July 7, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for July 7th. As usual, if you have electronic gadgets, please silence them. Ryan.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Bob Denlow. Here. Susan Buse.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Bob Denlo. Here. Susan Buse.

Here.

Ellen DeFage.

Here.

Kami Waldman.

Amy Waldman.

Jim Arsenault. Here. David Gipson. Here.

Jim Arsenault. Here. David Gibson. Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on June 16th are there any changes. Seeing none do we have a motion I move to approve said minutes.

Second

all in favor.

Okay.

We'll move on to new business. The first item is 19 cars will drive is the applicant here.

Applicants are online.

They are? Oh, okay. Okay, we'll get started with the staff report.

The subject property is in the southwest corner of the Carswold neighborhood. It's zoned R1. It's developed with a single-family home and detached garage. The applicant is seeking to construct two stone retaining walls separated by landscaping. The walls will be in front of the parking pad between the two legs of the driveway. The walls will measure 7 1⁄2 feet from the base of the footing to the top of the wall with five feet exposed above grade. The surrounding neighborhood contains larger R1 lots with a variety of front yard configurations. Staff are of the opinion that the retaining wall will not alter the character of front yards in the Carswold neighborhood and will have a minimal visual impact. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay. Harry, do you have any additional information?

Um, no, not, no, not really. What he wants to do is he's in the process of wanting to, we did the addition in the back of the house where we added the walls. And if you could see that front wall that he'd like to add, that is an area that's a steep slope that he can't really maintain the grass on. And he's in the

Okay. It looks good. He would be taking all of those bushes out that are there right now. Is that correct?

Correct. He'll be taking the bushes on top of the hill out, but he'll be re-putting plantings in. Okay.

And I do have a question about the perforated drain tile that shows in the retaining wall detail.

Yes, that's the perforated drain tiles on the below grade. So it relieves any water pressure so it doesn't build up against the wall.

Where will the water go?

The water will be drained out obviously to the lower sections of the yard that this is all sits up above and it will just We obviously alleviate to the lower sections, lower grade. So it'd be just gravity out onto his driveway, not driveway, to his front lawn. Okay. So it's daylighted out there. It'd be daylighted out at the end of the walls just so it relieves any water pressure.

Okay. It looks good to me, but let's see what the other members say. Bob? No comments. It looks good. Susan?

yes he's going to just replace on the where the existing asphalt driveway is now he's going to be replacing because it's basically uh deteriorating he's going to replace it in the same location

same footprint yes

no one

My only question is, will there be a drain on the other side of the wall, the high side?

Correct. There's already drains at this high side on the current driveway, and we'll keep those all in place. We don't plan to remove any of that.

Okay. Other than that, it looks good.

Kami?

No

comment. Looks good. Jim? I

don't have any comment.

David? No concerns.

Okay. Well, anything from anyone in the audience or online? No hands. Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we

have a motion? I move that we approve the staff recommendation adopting the plan as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thanks. We'll look for it when it's finished. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Have a good evening. You too. Okay. We'll move on to item 2, 7632 Westmoreland. And we'll start again with the staff report.

This project was previously approved with a different color configuration and with an eyebrow window rather than dormers. The property was previously a spec build but now has a buyer with preferred changes. The proposed house is just over 29 feet tall with white brick on all facades and stucco on dormers and bays. Windows and doors would be black. Limestone would surround the front door and front windows. The roof would comprise of asphalt shingles. The rear garage would mirror its material configuration. Exposed aggregate is proposed for pavings and wood grain deposits proposed for the trash enclosure. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal is complementary to this founding area and recommend approval is submitted.

Thank you. The applicant? Welcome back.

Hi, I'm Linda. I'm representing the buyer and the builder.

If you could speak into the microphone.

I have buyers coming in from out of town that purchase this lot and they looked at the design that we had approved and they really prefer the dormers and they wanted a White House. And they're going to do black gutters in copper light fixtures. But the black windows. So they're not currently living here yet, but they are expected to be in town soon. So I'm going to turn this over to the architect if you have any other questions. Sure.

Mike Thompson, Thompson Design Group. So, yeah, you see the changes to it. The main one, I didn't know if you had the previous elevation because I know we made the window in the roof a little larger than what we actually had that night when it was approved. But essentially the changes are the dormer instead of the eyebrow window. They prefer the dormers. there's really about the same height difference. With a larger eyebrow window, the top of it is about where the top of the dormers are. And, of course, we took the covered entry off the front. And so, essentially, you have three feet more front yard there instead of the larger limestone entry coming out at you. So... made some of the stonework a little not as beefy and sized it down a little bit to get what they liked.

Well, I still like the house, even with minor changes. I was a little surprised to see the dormers back in. I enjoyed the eyebrow window, but

It was kind of the first thing that they mentioned is, eh, not crazy about the eyebrow window. So I showed them what it would look like with no dormers. We tried three dormers. We had one dormer with three windows in it, kind of a shut dormer in the middle. And they said, yeah, the three dormers definitely.

I think they're right. If you have dormers, you need three up there. But of course, they have no space behind them. No habitable space. So

right.

Yes, they were aware of that. Yes. Okay. The composite drawing the context drawing on sheet five, that is not changed. Is that correct?

Well, other than this house changing, you know, the little bit of the looks of this house changes. Right, but the heist didn't change or any of that stuff, no.

Okay. I really have no problem with it. I'll go with the dormers. We need to move it on. Okay.

Bob? It looks fine. There's a roof terrace in this house?

Yes, there is towards the rear,

yes. And you have a movie theater in the basement.

Oh, we have an optional, I think, optional movie room. Yes. I haven't heard whether they're doing the optional or not. Yes.

Okay. It looks fine. Susan. Ed.

eighth. In the garage right there, this has a back alley to this property. So it has that garage that you're looking at, the alley view there is the one with the garage doors on it.

Ellen?

Sorry about that. I am disappointed that the eyebrow window went. I think it looked much better with that, but this is fine. I do have a question. The stucco, is that real stucco or stucco board?

It's stucco board.

Okay. And on the side elevations of the garage ADU, you show a herringbone brick pattern?

Yes, and that little gable end there that you'd have on each side, yes.

And that will be brick?

Yes.

Okay. Now, that I like. I think that's a neat touch. Now, other than that, it's fine.

Amy?

Did any of the other elevations change or was it just the front facade?

Just the front facade. The other elevations changed to show the side of a dormer versus the side of an eyebrow window.

But none of the details are different on any of

them? Right, but nothing else. Okay, so it's

really just the dormers and then in setting or recessing the door.

Right, and yeah, the front entry doors. dog house i guess i would call it what

was the color before remind me it was

oh it was all stone uh so a white white stone

oh okay so they just went with brick instead

oh i thought you were talking about the part around the door

no just like the entire house

it was a what was it oh it was a red brick yes okay

okay yeah i think this looks nice

jim Two more in the loss of the eyebrow window, but I'm able to move on. No other questions or concerns. David? I don't have any questions or concerns.

Any comments from the audience or any hands up? No hands up. Oh, okay. We have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move that we approve the staff recommendation adopting the plans as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. When will you get started?

Well, I think we've already submitted for permit. Obviously, we're going to have to amend those drawings for these changes, but yeah.

Good good luck. Okay, we'll move on to item number three that 65 Aberdeen place. And we'll get started with the staff

report. The subject property is located on the north side of Aberdeen between University and DeMunn. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a two-story house and rear detached garage. The project consists of the construction of a pool and patio in the rear yard that would exceed the maximum permitted impervious coverage. The applicant is seeking approval via Section 405, 1890B, which permits the Planning Commission to grant additional impervious coverage when an applicant can demonstrate just cause. The applicant has provided two justifications for just cause. Number one, Respectfully, staff's calculation related to the above-grade decks is contrary to the zoning code definition of impervious material. Staff arbitrarily applies a 75% impervious factor to all decks, but the code specifically only says decks at grade level are to be considered impervious. Our above grade deck does not make these highly resistant to infiltration by water as required by the zoning code definition. If our deck is considered 50% or less impervious, then our loss stays under 55% threshold. See attached charts for more details. We request the commission vote on this basis first. And then number two, if basis number one is not sufficient by itself, then we submit detailed proposal for water management plans for the commission to consider and vote on separately. The plan commission does not vote separately on justifications for just cause. However, the plan commission may consider both justifications in their evaluation. There were differences in how staff and the applicant calculated impervious coverage. While the applicant did not dispute most of the calculations, they noted a difference in the interpretation of how the rear yard deck should be counted towards impervious coverage. A full analysis of the site and justifications are included in the staff report and the analysis yielded the following opinions. One, that there are no unusual conditions with the property as evident by the approval of a plan which meets the coverage requirements. Two, that the applicant's interpretation of impervious coverage is not a demonstration of just cause and that the plan commission is not the deciding body on this item. And three, the drywall is likely sufficient to hold the additional runoff, but the overflow management mechanisms are unclear and may result in bonding prior to being redirected to the front yard. The note of clarification, the Plain Commission did receive a clarification earlier today that that pop-up item 15 on C2 that was referenced as a concern for ponding, there is not a pop-up proposed in that location. And then number four is that the green space character of the Hillcrest neighborhood would likely have a minimal visual impact from the proposal. Staff are of the opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated just cause given that there are no unusual conditions with the property. The applicant has an approved building permit that meets the coverage requirements that the drainage system is designed such that it may result in ponding. Staff recommend that the planning commission not approve the request for additional coverage.

The applicant, come on up, identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

Good evening. My name is Brian Beck. I'm here on behalf of my family. I want to start by thanking everyone that's here, thanking the staff. I've been working with them for several months now and I've had nothing but respect, professionalism, assistance from them. So while we do have some points of disagreement, I think they've done an outstanding job, willingness to meet with me, explain things, help me when I'm making mistakes, make recommendations before I got to this point. So I thank them. I thank my fellow inhabitants of the city of Clayton. And I use that word inhabitants, because in preparing for this meeting, I looked up the charter and the charter starts with declaring the inhabitants of the city of Clayton, you know, are establishing adopting the charter and i'm sorry but i'm political science major i'm now an attorney so i also apologize for that some of this gets into legalese but i felt that was fitting because you know my uh we just celebrated fourth july you guys get to do this every couple weeks i'm here participating in our local government process You know, I've been here once before, and so I'm excited to be here. I'm excited that this commission exists. I'm excited our laws allow me to present my argument. So I'm here to demonstrate just cause on behalf of my family. Like I said, I'm an attorney. My wife is a optometrist. We have two kids, a 10-year-old boy and a seven-year-old daughter. They're both in the Captain Elementary School. And this is about us experiencing similar childhood experiences memories and moments as my wife and i did when we were growing up both of us grew up with pools in our backyard both our kids learned how to swim in their grandparents backyard this um application to you is so that we can build our backyard pool as originally envisioned with a deck around the pool So my original application was submitted in February with decking around the pool. And after talking with the staff, you know, they explained to me their position on impervious materials and, you know, primarily our contention got to the deck, which I'll get to. over the period of weeks, I decided to trim back the decking to get underneath the staff's definition of impervious coverage. But it was always with the intention of coming back here today to present my case to you to explain why I think there's just cause in my situation to go over the 55% as staff calculates it. So With that, so my goal is to demonstrate just cause. As you probably know, the ordinance does not define just cause. Missouri law does define just cause and I'm sure this is not the first time you've approved a just cause submission, but the standards that I'm gonna try to communicate tonight are fair and reasonable, a list of conditions or situations that warrant such a finding, under Missouri law. And another definition that Missouri courts use are when something is without just cause, that shows a reckless disregard for the rights or property of others. So fair and reasonable, what are my reasons? And am I considering other folks around me? So my first grounds, as Ryan mentioned, relate to MILOC conditions and the staff's definition of impervious materials. And I'm not here asking you to overrule their definition. I understand that's not your statutory role. Your role is for me to demonstrate just cause and for you to decide whether or not you agree. What I'm asking you to do is consider given their definition, I think my lot has – I have grounds for just cause because their definition defines my deck as impervious materials. And if the goal of impervious material calculations and coverage is – know water runoff in green space i don't think we have a concern about green space so we're talking about water runoff well in reality my deck does not contribute to a water runoff situation it's an above grade deck which water drains through um i have a few quotes um for to summarize my common sense you know plain language meaning of what impervious means you know one neighbor who's lived in clayton for decades is also a lawyer didn't get her permission so i'm not going to use her name but she's well respected in the community said oh well that's just silly quote silly to say a deck above grade is impervious um Another very smart woman, my seven-year-old daughter said, but dad, our deck doesn't stop the rain. It just goes right through. Okay. So I think even though the staff defines my deck as impervious, in reality, my situation as the definition is applied is, is not the case. And so I think there's grounds for you to find, even though the staff calculates my percentage above 55, it's under 60. And so the fact that part of my impervious surface is just the deck and it's really not creating water runoff is a reason to allow me to go up to 60 because 400 square feet of my overages is my deck and that's you know i have a video of it raining and the water going straight through if anyone wants to see that but that's my first argument is i know i have a lot of materials in here where um i go through the statute and i say um The statute specifically says decks at grade or patios at grade are examples of impervious. My deck is not that. It's above grade. So I think when you look closely at the law as the Board of Aldermen have defined it, they were telling us something with those words. You can't just skip over the at-grade words as the staff definition does. So I think it's a reasonable and fair argument to say, well, okay, it may count towards the percentage, but we need to look at that with a grain of salt in this situation because it's really not creating a runoff problem and the applicant's still under 60%. So that's my first argument. I'm not saying we need to overrule the definition in this forum. I'm just saying let's take it with a grain of salt considering my backyard. My second grounds for just cause relate to the water mitigation systems that I'm proposing on the lot. And I... I moved into our house in 2018. One of the first neighbors that introduced himself to me was Tom Horlacher, my backdoor neighbor at the rear lot. He came over and knocked on my door and said, hey, nice to meet you. Welcome to the neighborhood. Can we talk about your garage downspout extension? And so from day one, I've known that water runoff is an issue in Clayton. We have small lots. They were designed 100 years ago. The public sewer structure and the rear of my yard doesn't exist. And so I'm proposing six different, um, solutions and mitigation techniques to help deal with this problem of runoff because I, I want to be a good neighbor. Um, Tom asked me to remove that downspout. I did it the very same day, right? I don't want to create a problem for my neighbor. Right. And so, um, After I met with staff, I explained my initial plans. Oh, it's going to have a rain garden at the back of the lot and that will capture the water. And staff explained to me, well, that's good, but it's probably not... engineered enough. You could do better. And so I took that meeting from them and I hired an engineer and I tasked them with doing better and more than the requirements. So six things. I'll run through them and then I'll explain a little bit. So my mitigation factors that I think demonstrate just cause grading and under drain system, the dry well system, the rain garden and the rain barrel. So six things that I'm proposing to my lot to deal with the differential and the water runoff differential. The first, my lot currently slopes downhill from my house to my rear lot line towards the whore lockers. About a five feet drop. And so, currently, everything that falls in my yard runs downhill and It goes back. So the first thing we're doing is not just leveling out the deck area, but leveling out the driveway area and other areas so there's not this rush of natural gravity down low. So that's the first thing. We're going to slow down that erosion and downstream runoff. And then once we slow it down, we deal with other solutions to capture it and mitigate it. So the next step is this under drain system. And it's basically four inch perforated pipe underneath the pool decking, and that leads to a sump pump. And so that system is designed, so once the water slows down, it's gonna soak in into the grass areas. So it drains down and into those pipes, which then dump it to the sump pump, which then takes it to daylight to my front yard. So that's the second system that's not typically required for differential calculations that I've seen. The third system is a beast of a system, I think. I think it's the core of the runoff differential system, which is the drywall system. My understanding is normally staff recommends calculating water runoff differentials and calculations based upon, let me make sure I get this right. 15-year, 20-minute rain event. I told my engineers, I want to do more than the minimum. And so I said, and they said, okay, well, the next is a 100-year, 60-minute event. And so I said, okay, well, let's do that. And they said, well, you're going to have to – that's a big drywall. You're going to have put that underneath your driveway. And I said, okay. We're already grading, so I'll absorb that cost in this project. So they designed that, and that's why the drywall is underneath the driveway because it's so large. It's a three-foot deep, 10 by 10 wide driveway. And what that calculates to is a five times larger system than necessary to mitigate the water runoff differential that my plans propose. So 500% more water can be captured and retained by that dry well than would be required as a minimum differential capture. So I'm proud of that. I am happy. I told Tom that and he's not an engineer and like hasn't been in depth studying this and working with professionals, but he was happy. He said, oh, that's exciting. I'm going to tell my wife Janet right away. Thank you for doing this. So I felt good about that. But as I said, there are other redundancies here. So the rain garden was my initial idea. I'm retaining that. And so rather than just having grass in the back of the lot, we're going to rip up the grass and we're still going to do a rain garden with a natural berm and replace the vegetation with, you know, Missouri natives and prairie grasses and things that like to be wet and suck up water if the water gets to that point. And as Ryan mentioned, the pop-up, there was some confusion about that. I apologize. But that note 15 that he's zooming in there, thank you, had a note that said uh you know deta or attach the pipe for the discharge of the dry well um and attach a pop-up well the pop-up is really not there it's at the back of the lot um by the retaining wall where it it jump dumps into the rain garden and so the rain garden will capture that overflow after the five times bigger than needed dry well if it ever overflows And so there it would be detained and soak into the ground or, you know, um, that's the idea. It would, it would be detained there. If it soaks into the ground so much that we're having a massive rain event, it would trip the sump pump system that's there that's connected to the under drain. And so then, you know, the, again, the system is designed. If I'm overflowing, I'm going to pump it to daylight to my front yard, um, near my house and then it will run down my front driveway or my front yard. And then the sixth thing we did was in the east corner, we were gonna have a rain barrel. We initially wanted to do some more detention over there, but on the other side in the Horlacher's yard are magnolia trees. And their root systems go into my backyard. So my landscaper was like, if you dig here, you will kill those trees. And so that's not what I wanted to do. So what we have there is just a 55 or 50-gallon rain barrel that we'll capture and reuse. I have a few... I'm blanking on the name, where we throw our vegetables and spoils. So compost, I have a compost back there that I'll wet with it, and I have another compost towards the front of my house that I'll be able to use that rainwater and then for other gardening purposes. So my system, that six-point system, I believe is a demonstration of just cause. I also wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the staff's opinion. I talked a little bit about the deck and their opinion is, well, your job is not to decide who's right or wrong about the definitions. And I agree, I'm not asking you to overrule their definition. I'm saying, assuming their definition is what we go by at this meeting, I'm at 58% or above 55%. And so if that's the case, I want you to take that percentage with a grain of salt and say, okay, but why is he above? And one of the reasons I'm above is because of the deck. And I think the deck is not a problem for runoff. So that's that point. Related to that, the staff's opinion says there's no unusual circumstances associated Two things to that. I would submit first, Just cause doesn't require unusual circumstances. It requires me to demonstrate I'm being fair and reasonable. I'm listing my reasons, and I'm showing you that I'm considering the rights and property of others. There's no disregard for that. It's not a variance request where I have to show hardship. So unusual circumstances aren't required. But again, I would submit that my deck is an unusual circumstance in this context. And then the other staff opinion, I guess there's two I'll cover. Staff notes, I already have a permit and I do, right? So I told you in late February, I submitted, and then we were working on amendments to respond to comments, which again, all made my project better. So I'm not complaining, I'm just saying, I initially submitted with the deck by mid, april i said okay i'm i'm not gonna carry the day with staff on their definition of impervious materials so i'm just going to scale back get approval so my contractor can go forward with things um to site prep and have a permit to do that before i meet with you guys and then i also will hire an engineer in the meantime and we'll come up with a system a drywall system which is what staff recommended i i pursue And so, although I have a permit, I was very clear all along. I was cooperating with staff. I explained to them in an email on the 25th, I said, I'm going to submit revised plans using staff's calculation, but quote, I reserve my rights to pursue plan commission approval for the revised plans at a later date. The response I received from staff was, I appreciate it. I'll keep an eye out for the revised plans. I think he was referring to the first set that would pare down, but at no point, and I guess, and then a couple of days later, I met with staff and said, I submitted my plans. I scaled down the hearts of the deck, even though I really want it. but I'm going to go back and I asked them for their advice and they graciously and professionally said, and that's when they told me about the drywall system. So at no point was I warned that, Oh, if you get a permanent start, we will hold that against you. Um, cause you've already underway. Um, and again, having the deck around the pool was our original envision and how we'd like to create our family moments. Um, And then the last one I think has been covered. Staff was concerned about the excess runoff mitigation and was there a pop-up that would create kind of a continuous circulous capture of water. That was just a bad note. And I think you all saw the letter from my engineer that explained that's not the case. So those are my prepared marks. I thank you all for your time. Like I said, I was a political science major and Local government is done by people who engage in civic engagement and volunteer their time. So I thank you greatly for it. And I thank you greatly, for listening to a long-winded lawyer's presentation. So I'll stop and happy to answer questions or discuss.

Okay. Well, I thank you for your complete well thought out presentation. I think it helped at least me, hopefully everyone else, to understand where you are and how you're referring to the staff report also. So I hear you. And at the same time, I think our staff report has quite a bit of validity from experience that they've gone through in other similar or not similar situations in our city. So going beyond relating to your statement and the professional staff statement, I have a main question. Under the raised deck, what ground material is under there?

So it's gravel, Missouri gravel, Merrimack gravel. And we So there's an image. Before it was mud and it created erosion problems that would clog the drains and just create silt. And so we installed the gravel to help mitigate that. And we put a retaining wall there to capture more water underneath the deck with that retaining rather than just it naturally running down and eroding the underground there.

But

that was done before this application.

The mitigation system that you're describing and that I think we see, actually, I really didn't follow how it worked until I listened to you tonight. I don't think I've seen as complex a mitigation system as this in the many years that I've participated. My concern with any mitigation system that we see, whether it's simple or complex, is that all you have to have is one default in it. And it virtually destroys the mitigation. And then we have more water and we have seen that occur. So I am not comfortable with it because it seems like it relies on a series of mitigation steps to maintain everything. I agree, it is a relatively narrow lot, but I think there's just too much potential impervious coverage going on. My second thought is I think we have to be very careful about not setting a precedent that we can open it up to any type of mitigation system to get around the 55% maximum within Clayton. I think it only potentially opens up long-term problems for us. But now those are my comments. Let's move on. May I respond

before we go on? Sure. Thanks. While there's several systems here, I think only the drywall system is required to meet the typical runoff differential. And as I said, it's 500% larger than typically required in the past is my understanding. So I think with just that alone, um, my yard would be, would, would satisfy similar proposals in the past that have created a precedent, um, for approval. And I, I, so I say that although I've done other things, um, I think the drywall system is a fairly proven system. It's rocking the ground with, um, felt paper over it or, you know, landscaping felt over it. Um, And so that alone mitigates by five-fold the extra coverage that I'm asking for the commission to approve. Forget all the other things. Just that alone is five times more than what you've permitted in the past as a solution for just cause. Thank you.

Okay. Can you go back to the impervious chart, the purple? It shows the purple. Thank you. What is your first name again?

Brian.

Brian. First of all, I think all of us appreciate your presentation. It was very thorough. Thank you. It didn't go to waste. Thanks. Enjoyed hearing how you prepared for this. So the purple on this chart, on this plat shows the impervious, correct? Yes. In the backyard. In the backyard. That's what we're talking about.

Yeah.

And as I go

up. The purple shows what is being captured for part of the dry well. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And then the sliver of orange shows the sliver of the garage roof that's captured for the rain barrel. So this doesn't mark impervious versus non-impervious. This is just telling you what area is being captured for the different mitigations.

Okay. Is there anything that shows the impervious area? Just right on here?

We don't have a diagram that just colors everything impervious or not. I can use this.

The deck, when you got your permission, was there a deck?

Yeah, the deck is an existing deck. And when I initially submitted my application, we counted the deck as porous, as not impervious. And it wasn't until discussions with staff where they initially said it's in the ordinance. And I said, well, I'm looking. I'm a lawyer. I don't see it in the ordinance. Where is it? And they eventually, after some back and forth, they said, oh, it's in this memo. So the deck has always been there. That's right.

if I understand you originally submitted plans with a deck, you thought it was porous. The city came back and said, we treat it as impervious.

75% impervious. Yeah. Okay.

And if, and how much of the deck is, And the issue is about 400 square feet.

Do I have that right? That's the size of the deck. I don't know if staff has – I didn't see staff's final calculation in my – That's what

you said.

Yeah, my deck is about 400 square foot. And so if that's not counted, I'm under 55% by my definition. Okay.

And if the deck goes away and I approach the pool, am I just walking on grass? Am I walking on gravel?

It's an elevated deck. Let's assume the deck is elevated. Yeah, you'd be on grass and gravel. Correct.

Okay. And the deck... I'm not talking about elevated just yet, but the deck, I never grew up with a pool. The function to you is it levels the land around the pool?

Bob, I think you might be mixing up a pool deck and his wooden deck in the backyard. So there is a wooden deck in the

Easy, right? Yeah, bingo. That's correct. He's good.

Thank you. So this deck, if it goes away, it really doesn't affect the immediate pool.

So the deck that I'm... that I had to take away to get my initial staff permit approval was the deck around the pool. So if that deck goes away, then it's just grass around my pool for two-thirds or three-fourths of the pool, unless I cut other material. But as I'm asking, yeah, I'm asking, the design... that I'm proposing is to have hard deck around my pool, and that puts me over 55%. And

this is where it becomes elevated?

The elevated deck is the existing wood deck near my house. And that's existing and is not proposed to change with these plans.

I think that, Bob, so there's the... Ryan's outlining right now the existing wood deck. That's where it's elevated. There's a few things with that. There's the deck outline. That's the elevated deck that the pictures that Brian provided you of the underneath side of it where the gravel is. So that's an existing deck. On a portion of that existing deck, there was a... canopy of some kind that was constructed. We don't have a permit for that, so we couldn't pull it from our records. There's a canopy above that. So there's a little bit of a kind of a two-part nuance here in the staff calculation. There's how we calculate a deck, but then if a deck is covered, then we count that as 100% impervious regardless of the material on the deck. So that's where in Ryan's calculations he identified using this slightly darker dashed outline the covered portion of the deck that we counted at 100% impervious, and the remainder portion of the existing wood deck was counted at 75%. Call

me slow, but is he taking an existing deck and saying you should not be counting that as impervious? That's correct. So I could cross the finish line.

Correct,

yes. And you're trying to argue that of this existing deck because it's elevated and because the definition of a deck talks about being on ground level that it shouldn't count that's number one and number two the deck by definition because it's elevated is going to be more easily letting rain go through to the ground. Correct. I have a And gravel, by definition, is a pervious? The gravel underneath? If you just have gravel, it's not impervious, it's pervious.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, if it helps, here's a video. Covering, which is.

I get it.

Higher deck services. But what you said. runoff issues. Everything is just draining through like you'd expect and, you know, common sense word of.

And the proposed pool deck that you would like to build is approximately 400 square

feet. No, the pool deck.

If that goes away, if your proposed pool deck goes away, you're under 55%, right?

That's true. Yes. Yeah.

Mm-hmm. Just for clarification on the pergola, is that a louvered pergola where it can be closed or opened?

The louvers, well, half of the louvers no longer close because they're permanently open. The other half can be closed, but it's still not watertight. It's not designed for water. It's designed for sunlight.

And if you don't get the pool deck and you walk on grass to jump into the pool, is that how it would end up

being? That's one option. That's not what we would like. I think if this proposal is not approved, we would probably look at scrapping all this water mitigation plan um and removing a couple sections of our driveway and converting to grid gravel and so there'd be no water mitigation for my back door neighbors i just have a couple pads of gravel driveway so that's another option i don't feel like that's as good of a proposal for the the neighborhood because my backyard is the one that leaks into my neighbors without a sewer system but so that's why i went through this expense of doing it this way

how wide would the pool deck be as it circles your pool

uh it's three or four feet wide you know it's i guess it's yeah it's three to five feet wide i guess at different points

Sorry, Gemma, to clarify, but Bob, you can see around here, around the pool where it's kind of got little dots poked through. This is the area surrounding the pool, and we're using the word deck. We're calling it a pool deck. This is not like a wood above grade deck. This is like a concrete patio around the pool, just to clarify. Yeah, that's right.

Would the deck around the pole all be concrete? Yeah,

that's what's proposed now. It's just the easiest to install and maintain. I guess I would also say I pursued porous concrete or elevated paver systems, but staff told me that that wasn't... that would still be considered impervious. So it didn't, it wasn't a solution. It was considered part of the, you know, part of the impervious surface. So I didn't pursue that because it was, I was told it wouldn't help my case.

Finally, again, I'm, you know, I'm thinking of the pools I've gone to at friends homes over the years. There's always some kind of deck right around the pool. Is there not?

So I don't, I know this is a lot and I agree. And I've talked to a lot of homeowners, homeowners that do have grass near their pool. And they said it's a terrible maintenance problem because you cut the grass and it gets in there and encourages bugs. And, and so it's, it's not a ideal situation to have grass adjacent to a pool. And so I, that's why I'm, proposing to not have it, not have grass. Thank you.

Susan?

ellen

have you thought of a smaller pool

um we attempted several different designs um so yes we did and we landed on this design yeah

okay is your garage entered from the alley in the back or a

driveway. So I don't have a back alleyway, which is one of the reasons I have. I have concrete driveway so that adds to the impervious surface.

Okay, the pool just seems very close to where the cars will be backing out.

Yeah, so we have a narrow driveway, so we don't use our garage for car parking at all, even for long vacations. But there is enough room to do a K-turn there and back out without just having to reverse all the way down the driveway. Okay.

Yeah, because that's a long driveway to back out.

Right, yeah.

Even in good weather. The various mitigation solutions They concern me. As Steve mentioned, it's all you need is one misstep and there's going to be problems. I would look at removing some of the pool deck, narrowing the pool, and make it a little bit smaller. Maybe you want the length for laps. But width-wise, the kidney shape is not a friend of anybody who swims laps. And then look at you've got a retaining wall for a planter. Can you get rid of some of that? It's cutting here, cutting there, nibbling away.

Yeah, the retaining wall serves a dual purpose for engineering too. It's dealing with elevation. And so it's a planner for vegetation, but also allows us to level the grade.

Okay, you couldn't slope the grade there?

When you design a pool, you have to have the grade sloped slowly away from the pool for drainage purposes.

I think if you want a pool, you need to work on the size of it and maybe less deck.

So do you think my proposal is not fair and reasonable? Because, I mean, respectfully, you're offering aesthetic design recommendations, but that's not my goal here. My goal is to ask for just cause for my proposal. And I've submitted this, and I think it's fair and reasonable. I've listed my grounds for just cause here. And so I appreciate your comments, but I think the task of the commission tonight is to consider just cause and whether my proposal is fair and reasonable, not if there's another way that it could be done. Is this proposal fair and reasonable? But respectfully, thank you.

Okay, nothing further.

Amy? Yes.

Thank you for your presentation. Also, I do think that we are in a hard spot here because of all the issues that we are having with impervious coverage. What did this pool get calculated as the square footage for that space? Is that

the pool as

far as impervious coverage or pervious coverage?

The pool counts as 50% impervious by ordinance.

Okay. Yeah, because I know we're actually seeing that that doesn't really work out with that. And so I know we're moving towards it and not counting at 50%. So you're kind of in a good situation in that circumstance, like working within these parameters, because it's a benefit right now that that's only been counting at 50%. As far as like, I mean, there's a couple other issues. Like, so the deck is 400 square feet. How much of that is being calculated at 100% versus 75%?

He never provided those final calculations to me.

So what you see here kind of inside this darker dash line, that's the part that's counted as 100%. The rest is going to be counted as 75%. I'd also note that in my calculation, I actually got a smaller area for the deck in total. I got under 400 square feet. Okay. So the

400 square feet is the entire deck, and then a portion of that is 100%, and part of that is 75. But it's all basically less than 400 square feet.

My calculation of the total area of the deck, regardless of whether it's impervious or impervious, was under 400 square feet.

Because right now, even if we have pervious pavers, we still do not count those as... anything but a hundred percent right that's correct okay yeah so our precedent is even with pervious pavers which you don't have holes in it we're still counting that as a hundred percent impervious

um well i i'm not disputing the staff's definitions um I'm saying that in reality, like, would you stand under my deck as I dumped water on it? Because you believe it's impervious and will retain all the water. Like that's my just cause common sense argument to you. It's not going to stop the water. It's not gonna prevent the water from infiltrating below. Um, so I know, like, I don't wanna argue the definitions because I'm just arguing that I have just cause for my proposal.

So when you did your calculation and you made it pervious, you still went above the 55%. Is that accurate? Your calculation was 55.9%? Hold on,

let me look at that chart.

Or in the staff report, is that right? Am I reading that right?

The applicant's calculation was 55.9%. Okay.

And so when you calculated that, what did you use for your deck?

At 75% per the ordinance.

And so then you... Where are

the numbers coming different? So the numbers are slightly different. So in his proposal to you all tonight, he did his calculations assuming the staff definition of his deck being 75%. It gets a little bit different when Ryan ran his because we calculated the area of the deck that's covered by the roof at 100% compared to just the entire deck being 75%. Got it. Okay. So

that makes sense. Okay, so we're adding another layer of where water's not going into the ground.

Well, that's why I showed the video of the deck with the pergola because it drains right through.

Okay. Yeah, it's a hard situation.

Thanks. Jim? I have a few questions. And I understand when you said that you have a permit, but that's not keeping you from doing this. I'm not trying to argue any of that. But when you said that are there two sets of plans here basically where you have a set of plans where everything fits underneath the 55% impervious percentage and then you have this second set of plans that's in front of us that's the more ideal that you want to go forward with?

Yes, the plans that have permit approval show a lot of grass around the pool.

Okay. So there is a second set of plans that we just haven't seen? I

don't know what staff provided you. It's not... I don't

know what you guys do. We didn't include, so the pool permit that he has currently, that was already approved. So this board didn't have to review that because it met the regulations. So that permit was approved and can be worked on. So you only got in your packet what he is requesting from you today, which requires the approval under the just cause section.

You can tell me if your calculations differ by my personal calculations, you're only over by 49 square feet. Therefore, if you remove just 49 square feet of pavement, which I think if you look at these plans, you know, you can see there's an awful lot of pavement in the backyard. And if you remove just forty nine square feet of that pavement, whether that's gravel, whether that's grass or something, you have something that fits within the city's definition. I know it might not be the most ideal, but at least I don't know, maybe you can walk me through as far as like in these corners and stuff like that you know the way you're planning on using those that this is. I guess this is worth this kind of effort for 49 square feet.

I believe. Going by staffs definition it's like over 250 feet is that right Ryan, what do you calculate as being over.

I calculated a higher square footage, and I'm comfortable advocating for that calculation because there were several spots where we did line up on our measurements. There were some spots that were different, and the applicant wasn't going to dispute it at that time because ultimately what we're not looking at here is the exact percentage that's over. We're looking at whether or not they were they're presenting just cause for falling within this range of 55% to 60% over. Okay,

that makes sense. Well, you mentioned that one of the reasons you're above is the deck, but one of the reasons we're also above is there's a large amount of paving in this backyard. Also, you kept referring to this five times over or 500% over. By the calculations on here, it looks like the drywall volume that's needed would be 197 cubic feet, and the drywall that you proposed is 300 cubic square feet so i'm not necessarily can you give me your calculations where you're getting that 500 percent

yeah so that the engineer's presentation was using a higher rain event of 100 year 60 minute and that was because i tasked them to go above and beyond um so the 15 year 20 minute rain event was also something i submitted um which i don't know if it made it into your packets but So if you only use a 20-minute storm, that's how you get to 500%, which is the current requirement.

Okay. And I'll echo some of what Kami said, that in some ways you're actually here in a fortunate position because I think if we looked a year from now, the pools are going to be calculated a completely different way and not calculated 50% impervious. They're going to be calculated 100% impervious. And I think it looks like it's going towards a higher rain event also. So even with these mitigation, you know, a year from now I think this would be totally different. And even a pool of this size, I don't think, would be able to make it this far. I mean, I think what you said is part of just cause is a disregard for others. As has been communicated, one of the biggest problems that we experience here is water runoff. And you yourself have demonstrated multiple water runoff problems on the lot as it exists into the rear. having to mitigate with gravel because of the runoff down there below. Uh, this is a very large pool and pool deck and everything. Um, So I personally just don't know that you have met that just cause. It feels like a lot of, a whole lot of steps to get there if you're looking at the clearest path as far as to is this over? Does this make sense? Do you have a true hardship? It seems like the The biggest heartache, it seems like we're quibbling over like a deck here in the sense when it's just trying to get a bigger concrete pad around the pool. Where which is some reduction for that you could build your pool basically as it is not as it is but. we're not talking about a situation where you're going to be able to have a pool or not it's just the amount of concrete that's around that pool, so I have a hard time getting to the just cause with all those other steps. David.

I do have a question, just pulling up aerial photos and looking at it. Was this previously covered? I know it's a pergola in that picture, but did you ever have a solid cover stretched over the top or anything else?

Not during our ownership. Okay,

because yeah, it looks solid in this particular aerial. Okay, so the surface underneath where we've got that gravel, we have no idea what the percolation actually is, correct? I mean, I would imagine it's pretty compacted if it was soil that got wet before and then we put all that gravel on top of it. We have no sense of what the true permeability is of that.

I'm not aware of. I haven't done a PERT test underneath the deck.

You know, that's something I struggle with a little bit when we talk about the deck and how we should calculate that here or how that should be attributed to the overall impervious surface and then saying, oh, it doesn't count because it's gravel, that sort of thing. I think it's difficult because we don't know how much water is actually getting through that particular area. But I think the bigger question here is, and it's something that we deal with quite a bit as the plan commission is, we've got this impervious coverage maximum and this larger question of can you engineer your way past that particular number? And I think that's what we're faced again with here This evening, and you know it's certainly in the last great many applications that have been in front of us it's you know this this body's really held the line on this is the impervious coverage number and. however you want to engineer it, that 55 is 55. And that's where you're capped here. And I think the big part of the just cause argument that you're bringing to us is, hey, I'm engineering this with this big dry well and I can hold this particular water. But in the end, I think where this commission has been certainly in recent history is that you can't use that for just cause to engineer your way past that 55%. So that's something that i'm personally struggling with so i tend to back the the staff opinion and the staff recommendation on this one

um in you know closing arguments i would just say if there is an ordinance that permits coverage up to 60 percent so if my presentation and my attempts to be reasonable and fair and list my grounds for going over 55. If that's not just cause, I'd ask the members of the commission to consider what is just cause. I think the just cause standard is fair and reasonable, not is there a hardship that the applicant is suffering? It's have I proposed a system that permits me to go to 60%? Not that I don't, not that I, So I think that's the standard. I think the standard is I can go up to 60% with being fair and reasonable, with having a thought-out system. And so to say that we have a system but it's not good enough, I'd ask you to think, well, what is good enough if this is not?

Well, Brian, I think we all respect your point of view and the mitigation potential that you've put forward. I think David summed it up pretty well that we have been holding to the 55%, even when we have seen some of the engineering problems litigation attempts. And with all due respect to the engineers on this project and the others that we've seen, sometimes they appear to be bending over backwards to get a certain result. And I think we have to be very careful about that because it sets a precedent that by doing that, we will have more and more highly over-engineered projects, which will eventually make our water situation even worse than it is right now. I feel that as far as the just cause goes, the fair and reasonable, that the staff report is what I would go with in this. I think you've heard several suggestions of what could be done. We're not here to design it, either the architectural or the engineering. We are here just to review and see if it matches. But I'm sure there are more comments also. I don't mean to finish it up at this point. Are there other comments?

Can I just ask this? If a vote is taken and it's rejected, his approval for the first plans of the pool still stands. Is that right?

Any other comments?

I guess I just had a quick question. With the 55.9% over like what square footage is that over? Do we know that?

Probably about 80 square feet by my numbers. That sound right, Ryan?

Just so you know what you're kind of working with to get that from 55.9 to just 55.

Well, Steph had a different calculation of 58.7. I'd have to double check with the exact numbers. Oh, that's right. That's his. Okay. Okay. Never mind. Yes. Thank you.

That's my numbers too, though. Yeah.

Any other comments? Or Brian, any further questions?

Like I said to start, regardless of the outcome, I feel nervous, but I appreciate all the detail and all the attention and the seriousness that you fulfill your roles with. So this is a presentation. You have an official role. I appreciate all your comments and considerations, and I appreciate Personally, I thank you all for your time and your service.

Well, we thank you for your presentation also. It's rare that we have such in-depth, and it's good to hear. We do have a staff recommendation to not approve the request for additional coverage. So if I'm correct, a yes vote would be to not approve. Okay.

What I would suggest is that you make your motion in the affirmative. So either you could say that I move to approve the requested application, and so a yes vote would be to go above the 55%, a no vote would actually mean no, that you're rejecting it. Another possible motion would be to I move to approve although this is a little bit more difficult, I move to agree with the staff's recommendation. And so that would be in the affirmative. So a yes would be in favor of the staff's recommendation and no actually means no. But that's why you do your motion in the affirmative so that yes actually means yes, you're approving it and no means you're rejecting it. You don't want a negative motion to say I move to reject something because then yes would mean no and no would mean yes. If you know what I

mean. If we simply say, we're making this very confusing. If we simply that we move to adopt the staff recommendation period It is not to approve his proposed

plan. Are you really making a decision, though, by adopting the staff's recommendation? Here's what I would do. I would just say I move to approve the application. And so if you do not want to go above the 55%, you're going to vote no. If you want to go above The 55%, then you're going to Vote yes.

I think I hear you.

Yeah, and you do want your motion to be a decision, you know, a solid decision by the commission, not by staff.

I mean, our tradition is basically we move to adopt the staff recommendation, which is not to approve.

Right. So we don't always make our motions based on the staff recommendation. Based on Robert's rule, you would make them in this case so that everybody's very clear about what's being said. I would recommend that your motion is to approve the application. And then based on that, you're either saying, yes, I want to approve the request by the applicant or no, I do not want to approve the requests by the applicant.

So I move that we approve the staff recommendation.

No, you would be approving the application itself to exceed the 55%.

I move that we approved the application to exceed the 55% requirement.

Second.

All in favor? Opposed? No.

Thank

you, Brian.

You can be my attorney anytime, and I am an attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Before we move on, Stephanie, I'd like to thank you for your clear and concise suggestions as we went forward.

Well, thank you very much.

Okay, we'll move on to the public hearing, which is a continuation of the one we opened at the last meeting. And again, I think we'll start with Anna.

So the last meeting, we opened the public hearing to consider regulations to manage short-term dwelling units. So included in your packet this time, we heard a few requests. There were members of the public that attended and made comments. This board had questions and comments. And so in an attempt to address those, staff provided some revisions to the proposed regulations. Those revised areas are highlighted in yellow. Essentially what we wanted to cover is changing the minimum rental period for a short-term rental unit. So we increase that from 24 hours to 48 hours. We also put, similarly, the code below that talks about how you advertise hourly rates. It matches with the increased 48 hours. We included a new provision that would address the security and access to the individual unit as well as the main building. So we added security requirements there. Then we also added the requirement that the owner or operator, as part of their CUP application, would have to identify how they plan to advertise the units. This is where we would know if they're going to advertise via Airbnb or Vrbo or some other online platform or if they're going do so through a different real estate type of company. Under operational requirements, we changed the language slightly. So instead of just saying that owners and operators shall prepare or serve food, we included some provisions that reference a welcome basket. And then the one comment for here too was, I think it was, maybe it wasn't provided in the email, was including also some small food provisions. So what was included in your packet just lists out tea, coffee, similar non-alcoholic drinks, but we also have the additional small food provisions. Since that was not advertised here, if you wanted to include that food provision, then I would include that as part of your motion. The three here, so the use of short-term rental dwelling units, we extended how we defined the advertising. So we have commercial, publicly advertised, ticketed, or registration required, or large social events or gatherings such as weddings or receptions are prohibited. And then we defined a large social event or gathering as when you exceed or have more than twice the number of people that are allowed under the actual short-term occupancy permit so under that occupancy permit we have capped our occupancy at eight people or the or the maximum per occupancy code whichever is less so essentially what we're saying here is if somebody built the largest dwelling unit and they wanted to rent it out to short-term rentals and the maximum you could possibly have that would be eight people So a large gathering of that unit type would be considered when you have 17 people or more. So that's more than twice the allowed occupancy at that event. But then we also did specify that any sort of commercial publicly advertised ticketed registered event, regardless of the occupancy, or attendees are prohibited. So try to provide some more clarification to you all there. And then we also added a provision about not renting the short-term dwelling units to a tenant who's less than 21 years of age unless that tenant is accompanied by the registered renter who would be over that age of 21. I believe that was the last, yep, that was the last recommended change.

Okay. I followed all of those. I think they pretty well came out of our previous discussion. The only one I was concerned with is in E3, and that's where it says a large social event or large gathering is when there are more than twice the number of people in the unit than the maximum occupancy per the SOP. That means they could have up to 16 legally.

Right. So at the event, so our occupancy as we define it there is how many people can actually stay overnight. But I know we mentioned during the discussion, there were some people that brought up, well, if they're in town for a wedding, their family comes over, other people staying elsewhere come over for dinner. We want to allow that. Well, we said, how can we define those two? And so that's where we said, okay, if they're having people over, At that point in time, they can't exceed their actual overnight occupancy more than twice. So the maximum that there would ever be anything large is when you get over that 16 number if that unit was approved for eight overnight guests.

If it were approved for eight, it would probably be two bedrooms at least or sleeping arrangements.

Yes. So the way that our occupancy is calculated for our existing occupancy code is based on the square footage. So you could technically have one large bedroom, but then you would have to have, I think it's 50 or 60 square foot per occupant. So it would have to be one very large bedroom for you to get up to that eight number, or it would be a multiple bedroom unit.

It just seems we have the opportunity to have an awful lot of people in one unit. And I follow.

Yes, I mean, that's how we set it. So we thought 16 as the maximum would, anything over that. So if you feel that it needs to be less than 16, then that's up to this board to discuss. But the overnight occupancy is different, and that's identified as it could be up to eight, a maximum of eight people.

I'd be comfortable with it being less than twice. I'm not sure where it should be. I just fear that it could get out of hand quickly. And then one other quick question. In E2, did we hear that there could be a small kitchenette in these units?

To become a habitable unit, it will have to have provisions for eating, sleeping, and what else? Bathing. So

it could have a sink, a refrigerator. It will have. And a microwave. It will

have at the very minimum provisions for preparing and storing food, yes.

Okay. Let's go around. Bob?

So if I have... Let's say 800 square feet, two bedrooms. I think that would be somewhat okay. How many people do I have? Do I have allowed in?

You want me to? Okay, I'll pull up the code and run calculations for you.

But I would say 800 feet would have probably two bedrooms.

I have to pull up the calculations if you want me to provide you with an actual number. Okay, so we require if there's more than one occupant in a bedroom, then you need to provide 50 square feet per occupant. So to get up to the eight occupants in a two bedroom, you would need to have at least 400 square feet in just the bedroom portion.

Okay, I'm just trying to figure out reality here. if I have a two- or three-bedroom, am I more likely than not going to max it out at, was it eight people?

Yeah, so whichever is less between our code and eight. So if you wanted to get up to the eight, you would have to have at least 400 square feet of bedroom space to hit eight occupants per occupancy load. So a good example is we see a lot of our studio units in our new apartment buildings are less than... 400 or somewhere between 400 and 500 square feet. So if you're thinking just the bedrooms, that's going to essentially be a studio would be just the bedroom plus a little bit more for the bathroom, everything else.

Well, that suggests it would be more unlikely you're going to max out eight people or so.

It's really hard to speculate that because people will be able to at this point, we don't even want to have a specific application in front of us for a unit. So it's really hard for me to speculate what size of units we might get because somebody could have a thousand square foot of units, you know, size. That's a short term dwelling. Somebody could also have 400 square feet and still. So it's hard for for me to really speculate on exactly how the units will shape out for you.

As I go back to the purpose of short-term rentals, it seems to me the reality is people go there for two reasons. It's either cheaper or it's a place, a private space for family to get together or friends to get together the night before the wedding or what have you. We don't have this kind of space in Clayton today. And I think there's a real need for such space. And it's different having people come over to drink beer and have, you know, socialize versus those that are sleeping overnight or two different groups really. And the last thing I would want to see is a reduction in the number because where are these people going to go? They're going to go to a restaurant, a private room in a restaurant. I don't know. Are they going to go? There's no hotel space unless you go into a conference room, really. So we really are marketing Clayton Downtown for inclusive, whatever need you have, we can address it. You want to live here, you want to work here, you want walk your dog here. And I think short-term rental is something that we definitely would like to have And because you've restricted how many we can have in Clayton downtown, because it's our experiment. If you put one, you can't have another one within how many feet? 500 feet, which knocks out a whole block maybe of, of, of secondary buildings. Um, so, uh, Again, I always preface, I think you guys have really worked your tail off in thinking this through. At minimum, I would leave it as is. And my final point is we're really talking about something that is unlikely to be enforceable unless there's a nuisance being reported to the police.

Excuse me.

I do have a question. On page one, the dwelling short-term rental is no less than 24 hours. Then on page three...

Oh, we can add that in the definition. We'll match. That's a typo. So thanks for catching that. Okay,

Yeah, we'll change that.

Okay, that was my only question. I think, you know, it's something that as it happens, we'll learn and adjust.

Amy?

I guess my only question, and you explained the 50 square feet per person, but is each unit defined by the city how many people are allowed? Or is that like if you meet the square footage, it could be for four, it could be eight, or how does that?

So in our current occupancy regulations that would be applied to any dwelling unit in the city, to be a bedroom, it's a minimum of 70 square feet. If there's multiple occupants, then instead of that 70, it becomes 50 per occupant, 50 square feet per occupant. So when we do the – that's part of why we created that short-term occupancy permit. So that's how we will be able to actually issue a permit with that load. So we'll be able to calculate and say under our code you have X number just based on that math equation of our occupancy code, but then knowing we have a cap under our short-term rentals, it will denote on there clearly if they're at four or if they – You know, the math equation says 20 occupants. Well, then it's eight because that's how we're capping it. So then that also will allow us to better enforce it because it's through that special short term occupancy permit.

OK, so basically, though, anyone that has at least 400 square feet of bedroom space automatically can get eight occupants in there and then can have a total of 16 occupants. As long as they have 400 square feet of bedroom space.

Right. Yeah. For that event. Yes. So for, you know, a gathering of that night, not an event, but if they had a gathering, they would be able to have their neighbors. Let's say it's a building that has two units next door to each other and they both qualify for aid occupants and friends are in town at the same time and they rent the two separate units separately. they would be able to all gather in one of the units together, all 16 of them at one time and not create any violations. Now they could still create violations through other nuisance areas, but just having the 16 of them gathering at one point in time wouldn't itself be a violation.

And then like for the operators, did they, you know, so if they have 400 square feet and you can get eight people in there, do they have to provide like eight beds to show that they had Or is it just solely based on square footage?

So we would calculate it based on, so our inspectors would do their inspection. So we would calculate that just based on the square footage. And then their short-term occupancy would allow them to have up to that eight. So they could decide that the building qualifies for eight people, but they are only going to rent it and advertise it for rent for two.

Okay. But they would be allowed eight to sleep and 16 to be there.

Right. And part of what we can do is, so when they'll have to get a conditional use permit, part of that conditional use permit is when we would have the floor plans. So then for that review is, so they'll know upfront and we can, for staff's purposes and for your purposes of or this board's purposes of reviewing conditional use permit can ask for that information. But at this point, we only have it that the short-term occupancy permit would be issued for each individual unit that would highlight the maximum number that could potentially be staying there overnight. That makes sense.

And then just real quick, under D4, you list linens, towels, dishware, and stuff. And I'm just curious, should we add window coverings, or is that just kind of a given for these places. I mean, I know you don't have furniture or anything like that listed, but I just don't know if that's an issue that people see with that.

We can issue anything that you guys would recommend.

Just because I think everything you listed would be like, duh, you need that. But since they're listed there, I don't know. Window coverings might be important. Sure.

That's it for me.

Jim? I guess just to say my understanding, because there's been a lot of talk about occupancy and everything and square footage and everything. I think of it like hotels in the sense of typically if there's a queen or a king bed, that's considered two. And then we have a square footage limit. So with Airbnbs and Verbos and stuff like that, typically they can provide an air mattress, but there would have to be sufficient square footage for that. Eight is the cap. That goes to that. But yeah, just to put hard numbers to it, at least in my head, I know the hotel room that I stay in in Chicago is 765 square feet. The occupancy is four. I could have four more people to there. So on and so forth. I think the limits as written, I thought that you guys had a tricky job ahead of you last time how you were going to thread that needle into everything. I think you did a fantastic job and I'm happy with everything the way it's written.

David?

I don't have any questions.

Well, as you may have known, I was on the fence when this first started about which way to go. But I think the staff, both the original and tonight's report, really have put in controls and limitations to make it work for the benefit of the city. It looks like we can have one right now and maybe a few others in the future. But I think it could encourage some reinvestment in some of our older properties that have unused space on the upper floors. which I think is great. I hope it is not seen as catering to specific property owners. I would hope that it would be beyond that.

Yeah, I did just for other people. I have fielded since this has been under consideration a few calls of owners of other properties that would potentially qualify just to understand what the regulations are, how they might have to do improvements and so on.

Can you tell us, were they within the 500 radius range or outside of it?

Outside. So it was property owners that owned some of the buildings that were highlighted on that map off of Bonham?

Well, I think it's something that we should... work for, we can have more feet on the ground by opening this new type of residence into the city. And that goes all the way back to the 2010 plus or minus master plan that said we need more people. in downtown Clayton. Now, we've done that with several apartment buildings. But this is a different type. And I think it's worth giving it a try. I'm no longer on the fence. Other comments?

Yes, we do. So the attorney Stephanie did call that out earlier and I apologize that we didn't reflect that in the copy that was sent to you. So we have perfect language to add little snack food to that.

And the language that I suggested was small prepackaged light snacks. So then they weren't being cooked, but you know, like bags of pretzels or popcorn or something like that.

Well, we do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval of the text amendment.

I move that we approve the staff recommendation recommending the proposed text amendment to the Board of Aldermen dealing with the short-term residential rental units.

Is that with the amendments, the two amendments, the window coverings to D4 and then the snacks to E2? Yes. Yes.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Well, that moves us to the end. And as we see Alderman Gary Feder leaving, I know we're finished. Thank you. And let's go around Jim, any further comments?

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Well, that moves us to the end. And as we see Alderman Fader leaving, I know we're finished. Thank you. And let's go around Jim, any further comments?

This is my one-year anniversary on the board, so thank you guys for a fantastic year.

Well, stick around. I've got two more years. Kami? No comments. Ellen?

Nothing more.

Susan?

Congratulations. And I leave tomorrow where I am going to see height of good urban planning.

Well, have a good time. David?

Nothing further. Brian? Nothing further.

Anna?

Nothing further, thank you.

And Jim,

thank you for a

year. Thank you again, Stephanie. Any further comments? Okay. Well, we will see you in two weeks again. Okay. We're adjourned. I guess the hearing was closed automatically. The. Yeah, OK.