October 20, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plan Commission ARB for October 20th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this point. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Eve Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFayette?

Susan Buse?

Jim Arsenault? Here. Christopher Brennan? Here. David Gipson? Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Christopher Brennan? Here. David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on October 6th. Are there any revisions? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I move to approve the minutes. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll continue with old business item number 1, 500 South Hanley Road. And I believe the applicants are here. We'll start with the staff report.

This application was originally presented at the October 6th meeting. It was continued to allow for revisions. The applicant is seeking to construct in addition to unite two commercial structures and expanding existing business. Two options have been presented for review. Both are an evolution of the original presentation and details of the revisions in each option have been provided in accompanying letter from FSA architects. Staff are of the opinion that both options are complimentary of the existing structures and surrounding area. Staff recommend that the architectural review board select one of the options provided and approve as submitted.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, do you have anything to add? Again, give us your name and address.

Good evening. Yes, Gordon Spring, applicant on behalf of Hanley Realty at 510 and 500 South Hanley. So thanks again for the review here. Just a little bit of commentary, obviously coming out of the meeting a couple weeks ago, we sought to take into consideration the kind of request for true masonry exterior materials and which prompted option A as submitted. The option B is a slight update to the previous submission that includes Nichiha and adds more detail clarifying the materials utilized. Our perspective is that each of them kind of takes into consideration the feedback with the look of masonry in both options. The option A, again, is true masonry, and we're comfortable with either. I would, for some commentary, would just note that there are several types of brick obviously already in play and rather old buildings. So one concern that we have with option A while we're comfortable with either is just getting a true match wherever, you know, as close as possible as we are having different bricks from different decades installed next to each other. So just wanted to flag that it's obviously tough to present in a visual. So just want to kind of call attention to that item, but otherwise happy to answer any questions and excited to move this project along.

Before we get into discussion, do you have materials that you would like to show?

We do. The same materials, I think, are on site that we discussed at the last meeting. So happy to review those again in terms of the NICHIHA materials. We do not have, I don't believe, BRIC with us. So hopefully we can all stipulate as to what that looks like. Yeah.

Okay. Well, then we'll go on with discussion. Jim, would you like to lead off?

Sure, thank you. Do you have an example of the, so in option A, the P4, which is the Indiana limestone stucco, do you have like something to represent that color? I'm

going to step out of the way and Zoe and FSA will take over.

And that is kind of like

You want to talk into the microphone when you're, sorry. Sorry. That's just where the people online can pick it up.

Yeah, yeah. So that is the material that is surface applied that we can kind of mimic the real limestone but is not real limestone.

And do you have an example, I know you had it two weeks ago, of the wood cladding that's going to go up above?

Mm-hmm.

Just to see those materials next to each other.

Okay. Okay. So for the option A, we actually going to use real wood. So that's one of the compromise we made to go with a full masonry.

Okay. Do you want to kind of flesh that decision out? Just give us some of the background to why you'd go with real wood as opposed to the composite for that decision, just to kind of clue us into your thinking.

Yeah, so with option A, we were trying to take into consideration the feedback on kind of genuine existing materials as much as possible. The current building has wood, true wood. And one of the drivers for us is just property owners when thinking about the option B alternative, the Nietzsche alternative was to go with kind of a... maintenance free material that would that, you know, would be preserved long term. Since option A and the genuine materials was going to have wood already, it has existing wood both on the 510 and 512 building, as well as on the north side of the 500 building, we thought just consistent use throughout was would be more in line with feedback that we've received in the existing product.

Okay. And then can you just confirm the brick on the back? I didn't see that called out on the finish sheet. I know the veneer, that's going to be the basement level down below, which makes sense. And that's kind of called out, but it looks just like a continuation of kind of matching the

brick in the rear as well. Yeah, that's the goal. And I think most consistent with, and I'm looking at Zoe to confirm, most consistent with the 500 South Hanley building, correct? Yeah, so in, and the, I don't know if the street view is available to pull up or if that's of aid. Oh, it might, yeah, there you go. yeah so the 500 south hanley uh brick has a little more uh variation in the in the colors and so we thought just again being sensitive to yeah the bottom right picture is probably the easiest to depict it um we thought when trying to match that we might have the best shot at getting something that's at least not going to be a strong contrast um if we, if we used a brick that has that sort of variation in it. So that would be the goal in that proposal. And, and, you know, they, the left side of that same image gives a good depiction of what we're sensitive to, um, because the end and that's already there, obviously, but just brick inserted at different times that, you know,

create some clash. Totally. Well, I appreciate you pulling this together, especially on short notice. Uh, my personal opinion, I like option a better, um, That's probably not a surprise based on my comments last time. I would have concern with the panel option and option B just up against so much real brick. So to see a real masonry at that entrance. And then I believe the stucco material work goes under there. I understand the limitations you have there with how you explained how that goes together. And looking at that again, too, the stucco materials will be roughly the same tone as kind of what's there now. So I think that would kind of recede into the background rather than what I'm afraid with, with the fake brick of standing out next to so much real brick. So I personally gravitate towards option A. I look forward to hearing the feedback of everyone else, but I, like I said, I appreciate you pulling this all together. Thank you.

Chris.

I concur with Jim. Thank you for pulling this together. I know that time's on of the essence to you and I think both are acceptable and I do prefer option A as well, even though there's more steps. I feel like it's minimally distracting, particularly the rework of the existing Whiteown Dental building. So that's my personal preference, but I think either would be acceptable. Thank you for updating that one there.

Very definitely option A. No, I think in looking at, and I did have the opportunity to look at some brick panels, and it seems even the manufacturers admit where they fall down, not literally falling down, but is at the corners of And we don't see most buildings head on. You see them kind of at an angle. So I think option A, I think everybody will be very pleased with it.

David? I agree with the staff recommendation that either option would be appropriate. My personal preference would be option A as well.

Zoe, I appreciate you giving us the Nichiha details. But it really shows in the corner part and piece that you would get a joint there. And That's what I had problems with at the previous meeting, but it was good to see the details. So we appreciate it. I agree with the staff that both of them are certainly doable and visually attractive. However, when I looked at the two, I really felt that option A was the more consistent with everything going on, both on these two properties as well as along Hanley Road. So seeing the proposed front elevation where we see almost all the way down to the former Starbucks, I think it'll work very well. It'll have good longevity, and we're excited to see it come to fruition. So I'm in favor of option A also. But let's see if there are any comments from the audience. Any comments on 500 South Hanley?

Steve, can I just add one more thing too? Sure. Can we put in something into the motion just to have materials presented to staff before commencing on the project since just so staff can lay eyes on the brick when it's selected? Yeah. Just to verify that match that not to come back here before the board, but when they have something in hand, so.

Right. Jim, you mean the final material, color, texture selection? Correct. To go just for a staff review. We can put that in. Thank you. Ryan, were there any online? No. Okay. Well, with that, we do have a staff recommendation. pick one or the other. And I think we know where it's going. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve option A with the requirement that final materials be approved by the staff. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. I think you're on the way. Thank you for coming back.

Okay,

our next item is in new business. Item one, and that's 8015 Forsyth Boulevard. And I believe the applicant is here. We'll start with the staff report.

Subject tenant space is located along Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood and North Merrimack. The tenant space is home to Five Iron Golf, an indoor golf simulator venue. The applicant proposes a window covering to prevent sunlight from impacting two golf simulator bays. Window coverings serve some function downtown and primarily cover vacant space, walls, equipment, or other non-active spaces. Tenant space has existing window coverings, which shield the sides of golf simulator bay walls. These existing and proposed coverings differ in design, and this is likely to have some visual impact. The tenant space is in the Northeast Downtown Overlay District, which seeks to reinforce the character of window transparency. The staff observation of the relevant sections finds that the proposed window covering does not meet the intent and character of the overlay district. Staff find that the proposal is not compatible with the character of the area in the Northeast Downtown overlay district. Staff recommend that the applicant consider alternatives such as blinds or shades, which allow for more flexible transparency. Staff recommend denial of the request.

Thank you. The applicant, would you come up and give us any further information? Tell us who you are and your relation to the project.

I'm Carlton Blood. I'm the owner of Five Iron Golf. This is Dale, who is the craftsman of the window covering

company. We were brought into this project to do interior graphics and what What they found out after, especially during the fall, the way the sun comes into the windows, it blinds the visual aspects of the simulators of the golf Projectors. The projectors for the golf simulators. Today, I just received a few prints that I'd like to show the group

of. Here, this one is one of them too. You

can see two of the prints where the light has been diffused, which is not facing the windows. Two of the 10 simulators within the business are facing south. toward the windows and with the sunlight coming in, it's almost, you cannot even probably, in my opinion, you can't even use the simulators. So 20% of his projection for this business is not usable. What we recommended is doing some sort of window tenting or covering to block the sun to help in the visual aspects of the customer coming in to play golf. I hope that makes

sense. When you say that, applying something to the window, would that allow some transparency?

Well, when you see the pictures... It almost cannot be transparent because it washes out what you are visually seeing with the simulators. So the film would be an opaque film from the outside. There's a couple different ways we can go about this. It's either totally 100% opaque from the outside looking in, Or we could do a window perf on the window, whereas from the inside you can see out, but from the outside you cannot see in. But the goal is to eliminate the sunlight coming into the windows.

Well, as you probably read in the staff report and you heard Ryan, Our intent is to have windows at the ground floor where the activity can be seen from the outside. And what we're seeing in the small drawing that was included in the staff report is that virtually 50% of your windows would have no vision through it, either from the outside in or the inside out. Um, I, I think that goes against what we're trying to do, uh, with the windows, the design of the ground floor retail areas. Um, and, uh, I'm not supportive of that idea. However, I will say I thought this was a very interesting design, but I had assumed that it was perforated like on a bus where light will go

through. It can be perforated. And that's what we need, basically, clear direction to move forward. I can put perforated film on there that has that design. That's not a problem.

Would the internal activity then be visible from the outside, depending on the relative light inside and outside? In my opinion,

no. It is more or less like you mentioned or referred to as the bus. If you're inside the bus, you can see out. If you're outside the bus, you're seeing the advertisement that the bus company wants to put on the windows. So to answer your question, a person walking down the sidewalk will not see activity inside the windows.

except at night when it's darker outside, then they would see inside possibly.

Possibly, but I wouldn't say yes

to that. Well, then I'm not convinced that a perforated film would do any better. Correct. I mean,

I agree with your statement. But our, I mean, the... The hangup that I am seeing, if blinds were suggested at one point, during the middle of the day, during the day, the blinds would be closed. And so we are looking for recommendations on how we can resolve or how I can help Carlton here with his business.

I mean, to add to that, blinds, at our beginning review with the solutions for blinds, those are about two to three times more expensive. And we would keep them down. They would almost have to be one sheer blind system because if you have, you know, blinds, there's six panels. So if it was, you know, six panels of blinds coming down, there would be gaps there. in between. So you would get light pollution that would come in through those gaps of the blinds. So really, the honest solution is to find some middle ground here and, you know, because we're losing 20% of my business on a daily basis until it's, you know, light or dark, fully dark outside. So right now it's 7pm and we're only open for another couple hours. post that. And these are also significant, significant impacts to the business because these are the simulators that are used by my golf pros for lessons club fittings. So they're actually a really more integral part of the simulators within the business, because those are, you know, more advanced sim technology.

Have you considered vertical blinds? Because those can be positioned and turned where you get the benefit of both visibility in and out, as well as stopping direct sunlight.

I don't think that we've considered that. Here again, I would assume, like I said, just an assumption that that's pretty cost prohibitive to our options that we've originally presented.

Well, I'll go back to the very first thing is... Our desire is to have visibility on the ground floor in all the storefront windows and covering up 50% of the windows really destroys that.

Sure, and I understand that our, you know, Basically, proposition to that would be we're covering up one of three sections of windows that have frontage on Forsyth. The middle one is completely open and shows our lobby area with all of our bar activity and our restaurant space. And then the other one, the third section, the only reason those have two... wall coverings is because they're covering up construction. If we didn't have wall covering, you would see the framing of the simulator walls. So we put those up so you don't see construction framing facing outside um because we didn't really have another option other than to put maybe something on the inside so i would even argue that those two that you see on the east side of yes those are actually covering up construction you know with a design element that was So you still see the whole activity within that section, all six bays with the TV on the wall inside. So a lot of people come in and look in each one of those windows as they're walking by. So really we're only covering up 30% of our entire storefront from a visibility standpoint. You see two whole extra rooms inside.

Chairman, may I ask a question? So is there a certain height up, like if this graphic showed the bottom two feet were open or it was a gradient where it got more transparent towards the base of the window, would that still provide screening that you'd need?

Yeah, I mean, that would be, I would think that that would be an option. I would be probably on the design, maybe underneath five iron golf.

Right. That's kind of what I was thinking that would allow for some visual. Um, so that's,

that's something that we haven't really, I mean, we were just going with the top down obviously. Um, So that would potentially be something to consider if you wanted to do something more opaque on the, cause I mean that five iron golf would be above your head level anyway. Um, so. That's certainly something to consider.

And the sidewalk is actually lower than the actual interior of the building. So that's a very good option.

Well, let's go through and see what other comments. Sure. Ellen?

Yeah, I agree that I'm not a fan of covering up any more of the windows. Steve exhausted the options I was thinking of. The only other thing would be drapes, and those have their issues, where you could kind of move them to block the sun as the sun moves. I think Ana's solution is good. And, you know, if you could just, if you could play around with sheets of paper and kind of see what band of window needs to be covered and then leave above and below open, you know?

Sure. My only concern is this room is the only room that has their kind of pushed in. The screens, the projector screens themselves are only maybe 10 feet off the walls. So really any light that comes in over maybe what we're talking about with like an opaque bottom would be very impactful. So I think... I see where I see we're going with it. But yeah, as I do like the option, I think that works out and blinds would be the same thing it would be inside. I think that would still create some ambient pollution potentially,

because quite honestly, I drive by there a lot. And five iron golf, I didn't know what it was about. And I really couldn't see in My son-in-law found it and told me about it. He does like it. But the more visibility you give to people, even if they can't see a lot of what's going on, it's still, it's a connection.

Yeah. And I'm glad you actually brought that up because that's one of the things that myself, my golf pros, a lot of our staff here is like, oh my gosh, we didn't know you guys were here. I think this is part of a solution to that saying five iron golf, even though we have the sign above it, it's hard to see that if you're just driving by. The challenge is, you know, one of the challenges for us when we designed everything inside, I had no say on the opaqueness of the actual existing windows. Right? So I have people that kind of nestle up and get handprints on the windows just so they can see in because it's pretty thick and severely tinted. So that's really the reason why I think if you're just passing, you could be walking in the middle of the day and you can't see inside. Yeah. I think this is almost an added purpose of like, hey, we're here. It's a little bit of that advertising. I know Ryan worked with us to get that percentage down within the code. So I think this actually helps us would be my argument in that way of having people knowing that we're there.

I think it will help you if you keep it to the bare minimum. Because every window that is blocked, people just, you know, you go by and you don't pay attention. So if it has just what you need, nothing more, then people are like, okay, maybe I can't see all the way in. I'm not seeing too much, but it's pulling me in. where if everything is blanked or decorated, I can't see it. They're keeping me out.

Yeah, and I think there's another. So, you know, I totally understand what you're saying. I think the other aspect to potentially consider is when you're in this room, you're kind of sitting on a couch next to the window. And so I've even been in there myself playing and there's people standing outside the window like watching you play or almost have like a fishbowl type of effect. So it gives our customers actually added privacy because that's a room that we do for reservations for parties and events and such. So we've actually even had some comments to that regard. So there is a little bit more of a little pragmatic behind the scenes business aspect to it too. And I would also say if you're walking by it and you're right by it at night, you still can see, like I said before, a ton of activity there. in there. Like I said, you can see the whole bar area and the lounge area, and you can see the other simulators on the other side. So we're kind of segmented into three different parts. So you still get that, in my opinion, if you're looking at one of the other sections.

Susan?

or more permanent solutions is what we're going for

this, because this is

Yeah. And that's what we've seen. We did some, when we were developing it, we actually did some sun studies and tried to see where the sun actually was coming through. In relation to the bays, we didn't take account for the ambient light pollution. We thought just because it would only creep in a little bit, we wouldn't have as much distortion that you see in the pictures. Like you guys can see in the pictures, you can barely see it at times, as is. And it's only gotten worse now that the sun's actually coming down a little bit lower and we're actually seeing it come into the bar on the other side. but we're only trying to address this part, you know, with the ambient light. So it's really, you know, like in summary of that, it's really kind of a more permanent solution because we don't want to have to deal with it. We're going to have to deal now as we enter in my busy season because it's getting colder and that's when we start to ramp up and really want to use this space during the day.

Well, the sun is going to penetrate deeper all the way into the middle of December. The least sun will be in the middle of June.

Right. And it was still bad when we opened in June 1st. And now it's only gotten worse, is what I'm saying. So like I said, I mean, we can't even book a reservation in those two areas up until about 7 p.m.

it wasn't yeah it really wasn't a thing that came up even when we were designing it the first we didn't think it was going to be that the impact that we're seeing um it was hard to predict that

jim certainly understand your plight. I know there's probably not an easy solution. I know this solution as it's presented has kind of been gone over, doesn't really fit with what the city is looking for on first level. So I don't think I need to offer any suggestions beyond what's already been suggested other than yes, I would try and work to do something because I really do think in the long run, if there is transparency to see into those windows, Theoretically, that should be your best advertising where you can see head on exactly what someone's doing. So I don't know. I think I understand the positive effects of completely covering that window. I understand the negative effects too from a vibrancy standpoint from the city. Also, basically 50% of the windows, it starts to appear more like a private club than something that anyone can attend. So I encourage you to look at other options, and I look forward to what you hopefully bring in the future.

Chris? First off, Carlton, thanks for bringing this business into Clayton. I hear quite often, I've heard more and more people talking about it, so I think you're It's great, and I sympathize with you for the situation here because that is hard to not have two bays to be able to use. I think that you've got two things that you brought up that are separate issues. And the second one that you alluded to with the idea of privacy seems the easier one to fit in the sense that if you do have something on the inside where your participants can't necessarily see out – I mean, I – I think that idea of transparency of people being able to stand on the outside, having dinner someplace, walking down the street and being able to look in feels like a fishbowl to your clients now. And perhaps if they didn't necessarily know that they were being watched, it's good advertising for your business. It kind of fits in with this idea that we want transparency. We want people looking at the glass and looking in and seeing. So I see that as kind of a separate issue. Yeah. I also agree with what everyone is saying in regards to this doesn't fit as it stands now, and I don't have a solution to that. I do wonder if it was a different visualization of sort, if Craftsman was able to do some sort of a graphic that was a representation of what was going on inside, if that would be more eye-catching in the sense that it's not an actual... we're not actually seeing what's this, but we're seeing a recreation of what it looks like inside. Perhaps that might work, some sort of a trompe l'oeil effect.

Would that be something that would be appealing? Because I would throw that back to you guys, right? Like, that's not...

I mean, it still doesn't... We're

just trying to look for a solution, right? Yeah, and

it still wouldn't meet the guidelines, I don't think. I think it's better, but it still wouldn't have that same transparency. And in that case, I don't have a a suggestion on how we would do

that. I guess I'm confused. Would you be in favor of that?

I'd be more in favor of something like that as opposed to just something that was just kind of basic, that you didn't know what's going on. I kind of keep thinking about the windshield of a car and that if you have that little sunstrip at the top of the car but you can still see inside, it's not nearly as jarring. as if you just have a car where you can't see anything through, like the front windshield of a car. And so what Ana had proposed with the idea of maybe just the strip on the top I think is the most appealing option. But again, it depends on how far down you'd have to bring that strip. I do wonder, as we're going into your busiest season and with the sun setting earlier, there's an advantage of that, but I do wonder what kind of studies could be done and how that's going to affect your business as it goes on right now. It's not a quick solution to figure out how far down that shade would have to extend. And then conversely, I'm worried that if we say something about blinds or shades, but there's no requirement of when you would have to have those down or up, then we could also have a problem where you say, sure, we'll put in blinds and we're going to have those blinds closed 100% of the time. which goes against the nature of what we would want to. I think we're caught between a rock and a sticking point.

Yes, I agree with that. David?

I'm kind of with Chris. I think we've got to almost write off the visibility for these window bays at this point because if it isn't a permanent treatment like they've proposed here or something similar, then we are going to end up with drapes or blinds or something else. And actually, I think that'll probably look bad. They'll be shut most of the time. Blinds just wouldn't look good along that stretch. I think a well-executed window covering is probably the way to go. Now, like Ana said, is there a lesser extent that we could cover the windows and still make this work? I think that's probably something to be explored. And I think the other thing that's a little bit tough with it personally is just the fact that this really clashes with the existing technology. window coverings that you have up. You've got the blue and red and orange on two of the windows that takes up a pretty good portion of your windows overall. And then it's completely different than this black and green treatment that you have here. So I'm not opposed to some sort of covering like this that's got a sign on because you're going to cover it up no matter what. I just want it well executed.

The challenge with that, just for reference and context, the landlord has given us very specific parameters around that. He doesn't want additional graphics and the stuff that we already have existing, because that would be... We could totally just carry him over or move him the same kind of design that already exists, but he's not into that. Even if it

was a similar colorway, but not necessarily the same design?

Yeah. He allowed us to even add some color to this one. He wanted white and gray, which... Probably wouldn't look that good in my opinion, but he just didn't want to see it when you were looking at the building. So this was the middle ground that we already found with him, essentially. And I could pose a question too, if I may. We have a lot of examples in other markets that use graphics like this. Would that be of any help to show any kind of combination of graphics? Like I can provide stuff like that as well, if that would be of any help.

Well,

that's a design factor to note your point.

We're at the point right now that we have to come to some agreement where you can operate efficiently and we maintain some of the parameters we're looking for. I think what Ana was suggesting is the beginning, that we'd like to let you have the opportunity to look at things and come back. And then, you know, you may have to look at the sun angles because in the summer, the sun is not going to hit that window except at the bottom. But in the winter, probably two-thirds of it is going to be sunlit. So I think you have to look at all of that, whether it's perforated or... a transition, something that we could look at. One other thing I would suggest, if you could work it out with the building owner, if you come up with something that would work at this location, something similar to it on the two panels that are basically primary colors, to tie it together because the first time I went by to look at it, I thought where the primary colors were meant that it was vacant behind it. I did not realize until I walked by it today, and I apologize for the fingerprints on the window, but I had to get pretty close to see in. It could tie it all together a lot better. And where you have the construction behind the primary color panels, if it could be a very similar thing to what you have, what you propose at the West End, but maybe totally opaque. So there would be something tying your entire facility together, which I think could help. So I would recommend that we table it and allow you to go back, come up with some ideas that you've heard here, and come back and let us continue the review.

Chairman, if I may, one question. Is there any contingency for a temporary sort of signage so that business was not affected for a period of three months or something? Is there any contingence for something like that?

Not aware of that. You can approve that if you want to allow them to temporarily install a window covering for a certain period of time. Under our temporary signage, it allows the board to provide that option.

So we could do it for three months, which would get us through the lowest sun angle.

Yep. He could almost use that as a tester too.

Yeah. I like that idea, Chris. I think that may be on the way to a solution. Okay. Any comments from the audience? No? Okay. Were you suggesting, Chris, that we go with a temporary right now, allowing them even more time to study it and come back?

I wonder what the effect... I mean, this would come down to the cost, I think, for you, Carl, to determine whether the cost of doing some sort of a temporary window covering would be better than not having the use of those bays. So I don't know the cost-benefit analysis of that. I'm... Certainly happy to have Helen do a motion of some sort. Yeah,

you can do a motion because you can approve the temporary and if he decides it's not cost effective, he just won't put it up. But then he would have the option. So

Okay. I move to table this to a later date to be determined and in the interim to allow for a temporary sign for three months. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Well, I mean, we could be open to

bottom

opaque version. We can

talk.

Yeah. I can work with Carlton. Evan,

I thought it was leaving it open that it could be this design or some other design allowing them to test it out.

Hey, will the matter...

Second. All in favor?

Second.

Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Kevin. Are you... Well, I know you must be in agreement with it, so...

closer. Thank you,

Carlton. Okay. Our next item is new business number 28182 Maryland Avenue. And we will start with the staff report.

Subject properties are located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Forsyth and Maryland. The site is developed with commercial office buildings as in the Forsyth Center Special Development District. The applicant is seeking approval of a sign sub-district. The proposed sub-district seeks to manage various signage requests that deviate from the typical sign regulations, but not exceed the maximum square footage normally permitted. Several wall signs are proposed by the first floor. Although this deviates from the sign code, this designated sign areas include existing signage and seek to navigate the architectural constraints of each building. Additional signage is proposed at the area for wall sign G. The applicant proposes to reduce the sizes of these signs to reduce their visual impact. Ground sign B is proposed to be three times larger than the area normally allocated to ground signs. This increased size is likely to have some visual impact and is proposed in conjunction with less signage in other areas. No maximum size is identified for the building name wall sign at 8235 Forsyth and should be specified. Staff are of the opinion that the sign sub-district will effectively manage the various sign requests with the modifications identified in the staff recommendation section. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, no new ground signs shall be installed until ground sign A has been removed. Two, the applicant shall revise the ground floor tenant sign locations to exclude those areas which do not abut private tenant space. then three the applicant shall either specify a maximum building sign or building name sign at 82 35 foresight no larger than 6.84 square feet or shall remove the signage area

okay

mr chairman uh members of arb and staff my name is mike shadle i represent 8182 maryland the owners of 8182 Maryland Avenue and 8235 Foresight Boulevard, along with the Clayton Triangle Parking Garage. We're here this evening to... We're here this evening to discuss a sign district for our buildings. We've been here over the last four years in bits and pieces. As you know, we completed a new streetscape project for 8182 Maryland. We're in the middle of completing another streetscape project in front of A235 Forsyth. And we also did a wayfinding project for the Clayton Triangle Garage. So we are... trying to our best to heavily invest in our our buildings in our garage uh to improve the appearance but also the way finding and the signage you've seen bits and parts of the signage with both of these streetscape projects which you've previously approved but in working with staff we determined that really what we needed was a signed district for our two buildings Buildings were built, 8182 was built in the mid 80s and 8235 was built around 2000. So the buildings have some different characteristics. They are connected, as you know. So we're trying to provide some consistency in what we do, but also provide some unique character for each of the buildings. A lot of this is driven, as you may also know, we have two very large tenants that we have secured over the last two years. Energizer has taken a good portion in our A235 building. And next year, by November of next year, Calaris will be moving into the 8182 and 8235 building, both significant amount of space in our building. So tonight with us is Corey Hanna, who represents in graphics, who will talk about it, and then also our property manager, Jenny Gross. So we're here to answer questions. Appreciate the work that we did with Ryan in terms of trying to put this together, but I'll let Corey explain what we're doing.

Thank you. I mean, you guys have seen the plan. I think we're interested in hearing the feedback and kind of seeing what we can do to find a solution.

Okay. Well, I'll start out with a few comments. I think your documents are really very instructive. I think it shows a lot of thought that has gone into it. I'm sure you've worked with the staff on it to come up with the signage program. Most of them seem realistic and, I think, doable from our point of view. The only one that I worry about is... I think it's G. Not sure. Yeah, G is the very large one. And let me find where that one is.

The upper faces of that building on Forsyth?

Oh, I'm sorry, not G. It's the 8182 building.

The monument sign for 81.

Yeah, the monument sign. There it is. It's on page 09. And it seems overly busy to me. And I understand why you would want to have all those images. But as we look at 8182, you have those two ground-mounted signs which have either four or five names on them. And they are not visually intrusive, but they're located very well where they're visually usable. And I worry that the I say, I think the 8235 building is where the two are. The 8182 building is the one that I worry that I think that will be too hard hitting. It's that long white expanse, which used to be, I think it used to be brick, if I remember previously.

Yeah, you're correct. You're correct. When we removed, when we basically demoed that whole area, we had to put that back. So behind there is a very large Ameren UE underneath there, collection station distribution. So the size of that sign is really driven by what's underneath there and what's behind there. And we did the streetscape project when we came to you at that time. We knew that we were going to come back to you. Our goal is to provide some signage. We recognize that there's a lot of names on there. It's busy. The 8182 was critical to us just because we wanted to do something a little more prominent. You're at the intersection of Forsyth and Maryland, so we felt that it was helpful to 8182, mostly because 8182 is a little older. It's kind of got that mid-80s appearance, and so we're trying to spruce it up from that standpoint. And then when Claris came in, as you can imagine, Claris taking six floors in this building and three floors in the other building, they're looking for some prominent recognition. And then, of course, we have other tenants in the building, and we're trying to provide some attention for them also.

Well, I can certainly see that Calaris should have their name right out front. But I'm not sure about having all those others in there. It just seems like overkill to me.

I would say probably something we would probably be open to is getting rid of three, one of the columns and work if the board.

Well, that would bring it down to having four tenant names, which is what we really see all around the city.

Correct. Four or five. But we still want to give prominence to Calaris.

Yes.

The building will be named after them and since they're taking a significant amount of space. And we would also provide them basically eyebrow signage on the first floor.

Where Sterling Bank is right now.

Correct.

Hey, let's move on. Helen?

I would agree with Steve with the 81-82. I go by there constantly. And I like that it is so visible. It's just a statement. And it's just elegant. And I understand Calaris would like their name there. I would agree with Steve. What do you suggest? Maybe get rid of one of those columns of four so that the 8182, either it's grouped with Calaris or Calaris is slid down and there's more space around the 8182. I think of all of the buildings in Clayton that I know exactly where it is because your numbers are there, you know, and I can see it without kind of going. So please take good care of that. That part of the signage, the rest I think are fine. You know, names like you've got with Sterling Bank, I think that'll look good. So that's my only concern.

Susan.

Yes, and we can address each of those. Number one was

I'm sorry, Mike. Do you mind using the microphone there so people on Zoom can hear? Number one was?

So as you know, today there's a Stiefel sign that faces on 8182. It was grandfathered at some point in time, probably when the building was built, and it was recently replaced. And we do want to remove that one. We don't really care for it because we'd rather have the eyebrow signage along there. And so that is no problem. That will come off. And then the other two items we don't have an issue with. The third one, in terms of the size, and that's for A235 Forsyth, correct? We are fine with limiting to 6.84. Yes. Yes. And we are fine with that.

Okay. Thanks.

Jim?

If you're fine with the staff recommendations, I don't have any questions. I really don't have any problems with it. I think the eyebrow signage on the building now looks good. I understand the concerns with the large sign B, the 8182 sign that have kind of been stated. I think a lot just comes down to execution. I feel you guys have done a very good job with what's come up so far, though, so I don't have any large concerns.

Thank you.

Chris?

I am opposed to any sort of signage on that section B, the 8182. Just because I feel like it was a design consideration of the architect when originally built. That you have those almost Richard Neutra looking numbers and then this big expanse of space. And I feel that adding any sort of name to that, whether it's Calaris or any other tenant name, takes away from the visual impact of that sign and away from the original design intent of the architect. I don't know if that was the original intent when it was built in the 80s. I'm concerned that if we take away one of those columns of names, we've got an imbalance in terms of the signage. I do like the idea, Helen, that if we do that, that Calera's name moves down further so we have some spacing around the 8182. I am concerned that if the building is not fully occupied and we have some of those that suddenly we would have a blank space there, which kind of messes a little bit with the way it's all balanced. But I simply just don't see a need for a sign right there when we know that that's the 8182 building. And if we have eyebrow signs that are identifying Calaris and Energizer, the businesses that are there, I don't necessarily see that adding additional signage there at ground level is a good architectural decision.

So when that sign was put in, which was two years ago, it was the architect's intent at the time that additional signs would be put on the building. But at the time, we didn't have a tenant. We have other tenants in the building that definitely want signage, but we really wanted to come back because we knew we were going to have to come back for additional signage at some point in time. So the intent... originally when that was put in, which was just two years ago, was definitely to add more signage. It's important to us. It's important with our relationship with Claris that they very much – the building is named the Claris Building. It will be once they move in. So that's an important element. And in addition to IROP, it seems – It's important to kind of mark themselves, and this is going to be their international headquarters. So the same goes for Energizer. Energizer has eyebrow signage on A235, and they will also be on the monument signs too, along with the small entrance signs that are above the doors. So it is an important part for us in terms of a building and working with our tenant. So we're definitely open to having the tenant name as shown, and then just having three of our other tenants on there and getting rid of the columns. And then we'll work within graphics to try to make that look more appealing.

David, I don't have any questions or consent.

Any other comments from the audience?

Steve, I just have a question. Since this is a signed subdistrict, you know, we're talking about kind of the placement of the names on this sign B, but they're going to have to come back regardless, I believe, for that sign.

No, sorry. They would be administratively approved. Okay. As long as they comply with the signed subdistrict as you set it up. Okay. Well then, I guess that changes my

thought.

Something that I would like to clarify, since folks have talked about removing one of those columns of signs, that area of signage was something that we discussed with them. So if you guys do go in a direction where you want them to remove a column of signs, I ask that you allow me the flexibility to work with them to make up for that signage as they requested in another space because they're not actually requesting more signage than would generally be allowed across both buildings. If we didn't account for that somewhere else, they would actually be getting less signage than they would otherwise be permitted.

That's fair. Okay. Mike, you already said you agree with the three recommendations. I think we should incorporate what Ryan just said at this point. And do we have a motion?

Okay. I move to approve as submitted with the staff recommendations and to remove one column of signage on the white monumental sign and work with staff to allow the owner to place that in another area. Second.

Can we clarify that that's ground sign B?

Sign, oh.

We could just denote it that way.

Okay. Sign B is the white sign.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Can we abstain on this one?

Yes.

I abstain.

Not that, Ryan? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, let's move on to item three. And that would be 111 and 121 South Merrimack. I see the applicants are here. But we'll start with the staff report.

Size comprised of two high-density commercial parcels in an alley located on the northwest corner of Bonham and South Merrimack. Property address 111 South Merrimack is vacant, and the property address 121 South Merrimick is developed with a vacant office building. A 20-foot wide alley is located between the two parcels and is proposed to be vacated. The project primarily focuses on the structure at 121 South Merrimack. There is no proposed work for the Northern Lot, and the applicant references potential second phase of development that could occupy that space. Staff recommend that the Plan Commission Architecture Review Board consider this proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only, and therefore any comments made in this report or at the meeting either by the applicant or staff or boards and commission members are not binding. And then staff offers the following comments based on the conceptual plans presented. One, the applicant proposes vacating the adjacent alley, stating it is a critical component of the plan to add ADA accessibility and utility vaults. Alleys are a critical component of downtown Clayton, allowing a variety of vehicle-based servicers that would otherwise be required to operate from the street. These may include but are not limited to deliveries, trash services, maintenance vehicles, moving trucks, emergency vehicles, et cetera. In addition to these vehicles, alleys are the primary conduit for accessing parking on many city blocks. Vacation of the alley could disrupt these activities and would create a 90-degree turn that larger vehicles would be required to navigate. Although some alley access will remain, the effectiveness will be greatly reduced. Given this impact, staff are of the opinion that review of the proposal to vacate the alley should be held to a high standard and should provide real benefits that otherwise would not be possible without proposed vacation. Vacation is stated to be necessary for the installation of an ADA ramp and utility vaults. The remainder of the alleys proposed to be a dog park for residents. Northern lot is proposed to be a publicly accessible dog park with the potential for a second phase of mixed use development. No details as to improvements or operation of the dog parks are known at this time is unclear as to what other avenues were explored to account for the ramp and utility faults. The alley and northern lot are limited to a ramp, utility vaults, and dog parks with no clear understanding of improvements or operation in a hypothetical phase two with no additional timeline or information. Staff are of the opinion that there are likely some scope of work that could provide sufficient benefits to vacate an alley, but that the current proposal is not sufficient without further information. The applicant should make legitimate efforts to explore other ways to accommodate the ramp and utility vaults, which may include discussion of encroachments into other right-of-way or ideally the use of private property. Comment two, there is some inconsistency on the boundary of the project between the application, project description letter and plans provided. Some reference two lots in the vacated alley while others reference just the southern lot and vacated alley. Planned unit development zoning does not allow for the approval of phase developments. Given the lack of improvements and developments proposed on the vacant lot, staff recommend not including this area in the subsequent rezoning and PUD requests. The stairs as configured didn't, sorry, clarify a comment from building staff. The stairs as configured do not appear to comply with the minimum requirements, minimum required exit from a floor separation distance, assuming measured along the shortest path in a straight line method, nor is the required exit separation maintained given that this occupant must converge within nearly 30 feet of the main corridor. Furthermore, neither stair complies with the termination requirement for section 1023.3 of the 2021 IBC. Then one comment from Public Works. Public Works has previously expressed concern regarding the location of the garage ingress and egress closest to the intersection of Merrimack and Bonham. Some plan sheets show this entrance being maintained for the proposed project, while other sheets show new streetscape replacing the drive apron. As part of the redevelopment, consideration should be given to eliminating the entrance as it may present a problem due to the proximity to the intersection and conflicts with vehicles turning onto Bonham. The traffic impact study and site distance analysis will be required as part of the formal submission review. And that concludes the comments.

Okay, thank you. Who's going to speak?

Michael Knight with the applicant. We have a flash drive with our documents. Who should we provide that to? That gentleman right there. Just to introduce the team here, Michael Knight with the development, Chris Cedergren with the development, and then Ken Baxter with the architecture record HDA.

That mouse that's up there should work for you guys, too. Just double check it's on. It should allow you to navigate the screen. Both the mouse and keyboard should work for you. There you go. There's that, too. I'll

let you

run it. No,

no. Here's the mouse. You can scroll through right here. Is this ours? That's up. Okay, cool. All right. Well, there you go. You want to run it? Yeah. Just use this good little rolly.

All right. Or you can talk and I'll roll. Okay. So just to give you kind of an update on where we were, obviously we're in front of you a little while ago on this. Um, with a larger planned project here. 2004 was a, 2024 was a really good year for crashing markets, debt lending equity markets. I'm pretty sure everybody knows that. And so trying to come up with an alternative approach to get something done here, the state of Missouri overhauled and revamped their tax credit, the historic tax credit program, August 28th, which would have been the close of the last session for that year. So it took effect September 1st, and there was a lot of transitions in people that were there, you know, people that were within the program, and the program had kind of become – Not a very friendly program so people were kind of iffy and i've used that program for years and years, but it wasn't very user friendly. So when they upgraded the rules and regs they basically made it a lot more friendly, it was very seemingly process you go through the process it's not a if it's just a matter of when and it made things a lot easier. And so knowing the history of this building, which I know people either refer to as the old County building or the world trade building, but really what this building was, was the old seven up world headquarters building. Uh, so seven up bought the building in 1964, they occupied it as their world headquarters when they moved out of downtown and they go on to have pretty much their best years as a company. They, they go public, you know, they do all their oncola campaigns. They do their counterculture campaigns, their national billboard campaigns. They hook up with a company off of Madison Avenue, J. Walter Thompson, that goes on to be the inspiration for Mad Men, the television show. And all that stuff's happening in this building from 64 to 78 until Philip Morris and their wisdom buys up the company and breaks it up and sells it off to its competition, which was, I believe, Schweppes Cadbury domestically and PepsiCo, who were their arch rivals internationally. So next time you have a Sprite, the only reason you have that is because 7-Up came first. And so all that fun stuff happened in this building. And so we made the switch to go to a historic tax credit project, which I've been doing those for 20 years. And we wrote up our part one nomination as the seven up world headquarters, which is what it's going on the national register as that's the nomination will be seven up world headquarters. And that got approved by the National Park Service in six days. I've been doing this again for 20 years. I've never had one take less than. 8 to 10 weeks, and we submitted our Part 2 application to the state of Missouri SHPO, and that was approved in two weeks. That usually takes about 10 weeks. So the story of this building, it's less about what the building looks like and more about the story behind the building. There's different criteria that qualify a building for nomination on the register. And so we've received all those approvals, and we're ready to move this thing forward, and that's why we're in front of you right now. So You know, I think all the previous approaches before us were always to tear this building down in total. Even our previous proposal had partial demolition of the building, but we were still incorporating it for public space and use. And so having been in the rehabilitation business for 20 years, it's welcome to rehab. It is what it is. You have to work with what you have and make the best of it. And so we have some unique conditions, but as we'll weigh out today, we comply with all those and we have, you know, some pretty good solutions to solve a lot of those things. But the bottom line is this building is set up to start construction in the spring. We've already applied for demolition of permit several weeks ago, if not a month ago at this point. And we're ready to get cracking. And so it's time to get in front of you, start talking about these things, and move this thing forward so that there's lights on, there's people there, and it's not an eyesore anymore. And that's kind of where

we're at. CHRIS CEDARGRAIN. Great. I'm Chris Cedargrain, architect. This is, I think, at least my third if not fourth presentation to you all. Every scheme has been different. But I think this one really has got a chance of working. So everybody's familiar with the project. Okay, so here's just the context. We had the urban context, now we've got the site context here. And you know, the building is, everybody looks at it A little bit taken aback, but once you clean it up and we've we've on the on the far right is a picture of the existing building on the left. we've done the enhancements to it where we're going to take care of the we're adding we're adding planters and obviously landscaping. Treating repairing all of the copper fascia on the podium cleaning and and improving the exterior replacing all the windows to the same profiles. Even at the ground floor where there's curtain wall and at the penthouse level, uh, where there is a storefront. And so that'll all be new glass and, and, uh, new glazing. Um, so it'll be, it'll be really cleaned up and it is a mid-century modern building, you know, built in the, in the mid sixties. So the idea is to, is to retain that and, uh, enhance it. And so everything from what happens on the exterior to what happens on the interior is gonna really follow that mid-century modern brand, if you will, or feeling to create, I think, a unique living experience as a multifamily development. As Michael was saying, historic tax credits, National Park Service, we can't change anything on the exterior of the building. We have to maintain its original design with the exception of anything that's required by Department of Justice, such as ADA compliance. So we've got to meet the ADA. We've got to have a ramp that takes us up to the podium level. And we've got to have an ADA parking that accesses with enough height, which is on level P1. And the reason we have an ingress-egress location near the original location near the bottom Merrimack corner. Here's another view of the building. Again, on the right is the existing condition and the building on the left is with the improvements of the landscaping, the ADA ramp that you see here that's off of the alley where we're requesting the vacation of the alley. We did go through with National Park Service and with the ramp located anywhere along Merrimack, it was... something that they would not accept. So that's why we've got the ramp located where we have got it located.

Just to touch on that too, the ramp goes down the side and comes behind the main facade, copper, and structure. If you try to put it on the front, it encroaches into the public right-of-way, and we'd have to go through the structure. And so the historic components of this building really are the facade, the elevated plaza, our main entry lobby area, and our elevator lobbies throughout other than that it's a you know it's a cast concrete slab and column style building and those are really the areas that we need to kind of be sensitive to when you get into the building it really is just a double stacked single corridor building 2 through 11. and currently is planned for 118 residential units with supporting amenities and things on the first floor including outdoor space there on the elevated plaza where we increase the historic We have those historic planners that run the north and south that we have to incorporate. And then obviously the programming of all the street trees that we're taking not only just in front of the building, but all the way past and into the north lot to the north. And the vacation in the alley, just so you know, it hasn't really changed since the last PUD that we presented, which was approved. And that was, which was a good idea then. The utility infrastructure and being able to provide those services The loading docks, that alley, if anybody's walked up it, it's very steep. You wouldn't walk down it in the winter. And it already poses an issue when people walk past the buildings there. You'd literally go to walk out if there is a car, which is not used that often. You can't see it. So it's sort of kind of not very safe. Plus our egress door from our P2? Is it P2? P1 and P2. P1 and P1. Our man doors are... Open up onto the alley, which means if you open that door and walk up, you could find yourself, you know.

Well, they are actually exits their life

safety. Life safety exits. If you open that up on a valley. Now, the problem is, and this is why we did the PUD application prior that vacated that alley was because to provide the necessary space for the transformers and the emergency generators and the new water vault and the PIV valves and all that fun stuff you have to do to actually get the services to the building, it goes in the alley, just like we were going to do it before. The alternative, which is a really bad idea, and we've already ran this by staff, was the only alternative is then to put your water vault, your vertical above-ground transformers, your emergency generator, and your PIV valve, all that stuff would live on bottom. And your main drag would have a big ugly emergency generator, transformers. And then if you're worried about sight lines on garages, All those transformers and emergency generators, I guarantee you are going to be a lot worse than some landscaping. So that's why the alley vacation is crucial for tying in all the services to this building. And sure, we have a dog park there and some other things that we're going to do there. And I know we don't like to talk about phase two, but we need to talk about a phase two because there will be something that happens there eventually. And that will include that north lot and how we incorporate that also into is going to happen from how this alley functions. Plus the loading dock is on the back of that alley. That's how you would access this building is through that loading dock. And again, it's not exactly a very utilized space right now.

So the original building occupies, this podium occupies from property line to property line to property on the west, the north, and the south. We're about nine feet from the property line, 10 feet max. We've got where these green strips are here and the ingress-egress points, where the ingress-egress points are to P1 and P2. So we don't have any land that's available to us that isn't already within the building or under the building. The new utility requirements by American Water requires the new vaults, the meter vaults, to be on the property but not under the building, not within the building. That's a requirement by our local utility. The Ameren requirements for their separation from distances from each other from any obstruction, the wall behind them takes about almost 10 feet itself. And then they have to have even access to get to them. So those are issues that have really caused us to take a hard look at being able to get the alley vacation again as we did in our previous application. And so we can put those where they will be out of view and will be screened and will not be part of the public realm. If they have to go on... on Bonham, then there is no way that they won't be very much a part of the public realm. And it's almost impossible. We won't have the room to even screen them because there's not enough room to put the screens around. These are the requirements of the utility at the local utilities. They're not architectural or engineering design issues.

So right here, you would unfortunately have to put your new water vault and PIV. If we don't get the alley vacate. And here would be your transformers. So all this landscaping dies off, and now you're just dealing with a bunch of ugly back of house equipment. So you've got, this goes away, it's vaults, can't do anything there. This goes away, it above ground transformers. This goes away. It's a big, ugly emergency generator. And that's it. Or actually, this would be the generator here. These would be the transformers.

No, well, the transformer would be right there. Right here. Generators would be next to it. Right next

to it.

But we'll have to lose some trees because Ameren requires their access from the street to come in within a certain slope, which we exceed here. So really, it's a real challenge.

In maintenance, then, that means Ameren comes here and drops cones, sets a truck right here, and that's how that works. So this is no different than the original PUD proposal. This was always living in this alley. It's just there was a building here and there's a building here, and those were living here to support both structures. Now they're still in the same place. It's just this structure is TBD, and it's still in the same space providing the same access. Let me go to the next slide. Yes.

Yeah. So this is all the different plans with the upper left. And we're showing the existing city garage next to it just for context. So in the upper left-hand corner is our P2 level, where we roughly have 60 parking spaces that are all accessed from that western ingress-egress point off of Bonham. The building upper right is what we call P1. P1 level, that would be the access from that ingress-egress point that's near the Merrimack corner, Merrimack bottom.

There's only 34 spaces in here, and this is the only place we can accommodate ADA clearances because of the height. We have the clear height to accommodate here. Unfortunately, PT does not have the height capability to accommodate that. So you only have 34 spaces in this garage, which is for residents and people will egress that and all kinds of different times work from home here and there so it's not like. It's an office garage where everybody leaves at 5 o'clock or gets there at 9 a.m. or whatever, but this is the only place we can accommodate those ADA spaces because it's the only spot where we have the clear height to

allow that. So that door up to the upper right-hand corner there that's coming out into the alley, that is an existing door that is already an exit door from level P1, and so we would still be utilizing that to exit P1. And then if you back over to the left with this door down here that you see, that accesses to the alley as well. And that's the exit from that level. We also have an exit on the bottom side. But then going down to the

typical

floor is fine. So that's the penthouse level. There's your roof level. And we have to keep all of the mechanical screen. Everything has to stay in place on the roof. That's a requirement of historic National Park Service. So we use all that space up there. We'll restore all the screen panels around all that equipment that's up there. And there's boilers and chillers and cooling towers and such. and all the elevator equipment room, which all that will be demoed, but we'll still remain, we'll still keep the profile of the building up

there. The next- The new mechanical, when we demo out the old mechanical that lives here, here, and on top of here, we'll then replace with the new mechanical behind that screen. So it's not like you're going to have any new stuff sitting out on the roofline of that building. We'll keep the existing profile. Obviously the steel surround is all going to be restored, repainted, structurally anything that needs

we actually can't build anything outside of that profile it has to stay inside so this next level is a penthouse level and that level has a about a three and a half foot four foot terrace around it and that's where that eyebrow overhangs so it's the cap of the building the penthouse of the building so we've got six units uh penthouse units larger two bedroom um uh units up here there's a demand for for larger units and uh and the The access to the outside will be really a limited door opening. It's because of the safety issues and the access to that terrace. There'll be operable doors that open to four inches only for ventilation. They won't be for access to that terrace, which is not access now. The ride is levels, that plan on ride is levels two through 10. And those are typical with 12 units per floor. I've been working with the... B2 from a standpoint of looking at the mix and the number of units, the size of the units, and we've hit on something that they feel is very marketable and would be successful here.

We're working with the 2B residential, would be our property manager, who up until recently was the manager of the 212 Clayton and the Park building and currently being placed. So our unit mix and the demographics and the size and the unit count and how many ones, twos, and so on That's coming direct from the property manager. And really, that's kind of one of our variances is the dwelling unit size. We have some studios that are in the 5.5, 550 range, which I understand the city's phasing out at the end of the year anyway, but as of right now, that is one of the things we're going to have units that are under that 750 requirement currently.

And then the plan to the right. is the ground floor plan, the upper right-hand corner. You see the retail space, commercial space, which we have facing the plaza there. Then that's also everything in kind of that yellow color is either residential units. We have four units on the ground floor and all the green is support amenity

space.

Well, yeah, back house, clubhouse space, fitness center. And then we're gonna activate the fountain into a pool area and be able to give the residents some outdoor areas around the pool. And then, as Michael was saying earlier, those dark lines, in addition to the planters that exist, the historic planters, we're putting linear planters all around the edge of the patio or the edge of those raised portions, and we're putting the proper guardrails in. All the guardrails don't meet code requirements from the standpoint of the height and the spacing of the of the vertical bars, and so those will all be replaced, and the planters will also be added just to really kind of minimize the amount of precast concrete that you see. And since they're temporary, they can be removed, they are allowed by National Park Service.

So as you arrive at the main entry, you'll approach the stairs, come up into our vestibule. Obviously, the building will be secure to access. This is all glass line. I know when you drive by it now, it's hard to believe, but everything that you see is black or board is actually windows. So like that first floor is 13 feet clear span. So when you walk in, you can actually, we've done some selective demo in there to see where the old elevator surrounds and the plaster height for that lobby when you walk in will be 13 feet high. And that whole surround of that building When you see all that wonderful board that we have all around it, that's actually floor-to-ceiling glass. And so we'll go back up to the original plaster line, 13 foot high, nice big ceilings, white all the way around the entire first floor of the building. You'll come in the old elevators that we actually knocked out, the old drop ceiling that wasn't original anyway. We found the old brass surrounds that go up 10 feet high from when it was the old 7-Up building. You know, we'll have a commercial space there. We'll have our package room, our parcel room. The green space is down to the south. This will be the club room that opens up onto the pool deck. This will be Obviously, this is the Bonham side here. But there's about 16 feet until you get to the street here. Over here, it's more like 20-something. And then over here, it's about six and a half. Then you add in the planter. That's another two. Plus what we put in the planter, that's another two. And then all of a sudden, you've got this really nice kind of about eight-foot kind of privacy thing that happens there. And then we put these, like Chris was saying, these big, tall, movable planters with landscaping so that that area is contained and secure. And so when you get here, there'll be a call box. Now, obviously six o'clock every day, there'll be people in the building, but then it'll just go to secured access at night.

So this next slide is, uh, uh, Is the ground floor, we know there's been issues brought up and we want to really help everyone understand and clarify what we're doing to meet the code, I mean our responsibilities is to. You know, meet the health, safety and welfare of the public, so we as architects are are that's what we that's what we all have to do as our number one chore. So from a code standpoint there's a very unique core condition here with four elevators. and two stairs. One, they're completely independent stairs. People look at them in plan and they think they're scissor stairs. The scissor stair is a stair that crosses back and forth and it uses the same shaft. The enclosure goes around both stairs that are exiting down. These are independent interlocking stairs that are two-hour rated on each side. So the stairs... from the standpoint of meeting the code and life safety requirements, absolutely meet the code. From the standpoint of discharge at the ground floor, right now both stairs exit out through the lobby where both the red line and the dashed blue line are. Under our proposal and complying with the code and exception one of the code that was referenced in the staff report, we can discharge 50% of our stairs through the red line directly out to the lobby. We can also discharge the other stair through a shared common space corridor that's rated to an outdoor space. So the heavy blue line would take you outside to that south podium. And there's a door right just to the south of the elevators that would be on hold open. Right there, yeah. That'd be on hold open for access during normal hours under a fire condition. When an alarm sounds, that door will close like the doors on all the vestibules up above will close to create the lobby around the elevators. And then you would have that protected corridor exiting out to discharging to the exterior. So by using exception one of the code that's been referenced of section 102.8.1, we're using exception one of 102.8. And in complying with all the requirements of that 2021 IBC code. So we're meeting the code, we're compliant with the code. We've been trying to get a meeting with the building department to review that. We had a meeting with the fire marshal several months ago. Informally. And just showed him what we're doing and shared with him our approach, and he seemed to think it made sense. But the building department wasn't available at that time, so we've been trying to Get that meeting and clarify all that. So we know there's There's some heartburn about it, but we're confident with our code consultant who's a phenomenal, really a very smart fellow. The company's a terrific company based in Kansas City. He used to actually work for the city to be code compliant within the city. So he was very code savvy. And now he's working for us as a special consultant.

Yeah, I mean, the bottom line is it complies with the code. The code consultant has been working on this project for a year. I've been working with this gentleman for a decade. He's the best in the business. And the bottom line is the construction documents when presented will reference the codes. They'll comply with the code and that's all there is to it. It's that simple. So we have the fire ratings. We have the separations. We have the code exceptions to support the design. And that will all be on the permit drawings when they're submitted. So if you go

to the typical floor... So the sketch on the left is really a section through the stairs, and it shows you how between the blue stair and the red stair that you have two separate stairs. It's like there's two strands of DNA that are circling one another, but they're completely independent and separated from one another. And we'd like to share that so people really understand how these stairs work. And we've confirmed that the separation between the stairs are two hours. They provide the required rating, and they will be compliant with code. On the right, you see kind of zoom out a little bit. So the code that was referenced in the staff report, we are complying with. And what we're required to do for the separation of the doorways is to take the diagonal of the building, which you see in that red line, and that's 165 feet. And we're able to separate those doors by one third of the diagonal, which is 55 feet, just a hair under 55. Exception one of the code, the same code that's referenced in your staff report, allows us to, within a one-hour rated corridor, achieve that separation of 55 feet. We, in fact, have 68 feet of a linear pathway between both doors. So we exceed what's required by code. And in addition... It's a little bit hard to see, but the elevators do have the vestibules, the doors that open in both directions, which is a requirement of a high-rise. And I will say that a lot of the utility issues that we're dealing with, that's all because of the change, the use change from office to residential. And once you do that, you've got to bring everything up and be compliant with code. So all the life safety, all the fire protection requirements, the water storage, the different feeds for water to the fire pumps, those are all new requirements and we all got to do them within this existing building. So that's kind of the challenge that we've been faced with and we think we've addressed them and are certainly looking forward to to getting your feedback on that.

I mean, I think you need to speak to the team a little bit too. So this is not our first high rise conversion. We've done several downtown St. Louis, we've done several in Kansas City, 10, 12, 30 story, 20 story, plenty of them. And so code requirements for high rise, this isn't new to us, especially in a historic renovation of a building. We have parent companies running GC. We've got HDA as the architect record. We've got Grimes running civil engineering. We've got the structural engineers. We've got code consultants. We've got MEP teams that have all done this. All this information will be clearly laid out on our construction documents and supported by a team that's done this multiple times in multiple places. So there's no surprises here, and we've been on this building for two years, so we know it inside and out, front to back. I think we're almost there. There's the best reveal, just like any other high rise. You have hold open doors here that in the event of a smoke or an emergency action, these doors merely swing shut and that's just how that works. This is a detail that, again, if everybody wants to reference this, and if you don't, can't find it, we'll share it with you. But again, two completely separate stairwells that are separated by a two-hour, six-inch rated wall. I mean, it is what it is.

So as required with our submission, the elevations, I mean, it's pretty much just taking a picture of the building and elevating them. So that's what you got here. We have raised, the guardrails have been brought up, the ADA ramp's been added. But otherwise, the building is very much just like you see it today, only it's cleaned up and it's being used.

Yeah, all new windows, landscape, paint, grout, everything is back to the way it was when it was built in 1965, except better, more code compliant with better materials.

Here's a section through the building just to help you understand the relationship to the city parking garage. It's got four levels below grade for parking. We are going to abandon two of them just because the headroom heights aren't sufficient and some of the structural kind of challenges that occur down there. But we get the 90 plus parking spaces on P1 and P2 and the other 200 in our lease agreement with the city garage.

So the reason we're mothballing these lower floors is not so much there's anything wrong with them. The problem is in 1964, everybody drove a sedan. And so those floor-to-ceiling heights down there start to get pretty low. A couple of us get real close to bumping our head, you might have the same problem. And so once you put in the lighting, the ventilation, the fire sprinklers, your clearance gets to something that I would probably hit my head on. And so they're just not functional. And so that's why P1 is where we have to have our van access. Then P2 is a little bit better, but unfortunately three and four. So we would mop all those back house. They'd still have all the emergency systems, smoke alarms, emergency lighting on it, but they would just be closed off to the general public so that, you know, we don't have people wandering in there and sell it. So they would still be hooked up to the building systems for life safety, smoke, ventilation, lighting, those kinds of things. But they would be secured so that they were not accessible by the general public.

And we're putting our electrical charge stations on P1 as well.

Yeah, and our electric car chargers stations go on P1. The reason we're doing that, a fun fact, is if they catch on fire, those Tesla's like to burn for, you know, or any electric car. They like to burn, and then they go out. Then they start up and burn some more. And so that's the only floor where a tow truck could get in and pull that car out of the garage if it caught on fire. So that's why our electric car charging stations are also located on P1.

What they actually have to do is bring some other blankets. The fire department's got to bring the blankets in and throw them over because you can't put them out any other way. No. We have the landscape plan. We'll go to the civil plan here. But all of the... Trees, obviously, that are required and the frontage along the streets is all included to meet city standards. And then quite a bit of the ones along Bonham, we really are going to plant those planters up where the transformers were hidden down below. We can't use those anymore because there just isn't enough capacity there. And we can't even use part of them and supplement them with another one. We had to go, Ameren required us to go new transformers and switch gear.

So that's going to have all new street trees, the pavers, all new sidewalk. And we've continued that all the way through the north lot as well. So it's not like we're just stopping at the end of the existing building and then moving on. They run all the way down. Okay. Here, I'll fix it. All right.

Okay. Okay. We'll figure it out.

Postage stamp. That's why.

loading so let's hold on a second here where to go there we go so one of our ideas uh that we're working on right now for phase two because we don't want you to think that there's just going to be a big empty hole there for the unforeseen future is to basically create a pocket park, which it's a little more than that. In all fairness, that's a pretty good size lot, but we have our dog park here. We have, we're hiding all that back of house transformer emergency generators. And then what we do is it was succeeding here and some benches. So that instead of walking by and just seeing that old lot, which has a tendency to have debris, just blow through it or you know, not much happening there in all fairness and it's not the most pleasant view anyways to landscape it clean it up have some seating areas have kind of a a nice little kind of uh private public park, which obviously we would maintain. Uh, and that would stay there temporarily until phase two actually started. And then obviously phase two would take that over. And then the good news is, is if for some reason, uh, you don't believe us about a phase two, then we could have a condition that says that that part maintain, it stays there until something is submitted to be built there. And it's at our cost and expense to maintain it and so on and so on.

So the, uh, um, The ADA ramp is right here. This is the size of the water meter vault. It's 8 feet by 16 1⁄2, 17 feet long, and it's about 5 foot deep. It's all below grade. So we want to put it in that area. And then we talked about this dog park. Now, dog parks now you have to meet ADA requirements, so you can only have a 2% slope. This slope on this alley right here is more in the 12% to 15% slope. It's a very steep here. So we'll have to, we have a steps here. There'll be a ramp that happens in this location to take us down. And then our exiting out of our building would be here and we'll be able to come up and come out to the public way and then exiting out. So we've really located all of our energy center generators, transformers down here, and they've got to have access to those from at least a 12 foot wide, I'm sorry, 10 foot wide street. So that's kind of what we got going on the alley that we're proposing that we think makes the most sense for a number of reasons. But we know you all have some thoughts on that, so we want to listen to them.

And I mean, we're open to suggestions and ideas to get here. Obviously, this is a pretty creative... Where we're at and where we thought we were starting on this project is vastly different and has required a lot of different approaches and... are thinking caps for the whole lot of people it's not just the three of us we've got a team of 20 different guys that are working on this to come up with this and this is this is where we are that gets this thing turned on but obviously we welcome feedback comments questions clarity and i mean that's what that's what we're here for is to get this kind of open dialogue started thank you you good that that's what we got so at this point in time questions comments Well,

it's good to see you back again. Has it only been a year?

Year and a half.

Well, good. Actually, Helen, would you take the lead?

Okay. I like the idea of reusing an existing building. It definitely comes with its challenges. And I'm glad that you've got your historic designation because in the code, you get a few more benefits. Not a lot. And there are people working to get you more, but you don't want to delay to 2027 or 2030. So I like it, but I think it needs more thought. The phase two, even what you've shown us, what are you doing with the back half of that lot? You showed like the front part of it, front half would be a pocket park.

Correct. We would build that up because you can actually use that. If you look at the lot now, there's basically about 20-25 feet. There's about 20 feet of fall and it's really not we're not able to use it. Even when we come back and do something there, you're going to have A building that's built to be on grade level with the street and what we'll still have is will be dealing with an existing condition. or what most likely will either be parking or back of house services that we can't we can't make that up because it is 20 feet so it's not very usable right. Right now, unfortunately, just kind of turns into a swamp and where everybody's trash seems to blow into. And so long term to build something there you're still going to have to work with that elevation where you'll have the first floor and then whatever happens, whether it's parking or. Low grade or a lower level of a building, but it still wouldn't really be anything long term. The reason we have the idea of the park up on the frontage is we can grade the front portion of that up to get it to that same level as the sidewalk, but To do that, I mean you'd be talking about like a 20 foot retaining wall and fill dirt and to do a temporary park that we would then rip back out to build a building eventually.

But I think you're asking what the back part in the interim. It's

just

grass. It'll be yeah it'll be grass and maintain

will have a pocket park on the front half. And the back half will be?

Yes, a grassy area until we develop it. Just like it is now, but it'll be better maintained.

I think that's kind of fuzzy. I'd like more, this is what we're doing, more definition.

You mean from the interim solution? The interim solution or the final solution? The

interim and what could be the final. If we

don't develop there,

yeah. Saying it's going to be a grassy lot that'll be... half of 190, it'll be almost 100 feet by 78.

It's 76 feet or 79 feet wide. And at that point,

190 deep. So half of that, that's a large piece that is going to be grass and not a pocket park. So I think I'd like to see more definition of What you're planning there for now

it's a separate parcel now the ironic part about this, the ironic part of it is that it's been requested that this be removed from this beauty application entirely.

Well, then remove it and don't talk about it.

So then just don't do anything. Just leave it there the way, I mean, we're trying to do, right now it's not appealing. And we get that. It's not appealing for us, not appealing for the residents, not appealing for The Neighborhood. So we can not do nothing or we can circle up the wagons here and figure out what to do. What I'm trying to say is the team here is open to doing some kind of a parkscape, having seating areas, adding some trees, getting something there. even if it means that we're going to rip it out in 18 months. But just letting it sit there and blow in the wind, I don't know if that's the most creative strategy. So we can either talk about it and try to figure something out cool now, which we're on board with, or we can just remove it and it stays kind of a dismal, abysmal space. I don't know how that helps.

Well, I think there's other issues that we've got to deal with from the standpoint of P&Z. Whether we do it or not. So we hear you. We hear what you're saying. And I

mean, if that's the case, then we can just, I mean, I'd like to improve that space so it's not just you walk by and it's, you know, not a very impressive interaction there. And that's why we have the street trees coming all the way down and trying to do something there to just kind of improve that whole experience as you walk down Merrimack. There's already enough construction, vacant lot, you know, boarded up buildings That area needs to get kind of, we need to fix that up somehow. So we don't have all the answers, but we're open to having the conversation. Anyways, continue, please. Sorry.

No, no, that's fine. Vacating the alley, that means any semis that use what you're not wanting will have to make a 90-degree turn or back out.

They already use the north-south alley to come out of there from Clayton-on-the-Park and the other office buildings already. That's what they do now.

Yeah, you're creating a problem. What about moving the alley a bit north?

In order to...

So that you still keep a through alley. But just angle it and then straighten it.

So you're saying take take it out of the north parcel?

Yeah, take it out of that kind of trade one for the other. And then we've still got an alley. And we're maintaining Clayton system of alleys. but you've also got your handicapped ramp and your utility vaults. And, you know, you can't just take it, move it at the end of your 190 feet on that parcel. But if you can angle it on that lot, then semis can make that And even large trucks that are not semis, they can have a difficult time with the 90 degrees. And backing out, I mean, we've got all sorts of cameras in the trucks and everything, but you still, if the building is yours, you're holding your breath that they don't clip it. So hard. i would look at with the city could you move the alley a bit and then if your project for the empty parcel if that involves vacating the the new alley then negotiate that um you know take each step but By moving the alley, you can solve your problem. Yeah, we can do it.

I mean, the original plan was to connect the new construction building to the historic building eventually, which is why they go right up to each other like that. And, I mean, there really is about 20 feet of fall there. I've never seen a semi-truck come up that alley because it doesn't serve either one of the – there are two independent parcels, so it doesn't really serve either one of those. Again, the garbage trucks, they go to – the brick building and clayton in the park literally just come through that alley from brentwood and then turn north and go that way they don't actually come up there because it's a pretty steep grade for them uh especially if there's any inclement weather but i mean we can look at alternative options

yeah does that does that add does that From the standpoint of doing something like that, what's that do to the process? Does it protract it?

So the alley vacation, that's actually an alternative. That's why the Public Works comment referenced other rights-of-way because we've already been discussing that option. But this board, the vacation of the alley is completely at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen. So that would not be something that the Planning Commission would weigh in on anyway. So some of the comments that were listed there from staff, are things that will be addressed at the administrative staff level, not by this board. But they were in there for your...

Okay. My last thing is the life safety, those stairs on each floor. If I have a unit at the far end of the building...

And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but this has been a conversation that is going on with our building official. So I would prefer that since these plans provided tonight with the life safety had those were new to the packet, they weren't part of the packet when the building official wrote that comment. So I think it would be best for them to continue to discuss with the building official and the fire marshal those comments.

Okay. I thought because they were in our staff report that they were part of it. So,

no. I think there's been a misperception of, because even myself, when I saw it for the first time, I thought it was a sister stare. And then when you really get in and start to understand everything, it's not. And it is definitely going to be code compliant current day.

And there's two stairwells. So if you live on one side of the building, you go to that stairwell. If you live on the other side of the building you get to that stairwell it's one half there and one half the other, which is why we get to the 50% on the exception.

And we meet all the dead end corridor requirements, the common path of travel that might be out of your bailiwick when we talk about those kinds of things. But we meet, we made sure

we're not asking for any variances on any codes because we meet the codes.

That we should end that, delete that part of my comment.

No worries. We've been working on it.

Yeah, we're going to have that meeting eventually here with the building department and the fire marshal so that everybody's on the same page.

Okay, that's it.

Susan?

So we already did that originally on the PUD. They asked us to have two. We met with our neighbors at the Park Tower and all the nice folks that live around there. one nice lady asked us if we would consider doing three so we made the commitment to those folks and then we were going to do three then so we're still doing three now

and we still in part of that lower level we have like a meet-up room and a sports and a theater room and then we have kind of like a gaming room that has some fun stuff for people to do And the other condition was we had to let some of the park tower ladies come over to watch movies in the movie room. So, yeah, there's a couple of handshake deals out there we got to keep up.

That's where it's right.

Well, as unappealing as it may be, we have to just be grownups and face things. And the problem is the folks that work at the county building used to come over and sit on the vacated plaza to smoke their cigarettes on breaks and so on because they're not allowed to do that on county property. Okay? So we had to actually put up a fence, which we took down because it was chain link and people didn't like it. So then we put up a rail saying no trespassing. And now I see these poor people walking around and who knows what they're doing. And so having a place with some seating and some outdoor space with some fresh air, some green, some trees, they're going to go somewhere. It is what it is. So instead of them sitting on steps and stoops, the workers of the county could sit on a bench over there and have their lunch break cigarette if they had to. I mean, they got to go somewhere and they're not going to quit for us. So let's just give them a place to go.

Again, trying to be a good

good neighborhood.

Jim? First, I want to thank you for teaching me how to put it on an electric car fire. It's

a blanket. It's not very fancy.

Well, it weighs like 300 pounds.

It's a big, heavy

blanket. Yeah.

uh but in all seriousness i was not here in 2023 uh i went back i listened to your presentation then i learned a lot from that presentation i learned a lot uh from steve and helen's comments back then too um i want to thank you for the very thorough presentation as is going through i was xing out kind of a lot of my questions so this could have been a lot longer the my main concern is if you go back to the presentation in 2023 something that was brought up is, and from your guys' words, is how we treat this podium is very important. And I'm concerned from a pedestrian standpoint, we all know that that podium is 19 feet at its tallest and goes down to six feet. We have a corner here where with 212 Clayton, that corner is kind of activated now. And if especially, you know, I've gone it multiple times during the day, I've gone a couple times at night with my son after soccer practice. And There's a lot of activity around there. And I'm concerned that we have kind of this now kind of lively corner and we're kind of cutting all that off on this. We have this big property, but that whole corner is literally going to be fenced off and only private. So I like the commercial space and everything. I don't know if there's any way that we can draw the commercial space closer to where we kind of already have commercial activity so that can feed off each other, so we can create a better pedestrian environment. I think a lot of this too, since we're clearly looking at two phases, the amount of commercial that could be in phase two would probably make this look a lot more palatable. But I also realize with the tax credit process and markets, like you said, as they are, that this has to be a phased project. So I wonder personally, you know,

Your head's in the right place. You're in the same place we are. I mean, you're 100% right. So the spot on phase two to the north, it's a no-brainer for more commercial retail opportunities because it's at the sidewalk, right? And it's built to the sidewalk. Whereas I'm zooming in over here just to kind of give you a little bit of a area. There's not, I mean, we've got a garage door and an elevator plaza. So there's not really an option there to try to trigger that. The one thing that's nice is the building one, first of all, will be, you know, we've got our up lighting package, which we'll share, but we've got up lighting. We've got landscaping. There'll be people out there. Like if you can kind of see this, I tried to zoom in on this. You can see it a little bit better on the big screen. You know, there's our outdoor kitchen areas where there's people out there and there's sound and there's people being sociable. And it's not totally curtained off. You can see that, you know, it's more of a balcony kind of a situation than it is like curtained off. The only place that really happens is at the main entry of the door. to kind of corral it. The rest of the space is separated by vertical space, but it'll be landscaped. It'll be lit. It'll, there'll be noise. There'll be the fountain noise of, you know, a water feature in the pool. There'll be people on the deck cooking and being social and there'll be sounds. There'll be music. We'll have outdoor TVs. You'll see, you know, you walk by in an afternoon and there'll be guys out there, you know, maybe grilling some brats and having the Cardinals game on and stuff. So it's not going to be like some dark, cold hotel space with a pool and nobody ever actually uses it. I think, The thing you'll notice is going forward, if you look at like Clayton in the park and two twelve. One of their things is they're kind of a little light on the amenity package. And so the way people look at these apartment buildings now is you program the common areas are why people really stay there now. And so, yeah, the apartments are nice. We've got quartz countertops, stainless steel appliances, you know, nine foot decks. We've got 10 and a half foot ceilings in the penthouses. That's not really why that's kind of the that's the ante. You know, that's the bare minimum to compete. The things that we're doing is we have a 27 foot pool. It's an actual real pool, not a water feature. You know, it's not a little tiny pool. You can actually use it. We've got these outdoor spaces with garages and maybe some spots to actually play some games and do some things and watch a ball game and interact with your neighbors. So we're trying to program those social spaces like the club room. We've got this large club room which you can have events. And we'll do open houses and things and invite our neighbors and the people on the street, come take a look, come stop by, have some hors d'oeuvres, have a drink, come see the place. You know, even the fitness center, instead of just having you know, a little space that's got a couple of recumbent bikes and a Nautilus machine. It's a full gym experience where you can go in there and it's, you know, get squat cages and, you know, Pelotons and fun stuff. So programming those spaces, I think you'll see more life outside of the building in those spaces when you walk by you'll see people up there you'll see lights on you'll see somebody out there cooking you'll see somebody up there watching a game i think you'll see people getting together and having and then the one thing that always happens in these things it's not just to the residents i mean your house my house his house who do we bring there our friends our neighbors so you'll end up seeing groups there and you know uh Two of the people live there and the other eight are from around the neighborhood or somewhere else. And so I think you'll see those spaces getting utilized, programmed in a more communal sense, less than they're curtained off, which really only happens at the main door. And that's really just for safety and code regulations. Other than that, you'll walk by and you'll see people talking, hanging out, sitting around the grills or a fire pit or playing a game or the sound of the water or whatever. I don't think it'll be dark or feel unengaging. To the opposite, I think it'll be lit up and kind of compliment what's happening across the street or what we want to happen down the street or eventually... directly across from us where it gets a little quiet and dark at night and so on.

Yeah, I think we can all agree it's probably in the execution because I can see it either way. I look at it on one hand where I looked at it, my first thought is, ooh, like, I don't know what these, all these amenities kind of like upfront are, you know, are people going to want to, you know, kind of be on display in the front of this building? Is that going to cause it not to be used? Then let me give you the counter to that. Then I drive down Lindahl and I see the Chase Park Plaza, and it's probably the busiest pool that you see. But I have toured other buildings. I've toured 212 Clayton and 100 above the park and stuff like that. They've got these beautiful views and stuff like that, and they all have the similar grill area and pools, and you see maybe one person out there or something like that. So when I see something like that, it kind of concerns me of, oh, this could be visually kind of dead on that corner. Once again, I 100% agree with you. That's all in the execution. And I think while we're talking about conceptual review, something in a final plan, that's the type of thing I'd be looking for is how we're visually activating that corner, how we're tying it in with everything. And then the retail space, I know... I just want to make sure

that that retail space. Right now it is just a commercial space and we don't know what it's going to be long-term.

Yes. And I know you don't control that, but as far as just in the planning for that, I just know, I look, I look at like the, the building at Hanley and Clayton, which has like a similar kind of retail space just on the bottom, but it's kind of not around anything and it's nothing's ever gone into it. So that's another worry that I just look at it. It's like, okay, is, are we just kind of pasting on a retail space just to, okay, great. Now we're mixed use. Um,

uh, I get what you're saying. And we went through this the last time where the one thing we came out of the last time that we were a hundred percent sure that everybody agreed on is we didn't want it to be a bank. That was the one thing that everybody agreed. I

don't know if there's any banks left at this point, but that was

the one thing everybody was adamant at the time. It was like no bank space. And we're like, okay, we won't do a bank. We promise. We don't like those guys either. Anyways. Um, the problem and you're right is a retail or a commercial space or what it is. It's hard and it's who knows, and it's who's willing to make an investment. And even if we meet them halfway, are they willing to come to the rest of the way? I mean, anything that's restaurant or entertainment or it's a crapshoot. And I think everybody knows that. I mean, last time we talked about just having the space to be determined, not a bank and, Maybe it could be a gallery or a meet and greet space, or we didn't know. And we still don't have it figured out. And unfortunately nobody's come forward with like a, Hey, I'd like to put this there. And you know, it's, it is what it is.

I think Jim, the difference here between two 12 at the pool on the roof, you got it. And Clayton on the park pools on the roof or the waiting ponds on the roof. You know, it's very different to go up the roof and have it separated from your club room because it's Their club rooms are down. Here the club room is the same level. So we really want to activate, you know, the in and out. And so even though the windows look black here because it's their dark glass, you know, in the evening times especially, we really want that to be activated. So the club room really comes all the way out to the street. It uses that whole area as a social interaction area. And that's what we've got to do. If it's not easy to use or enjoyable to use, they won't use it. That's what we've gotta do.

And we aren't trying to pull everybody down to this first floor for that. So everything that's fun that happens in the building, whether it's the club room, whether it's fitness center, whether it's those other meetup spaces I talked about, you have to leave the safety of up there and come down here. And the

kitchens, the food's down here.

Everything's down here. So the gathering space, whether like like you said 212 and like you mentioned the clay in the park it's not somewhere up in the sky it's right here so i mean they don't really have a lot of people

want to put it up there because of the views it's not that great it's if you have a view but after the view it's like we all walk out on a balcony when we're at a hotel this is great you never go out there again rarely

right so windy it's not that things blow away it's not anything anyways we're getting off track but we hear you loud and clear

Yeah, like I said, I think I don't see anything stand out to me that glaring like, oh, I would want to change this. I was kind of secretly hoping that maybe the podium was not part of the National Register and that we could deal with it in a more comprehensive way. I understand that that's not possible with what you guys are working with and the tax credits make this feasible. This building's obviously been empty for 17 years for a reason. So I appreciate everything that you've kind of brought to light. And like I said, I think those things just when it comes to final plan, just seeing how you execute on those ideas and just making sure we're really following through in those areas are the main things I think of.

Some of the places where we have our hands tied, for instance, the copper has got to stay. We're going to obviously refurbish it. The garage doors, we have to replace it exactly like they look today.

As close as we can get, we have to go find a garage door for some reason. Same color. Same color tiles. So you're right to get creative really is inside the building. It's just things we put on the wall and the materials we use. And the same goes for the outside. It's the, the landscaping design, the planters, the lighting, just all the things that we do because unfortunately, yeah, we can't mess with the facade or the plaza. Not much we can do about it. Well, thank you guys. I appreciate your comments. Thank you,

Chris. Yes.

I think since we're in the conceptual stage, I just have concerns that just because you can do something, whether you should do it. And this building as a residential building, I just am struggling with figuring out who the tenants would be. Because when you're looking at units that are Some of them are studios at 550, some 750, over 100 units with no balconies, no view. It is, as Jim said, it would have to be the execution of these spaces. I automatically think, well, this would go to low-cost housing very quickly, or it would go to students, someone that is looking to not spend a whole lot. And if you're going towards student demographic, then they're going to be looking at the pool And this pool is a very small pool, even at 25 feet, unless I'm not understanding the way this would be rendered. I just don't see the appeal of it as a residential building. I love this building. And I think that there is a reason that it's that empty for 17 years as well. But it's just very hard for me to visualize this as a residential building, And that's kind of what I'm struggling with. I don't think it's a selling point to tell, you know, tenants we don't have scissor steps, you know, our scissor stairs, that it's a safe place to live. I'm concerned about taking away the alley, not necessarily from the access, the ingress and egress could be from the other street, as you mentioned here. But that empty lot on the side, I... I think that there have been promises to maintain land before, not necessarily by you but by other tenants, that it very quickly can turn back into a swampland, can turn into a place where the litter is going to accumulate. I applaud that you're trying to make something work for the spa. I just am not necessarily on board yet with the whole concept without seeing how you had planned to address and really have those facilities be top-notch.

Yeah, I mean, right now the building is class A to be residential. Our finishes are the same as the building across the street, just not made out of hardy board. The demographic is the same. The rents right now are on par with... They're slightly, when you say low-cost housing... have to push back on it our rents right now are 100 a door cheaper than 212 on the park and about 150 less than clayton on the park so uh to to say it's somehow like a low housing project it would be mistaken the amenities are going to surpass our other high-rise competition in the market uh and would be more on par with what's across the street uh it's a high-rise building where we have nine foot ceiling finish Heights in an apartment, which is very, I mean, that's what people are building to right now. Our penthouse floors are Florida ceiling glass that have finished sites of 10 and a half with, you know, restaurant grade cooktops that are, you know, gas tops invented and Sonos speakers and waterfall countertops and 350 foot elevators that work a lot better than the ones that work in Clayton in the park. And they charge more. We've got windows everywhere that measure 46 by 56, which is, Probably bigger than the how the windows and most people's houses, I would the problem with these kinds of projects and i've done this for a long time so it's. Nothing geared towards us, you have to basically walk in there and understand you're taking everything out back down to the slab and the columns and you're starting from scratch. And if you tore that building down which every predecessor before us proposed to do because it was the easier option or the lazy option. then you would build back a concrete slab and column building that would literally look the same if you took the bricks off this building. So why do that? So it's much more complicated to make something work in its existing condition, but this is a single corridor double stack deal that actually works out very efficient. And we're not trying to shoehorn a project into this building, instead it actually works on this building. And we've done this in mid-modern high rises before. We did it on a 30-story building in Kansas City that was much more complicated, that actually did have a scissor stair. And we filed a CMR with the city, and guess what? It has 350 people living in it today. So I just had to push back that what it is right now and what it will be are not the same thing, and you just have to be open to the possibilities of change. of a quality product being able to exist in something that's just been sitting there for a long time. So will we get some students? Sure. Our unit sizes, they're on par with our competition. 212 has units that are 705, 725, 735. Clayton on the Park has 725s, 735s, 715s, and studios. So our market, our unit mix, our rents, and our unit sizes, we're not dictating that. The market specialists are that we brought on to be our consultants to tell us what is successful and what they're comfortable leasing in this market. That's where that information is coming from, not the development. We build the building. They tell us what we need to build so that they can actually be successful to lease it up. And again, our amenity package, I think, will be... superior to those buildings. And more importantly, with 118 units, I think we'll have more of a boutique kind of a cool community vibe versus those other projects where you do have 250, 300 people living in a building. And let's be honest, not everybody likes that many people. So having a more intimate neighborhood community, which this really is, this is a little vertical neighborhood. I think it'll have a little more, it'll be kind of its own little boutique kind of neighborhood uh where it's a it's a little more intimate and maybe the neighbors interact a little bit more and get together a little bit more, and maybe stay a little bit longer so that we have less people that come in rent an apartment for 910 months and they've gone on to the next stop on their resume. So I think maybe we'll have a little less turnover and people in this building might stick around a little bit longer.

Yeah, I think the other interesting thing is it's pretty, it's only a 10,000 square foot floor plate. So the corridors, you know, once you get off the elevator, you've got less than 70 feet, you know, to get to your, you're in your unit. You don't have these long, you know, corridors that kind of go on forever in a lot of the low rustic built kind of projects. So as Michael was saying, you know, again, the other thing that's so interesting Unfortunately, I think about a lot of residential multifamilies that are being built right now is they're just all the same. And and there's people that are looking for something that's unique and different distinct and I think if we take this this mid century modern approach and incorporated into everything on the interiors. and really build on what we've been given, which is this building and this historic condition. And make that the brand and people will see something different there. And if they can pay 100 to 150 bucks less as a unit for their monthly rent, that's not so bad either. So, and there is a down, everybody's getting a little bit smaller. So I understand what you're saying about the number of studios and and one beds and they're pretty tight but if we really want the people to use the city as their front room or as their as their enjoyment space we want them to sleep and eat you know once in a while eating everything in their unit but we want them to really use the city That's what the city wants. That's what's in the

plan. For those students, you could literally paint the kitchen on the wall and just tell them it's there. They wouldn't care. You want them to get out on the sidewalk, go down to the corner, have a couple drinks, you know, go hit the Barcelona, have a couple of drinks, hit the other place, have a cocktail, have some dinner. I mean, the whole point of this project is geared to lighting up that building and getting more feet on the sidewalk that are walking around the neighborhood. that's the backyard. So we're trying to pull everybody down to the plaza and then get them out on the street and walking around the neighborhood. I mean, that is the plan. It's the new urbanism kind of approach to doing things where the cityscape is your backyard.

I appreciate that with the amenities. And I think, you know, to Jim's point again, that I think it will be the amenities that you're offering. And I'd like to see more of that, how it's... how it really comes out. I guess I don't see the differentiator that you're talking about yet, but again, we're in the conceptual stage. So I'd love to see that down there that they would say, wow, this is the building that I really would like to move into because things like a pool isn't a differentiator right now. Community gathering area isn't necessarily particularly, and I see things like windows that don't open and no gathering space other than these areas right down at street level. And when I think about Using a pool, I would want it to be screened perhaps. So it's not meant, of course, to dissuade you. I really do appreciate that you are doing this. I just would really love to see something that sets us apart and says, this is an awesome idea.

So we can address it as

we... We have proposals and we're working with three different groups. One's out of Kansas City, one's HOK, one's these guys, HDA. And the interiors package, we agree with you. The building itself, you look at it and go, sure. and like i said earlier i think it was to uh the chairman or the to helen it was uh what goes on the walls the furnitures the materials the things that you look and feel the artwork uh the the landscaping the the materials that's really what's going to be the wow factory and i didn't even think to bring it it's on my phone but i could email to someone if you want to look at but the look and feel package of this thing when you see it it's not your conventional vanilla apartment building like the interaction spaces are are funky and cooled and there's woods and there's leathers and there's books and lighting and there's things uh you know uh yeah we're trying to set that different the differentiator is that we are not like the other ones we get it we don't want to be like the other ones i mean uh the other two buildings i know the guy that runs them great guy out in new Jeffery Yorg uh Briar Capital guys. Yeah, we're not in New Jeffery Yorg. This guy lives down the street. This guy lives up the road. I might even end up moving in the building myself. So the point is we're here. We're vested. We'll end up being the neighbors. We are your neighbors. And we're not looking at these things on an Excel spreadsheet saying vacancies up, down 2% while I live in some place on the other side of the country. So the differentiator is These guys are from here, and I've been coming back and forth here for a decade. And that's the difference is we're not just some portfolio apartment holder, builder, investor.

we... We have proposals and we're working with three different groups. One's out of Kansas City, one's HOK, one's these guys, HDA. And the interiors package, we agree with you. The building itself, you look at it and go, sure. and like i said earlier i think it was to uh the chairman or the to helen it was uh what goes on the walls the furnitures the materials the things that you look and feel the artwork uh the the landscaping the the materials that's really what's going to be the wow factory and i didn't even think to bring it it's on my phone but i could email to someone if you want to look at but the look and feel package of this thing when you see it it's not your conventional vanilla apartment building like the interaction spaces are are funky and cooled and there's woods and there's leathers and there's books and lighting and there's things uh you know uh yeah we're trying to set that different the differentiator is that we are not like the other ones we get it we don't want to be like the other ones i mean uh the other two buildings i know the guy that runs them great guy out in new york uh Briar Capital guys. Yeah, we're not in New York. This guy lives down the street. This guy lives up the road. I might even end up moving in the building myself. So the point is we're here. We're vested. We'll end up being the neighbors. We are your neighbors. And we're not looking at these things on an Excel spreadsheet saying vacancies up, down 2% while I live in some place on the other side of the country. So the differentiator is These guys are from here, and I've been coming back and forth here for a decade. And that's the difference is we're not just some portfolio apartment holder, builder, investor.

David?

I don't have any questions. I look forward to working with you all on the project and the parking and the alley and everything else. Absolutely. Welcome back. Thanks.

I do have a few comments. Okay. Number one, as I said before, we're glad to see you back. Number two, thank you for not amputating the top half of that building because that was the real negative of your prior presentation. This building needs that crown on the top. So I think it's good. I think you have an opportunity to put more people on the streets of Clayton with this project, but I think the opposite is this will not be welcoming to non-residents to come in simply because of the way the podium is raised. I think it's a wall, but I hear what you're doing. You're trying to give it some life. Having been in that building over many years when it was occupied, and it swayed a little up on the top, but you can fix that. What struck me was the windows. They seemed to be... Minimal is all I can say, but I saw them in large office spaces. So I'm trying to picture if these windows will feel bigger when they're in smaller spaces. relatively smaller apartment rooms, whether they be living rooms or bedrooms. So I think you're going to have to work that out. When it first came back, I thought, oh, from the inside, it might feel like a jail. But if the rooms relate to the window size, I think it may work out better. I think you're right. I am concerned with the handicap access. To me, it seems like it's a servant area, not really part of inviting people that need that coming into the building. I'm not sure what the answer is. That's just a comment on it. As far as if you're going to go for a PUD, I think you have to make a decision whether you drop off the North property and only go for the 7-Up building proper or you include the North property. And then we need to see the entire proposal, not just something that we don't know what's going to happen. So... I don't want to repeat everything that I thought was very valid by all the other colleagues on this commission. But those were my comments. Basically, we all wanted to work. That building has stood vacant for far, far too long. It's a building worth keeping. It's part of our heritage. And I wish you well. I can't wait to see the next step. Thank you, sir.

Thanks for all your comments. Appreciate it. Yeah, the 7-Up story is pretty interesting. Yeah. For sure. Michael lives it and loves it and obviously can talk about it.

Well, they did a lot of fun stuff there. And you're right on the units. The one thing that is rough is when you're in the building, whether it was operational or as it is now, the finishes are dark woods, dark carpets, dark colors. And then you're dealing with partially boarded up. And the other problem in that building is the way it's set up with all the different cubicles and cubbies. It just doesn't lend itself to carry light in any way, shape, or form. And then the ceiling heights with those low drop ceiling heights, that doesn't help either. So when you blow that all out and you realize you're dealing with just a blank slate slab with just some columns that run down that center corridor. And you can raise the ceilings up, which is huge to make the ceilings, you know, nine footers and 10 footers. that lends to bringing a lot more light in. And then every single one of those windows being a brand new piece of modern glass that aren't filmed, we don't have to film them or put something on it that damages the light quality. And that's the first floor and the penthouse level. So, and now everything is white and bright and clean and LED lit. And it does lend itself a lot better to picking up the light and so on.

With the replacement windows, not on the first or the top floor, would they be operable in any way?

Right now, all they are is fire key windows that were not allowed to be operable. And we can't count operable windows for our fresh air supply anyway because it's a high rise. So the first floor is all curtain wall. Top floor was curtain wall as well. And we did have the operable ventilation door that existed at some point, which doesn't meet any kind of code requirement now. And then the windows that run up were always proposed to be stationary. And those drop into basically the existing window set. So whip out the window, we take out all the cock and re-insulate new window goes into the new opening. Plus you got to remember you had those, those the air units that were below those windows, which really did not help because it made. it had this big box in front of every single window. So obviously that goes away. So you're up onto the window. So like all of our living rooms have multiple windows in them. And then the bedroom on the corner is picking up all those windows where it was cubicle into like a single window. Now that corner has all those windows in one room and the ceiling height goes up and everything's bright and white. So yeah, we're definitely being, we're definitely aware of that. One point I wanted to make, The swing you're talking about, the building does not meet current seismic codes. So we have our structural engineer on board already. And so we have our bracing that happens between the columns to meet the current seismic code that fixes any problems with bracing or current code requirements. So one of our consultants used to be in an office on the ninth floor there. So we get firsthand feedback of what life was like there. And he worked for the county for a decade in that building.

Yeah, it was scary on a windy day.

So we're really anxious to get a meeting with the building department, and we're in for a demo permit right now. It's taking a good long time, and we're trying to move things forward in the right schedule and meet everybody's requirements. So anything we can do to help that along, we'd appreciate it.

Well, hopefully you got comments which are only conceptual. You know, you can't hold anyone to that because we'll have an official review coming forward in the future. But hopefully that will help you move forward. And you'll work with the building department. I'm sure you'll have more questions for planning and development. And then we'll look forward to seeing you again.

Thank you very much. I wanted to show him this, though. I wanted to share him this so he could see it. I appreciate your time. I want to show

him a picture. Am I allowed to do that? Can I show him a picture?

Sure. Go ahead.

I'm going to ooh and ah really loudly so you all can't see it.

Just so you know, the interior picture that we're working from, it's trying to get funky. And so we have that downstairs game room speak Then we can keep going, see how we're trying to bring in the mid-modern funky stuff to kind of pick it up. We're not

finished. I think, yeah, I think that gives a much better feeling of just the feeling of the general building. Yeah, 100%. Thank you, Michael.

Okay. Still with us, Kevin? Okay. Well, yeah, we have just one item left. And Ryan, are you leaving that? Before you start, I have a comment. I think I hopefully can speak for everyone on the board. I think we're accustomed to having very comprehensive, complete reports. But I was blown away by this. This was an amazing amount of information that came through, comprehensive, complete. I'm not quite sure if I understand it all. So speaking for only myself, I need to hear everything tonight.

Yeah. No, Ryan's done a good job and he'll continue to do a good job here in a moment, I'm sure.

No pressure. Oh, my

gosh. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I'll do a couple intros and then we'll turn it over to Ryan. He'll walk you through it. Just click it. Okay, so I'm just going to frame everything that's been done that Ryan's put together in this. The reason that we're doing this presentation today is because, as we warned you guys about, for those of you that were on the Planning Commission a couple months prior, maybe almost a year prior, The zoning code is going to come in chunks, and since part of what we're doing is transitioning to a unified development code, which I'll go into in a minute, we can't give you a redlined copy because the entire thing would either be red because it's been deleted or it would be green double-lined like Word does because it's been moved to a new section. So we're going to walk you through everything. First, this all started as we're trying to implement the comprehensive plan Clayton Tomorrow 2040. On the screen right here are eight of the key results that come directly from our implementation matrix, from that plan, that are really addressed either completely or partially addressed within the draft that you're going to be going over tonight. I'm not going to read them all. They were also in your staff report, but I'd just like to remind the public that this is the target of what we're trying to achieve. So process review, this dates back to the first key result from the previous sheet that talks about our transit-oriented development overlay districts. Ryan started with that and I've said it a few times, zoning codes are like spider webs. So when you start to pull on one thread to adjust it, you're inevitably gonna start touching every other part of your zoning code. So we tried to start with a narrow lens of just looking at some of our overlay districts and our PUD process, but that very quickly became obvious that we needed to expand it to all of our overlay districts covering downtown and all of our base commercial zoning districts. Because a huge part of the comprehensive plan was looking at some of the inconsistencies between our base zoning and our overlay districts, and then also trying to understand what was directing our larger projects to a planned unit development process. A common theme when you go through all of the proposed regulations that Brian will touch on, is a lot of the changes that you're seeing if you were to compare directly what was C1 today to what is M1 proposed. A lot of the changes are not significantly going to result in different buildings from what you see today. A lot of the changes we're recommending are actually creating our base zoning to reflect the built environment that you have for some of the older structures that we heard a lot from the community we want to protect. So it's really trying to right size. And then going into the unified development code, this is the framework that we are taking on for zoning and subdivision regulations. And this is a more modern way of outlining your zoning code that really emphasizes putting all of the development regulations in one place. So if somebody wants to understand what they can do with their house or an example, a builder like today, a developer would come in. They can go to this section of the code and they can find setbacks. They can find architectural guidelines. They can find their sign requirements. all in one section, really streamlined, uses a lot more charts and diagrams. And also just less repetition is going to inevitably mean less inconsistencies or accidental references. Zoning codes reference back to different sections all the time. And when you're repeating language under each zoning district, you're going to create some issues over time if you only modify one. So what we're going to – this is a slide that Ryan put together that just identifies all of the sections that are currently under Chapter 405, just the article for high-density commercial. So under high-density commercially, you have 14 sections. You pretty much have the same 14 sections repeated under every – commercial zoning district as it stands today. So when we go to the unified development code, we're now gonna create an article that will cover all of our non-residential and mixed use zoning districts, and the purpose statements are all put together. So now we're going to seven sections. So it's a pretty significant drop, but it's a lot clearer code section. So with that, Ryan is gonna take you through what he's put together.

Before you start, is the UDC an accepted practice today?

Yes, I would say that the best practice if you're writing a zoning code from scratch would be to go to a unified development code. And so we're doing it kind of piecemeal. So we're going to replace all of these into that one article as we remove all of our existing commercial zoning districts and the overlays. But as we add in some more residential and other things, you know, the code will evolve to what it is. But the unified development code or similar versions of that is what you would see on modern zoning.

Have some of the other local jurisdictions gone this direction already?

Yes. In variations of it, they have a lot of our local jurisdictions though. Haven't re I mean, you might know more than I do, but there aren't that many that have done complete zoning rewrites in, in the modern era. Those that have are transitioning to this. So I wrote a few of them when I was in the private sector and And this is the mold that the model that most of those are using. A lot of our communities around us are kind of like us where the zoning code was written when that community was established and has been modified and added to in that same form or fashion since then.

So we're really moving

forward. We are. Alrighty. So with that, I'm going to take you through each of those seven sections. I know it's going to be a lot of information, so. Let's go for a ride. So to start with the first one, purpose statements. So right now, the first thing that you're going to see when you look at any zoning code is what is the point of this zoning code? And right now, a lot of our commercial zoning districts, they focus on that office role. Clayton is an office leader for the region and we want to maintain that and we're proud of that. Something that came out of the comp plan though was to focus on these commercial areas as sort of extensions of the neighborhoods or even with downtown areas. thinking of downtown as a neighborhood, especially as we incorporate more residential and think about people sort of living, working, and playing in a place like downtown. So what we're doing with these purpose statements and the names of these zoning districts is we are updating them to reflect the goals of these districts, but the bones of it are not changing. So as you can see at that chart on the bottom, C1, neighborhood commercial going to M1, neighborhood mixed use. C2, general commercial. M2, general mixed use. So the underlying, like the core bones of it are staying the same, but we are updating it to reflect those complaint goals. to applicability. You're not going to see too much of a difference in this section versus what's existing. One of the bigger differences is that you're going to see an alternative compliance section. So it's common for the Plain Commission Architectural Review Board to review alternative compliance in the context of urban design districts. The One thing that we have added to this that will get into later is there isn't architectural section. We just didn't see it a lot, because we never really reviewed anything solely in the context of high density commercial things were often through pds and they had a lot of layers to it. But we've eventually expanded on that, but we wanted to make sure that the plan Commission and the architecture report had that same flexibility that they often have in in some of the urban design districts. Getting into the dimensional standards, things like your height setbacks, all of that fun stuff. All of those standards have been consolidated into a single table. So right now, if you look through the zoning code, each zoning district is going to have a series of paragraphs and they'll tell you in paragraph form, this is the height, this is the setback. We're consolidating that into a table. Most of those, most of them are not changing, but there are some key things that are being updated to right size the zoning to what's currently allowed. So commonly we see things, especially in commercial zoning districts as a planned unit development, a PUD. And so we want to make sure that those common triggers in the dimensional standards are being updated to reflect the development that is currently the character of those areas and the development that folks have said that they want. So this is an example of what it, or an example, it actually is what it looks like. Forgive me, the Zoom thing is kind of blocking the top here, but you have all of your different zoning districts labeled here at the top, and then you have your different dimensional standards. So we can go through here and we can see one item that's changing is right now we have a front yard setback in all of our commercial zoning districts. That's you need to be this far or more from the property line, and we're moving to a build two line. That's going to say we actually want you to build at this line and that's to create consistency along a block face. Additionally, all of these districts are going to have their front build two line as the average of the block. It's currently that way in C1 and C2, but right now in high density commercial, we actually have a 10 foot setback, which is really common and most folks are just trying to maintain that average of the block And then going into our side and rear yards, the biggest change that you're actually going to see is in C1 because right now it's not changing for anything from C2 or high density commercial. But in C1, there's actually a, I believe it's like a 25 foot setback. And a lot of C1 areas actually have, they go right up to the back line, whether it's an alley or something like that. So we want to right size, but we also want to make sure that there is some buffer there, especially whenever you are adjacent to a residential property. We also added some encroachment spaces. So oftentimes you'll see in residential zoning districts or even parts of commercial districts, like a deck can encroach so far, a balcony, a bay window, something like that. We wanted to make sure that those were actually clarified throughout these districts as well. And one way that you'll see this is through height as well. We added height encroachments so that way there wasn't any ambiguity. Oh, if I have to put a mechanical penthouse or a stair shaft or something or even a rooftop deck, does that contribute to my overall height? We've clarified those items. Additionally, your height really isn't going to be changing too much because the height for your M1C1 or your M2C2, that's not really changing. We didn't have anything for high density commercial, but something that we will get into is some character areas that we've called out. Additionally, we've added a minimum for downtown. So right now you can build something that's just one story. We're saying that two story minimum because that's the general character of the area, especially of the older structures where you have That retail commercial on bottom, then you have a second story which folks have used her office or residential above. And then additionally there's a lot of something that we moved into the dimensional standards you'll see in every zoning district. For whatever reason, the old zoning called out certain height elements in the use table so we just move those in here, so they were with their similar items. We've already discussed height a little bit. Going down to step backs. So there are step back requirements in the zoning districts. They're just not enforceable. I've never seen one actually implemented because it's basically as though you should do one, but the Planning Commission can kind of waive it and do whatever. But something that we pulled from some of the urban design and overlay districts is that there are effective uses for those upper story step backs as you go up. And so we want to make sure that there is a solid step back in place, particularly when you're adjacent to residential properties to sort of remove some of that mass, some of that bulkiness away from the residents. Really quickly, just especially for the newer members, can you describe a step back? So a step back being actually moving the face of the building backwards as you go up. It's not like a setback where that's at the ground level, but a step back as you proceed upward. I always think of iconic. That building is an example of step backs as it goes up.

But that had no residential next to it when that was built.

Correct. So right now, if you so what we're proposing is essentially is if you're adjacent to residential zoning, you need to provide a 15 foot step back at the third story or higher. This is presently in several of the zoning districts. However, there it's not necessarily enforceable. It's more of a suggestion, whereas this actually makes it a requirement that you provide that step back adjacent to residential properties. And then the last item that is changing, floor area ratio. I know we've just discussed floor area ratio quite a bit, but we'll still touch on it. We're right-sizing the floor area ratio. Floor area ratio to clarify is a relationship between the gross floor area of a building and the actual lot area. So if you had one square foot of lot, one square foot of building, that's a floor area ratio of one. If you had two square feet of building on one square foot of a lot, that is a ratio of two. And so you can see some examples here on the bottom right, what our existing floor area ratios are. This mostly kind of concentrates examples from high density commercial, but there's a couple examples in here of C2. And so we're just right sizing it. So right now our floor area ratio in high density commercial is three, we're upping it to 13. Right now it's 1.5 and C2, we are upping that to five. You're not gonna see anything larger under this floor area ratio. But it is going to right-size it, so it's going to bring a lot of buildings into compliance. Any questions on floor area ratio before proceeding? All righty. So we talked about a couple of the character areas. There's items that we want to call out that might deviate from some of this base zoning. And so the first thing we're going to do is going to call out what we're calling the downtown character area. And this almost directly follows the area of the northeast downtown overlay. So what we want to make sure is we want to make that we are protecting some of those older retail structures. And the northeast downtown overlay does a really effective job of doing that to an extent. But we wanted to make sure that we were providing some specific dimensional aspects to that. So we can see the existing and proposed here. Actually, right now in the northeast downtown overlay, you can build anywhere between 10 and 25 stories. But we want to make sure that we're actually protecting that area. And so we're saying three stories or 40 feet. But there are some incentives. You can go up to seven stories or 90 feet with that step back of 20 feet at the third floor. And the point of that step back is so that way when you're actually at the ground level, you see those three stories that are right there. And so the actual visual massing that you're looking at is not immediately changing if somebody's gonna build up higher. Minimum height, three stories or 40 feet. We're taking that back to two stories or 30 feet because that is the character of a lot of these buildings. And then floor area ratio, there's presently none in the Northeast downtown overlay, but if we're introducing a higher floor area ratio in the base zoning, we wanna make sure that there is a compatible floor area ratio proposed in this downtown character area.

Would you like us to ask questions as we go, or would you rather this be one presentation and do

all at the end? I realize there's a lot of information. So if you have a question, I'll answer it. If it's something that's addressed later, then I'll just let you know. We'll get to it later.

OK. Because I more had a question on this downtown character area right here. Because as far as from this map that you're looking at, both the south of forsyth uh the world news site obviously that is a site that has had you know some very large towers prepared uh presented in the past um and it seems like this plan would do away with that um am i correct with that that like any of those old plans then could no longer go forward if this is what goes in place or would there be some sort of variance where if they treated that where at the street level it was more hospitable to pedestrians, that there's some use that we could have a potential tower there, or are we just capping that area?

So this is where we can kind of reference back to the PUD process. So the reason that those spaces are highlighted is because they have an existing type of character. And the way that Development presently goes in downtown. Everything is structured towards a PUD. The incentive is for a PUD. Well, this is a very prominent corner. It was a thriving retail space until some of these came along. And so we want the incentive to say, hey, you know, either take care of these buildings and keep them in their current form, or if you're going to propose something new, let's make sure that there's a high barrier to entry that we get a quality product because this is a very

Okay. So if there was, let's just say, and I realize this is very subjective, but let's just say a very high quality project that came forward that we felt treated the street level at a pedestrian scale that everyone felt comfortable with, there wouldn't be a barrier to that where a project like they couldn't go forward at all. It's just a higher barrier to get in there.

Correct. So they could either proceed with something that fits this mold if they want to do higher than... three stories, they can increase it to seven stories or 90 feet, which is something you'd commonly see in like a C2. Or they can say, I want to go through a PUD because it's worth it to me as the developer to go through that process. And then the city gets those additional public benefits that come along with the PUD process.

That answers my question. Thank you.

Another character area that we want to look at is the Maryland Gateway character area. And this is the evolution of the Maryland Gateway Overlay District. This, whenever I did my evaluation, was one of the more successful overlay districts. But it definitely piecemealed a lot of things. So it had some references to items that were on this lot or that property north or south of Maryland. So we wanted to make sure that we were taking all those components and doing something effective with them. So it's not that Maryland Gateway has gone away, it's that a lot of those elements are in other locations. But in terms of the dimensional standards, we wanted to make that we still had a definitive character area for that retail that everybody has a lot of passion for. And specifically, we want to make sure that we're keeping it at that lower height, that we're protecting it against PUDs. So as before with the existing Maryland Gateway Overlay, there's no changes to a lot of these. The only change that you're really going to see between the dimensional standards of Maryland Gateway Overlay and this proposed character area is from a setback to a build to. Getting into the use regulations. So on the right, you're going to see what the new use regulation table looks like. We are starting to update some of these to reference the North American Industry Classification Standard. We can't update all of them at this time because there's other elements for zoning code that have certain definitions. But as we do this, we're going to update all of these to meet that NAICS standard. So what that means is If somebody comes in and says, I want to put in a bakery, we want our definition to meet this same definition that is standard across North America. And then generally, changes that you're going to see throughout the zoning district says, hi, references has been moved. So randomly throughout here, you'd see something like, OK, a car wash, and it can be this tall. Well, you don't need a reference to how tall the car wash can be. There wasn't a reference to car wash, but it's my example that I use. Additionally, we're changing mixed use items from conditional to permitted. That tends to be the standard of development now as people do mixed use. And then we don't really see mixed use as something that on its own requires a conditional use permit. There might be a use that goes into a mixed use property that requires a conditional use but we don't need a CUP specifically to have that format in downtown. And then in HGC becoming M3, the changes you're gonna see are the removal of gas stations presently as the character is now. And that's not really used that we would have within downtown. Additionally, we're adding residential single use with a minimum unit density per acre. So something that we'll get into in a second is where that would and would not be permitted. But what this is intended to do is to say, hey, There are areas of our downtown that maybe they don't need to have a huge emphasis on office or retail. Maybe we'd have a big advantage of bringing in a high number of residential units. And so what we're saying is, okay, in some locations you can have just an apartment building, but then we're going to have that base requirement of 120 units per acre. This is pretty high. This is much higher than something you'd find in the Morelands, and it's a lot higher than things that you're going to find in a lot of our C2 areas. But then you can see down here at this chart at the bottom what some of the existing units per acres are. So it's low enough that it's not going to be a barrier to entry, but it's high enough to meet the character of downtown. And then additionally, the last one is that there wasn't actually an allowance for mixed-use residential in C1 to be M1. And so we're just allowing that in there. So those buildings in Daman, like above Clementine and such, that technically would not be legal under the current zoning. That would become legal under the proposed zoning. Talking about some of those areas where we want to focus on retail, we're proposing what is called the consumer emphasis area. And so that's going to have two components to it. It's going to have the primary and the secondary. And this is part of that evolution of the Maryland Gateway overlay. Under the Maryland Gateway overlay, it specified, hey, we want a certain percentage of you know, of our frontage that is dedicated to certain kinds of uses. And that was successful when we looked at the development in that area. So what we said instead is let's focus retail and downtown in those areas where it's already located so that way we can co-locate and we can kind of build these character areas out. And so where you see this solid line on the map on the right, that's gonna be our primary. 50% of your frontage is required to be a certain kind of use. Going back to this use table on the far right, our consumer emphasis area, we identify which of those uses are going to be permitted in that space. And those tend to be your retail commercial, your restaurant, your entertainment, those street activating uses. And then on this map on the lower left, those green dots indicate sort of where you'd find entrances to those specific uses. So what you can see is we're trying to co-locate those uses. And then where you see the dashed line on that map on the right, that's the secondary area. So they just have to have one of those uses on those locations, but they don't need to be as in-depth. And if you have a property that does not front one of those streets, that's where you can propose a residential-only building with that minimum density requirement. Additionally, the consumer emphasis areas have their own architectural references that we'll get into in a second. And those were pulled almost directly from the Northeast downtown overlay because those were very effective at creating good visual commercial spaces, which you can really see on North Central. All right, architectural guidelines, so this is just to sort of identify expectations for developers and provide some review criteria for all of us here. And it's really expanding on some items that we've all seen before so it's pulling a lot from northeast downtown overlay. it's pulling a lot from the existing architectural guidelines and high density commercial and it also brings in other items that we've just generally talked about. The goal is to create interesting and dynamic architecture, so that way whenever somebody comes to us and they want to propose something we actually have effective criteria to review against. Similar site design standards so like the architectural review section, this is really it's to create expectations for developers and provide us something To review against it does have a few changes in the zoning districts through what you might have seen previously so. Looking at parking parking is going to be allowed in see one to become and one in certain locations, it also addresses aspects of site layout and access and for our programming. Speaking, I'm sorry, I can clarify more on that parking bit here. One of the comp plan findings was that parts of Clayton Road would be places that are appropriate to have parking lots. There are existing parking lots. So we created some regulation around that to bring those properties into conformance while also not just letting buildings become torn down to become parking lots. And then sustainability guidelines like the other two. Again, this just creates expectations and then provides us something to review against. And this is really going to emphasize those items like renewable energy, stormwater management, native plantings, light pollution, and bird strike mitigation. If you guys were not aware, just clarifying bird strike mitigation because that's not something we often talk about. Birds do not see things the same way we do. And a glass building just looks like sky and they just run into it and it kills them pretty much every time. And then additionally, it's going to require designing to lead silver or equivalent standards for buildings 50,000 square feet or greater. To clarify, we're not asking people to go get the certification and like show us the certificate, but we're saying you need to design to this same standard or equivalent. So I'm going to get into some examples of how this would work. But before I get into the examples, does anybody have any questions? Okay, proceeding with the examples. So using the example of 7935 Clayton Road, looking under the existing versus what is proposed, height wouldn't really impact this property. Front setback if somebody were to tear this down and do something else with it, it would be the block average which is consistent. Rear setback 25 feet. this property is presently not in compliance. And that red area that you see on the right, that is where it encroaches into the setback. So we'd move to a 10 footer, 10%. And on these kinds of properties, that's actually measured from the center line of the alley. So this property would then fall into compliance. Aside setback, this property wouldn't be impacted, but say that property to the right was residential, it'd have to provide a little setback. And then parking frontage, this is that example along Clayton Road. So 50% of your frontage can be parking. We're not making a depth requirement, but this is about what this property is. It's 50%. This brings it into compliance, but what it would require in the future if somebody wanted to build something like this is that it be screened with three feet high of maybe a brick wall or landscaping or something so that way from the street you're not necessarily just looking at a parking lot.

Why is half of the alley considered part of the setback

that's how the that's just how the zoning regulation was written previously so we're not changing that.

yeah it's because the alleys already giving you some separation from the residential use. And I think especially on Clayton Road, that's important because the depth of these lots is already pretty shallow for them to be feasibly redeveloped. So we didn't want to create more of a burden on that as we moved forward looking at all the comp plan goals. So really, this is an example of an existing lot that most people would say they don't have issues with. When you're standing in Davis Place, you probably don't really notice this building very much because of the way that the landscaping is on the other side of the alley and so on. So it was a good example of how if you wanted to replicate a building that most people probably find to be a good one to have adjacent to residential, you wouldn't be able to under our existing code.

Question about this one. So if I understand correctly, as it stands right now, like if this building was not to change, we'd simply be writing it and we'd be bringing into code with the exception of the parking frontage, which doesn't have that screening. If it were to be sold and redeveloped, the only thing that would necessarily have to change would be screening added to this for the parking. Is that correct?

Okay. Correct. Yeah. If you were to sell and redevelop this under the current zoning district, you couldn't construct this property as it is, but- Under the proposed zoning, same except for screening that parking. A

couple blocks east, there's a relatively new development, and it has all the parking in the back. So it seems like it could fit into the new M1 very easily. The building is up toward the Clayton Road.

Correct, yeah. If somebody wanted to put parking at the rear of a property, they could definitely do that. All right, let's take a look at another example, but this time focusing on C2 to become M2. So this is the U.S. Bank property at the corner of Forsyth and Hanley. I realize that there's several properties under ownership, but I want to just focus here on the more narrow lot that the bank building itself is actually on. So the height would not be changing, but the floor area ratio would. And what would that do for a building like this? So actually, if we took the same footprint of this building... and applied different floor area ratios. It presently barely meets the floor area ratio requirement, but under the new proposal, it could be built taller. But it would still be shorter than the parking garages that are across the street. Additionally, because this is up, I know it doesn't look like it, but there's a property right behind here that is zoned residential. If you go beyond that, it's also zoned residential. So they would be required to provide a 15-foot step back as you go up To provide some of that relief for the adjacent properties and 15 feet is just a little bit less than this back outcropping here to give an idea of what that 15 feet looks like. Side setbacks wouldn't be impacted. We already talked about setback. And then residential minimum unit size. So right now we require a minimum of 750 square feet for residential units. We're doing away with that. We're not regulating the size of residential units. That is a common PUD trigger. So somebody could actually come into this property and they could propose units of any size, wouldn't be forced to go through a PUD. And then this property is actually along that consumer emphasis area. So 50% of their frontage along Forsyth would be required to be one of those consumer emphasis uses. Now, to clarify, they can put whatever kind of use they want on the other side. So right now, say a bank is not in the consumer emphasis uses. So they could put a bank on the other half, but 50% of it can't be that bank.

Why is that? Because banks are not sales tax producing.

It's because the uses selected under the consumer emphasis area are intended to be street activating uses. So those are things like restaurants, entertainment uses, like Five Iron would be considered something that would be allowed under this. Bars, beauty salons, or just general retail. Somebody wanted to open up a clothing store, something like that. But it would exclude something like... you know, an insurance office or a bank.

And it would have to be along that foresight side, correct? Because that's the, that would be the CE action. So if they were to say, hey, we want to have this corner little cafe and it's going to be 25% of the footprint on Hanley, 25% on that, they'd be looking for some sort of a conditional, I mean, something that's not, that's not going to be approved.

So when this goes back to the alternative compliance section if somebody came in and they wanted to do something like how peel is on the ground floor of to 12 and the. The staff review and the the air be review found that that met the intent or exceeded the intent of this section, that is something that they could then approve, but just because it. You know if you put something on the corner there and it only took up 25% of the frontage, they would still need to fill that other 25% with something unless there was a variance or there was alternative compliance approved by you guys. All right, so taking a look at high-density commercial to become M3 and looking at the Sterling Bank sites. That's on the corner of Bemiston and Carondelet. So looking at height, nothing would change there because we don't have height requirements. Floor area ratio would dramatically change. So right now, this property exceeds what is allowed. I want to say the floor area ratio is somewhere like 4 or 5. And so it would be increased up to 13. Right now, it has a front setback of 10 feet, which it does not comply with. And any new development would have to go with the block average, which would actually yield two different averages here. So it'd be pretty much at the property line here along Bemiston. And then it would be set back just a little bit along Coronelette. And then that residential unit size again, so if somebody wanted to come in and build something residential, they wouldn't have any minimum unit size requirements. And then it would have that 50 percent ground floor requirement along Beamston because that's a consumer emphasis area. Male

Speaker 2 So the project that seems to have died on that corner, would that fit in the new M3?

In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. The way it would not fit would be in that consumer emphasis area. So they proposed a bank on that ground floor corner, which doesn't contribute to the consumer emphasis area requirement. They did provide another retail space, but it didn't meet 50% of that frontage. I actually measured it out. And if you did 50% of the frontage based on the architectural requirements for consumer emphasis areas, which is informed by Northeast downtown overlay, you're looking at about 20 foot widths to start with. And that would yield about four retail bays unless they wanted to propose something else through that alternative compliance process, like a larger restaurant or something.

Can I say that on and around, this is awesome. I mean, in terms of like the way that you put this presentation together, this is so much easier to understand than everything that was in here. I mean, I feel like the chairman that there was a lot in there that thought, you know, making my head spin. Having the examples in particular makes it so clear. And it just thank you for all the time that you put into this because it really does help explain all of these changes here just so easily.

So, that ends the examples in the presentation. What question or discussion?

Male Speaker 1 The character areas. Will they follow the UDC regulations? I think I read somewhere that they have their own in the back.

So the character areas have their own call-outs, but just as with the overlays and urban design districts, if it doesn't call out something specifically, it defaults back to the base. Well, I should clarify, this is all in the base zoning now. This is not like an overlay district per se. So this is going to be in that same section. In that same dimensional standards section, you have your table like you see here, and then you go down a little bit and you have your character areas called out.

Okay, so it's integrated. It's not sitting on top. Correct. It used to have. It was totally confusing.

Correct.

But the consumer emphasis area does have a specific call-out in the architectural standards. So if you go down to that architectural standards section, you will see, but the character areas do not. We only modified the dimensional standards for the character areas.

gee you've answered most everything here oh the uh minimum unit requirement of 120 units per acre how did we get to that

so i did an analysis of our existing residential that was located in our commercial zoning districts and just took those numbers um and i also kind of looked like i looked at what the standards were for um other like transit oriented development or other downtowns across the country um and we actually our unit densities within high density commercial well exceed um what some of the oh like some other downtown minimum unit densities that you would expect and so i just Frankly, I just made my best judgment call of this is higher than some of these other standards that you might find around, but it's lower than what our current character is. So you can see here on the bottom of this slide, Clayton-on-the-Park is 412 units per acre, whereas the lowest is Bemis in Place is 158 units per acre. So if somebody wanted to come in and build something that was just apartments, it would be, you know, be missed in place or larger size, really. And you would be getting a significant amount of residential development out of that site.

Male Speaker 1 So, it's not just arbitrary? Male

Speaker 2 No, it is informed.

Yeah, I mean, I think he's downplaying it. But the key here is that we recognize that there are properties within downtown that it would make sense to have them just as straight residential properties with the goal in mind of supporting our retail, our consumer emphasis uses. So what everybody talks about in economic development is that retail follows rooftops. That's what you hear all the time. And so part of what we've been trying to do is increase our residential density to support those commercial uses on the ground floor that we're requiring. So we want to make sure that if we're going to allow somebody to do a residential development, we don't want them to tear down an office building and put four nice condos on it in the heart of downtown. We want them to be actually adding enough rooftops that we're moving the dial for that demand for the commercial spaces.

the PUD process would still be available. Correct. Do you think we'll have to deal with it less in the future? Hopefully. Good. That was the answer I wanted. OK, that ends that. OK. I love the tables. They are so easy to understand. Now the next thing somewhere I read that we're going to have little graphics also. What those will be but um. Think in some of our neighborhood design guidelines, we do have graphics in there will that be sort of what we will eventually see.

We don't have graphics in the current draft, but if there's something particularly like in the architectural section that you guys think needs a graphic then that's something that we can implement.

We'll have to think about that.

Yeah, a lot of the graphics that you'll see too will come in the future. So Ryan kind of mentioned that for our use regulations, it's nice that these are on the screen. One of the key results that we have on our priority list this year is to really do a more intensive analysis on resilient uses and other uses that we haven't contemplated that we might want to promote in our downtown area. So if you're part of that process, we need to update definitions of different uses. And when we get into that definition section, that's where you'll also start to see the introduction of diagrams. Within a unified development code, there's often a definitions and calculations section. So that will be eventually part of our unified development code. And that's where we'll outline how we calculate front yard setbacks. There's diagrams for that within our definition section right now. So you'll start to see the how staff will actually apply a regulation height you know those types of things is where you'll see a lot of the diagrams

well i see i'm gonna have to go back and reread this again uh maybe i'll understand it a little better But, you know, oh, yeah, I had under Table 2, food and beverage. Right now we do not allow drive-thrus for food and beverage. Will that prohibition stay? And if so, where will it be?

There's no proposed change to drive-thrus.

That's correct, yeah. So under auto-oriented here, we have drive-through establishments listed specifically only for financial institutions or pharmacies. But the Clayton Road in the comprehensive plan was one of the roads that they wanted us to really analyze for kind of those other uses, things that we haven't allowed in the past, changing our approach to chains and parking, things like that. So that will come in future phases as we really dive into uses. So if drive-through establishments are something that this community wants us to evaluate more than we would, we wouldn't want it in our downtown because As the kind of the goals for most of our downtown as a neighborhood is proposed, it's to not be vehicle centric. But areas like Clayton Road that have that high traffic volume would be someplace where I could see the contemplation of it. But right now we haven't changed that regulation.

I wasn't proposing it. I was just wanting clarification. That's probably it for now, for me. But having dealt with the existing codes for many years, hopefully going in the UDC direction will keep me from going into a deep rabbit hole every time I'm looking for something. So I've got to commend you in the greatest way for the direction we're going. I know this is just one small part of it, but it's a great beginning. I don't know, everyone else drop into the rabbit hole?

Yeah, no, I would echo what Steve said about this is so much better than than what we've been dealing with. It has the past, what we're moving from is the same in many municipalities. And you go and you're reading around and around, and finally you realize that you need the phone number of planning so you can call them and get a clarification on it. These, the charts I think are excellent. I love it. I like the build two line concept that makes life so much easier. And what I noticed a little detail, the street facades of the storefront shall be wrapped around at corners at alleys or other building breaks. How did you come to it? I think it's great. I'm

already in the Northeast downtown overlay.

He

misplaced it.

See, I didn't see it in the rabbit hole. No, I think it's great. And here, obviously, it's quite clear. So an amazing job.

I just couldn't help but think our former colleague, Bob Denlow is smiling from his condo on Skinker because he was a big proponent of simplicity and I think you've really delivered it. So thank you.

I just couldn't help but think our former colleague, Bob Demlow is smiling from his condo on Skinker because he was a big proponent of simplicity and I think you've really delivered it. So thank you.

I think I thanked you out of turn earlier, but nothing further.

I think my only comment, this is all awesome. Great job with everything on the CEAs or the consumer emphasis area. I would just look at potentially adding that one stretch, just as I was looking at this map again, for Carondelet up to Forsyth past the Ritz-Carlton and the vacant lots. I see in the future those lots possibly being opportunities and it'd be good to have that connectivity there.

If and when what we're looking at tonight is approved by everybody, Will it then go into the electronic code that we can pull up? And will it delete the parts that should be deleted? Yes, yeah. Piece by piece, we'll see.

Yeah, once we get further... Unfortunately, fortunately, there will be a time where we pretty much with the last piece of the UDC will basically then repeal everything and replace it. And a lot of it would be replaced. You know, it will be the same chunks that you're approving as you go. But right now we're using an article and then we have all these different sections. But really, like the dimensional standards will be a chapter apart. the use standards will be a challenge so that it'll be organized a little bit differently in that way. So you don't end up with so many section, blah, blah, point one, point a point little B, you know, as you keep going. So there will be a time where we kind of do the full sweep, but for now we're going to piecemeal it.

Well, we're, we're ready to go.

Yeah, that's great. We do have so it's scheduled for the public hearing at the next meeting is how we've advertised it. So Ryan will be doing since it's a public hearing and we also have it on Engage Clayton and we have a survey that's going to go live tomorrow after this presentation goes up for the public. So the public will be catching up. We have we have one audience member, maybe somebody online who's been listening. So we want to make sure that they also get this. So you'll get a presentation at the next meeting. This in mind, if you read it again and you have ideas like David with other areas that we might want to consider for something or changes or areas you're still not sure about, send that in to Ryan and I because then he can tailor the next presentation to provide another example of a different site that you're trying to apply the code to or something like that. So definitely as you continue to dream about zoning as I do, you can submit your questions.

Before we end, do you have any comments tonight? Come on up.

My name is Keith Kramer. I'm a resident. I live at 308 North Brentwood. I've been very active in Clayton here as a consultant doing appraisals and market and feasibility studies, primarily on multifamily. As some of you may recall, I did the market study on Cylon. I've done the study on Bemison Place and the study on Barton, in addition to several other apartment complexes around St. Louis. Oh, and I certainly agree. The city staff needs to be commended for the effort and work that they've put into this. As I do work across the country, I'm seeing more and more communities going to this type of zoning, and many of them that I've seen have not had this level of detail or effort put into it. So they've really done a great job. And you guys have done a great job in reviewing this and asking the questions you have done. If I make a quick comment though about the presentation on the apartment project, since that's kind of what I do, I would be concerned about the size of their units. and the rents that they're going to try and get for it. Since I know what the, I set the rents for Bemisden Place. I set the rent for Cylon. I set the rest for Barton. I had input as to the size of the units, unit mix. And when I see a project that's mainly very small studio units And small one bedrooms, I get concerned about what type of market they're going to be attracting and who's going to live there. But at any rate, they have their own consultants, I'm sure. And you guys will give us some thought. Regarding the zoning, a couple of quick comments because I know we all want to get out of here. Retail. I'm a big proponent of retail in terms of generating the retail sales tax. With Clayton being a point-of-sale community, you get to keep the tax. I used to live in Chesterfield. I was president of their industrial development authority, and we had to give up our sales tax with everybody else in the county as opposed to being able to keep it. But one thing on the retail, I would suggest you think more about maybe 50% retail for first floor within the downtown district. Maybe a higher emphasis on retail in your community emphasis areas. And at the same time, give consideration to setting a timeframe that when a building opens that has retail on the first level, that space has to be occupied within six months of that building opening. It's doable. You know, I know what the rents were supposed to be on Cylon for their retail space. I set them for Bemis in place and they're doable. It's just, you know, the developers need a little push to get them done, to get in the retail. So that is a factor maybe to consider. Parking.

What happens if you have a six-month requirement and they don't meet it?

Well, then there's penalties just like on any other type of requirement if they don't meet. And it would be up to you guys to decide what that penalty would be and to what extent you might want to give. But there's no reason why they can't make it. It's just an economic issue. They're trying to get, you know, it's cheaper for them to keep the space vacant than to try and go in and rent it. There's different tiers of retail tenants. You have your local tenants. They're not going to pay very much, but they are local and they provide a benefit and service. You have regional tenants. That's a... a group that may have three or four stores throughout the metropolitan area, and then you have your national tenants. National tenants are the gold standard because they're going to pay the most to come in. And when, you know, we see $36 a square foot, $38 a square foot, and you go to other parts of the country and even worse areas and, you know, Same retail tenants paying 50 bucks a square foot, you know, can say, well, that should have been able to get that here in Clayton. So it's a matter of the developer and his staff getting out there and marketing the space. And that marketing should begin, not to bore you on this, but it should begin as soon as the building started construction. Because, you know, the building's built, they have six months to get in there and do a build out. There's no reason why it can't be occupied. And the business journal shows that If you saw that article in the recent Business Journal where Clayton is the number one spot in terms of wealth, income and housing values for the entire metropolitan area, they shouldn't have any trouble filling up retail space. Another part was the parking. I looked at your table and It says parking is to be underground. All parking garages are underground. That may be difficult in some areas. I don't know how you deal with that. And also, there's no mention of how many parking spaces are required for each type of use. As some of you may recall with Cylon, we went around and around as to what their parking ratio should be. They ended up buying a lot from the city, then selling it back to the city, and I appraise that. But they hit rock, and that's part of the problem here in Clayton is if you dig down too far, you're going to hit bedrock. And even with a seven-story building that would take up – An entire block, you're going to have a hard time providing the parking. When you start hitting rock, the cost is just going to be astronomical. So giving some thought to how you deal with that and what a parking matrix might look like for the difference for residential, retail, similar to what you have now but spelled out within the framework of what you're using here. The density of 120 units per acre. Currently, you mentioned you were at 750 square feet per unit. That gives a density of about 53 units per acre. Well, it is more than what you have now. But if you go back to that chart you had, you see where you have the other apartment complexes listed. You know, Bemis in place at 158. well, that wouldn't be able to get built. Cylon and 173, you know, across the street up here, that

wouldn't

get built.

Well, to clarify, that's a minimum density requirement. So there needs to be, if you're going to build a single-use residential structure, multifamily structure, a minimum of 120 units or higher.

Okay. So it's a minimum. And then how is there any maximum?

There is no maximum.

Mr. All right. All right. That's great. I would give consideration to a minimum size of unit, though, average size. This is a very affluent community, a very affluent area. And you have to think, well, are these people going to pay you know, $2,000 for a 750-square-foot, you know, one small one-bedroom when they could certainly afford to pay $4,000 for a 1,200-square- foot unit. But I mean, that's their economics to work out. The other thing was on your downtown character area. It struck me as kind of strange how you're doing this with the three blocks on Maryland, but only a block and a half on Forsyth. And, you know, again using the old world news site. Under these restrictions, as you had pointed out, that his proposed 27-story project or even 24 stories after he cut it back would not be able to be built. And I appreciate the efforts in trying to get owners to maintain their existing buildings along Maryland Avenue West of Brentwood is a good example there. That's working, and they're keeping it. But in an area like World News, which is a very prominent corner, he's kind of hand-tied because there isn't any parking. He can't build a garage underneath the existing buildings. So the only thing he could do, and I'm not picking on him and using that as an example, as you had done, he'd have a hard time cost-wise to tear that down, dig down the number of floors he would need for the parking on that site, and then at most be able to only go up seven stories. So you're going to have areas, again using that as an example, that would be hard to redevelop. If you had your downtown character area, I see where you're getting at, but then why isn't this parcel included in it? And then why isn't the county police building, which is right across on the southwest corner of Forsyth and Central, included in it? or any of the block to the west of that between Merrimack and Brentwood included, if the idea is to have a downtown street, a downtown intersection, or to develop that character that we all want that's along Central. So those were the thoughts I had. I hope you'd give them some consideration. Thank you. Thanks, Keith.

Just to clarify, though, we do not require all parking to be below grade. We do have design standards for the parking, but they can do above grade.

Any further comments from anyone? If not, thank you, Kevin, for gracing us tonight. And we will see everyone on November 4th, I think it is. Third. Somewhere around there. Okay. We are adjourned.