November 3, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for November 3rd. If you have any phones or electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFate?

Here.

Susan Buse?

Jim Arsenault? Here. Darren Van't Hof? David Gipson? Here.

Jim Marcino? Here. Darren Van Hoff? David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on October 20th. Are there any corrections? If not, I do have one. On page two, item two, line three, Mike Shadle's name is misspelled. With that correction, do we have a motion?

I move to approve as corrected.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll move on to new business, and the first item is 16 North Central. If you hold on, we'll start with the staff report.

The subject property is located on the east side of North Central between Maryland and Forsyth. The property has a zoning designation of high-density commercial and is in the northeast downtown overlay zoning district. The site is currently developed with a two-story mixed-use commercial building. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a restaurant on the subject property, known as Tora Asian House. The proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. The proposed restaurant would measure 2,500 square feet and would include 50 indoor seats and 20 outdoor seats. Off-street parking is not required for restaurants located in the Central Business District measuring less than 3,000 square feet. Deliveries will be made in the morning via street parking in front of the restaurant. The restaurant will use existing recycling and garbage pickup services. Staff note that although the application and documents depict outdoor dining, outdoor dining will require separate permitting. Staff are of the opinion that the restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses and recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Okay, thank you. The applicant could come up, identify yourself, name and address, and add anything you'd like.

Okay.

18 years. So we have a lot of experience with Asian food. So we would like to bring that to the Clayton area.

Well, good. We're very pleased to see your application. Thank you. Excited to have you come in. Thank you. And of course, hope that it's successful. You do realize that outdoor dining will require a separate approval? Yes. Okay. I thought it looked very good. Which restaurant was in there previously?

We used to have a restaurant in West County, not here. Yes.

But in this location?

This is brand new.

Brand new.

Yeah.

Was it a restaurant prior?

I believe so. It was a chocolate factory. Yeah.

Honeymoon Chocolates was the prior tenant.

Yeah. Before that, it was a salad restaurant, I think. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. I looked at the plans. I felt comfortable with it, and I have no other concerns. Okay. But we'll move on. Thank

you. No concerns. When do you expect to open?

Early next year. Susan? Susan?

Okay.

see. Oh, great. Okay,

If you can get

Okay.

Jim? No questions and concerns. Darren?

Nope. Good luck. Thank you. David?

I don't have any questions.

Okay. We do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen.

I move that we recommend, excuse me, approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of aldermen. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

It will move on to item 2 that's 905 Saint Rita Avenue is the applicant here,

yes. Yes, my name is Mike let's see I'm here okay hold on Mike we'll start with the

staff report.

The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the primary use of an existing parking lot on the subject property. The property is located on the west side of St. Rita between San Bonita and Alamo. It is zoned R5 and is developed with a multifamily structure that is in the process of demolition. There is a parking lot at the rear of the building with space for about four vehicles. The applicant is seeking to retain the existing parking lot for use by nearby residents. Potention of the parking lot would result in it becoming the primary use of the property. Parking lots are permitted in the R5 district when located within 500 feet of a commercially zoned property. Subject property resides approximately 410 feet from properties zoned C2. Staff are of the opinion that the parking lot meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. Staff recommend that the plan commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that the use of parking on the site as the primary use not be expanded beyond existing conditions.

Okay. Mike, do you have any

other comments? No. Yeah, we own the building next door. The demolition permit required the removal of the asphalt unless we get a variance. And our existing tenants at 6602 San Benito have been using that lot. So we would like to continue to use it.

Okay. Well, we're only looking at the CUP for the parking. But when you take the building down, how will it be refinished, the lot?

Oh, it's going to be a grass lot.

Okay. And you'll keep it trimmed?

Of course, yes.

Okay. I saw no other problem, Helen.

Would you clarify who will be parking there?

So we own the building next door at 6602 San Benito. If you look at the map, it's the one toward the top of the page. It's an eight-unit building, and we own and manage that. And since 905 St. Rita has always been vacant, it has structural damage. our tenants at 6602 and 04 San Benito have been using that lot since they do not have any off street parking

okay I have no further questions

Susan

yes

There is an alley light right behind there.

Thank you. Yeah, as long as you follow the staff recommendation to expand the parking, just keeping it the parking that it is right now.

That's all we're doing.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that in the meantime. Do you have grander plans for this lot in time?

We don't. Right now, we don't have plans for it.

I know personally it's always a shame to see a building come down and have just an empty lot be in its place.

We agree. We wish we could have saved it, but structurally it was too far gone.

Well, I look forward to hopefully having you before this board soon with some sort of building replacement that we could see. Sure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aaron? Nope, that was my question. David, no questions.

Okay. Mike, you understand the recommendation for the CUP that the use of parking on the site as the primary use shall not be expanded beyond the existing condition? Yes. Okay. Do we have a motion?

Okay. I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the staff recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. You're all done, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Okay, we will move on to item number three, and that's 114 Lancaster Drive is the applicant here. Yes. Okay, you can hold on until we do the staff report.

Subject property is located on the east side of Lancaster between University and Maryland. Property is zoned Artoon as in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is developed with a one-and-a-half-story single-family house. The applicant is seeking to install a new vinyl fence, which is prohibited by the architecture review guidelines. The fencing would be six feet tall, glossy black, and would screen HVAC and pool equipment. Some vinyl fencing is present in Clayton Gardens, but most fencing comprises either wood, wood composite, or metal. Visibility of the fencing would be limited due to existing plantings. Staff are of the opinion that the installation of the vinyl fencing would have a minimal visual impact due to its limited scope and visibility. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Okay.

Welcome.

Hi there. David with Pointer Landscape. One thing I did want to mention, I know it's not well covered in the summary, that part of the ARB application was also for a metal pergola, which should be well documented on the plans. But we're For the fence itself, we're looking to replace an existing six-foot wood fence that's deteriorating and trying to implement a solution that would complement and work well with the pergola itself. And so we went with a, I've got a sample of the fence itself, black vinyl fencing. It's going to have vertical sections and then detailing around and trim and posts and would be more of that simple modern look similar to the pergola.

Okay. I was going to question the black color of the fence until I saw the pergola. Is that the reason for black?

Yeah, I mean, I think on... That's part of it. You know, black doesn't stand out as much as a white fence would. And the customer wasn't as interested and didn't really like some of the faux wood browns and things of that nature. I think the black of the fence and the pergola will tie well together. And yeah, I think it will be a nice complimentary blend.

Okay. It's my understanding that we're really only looking at the fence and not the pergola. Ryan, am I mistaken?

That's correct. So the pergola itself would be just reviewed as part of a building permit. The only aspect of the proposal that requires review by this board is the use of vinyl.

Okay. So just a little added information there for context.

Typically, We don't like the vinyl. However, when I looked at both the drawings and the site where it would go, it really isn't going to be very visible at all. Correct. So I would allow it to go on. But let's see how everyone else feels. Ellen?

No questions.

Susan?

No questions.

Tim? No. I guess I'm always the bit of the vinyl stickler. I hate to see any sort of vinyl fencing go in. And I know you kind of talked about some alternatives, which they didn't like the brown woods or something. There's a black painted fence in its place now. Is there any reason why a black painted fence couldn't go back?

Well, so the, I mean the biggest concern they have is just longevity with wood they were hoping for something that's longer lasting we've worked with a couple different vinyl fencing brands it's kind of like composite decking where I think most. individuals have a, their experience with vinyl fencing is similar to that composite decking where it's very poor quality, something from years ago. And we have found that this is a really high quality, long lasting, doesn't sag and performs well long term. I think it's also part of the color scheme that the customers after. Rather than the white, the white really sticks out blinds you with a sun reflection. So felt like this was a good compromise and complimentary material to the pergola.

I Yes, I understand that I was, I was able to pick up the section of the fence pretty easily from the street. So I, I personally would prefer that something other than vinyl go in.

Aaron? No questions.

David? No questions. Any questions from the audience or anyone online? Ben? We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item four, and that is 300 Hunter Avenue, and is the applicant here? Okay, hold on a

Subject property is located on the southern end of Hunter Avenue. Shaw Park is located to the east and I-170 is located to the west. The property is zoned S-1 and is developed with a parking lot and office building. The applicant is seeking approval for the installation of two wall signs via the sign modification process. The wall signs are supposed to be located on the west side of the building and just below the roofline. To approve sign modification, the architectural review board must determine that there are practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of the permitted sign area or location of permitted signs. The review criteria subjecting the proposal to sign modification are the location elements of frontage and ground floor placements. The staff report details and analysis of review criteria and determine the following opinions. That there are not practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of the fronting street or the placement of signage at or near the ground level. That there are unusual circumstances with the configuration of the lot. That the proposal does not meet the intent to locate signage along frontage or at or near the ground level. And that the proposal to locate signage on a non-fronting facade and near the roof line would have an impact to the character of signage nearby. Staff recommend that the Architecture Free Board not approve the request.

Okay, thank you. Come on up, identify yourself and add whatever you'd like.

Well, thanks for having us. My name is David Detterding. I'm general counsel for the Dover companies. We own the current building. This is Tina Bage. She's an operations manager and our CEO is here also, Joshua Jennings, who's sitting right back here. I wanted to give just a little bit of historical context to kind of Tell you guys why we're here today. So we purchased this building from Coin Acceptors approximately a year ago. Our CEO is from Clayton. He currently lives in Clayton. His kids go to Clayton Public Schools, and he wanted us to have our entire headquarters of our company in Clayton because we love Clayton. So that's what we're doing. We have approximately 100 to 150 home office employees in the building that's on the picture. We have 4,000 employees across the Midwest. And a lot of times our employees, vendors, et cetera, come to the building for various reasons. I read through the recommendations of the report, which was very well done. Here's what we wanted to point out. our building is in kind of a weird spot. So if you go down Hunter, and in fact, we brought Tina, I don't know if you're going to pass this out. Is it okay if she shows you up? Okay. Our building is down Hunter Avenue, but it's at the very end. And in fact, Hunter Avenue, the road actually stops basically at our driveway to go into the building. So the building itself does not front Hunter at all. Now there's a little bit of the lot that's alongside Hunter, but the building itself, as you can see from that picture, basically fronts 170th. If you're looking at the building from 170, as you can see in that picture, there is a ditch, a fence, and a tree line. So any signs lower than that would be hard to see. So that's why we have them up on the top. So Cedarhurst and Brahms are two of the companies that are a part of the Dover Company's And a lot of our vendors, employees from other states, anyone who wants to visit, a lot of people come down 170 to get to our building. And right now it's just an unmarked building that you can't see. So if you get off 170, make a right, go around to Hunter Avenue, there's an Enterprise car dealership there. You have to go all the way down Hunter without basically seeing anything related to where our building is at. So that's the desire behind putting a sign along 170. We have some other pictures in the packet, if you guys have it, of some other businesses, including Enterprise, that has a sign that fronts 170. If you look in the packet, it's towards the back. It's the first site photos, which is section four. And you can see actually non-conforming signs and maps section. You keep flipping, you can see several different buildings in Clayton that do have signs that are over the first floor, including Enterprise, which has some frontage on 170. So that's kind of what we're trying to do. If you look at the actual building itself, it does not front Hunter at all. It's set back past a parking lot. So we are between 170 and Shaw Park is the best way to say it. We have approximately 500, 525 feet of space building frontage on 170 and basically zero feet of building frontage on Hunter. If you look at the diagram that Tina shows, If you go down Hunter basically to where our building would actually have frontage, there's like a little roundabout and then it's really just an alley. So it's not even the road itself. So it looks like Enterprise has a sign similar to what we're requesting. So there has been an example of a similar variance in the past is what we're looking for right now. Our ultimate goal is to put up a couple of aesthetically pleasing signs, nothing gaudy. They'll face west, so towards 170. So in fact, if you're in Clayton, you probably wouldn't see it, but it would help our visitors to find our building is what we're trying to do. So that's kind of the gist of why we're here. We love the building, we love Clayton, and we hope we can work something out. and I will answer any questions that you guys might have. Mr.

Okay. I think we'll start. Jim, do you want to take the first? Sure.

Uh, I will say definitely this, this building, this site, the, the, this, uh, as far as signs coming before us, this is probably one of the most unique, uh, that I've seen. And I certainly, uh, I certainly understand what you're saying about people coming to the building. Uh, I personally got lost going to the building cause I look myself and I ended up back there at the receiving dock, uh, So I look at where you want to place the signs and I read through your report that you guys put together, I think is very well done. You say on that Western facade facing 170. is the best location for visibility and wayfinding. Visibility, I can 100% agree with you. You're going to get the most eyeballs on it going past 170. But from a wayfinding perspective, I don't quite understand how signage facing 170 is going to get someone on Hunter and into your building. Because when you get to that point where you would need to turn into your parking lot to get to Hunter, you would not be able to see those signs on the western side of the building. So I guess, could you walk me through how these signs would improve the wayfinding that you're looking to do?

So it's a great question. A lot of people, including myself when I first went to the building, use our phone map to find it. When it takes you off 170 on the Hunter and you start going down a ways you think maybe you're in no man's land and your map was wrong or you missed it. If you come down 170, like I said, which most of our visitors do, and you see a building with the signs on it, you at least know you're going in the right direction. So it kind of gives you your bearings of, hey, I passed a building, I'm turning, I'm making a right, I'm going towards that building that I saw on 170. So to me, that's how it helps you find it. The phone map alone, when you get onto Hunter, you can get discombobulated as it sounds like you did and many of our visitors do. So it's just kind of a... Let's call it a signpost on the way to find it. That's what we think and hope it will do.

Yeah, I think it's a really difficult case because I think, like I said, I think you make a compelling case. I think that... there's, uh, some leeway, but also I look at the way the sign code is written in Clayton and it's really meant for signs to kind of be on a human scale. Um, and really this at least projects as more of an advertisement than a sign on a human scale, it's meant to attract someone on the highway as opposed to someone going down Clayton.

Um, Just to your point, so we're – Brahms is a construction contractor. That's one of the signs. And Cedarhurst is a senior living operator. So there's not really – it's not like Target or Walmart where we have potential customers coming in the building. So I hear what you're saying 100%. That's not our purpose for the signs because we don't – we're not trying to attract customers to the home office. It's literally just trying to help because we have a lot of people coming in from other states. that literally just can't find our building often and i we like i said we did point out the enterprise one specifically because i believe that's also in clayton city limits and it does have the enterprise sign about the same height facing 170 and so that was we also grasp on the unusual circumstances that gives us a little bit of leeway because the lot is just the building is situated in such an odd spot in the lot but i appreciate everything you're saying

I will say I really kind of view this one as a toss-up because I think on one hand how the sign, I understand why staff is recommending not to approve because as the sign code is written, it really doesn't apply to how they do that. On the other hand, you look at Walsh Island should be facing a street. There's only really a small sliver of that building that fronts Hunter and it's basically a loading dock. So then there's kind of no frontage to a street And then, as far as at that first level. I know on the staff report it says only one picture was provided so it's unclear, you know, whether you could see that or not, I drove by I could see that on that first level, at least to me, it would be screened. Google street view is updated September of this year on Google street view it's screen from the highway level, so I agree that if it was lower it would be screened but. I do worry about some of the questions that opens up if we're putting signage that high on the building facing the highway.

Aaron. No, I mean driving up and down 170 it's not unusual to see signs facing the highway. Barnes & Noble, Schnucks. I know they're in Ladue, but it seems like a reasonable request.

Ellen?

I agree with a lot of what Jim said. To me, the locations you're proposing are advertising wayfinding to get from 170 to Hunter, those signs are not going to help. What about as I look what I put up on the screen, that green line that is the street frontage? That faces not directly, but if you're driving on 170 going south, you will see it. What about that? And then if you want two signs... just around that corner, doing something on the front that would help me as I'm driving down Hunter go, oh, okay, that's where I need to go.

So it's a good point. I don't think you would see it where that green line is because there's a huge massive dumpster, probably almost as high as the ceiling, like at least up to that lamp that's there all the time. And then behind the dumpster, it's literally a loading dock just where trucks can drop off. what the dock was actually used for was the coin soda machines that coin acceptors made they would load those old coin soda machines in there to get repaired and if you can't see into that area because that dumpster's so high and then behind the dumpster there's also a fence so um and the other thing is if you go down hunter there's like a little circle before you That green line, most of that isn't actually. So if you look at the handout, you can see a little bit on that backside. It's not really a place where you could have a sign. There's a huge hole in that back part where trucks can pull up. So there's not really a space to get a dumpster in front of it. there's a way for a truck to go through, and then there's a big hole where the trucks can pull in. It's just a loading dock. And so I don't know, and there's oftentimes trucks parked there. So I don't think that anyone, if you got all the way down there, you would basically have found the building as well. I wish it would work, but that would be our concerns.

Are there signs on Maryland? where you turn into

Hunter

it's just the Enterprise entrance right

well on that spot I understand loading Docs the whole nine yards um if you were to put it there I'd be willing to consider something higher obviously lower is right to be visible but i think putting it along the highway is i mean we've tried to eliminate billboards along the highway we've got enough distractions So I'm willing to consider just turning the corner. And then if you wanted to do something on the other side of that corner, again, keeping it high in context so you're not doing one high and one low. But other than that, I'm not convinced.

David. I actually think that the enterprise argument's a compelling one, and the fact that this isn't at human scale, it's facing 170. I agree. I think the signs like this are common along 170, so it makes it tough in this particular application. So those would be my initial comments, but I don't have any questions.

Well, having been around since before this building was built, When it was built, I thought, how would anyone ever find it? But apparently coin acceptors did quite well in there for several decades. We all drive 170. I do think you've made a compelling argument in many ways. But as Jim brought up, there's a real difference between the visibility sign and the wayfinding sign. What I was expecting to see, beyond signs facing 170, was maybe a ground sign on Hunter Avenue where your driveway enters. And that's at the far east or north end of the property. I don't know what it is. Simply to allow people coming down before they get to the loading dock to know where to go. But going back to the signs that we're really looking at, I do feel that the pictures you've brought in are very compelling. And I would think in this case, I would go for the signs up at the top of the building, as you have shown. I did look where Helen was suggesting, going around the corner. And that would only be partially visible as you're driving south on 170. I think that would be a partial answer, but it would not help wayfinding at all. So as far as what you're asking for the two signs, I would be in support of that. And maybe you should think about a ground sign if it would fit in the sign ordinance.

Understood. Understood.

Are there any comments from the audience? No hands up either. Okay. Any further comments from the board?

I will say, I do think almost more than anything from a compelling standpoint, one of the things that I was really torn on is the Enterprise sign. The Enterprise sign is at the top of that garage and it's basically right at the highway. It's hard to say that that sign is in a place for anything other than wayfinding. That sign's there for wayfinding. And Another thing that I do think of is a building here that I think we've all passed several times, stuff like that, but to see a company come in and invest in Clayton. And I know for a lot of our bigger buildings where they have major tenants, part of that is they definitely want signage up front to show that they are part of this building and part of this community. And I can understand on the pro side wanting to do something along those lines.

Anything else?

We do have a staff recommendation to not approve the request. But we can make a motion one way or the other.

I move to approve as submitted.

I'll second. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. Thank you. And we'll look for the sign soon and welcome to Clayton. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item in new business is 436 Oakley Drive. And that would be both site plan review and architectural review. And is the applicant here? Okay. Hold on. We'll start with the staff report.

The property is located on the east side of Oakley between Shirley and Edgewood. Property zoned R2 and is in the White Island Forest subdivision. Property is developed with a two-story single family house. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing structure and construct a new two-story single-family house. A full analysis can be found in the staff report, and I will note some of the staff conclusions. The height setback and total lot coverage meet the requirements of the R2 district. The front yard coverage exceeds the maximum by 2.6% and the applicant is seeking approval via section 405, 1890B. Staff are of the opinion that the applicant has not demonstrated just cause and that the front yard coverage should be reduced to comply with the maximum for air coverage of 45%. Additionally, the stormwater management plan modifies the existing drainage areas and introduces a drywall to capture roof runoff. Stormwater runoff in the front yard is proposed to increase. Staff are of the opinion that the front yard runoff should be reduced as to not increase. Staff recommend that the application be continued to allow for the following revisions. One, that the front yard coverage be reduced to 45%. And two, that the frontyard drainage area should be modified to show no increase in runoff.

Okay. Come on up. This is site plan review only.

um chairman before we start if your item was already approved tonight you don't need to stay for the rest of me you're welcome to stay for the other agenda items but once you're approved we don't go back to you thanks

i'm tom lucas i live at 8010 pershing and clayton um the plan is to uh take the existing uh home that's there and tear it down and build a new home the um The reason for tearing it down and building a new one instead of fixing that one up is because it was... so damaged. It was one of the few houses, or the only one that I've really ever heard of in Clayton that was condemned. There were rodents living in it, squirrels particularly, and chewing on the woodwork, and a hole in the roof where you could see skylight, daylight through, water coming in, a lot of water damage. And one of the downspouts in the South side of the building hadn't been on there for. Nobody really knows years, if not decades and with the 1 corner of the house dropped a few inches as documented by structural engineers. And they said that that really couldn't be repaired. They could stabilize it, but it was about 4 inches over maybe. 20-ish feet or 25 feet that this house had settled. I did get multiple bids to renovate the house instead of bearing it down, and it didn't wash financially to fix it up. It was that bad. Because I know that's a question that's on everybody's mind is why do you tear down a house? It's nearly 100 years old. Did the plan commission get copies of my letter that I, Ryan did they get an electronic copy of this? So you have that, okay good. The one thing I did want to add was, I think, if you look on page two of the staff report, the second paragraph from the last on page two, about two-thirds of the way into that paragraph, the proposed driveway would allow for more cars to be parked off the street but would also result in a reduction of street parking with a larger curb cut. That's in error is there's no parking on that side of the street. So I wouldn't be cutting down by making a wider curb cut. Maybe not a major issue, but if that driveway does get redesigned, it could impact that. And regarding the front... area going over 45 percent the front yard area i describe it in my letter that you saw and then after uh you know thinking about it i did specifically speak with the msd engineer who approved the current existing plan that has the downspout from that the new proposed downspout going from that, it was originally, I believe originally proposed to the staff to be discharged in that five foot area between the house and the property line on the side. And they were told it has to be 10 feet away from the property line. So they put it underneath the driveway so it's going to the center of the front yard. I spoke to the MSD engineer who approved that plan as it's currently submitted and said to him, it's like, well, what else? You know, they can't really make suggestions, but he did. And he suggested that it be done the original way that was proposed. That would that would actually require variants to put that downspout discharge in that area south of the building to the right of the building in that area, even though it was less than 10 feet. Because it would be the water wouldn't be as concentrated as it was running towards the street than if it was put over in the Center of the yard. And I think, as far as site plans. I don't think there's anything else. Is there anything else I would normally say about the site plan here? I don't know.

Well, we have the site plans in the drawings on C4. And of course, we have a colored version of C4 also, which is on the screen right now. But Or that's probably to be addressed by Eric,

who knows a bunch better than I

do. I have a feeling we'll get there very quickly.

Right.

But if you're finished, we'll start our comments. Okay. Susan, would you take the lead?

Hi, my name is Eric Vietmeyer with Vols Incorporated. We are the engineer of record for the project. In general, the topography is not really changing. It's existing, sloping from left to right and from back to front. Same situation moving forward. We just have a slightly larger footprint for the house. So adding that... The ridge lines of the roof, placements of the downspouts, that's what created the original increase going to neighbor to the right. We worked some of the drainage areas. As the owner, Mr. Lucas, pointed out, we piped downspouts on the right under the driveway, centered in on the front yard so that we have a reduction going to the adjoining property owner. that results in the increase to the right-of-way. Ryan had mentioned that it'd be good to have a zero increase going out to the street. We had discussed that, and we could put in a secondary dry well, but given the topography of how much is falling from left to right, that secondary dry well would have to be to the right of the driveway, and it would have to be a long, skinny driveway linear dry well, and then still had that final discharge where we're showing it to the left of the driveway, that could get us either at or as close as practical to that zero increase to the right way. And we're talking like if there's an increase, it'd be a 0.01 cubic feet per second increase. I can't tell that with my naked eye, but Maybe somebody can. So that is a way to help offset water that is being increased out to the right of way that Ryan had commented

Nobody has reached out to me on this item.

I've never had anything to do with lighting.

Right. They can't pull it out to the street, so they'll have to pull that. So originally the trash was proposed to be stored in that little walkway coming from the side door of the garage, but they didn't provide the screening to meet our trash and closure requirements. So the applicant has stated that they would, they're requesting to store it inside and pull it out to that space on the days when it needs to be accessed, but they would not be able to pull it up to the street. That would be a violation of our ordinances.

So the replacement requirement is based on the minimum canopy coverage, which is assigned based on our zoning districts and then calculated per the size of the lot.

Correct. So there's not really, we say what they're removing, but really their replacement requirement is whatever gets their site to go over that minimum threshold, regardless of how much they've removed.

Jim? Eric, this might be more of a question for the applicants, but is this going to be owner-occupied or is this a speculative development? Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I know the direction kind of we're going in a lot of these is to, you know, reduce coverage as much as possible. And, you know, looking at ordinances to kind of roll back what's on the book. So to go over, I understand that the slot has a small footprint and that makes things difficult, but it's also Quite a large house going on a very small lot. So I think I'd be inclined to agree with the staff recommendations.

And we had discussed team, but reducing the front yard coverage to get at or under that 45% is one of those things. We just took a shot in the dark. If we can get it, great. If not, we'll trim down. We already discussed modifications to get us under or at or below 45%. So that's already in the works. Aaron?

No. David? I don't

have

any

questions.

Well, Eric, from your comment about the 45 percent, I think we have to go that route. From my point of view, we should not increase over that impervious cap. I think it opens up a precedent that we would then see more and more pavement all along the street. And luckily, there's no parking on that side of the street. So I think we're okay. But I definitely agree with the staff recommendation also. And it sounds like the front yard drainage, which is being requested to show no increase in runoff.

If I

understood what I read and what you're saying, the change is very, very minor.

Is that correct? Well, I mean, the increase right now is about .08 CFS that would be going out to the street. If we're able to put in a linear dry well to the right of the driveway, still discharged to the left of the driveway, so we have 10 feet for that discharge point, then we could be at zero or maybe a plus .01 CFS. um just looking at the yellow versus the red i think we're closer to that zero differential so my request on behalf of the owner is for staff to approve with conditions of hitting 45 or less for the front yard coverage and providing a secondary dry well and then of course the d restriction for the bmps to be recorded with san jose county

just a request um I think that's fair. Do we have any comment on that from staff?

No, so the BMP to the right is something that is just being proposed tonight, so we haven't really been able to contemplate that or review against it. Typically, we try and get drywalls to be set back from property lines, so this would be in a very tight area. So we would definitely want to make sure that there's soil testing done to make sure that that area is not compacted during construction, what the soil type would be, et cetera. Because otherwise you just would essentially be creating a holding point and then the same amount of water will just discharge where they've proposed it right now. But we can review against all of those criteria that we typically add on dry wells. I would recommend that you make sure that that's clarified in any sort of condition.

And the soil testing is a note that you're requiring on the plans already. So, soil testing is going to have to be done no matter what. I've been working on it for that.

David, did you have other comments?

Yeah, it was just in your letter, you talk about removing the retaining walls on both sides of the stairs. You know, they're still in the rendering for the architectural review.

I think it's more of a monolithic.

It's almost like pedestals that are there.

They were along the

whole length

of the stairs going down.

So when you talk about reducing that, you've got some ideas on how to get that down. It looks like those pedestals themselves are maybe four by four or so in size and you need 32 and a half square feet. It looks like in order to get your calculations to work.

Yeah. We're narrowing the driveway that

you're looking at. I didn't know if you were looking at an architectural feature that.

No. All right.

That's what I was getting at is what, how do you plan to make up the 32 and a half. Square feet. Great. Yeah.

So it seems like we're getting some solutions right

now.

Sounds like a good meeting. Okay, so that we'd be able to meet with proper engineering experts The 45% and the front yard drainage to be modified to show no increase, right? Yes. Following what Ana was saying also.

Correct. Yeah, very confident we'll be able to match that. And it can be further reviewed by staff. And if you're able, if the board is able to approve with those conditions, and if staff approves, then I don't have to come back. Steve?

I hate to be a stickler on this, but I think there's enough moving parts. I personally would feel more comfortable with it being continued.

I would agree with that. I think it would allow us to look at all the changes and even though you would have to come back, I think it would give us a lot more confidence in the outcome.

Okay. Worst thing you could have done was say no. I had to ask.

Coming back is better than no. With that, any other comments? Any comments in the audience? No? Okay. Helen, you want to take a crack at that?

Yes. I move to table this to a later date to be determined to allow the applicant to make staff-recommended revisions.

all in favor aye opposed okay well let me see you again on this part

thank you

um now i do have a question for staff since we've tabled this is it right to go on with architectural at this point

we typically remind recommend that you go through the process and that way if there are any comments under architecture that you want them to address they can do that at the same meeting

We will start on the architectural review. And Ryan?

One second, guys. I accidentally closed the one I needed. All right. The house would total 4,400 square feet and would reach 29 feet 11 inches in height. The facade would appear as two stories and part of the basement level is exposed on the front facade which would display the garage door. The house would be taller than both adjacent properties which is likely to have some visual impact. However, height differences are common nearby and the proposed height difference is not likely to change the character of the neighborhood. The house is proposed to be constructed of various stones both as primary and secondary materials. The use of stone as a primary material would be novel. However, stone is recommended as a primary material and by the Architecture Review Guidelines. It is a common secondary material. The novel use of stone is likely to have some visual impact but would likely not change the material character of the neighborhood. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Okay. So Lucas, come on up.

I think the architectural rendering The architectural plans pretty much speak for themselves. The issue about the using stone, the house two doors to the right at 444 Oakley is a story and a half that's all stone. And then over on Edgewood, I think it's like behind it and two or three over is largely stone. It's a Tudor style, so there's some timbers and stuff with it. But stone is used regularly. fairly, you know, it's in Wydown Forest. It's not like a unique thing in there. I think most of the other rest, it's self-explanatory. Here's some materials. There's actually more of that stone down there. The people at the stone company told me that they had to Give me two boxes of it to get the, there's some variation in color. It's like a light gray to a light tan. It's called actually mayor blend. I think the mayor builders were using it decades ago and it would not have the chocolate colored stones in it though that the mayor blend has, those would be pulled out. And that would be dimensional stone. It wouldn't be like this where they're all different sort of shapes and sizes. but it would have some jumpers in it, which are some of the bigger ones as well. A black variegated roof, black gutters and black windows. There's a sample of a pallet window color there too.

Susan, want to take over?

I have to say I have a lot of character concerns with it. I think in a vacuum, I think it's a very lovely house. And I think in other sections of Clayton, I think it would fit in wonderfully. But as part of our Clayton 2040, where residents commented, one of the things that they mentioned being a real draw for Clayton is the character of neighborhoods. And White Elm Forest is almost entirely original. And there really isn't... I mean, I agree that there's other stone homes, but if you drive around, there's really no stone home that's quite anywhere close to this. The one over on Edgewood is. I would personally disagree. I think this looks like it fits in other places of Clayton, but I don't think it fits the character of... of Wyandotte Forest. And I would like to see at least, especially since we're going back in with the site plan, see some sort of revision of materials, maybe bring in a secondary material or something to kind of visually tie it in more to the neighborhood so it doesn't look like just a giant brand new house in the middle of a bunch of smaller, more kind of classic houses. I think you were clearly drawn to this neighborhood. I can tell. Uh, and your love, I did a big rehab on a house three doors down. And, and I mean, you spoke very convincingly about the house that was there before. So, uh, I would like to hear from an architectural standpoint, kind of the elements that were drawn from the neighborhood and other houses and how they're brought into this house. So when you drive down Edgewood, you don't necessarily, this one doesn't jump out at you. And I think as it stands out, it would very much jump out at you

Yeah. As when I was, Katie can talk maybe more to that. Katie needs to quote the architects here. But specifically, that's what I've been telling her from the very beginning, that if you drive down the street, you wouldn't go like, oh, it's the new house there. You don't think so? Yeah, I don't think so. And that's why I've been telling her from the beginning of how to design it. I mean, that was the direction that I gave to do. I mean, it wasn't like, oh yeah, you design this one and that's what I feel about it now. That was the direction from the very beginning.

I personally, when I go through a neighborhood, I see kind of a lot more rusticity where this entry especially I think is very formal. It's also very monolithic where a lot of the other houses have More step downs. Like I said, there's more variation in materials. A lot of times you see two, three materials in a lot of homes versus just stone. When you see front facing garages, a lot of times it's a single garage instead of you typically don't get this double garage in this wide driveway. I think it's because they were built in when the Model Ts were being built. 100% correct. I'm just saying all those four things that I just listed off, and I could probably, if I had time, list off more. I think all of those are things that make it look like a new construction in the middle of a very classic neighborhood that would stand apart as opposed to blend into the neighborhood. I would hope that you would use this time when you come back to maybe come back with a design that blends more into the surroundings.

Aaron? It's going to stand out. It's a beautiful house, but it will, I mean, from seeing other new homes and old neighborhoods, the massing of it, the second story window is really almost at the peak of the house next to it. So it'll overwhelm the houses next to it.

David? I don't think I have any questions or anything that I could add at this point. I think I share that concern to some extent, as far as the character itself in the neighborhood. Ellen.

I would agree with Jim. And I think what's driving it for me is the monumental entry. If you look at the entry, the front doors going down the street and in the neighborhood, they're more human scale. This is raised and then it's large and the color is not unique. There are other white, in essence, homes but they're not stone and The entry, I mean, I can live with the four doors or the two-car garage. Actually, four cars step deep. So you've got a double garage door. I can live with that. But the entrance is just, it doesn't fit on the street. Now, another question. Is the stone cultured stone? It's true cast, or it's true stone.

It's mined stone,

yeah. Okay.

Well, Tom... Could we hear from Katie about the

architectural issues? Oh, sure. Come on in.

Katie Neeson-Cook... And I mean, I can understand where all of you are coming from. I mean, when you have a basement tuck under garage, kind of have to elevate the front door because otherwise you're coming into the basement. However, I can also understand wanting to bring the scale of the entry down. So I'm a little torn on which way to go right now. And I'm not sure that I have any great insights to add right at this second.

Were you finished? Okay, well I do have a few other comments. In the past year we've talked about character and context in many of our neighborhoods as we've seen new development going up. And I think this... is a very appropriate project to rediscuss those issues. And Jim, I think you brought it up very well. Widown Forest is a jewel of an eclectic neighborhood. We have some very traditional homes like the one just to the north of this property. And we have some very contemporary homes that were built in the last two decades. So there's a lot of variety in it. There's a lot of different material. But what I've noticed in all the homes is that they tend to blend in and make an eclectic style where nothing major really stands out until we get here. And I feel this really stands out because of its massing, because of the singularity of the major material on it. And don't get me wrong, it's a magnificently beautiful house. But walking that street over the weekend, I was wondering if two things could be done that might help. Number one, I thought the double garage door really was imposing. I don't know if you could fit two single garage doors in. When I looked at the size, it's very tight. And secondly, as Helen was bringing up about the entrance, I was hoping that the entrance would have been a half flight down so that you would have fewer steps going up. But of course, that would mean you would have steps inside the house. But we're only looking at the exterior. So I pose that as only responding to the exterior of the house. Some ways to try to bring it down and make it not so imposing. I think another thing that makes it imposing is that it is basically a cube. not an exact tube, but it's very, very strict in its proportions. And we don't see very many of those in the neighborhood. So my concern is it just doesn't meet the character and the context. Maybe size fits into that, but I'm less concerned about that. And if anyone has any comments further about what I said or what I didn't.

I think my only concern with bringing the front door down half a flight would be with regards to aging in place and while we have planned for an elevator in the future, we were not planning to include one. And so now instead of You know we're automatically adding a stop on an elevator. If we have the front door at a mid flight. At least that's what popped in my head as

well, the. proposed elevator would be on the other side of the stairway.

Which would be well away from the front door yeah. So. It's a possibility. I would be more than happy to look at it.

Well, the comments you're hearing from the board are really to try to maintain the character and the context and the overall feeling of the neighborhood that there shouldn't be one house or a couple houses that stand out for one reason or another. And I really think here again, it might be good not to take a vote tonight, but to let you think a little more about it and come back. I don't know if the rest of the board has any comment about that. I see heads shaking. Do you want to confer with Tom about that?

Work on

it. And then we'll make a motion to that effect.

Okay. I move to table to a date to be determined. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll look forward to seeing you all again. Thank you. Okay, we've come to the end of our new business. And we do have public hearing coming up. Everyone's invited to stay if you'd like to stay longer. If not, the new business is finished at this point. So we appreciate everyone being here. Okay, we'll move into public hearing. I guess we have to do each one of these individually. Okay. We'll open the public hearing for public hearing number one, text amendment on the sign regulations. Brian?

So right now, Board of Alderman Plan Commission staff are all generally in the process of implementing the outcomes of the comprehensive plan that was completed and implemented last year. So one of the key results that came out of the comprehensive plan was to observe where there might be opportunities to streamline various procedures. This is not a key result that is implemented all at once. This is something that They come about over time and smaller portions as we observe things that could possibly see some some tightening or some streamlining. So one of the items that we've looked at and that we've brought before to this board and discussion sessions was taking a look at some of our sign elements that could use a little streamlining. And this is broken up into two pieces, one is ground science, the other is blade signs when looking at ground science, the code presently requires that all ground science, regardless of their materials be approved by the architectural review board. However, the Architecture Review Board has been pretty consistent with what materials that it supports or does not support. So one of the things that we're proposing is that much like other signs, that ground signs can be reviewed administratively, but instead now we'll propose some architectural review guidelines to go along with ground signs. in those architecture review guidelines, which I believe I may have pulled up. There we go. These architecture review guidelines, first they're gonna clarify how the ground sign just measured, because that's a common discussion that we have with folks. Additionally, they're gonna clarify what materials are permitted or not permitted. And really what we're doing is we're prohibiting that use of vinyl and that we would have in other spaces. Beyond that, generally the architecture report hasn't shown any sort of issues with other ground side materials, which tend to be like wood, stone, brick, metal, things of that nature. Additionally, the other item that we are looking at are the blade signs. So right now, blade signs are limited to one square foot, but if we take a look around, blade signs generally are greater than one square foot. Staff did an analysis of previous blade sign approvals and it's kind of broken up into a couple different sections. You have most of your blade signs that are inside sub-districts, but you have some examples of them being outside of signed sub-district. Overall, you have an average size right around five square feet. We also then took a look at the context of those signs, what other communities were doing. And we found that sticking with a relatively small consistent cap would be better than going with some kind of ratio. So like other ground signs like wall signs, those are based on a percentage of the size of a facade. While other communities that use a proportion to regulate their blade signage, they have much larger signs than we do. And we want to make sure that those blade signs sort of stay within the small pedestrian oriented character. They tend to serve commercial retail businesses. So what we're recommending is an increase in the blade sign square footage to five square feet, as that's more in line with what the Plain Commission has previously approved, but also make sure that it maintains that small character to serve ground floor retail.

Thank you. I think what's being proposed really came out of what we've been discussing all along, so I really have no problem with it. I began thinking about ground signs, as I mentioned, for the former Coin Acceptors building. Forgot what their new name is. And also I thought What if they had wanted a blade sign on that building? Five square feet would not show up along the highway at all.

So presently, office buildings that do not have separate entrances are allowed a maximum of two blade signs at the building entrance because those blade signs really are geared towards the building entrance. If they wanted to do something... larger and more spectacular like you see in some larger cities that have a similar built environment to downtown clayton then that'd be something that somebody could come to this board for sign modification

so we will still always have that opportunity for a modification

correct

if necessary otherwise i'm all for it ellen

i'm all for it too and i love this excellent

you've played to the architects and the bandits

all

good i don't have anything beyond what we've discussed at previous meetings aaron

david great an easy one okay um Okay, all we need to do is approve it or not.

I move to approve as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll close that public hearing and we'll open the second one for the text amendment on retail smoking regulations.

Yes. So this regulation is really in response to community concerns about the marketing and sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products, nicotine products, to youth and that targeting. So we reviewed our regulations right now. We regulate retail smoking as just a subcategory of general retail use. Okay. What we're proposing here as staff is to create a definition for a retail smoking establishment that would then have specific requirements assigned to it. So under the zoning regulations, this use would then be allowed within our C2 and HDC zoning districts as they stand currently. And there would be the separation or buffer requirements that mirror the regulations that we have right now for marijuana dispensaries to keep those businesses a certain distance away from schools. and daycares etc so this regulation is being proposed and reviewed in conjunction with some modifications that will go to the board of aldermen for offenses and licensing related to tobacco sales

When you mentioned the C2 and the HDC, would that convert to the M2 and the M3 under the UDC in the future?

Right. So the timing-wise is a little bit tough, but this regulation is being proposed to you all faster. So under the current regulations, we haven't changed the names, but yes, it would be what we're proposing to do as M2 and M3. Okay.

i have no problem with it i thought it was well defined and stated ellen

well done

susan

do. This was really just for the alcohol so that they weren't in conjunction. The actual smoking prohibitions and other things that would be covered under different sections, I believe some of that's going to be covered under our offenses category.

So I have existing cigar lounges that will fall under this. Cigar lounges? They'll fall under this as well because there'll be retail smoking establishments.

Jim? I think it's well written. Once again, we've discussed this already. So I can say that on topics that I get approached on, this is one that's up there from a lot of people. And then I don't know if staff can fill in. I know on a related note, there's currently a retail smoking establishment that I believe was in violation of our sign code since we have talked so much about signs, and that sign has been brought up to me multiple times. And I know they were given a notice. Can you guys speak to the status of that?

And that item is currently in municipal court. Got it.

That's

all.

Thank

you.

Aaron? Anything else, David?

No, I don't believe so. Okay.

Well, we do have a recommendation. We're in the public hearing to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Board of Aldermen.

I move to recommend approval of text amendment to the board of aldermen.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? OK. We'll close that public hearing. Let's move on to public hearing item three, text amendment on the Uniform Development Code commercial zoning regulations.

So we're just gonna provide an introduction. This is the same presentation that we went over on the 20th, but there are additional people here in the audience tonight. So we're gonna provide an abbreviated version of that. I'll go through my slides pretty quickly. This is summarized in the staff report that you received. The goal of this, as with the side modifications that Ryan went over earlier, is to take a step towards implementing our comprehensive plan. So on the screen right here are the eight key results from our implementation matrix that we feel are being addressed in some wholly and some in part by the recommendations that Ryan's going to go through, specifically related to our base zoning districts and how we regulated those through overlay districts in our existing code right now. that creates some inconsistencies in what the goals actually are for areas and a lot of issues that divert projects through a PUD process. So to get started on the key results that you saw on the screen, we started with our transit-oriented development districts. That's an overlay that we currently have two of over part of our downtowns. Ryan went through an analysis and found that many of the goals of the TODs we're not really going to be addressed on such a micro scale based on the goals of that. So then we started really quickly to realize we needed to broaden the analysis beyond just those two overlay districts to look at the city as a whole. As I mentioned many times to many of you, zoning codes are webs. And so in order to, once we started kind of addressing some issues in one area, we very quickly impacted other areas. And so it became obvious that we needed to address all of our commercial districts in this approach. And then combined with that is the beginning stages of moving to a unified development code, which we've been over before but that is basically just the format of our zoning district that tries to co-locate regulations related to development in a more streamlined manner so provides the the text and the regulations to applicants to the city etc in a much more abbreviated version so it's more transparent it's easier to read it's easier to find your way through So all of the proposed commercial districts for tonight, they follow this framework of our Unified Development Code. We will be continuing to adopt our zoning code in chunks. So over time, the residential and the other elements of your UDC will come together as we revise those as well.

All righty. So again, I know that we've seen some aspects of this presentation before. We want to make sure that those folks who are joining us on this for the first time, that they kind of get an overview of what we're doing. So this slide is essentially a visualization of some of the differences that you're going to see between current zoning and unified development code. So on the left, you see what the outline is for just the high density commercial district, whereas on the right, you would see the organization for all of the commercial districts. And what that ends up looking like, as you can see at the bottom right here, is that for the existing, right now for all of our commercial zoning sections, not including the overlay districts, we have about 9,900 words. With our new unified development code covering all of our commercial zoning districts, we can take all of that same regulation down to about 3,600 words. And so now i'm going to briefly walk you through all the sections of this unified development code and as we're walking through this, I want you to think of this as an evolution of the existing zoning code yes it's going to look very different. But we started from where the code is currently at and it's largely being modified it modified and updated. And so, one of the ways that's going to start is with the purpose statements and when you open any zoning code, the first thing you're going to see is what is the point of this particular section of the zoning code. So right now, the commercial zoning districts really focus on that commercial and office aspect. And those are really important. We want to maintain those. One of the outcomes of the comprehensive plan was that we want to think of some of these areas as mixed use spaces as well. So right now, if we think of C1 areas, right now, DeMunn is an area zoned as C1 neighborhood commercial zone. But it presently has a lot of mixed use, and then we can take that all the way to downtown clayton was which is high density commercial. And that area is expanding as a neighborhood you have more residential development, so we want to retain those important commercial and office aspects, but they are growing in their mix of uses you're going to see some changes in the names and then. The descriptions, you can see at the bottom here, though it is simply an evolution of what we currently have so see one neighborhood commercial and one neighborhood mixed use C to general commercial into general excuse and so on. Applicability, this largely sets the standards for applying in all these zoning districts. However, one item that is gonna be updated in this is the introduction of alternative compliance. Alternative compliance is something that this board sees largely in urban design districts and this gives a little bit of flexibility to the architecture if you were to consider alternative proposals which may differ from what the zoning code allows but maybe something that is desirable or meets the intent of the underlying zoning. Three dimensional standards. So right now, if you look at any of the dimensional standards for zoning district and that's going to be things like height setback floor area ratio. It's going to come to you in paragraph form. So you actually have to read through a paragraph. This building can be X feet tall. The evolution of that is that it's going to end up in a in a table that shows you kind of everything in one place. We've also modified the location of something. So for example, in the current zoning code, you're going to see a lot of things related to height actually in the use table. So you'd go down to see whether something was permitted or conditional and there might be something related to height in there. So that's going to be moved back into our dimensional standards as well. And this is what it's going to look like. So rather than going through paragraph form, you find your zoning district, you go to the relevant dimensional standard that you're looking for and you can find it there in the table. One of the things that's changing is we're moving from a front setback to a build two line and our C1C2 HDC becoming M1, M2, and M3. And what that change is going to be is right now a setback is you need to be X feet away from the property line or more. A build two line is that's where the front facade of the building is going to need to be. And that's because in our commercial zoning districts, these are very pedestrian oriented places and we want to make sure that we have that consistent facade. We also introduced height encroachments. So it's common to see setback encroachments, for example, a deck can go so far into a rear setback a front porch can go so far and to the front setback. But there's been ambiguity in the past in terms of what if you have a mechanical penthouse or an elevator shaft or stair stairway that goes up to the top of the building, how does that affect height. So we've clarified that by putting in height encroachment onto the tops of buildings as well. And then, one of the items that has changed in terms of dimensional standards is we are right sizing some of the zoning so floor area ratio, something that we have talked about previously, but it's the most notable change that you're going to see. And so, right now floor area ratio is a tad small for the actual reality of buildings throughout the commercial zoning districts. C1 to be M1 does not have a floor area ratio. That's a maximum height that's not changing. But the floor area ratio is going to be changing to 5 in M2 and would be changing to 13 in M3. This is not going to allow anything larger than what is presently constructed, but it is going to right size the zoning for a lot of buildings and bring a lot of those buildings into compliance. There are some call-outs though within the dimensional standards. I know visually it might look like an overlay, but these are just call-outs within those dimensional standards. The first one is the downtown character area. And this area is an evolution of that Northeast downtown overlay district. This is an area that historically has some smaller buildings and a lot of the older retail that's around. Yes, there are a couple of larger buildings that might fall into the space, but the goal of what this area is meant to do is to protect all of those smaller buildings. So the floor area ratio, the height is reduced. There is some incentive to increase that floor area ratio from three to five with some step backs at the third level. However, it's generally meant to protect the character, incentivize reinvestment, or what's still available for folks. If folks want to build something that maybe doesn't meet these dimensional standards, they still have the PUD process available to them, which is what most folks have to go through right now to build something downtown.

So then this area would include the current Bemiston Place? Correct. Would that building fit into this new character structure?

That building would not fit into the character area in terms of the dimensional standards. They would still be required to go through a PUD process. Another character area that we have call it is the Maryland gateway character area, this is an evolution of the Maryland gateway overlay district and the purpose of this one is to. protect that small retail that's on the north side of Maryland presently the Maryland gateway overlay District has a lot of really useful components to it, but it is very piecemeal that kind of reaches in a lot of directions at once. So, although the Maryland gateway is going away. One of those useful pieces is the protection of that smaller retail, whereas other aspects of Maryland Gateway have gone in different directions such as architectural standards. The next section is use regulations. So presently right now, every zoning district has a use table at the bottom. And so what we've done is we've combined all these uses into a single table that you'd be able to view. And so most of these uses are not changing. Some changes that you will see is some of the names will be updated to reference the North American Industry Classification Standard. We have not updated all those at this time because there are reference to some of these uses in other places such as the definition section. Other changes that you might see The removal of gas stations from M3, high-density commercial, which is downtown because that's not a use that we want to have in this predominantly pedestrian-oriented place. And then additionally in M3, the addition of residential single-use structures. And those would have a minimum requirement of 120 units per acre. Right now, I want to say most of the... Buildings that are in downtown are slightly higher than that. They might be like 130, 150 or even higher. But that 120 is a good base floor. And we can also clarify where those would be allowed. That's not everywhere. That's not on every parcel. But we recognize there are some areas in downtown where we might benefit from a high density of residents. So that way they can support the retail and commercial and other locations.

So this is not only in the downtown character area. It's the entire downtown area?

Correct so downtown character areas were we're just within the dimensional standard section use regulations is the next section on our list. And then another additional change is the addition of mixed use and M one, which is presently see one so we talked about those buildings in demand earlier those would actually not be allowed under the current zoning. But we know that folks do enjoy having that mixed use character in the C one to be M one areas. So within the use regulations, we're calling out what we're calling the consumer emphasis areas. And this gets into where we want that retail and commercial to concentrate. So there are some properties in downtown which may be great for just a single-use residential property. But there is a character of retail in some locations And we want to make sure that where we are requiring retail, that it's co-located with other retail uses and that those are supporting each other. So one of those elements that was taken from the Maryland Gateway Overlay District is to require 50% of the frontage along these streets to be what we're calling consumer emphasis area uses. And actually, if we go back to the use table, you'll see on the far right, we call out those uses specifically as what would contribute towards that 50% frontage. Now, you can also include any other use on that ground floor. You just have to make sure that at least 50% of your frontage are those specified uses. We've got primary and secondary. And so what I just talked about with that 50% of frontage is the primary. The secondary, you just have to have at least one consumer emphasis area use, but we're not regulating the size or frontage of that. Additionally, there is an architectural guidelines section that is coming up and we have some additional architectural guidelines for those retail uses that are largely inspired by the northeast downtown overlay district and which you have seen implemented in buildings like sail on and be missed in place on central.

Can we modify those CA streets in the future if development would demand it.

Should development progress and this board find that they want to expand the consumer emphasis streets? That is something we can always come back to. Next section is architectural guidelines, so there presently isn't architectural guidelines section in high density commercial, which is where we built off of. But we've also taken other architectural aspects that we talked about before from developments or from the northeast downtown overlay or other urban design guidelines. we've kind of brought those all into one place, this is going to allow some. Really it's gonna last some teeth for the architecture report to have something to review against to have staff something to review against and then also sets an expectation for developers as to what's expected for new developments. something similar for site design standards, something for their protection review board, for staff to review again, something to set expectations for developers. And one of the items to call out here that is changing is how parking would be changed in just a little bit. So one of the outcomes of the comprehensive plan was that is that parking is something that we might be able to support on Clayton Road in some locations. So Clayton Road west of Concordia Lane, up to 50% of your frontage can be parking and it should be screened as well. It's

off-street

parking. It's off street parking. And then additionally sustainability guidelines emphasizing items like renewable energy stormwater management native plannings light pollution and bird strike mitigation. And then also requiring the designation designing sorry designing to lead silver or equal standards for buildings of 50,000 square feet greater. And we're not actually requesting that folks go show us the certificate of lead certification but we're just asking the folks designed to those standards. some examples that we talked about previously we'll go back over real quick how would this actually affect real properties so the example of 7935 clayton road so right now the rear setback in uh in c1 require i believe it's 25 feet which is this red area here so right now and with the addition of the parking here this property is non-compliant with the zoning modifications that's that rear setback has stepped back a little bit this property would come into compliance in terms of that step back and which largely come to compliance in terms of 50% of the frontage allowed for parking, but say that this was a new construction to look like this, they would be required to screen in front of this parking lot. Looking at the US Bank site, which is presently zone C2 to become M2. This would have an allowed height of seven stories or 90 feet that's not changing from what it currently is, but we are updating the floor area ratio from 1.5 to five. And then, based on the dimensional standards allowed for this property if somebody was to develop the site within the footprint of this bank and I realized that they may own other parcels here but we're just talking about the parcel that the bank is on. If they were to develop their building to the dimensional standards that are proposed, it would be about the height of the parking garages that you see across the street. Additionally, this would be on a consumer emphasis area street. So 50% of their frontage along Forsyth would be required to have those consumer emphasis area uses. Hanley would not be affected. Another item that would be updated as part of this one that I forgot to call out earlier is the changes in residential unit size minimums. So right now, if anybody wants to build any residential unit in downtown Clayton, it has to be a minimum of 750 square feet, which is a rather large one bedroom or it's a small two bedroom kind of apartment. So we're removing those minimum unit size areas as there are a lot of new developments that come in with smaller unit sizes. And then looking at this property, it's actually a set of three properties here, these three buildings, which are presently owned by Sterling Bank. What if this site were to be developed? So right now there's no high restriction. That would not change, but the floor area ratio is updating from 3 to 13. Right now this property actually does not comply with floor area ratio. It's somewhere around 5 maybe whenever you combine all the parcels together. Additionally, the setbacks would change. So right now you have a 10 foot setback for everywhere in high density commercial, but we'd move to that build two line, which is the average of the block, which would actually bring this property into compliance as well. If they wanted to do a residential component to it, they wouldn't have a minimum unit size requirements. And then they would have some mixed use requirements because South Beamston there is a consumer emphasis area street. So 50% of their frontage on Beamston would be required to be those consumer emphasis area uses.

Then the Dorman project that was to be on this site, would that fit into this project?

In some ways, yes, and in some ways, no. So the way in which it would not fit would be the consumer emphasis uses on Beamiston. I want to say that they had maybe had one retail area proposed, but a lot of that ground level was supposed to be a retail bank, which does not fall into a consumer emphasis use. So they would have to provide a little bit more retail, but the rest of the project would largely fall into the proposed zoning.

And were you including the former city garage as one of the properties?

It's these three buildings that I'm kind of hovering over here. So from this, I guess this is like a brownish brick to be missed in. This garage in the back is not a part of this proposal or not part of this observation. All righty, any items to discuss?

Yeah, I have a question when I read through the draft I was unable to find the consumer emphasis section. I went from, let's see, on section 405.2870, use regulations, all the way over to 405.2880. Where do the consumer emphasis areas?

So following, so the use table, sorry, we don't have page numbers on it. The use table, if you go to the end of that, just at the bottom of that page, item D, that's the beginning of the consumer emphasis area. The majority of it is on the following page, but that's where it begins.

So it doesn't have its own sections.

That's correct, because a consumer emphasis area is a modification of use requirements. So that's why it's included in the use section.

Okay. So it's hidden in there. I see it now.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Well, we've looked at this before. Okay. I thought it was a great amount of work, making it simpler for us to understand, bringing it up to date. And I'm okay with it. I'm sure questions will come up as it's implemented. But right now, I think we should move on. Ellen?

I agree. I think it's well done. It's definitely user-friendly. It will take some time to get used to em one instead of see because see has been around for so long, but I think. it's excellent.

Susan.

So we started the threshold based on, right now we require projects to go through the the PUD process. We also have the requirement that just began for benchmarking for buildings that are 100,000 square feet. So anticipating that expansion sometime in the future, we want new buildings starting at a lower level than that to begin designing for that. We didn't go into an in-depth analysis though on what impacts that might have on the really smaller scale projects. So based on the scale of development within downtown, that's how 50,000 was selected. I will say that if there's a desire to reduce that even further, I would want to do more of analysis just to get an understanding of what impacts that might have. Because it is just a little bit of a different level of design. And

Sure. I think that's going to be another discussion point because the PUD process has yielded us so far just like two units in one building and three in another. So I think if we want to actually have, and those were at 100% AMI, not even really below the average median income, I think if we really want to have impacts on some of those levels, we're going to need to do a more holistic approach on how do we get affordable housing development here. to occur. Um, so that one, I, I, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't know if that would be a discussion. I would look to you guys on the direction of if that's so important that we don't want to lose the, or we want to continue the PUD process, um, for now. And then, um, as it relates to pocket parks and things, I think, um, one of the elements that Ryan, uh, incorporated was, uh, that alternative process for getting approval of an, uh, building a wider plaza area um so there's still some process for people to do that when they want to when it's planned well but

I think it's a great plan overall, I like seeing the move kind of to a more mixed use base as opposed to commercial base or things segregated. I look forward to this and what all the regulations the effect that those hopefully have in the future.

Aaron? It is an impressive amount of work. Simplification will be welcome, I'm sure, by a lot of developers and other people.

Ryan, you sent out an email from a citizen. I think it went to everyone.

Yeah, it went to everyone

about Section 405.2900, sustainability. Exterior gas lighting is strongly discouraged. That comment, do you remember sending it out today at 1 o'clock? Good. Do we need to discuss that point, or is that

something in the future? If you want that to be included, then yes, you need to discuss it.

Well... Not everyone received it. So did

they? And I thought that that was more pertaining to residential, primarily residential, but then also commercial, but both. So I don't know if you want to talk about it in just the commercial context or this is the gaslighting, right? Yes. Yes. yeah and i think i thought a big part of that was that um she wanted the limitation on residential as well

then it seems like it isn't the proper place right now we're only doing commercial

it wasn't something that we had included previously or really done a lot of analysis on for the commercial side of it.

We were having that same discussion. There's a handful of properties along Clayton Road that have existing gas lamps, but we couldn't really think of times where people have requested to add new ones on commercial properties. But we would have to spend a little bit more time on it.

Well, since we don't have really that much information, I think we should move on from it tonight. We could come back if we find a reason to do so or probably address it in residential in the future. And I apologize. I do see now everyone did receive it. So my error. Okay.

So we do have some, we do have a hand up online. I believe we have some people in the audience here that might want to speak.

Linda, can you hear us?

Unmute. Can you hear me?

Yes. Tell us your name.

Yes, my name is Linda Auburn. My sister and I own 6607 Clayton Road. And I read through the documents today. And there are two things I want to address. The first is in table number one, non-residential and mixed use dimensional standards table built to the line. For the front yard, you have the standard for M1, M2, and M3 as an average of blocked frontage. What average block frontage would be on the Washington University slash old CBC along Clayton Road, since most likely old CBC building will be torn down? The other thing is also in the same setback area for M1 and M2, you have the side yard at only five feet abutting a residential district. That seems much too close when you're allowing a five story or a 65 foot tall building for properties fronting Clayton Road from Big Bend to the East City limits. Where will there be any green space? And in the standard height table one, it seems excessive to allow a five-story or 65-foot building to be built again for properties fronting Clayton Road from Big Bend to the East City limits, especially when the area of Washington University Old CBC is surrounded by three-story apartments and two-story homes. Additionally, the Washington University property is higher on the north and west ends on the streets behind and next to St. Rita and San Bonino, higher by at least a story and a half due to the hill. This would not be congruent with that area. And the last thing is in chapter 405, article 19, section 405.2850 purpose statements, subsections one and two, will the surrounding owners of buildings and HOAs be notified of an alternative approach? And will the public be allowed to testify for or against an alternative approach? Thank you. Hello?

We're here.

Oh. I was going to say, there's a few of those in there. You might have to remind me of the list we're going on, but I can try to address them one by one. Okay, I

can go back for the first one. The average block frontage, how will that be determined for the Washington UCBC building? That's going to be sold. We know that.

Right. So a lot of your questions relate to that property. There's actually an existing overlay district on that property, the old CBC site, that this ordinance doesn't recommend repealing. So all of that will still be in place because I understand that there's more particulars that people might want to dive into when it comes to development of that property. So these regulations really wouldn't change anything related to development of that site today.

Okay, that the only reason I asked these questions is you said from Clayton Road from Big Bend to the east city limits and that contain that area that I did not know there was another overlay district. How do I find where that overlay district is and what it says?

Sure, on the city's website under our zoning regulations or if you go straight to the city's e-code. We have all of our regulations on site. So there's an urban design district called Christian Brothers Campus, CBC Urban Design District. That's still in place.

Okay, so that doesn't change that? Correct. Thank you.

Any other clarifications? Linda?

Oh. No, that's the only question I had was about the CBC area.

Okay. Well, thank you for reading it and coming tonight. We appreciate that.

I read it all. But thank you.

Any other hands up? Any comments here in the audience? Sir, come on up.

Good evening. Good evening. Well, I won't take too much of your time. I appreciate you taking the time to go through a lot of this detail. And there was a lot of work being done on the code, and we all can appreciate that. My name is Joel Montgomery, and I'm the owner of the southeast corner of Forsyth and Central, which in the new code will be designated to be included in the downtown character area. Before I touch on what impact that code change might have on us, I want to give you a little bit of a historical prologue. We have owned the property. It's about about three quarters of an acre. The corner there is the old World News site. We began to assemble that corner in 2008, about the time the real estate market tanked. But we were successful in rounding up multiple parcels. And in doing that, we took a pretty significant financial stake in the city of Clayton. We are hoping at the time to be able to create a development that would be suitable for Montgomery bank, which is a related company. Over time we have come to realize that there's some challenges developing this site in particular. Partly because the site somewhat tight and trying to create parking on the site has been a real enough parking and given the cost of parking cost of construction generally. The parking in particular has been a real drag on the pro forma. We have worked under the assumption that we can maybe overcome that with some density, and we had worked under the terms of the code as it currently exists. And that was under the assumption that could build a 25-story building about 300 feet high. The impact of this change to the zoning code appears to me, at least at some level, limit our ability to develop more than 40 feet high. I realize there's maybe an overlay that could help overcome that limit. But the initial limit takes us down from 300 feet to 40 feet. I do think that that's going to have a major chilling effect on any sort of development on this corner. For context, I have an LOI right now I'm looking at from a senior living developer who wants to build a high-rise on the site. I've talked just on Friday to Midas that had a proposal on the site not long ago that wants to talk about reviving that proposal. And both the LOI and the MIDAS proposal would assume a 20-story building, maybe a little taller, up to 25. Oddly enough, I got a call while I was at home waiting to come to this meeting from Chase Young, who's with CBRE, and he represents another hotel developer that is interested in the site because apparently they're wanting to build over by the Galleria, and that parcel over there is not going to be You can't build a hotel on the site. So they're looking around and chase Asked me if the property was available we talked but the first thing he asked me is well, how what's your height limit? I Said well can't tell you exactly I you know, I give them where things are headed I've got to figure out how to channel my resources and it both in terms of time and and a variety of things And I guess to me this change signals that the city really wants a low- to mid-rise development. And if that's the case, I need to move away from talking with some of these folks I'm talking to because it would be unfair to them, unfair to me, I guess, if – if really the city is interested in a smaller project. And I'm operating under the assumption that I can do a larger project. So I guess I would ask to table the proposed change until we can maybe have a meeting of the minds on what can happen on this corner. If I have to go with a smaller project, I'm going to have some major challenges with viability, partly because if I'm living in a three or seven-story building, by the time I try to satisfy the parking requirements for the city and for a lender, I'm not going to be able to come up with enough rentable square feet to offset the cost of that parking, offset the cost of the ground. I don't know what I'd do. By the way, I've owned this property for 18 years. We struggled to get a development off the ground because development is challenging, especially on my side. These changes make it more challenging and potentially now. there is a possibility that I'm not reading this code properly, and I think we've talked a little bit. My attorney calls it down with Ryan today, and coming out of that meeting, I was still a little unclear, and maybe the next step is for me and my attorney to sit down with you all and see if I'm clearly understanding what we're up against, what the changes mean, what impact it has on my property. But At the very least, I'd like to do that. I mean, I've been holding this site for 18 years. I think we've got a great opportunity because it's a great location. It's a matter of finding the right opportunity at the right time. But I do think that in order to build something nice there, we're going to have to have some density.

Thank you for coming tonight. I think I would defer to Ana or Ryan. Do you have anything you can give us more information on or shed some light?

Yeah, I think it's an important parcel to talk about. So I'm glad that Joel came here to present his case to you. So the approach is like we started with the introduction here. So we are taking large concepts that were discussed during our comprehensive plan process that came from input from people all around the city about what they want to see. And we heard a lot about the referred to kind of as like the historic streets of clayton the historic downtown with a smaller scale so we evaluated the northeast downtown overlay district in light of the feedback we heard from the comprehensive plan some of the changes are targeting that and so i see i understand the the kind of alarm bell that goes up when you see such a difference in height but one of the elements that we've also kind of right-sized on the back end was the floor air ratio So there's a little bit of, under our existing zoning, if you only look at height and you think you can build 25 stories or more, but then you have your floor area ratio of three, you're getting yourself into a PUD one way or another. So that's how the previous projects ended up in the PUDs. They weren't gonna meet the requirements anyway. So one thing that we've explained to Joel is that PUD process still exists. The addition of the alternative compliance process still exists. But those are both case-by-case basis. So it's very different from a developer looking at the zoning regulations and knowing by right automatically what can be built. So I think there's an important kind of moment that everybody on this plan commission and the rest of the community and the Board of Aldermen need to think about is really the scale of development that they want to see within this corner. And is development on the north side of Forsyth something that you envision happening at a different scale than the south side of Forsyth or not. And there was a lot of emphasis on kind of maintaining and the character of some of these existing smaller buildings. But as we've heard from the owner, The existing smaller buildings at this intersection are probably not going to be reinvested in and saved. At this point, there's reasons that there aren't really tenants left there. So I think it's there's no not necessarily like this is the right or the wrong answer. We wrote a code that does our best job of implementing the larger vision of the community. But I do think that it's an important time for you guys to think about these parcels because their next step in the life of Clayton is going to have a big impact. and so the requirements of the northeast downtown overlay allowed up to 25 stories but we have a small four-year ratio we also have 50 foot step back requirements so there's some give and take there that ended them in the pud process which again would be an option for them to pursue under the proposed regulations as well

and i and i appreciate that and and i think my cons my only concern is if somebody's looking at the code as it's written They're going to see three floor limit, maybe seven floor limit. And they're going to see that is really the first line of defense that they've got to get through to get to the point where they maybe can get a larger building. And a good number of developers are going to say, I don't even want to try that. I could spend a lot of time, a lot of resources, and I could never get them to back off what appears to be their their preference, and that's a smaller building. That hamstrings me a little bit. And I think it could potentially limit the number of people that will eyeball this site and give us us some interest now ironically I mean we thought we had a deal with Midas about 18 months ago and it fell through I think it could come back in into the picture I've got two other prospects right now I'm talking to you know I but I can guarantee you all of them are gonna want more than a three-story building or even a seven-story building on that site I guess, in fairness to me, if the real desire is for a three- or seven-story building, I guess I just need to know, and then I can work in a different direction. I don't know quite how I'm going to make it work. It's going to be a challenge, a challenge regardless, but it becomes even a greater challenge if we limit some density on there. I don't think we have to have a 30-story building. I think probably you're looking at least 15 to 20 to make a project work on that site, given its size, given the parking requirements, given cost of construction.

Well, with the... F.A.R. revisions and the potential for a potential PUD or alternative compliance, it seems like there are ways to move beyond a three-story requirement. And the other thing, the southeast corner of Forsyth and Central That's a very high point in the downtown area. And if you look east and west, we have several centene towers to the east, and we have Commerce Bank to the west. So it seems that we shouldn't be cutting out the potential of a taller building at this site.

Well, and I've been working under that assumption for a long time, and it would be hard for me to shift gears, I think. Just because, like I said, I've got people right now I'm talking to about a possible project, and it's always been under the assumption that we could build up to 25 floors. And I do think it could be, as you say, it's the zenith of the city of Clayton. It could be a sterling project that has a lot of... significance, iconic, whatever word you want to use. It could be something that draws people in and something that gives the city something to be proud of. And it doesn't mean that can be done with smaller building. I'm not saying that. But I think with some density, you could create something that maybe changes the skyline a little bit and really... helps put that corner – I think the corner deserves that, really, something a little bit bigger.

I would agree with your last comment. I think that corner really does deserve something that indicates it's the central point of Clayton. It's right near the government center. It's sort of our – you know, if you were to build a pyramid, that's where the peak would be. We've seen the proposals that have come forward over the years, and I think they were going toward that very iconic type of a building with retail at the bottom, and then, of course, we had a hotel and we had condo at one time. But I think we also understand the concern about the parking. We had to put in a huge garage to satisfy that. So I think those of us who have been through that before, as well as the staff, I think we're aware of that. And I would say I would not like to hinder the potential at this point. And Ana, I think you gave us potentials where we would be able to go beyond any limiting that we see right now.

Yeah, I mean, I would take it a step further. We kind of gave you a little bit of the almost, for lack of a better word, conservative approach of how to really reinforce a lot of the feedback that we heard from the comprehensive plan. I would offer to you, although, because I really think this is such an important aspect location of downtown that I think it's worth kind of prompting a little bit more discussion out of you in light of this. I think there's still some importance, even if we're looking to go taller, to having the code allude to that because as Joel mentioned, and we talk about this a lot as professionals of zoning, the last thing you'd want to do is for your code to present barriers that don't really exist to somebody who's looking to develop the site. So if there is really an interest in entertaining or desiring more than three stories in the code, then I would say we shouldn't write the code to limit it to three stories if that's not really the starting point. I would say that I wouldn't go so far as to want to potentially just remove all restrictions, though, because if we are protecting the north central blocks and some of the elements along Maryland, we don't want a steep drop off to go from 25, 30 stories down to three. stories, and that's kind of where the step backs come into play. So I would really think it's important to hear from this board where your thoughts are in the vision of that area, and that would allow us to evaluate that in light of what the code is saying.

I have comments on that, and it goes all the way back to when the Ritz-Carlton and the Plaza condos and office building were being built, where the Crescent condominiums are. Originally, that was proposed to be several buildings much higher than the nine-story building there. And what we realized back this, my goodness, it's over 20 years ago, that the Ritz and the Plaza Towers were probably the highest we were ever going to get, and that we needed to come down to 99 stories. I don't know if that's 100 or 110 feet. And then when you get to Forsyth, we did put, I think, a 90-foot limit as far as height goes along Forsyth or 90 feet back. I might be wrong on the details. But if you look at the Centine Tower at the southeast corner, it has a low podium that goes up almost to the height of the garages, which are at the maximum. And then we talked when you jump over Forsyth to the north side where the former U.S. Bank was, that it would probably have to come down to six or seven stories. So if you take a slice north and south from the plaza condos or the plaza office building and you go through the the Crescent, and then the garages. We're constantly stepping down as we go north. And what was driving that is you have residential just a block north of Forsyth. I think the same concept needs to be done here, that we see most of our tall towers along Forsyth. And as we go north of Forsythe, Maybe we need to step down there. But I don't think we should limit the south side of Forsyth. And I'm not just saying it because of your property. I think our city is set up that way because we've already allowed so many tall buildings on the south side of Forsyth. I don't know if I made that clear, but I see the need for us somehow in all of our regulations to accept that we should have a step-down approach. We went through this, Helen, when we looked at where Bemiston Place is now. At one time, there was a 20-story-plus building directly across from a residential area, and we know where that went.

Yeah. That could be intimidating to the residents, I would think. Yeah.

So that's my comment. I open it up.

I would agree with Steve. I agree with Steve. You know, can we write this so that we're not limiting the height across the board? And give the possibility, because I do see that when a developer reads this. they've got to be someone they're going to take it at face value it's very clear it's well done but. Will everyone asked how can I do what I want, what are you know, is there the PUD will they go that far or will they be turned off initially. So I, you know, I admit I like tall buildings. But and I do understand the residents wanting something smaller. But I think we can work the two, you know, keep both. And as Steve said, step down. so i would the height part i would look at that can it be rewritten so we're not saying everything can be 20 stories 25 stories but stepping it down and i ask you know the

experts i mean if My property is the only one on the north side. I guess there's me and maybe the Bank of America building are the only properties on the north side of Forsyth that are in the downtown character area. I don't know if there's any possibility to just take the properties on the northside out, leave the properties on the south side in that downtown character area. That would kind of free me up a little bit. I don't master plan or anything like that but

clarify you mean so do you mean to say properties on the south side i'm

sorry i'm on the south side

yeah

yeah leaving the properties on the north side in the downtown uh character area but on the north side of foresight i'm sorry on the south side foresight um remove those properties from the downtown character area because they're they're more in the high density district versus the downtown district where you want smaller buildings. I mean, that's just an option. I don't know if you guys are willing to go that route, but that's a thought. Well, following up what you said,

Joel, the virtually vacant properties that are on your property right now, I would not like to see those replicated in the future. I think that would be a disaster for the center of our downtown. I don't have any plans to do that. Good. No, I knew that. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to that being the only thing that could happen. Other comments?

I can say, I mean... Obviously, you don't watch every single Zoom for the hours that we do this. I specifically asked about this property when we went through the first time because I did not want to put something in place that would preclude something higher from being built. And I believe at that time there was a fairly cut and dry answer of no, it could go through the PUD process and still be there. It's not a hard cap of three stories. If I viewed it personally as a hard cap of two stories, it's not something that I would be in favor of voting for. I do like the flexibility, but once again, pretty much every building right now goes through the PUD process. This is eliminate, I mean, obviously, you know, we're talking about one parcel, part of a larger plan. It's going to eliminate the PUD process for a lot of those. Is it going to eliminate it for every single building? No. My takeaway from that would be Uh, what, I mean, you already know that this is a very important corner, uh, and how that corner is treated. I don't think necessarily, especially from the comments have been made before, uh, I wouldn't take that as there has to be a three-story building cap here, but how that corner is is going to be of utmost importance and something that this board would be looking at very, very closely. Uh, so throughout this code, uh, you know, we hear a lot about step backs. You hear a lot about variation in buildings. So we don't just only get these kind of tall rectangles. I would keep those things in the back of your mind. I think if it's something, obviously, you know, we're not here to provide architectural advice, but would I view it as a hard cap of three stories? No, I definitely would not. And I think all the comments kind of point to that. Would I be very cognizant of how I'm treating that corner, the uses and At the street level, how that relates to the pedestrian versus maybe a taller tower behind it. I think all those things will be very, very closely looked at, but shouldn't be considered something that we're going to veto right from the beginning if it's not a two or three story building.

Understood.

I work in the building right next to it, so I walk by the empty buildings every day. And it sounds like you would have to go through a PUD process anyway. And it is a pretty unique spot in Clayton. I mean, it is... you know, Central and Forsyth, Main and Main, whatever you want to call it. But I agree. I mean, it's going to be a marquee. It's going to draw a ton of attention. People are going to really want to see something that kind of pops.

We share those same concerns.

Can I ask a question? Sure. Do you own the property so going – Down central, all the way to the Justice Center, to the jail?

We don't own the parking lot. Because

that parking lot is the county,

right? That's the county. And you own it all the way

to The Alley, The Alley to the East?

Alley to the east.

You own it to that?

Well, it's a public alley, so on the other side of the alley, David Danforth owns that building with sauce on the side in it.

Okay, so that's not part of it.

That's not part of the building. I think we're all on the same page. I guess I would ask that you all think about, though, what if this council's not around and I'm having to show somebody the code and the base zoning is three floors, maybe seven? I may or may not be able to keep somebody's attention if they realize they've got to overcome that limit with a PUD process, because that's what you got to overcome. And so anyway, that's my only comment to the possibility of leaving it as it is. Doesn't mean I can't, but I don't know. There might be people looking at the code and not even calling me because they think, well, I can't build a seven-story building there. It doesn't give me what I need.

But most developers are prepared to go through this. Well,

they are. If it's good enough, they will. You're right.

Well, I think Midas has gone through it a couple times on that site. Yeah. So they're well aware of what the problems were before and what hopefully we can get through this where we can minimize the problems going forward. What I think from this discussion, which I really appreciate you coming before us tonight and having read it, is that maybe we need to do a little bit more thought and come back again

Yeah, I think that – so as I kind of alluded to earlier, there's important aspects of the downtown character area that I do think are really rooted in the larger community goals and a lot of what you've reiterated tonight. So I wouldn't necessarily, from a staff perspective, recommend just removing these parcels from that downtown character area because I do think some of that's important. However, we could – create a new floor that, that note, you know, creates a difference between this, this frontage and this area of the downtown character area compared to across the street. So it would just reference what you all have talked about tonight of higher thresholds, but maintaining again, those step back requirements, um, to the human scale because i think that's going to be really important if we just if we just remove these properties from the downtown character some of those requirements related to step backs and other things wouldn't necessarily be part of the code so

So at this point, I think we've come to a point not to recommend to the board at this time, but to table it.

Right. I would recommend continuing the hearing to the next meeting. It seems like this is the one area that I didn't hear any other, but if there are any others... um that we want to have staff actually draft some regulations for um some recommended changes to it for that next meeting but i would recommend that you table the public hearing and allow us to agree yeah

we have a motion

we have a motion I move to table to a day to be determined for staff to make changes to the text amendment. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Thank

you. Thank you, Joel. Appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you again. Okay. Thank you. Well, he's gone. I think that's probably the end of the meeting tonight. Darren, do you have any comments?

No, I'm still learning. It's funny you live in a community for so long and then you wonder like, I wonder how that building got there.

Who approved that? It takes at least three meetings. Jim? Remember to vote tomorrow if you haven't already. Thank you. That was on my list.

Nothing more to

Ryan? Anything

further?

And we'll just let you guys know the board has been working on some regulations for presenting so starting maybe at the next meeting I don't know whenever it's officially signed by the mayor, we will be requiring speaker cards. for everybody. And there will also be a clock presented that will limit speakers to three minutes. So we'll follow an official clock. So procedurally, that will be just a slight shift from what we're used to. But we'll make sure to alert you guys to the first meeting where that's being implemented. But otherwise, thanks for a good discussion. I think it's always a positive when we have people participate with you guys on the other side for zoning changes. So yeah.

Stephanie?

Nothing further this evening.

Okay. Well, Ana, thank you about the speaker cards. I know some in the future audiences will really dislike that. But from being up here, we will like it. So thank you. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We'll see you in two weeks. We're adjourned.