December 1, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, wherever you are, and welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for December 1st. Of course, I see several people are online, and we will get started with the roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld?

Here.

Helen DiFate?

Helen DeFate?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. and we should be expecting Susan on Zoom.

Yes. We're waiting for a quorum. We need one more member, but I believe they're on the way.

that she's having computer issues, but she is headed over here in person.

Okay, I just texted her also. Okay, everyone online, we're waiting for the fourth person. She's on her way and then we'll get started. Laura, we see you have a hand up.

I just want to make sure you can hear me. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. And we'll get back to you when the meeting starts.

No worries. I just wanted to know how my camera wasn't working. Thank you so much.

Hi, Chris. Do you hear us? I hear you just fine. Hi. Good. We hear you too. Glad you're here. We have one more. We do have a quorum. So I think we'll go ahead. Okay. Ryan, we've done the roll call. We do have minutes from the previous meeting on November 17th. Are there any changes? Yes. No. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. This, of course, is the time for our open forum where anyone can address any item that is not on the agenda for tonight. Does anyone online have a comment or a question? If so, raise your hand. No? Okay. Thank you. We will move on and we'll begin with old business. And the first item is 8015 Forsyth Boulevard. Is the applicant online? Yeah. Dale? Dale? Okay, we'll get started with the staff report.

The applicant is seeking to install window covering to mitigate the impact of sunlight on golf simulator base. The application was originally presented at the October 20th meeting and was continued. The applicant has since tested various window covering extents and has revised the proposal accordingly. Staff are of the opinion that the revisions balance the intent of the Northeast Downtown Overlay District and the need to mitigate the impact on the simulator base. Staff Regiment approval is submitted.

Okay, Dale, do you have any further comments?

No, I was not able to be at the November 12th meeting where your staff was at the location. So I'm trying to catch up now. I just was made aware of this today. So if you have any questions, please let me know and then I will try to answer them for the owner.

Well, we're looking at the window covering that we discussed previously. The way we understand it, it's virtually opaque except for a 16-inch high strip. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes, sir. And how far above ground is that 16-inch?

I would think the measurements that I took, the top of the red bar should be at 72 inches, if I'm not mistaken, six foot.

Well, in the drawing that we have, can you see it online, the drawing? Yes, I can. Okay. It indicates from what I'm taking is the bottom of the window sill two feet up to the red band that is supposed to be translucent or transparent. So that would be about three feet four above the window sill. But we don't have a definitive distance of how high is that red band or do you have to be on your knees to be able to look in oh no

sir the the sidewalk is below the level of the glass um so at the 60 i'm sorry at the 72 inch six foot mark, there's 46 inches of glass actually showing the rest of it is brick in the front facade from the street because the sidewalk is below the window ledge.

And it

looks like the red band and the 24 inches comes out to about 40 inches. And at the six foot mark from the sidewalk, you have a total of 46 and a half inches of glass showing. And the first picture showing the red bar that came to 40 inches from the windowsill.

Okay, well, even with that description, I'm still a little confused.

And so I'll jump in and also the five iron owners here in the audience. So Ryan and I and David met with him and looked at this on the pictures that Ryan was showing of the tarp that was used. We walked the site when that was hung. Essentially, somebody who was standing on the sidewalk walking past it, we could still see their head. So it's hard to tell, but the pictures that you see here, a person walking past, that red band is approximately their eyeline if they're walking down the sidewalk.

So it's approximately five feet, plus or minus.

Right, because the sidewalk drops down. I'm

6'4", and we measured it from my forehead. I can see in the window. like we put the drop cloth right at my forehead, essentially. And to clarify too that there was two kind of prevailing discussions that we had. There was one that if you look at the pictures with the drop cloth, I'm of the opinion of, yeah, that one, correct. I'm also okay with the approved temporary install if we want to go ahead and put the top part up and then leave the complete bottom exposed without a strip. I'm okay with that option to start to see if it kind of solves most of the issues, and that way the whole bottom would be completely open. Because I think what's being proposed right now is like a strip in it that would be the bottom part also covered. So I'm also okay with that. So it would be from the lettering down, like where the red line down would all be open, like it is shown in that TARP picture. So anybody would be able to see the bottom part in. Because I'm hopeful that if that's where we want to go in this direction, I'm hopeful that that's enough light restriction that we're able to use it to a large extent.

When you had the curtain like this. Yeah. Did the sun reflect on the floor? Did it have a detrimental effect on any of the screens?

It does a little bit. I mean, it does it anyway. So yeah, it still does come through at the bottom. What I'm very curious is to see if we put a completely opaque, call it 75%, 80% covering, if that's enough. Does that make sense? But if we want to do this, if the board is okay with this kind of strip proposal, like I said, there's an A and a B thought, I think, here. This one obviously would be even more coverage and would kind of leave a strip to see through, but... I'm good. I'm personally good with either one of them. And like she said, the three of us kind of talked about it on site, that that would be kind of options. Well, let's go around. Yeah,

absolutely. We hear your comments. Ellen?

Okay. I like the design. The positioning from what you're saying, as I walk by, I could see in When I see in, will I see heads or will I be seeing like lower torsos?

Yeah, that's a good question. You'd be really looking at people's like waist and furniture and because like Dale said, the street level is probably about two feet below, you know, that it's off centered by about two feet. So yeah, you're looking pretty much in at like my waist area, like my waistline. So.

Okay. I mean, I see what you're saying about putting the upper strip, seeing if that's sufficient before doing the lower, um, Yeah, I think it's neat to be able to see people in there other than from, you know, torso down. But I do understand that from the pictures, your screens are useless. You know, so yeah, I don't have any other questions.

Jim? I guess before I have any questions or comments, Ana or Ryan, would you be able to kind of characterize this meeting and kind of your thoughts on everything just to kind of put us in the room a little bit? I mean, I see the pictures of kind of their two different heights tested, kind of what your experience being in the space was like.

Yeah, so I think that the pictures show pretty well. So in this picture, that's actually like a bar stool height table, which you can't really tell from this. So it is a little bit higher. So when people are sitting in the other couches that face the simulators, you would see them at head level through this. I think the biggest thing for us is we want the space – to be functional for this. So that's where we were going back and forth and discussing that bottom strip. At certain angles of the sun, it was reflecting pretty sharply off of the metal base along the window. And then because it's just like unfinished concrete essentially on the floor, it's kind of shiny and reflected back up. So from that perspective, when we kind of used – we used a folding table as kind of a way of then creating a bottom strip that we discussed looking in there so that there was that middle gap. And I felt like it did provide enough of an insight, and I was – I wanted the board to consider that because I was concerned that we would go through this whole process and approve a top layer that then still wouldn't result in increasing the functionality. So I wanted you guys to really consider the farther extreme of having two strips versus just the one larger covering. So I think that the results from my standpoint is good. Like standing in there, I'm a little bit of a shorter person. Ryan might have a different impact because he's a little bit taller than me. But I felt comfortable with what was proposed proportionally.

Okay. And kind of looking at these two pictures, we have one where here the covering was higher and then a second picture where it's lower. Is my understanding that when the covering at this height basically doesn't provide enough relief from the sun?

This one seemed to provide a good amount. I think that the larger tarp stayed, the whole time we were there, that ended at the same spot. It was just a matter of the lower coverage, which isn't in the picture.

Okay. Ryan, can you scroll to the other picture? So are these tarps at different heights or is that the same tarp at the same height? There's one more picture of the tarp. Is that tarp in the same spot for... Yeah. Okay, because it looks lower. Right. I appreciate that extra layer because it looks lower in this picture than the other one. But yeah, I appreciate you guys going out there and providing the firsthand. I would feel more comfortable... if we did it without the bottom strip to start and possibly, you know, incrementally add the bottom strip, I will say, uh, after this, especially with this coming back, I've driven by several times in all different times of day. Um, and there's been multiple times where I've driven by and there's been people in those bays and they look like they're having a really good time. Uh, so I, you know, I, I wouldn't want to obstruct that, uh, But hopefully, I'm thinking if we can maybe forego that bottom strip, even if possibly you can put some layer of vinyl just on the metal inside band of the window and that might take it just a little bit further. I think that could be a compromise that I could definitely live with. Chris?

Yeah, thank you. And, you know, I've had occasion to walk by this kind of randomly over the last couple of weeks and can attest that what Jim has said, that there are people in there that look like they're having a really good time is evident. There was one instance when I happened to be walking by when there was a gentleman in the bay who was literally holding his hand up to his forehead to, like, almost joking that he couldn't see the screen. So I think that the need is real because I think there's a desire to use those bays and I can attest that you really cannot I don't think you can use those bays without some sort of a covering. So I feel for Dale, for you and Carlton, I completely understand. I think the biggest issue I have is that the graphic that is proposed seems to fall more under like signage. I have no issue with a full on kind of graphics covering that was really a repetition of kind of that abstract pattern. I'm not really sure that the panels that are over the five parts seem to differ significantly from the panels on the other one, which, you know, stylistically, which that is fine or not. It just seems a little odd. It doesn't seem like it goes with those ones. However, I just don't know if this falls within signage because suddenly we have this very large five iron golf. And then we also have these QR codes and a very dark black. And I would almost be, um, I'm not opposed to it, but I would almost prefer to see something that just had the full on, uh, design without the black or else for us to be very transparent and say, this is a sign. And it is an attempt to get more people in, which is completely fine as well. I just want to make sure that that's what we're identifying if that's used. I can

clarify. I've spoken with the applicant previously and worked with them to make sure that this fit our sign regulations. So aside from this, they would actually have to apply for a sign permit as well.

Okay. Thank you, Ryan. I don't have any concerns with the covering. I think it really is a real problem with this, and it's something that probably could not have been determined beforehand. without some extensive studies. So I feel for the applicants and think that we should come up with something. And I can also say that there's enough kind of foot traffic goes along there, myself included, that has found interest in looking in there. So I do like the idea of having an open strip down below. It piqued my interest, made me wanna go in and check it out simply because I saw people that were in there. So, I think that that's a benefit to everyone as well. Okay,

thank you, Susan.

First, huge apologies for being late. I thought I was going to Zoom and my computer didn't agree with me. So here I am. And this, I have no problem with this. One question I had though, again, trying to keep that open feel in the area, was window film or some type of tinting ever considered because that still lets in the daylight and everything else? Or was there not a product that's sufficient for a space like this? Because I mean, my little bit of research on it is that it does stop know glare and everything else and it would keep more in line with what i think the intent of our current um standards are so that's my question was tinting an option or do we have to go with a solid you know panels over those windows

I mean, I don't know if Dale can provide a little bit more insight than I am. The windows are, I believe, like triple pane tinted windows already. So there's not much glare protection for the direct sunlight that we've seen for the existing windows. I don't know that any further tinting would do any significant, you know, we really need something that would actually block the sunlight in this case. But I'll defer also to Dale because he would maybe know a lot more about window coverings than I would. So if he wants to give his opinion.

The window film comes in various percentages of light transmission. And it's my opinion that that it's not going to be opaque enough to block out the sunlight that is affecting the simulators. So I think the design that Carlton's artist has come up with is, it needs to be opaque to achieve blocking out the sunlight.

Dale, this is Steve, and I would agree with you. Over the years, I've dealt with a lot of tinted window, potential tinted windows, and also the type of vinyl coverings that has the little holes in it. In medical situations where medical equipment screens could not work except for fully opaque coverings. I think we're in a unique situation here that what we're looking at may be the only solution, whether we put the red band and the bottom band on or leave it for the future. But do we have any other hands up? No. Okay. Jim, I think you made a good point about taking both of those bans off and potentially incrementally working with it going to the future. My other concern is And Susan, I think you alluded to it. We like these windows to be clear so that the activity on the street level is visible from the outside. But I think it's a very unique situation here and we'd like to come up with a solution. And I think the only solution is to go with the opaque covering in this location based on all the drawings we've seen and whatever other Items we've come up with so I would feel that that would be the best to go with this even though it could be seen as setting a precedent for other lessees of Throughout our city. I would hope that we would not allow it to be a precedent that it's just a solution to a unique situation Other comments Any further

comment? No, I appreciate everybody's collaboration on this. Like I said, I'll leave it up to you if we wanted to do whatever option. I'm open to both of them. So whatever the board kind of says for us to do, Dale and I will proceed in that

direction. Besides the precedents that I've mentioned, Chris, you brought up the signage issue. You also have a sign that says Five Iron Golf above the windows, correct? Yeah. Okay. I think that needs to be considered whether two signs are appropriate or not.

So whenever I was working with the applicant on this signage, this property is a part of Forsyth Point, that PUD, which has a signed subdistrict. So everything that they're providing is reviewed against that and so far meets all of that criteria for the signed subdistrict

Thank you. No other comments?

I can... Just one additional point kind of off of what Chris was saying. I actually... I actually don't mind that this kind of operates as a sign because I believe with the graphic above five iron golf tying into the other panels that cover the windows, um, I think the panels that cover the window. Kind of blend in almost with the vinyl that goes over the vacant properties. So in tying this in, it makes it look like more of the space is actually being used instead of those are just possible spaces that could be rented. So, um, Once again, not 100% ideal situation, but I think there are some positives that come out of it.

Jim, I'd agree with you. I hadn't thought of that, but this does distinguish it from a vacant property. So the fact that it actually has this as a sign, and I know the sign review will be separate, but that is a very valid point that it does show that there is an occupant in there. And then having a little strip that lets people see in shows that it's a well-traveled space as well.

Any other comments? Now, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. We might be modifying that.

Okay. I move to approve as submitted With the understanding that the portion above the red band will be installed initially, and the portion below the red band will being installed if needed.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. You're on the way. When will we see it?

That's a question for

Dale. Let me get with my production team. We will do everything we can to help Carlton out with his project here, but thank you all for your understanding and we will get on it right away.

Well, good. In about three weeks, we'll have the lowest sun of the year. So as soon as you can get it, the better.

Sounds great, sir.

Okay. Thanks very much and good luck. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to new business. Now. The first item is 224 North Bemiston Avenue. And let's see. We know if any of them is anybody. Oh, Laura, are you with 224? North Bemiston? Laura, do you hear us? No. Okay. Is anybody representing 224, 228 North Bemiston?

Laura put her hand down and then put her hand back up.

Laura, you should be able to speak now. It shows that for us that you're unmuted.

Laura? Laura, do you hear us? Well, we can come back to this one. Can you

hear me now? Yes.

Yes. Are you representing 224-228 North Peterson? Yes.

I apologize. That's why I came on earlier to see if you could hear me at the beginning of the meeting, but I don't know what happened between now and then. But yes, I am here to represent that. Yes. Okay.

We'll get started with the staff report.

Okay, great.

The applicant is proposing the consolidation of 224 and 228 North Beamiston Avenue. 224 North Beamiston is developed with a single-family house, and 228 is developed with a duplex that is proposed to be demolished. Consolidation would result in a change to the side yard setback, which required the applicant to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a four-foot side yard setback variance. The Board of Adjustment approved this variance on November 6th. on the condition that the applicant apply for a demolition permit within six months of approval of the plat by the City Council. Staff are of the opinion that the lot is consistent with lots in the surrounding area in regard to size, frontage, and arrangement. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plat to the City Council with the following conditions. One, that the applicant update the municipality certification draft to replace references to Board of Aldermen with the City Council. Two, that update the south side yard setback shown on the plat to reflect the six foot setback. A four foot variance is required when the setback of 10 feet is approved, resulting in a minimum required setback of six feet. Three, the applicant shall provide a mylar for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements after City Council approval. Four, that the applicant shall file the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of filing to the city within 30 days of the City Council approval. And then five, that the applicant should apply for a demolition permit within six months of approval of the plat by City Council.

Okay, thank you, Ryan. Laura, do you have any comments?

No, I'm just here to answer questions if anyone has any.

Oh, I'm sure we do.

Okay.

What is the purpose of combining these two properties?

So the client that lives at, give me one second, just to 228. They're tearing down that home and they plan on building like a four car garage with some storage there. And the point of it is to, you know, make more green space, have more grass, you know, for an area for them to have a little bit of a backyard. But they the house on 228 is getting torn down.

The duplex is getting torn down at 228.

Correct. So the reason why, if you look at the plot that he has on the screen right now, the reason why we're not showing the current house on there right now is because we don't Just went through the variance application and we got approved for our variance. And now he's ready to move forward with the demo permit, which I will be submitting here shortly in the next couple weeks when I get all the plans together. But in the meantime... We need to move forward with the lot consolidation plot because they cannot design the plans that they need with the architect until we get the lot consolidation done. So

if the lot consolidation is approved, we would see a four-car garage on 228? Correct,

correct. There will be like a breezeway possibly attaching the house to the garage. They're still working out the details right now, but that will be submitted on the site plan that I submit for the demo permit.

And what would happen to that brick garage at 224?

Most likely that is going to be turned into storage. But I, you know, again, we need to get through all of our steps, but that is going to use for storage. The current, there is also parking right now in the current building in 224 and they're planning on using, turning that into living space also.

Okay.

So basically, they're going to be using everything on 224's residence as actual living space, and then they need room to park cars. And the brick garage that's currently in the back most likely is going to be used for storage.

Would they be removing the rear portion of the paved driveway that would be between the current garage and the brick garage?

Um, no, because I probably not because it's hard to know the answer to that right now. But probably not because, you know, like I said, they're still going to be using it for lawnmowers and, you know, that kind of storage.

Okay. Well, I certainly... I think I understand why you're going for the consolidation.

The city of Clayton is also requiring that we have a consolidation plot.

Yes, so that the ownership of the garage and the house would be the same.

Yes, correct. Because you can't just build a garage on a lot by itself.

No.

Yeah, we aren't requiring the consolidation. It's just if you consolidate, then the house that they plan to keep on 224 becomes your primary structure, so then they can have an accessory structure. If you don't consolidate, then any structure that they build to replace the duplex would have to fit our primary structure regulations in terms of use, setbacks, design, etc.

let's go around helen

no questions

susan

uh yeah looking at the criteria compatibility of lot size and density um promotion of creative approach to land use and everything else i i do have i do have some concerns having come off our comprehensive planning there was a you know There is quite an emphasis on multifamily housing being available in the city of Clayton, and the easiest way to have that, the most sound way to have that is to keep what we have and then see where we go from there. The other sentiment that I hear in the neighborhood all the time and all around is, again, keeping the older buildings as well. So I am concerned with taking down a duplex building for a four-car garage at this spot. It's based upon the feedback that we got through all that work.

Jim?

Yeah, just kind of parsing through everything. I mean, kind of what's before us right now is the consolidation of the two lots. I don't necessarily have a problem with the consolidation of these two lots. I will say, I think I think a four-car garage at that spot, I think, is going to be a higher bar once it comes to architecture review than perhaps you're considering right now. I think there's going to have to be a lot of creativity in the design of that for that to go forward. But on just the issue of consolidating the lots, I don't have an issue with that. Chris?

I have no issues with consolidating the plot. I have... significant issues with down the road. But for this particular motion, whatever it is to bring forward, no concerns.

Any hands

up? I mean, if it does help approximately, we know the proposed garage is going to be 60 by 30 feet. If That helps, and it will be the same. Of course, we'll be going through architectural review board also, but it will be matching the house at 224.

Okay, thank you. Having driven up and down that street a lot, the properties to the south of 224 have been vacant for about 15 years or more. the east side of North Bemiston. is beginning to look uninhabited right now if we allow the demolition on 228. I also have no objection to the lot consolidation, but I really have a lot of concern about what the land is to be used for. It seems like we are decreasing the amount of residential space and building non-residential space on a lot. It's just my comment. Any other comments?

Does anybody know, I'm assuming that the duplex, the building that you intend to tear down is occupied right now? No, it's

vacant right

now.

And supposedly in some kind of disrepair, which is why they're tearing it down.

Okay.

So they own... They're buying both 224 and 228. Both lots.

So the current owner of 228... is not purchasing 224 or vice versa, that

it is a new owner

that's purchasing both?

Yeah. It's a new owner purchasing both. And again, just like you would own a lot on your own land. They want to do their own design with more garage space. And that's his intent. He wants to have more garage storage. It's not worth repairing the house. At 228. And so that's why they are tearing it down. Again, some of these concerns you guys have and, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan, this will be brought up in the demo, the demo permit, correct? Correct.

So to provide a little bit of clarification on the background of this lot. So right now, both lots are owned by the same person. They're being purchased jointly from that same person. If they wanted to proceed with the demolition of that duplex, they could do so without having to go through this consolidation processing and review. So the steps they're going through is just the steps that we have guided them on to.

But with the consolidation, that's what enables them to build the accessory structure there, the garage there versus a primary dwelling, right?

Yes, yes. But plats are not contingent upon those additional steps. I mean, they've explained a lot about what their intention is, but that shouldn't have any bearing on your decision of a plat. A plat under Missouri state law is really a ministerial act. Does it meet the definite, you know, the the minimum standards of a plat in our case in our i understand there's been comments about losing residential we regulate our residential currently with minimum lot sizes that's kind of the standard of how we establish our density so our regulations are really set up to try and prevent over densify you know going the opposite direction of creating too dense of lots within a neighborhood compared to their character rather than somebody preventing somebody from consolidating multiple lots given the character.

So the only criteria we should be considering in the consolidation is whether it meets the size and everything else.

Right. Does the plat say the right things? Do they have everything they need included? Does it meet the minimum lot standards for our zoning district?

Thank you. So I think we have it clarified. We are just voting on whether to recommend approval to the city council. on the lot consolidation.

I make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council, including the five staff stipulations.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Again, my aye is on the understanding that it's meeting the qualifications and this is administrative. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. And for a garage of the size that they're contemplating, it will come through site plan and architectural review. So you'll be able to evaluate that.

Susan, certainly at city council, I know I would welcome questions, more questions. I hope they're prepared to speak more to the duplex of the situation and when it was last occupied and condition and all that kind of stuff. And I'll be interested to hear those answers.

Were there any negatives? Okay, got that right. Okay. Thank you, Laura.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to item two in new business and that's number three, Brentmore Park. And do we know if the applicant is there?

Yes. Riley? This is actually David Larson, landscape architect with Pointer. Okay.

Hold on. We'll start with the staff report. Okay.

Subject properties in the Brentmore Park subdivision with frontage along Brentmore Park and north into the north and why down Boulevard to the south. The applicant is proposing fencing in a secondary frontage along White on Boulevard, the fencing complies with the architecture review guidelines will be screened by vegetation, and it's like other fencing nearby along why down staff are of the opinion that the proposal will result in a minimal visual impact the staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay. David do you have any further comments.

No, no current comments. Just waiting for questions.

Oh, okay. On the site plan that's on the screen, I think I'm following the property line. Does the property include part of the garage in the upper left corner?

Yes, it's an interesting question. hybrid arrangement with the neighbor at five Brentmore.

Okay. Um, I see the two different types of fences. I had no problem with it. And I'm okay. Helen.

I have no problem. I think it looks

fine. I'm fine with it as well. No questions.

Jim? We've approved a similar fence in Brentmore that faces Y down. It's behind the vegetation line. I think everything's great. Chris?

Nothing further.

We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move to approve as submitted Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

opposed okay you're on the way thank you David excellent

thank

you all okay we have a guest in the audience are you here for a specific item oh we're coming to it okay uh we will now go into the text amendment It is a public hearing, so we will open the public hearing now.

Okay, I'm going to provide an overview of the stormwater regulation some you'll recognize from previous presentations and then I'll go into a little bit more detail about some of the sections that we have proposed. So one of the popular topics that came out of the comprehensive plan, especially when talking with residents in our various residential neighborhoods outside of downtown was stormwater runoff and lot coverage. So one of the key results included in the implementation matrix from the comprehensive plan is to develop a coverage reduction program that identifies innovative ways to reduce the amount of impervious coverage and promotes green infrastructure. And then under that are a number of other key results within our implementation plan that are kind of indirectly or directly tied to the concepts of stormwater runoff, stormwater management, and also just character of area and lot coverage. So as we started to tackle this key result, first we identified what are kind of the overall principles of lot coverage? Why is it something that we regulate? In our code today, we use kind of just a handful of regulations, especially in a residential district, to cover all of these principles within one or two lines. A big one being preserving open space, especially in residential neighborhoods, which directly leads to kind of the character, the well-being, the attachment to nature. etc. Then attached to that is the management of stormwater runoff. So by increasing the amount of green space, then that provides more opportunity for water to just naturally infiltrate into the ground rather than running off into our sewer systems. And then another side effect is reducing the urban heat island effect. So the more we can reintroduce the native, the grass and trees and plants and less kind of hardscape that we have, then that has been shown to reduce that ambient temperature of areas. And I think there's a few. I personally walk over the pedestrian bridge that cuts from Bemison over Forest Park Parkway into the Polo neighborhood frequently. And It's almost immediate that you can feel on the summer day once you get onto the other side of that bridge, onto the south side, how much cooler it is with the tree cover. So keeping those principles in mind, we took a look at what's happening in terms of development in our residential neighborhoods now. Looking at the development patterns, we see pretty consistently that new construction is going up to as much coverage as they can. And aligning with that are new developments that really maximize the actual footprint, the square footage of the house. Rather than before where you might have seen on some of our lots that have some of the older homes and subdivisions, they might still have a higher lot coverage overall. But there's a lot more of that that's dedicated to patios, driveways, decks, other features. Whereas now we're seeing it's really the most of the coverage on a lot is actually the footprint of the home. We're seeing a lot of directing of runoff into dry wells or pop-up emitters as opposed to just having that downspouts at the corners of your homes. Now people are intentionally collecting water and then letting that go at very specific points. And a lot of the stormwater management really comes down to that math equation and does it all work on the side of math rather than some of that really intentional stormwater management going back to some of those principles earlier. of what the natural features are so residents um during our comprehensive plan and just otherwise we have a lot of discussion with residents with developers with different people who are involved in the creating the built environment and we heard a lot of concern from residents about feed flooding so they're they're not only concerned about the actual loss of those homes and what's being built in their place but also what the runoff is doing. There is a lot of support through the comprehensive plan for more sustainable practices. How can we promote some of these other technologies that are available to people? And then overall, there was support for reduction, just general reduction in the amount of coverage that you would see on lots moving forward. And some of the resident feedback ties into other elements that we're reviewing right now with neighborhood character. When we think about the size of homes, heights, setbacks, all those other things that will come in following text amendments. So our initial conclusions looking across the general feedback across the city, as well as starting to dive into what's happening in different neighborhoods, we're really seeing that the code is not able to successfully tackle impervious coverage in terms of stormwater and green space all within one code anymore. The new technology materials, permeable pavers, the use of dry wells, all these other systems, they allow people to address just isolate that stormwater potential from lot coverage and address that without really addressing some of the natural vegetation, green space character impacts of those decisions and employing those tools. And then we've also seen that some of this can result in maybe areas potentially being more vulnerable to change as we look at those development patterns. And then on top of that, we know that there's a frequency of storms that has changed. So the frequency of those high intensity storms changes. is increasing the overall, according to NOAA, the overall amount volume of precipitation in our wet seasons and our spring is increasing. So the kind of the impact of those storm events and the way that we treat our smaller sites and our single family residential neighborhoods is greater. So how are we going to address this? Really at the heart of what we've proposed in this text amendment is separating out stormwater regulations and green space. So the first thing that we're doing is a lot of it is a narrative shift. So in our residential zoning districts, we're moving from the current regulation, which tells us a maximum lock coverage. We're just shifting that over to a minimum green space requirement so we can really clearly define what green spaces tie that to the development and the character that we want to see and have that definition. And then separately, we'll address stormwater runoff. So the goal here, we do this in a couple of different ways. One, we're increasing that minimum green space. So if we just flip the percentage from what it is right now with lot coverage, we would be requiring more green space for most of our residential properties. As you can see on the screen, there's a few. of our multifamily zoning districts where that minimum green space isn't really changing from what the code requires right now, but you can see the existing zoning districts are already providing less green space than required, so we're still trying to move up there. We're adding a hardscape mitigation incentive, which I'll go into a little bit more in the following slide, of 2%. Revising some of our urban design districts and how those incentives work with the placement of garages, and then also revising our definitions. So to get to the green space minimums that we've recommended, we started with an analysis of all of our zoning districts. Through the comprehensive plan, we have data that provides us with an estimate of the existing lot coverage of every parcel in the city. This was created really quickly. using aerial data and LIDAR. So it is an estimate. It's not a perfect, but it is an estimate for all the parcels. So we were able to analyze all of our different zoning districts. So this chart here shows you in the gray bars what the average existing green space on each lot is. So in the R2 district, your average R2 zoned lot has just over 50% green space currently. The red dot shows you what the minimum green space based on our existing code is. And then the blue X is what we're proposing to have the minimum green space be. And you might say, well, in some instances that X is above where your average is and in others it's below. And there's a few reasons for that. We took the next step of looking at just all basic zoning districts and we broke it down based on our neighborhoods and the zoning districts. So here, the lighter yellow is the R1. That's our largest lot single-family zoning district. And then as you go into the orange and the red, then you get into the multifamily zoning districts. The R7 zoning district is not shown on this. That only includes, I think... three or four parcels, I believe, something along that on Brentwood Boulevard. So the Bethesda, Barclay House, Park Tower. So the context of that zoning is pretty different from our other residential neighborhoods. That one, a lot of people would just kind of lump in with the rest of downtown. So we didn't have that one included. But here you'll see how some of our residential districts, like our larger lot, are ones. the average is much higher than what is actually required. So we are shifting the minimum requirement up to try and preserve that average. But you can see across zoning, across neighborhoods that have the same zoning, there is a bit of a difference. And we don't want to go so far in our zoning code to say every single neighborhood is regulated differently. That's part of why you have the larger zoning districts. So Carswold, Skinker Heights, those neighborhoods that are zoned R1, they have the lowest average amount of green space. So we kind of looked for some happy medium based on recent development patterns and existing conditions. In the R2 zoning district, you can see there's a really large spread from Tuscany Park and Polo, which have significantly higher average green space than when you go down to the high point in Old Town neighborhoods. An interesting pattern to note here, so within Old Town and Clayton Gardens, those two neighborhoods have our most highest concentration of teardowns and rebuilds. And both of those neighborhoods actually hover right at or just over the minimum green space now. So those neighborhood patterns have been changing. And with Clayton Gardens, that's covered by an urban design district. So that's why the Clayton Gardens here, the solid blue circle is up at 60%. And then you get incentives based on your garage that actually reduce that green space requirement. So what we've found within Clayton Gardens, it's been under an urban design district, but really the outcome of that urban design district and the intent of the lot coverage is more so tied to the character than it was to the actual lot coverage. So it's using that as an exchange. Most of the houses are meeting those incentive standards. I'll also note when we did this neighborhood analysis by lots, we removed lots that are zoned in our residential districts but are not used for those residential purposes. So, for example, places of worship, schools, Concordia, Wash U, all of their property that is zoned R1 and R2, we took that out so it didn't skew the equation. We also took out any vacant lots. So we only looked at the development patterns of the existing lots. The next one I want to touch on is modification to our definition section. So we've introduced a definition of green space. This is really at the heart of that narrative change, so we've made it very clear that green space is really tied to character and not tied to permeability and stormwater. So in the previous slide... Now that you know that green space, you can see that our proposed the plus signs in some cases are still below the average of the district. Well, this data is using LIDAR and also using our existing lot coverage definition, which provides a little bit more flexibility for people who have pools, decks and other features like that. So here in the new definition of green space, it's much more restrictive in terms of what we're going to count towards that minimum green space being that vegetated area or the area open to the sky above. And then we've introduced the hardscape mitigation feature. So this is one that we really had a lot of discussions about with one of our on-call engineering consultants about because it's trying to address that desire that came out of the comprehensive plan for promoting sustainable practices. However, we didn't want to go too far because there has been such a emphasis on the stormwater impacts. So we didn't want to create a hardscape mitigation that, again, fell back into that same pattern of just addressing potential stormwater impacts and became kind of an easy out. So we were very specific when we have this definition for hardscape mitigation feature to call out addressing more than just stormwater and call out specific types of systems that would qualify for mitigation. And these are systems that are going to provide more than just stormwater. So with permeable pavers and those systems, they've been shown to help with stormwater on a small scale, but they also hold less heat oftentimes than a traditional driveway material, so they can kind of work towards both urban heat island effect and your stormwater runoff. When we start adding rain gardens, those can add to the biodiversity and our habitat of our community and water runoff. So we try to choose some systems that are, one, appropriate for our residential neighborhoods and likely to be maintained moving forward, but also cover multiple aspects of why we have green space regulations in residential districts. So then what do we want to address with our stormwater? So now we have our green space kind of set up. What do we want to do with stormwater? We're really trying to address our peak flow rate, which is the speed of the water as it leaves the site. And that, the more impervious coverage you have, the faster that that water is going to pick up pace as it runs along it to leave the site. And then we also have the volume, the overall amount of water that is being created, the overall volume of water that's being created that will eventually leave the site. So with our stormwater regulations, it really comes down to trying to maintain or reduce the volume of runoff and manage our overland flow paths to reduce the impacts of that peak flow rate. So one of the things that we found looking through our development patterns talking to a lot of different residents who may have lived in their neighborhoods for a long period of time. There's a lot of discussion about, well, yes, the new houses, they might be bigger, they might look different, but they're also resulting in some cases very different overland flow patterns. So water is now leaving from a corner of a site that it didn't used to for the last 20 years the neighbor owned the house. They were used to water from a neighboring property coming from the south corner, but then now all of a sudden they have water coming from the north. So that change in what the overland flow pattern is, even though maybe it's not a really substantial amount of water, it's coming from a new spot, and so it has different impacts, right? So we're going to try to address that in a few different ways. The biggest one is that we're revising our differential runoff calculation from the 15-year 20-minute storm event to a 100-year 60-minute storm event. And I'll show how this actually works out in terms of numbers in a couple of slides, but really the idea here is that we are looking at storms that have a lower percent chance in a given year of occurring, but we're starting to see those types of storms happen more often. So we're trying to evaluate for that 60-minute period, which impacts the volume. And then kind of like what I was referencing before, ensuring our drainage area balance and directing our discharge away from downhill buildable lots. That's some language that is referenced within MSD regulations that we've kind of pulled at. So obviously there's going to be water issues. Because rain doesn't just happen on a roof, it's going to happen across every inch of the site. So water is going to run across all of the areas of a property. So how can we try and mitigate the potential impacts of downhill structures by helping to channel that water in different directions? And then again, how can we evaluate the potential patterns post-construction? One that we're also introducing is additional requirements to manage our discharge. So sometimes that's a downspout, sometimes it's a pop-up emitter, sometimes it's just some pump that just ejects water. So whatever that daylighting mechanism is, because MSD, without their permission, they don't allow you to direct connect to their sewer system. So there's going to be those daylight points within our residential properties. So having those separated from property lines, separating those from severe downhill slopes, impervious coverage, adding some of those erosion control. We also have some guidelines that really... encourage or in some cases require that you have multiple outflow points. So if you're attaching a sump pump and some roof collection, that you disperse that water across multiple output or daylight points as opposed to relying on one. We're recommending to increase the analysis that's required during the actual planning and design of the construction through site plan. So there's some elements of understanding where the water table level is, what's the soil type, and also directly pulling from MSD regulations. They have some reference to additional restrictions that basically MSD says You can't have below-grade garages that rely on pumps to pump the water out of that garage unless you meet their specific criteria. So that's something that we've just said we're referencing directly, that they have that higher standard. And then we have some guidelines for the design and maintenance of our sump pumps, our dry wells, and other infiltrations. So really understanding what potential impacts are when the water is intentionally being put back into the ground directly, so infiltrated into the ground, that's a dry well, or when the water is being pulled out of the ground, so like a sump pump, which is trying to draw the water away from a foundation. or something like that, and dump it on a different part of the site. And then we also have requirements for future maintenance and testing. So this outlines some of the forms that you saw at the end of the proposed regulations. Those are ways that people can report to us. So instead of requiring, if they have a dry well, instead of requiring that they get annual testing done by a third party, there is a testing form that could be used by a homeowner, and they can report that to the city. So those are our stormwater regulations. I'm going to use two examples to explain those numbers. So I know this is a lot on the screen. I pulled examples from different projects. So this is using the actual numbers from a single family house that was built in the R3 zoning district on just over 8,000 square foot lot. so on the left-hand column highlighted in blue that's the calculations for the 15-year 20-minute storm when this structure was actually torn down and the new one was built the middle in the orange is just changing the storm so we've we're recommending to go from that 15-year 20 minute to the 100 year 60 minute so that's showing you the change of just the storm and then the column on the right And with the green highlights, that's showing you the change when then we adjust for our green space minimum that we're adding. So looking at the left-hand column, just based on the existing regulations as they stand today, this home would be increasing the amount of coverage or decreasing the green space. So we'd go from 47% green space On the existing lot, to 45%. This change resulted in needing to capture 8 cubic feet, essentially. Or 0.006 cubic feet per second was the increase in the runoff. When we change to the different storm event, to a 60 year event, the actual rate of the runoff decreases based on that event size. However, the 60 minute event would essentially result in them having to capture onsite about twice the amount, that volume of water would then need to be infiltrated onsite. So the green space would go up, they have to catch about twice the water. The proposed regulations that we have where we look at that storm event plus our green space would actually result in an increase in green space because we would go from the 47% to requiring a minimum of 50%. So this would bump up. So it would actually result in a decrease in the overall differential runoff. So in this case, there's always some concern about changing the storm event and that resulting in a really large amount of water that people are needing to try and handle on their smaller sites. But when we pair that with our green space, we're actually kind of reverting back to the original way of less volume of water is just generally created because we have reduced stormwater. or sorry, reduced lot coverage. So this, the existing regulations, what was actually built required about eight cubic feet of mitigation. If they proposed that same house, went back and proposed the same project under the proposed regulations of tonight, they would have actually had to make changes to their site plan to reduce the green space, but they would not have had to do any detention. Another example here is a large addition. So this one was large enough to require site plan review rather than a teardown, and it was an R2 lot that was about 8,000 square feet. So you can see in this one the existing pervious percentage of the lot is 56%, and it was proposed to go down. So this one is actually decreasing the amount, so increasing impervious coverage. And that resulted in the need to collect, under a 20-minute event, 46 cubic feet. When we just changed the storm size to that 100-year 60-minute factor, again, it's about twice. So just doing the storm would require them to detain about twice the amount, the volume of water based on that storm. However, when we add into the green space adjustment, so now our new requirements, it reduces that capture volume back down. So it's still an increase in the capture from what it would be under our regulations today, but it's not so much that it becomes really burdensome when we look to continue to have people invest in their property and develop as trends change over time. So this was trying to show you guys an example of how the numbers work out so that we separated out our green space and our stormwater, but they still really work together to try and address these issues on single family and multifamily lots in a way that protects our neighborhoods, but also doesn't become overly burdensome.

Of course. Well, the first thing I wanted to say was thank you for getting this to us before Thanksgiving because it was quite a bit of reading to get through. But I must say the narratives were written in a very friendly way that some of us lay people could probably understand better. I think also the few graphics and the photographs that were in there really helped. And I hope as we go further, we'll have more graphic representations in all of our building codes. One thing I noticed going through all the different zoning codes was basically the purpose and the intent seemed to repeat in there. It changed sometimes by a certain percentage in various places. But I saw a process, as you were just showing us in the examples. So I think that really helped. But of course, there are always some questions. The incentives for rear side or detached garages, currently we have a 5% reduction. But at times I think I'm seeing a 2% reduction in there. Have I misread

something? The hardscape mitigation feature incentive is proposed at 2%. Within our existing urban design districts, that's where there's a 5% based on your garage location.

Okay. Only in the urban design district.

There was another line item just in your general zoning district that allowed... It wasn't really an incentive. It wasn't attached to anything other than them making a case to you for just cause as the plan commission to increase the coverage. And so what we've tried to do instead of having... you know just that general language of the just causes tie it more directly back to the codes that we were evaluating so you probably saw some reference to that and which makes it a little confusing so that would have been in just your base r1 r2 districts and then again you would see that five percent in your urban design districts

okay that clarifies that um in chapter 410 Article 7, 410.350, total lot green space. It says a minimum of 60% of the total lot shall be covered by green space. But then it said... Lots zoned R4 in Clayton Gardens. Oh, that's a design district. Okay. Just answered my own question. Okay. I was going to answer a lot of them.

Yeah, this wasn't the easiest red line markup to read back and forth. And Susan did catch a typo on one of the pages. So thank you, Susan, about the green space. But hopefully, next step will be for us to go back and format our residential districts like we are with the commercial districts. So it'll be a little bit easier to compare. But This is just this only adjusted items related to coverage and stormwater.

All my others had that discrepancy that I didn't realize. But on Article 10, Section 410.560, it mentions the Westwood Corridor, which is also a design district. But there, in looking at Google Earth, toward the south end of Westwood on the west side, we have several properties that have a much deeper property than at the northern end. And those properties have like internal green spaces. In fact, I think your cover photo may have had one of those on it. And I didn't really understand... Is there any value to that green space not being part of the front?

Yeah, I think that's a good question. There's a lot of elements of that nature within all of our urban design districts. Within other pieces of the Westwood Corridor that we haven't amended, that U-shape for those lots, essentially you can build – your setbacks can change and other things can change when you build with that courtyard. So what we did here was try to address that courtyard or just address lot coverage, not going into the incentives within the form. It was just looking at the coverage. But that is definitely an element of the Westwood corridor that we will – want to when we get to that urban design review, address or evaluate? Yeah.

Okay. What in reading the stormwater controls, and seeing what you've been showing us, they are much, much stronger than we've ever been dealing with. Obviously, it's a way to go. But I was wondering, in looking at that, in fact, not just the stormwater, but the entire package in the zoning regulations and the stormwater, have you had any comments from developers? Yes.

Not really. They know about it. We had a couple of engineers ask some questions about how we might calculate it, but I haven't received any direct requests at this point. But it might be that after the first hearing, they'll speak more.

Well, I really think we're on the right direction water table was labeled all the way through this. Yeah. Do we have a standard water table or does it fluctuate?

Yes, it will fluctuate and it will fluctuate during the seasons and it will fluctiate based on your location.

So then it'll have to be tested in every case, I would assume. Yeah, and

that's one where earlier drafts went a lot more strict and prescriptive about water tables. And that was something that with intuition logic we discussed really trying to find a balance between, again, being overburdensome. And protecting everything. So that one is something we'll monitor in order to really truly determine the water tape, the average year round, they would need to do multiple borings on a site. during different times of year. So we tried to balance a little bit of at least observing what water tables are when excavation is occurring. So if they're going to excavate deeper, then we're gonna make them look a little bit harder at the water table. Or if they put in a sump pump, part of our inspection will look to see if they hit water when they're installing that pump. Those types of things, as opposed to making everybody have to do the multiple bore and testing requirements.

I think that was the bulk of the questions of which I answered them myself after hearing your comment. Oh, before I go, we have these... checklists at the back, infiltration test procedures, stormwater facility observation. Are these all new?

Yes, those are new. So these are based off of working with Intuition Logic. They gave us examples of forms that they use. MSD has similar forms. There's kind of best practices. So we pulled based on the types of systems and the types of testing that we might want to do, we kind of pulled the best of those different ones. And this is another one where the goal is to require somebody to be spending the time to really go through this process. So if it's a brand new house, we will expect the civil engineering package to complete these. But if it's just a homeowner who's putting in a pool or doing something else, This provides an avenue for them to certify or their contractor to certify additional testing and maintenance and provide that to us without, again, getting to that whole other level of expense for people.

So then do you foresee any pushback with these

checklists? No. I really hope not. Um, they're, they're used very similar versions are used all over our region and all over the country. So they really shouldn't, I think I would anticipate other aspects to probably create more pushback than, than these forms.

Well, I think it's a Herculean task that you're working in. And, uh, so far, uh, It looks like it's working very well. I think it's becoming a little more clear tonight than it was over the weekend, so I thank you, but let's go on. Helen?

Okay. I like the use of green space versus impervious pervious. I think green space is easier for most people to understand and It's just, I think, more logical. And I like the positive. We're looking for green space, not no paving, no this, no that. It's got a positive focus. That noted, could you explain the first sentence of the definition of where it says an area designed and maintained for landscape, planting lawn or vegetation supporting natural or cultivated growth that has not been compacted. What would compaction look like in that situation? Further down, you do mention about getting into gravel, that kind of compaction.

Yeah, so that was a term we added in there because, and this kind of leans back into stormwater a little bit. When you start really getting in the weeds of soil types and stormwater protections and all of those others, there's a really large emphasis on how the surface level of the land is treated during construction activities. So what we didn't want to happen was somebody to use, you know, use an area where they're compacting the soil so it is not really loose and providing that natural growth. And then they just put sod on top of it, you know, so that we tried to. cover a lot of different bases within that definition of green space and tried to keep it less wordy. But that's really why we included that reference to compaction is because of the practice of if that is an area, let's say you're building a new house and that is an area that's used for the staging of materials or other things that might result in the lower areas being compacted, then there needs to be some sort of pretreatment before you landscape that and make it back to its green space area.

Okay. Now, I thought that might be it, but I wasn't sure. The other thing, within the stormwater control section, I think we need a definition or just... the words, what does BMP mean? I think for a lot of people, in a way people reading it, it might mean a whole lot of things or it doesn't make sense. And I know where you referenced MSD, you put in the full title and then in parentheses, MSD. I think if something similar could be done.

Yeah, we can definitely add that in the first one. There is already a definition for BMP in chapter 430. So I just built up, used that existing reference rather than making another one. But I'll make sure that in the section we've changed that somewhere we add in that spelling out first. Sure.

Now, I think you've done an amazing job and Just the detail is incredible. So thank you.

Susan,

it's really impressive. And I at least think I understand it also. Thank you. It seems like it's it has teeth and It's accessible to people and it's very transparent exactly what's being required. And that's great. I'll start with this question. When you were showing the charts in the beginning, and for example, of course, I look at Clavarack Park, which is because I live there, and the current green space is above what the target will be. But I think you then said it's because that currently counts pools and decks and things like that. So do you think that once that's adjusted, we're going to be right around that target spot, or do you think a lot of the neighborhoods will be further off than that chart is showing? Does that make sense?

Yeah. I mean, I think it's going to vary based on the neighborhood. So some of the neighborhoods that have more pools, but yes, the, the green space once, or if this new definition of green space is approved and that's how we modify, then those numbers would shift. because of how that analysis was run. And it's also very much an estimate, because a lot of our neighborhoods have a lot of canopy coverage, which makes making estimates off of LIDAR and aerial imaging a little bit difficult. So there is an element of error to those numbers, which is why we didn't try and target 52.6% or something. We're keeping it within those round numbers. And then as I mentioned, across the range of neighborhoods that are all zoned R2, you have a pretty big... Range there. So we tried to find a happy medium that we felt still protects that average character of the, of the districts, um, taking into account some of those development patterns. So I do think in some of the areas like Clavarack park, that number of wood shift, there's a lot of, um, homes that have pools. There's a lot of decks, other things that we will calculate more strictly moving forward under the proposed regulations than we've, than we do currently.

I don't think any neighborhood wants to see their green space target go down. Right. So that's great. Then, you know, reading through this, when you talk about things like, for example, the below grade garages discouraged unless the block already has 51% of them. And I just wonder going through here if we want to be – Should that be a higher percentage? Should we make it both to preserve existing structures, so your grandfather then if you have it, but is it a higher standard before you can build that versus 50%?

Yes. I mean, you're hitting exactly what you want to do when you talk about incentive zoning. So any kind of incentive. And so in this case, we provided that little incentive for your hardscape mitigation program. to try and promote that. So the elements that you're talking about that relate back to some of the form, especially in our urban design districts, that's absolutely one of the next steps after we finish our initial review of all of our neighborhood characters. We'll look back against that. So we didn't go into a lot of the form detail, but in the comprehensive plan, we did hear from people the idea of potentially supporting maybe half stories or other elements that still allow for the trend of people wanting to have larger square footage within their house, but reducing their coverage. Similarly, we'll evaluate the garage placement. Also on the list that Ryan has been talking about is finished floor heights, roof lines, all those types of things that go a little bit more into the form. But we will introduce incentives related to some of that form and design in the future.

And then going to what you asked about the compact. I wondered about is it rooftop gardens you're talking about that are on a harder surface or are they allowed new they count as green space if someone does something like that.

Right. So the rooftop garden would only count up to the hardscape mitigation. So if you had a minimum of 50 square feet, then you could request for that hardscape mitigation, that additional 2% or reduction of 2% in your green space in exchange for it. But it is capped. So you could have your entire roof be a green roof, but... if the roof exceeds 2% of your lot, then you're kind of capped there. But the other element that it goes more towards is the compacting where people essentially create patios by compacting their green space, you know, so you can kind of clamp it down and then it essentially acts as a bed. So that's really more, we were just trying to make it really clear that green space should be this, the natural vegetative area and zoning is difficult to write definitions that catch everything. And we'll, I'm sure we'll have back and forths of interpretations and other things that happen as people develop it. But that was what our intent was.

Yeah, and it just shows just how thorough and how much you all have thought about this. I think that's great. And then the last thing is kind of with the enforceability part of it. Section 430-130, it talks about failure to maintain practices. And upon receipt of notice, the responsible person shall have a reasonable time given the nature and extent of the failure. I wondered if you wanted to have something where as determined by you or 30 days unless otherwise agreed or something that give you something to hold on to and move around, a little more control on that, just something to think about.

Yeah, I mean, I think it is because we have that discussion and that's actually a line item that... Stephanie, our city attorney who's online, um, pulled up. It's kind of nice to have a little bit of that flexibility, um, the way that, that the recommended wording is from Stephanie, I think because, um, for certain really significant light, you know, something that's creating a life safety issue or public health issue or something, we might need to expedite their deadline to resolve them. We also have the minimum based on the state that we have to give somebody to abate issues. So it just provides that flexibility for our code enforcement team. to value it the same way that they do for other measures. Yeah. And

I, and I like that. I'm just wondering if you want to start with something that you can then vary from.

Yeah. I'll let Stephanie build on that. Okay.

Thanks. Yeah.

And the phrase, um, the reasonable time is actually taken from the state statute on when we go in and, um, uh, we need to abate or we need to order the property owner to abate, you know, public health issues. Um, and so, um, There you take a look at the nature and extent of the violation or the failure to maintain. And it's not all going to be the same. I guess what you could say is, you know, not to be less than 10 days because that has a statutory basis. It's 10 days or a reasonable time. And so if it's something that's very extensive, you have to give them longer than 10 days. you know, we could do that. We could say, you know, not less than 10 days and, um, but give them a reasonable time based on, um, the nature and extent of the, of the failure. Thanks.

I'll echo everyone else's thoughts that, uh, it's definitely very comprehensive. Um, at the same time at the, uh, makes it a little more difficult for us than what we have currently. It's a little difficult to put our arms around and, you know, just trying to think through all the different scenarios and everything, but I think it addresses everything pretty well. I was curious just so I can understand with this switch over to the focus on green space, clearly we're getting rid of calling something, you know, a little impervious, like a pool, a deck, a patio or something like that. Is there anything, not anything, but what would we typically see now that would not be called green space that maybe doesn't fit into that pervious, impervious? Like I'm saying, what new categories does this maybe open up, at least that you guys have considered?

Well, my hope is that it actually closes some of the interpretation gaps that we have, because currently we have a very clear definition for impervious, which is especially in the field of zoning and engineering and land use law. You know, there's a specific definition. for impervious that people have versions of. But we've kind of added on to that impervious with percentages that we apply to pools and water features and percentages that we might apply to a deck and percentages that you might apply to permeable paver systems. And so instead of trying to figure out what's the appropriate percent of the partially impervious, impervious stuff. The goal in switching to green space is, again, making it really clear that even though some of these items like a deck might allow for some water to seep through them and then infiltrate in the ground like normal, we're not considering that green space. So my goal is that we actually will result in more transparency. However, I'm sure that there will be somebody who will come through and think of some element of a loophole, and that's what we'll have to use our – Ryan will have to use his professional planning expertise to interpret that when it comes before us.

No, I think that's actually a really good way to think about it. I'm sitting here racking my brain saying by switching to green space, what are we opening ourselves up to when you're presenting the counteroff or kind of closing maybe some of these pain points that we've had in the past that I think we've all seen. With the hardscape mitigation features, looking through all those, it seems like with the inclusion of pervious pavers in there, it would seem that the other mitigation strategies would have a lot more benefit than pervious pavers. I would have a little bit of a concern with that in kind of like how we've discussed with height mitigation, how there's some easier ones to reach and some harder ones to reach, and people just automatically go to the easy one. I could see people putting a lot of pervious pavers into projects, and certainly, I think what you spoke to for the heat island effect, how that could definitely work that, but I think we've had presentations and stuff talking about the actual effectiveness of pervious paver, and I would be a little concerned to take any action that would greatly increase the amount of pervious papers that we see in our projects and how effective that would be in the behavior that we're trying to target. Just a thought that I have. It was also, I saw something I was just curious. It said back on Donut section, but I, but drywall and below-grade infiltration BMP design guidelines that says drywalls are not the preferred method for stormwater mitigation. That kind of caught me off guard because it seems like are drywalls just typically the best thing that we've been steering people towards or are there a lot better options and maybe some of these hardscape mitigation features are pushing people to something greater than drywalls or can you expand on that a little

bit? Yes, there's actually a lot of... there's a lot of people, especially when we talk to MSD, who would say that dry wells should not be used in our environment, our urban environment. But they are because we have, in our areas, we have these detention requirements on very small lots, and that's a way to meet the math equation. So we recognize that that's a very – obtainable way for people to address stormwater but we're also seeing the side effects of when that isn't done correctly so that's where we're kind of trying to balance we don't want to just say absolutely no flat out no to dry walls within the city but we are in we're raising the bar like you you know like you've said for other projects It's not our preferred method. So therefore, if you're going to deploy it, you have to meet a higher level of design criteria to show that it's going to function properly. And that's kind of how with our discussions with MSD, a lot of the new house projects, since we see really on a true infill level of a house here and a house there, Through MSD, they're not hitting their radar of this entire subdivision. The lot sizes are too small to really meet those minimums. So the threshold that they would really detail review a drywall that's proposed on other projects, our projects aren't meeting that requirement for them. So we're trying to then instead raise our own internal bar. So that's where... I think it's pretty blunt the way we've worded it, but that's our goal. Yes, the bluntness

took me. Yeah, I commend you on this because I think it's a very difficult job to try and thread the needle in what we're trying to do in the sense of this is clearly a concern. How do we tighten these regulations but also not make development onerous? And I think you've gone out of your way to show that this certainly is a tightening, but the actual numbers, if you look at the numbers are not that far off just how we mitigate changes. And I think by encouraging better practices, we probably see a better effect than simply, like you said, trying to math our way out of this. Cause I think we see a lot of, a lot of people just trying to math their way out of it. So, It's big, it's bulky. I'm sure some questions will come of it because we're introducing a lot of detail that we don't necessarily have, but I think it's a welcome discussion. I think it's heading in the right direction.

Chris?

Anna and Ryan, I think it's great work that you've done. I love the narrative shift. the idea of moving from that lot coverage maximums to green space minimums. I just like the positive spin on that. It's just great. It sends the right message. I do wonder about the impervious material in terms of clay. I know that in my own yard and Clayton Gardens, I've wanted to add more green space in some areas and I get down six inches and I encounter clay. It seems like so much anecdotally of Clayton is built on clay. and a lot of the backyard is sod that was laid on clay, and we have a terrible time trying to get it to grow. How do we go about dealing with that when a homeowner wants to build and the square footage of their home is such, and then they say, well, we're going to have all of this as green space, and the intent is there that they want to have green space. However, the substrate, everything is just compacted out of no fault of their own. What's the best practice going forward? What do we do in that case?

Yeah, it's a question that I think will probably be more eloquently answered by an engineer who could tell you more of those details. But the way that we're trying to address that is, again, through some of the soil testing requirements. So it's never going to be perfect, but somebody who puts a dry well in clay, that dry well is never going to function. So having stormwater runoff sheet flow across 50, 100 square feet of grass, even if the grass is not the best grass that you can get, it's still going to be better in terms of the dispersion from that sheet flow than it will be from a not functioning dry well where everything comes up through a central isolated pop-up emitter. And so I think that's one of the discussions that we've had with, with our consulting engineer about is how can we try and design better knowing that we're going to reach that at some point and, and would rather have somebody know they can't use a drywall and try to do some amended soils or a rain garden or some other element that would address it because that's the condition of their lot.

Perfect. Thank you.

We have someone in the audience. Would you have some comments? Please come up and talk into the microphone.

Give us your name also. John Herbert. I was listening to your discussion about the green space requirements there, and you mentioned the lots in the R7 district. I own the only undeveloped lot in the R7 District. Are you saying that they're not going to be applicable to the R7 District?

It would be. It's just the R7 District is the only zoning district that we actually proposed reducing the green space.

Oh,

okay. Yeah. So in terms of your calculations and other things, but yeah, just a little bit different for your impacts. I'm sorry. I hadn't even

read this until you mentioned it, but how is it going to impact those lots?

Yeah.

Sorry. No. That's why we're here.

Okay, so in the R7 here, the average green space on a lot is just over 10% in our existing R7 lots, so very low. The requirement as of right now is actually for 45% green space. We've reduced that to 40% under the proposed regulations. But the R7 district, the reason I put that a little bit as an asterisk is because that's a district that I think is in need of additional analysis beyond stormwater. So I wasn't, based on the stormwater that we were doing just on average lots, it wasn't ready to wipe it for the R7 district. But I do think that's a district where there's some significant discrepancies between how the actual built environment and what our zoning code is requiring. And I think this is just an example of one of those elements. So for you right now, the only thing that would really change under the proposed regulations is that the minimum green space would actually be reduced for that lot. But then all of the calculations that we have discussed about how you might calculate your differential runoff, et cetera, would be the same as every other residential lot.

That's actually a big improvement from when I was a kid. I lived over there and All those lots in that R7 district were basically a glorified landfill. Okay, thank

you. I'm looking at the zoning map. Is R7 along South Brentwood? That's the only location? Yeah. Thank you. Were there any other hands up? No, no. Okay. Further comments? Well, we do have a staff recommendation. We're holding the public hearing and recommend approval to the City Council.

I move that we recommend approval of the proposed tax amendment to the City Council. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Great work. We appreciate it. Also, it was made to be understandable. And I think that'll help us going forward greatly. So... We will close the public hearing, and that will take us to the end of our agenda for tonight. But let's see. Chris, do you have any further comments?

Happy Thanksgiving belated to all of you.

Thank you. We still have food left over. Jim? No additional comments.

Susan?

No.

Happy belated Thanksgiving. Nothing more.

Brian?

Nothing further?

Oh, no. Nope. Thank you for all of you guys actually thoroughly rereading all of these things. It helps to get some other eyes and good comments and feedback on this and the commercial land use and the other text amendments that will be headed your way in the course of the next year. So I appreciate it.

I'm sure that once it's in place, we'll have more questions as real situations come up. I think so. Stephanie, any further comments? I

have nothing further.

Okay. Well, thank you. Okay. We'll see everyone in two weeks on the 15th.

So

thank you very much.