'm using as a pop-up, this 18-inch yard drain, if it goes south before going to the street, it's going to get to the proposed driveway, which will then convey it directly to the street just by its slope characteristics.

Okay. Great. Thanks. My pleasure.

Jim?

Overall, I think I'm pretty good. I really like the idea of the percolation test. I know in several weeks now we've kind of discussed dry wells and the sizing of dry wells. And we've kind of mentioned the fact that we're not civil engineers, so it's tough for us to determine the size of a dry well. So I really kind of like the solution of kind of taking our best stab at it but then doing a test to make sure we get it right. But other than that, no further questions.

Okay. David? No questions. Okay. We do have two conditions on the staff recommendation. Eric or Lauren, are you in agreement with that?

I've read both. The deed restriction is a standard one. That's always the condition for approval in my site plan. So I guess the only other one would be the soils report or the percolation test. Steve Monowitz, I you know if that's what staff is recommending and that's what we need to do just need to I guess work out the timing of that, and that can be worked out with staff if if this board is a is okay with that. Okay

hey Steve just before we make emotion, I just wanted, I feel like there's a lot of people in the audience and that might be, I just want to make sure that they know they can raise their hand at this point, if they have any comments. regarding the site plan. I mean, nobody's got their hand up. So I mean, I just want to make sure that people are aware that if they have any comments, just because we haven't, you know, we haven't been virtual in a while. So just if there is anybody in the audience that wants to comment just on site plan only, feel free to raise their hand.

Thanks, Bridget. We do have someone. Mr. Boldt. Oh,

okay. Good afternoon. I was wondering if there is a provision for any peering on the north side of that property. We are located as a neighbor to the north. Is there any peering anticipated on the north side? I think so.

That would be more of a structural engineering question. And unfortunately, I nor Vols are structural engineers. So I unfortunately do not have an answer for you. There will be a basement on that side, on the north side of the house. So that's going to take away a lot of, I guess you'd say stress or pressures on that retaining wall that is on the property to the north. But beyond that, I'm unable to answer.

Okay. Yeah, the retained wall is our wall. And so that was the rationale behind my question. I want to be sure that we don't lose that wall in the process. We

have water

issues.

Right. Lauren, can't you answer that question? I

want to answer this question. This is Lauren Struttman, the architect. You know me.

Hello, Lauren.

Hi, Lauren. I designed this out. We purposely put the driveway on the other side, on the south side, so it's not to impact the landscaping and that retaining wall that's along your driveway. So we definitely were conscious of that when we designed the home, and I know there's some landscaping that's kind of right on the property line that gives privacy between the two homes, and that's being maintained as well. So we were conscious of that. When we designed it.

That sounds great. Obviously, our only concern is that wall failure or the potential water pushing that wall out.

Right. Yeah, and that's been addressed with Eric doing drainage inlets all along that wall and, again, keeping all the action with the new driveway to the left instead of to the right towards you.

Got you. Okay, thank you.

Hey, thanks, Lauren.

I don't see any other hands up for the attendees. Any other comments before we move on? No. Okay, do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the staff recommendation for the site plan together with the two conditions that the applicant is familiar with. Number one, dealing with the deed restriction and number two, dealing with the percolation test.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Let's now move on to the architectural review.

I'd be glad to speak. I don't know if we're going to read a staff report because we already sort of have. Shall I speak first?

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay. Yeah, this is a 3,600 square foot two-story traditional home. We were able to put some nice pitches on the roof because this is a flat lot versus a walkout type lot, which would have reduced our roof height. We have an at-grade rear entry garage with the trash and the air conditioners towards the rear of the property. The house will be an all brick color in a light tan gray color with limestone accents and bands on the house. And at the windows and doors, the windows will be black and we'll have a charcoal blend roof. There are two fiber cement box bays on the house, but everything else is black. I'm here to answer any questions. I think it blends in well with the neighbors and I think Ryan Hell wrote a very nice report explaining how we did the height mitigation to the existing home to the left. Okay. Lower than the bulk residence to the right and then we mitigated the height to the existing older home to the left

Well, Lauren, you mentioned the air conditioning compressors. They look like they're not adjacent to the house. Is that correct?

That's correct. They're off the driveway to the rear of the house. We didn't want them too close to the porch. They're kind of right in the middle of the property, actually.

Yeah. Okay. I don't think we've seen that before.

We carefully considered that location with Mark and Debbie Melman and that's where they would like to put them. And you'll see the Baxter Gardens plan has quite a bit of landscaping all around those AC units as well.

Right, yeah.

We couldn't really put them on the north side of the neighbor to the right because of the wall and the existing landscaping. And we couldn't put them on the left because we have a driveway there. They ended up in the rear.

Yeah. Well, I just had a question about that. I think it looks pretty good. Being in the Clayton Gardens Development District, yeah, there's the plan. You have a partial step down on the south side. That would be the left side. Quite often we've seen a... longer step down, not just at the rear of the property. But I think it works pretty well and I'm okay with it. The materials and the dimensions and the roof, they all look good. I'm also glad to see that the floor level is pretty well at grade or just slightly above it. The Bolt residence next door The first floor level is much higher than the grade. But I think it works out well on the Melman residence. So I'm okay. Bridget?

Lauren, I was just going to, I just, even though I've been on this commission for about, well, almost two years now, just in looking at the plans, do you have, I see you've got like an outdoor room, but not a patio or anything. Is that?

Oh, that's all Mark and Debbie wanted was just an, we call it, but it's just a porch, just a small outdoor area and patio proposed and To talk a little bit about the height, the Bolt residence to the right has a tuck-under garage, which close houses up. And we have an F-grade garage here. And Mark and Debbie and I also talked about a really nice thing to do is to not have a lot of steps in and out of the back door of your house. So in the rear, they just have one step going down through the porch into the grave and the garage. So I think that's what a lot of people like these days.

So the outdoor room is not, it's not really enclosed. It's just like a covered area about it. I didn't know if it was like a three season room. I couldn't really tell. So

it's just a patio with a roof on it.

Okay, got it. That makes a little more sense. It's just because you're really at, and I understand it's more of a site plan question too with the, you know, you're just kind of right up against that maximum amount of, so you just can't add anything, I guess. You know, there can't be any other impervious space back there. So I just wanted to make sure that they had all the outdoor space that they needed. So, okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. It looks nice.

Bob? For the reasons that Steve was outlining, I like it. What's interesting, I look at the picture on your page two, which shows the three homes and the one on the right, the two-story building, looks like a first cousin of your proposed visual. It's got similar brick appearance. It's got black windows, the white trim around and the white trim around the entrance. It fits in pretty well, actually, into the neighborhood. And the height difference of the property to the south, I think under all the conditions, it works okay. I have nothing further.

Okay. Ellen? Ellen, are you

with us? Yeah, I was muted. I have a question taking off from what Bob just said. Is the brick of 123 the same color as 127? No. 127

was a house built by Bobby Slavin and he used on another house in this house on Another house on poor side. It's a very slick tan kind of sophisticated townhouse brick in itself. One that we've seen a lot of Clayton, whereas Mark and Debbie Melman's is a little has more variety to it and it's very color. They are very much they're different or similar but different. They're not by no means the same work, even though our color rendering kind of looks like the color picture. of 127 Lancaster, the . So.

Okay. No, that's, it is hard to tell on photographs and then renderings. So that sounds good. The other thing is the ornamental iron. I like that detail on the front. On some of your drawings, it is identical to 127. it is not just the verticals that you're showing now which will it be um

i would actually have to ask mark and debbie melman that but i i suppose it could be either one uh we have the verticals I can see on our rendering and on our street context, we have the X's. Although I will say these homes are quite different in style. The 127 is a completely symmetrical, more formal townhouse look. And this one is, you know, a more interesting style with more character to it. And I can answer one or the other if you all would prefer. I can text Mark Melman, too. He's on the phone. I could ask him if he would like the vertical versus the ones that are the squared up kind of X style.

It's a detail, but I think my looking at it was it shouldn't look the same as its neighbor. That is bad for both. You've described the brick as being different enough. And this is just a detail. Personally, I like what's shown in the rendering because it's simple and it is different than what is next door. But it's a detail. I think what you've done looks good. I like the way it steps down. I think it'll work well and look great in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Amy?

I just kind of actually have the same questions as Helen. So Lauren, thank you for answering. I was worried about matching the brick to your neighbor and then the railing detail. But yeah, I think it looks great. Similar to Helen, I really appreciate the asymmetrical facade instead of just kind of like our standard little cube boxes that we're seeing a lot of. So yeah, it looks great.

Jim? Jim?

Pretty much mirroring what everyone else has said. I really like the asymmetry. I like the step down to the one story property to the side. I like the detail on the sides that we don't have. There's these big flat sides. I think overall it's just very successful.

David?

No comments or questions.

Okay. Are there any other hands up? Let's see. Lauren, did you have anything further to say?

Oh, thank you. Glad we got to meet virtually than driving into Clayton tonight. This worked well.

Well, it's a good-looking house. I think Mark and Debbie will be very happy. Do

we have a hand up now?

There is? Okay.

Good evening. Thank you all for your time. It's Laura Bolt. Lauren, I think the house is great. It looks really good. And we're looking forward to being neighbors with Mark and Debbie. I've had an opportunity to speak to Mark and we'll meet over little things that really aren't of anybody else's concern but our own. But I do, I like the idea of not matching the railings, of course. That's just my opinion as a neighbor. I kind of like our house the way it is. And I think the one you've just designed Lauren for the Melman's looks great with either railing, but in lieu of our railing next door, I would hope that they, I'm hoping they would use the alternative, the one in your rendering. It's a personal opinion. You know, it doesn't really mean much, but I just thought I'd express myself and thank you all for your time.

Okay, thank you. Could you let Debbie in? It's either Debbie or Mark. Debbie?

It's Mark, but Debbie's right by my side, Steve. Hi. So we're very excited about building our single family home on Lancaster. So it's been almost 17 plus years that I've lived in different condominium developments of mine from the building on Parkdale to the Crescent to our latest, The Pearl. And now as our family has grown grandchildren-wise, we need a backyard. So it's been an interesting phenomena where I've always been pushing condo, condo, condos for those at a certain lifestyle. And now here we are, we've gone out of the condo And now we're looking for a smaller single family home. And I wouldn't be surprised if maybe some of this becomes more common amongst people whose families are growing with grandchildren and growing out of the condos. And I think we're just going to be probably more of a shortage of the ability to do so. But we're very excited. And I thank everybody for all you've done for the Melmans, both ourselves and Scott and Blair. now and very much appreciated. We love Clayton, and I think Clayton loves us too, so it's a good match.

Well, Mark and Debbie, we're excited to see you building the new house, staying in Clayton, and continuing to be our neighbors. You got it. Thank you. Curt Brown, Any other hands. I don't see any others. Okay. Any further comments from the ARP. Curt Brown, If not, we do have a staff recommendation to approve is submitted. Do we have emotion. Curt

Brown, And move that we approve the staff recommendation of the applicants architectural plans.

Second, Curt Brown,

All in favor. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Well, thank you, Lauren, Eric, and congratulations, Debbie and Mark. When will you move in? I guess they can't answer. Okay. Yeah,

they're not allowed to talk anymore. Right. Okay.

Since we've gone through both the site plan and the ARB, I have a comment that is not to be related to this house. But Ana and Ryan, as we go forward looking at all of our zoning conditions and everything else, I'd like that we discuss lowering the impervious coverage. And I don't know whether it's to lower the 40% or to lower the incentive amount, but something like that. And I certainly like to see it come up again. I know we've mentioned it before, but I think we should take a hard look at it again. That's just my comment.

Sure. Yeah, I think you might have missed the meeting where we gave the update on the timeline of when we're approaching all of the various zoning text amendments. But that the lot coverage and stormwater management is one that we've just started recently with Kate, our intern from WashU, who gave a presentation. So that one will likely come to the plan commission. I'm trying to remember if I'm in probably February, March for an update and then look to by the beginning of the summer, have some text amendments drafted.

Okay. I did, when I got back, I did look at the meetings that I missed, but as far as remembering when, I have no idea.

Yeah, it's coming. We just started that one, so you'll see

it. Thank you. Okay, we can move on to next two items, which are both public hearings. And the first one, item three is about bars and live performance venues. And we can open the public hearing.

Great. I'll take that one. Share my screen here. Okay, so a while back, we gave a little presentation on how we're going to be tackling some of the recommendations from the comprehensive plan and the first one to come to you since then. There was a key result included in Clayton Tomorrow that said update liquor license regulations to allow bars in downtown Clayton. So with this in mind, we've had various discussions with the Board of Aldermen starting a few months ago. And now we've actually gone through the process of drafting some language. And I also wanted to note a few other elements of the comprehensive plan that touch on this that are kind of tangentially related, talking a lot about creating activity and vibrancy within downtown, and then also removing some different conflicts that we have in layers of our zoning code between base zoning and overlay districts. So right now the focus is on downtown. And to do that... We also, Ryan took a dive at all of the downtown overlay districts. So in one hand, we knew from the comprehensive plan and talking with the Board of Aldermen that there was interest in allowing bars as a use in our downtown area. And then second to that is the overlay district for the entertainment district. And Ryan took a look through this along with our other overlay districts and found the conclusion is that the entertainment overlay hasn't really been successful in impacting vibrancy within the downtown area. The way that that tried to go about creating vibrancy was reducing the food sales requirement for obtaining a liquor license and for entertainment venues, replacing that with a requirement for ticket sales or some other similar activity to balance out the liquor sales. But since we've done this, we haven't really seen any movement of people really trying to open these types of districts or uses. I'm sorry. So we looked at the goal of this along with the goal of bars and felt that we could achieve both with some modifications to the base zoning district. So what we've proposed is a text amendment that impacts two different chapters of our adopted code. So Chapter 405, which is our zoning regulations, and that's in the purview. The Planning Commission makes recommendations on that. And then connected is Chapter 600, which is our alcoholic beverages, and that's where we have liquor license requirements. And the Planning Commission doesn't have any recommendation or recommendations. kind of oversight with chapter 600, but the elements are connected here tonight. So both have been included in your packet. Really what we've done is the big recommendation is repealing the entertainment overlay district, but then retaining elements of that elsewhere in chapter 405. Within our definition section, we have a definition currently for a tavern or a bar. We'll update that. We also currently allow wine bars. Then we're going to add entertainment venues and live performance venues and have... Bar entertainment venue and live performance added to approved uses within the high density commercial district with a conditional use permit. And then second to that would be some of the requirements specific to entertainment uses and live performance venues that are currently in the overlay, we would add those to a new section within Chapter 405. So we would still be able to have some of the requirements that we have or all the requirements we have today for those venues that would require noise abatement plans, seating concept layouts, capacity, etc. And then within the conditional use permit process is how we'll be able to evaluate for additional mitigation of uses or nuisances. based on the specific locations. And then to coordinate with that in Chapter 600, there's various updates. So we'll use some definitions that are pulled directly from Missouri statutes to make sure that we're lining up with the liquor licenses. As it's mentioned in the staff report, a lot of Chapter 600 is really almost verbatim language from the state statutes. But we want to make sure that definitions that comply with state regulations, but also kind of reference accordingly with our zoning regulations. Then we have a numerical limit for license types. So right now in the Entertainment Overlay District, we have some language about that. So we can continue to have that limit for live performance venues, total numerical limit. And then also cleaned up a few things within Chapter 600. Currently we have a chapter in 405 that talks about accessory alcohol sales. So we've decided to, for the sake of kind of how we regulate and facilitate the liquor licenses, we've moved some of that out of the zoning regulations and lined it up with the actual license requirements within our liquor licenses. So we moved some regulations about accessory alcohol sales to line up with regulations within Chapter 600. So that's the overview, pretty basically, of it. It came from the comprehensive plan and the Board of Aldermen. And really, the only new element that we have here from what exists today in the regulations is the idea of bars, which do not have to have any sort of food requirement. But in terms of conditional use permits, noise, hours of operation, all of that, it's similar to what we have today. Thank

you. Well, thank you. I thought this was very concise and direct, and it was a pleasure to read this proposal in here. But there are a few questions. Under license regulations, well, 600.035, it says a maximum of 12 liquor licenses. Is there a reason for 12? Could it be more or could it be less?

So that was pulled. So that's where we maintain some of the language. So the cap for live performance venues getting a liquor license, that's the same cap that's currently in the entertainment overlay district. So we moved caps over in that manner. The number could change. You could recommend a change or the Board of Aldermen could. But we wanted to maintain a numerical cap like we had in the entertainment overlay. Okay.

I'm not recommending a change, but I understand carrying it over. And that makes sense. If we look under 600.040 in B, it says not more than 75% of the gross sales of such would be derived from alcoholic beverages. But then down in D1, it says a minimum of 20% of the annual gross income must be derived from other than alcohol. So what about that 5% in there?

Okay, sorry, Mr. Rowland. So you said...

In... Section B, we have a 75% as the maximum for sales for alcoholic. Right, for

an entertainment venue.

Right.

And then D is for a live performance venue. So again, that's how the two were set up in our entertainment overlay district. So we just pulled them over.

Ah, okay. My error in not seeing the differences there.

No

problem. Okay. And then in E, oh, that's microbrewery and that has 10 licenses. Was that also pulled over? No, I don't think so.

No, the microbrewery. So this language under microbrewery was actually pulled directly from the Missouri statutes. That language was inserted. So they're currently in our code. Microbreweries were in allowed use. And then we had microbrewery under the... liquor under chapter 600, but only related to the payment for a license type. But we didn't directly reference the regulation of the microbrewery license within this section, which is where we regulated a lot of the other license types. So that is pulled over from the state statute.

Okay. And I had one other question and that's in 405.34. 3.390 definitions under live performance venue. Item F, there's a minimum of six days per month. I couldn't quite figure out how that would relate to the minimum of 50% of the days the venue is open.

So the minimum of six days, that came out of a discussion with the Board of Aldermen on how we would determine live performance venues and what qualifies them for a live performance venue. So this... This was actually part of the discussions from back when we set up the overlay district, but the idea was to try and differentiate a live performance venue. It's less important now that we're allowing bars, but at the time it was important to determine what a live performance venue was compared to just a bar. So that's where that six days came.

Can a live performance venue overlap with a bar? Sure. Can it overlap with a restaurant?

Yes. I mean, I think with all these uses you could have, there's nothing to say that a live performance venue can't have a kitchen and food sales. The idea is we added how we would regulate those uses if they did not have a kitchen, but they could or could not have kitchen. That wouldn't really impact. So the restaurant component could be there still.

Okay. That's it for me. Bridget?

Yeah, I mean, Ana, thank you for putting this all together. Certainly, as you mentioned, when the board had a discussion session on a Friday afternoon, I don't know, maybe about a month and a half back, I want everybody to know that we created the entertainment overlay, I don't It was actually before that.

Was

it more than two years? First time I

worked for Clayton. Okay,

okay. So, you know, I think what we're trying to do here is, again, pursuant to the master plan, is trying to find ways to have downtown be a bit more vibrant. I think we are actually getting some entertainment here. places now with the darts and with the golf, which has not opened yet. But so it's wonderful to see those establishments opening. But it is a significant barrier in downtown where people maybe want to open something and there's just not the You know, having a full build out kitchen is a huge undertaking for the property owner for the lessee. So that's kind of the idea I think and again as part of what came out of the master plan. I think there's always concern about noise. But I'm comfortable that, again, under our conditional use permit process, we can still regulate where some of these places go, whether they get closer to some of our residential areas. I think, again, we'll have the opportunity for our residents and for both of these boards, whether it's the Board of Aldermen or obviously for this board, to consider where things are and making sure that we're careful about noise and regulating them as they proceed. as applications come in. So I do, Ana, just have a couple of questions. I was just curious, the 1.30 a.m. to 6 a.m. time, so does that mean then bars would close at 1.30? Is that basically like bar time?

Right. And that's another time that's pulled within our liquor licenses. So they couldn't sell any alcohol after 1.30 per the liquor license regulations. Now, through a conditional use permit, the operation hours could be restricted further. So right now, the liquor license says you can't do it no matter what as a liquor license. But we have plenty of conditional use permits for various restaurants today where they're ending prior to that. So that's kind of where we would be able to address some of the concerns you're referencing based on the location of a specific business.

Got it. Okay. And then it's the 130-6. Is that like a state statutory thing based on the liquor license? Yes. Okay. I just was curious if that is where that came from. And then... look and see what other questions were. Oh, I was just curious under the chapter 600, which I know we're not talking about as much, but why is there a square footage requirement for the wine bars? I was just curious.

Yeah, that's something that we actually might strike. That was the existing wine bar program. So Gary Carter, who's online, he set that up, our economic talent director. And so we actually have a note in there that we ran it past the city attorney to potentially strike that. Now that we're allowing bars, there isn't much of a reason to restrict a wine bar in size compared to a regular bar. So that's one of the notes that you'll probably see a difference when it goes to the Board of Aldermen.

Okay, great. Okay. And then just under the performance, I don't disagree with this, but under Chapter 405.340, under E, we've got the primary entrance to the venue shall not be located along Maryland Avenue. Which, again, I agree with given that residential is across Maryland. But is there a reason? Are we just trying to make sure that it's clear to people that, you know, that we're trying to provide that buffer? Like as compared to, again, regulating it through the conditional use permit or...

Yes. So that one is another one that we were going back and forth. It's currently in the overlay that you can't have your primary entrance on Maryland. If that's something that we would still like to enforce, I think it's important to maintain it within our code simply because there are properties that could have their only entrance on Maryland Avenue. And so then it would be hard through a CUP process to say, well, you're you might actually meet all of the requirements, but then we're actually deciding we're not going to let you go there. So if that's something that this board and the Board of Aldermen want to maintain, then I think we should keep that within the code.

Yeah, I mean, I do. I think that's important. So yeah, I just wanted a little clarification as to why that was in there. And then only because I was curious under microbrewery E3, is that also, I guess that's also a state statutory thing related to the holder of a microbrewery brewer's license having some sort of financial stake. Okay. We don't, you don't really have to explain it. I was just curious. Okay. I think that's all my questions for now. Thank you.

Bob? Yeah, Anna, again, I want to echo what Bridget said. I mean, the whole idea is to bring vibrancy to the neighborhood. I don't know if this is the place, but you're talking about alcohol and you're talking about entertainment and food and those things. I think it's important somewhere that the city approve some kind of street music entertainment, like in front of the old courthouse, to bring people out. It always works. I don't care if it's just a piano that people can walk by and play, which I see in various cities, or just some nice light music during the day or early evening, maybe an ice cream truck, something to draw people out. And We're now talking about live music. We're talking about entertainment, alcohol. I think, I don't know where that's addressed, Anna, if it's here, but we would make a big failure, I think, in carrying out the comprehensive plan if we don't do something about that. The next thing is call me I read through it and I'm scratching my head. We have a live performance venue. We have an entertainment venue. We have a restaurant venue. We have all these different venues and I'm just coming into the city and I want to maybe have a restaurant and a bar, and you're telling me, well, how much money are you going to make from your restaurant? How much money are you gonna make from your bar? And I'm saying to you, what the hell do you need to know? Why is that government's interest? If I can do a restaurant and get a liquor's license and maybe play music once a week, what more does the city know? You guys have a conditional use permit to oversee me And you could basically, you can negotiate, you could impose upon me whatever restrictions you want along the way. But to have all these different things where you're making me take out my financial statements just to get the approval and I've got to maintain certain levels, I'm not really sure what the city is trying to do here. And Anna, I guess, or David, I'm going to you guys on that question. Why the different levels? Why the different investigation into making sure that you produce so much income for food, so much income for alcohol?

Well, I think the part of it is because of how the state regulates liquor licenses. So restaurant, restaurant bar, microbrewery, these are definitions that are pulled directly from the state. So that's where Chapter 600 is. It's important for you guys to see, but it's a very different animal from the zoning regulations that this commission's used to dealing with. because of that element. Now, within the zoning code, the reason we have some of those differences are again to differentiate between the operational characteristics of the use. Now, I think within entertainment venue and bar, if there's a preference to just kind of combine those all into one in terms of the liquor licenses, that's something that we can definitely investigate and try and narrow down. But the uses of a live performance venue versus a bar are very similar, but they're not exactly the same in the eyes of zoning. And then a restaurant definition, again, in the eyes of the Missouri statutes for a liquor license is where you get into the sale value and other things. So that's where They don't quite meet each other in the exact same way when you get zoning and state liquor license requirements together.

So if I look at the restaurant, it says for me to get, I guess, a license for a restaurant from the city of Clayton, I need 50% of the gross income or at least $200,000 from the sale of food. That is a state requirement? Yes.

Yes. Yes. If you look up. I trust you. I'm just trying to figure out where does this come from? Right. That's how they define those different ones for the different types of licenses, because then associated the state also outlines different procedures and fees associated with licenses. And so that's where I wouldn't be comfortable just wiping out the various types of licenses without our director of finance and our city attorneys looking at what that would the implications would be. But as far as a zoning perspective, we just focus in on Chapter 405 and the different definitions. I think that is where we could potentially remove some of the elements with live performance venues and entertainment venues, where we have some specific requirements in those definitions that we could remove, and they would separate from Chapter 600.

I mean, if I have an arcade, am I an entertainment venue then?

Right, because you could have an arcade with or without a liquor license. But an arcade with a liquor license through a bar is one. So that's where the use is. We'd want to make sure we still allow the use with or without alcohol sales. Because you could have an entertainment venue without alcohol sales. You could have it with. Is the live

performance venue, an entertainment venue, a creation of the state or a creation of the city of Clayton?

Those are through our entertainment overlay district, which is why I'm saying that we could... We have more room to revise the definitions of those within our zoning code than we do the other elements within Chapter 600. I

mean, you know... 40 years of practicing law and representing business people, I always want to say to the city, simplify, simplify, simplify. When I go in, tell me that you're a business partner who I can do business with. And just as opposed to just setting regulations upon regulations, we're trying to figure out which is which. And if these have legitimate purpose is I'm all in, but I'm befuddled why we're creating separate layers here. And then we have separate distinctions, especially when we're still holding the conditional use permanent at the end of the day.

Well, we still have to define them to a certain extent. That's where I remove alcohol to a certain point. Because within our zoning code, we have at the end a list of permitted uses. Some are conditional and some are not. So we still have to have those listed. And if we want entertainment venues, regardless of whether or not they sell alcohol or live performance venues, regardless of they sell alcohol or bar, we still need to have those listed as uses. And then it's kind of... a best practice to have a definition associated with those uses, unless you rely on staff each time to then go through the process of determining how do you interpret that use when it's listed in the table. So that's where a bar is different from an entertainment venue. So we want those defined and we want them listed separately as a use within the high density.

Tell me why we have a wine bar designation. As opposed, if Sasha serves wine plus, and I don't know if this is true, alcohol. Do they serve a traditional alcohol drink? I think they put Baileys and coffee and all that kind of stuff. If you want, that's real alcohol. Why do we have a designation wine bar?

So that was from the program that added wine bars where similar, those restaurants, if they didn't want to have the food sales, there was a special liquor license you could get for a wine bar. That's where that provision has come into play. So that's where we mentioned with Bridget, we can remove the... um, square footage restrictions or otherwise, as long as we're still compliant with any sort of state law impacts on liquor license.

Which goes to this point, we seem to have somewhat of a very, I won't say obsession, but, but a real desire to know, tell me how much you're doing in alcohol and tell me how much in food before we even begin to label you. And before we even begin And I don't know how much of that's from the state and how much of that is from local.

We used to. We don't really have that anymore because that's where I'm saying the definition of restaurant and restaurant bar, those are two different things defined in state law of liquor licenses, and that's the definition of them. So that's where I want us to separate the liquor license for a second because we'll go through. That's an element that we got comments back today from our city attorney and our finance directors looking at it. So separate those because that's kind of a separate issue. But if you just look at the zoning, Chapter 405, and the uses that we have proposed to be allowed in the high-density commercial district, that's where I would like to – If we don't want to allow them or we do, but we want to change the definition, that's what we need to hear from this board. But getting into the qualifications for a liquor license, I think is something that we need to defer. to a different group for. I

agree. Whatever that is, it is, you know, but everything else, can we simplify a little bit more is where I'm going to. And I know I'm, I'm not looking at the weeds like you are. I mean, I get that. And so I defer to you, but, uh,

I think I'll leave it at that. I'm going to

start repeating myself now.

I think that we can simplify the whole idea of asking for the percentage of sales for in the restaurant, you know, for food and for alcohol is based on that. They don't want somebody who may not bars may not be allowed in the zoning. They don't And so they really try and get down to, are you operating a restaurant or are you really just a bar? And that's for licensing purposes. But given that our zoning code is going to allow both restaurants and bars, I think that we can simplify that while still retaining all of the state liquor control requirements.

I mean, if you're a bar, you don't need the requirement of a restaurant and get the approval and all that kind of stuff. But if you're a restaurant, you got to make that sizable investment in a kitchen and get licensing and be subject to inspection and all that stuff.

Right.

Okay. I've taken enough time. I just wanted to explore that. Ellen?

I think all of my questions and thoughts have been presented and answered. So nothing further.

Kami?

I just, cause I had a quick question. This all makes sense to me, but like, I'm not a restaurant or bar owner. And so I just wanted to make sure that where you did you guys talk to owners and see like, you know, over the past few years, what was prohibiting them from wanting to, you know, open a business in Clayton of this nature. And does that, and does this change solve that issue?

Yes. And if you want to say any more, Gary, just raise your hand and I'll let you. But yes, so that was part of through the comprehensive plan. We had our consultants talk to people. I know Gary Carter's had many conversations with developers, property owners and potential business owners. business owners who are looking to move here so it's kind of covered in all elements that we wanted to add this flexibility and i think there was some hesitancy to just do it city-wide so we're starting with their downtown because it's a very focused area that has a mixture of uses already

So then this changes, like does not apply to like the DeMond neighborhood. Correct.

This would not. So current, the only zoning that we're changing is the high density commercial district. So that's the only place that a bar would be allowed.

Okay. So now right now in like the DeMont neighborhood, they have Sasha's and things like that. So are their regulations the same?

They fall under the restaurant bar category. Yep.

Can I just jump in here? What would the golf place that's going to open up, what does that qualify as?

So the golf place that is opening up does have a small kitchen when they were moving in, but they could qualify as an entertainment venue if they didn't have their kitchen.

Okay. So just so I understand, so like the restaurant, you know, like the Des Moines neighborhood? Those regulations, are they now what this overlay district is or are those different?

No, those regulations, the entertainment overlay district was the only area of the city that modified our regulations. So anywhere outside of HDC, there would not be an allowance for a bar. So we're specifically modifying the HDC district through this proposal. Okay.

Thank you.

Jim?

I appreciate the thoroughness of everyone before me, so it eliminates most questions I have. I'm not familiar with running a bar or restaurant myself, but I have heard as far as hitting that 50% food threshold can be a barrier and is kind of a hard bar to clear. So opening up the zoning I think is good, especially with the backstop of the CEP process. So yeah, I feel very good about everything that's been discussed.

David?

I don't have any comments. I'm very familiar with it.

Okay. Were there any hands up? Yes.

Hi, this is Peter Smith. Can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Well, first of all, I want to say that it looks as if the approval is sort of a de facto approval here based on the conversation. That said, I think it's a terrible idea and I'll try to quickly give my reasons why. First, the notion that Clayton would approve a regulation that permits up to 22 bars and micro breweries is ridiculous. And the number should be pared down to a more realistic number. Why should it even be there? That's just crazy. Second, never mind the Surgeon General has just announced that warnings should be put on liquor bottles because they cause cancer. But Clayton is going to say, hey, we want more liquor consumption in Clayton. Third, if you remember the wheelhouse in Clayton, which was a kind of gathering point for drunken driving, underage driving, fights, unruly crowds. They moved. They closed their Clayton operation, moved downtown where Clayton. Two people were shot, one killed the other day. Presumably they'd be welcome back to Clayton with their ownership group. And the last thing I'll say is that if this measure is approved by this commission and by the board, And if, God forbid, there is some tragic occurrence, a shooting, a pedestrian run over by a drunk driver, some tragic irreversible action, this commission and the Board of Aldermen, if they approve it, would bear some responsibility. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Okay. Were there any other hands up?

No.

No. Okay. Other comments from the board? No. Okay, I would make one and Ana that's related to the wine bar. I would agree to get rid of the 1500 square foot requirement.

Yeah, and I would certainly say to Bob's point, the more we can do to simplify this, the better. So again, with Stephanie's recommendations, just making sure we can do what we can to keep things simple is important.

Well, either Bob or Stephanie or Bridget, do we need to... allow this to go further, to be simplified before we act

on it? I think most of those changes we'll re-review are in Chapter 600, which you don't make a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen on anyway. And then so far, we haven't discussed any substantial subnative changes. So if the recommendation is to make sure we review the definitions to simplify them in Chapter 405 as much as possible, Before we go on to the board, that's a change that we can draft administratively and present to the board within the RFPA as a difference that was recommended here.

Okay. I'm good with that. Then I think we need to make a recommendation from the plan commission about any changes or further modifications. Do we have a motion to that effect?

I guess we move to approve the proposed revisions with a suggestion that we continue to try to simplify the plans to make it conducive to business owners to come in. And Steve, you made a point about...

The wine bar.

The square footage. You want to say it? To delete the 1,500 gross square feet requirement for the wine bar. Okay. And since I'm making the motion,

anyone else want to suggest a specific one? Okay.

I think, yeah, I'll second that. Hopefully that was sufficient in Stephanie and Ana's

view. All those saying aye?

Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. I think I guess that closes the public hearing on that one. And we can move on to our next public hearing. Great. And that's the vacant storefronts.

Yes.

There we go.

Okay, so vacant storefronts. This is a short overview, but there was discussion with the Board of Aldermen. We have a current regulation within our sign code, Chapter 425, that requires windows of vacant ground floor retail space to be covered so that you cannot see inside of the vacant area. We've had some issues with consistency on getting various property owners to install the window coverings and then also maintain them. We find that they're often installed with paper that's poorly adhered to the windows, so it falls down, especially as the sites continue to remain vacant. Years ago, there was a program where the city actually purchased the window coverings. You might recall that they were That same image was on the buildings that were on the Forsyth curve before Forsythia went there. And the city would actually get measurements from a property owner and cut out the size of the piece and give it to the owners. And so that was a very inefficient and time-consuming program. That was kind of costly. So Gary Carter went through the process of proposing a new replacement regulation for vacant storefronts, and that's what is proposed before you today. So the idea is that there will be pre-approved designs from the Board of Aldermen, and it will use a vinyl application. So they will come to City Hall when it's vacant. They'll have 15 days from the date of vacancy to install, and they can choose one of those pre-approved designs and the materials. And then there's also an alternative approval process that would allow them to request an alternative graphic or to promote a tenant who is going to be located in that space under a pending or approved building permit. So similar to what we saw across the street with the DARTs, place that's opening, Flight Club. So what they have done and what you approved previously under assignment amendment would now be allowed through this program through vacant storefronts. So they would apply for that permit and it could be approved administratively or sent to the architecture review board. So really the idea is to get a better level of consistency, maintain a better visual appearance of vacant areas, and kind of add to the ability for some creativity where it is appropriate.

Okay. Well, here again, I think going in this direction really helps the betterment of the downtown area. And I thought it was It made sense, but I am curious about the reusability of these vinyl window coverings. Will that be available? And who will bear the cost of it? Does the city put out money to stock these and then charge the building owner? How would that work? You're muted.

All right. Gary Carter is on line, our economic development director. He really created this program, so I'll let him answer that.

Hey, Steve and the rest of the committee. This is Gary Carter, director of economic development for the city. So, Steve, the plan is – and we went through this with several different iterations with the mayor and Board of Aldermen back in August about coming up with this plan, and we had looked at various options of – a reimbursement program, the city actually providing the film and what was ultimately decided or recommended by the board at that time is that we would simply, the board of Alderman would approve a certain amount of designs or they could use like the top flight, like on a reference a little bit ago, they could use their own with approval. But that would, we would upload the approved designs in a format that, that a developer could pull down or their window covering vendor could pull down and print themselves. So it would be the obligation of the property owner, tenant, whoever under that lease situation is responsible to apply the film.

So then the cost and the implementation is on the building owner? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Bridget?

Yeah. And Gary, as long as you're I was just and I feel like I might have asked this and I was just going to ask it again. You know, it says that it's the window screenings required within 15 days of vacancy. Is that realistic? Like to be able to because and I feel like you said that you would hear from people as to when it was becoming vacant. It's just hard to believe that they would be able to get everything like within 15 the vacancy, everything would go up within 15 days. I just don't want to create a situation that's difficult or impossible for people to actually be able to comply.

Well, I think these are all under commercial leases, Alderman. So the date is going to be known by both the tenant and the property owner. So yes, it will require some forethought on their Okay. On their planning as a property owner, but be no different than paying taxes or shoveling the sidewalk.

Yeah, and that's fine. You know best. I just wanted to make sure, like from my perspective, it seems like it'd be hard, but I understand a commercial lease, they know in advance if somebody's vacating a premise. So thanks. And then I was just gonna comment too to the board. It was definitely something that we thought about in terms of like sustainability. We tried to think of like more sustainable products or trying to find ways to reuse things as Steve, as you mentioned. And just windows are very I mean, of course, there are common windows throughout like maybe the centene buildings and stuff like that. But buildings are just very so much. So a lot of it will not be able to be reused. And it's they're not really a sustainable product. That's not just vinyl. I mean, a sustainable product like paper or some sort of recyclable material is just not available right now. So that's why we've kind of gone back to vinyl products. Obviously, the butcher paper did not work very well, as Ana mentioned. But that was certainly something that we discussed at the board is trying to think about materials that would be better. But we were not very successful in figuring that out. But maybe as we move forward, there'll be better materials available. But I don't think there's much other than vinyl to use at this point. Okay.

Bob? Yeah. I must be blind. I don't recall ever seeing a vacant space covered with butcher block paper, but I guess they have been.

At the corner of Forsyth and Central right now, like the World News site, that's all butcher paper. It's just white paper, but it falls down all the time.

Gary, if we put opaque plastic... I assume you won't be able to see through it, and the idea is to conceal the interior space. Do I have that right?

Right. I mean, it will have a print on it. It will have a pre-approved design approved by the mayor and board of aldermen on it, but you will not be able to see though it, and that is the purpose of

it. If I was an owner of that commercial space, the last thing I would want is not to have potential tenants, future tenants, not be able to see through the windows. I'll give you an example, the old Starbucks on White Island and Hanley. If you put an opaque anything in front of it, It would scare away people, I would think, who are going into the restaurants next door and across the street because it sends a signal loud and clear, empty space. And you can't even see in it. As opposed to the Starbucks today that's vacant, at least you could see through it. And when you drive by, you don't think twice about it being empty. But if it's covered up with paper, you send a big advertisement to the world. This is vacant. And to me, it seems if you have just the window and the city requires no opaque papers so long as the inside is kept clean, would do more for... the aesthetics than having covered paper. If the inside is filthy, dirty, rundown, tables turn over, I get it then. That's my comment.

Ellen?

I'm wondering about the fading of the graphic, the colors and it looking old. You know, some stores are empty a long time. And over time, excuse me, where I've seen graphics put up, the graphics begin to look yellowed, aged, dingy. Has any thought been given to that, that it needs to look better? And I don't know how you define that or enforce that. But I think it's important to consider it because we may find that we get these wonderful graphics that then start looking pretty ugly. So that was my concern.

Cammy?

Yeah, I think really anything we've been through in butcher paper, really. I mean, to Bob's point, I kind of didn't really think about that. And that's an interesting, you know, because we live near the Starbucks and I know we're always just kind of peeking in there to see what's going on. And so I don't know. I think that's a good point to bring up. But then I worry, you know, cause that's, you know, three feet off the ground, you see it, but like a lot of the commercial buildings, you know, they're floor to ceiling height class buildings. Yeah, it's a little bit of a dilemma, but I think overall it's a great idea rather than the butcher paper.

Jim?

Yeah, I mean, I definitely, like Helen, I understand some of your concerns with the vinyl, but I think we can all agree that butcher paper is not necessarily the most elegant solution. And simply by nature of some of the buildings we've been able to mention, you know, being able to see and showing that the butcher paper isn't necessarily working very well. I will say, I think that Bob, I think it's more of a standard kind of that I would see outside of Clayton as well to kind of cover up the windows of a vacant property. And I think anyone, I think, I'd say the majority of people who would be serious about potentially taking out a lease would seek that out and not being able to see it immediately, I don't think would necessarily be a barrier to that. But yeah, I don't know the cost difference obviously between the vinyl and the butcher paper, but as far as is what we have on the books working right now, I think it's pretty clear that the butcher papers not necessarily working and isn't a very elegant solution. And long term, is this guaranteed to be the solution? No, there's definitely some potential issues. But I think if we look at the corner of Forsyth and Central and just how much better that looks than a lot of the vacant spaces. My hope is that we can look at something like that and say like, okay, we at least hopefully are moving in the right direction with something like this.

Can I just jump in here for one second? I have seen some cities that have put like giant movie posters or art to cover up at least half of the window space of vacant space. That's it.

David?

I agree. I think this is going to be a big improvement from what we have with the butcher paper. The butcher paper hasn't been working well over the last number of years that we've had it. When the city was putting the graphics up and allowing that option, that was being put up with paper, which wasn't colorfast. It would fade. And that's certainly what we saw on the Forsyth curve. In researching this, staff was looking at a lot of different options. The vinyl option, the vinyl is actually much more colorfast than a paper printed cover would be for those windows. So we do think going with a more durable product like that should eliminate a lot of those concerns or alleviate those fears that these are going to fade quickly or look bad. The vinyl tends to look good for a number of years in these windows when they're applied properly. So We're hoping that's going to make a big difference with these properties because the paper is just terrible, especially when it's taped up and half of it's falling down. It's faded. It's different colors over time. That's all been problematic. So I'm glad we're cleaning this up and addressing this issue.

Okay, thank you. I have another comment. We seem to be in a vacancy period in street level retail, not just in Clayton, but all across the country. And I'm certainly in favor of the covering the windows when their vacancy is there. But when a lessee takes over and starts construction, I think it could be exciting, people going by to see what's happening behind the window glass itself. And a recent example is when Bemiston Place was starting out, they built that covered walkway along Maryland Avenue. And people were saying, couldn't we have little windows to peer in and see what was going on? Eventually, the developer did put three little windows in there. They didn't allow for a child to be able to see in. But there were positive comments that they liked to know what was going on. Even though not too many people walked under that covered walkway, those that did seem to like knowing what's happening. So if there's some way that we could then allow a vacant property that is being redeveloped internally to allow it to be seen from the outside, I think it could add to the vibrancy and people liking what may be developing.

No, I see something that it said 80% of the window has to be covered. So I guess that would, I feel like it would give a window, no pun intended, uh, for that, you know, if you chose to cover more of say like the top and bottom that would allow an option for something like that to be done if that's something that a development wanted to take advantage of. I don't think that this would prevent something like that from happening at least by my reading of it.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Any other comments?

Oh, I'm sorry, Steve. Ana, do you know why down in Hanley, why it's not covered

up? I believe it was. Then they had a building permit issue that expired. So I'll check with our inspector because we've been...

I was just curious.

Yeah, we've been doing a lot of notice rounds for properties that are not within downtown about covering their vacant windows. So on Clayton, we've got a lot of vacant properties that have since... Those notices have been going out, so I'll have to check on the status of the Starbucks one.

Okay. Thanks.

Any further comments? Gary, did you have anything further to say?

Steve, just to address... Bridget's comment a little while ago, the ordinance does allow in the event that a material, a sustainable material is found, that it could also be used. But we did extensive research and there is no sustainable material at this time other than vinyl.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? or do we have a motion based on the staff recommendation to recommend approval of the amendment to the Board of Aldermen?

A motion is being made to approve the staff recommendation recommending approval of the tax amendment to the Board Aldermen pertaining to science.

Second.

All in

favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Nay. Okay. Okay. Well, that brings us to the end. Jim, any further comments? No further comments. We closed the public hearing. I don't know if we ever opened it, but I'm sorry, Jim. No further comments from me. Okay. Kami?

Nothing for me.

Helen?

Nothing for me,

Bob. It's nice to be back. We'd like to see you, even on the screen. Bridget?

Nothing further.

Okay. Stephanie?

Nothing further from me.

David? Nothing tonight. Okay. Anna?

No, hopefully we'll be in person next time.

We would like to be. And we are meeting on a Tuesday the next time, January 21st. So we'll see you all then. Thanks very much. Meeting adjourned.

Thanks.

Bye-bye.