April 20, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for April 20th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichterfeld? Here. Helen DeFayette?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Blair Kweskin?

Jim Arsenault? Here. Clark Weskin?

Here.

Jeff Morrisey?

Jeff Morrissey?

Here.

Susan Buse?

Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on March 30th. Are there any changes? I

had one comment. They had agreed and agreed again at the council table that everything would be, the property would be dark sky compliant.

Good. Let's hear that. But that doesn't change our meeting minutes.

Yeah, I think it's good. Exterior lighting shielded everything else. It's a little bit higher stand, but close enough that I think the minutes are probably fine.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted with Susan's comment.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, this is the time for the open forum. If anyone has a question or comment on anything that is not on tonight's agenda, please come up and hopefully you've signed in beforehand. Any hands up? No? Hearing none, we will move on to The business matters for tonight, starting with new business. Item one is 7645 Wydown Boulevard. Is the applicant here? Okay, we'll start with the staff report.

The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for a 2,200-square-foot restaurant on the subject property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Wydown and Hanley. The property has a zoning designation of M1 and formerly housed Starbucks. The proposed hours of operation for the new restaurant are 7 a.m. to 1 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and would be closed on Sunday. It would include roughly 45 interior seats and 12 exterior seats. Five employee parking spaces are proposed. Deliveries would be made in the morning via the adjacent alley. The restaurant would use the existing recycling and garbage pickup services. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CEP to the City Council as submitted.

Okay, come on up. Introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Matt

McGuire. And you are from? Wrights on Y down and Box Hill Grocery on Y down and Louie on the Mun.

Okay. Anything

to add? So, yeah, we're hoping to use the former Starbucks space for coffee and like a traditional cafe in the morning from 7 a.m. till 2 and then the evening we want to do pizza and like a, you know, like a small Italian bar in the center of the space for evenings, Monday through Saturday. Okay.

Well, we're excited to have you come in there. We certainly know you throughout Clayton. And to have that heavily used corner back in operation is terrific. But of course, we always have some questions. Delivery is, of course, through the alley. But I believe... you have to go in and out the front door. Is that correct? I don't see a back door there.

There is. So, um, there's a back alley where the trucks can go and there's a basement that you would basically they use dollies to bring it in the basement. And my understanding was Starbucks would bring it up the stairs into the space. Okay. The one stair.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Um, What about

Sunday? Oh, being open Sunday? Yes. I should probably stay open to that idea. I just never work Sunday, and I've always said that if I'm not willing to do it, I can't ask someone else to do it. So all the places are closed on Sunday. But, yeah, it probably would be something to consider for the neighborhood for sure.

Because you're really only asking for Monday through Saturday.

Saturday, correct.

And I think you've just answered, you would have downtime between two and five.

Yeah, the idea is that the service model would change a little bit. So that would allow us to redo it. I think people are just so used to coming into a coffee place, ordering their coffee, sitting down wherever they want. And then at night, I think we're going to have to organize people differently, meaning have a host and seat people separately. The idea is I'd like to take less reservations in the evening to kind of stay more open for spontaneous. Rights has been such a structured thing as far as reservations only that it's only 36 chairs, so it sort of makes it tough that way.

Well, you'll have more chairs here. A

few

more, yeah. That's it for me right now. Ellen?

I don't have any questions except when do you expect to open?

Oh, I would love to open in October if we can really hustle. And the place is cleaned and gutted and tidy. But once we start construction, hopefully with any approvals, I would love try to make October.

Sounds good.

Jim? As someone who lives in a wide-own adjacent neighborhood, obviously very excited. And you've done a great job with the spaces that you've inhabited up to this point. Thanks. So my only question, and this is more of a curiosity, is around the parking. And just to be clear, I don't think the area should have any structured parking or anything like that. Obviously, before with this being a Starbucks, this was a space that is not at use at night and you're aware of the parking challenges in the area. Oh, yeah. Now that you're operating basically three of those spaces and more of that burden falls on you, I guess, or on your customers, have you ever explored... Since there's clearly a parking agreement with the church, have you ever explored like a valet model or anything? Because I can tell you it's a sport also when you sit in those front seats at rights and watching some people try and parallel park over and over again or

wait for a spot. There's something unique about the curvature of Y-Down right there. It makes it really hard for people to figure out where the curb is. We watch it all the time too, and it doesn't go well. Yeah, I think it's something to consider. And I also think we have to take Lindsay at the church up on moving. We have some of our employees that pay for monthly. But if we took all of our employees and move them over to, I mean, that's a huge parking deck over there at Central Christian that we should probably make it mandatory that all of our people go there regularly. Because, yeah, those employee cars add up for sure. Like a good portion of our people do use it. I use it. And it's a pretty nominal yearly fee that they charge in the school. And they do a criminal background check because of the school part of it, but it's not a big deal. But yeah, it's a concern that I think we should... If it becomes a problem, I think valet would be our only option. Other than making sure all of our employees are not on the street or because there's in that in the lot there, if you do a topographical view of it is a lot of employees that are going to all the businesses up and down Y down for sure.

Yeah, I know that it's very popular and lots of people want to go there. And I know from probably a city perspective, and I'm sure your perspective as a proprietor, you wouldn't want someone to circle three times and get frustrated and run off. Knowing how finicky people in St. Louis can be about parking if it's not right in front of where they're going. 100%. So I just didn't know if any more of that had been explored or if... if there's anything more that can be done, but that's, uh, but I appreciate that.

Yeah. Yeah. I, yeah. We like to say everything's our fault, no matter if it is or it isn't. So yeah.

Yeah. Yep. That's all I have. Thank you. Chris.

I'm thrilled. I'm really looking forward to it. I've been watching that corner for such a long time. So it's an empty and, uh, I can't think of better tenants to do something exciting with it. So thank you so much.

Later.

Hi, I'm also thrilled as somebody who is a huge fan of your restaurant. I was really, really happy to see this. I spent the late 90s working in this building and it is a tough, you know, getting thing, getting deliveries and getting things in and out of that building. So props to you because it is an amazing location.

It's a great corner.

Yeah, I mean really thrilled to see something going back in there. Really my only concern was the lack of Sundays and seeing that that is such a hub of a corner that having that there would be, I would assume, be a really big business.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And a great meeting spot for everybody. Lack of reservations. I'm super excited.

Yeah, we're trying to answer that right. Because I pitched the idea to various people, like if we did no reservation. And then I got the response of like, you mean to tell me if I looked for parking? And then I walked up there and, you know, and I said, okay, so maybe half and half. I don't know. Yeah.

Well, and I mean, even with Louis, you're sort of model going away from that. So it's, it's, there's a weird thing that

happens in the mind where it sort of, it all sort of works out and I don't know how, but

yeah. Yeah. So super excited.

Good. Thank

you. Thank you.

Jeff.

Yeah, I agree with the group. Great to see the corner reused. And I'll echo Steve's comments about delivery. I just remember it seemed like Starbucks was always delivering through the front door, through the side door, pulling the box truck up and stopping it on the street. So

100 percent, you're not

doing that.

It is what you let your vendors do. Like so we take deliveries at rights in the back because it's easier for us. but they would prefer to go through the front door. It's easier, but yeah. So it just becomes

kind of a traffic issue.

Yeah. A hundred

percent.

Those

trucks are big. Right. But nothing else. Great project. Good.

Susan.

As somebody who's, it's always the last minute. Should we go get something to eat? I love that. No reservations. Yeah. Yeah. And I can walk over to the, the, I also appreciated hearing some of your philosophies on business just in these few comments you've made, and it certainly shows in the success you've had and how wonderful your restaurants are. As a Ward 2 Councilperson, I am so happy to have an answer. The number of times I'm asked when that corner is going to be activated again is crazy. Yeah. We'll look forward to having our next...

It's a great building. Yeah. I mean, it's a beautiful building.

Yeah. We look forward to having And then finally, with this restaurant, with all your restaurants, I hope that you consider the Green Dining Alliance that the city supports and helps fund the cost with that. You'll stick her in the window and all that. Not that you necessarily need more recognitions, but it is something I hope that we can do more. I haven't

met with them in a while. I think it's worth meeting with them for sure. It is a challenge as far as where all their gear goes. So, yeah.

Yeah, just looking at that to help with composting or whatever it might be, that would be great. And the only final thought that I have is that we do get concerns from neighbors in that area, primarily on the south side, but just with the restaurant, the trash, the recycling, things like that, and capacity. And are you comfortable with the capacity that you're going to have for –

Uh, yeah, I think it, well, I don't want to say that jinx myself, but I think it might be easier. It writes, we are, we have trash pickup every single day, uh, except for whatever day that, uh, waste management doesn't pick up. But I, I think Monday through Monday through Friday or Monday, we literally the truck comes every day because we're bound by two smaller dumpsters. So we have to pick up every day. Um, and, uh, I would love a solution that if we could work with somebody in a company, you know, because most of it is boxes. You know, I mean, what fills the dumpster is cardboard boxes. I mean, they have a recycling program, but I don't trust waste management really does anything except for throw it away.

That's too bad because boxes should be the

easiest one. It's the only thing, honestly, that is recyclable. I mean, truly, I learned that from Green Dining Alliance. Plastic, we've been lied to.

Great.

I

can't wait. Thank you. Thank

you very much.

Any comments from the audience? Please come on up, identify yourself, and speak into the microphone.

Hi, Karen Fairbank. I live on Forest Court, so I share the alley with the Wrights and Box Hill. And the biggest problem we have, not just the parking, because it's horrible. I mean, everybody parks on a street and leaves their litter, but it's more the deliveries. I know you've really tried to get your deliveries, but they park in the middle of the street. They block the driveway. They block the top of the street. They go the wrong way up the street. They don't deliver where they should be delivering. There really isn't any good place for them to park. If they back into the driveway, we can't get out of our garage. So I'm not confident about what will happen at Starbucks either or the new one, Gigi's. But I don't know what the answer is. I mean, maybe the parking lot at the top of the streets that the city owns would be a good place for them to pull in. And I also wonder if that's a good parking place. I don't know how many meters are available there for customers. And after five o'clock, it's free anyway. I don't how well it's publicized that people could park there. I think a lot of them think it's a A private lot. But that's really close to where all the restaurants are. And if people park there more at night, that would also relieve. I don't know how you publicize publicize that, but it would be really useful to have that. And certainly, I mean, I actually had to rent an extra spot at the garage at the end of the street because there's no parking for my visitors on the weekend. because all of the spots are taken by restaurant customers. So if anybody wants to come visit me, there's no place for them to park. So, um, I actually have to pay for an extra parking spot, even though I have my own parking spot in the garage. So parking is definitely an issue. And that's one of the reasons Starbucks left was because they said there was no place for mobile orders for anybody to drive up and just park. So I'm really I'm really concerned about the parking and I'm really concerned About the delivery. I really want them there. I mean, I'm not objecting to it at all. I'm really excited. I know the school kids will be disappointed that you're not open. two to five um but other than that i mean i think it's it's great that it's going to be there but the delivery issue is really bad and um the uh and it's dangerous because if people are turning onto that one-way street and there's a truck that's coming up the street it's it's really scary sometimes um so that and the additional parking issue would be be something

Thank you. Thank you. Well, we of course are looking at the CUP for Gigi's Cafe and you've already said deliveries would be from the alley behind Yes. Yeah.

I'm pretty confident that that's what was happening before. But you're not, you're not meaning I was told that, but you're not wrong. We can't train our delivery people to go where we want. It is, it is a, you know, it is part of, it's part of having, I think, I don't know if there's eight or nine businesses on right now, there might be more, but you know, it's part part of the thing. We have to do a better job training our, delivering people to do what we want.

I think it would be appreciated by the neighborhood.

I definitely are for

sure. Any other question for you? I'm just curious, in that case, I know it's out of the purview of our board here perhaps, but how does that actually get handled when there's something that seems like it's more of a I don't know if it's a police issue or if it's a zoning sort of issue. How does something like that get handled when there's flagrant, I guess, disregard for the standards?

I think we'll defer to the staff.

Yeah. Well, if the vehicle is blocking traffic or parking illegally, then our parking enforcement or police officer can write them a ticket for what they're doing. So we have that option. method but delivery vehicles a lot of times are you got to catch them and then they're gone but

Chris anything else

no I'll have to digest that and figure out how we who deals with that going forward I think it's off this board though

later

One thing I just wanted to note from that was that public parking lot on the corner. I do think that the city, I mean, I know that this is not for us, but I do think that The city would benefit from having a sign, you know, on both sides of Y down going both ways. I know there are signs right when you get there, but something just

Our economic development committee is working on parking in all of our business districts. That's one of the things that they're discussing. So I think they'll come up with hopefully some solutions to help.

Thank you.

Any other comments? We have a recommendation to approve the conditional use permit and send it to the city council.

Move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council

Second all in favor. Aye Okay, thank you very much we look forward to the opening Okay, we will move on to item two, which is 801 Seminary Place. Is the applicant here? You are, okay. Then we'll begin as usual with the staff report.

This application is for consideration of a conditional use permit to govern the construction and operation of residential and recreational space, stormwater improvements, and traffic and parking improvements at the Concordia Seminary Campus. The CUP area focuses on a portion of the campus that is west of Seminary Place and would replace all existing CUPs for the area. The proposal would facilitate future construction while maintaining the existing protections and buffers for surrounding property. Improvements in these areas would be subject to site plan review and architectural review. The CUP would not support density beyond the existing conditions or those conditions identified as part of the CUP application and plans. The site plan review process would provide the public opportunities to review and comment on details of each construction phase. Staff do not anticipate adverse impact on the surrounding area, and staff are of the opinion that the proposal meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CEP to the City Council with the conditions noted in the staff recommendations section. Just an item to note in your staff report, condition 11 shows up as blank. That's just a typo. There's 15 conditions, not 16.

Thank you, Ryan. The applicant, come on up. Introduce yourself and hit whatever you'd like

My name is Cole Hoferth. I'm an architect at Lawrence group here representing Concordia seminary

Evening Jared Wilson with Cole and associates. I'm here as well to answer any stormwater questions

Do either of you have any information to add to it at this point I

We do not. We had one question about item three of the staff recommendation, and we're happy to discuss that at the right time.

well if you'd like to clarify that

now so currently the staff recommendation is to maintain a 200 foot setback from surrounding property or from adjacent property lines in the multi-family residence zone we wanted to point out that there are a few homes that are currently in that zone that are out of compliance already and since the part if you go to the next slide um part of this project is largely to maintain existing locations of those homes however we've located them each at least 15 feet apart from each other for constructability purposes and due to that we are not with it at the the far north and the far south we are just barely not within that 200 foot limit and we believe that was pulled from an uh expiring a cup that will be rolled into this new one so we wanted to discuss that if possible

I can't tell which ones you're referring to. I assume in phase...

It's in phase three. It's in phase one, the farthest south one. The current house number 14 is actually around 195 feet from the property line. We are proposing rotating that so that there is better orientation against the roadway. And it brings our new total to 188 feet, as opposed to the 200-foot setback limit that's stated in criteria number three.

Let us talk with the staff about that. It seems to me that we have sufficient space there to be able to move the buildings around to maintain The 200 foot setback. I think once we allow a change, it becomes a precedent and it becomes more difficult. That's my comment on it. We'll have to see what everyone else says also, and then probably have comment from the staff because they wrote this. Understood. Any other items? No,

that was the only

item on our list. Of course, I did not see the distances on the drawings that were submitted, so I think we will have to talk about that. I had a question about Recommendations 9 and 10, and there we talked about height And I was concerned about that because we really don't determine height in these staff recommendations. And let's see, Ryan or Ana?

Sorry, you're asking to put a height restriction in there?

I'm asking why we do not have a height restriction.

Oh, well, there is a height restriction for institutional uses within our zoning code already. And the 200 feet that's included in there would be larger than the maximum height. So we didn't include a condition because at this point we weren't modifying what the code allows for height.

As long as we have it in there, in the code, even though it's not written in this recommendation.

Right. So everything under the, yeah, that would apply. The setbacks that Ryan included in the recommendations, such as the 200 meet, that's because those are in excess of what the basic code would require.

That answers my questions. Helen?

I really don't have any other questions. Steve took them all. But I would agree with Steve on setting a precedent in changing the 200 feet. What we have before us, is that something that you've looked at and said, It needs to be this. I mean, we're looking at a scale that is quite small.

Understood. So I just want to point out that there's three houses at the far north that would be removed or three buildings at the far north, that would be removed. Those three, the corners of those three buildings have current setbacks as little as 171 feet. So we were trying to place the buildings basically on top of that new one, or on top of the existing footprint. The slight reason for variation is because our buildings have grown in footprint slightly from the existing, we are trying to maintain 15 feet in between them for constructability purposes. I absolutely think we can get back to that 171 feet that is existing and we can maintain that Getting to 200 there, we would be into the existing roadway that we are trying to maintain as part of this project.

Okay. No, that explains it. Thank you.

My first question is a staff question. I'm just curious, what are the differences between between handling this as a CUP versus an overlay, which we've done before? Because it seems largely like a lot of these function like an overlay. So I was just trying to understand the differences between those.

They do. There wasn't an interest in doing another overlay for this property at this time. So that's Because that's a different setting up your whole zoning versus the CUP, which relies on some of the elements that are already established within our zoning code and then provides additional protections on top of them, which is the conditions that you would have in the CUP. So the overlay district starts from scratch. You're establishing all of the regulations.

Okay. So we're largely achieving the same thing just through a slightly different way. And as opposed to maybe some of the overlays where it's been a bit more of a question of what will, I mean, we kind of largely see the play in here of. Right.

Yeah. There are operations and especially with this plan of replacing the buildings in almost exactly the same spot, not much is changing. So we're able to really anticipate the development in that manner to use a conditional use permit. And there are the other existing uses within the campus that are going to continue to operate under those conditional use permits that are already issued. So it is a little bit different compared to WashU where we don't have all of the phasings and other things identified for moving forward.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I just wanted to make sure to clarify that before I moved on. I will say overall... through the prior processes that we've been through on the site, public sentiment seems to be people really want what's there to stay there or something very similar. So I think largely when we look at this plan, it's achieving that. So I think from a public standpoint, I think that's something that they would enjoy. I did have a question just because I know once again when this parcel has been discussed before the trees and the tree cover comes up a lot in your dry basin that's down here in phase 1a and then also the new road that will connect the overflow parking to the main road do you have I know at least this new road it looks like there's A large number of trees that go through there and I don't know if any trees would be eliminated for this dry basin, or if you could provide any sort of estimate of what you think there.

Sure, so we will be doing an actual caliper inch replacement as part of our site plan review for the entire swath of this campus that we are affecting. We are currently in process of documenting that existing tree canopy coverage post tornado damage. We had documented it for the last phase and that's no longer applicable because of the situation that we're in now. I do, yes, tree coverage is a very big part of this conversation. Tree replacement's a very big part this conversation. I will say the New North Road primarily cuts through their existing soccer field on campus, so there's not a lot of trees that we'll be taking down to make that particular part happen. But for the dry detention basin, yes, we will have to lose some of the tree coverage over there and they will be replaced. in a cal on a caliper inch required the caliper inch requirement that were per the city of clayton guidelines which i believe is potentially why it's not listed here again yeah

can you talk about handling detention through these large uh open basins versus maybe some of the other uh strategies that have been considered in the past and maybe a more compact environment

sure i'm gonna let i'm gonna bring jared up just because he's our civil engineer on the project and he'll be able to speak more intelligently to that but

Yeah, great question, because this kind of rolls into the tree canopy question that you just asked. We need to make improvements to the existing basin on the southwest corner of the site, and that's to bring this up to current code. So our detention basins that we're proposing need to meet MSD design criteria that they're adhering to. We have to adhere to today's guidelines. So, you know, that existing basin doesn't meet what today's end goal is, right? So with the improvements there, we're moving trees, Coles Point, we have to replace those in some place on campus. The other basin to the north would treat the north watershed. That would be a new basin. And it's just, it's above ground. It's simplified. We don't need to meet water quality or volume reduction or any other component that MSD is gonna require us to adhere to typically. So this is just a simple approach. It's cost effective. It meets our end goal. And to be honest with you, MSD is going to require us to meet another level above what they typically would on this campus. just because they're aware of the downstream storm problems and surcharges and items. So because of that, these systems are going to be a little bit larger. So then going back to that cost-effective approach, we don't want to go with another system like underground or a water quality feature because it's not required.

That all makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much.

Chris? I've got a number of things, and I think some of them are for the staff. And the first one's an easy one. I just see on mine that staff recommendation 11 was left empty. Is that on my sheet? I don't know if that is... That's the typo. Okay, okay. That's what I assumed. I just didn't know if we're using invisible ink for something that we need to do. I'm wondering of the recommendation number one, that the light should be turned off by 11 o'clock p.m. I wonder why 11 was chosen because it seems... Certainly late. And I don't know if that's been shown that there's a need to have those lights on for that long. If Concordia plans to use those athletic facilities through 11 o'clock p.m., it seems like a more realistic time could limit the energy use and also that kind of light going out to the surrounding areas. So I don't know that's staff question or.

And clarify that the majority of these conditions that you see in the staff report were brought from the existing CUPs that govern the site. So there were several CUPs that referenced those athletic fields and lights. So we just brought that over into the proposed CUP to maintain that existing regulation.

Is it possible that could be rethought for a conditional use permit for something that would be earlier? You know, actually reflective of how Concordia plans to use the site?

Should that be the preference of this board? You guys can consider modifications to those conditions.

I don't know if you speak on behalf of Concordia or if Concordia would be able to offer that, but I think a more realistic figure, 11 o'clock, even if they aren't dark sky compliant, it feels like there still would be some, the lighting could affect the areas around there. So if there's a need for 11 o'clock PM, I think it's fine. But I think that if it could be adjusted for energy uses and otherwise that could be considered. I was wondering with staff recommendation seven when it says that these different facilities shall be maintained generally in accordance with existing conditions. It seemed a little bit vague in terms of existing conditions. I don't know if that's just common language or if this idea of, you know, how do you kind of toe that line of, well, this is the way it was when we got the building as opposed to making some maybe much needed sort of repairs or things for that.

So that language is just generally to require that the site be operated and maintained with some existing conditions. So the CUP kind of has two jobs. It has to govern things that are going to stay, and it also has to set up what might come in the future. And so we also want to include these conditions in the CUP such that for those structures that are intended to stay, that we identify that that's what's occurring rather than them being torn down for something else or being unregulated.

Okay. Okay. So it's actually the physical location of those. I saw mention of 312 spaces, I think, parking spaces. Is that including the overflow lot?

It

is. So how is the plan to handle something that would go over that overflow lot as well? Or is there just no anticipation that at any point... I'm wondering if that overflow parking space, if that is included in those... if there is enough parking here for both the residential use as well as for institutional use concurrently.

So that is the, historic expired Fon Fon parking lot that was being used by Fon Fon campus. The seminary never used it, so this will significantly increase their current parking allowed on the seminary campus. We do have in the diagram shown just a pedestrian connection so that it can be used for overflow parking for the northern Most homes, but in general, our strategy is to maintain the existing parking count, which we were just trying to prove in our accounts was more than sufficient for the needs of this new multifamily and, you know, honestly, the seminary and beyond for this purpose. Okay.

So it truly will function as an overflow lot? Correct.

And that would fall within that 200-foot or, you know, that setback requirement. So there could never be a building construction in that zone. Very

good. Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Blair?

No further questions for me.

Jeff? Yeah, I have a few things. How are you doing? Good. Maybe some of my questions are around when all this is going to happen, and I know you don't know a lot about when it's all going to happen, but I see that where the eastern line is struck for this CUP right at Seminary Place, but the efficiency apartments are to replace units that now exist to the east of this site, correct? Correct. Should this CUP cover... What might happen to those buildings and those units when these efficiencies get built? Or am I reaching too far? Maybe this is a question to you and to staff at the same time.

So it is replacing, but unless this process council or this board thinks that there's an issue with the other CUPs, we were just looking at this scope area. So in our opinion, the number of efficiency apartments that may be constructed in that zone would not overload this area of the CUP to a point that we would have concerns about And if the beds that they are replacing were maintained under the other CUPs, I also did not have a concern. So that's why it's addressed that way here.

Okay. Or would it, if it replaces those units, would it shift to a different use?

I think at that point in time, since we'd be over the CEP boundary, we'd have to come back for another conditional use permit if we were anticipating changing the use of the building. But there's

no advantage, I guess, to including that portion of the site within the CEP so that it's set now.

Right. I mean, I think with the... Again, because they're not really changing any operations. So we could go through and pull other conditional use permits, but because there isn't any work planned in those areas in the same manner that the work is planned for this, we chose to just keep the CUP for this area. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Then I've got a... I also had some questions about the number of parking spaces, but I can see that you're keeping... The new proposed 312 is exactly the same as existing 312, so I understand that. I've got a few questions about the recreation area, which is vague, I know, and is not planned at this point. will it be lit do you

know there's no plan at this time to provide lighting in the recreation area or okay do anything beyond relocating this this existing use of that athletic field

okay

for the existing use that they use it today

I think I'm sort of maybe speaking for the neighbors here. Should this CUP say anything about the fact that it will be unlit fields as opposed to future potentially lit fields? Or should I not worry about that yet, Anna?

So, as Ryan mentioned, there is the lighting condition about 11 p.m. that was a carryover from an existing conditional use permit. We also have lighting regulations that would – if there wasn't a condition about 11, then they would be able to stay on until midnight. So, that's why it's included. I think the site plan review process – would yield more information so when they're actually putting a field you know then you can respond to that um so that's kind of why we left it a little bit vague because then we'll be able to have we'll have another meeting you'll look at their site plan and if there's lighting proposed etc you'd be able to respond to that but if the if the board thinks that there should just never be lighting then that would be a different conversation that you might want to have right now Well, and I

only said that based on your answer. It's like if the proposal is it won't be lit, should we say it won't be light? But if you don't know...

It's not part of the project at this time, but I don't know what the future plans for the seminary are. And for the safety of the whole middle of campus, I would imagine some amount of lighting would be warranted in the future. It's just not part of our project right now.

And also regarding the fields, there's a 65-foot setback. Is that consistent with the... It's where the

field house is. It's right at that field house line. The southern line of the field house is right around that 65 feet

from the property line. I

believe it's where the fieldhouse is right now.

Okay, so it matches existing? Correct. Okay. just i'll ask because noise is in here uh any consideration of pickleball at this site no

no

just just like to know um i had the same question about timing and i thought 11 o'clock was late also i agree um and i think that's it

susan

uh

But yeah, I am confused on the lighting. The 11 p.m. was a carryover from what was already there. What do, what are the, around the city, what are the lighting times that we have? I can't remember what Gate Field is or Overby Shaw Park. Oh. Especially if it's a closer residential or. What do we have?

So I don't, I wouldn't be able to off my top of my head and list all the different ones, but there is for recreation and our outdoor lighting regulations for private recreation. It does allow for lights to be turned off up until midnight or 30 minutes after the last game ends. So 11 is more restrictive than what the code would allow for private recreation.

uh so gayfield can go that late that's interesting yeah okay and i guess that's school district too isn't it okay yeah i'm surprised that that has come up in the past i just can't remember the times and do you think a lot is it something that uh you all could make at an earlier time would that be an issue if it were a 10 o'clock lighting curfew or

I'd have to confirm with the seminary before being able to answer that realistically, but I think if that's something that we could work with the staff on, I just don't know. I don't know what their plan is.

And the other part, there's dark sky compliance here, and it does mean more targeted down. There's not enough spillage over, which takes away some of the concern. And the other question, we talked about parking and things like that and pickleball. Are you considering – are they considering putting in any more pedestrian or bike paths similar to your neighbor wash you might have or making the campus more –

So I will say currently the roadway that connects the main portion of the campus near the chapel to the existing housing that's on the western portion of campus is just an asphalt road with no dedicated curbs or sidewalks. So the new relocation of the road would incorporate dedicated sidewalks with pedestrian bollard lighting or something of that nature on both sides of that roadway, providing a More direct and safer connection for both vehicles and pedestrians to get through campus that would apply to anybody visiting the campus as well or neighbors that you know walk through the campus so all roadways in our project area and sidewalks are going to be significantly improved. and made available.

Bike and pedestrian?

Yes.

Okay. And just curious, are you putting any EV charging stations in these parking lots as you improve them?

That's not been part of the conversation at this time, but I think if that's something that we need to add to the conversation, we did look through the City of Clayton requirements and did not see them.

Right. And part of it is I've seen that it becomes the demand of the people using the property. Right. And those people who do things, it's not such a bad idea to have some of those accessible, whether it's required by the city or not. I was also confused as we're talking about tree replacement. And there was, when you talk about replacing trees that may have to come down, the caliper, the canopy, things like that, are you going by a post-tornado scenario or not the caliper and the canopy that we had pre-tornado? What are your standards, what are the standards going to be in tree replacement?

We're doing a survey right now to see what the existing conditions are at this moment in time. So post-tornadow.

Do you know approximately how much was lost in the tornado?

We don't have that information on the top of our heads, but do you have that, Jen?

And then a little bit more discussion on the 200 feet. We pulled that from the prior one as well, is that right?

Your call that was from a previous cp if that was for basic measurements. But I would defer to on in terms of final opinion.

It was pulled from the previous up for when this housing was originally. constructed, so obviously there was little variances that happened under that one. I think with the northern property, in my opinion, where it's less than 200 feet is where it's adjacent to the Fontbonne campus. not less than 200 feet from the residences on Dartford. So that's more at an angle. So I would say we could probably modify the condition so that it was a 200 foot was maintained from the single family residential property lines and then have a reduced setback where it's adjacent to Washington University.

That sounds great. Okay. Thank

you. Any comments from the audience?

Chairman, can I just piggyback off something Susan said? Has the city had any discussion in regards to the tree count and existing tree count versus current? I mean, I know this is obviously conditions that we're not, we haven't dealt with before. But are there open discussions about what the city is expecting?

Right. So the regulations for tree replacement for non-residential uses, so for the institutions, is based on a caliper replacement within the project area.

I'm sorry, to be more clear, I meant in, yes, I'm familiar with that, but specifically in regards to the storm, in regards to tree damage from the tornado.

Right. No, because the requirements are just based on what is being removed for the project that triggers the tree section. So technically there is, unlike with the canopy requirement that we established for WashU South 40 in that overlay district, they are only required to replace trees that they're removing to facilitate construction, but they could just remove a tree at any point that was not facilitated with construction, they wouldn't be required to replace it. So the trees that they've lost due to the storm, the city doesn't have a requirement for them to replace those trees. But we will have a requirement where we'll have their project impact area. And if there are trees being removed in association with construction within that area, then they'll replace those.

Does that mean that prior to doing any construction, they could remove all the trees from the location?

No. Yeah, there is a provision that says any trees removed within a year of the construction would need to be counted. But I will also say that we are just barely beginning, kind of beginning, reviewing all the tree and landscape requirements to update those sections. So these are, you know, to move forward, these are all things that you all probably want to consider as we look to maybe adjust some of our tree protection requirements for moving forward.

But we have areas where we require under the current, and it will be better soon, but we have certain canopy expectations in certain areas. I have no idea how much damage was done by the store, how much was lost because of this, and placing whatever happens with this project I don't know if that's sufficient to the standards.

Yeah, so canopy coverage is only a requirement for single-family residential and multi-family residential properties. So in this case, an institution is non-residential technically, the way the zoning code sees it, it's a non-residential use that's allowed in a residential zoning district. So that triggers the caliper section, not the canopy coverage. with the exception of WashU South 40 overlay district, which sets a canopy for them that they do have to maintain at any time. So it's a very different approach that's outlined in that overlay district because otherwise we set the canopy coverage for our residential zoning districts was established based on a study that told us what kind of the average canopies were. And so we set the goal of where we want it to be with canopy coverage within these zoning districts. And then that is what we review against when a project comes forward, but we don't have requirements within the code to track that in between time. It's just purely triggered by somebody who's doing a project under site plan review. That's when we start looking at the trees. So if you're a neighbor cut down all of their trees on their property right now, technically they didn't break any requirements. Now, if they go to build, rebuild a new house, then they will have to bring the site up to the requirements of the canopy coverage.

Okay, so caliper or canopy in a project that's not, that's this particular project, what is the standard to which we can hold

Right. So for this project, it would be if they're building phase one and during phase one construction, they're going to remove 50 caliper inches, then they need to replace up to a certain number of calipers. And I don't remember what it is on top of my head, but then there's a replacement requirement based on that caliper inch removal. Correct.

While we're all chiming in with questions, Ana, you talked about how on that northern border, maybe that 200 feet can be massaged because it's coming up against another institutional use. That still wouldn't, just making sure I'm understanding everything, that still wouldn't solve the issue on the southern side where there would still be that conflict on that southernmost building, even with that caveat. Right.

That's correct. Yes, I think it sounded like we might be able to shift

the buildings to the south to maintain that at least 200 foot setback. Absolutely.

Any other comments? And we've asked about audience comments and there were none. Take that back, Mr. Shagrin.

I'm Chuck Shagrin, 14 Southmore Drive. Many of you know me perhaps from previous meetings about the site. And I applaud Concordia Seminaries solving their married student housing problem with a solution. As a neighbor, I don't see any issues. There's no additional traffic on Big Bend, no additional access from Big Bend. And again, I compliment Concordia on their solution.

Thank you. If there is no other comment, we do have a staff recommendation to approve the conditional use permit to the city council with all of the conditions. And I believe we've modified which one? I lost the

number.

Yeah, the 200 foot one. Number three. And was there another modification? Number one. Number one. Oh, at the time. Right.

I think it was discussed that people would like to modify, but I don't know if we discussed a specific, because I, yes, I would be hesitant to modify it depending on what it was modified to. I

would agree with that. And without

understanding their needs.

Well, I think we have to wait and see what is to come

right under under a site planner view, you would be able to add additional conditions under that specific project if you wanted to.

Ana, then would it be wise for CUP purposes to maybe keep it a little more broad and then put a pin in that? And then when actual site plan, then maybe zero in on that a little bit more at that time?

Yeah, I think it's really up to you all and what you see. From a staff's perspective, though, it's hard for us to react to what we might want to mitigate as terms of lights when we don't know where the lights are being placed. So that's where the conditions about just a general 11, and then the shielding and the dark skies come into play because that those would all be factors that Concordia will have to design around to mitigate those issues. And then if they're designing to those standards brings up additional issues for specific locations of lighting, then you can address those under the review of that particular plan.

Well, speaking just for myself, I think keeping it broad at this point would be wise, knowing that we could always bring in a little bit more, especially when we have specific plans. And that would give us the time to kind of look at other institutions in the area to make sure it's being consistently monitored across the board.

Yeah, I would agree with

that. So is everyone in agreement to leave recommendation one as is?

PB, David Ensign he or him, Wonder if we could change it to exterior athletic field lights should be addressed at the site plan review, so we don't put any number 11 o'clock or anything on there and just say recommended approval that exterior athletic field lights. PB, David Ensigne he or him, shall be considered further at site plan review.

Well, we could do that, but then isn't that changing from the existing CUP?

It is, but as Cole referenced, there aren't lights currently for that athletic field. So we kept the condition, included it because we wanted to make sure that existing boundaries for design were maintained as we consolidated this conditional use permit. But I think either reference is... know we'll do the job

i would go with what you were saying chris

if that's all right with the council change that

if everyone is in agreement is there any uh dissent on that you would have to go to council also okay okay so we do have those two modifications items one and three Any further? Give it a try.

Okay. I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council with the 13 staff conditions as stated. Omitting well, 13 is stated, revising number one to exterior athletic field lights shall be, turn off time for exterior athletic field lights determined at the site plan. And number three, a setback of at least 200 feet shall be provided between the multifamily structures and adjacent property lines at the south end of the site with the north end to be determined at site plan. Review

Second Say that five fast five times.

I'm sorry

said say that fast five times Helen,

right? All in favor Okay Well, thank you very much Cole and Jared I Okay, our next item is number one North Central Avenue and is the applicant here. Thank you. I will start with the staff report.

Subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Central and Forsyth. This is zoned M3 and is developed with a two-story mixed-use building. The applicant is seeking approval to paint the structure white. The proposal would see the structure repainted with a color scheme similar to the existing conditions. Painted brick is present nearby, and the selected colors are not likely to have a significant visual impact. Although future construction may cover the mural on the north facade and no such construction has been proposed to date staffer of the opinion that the moral provides visual interest in activation along North central avenue. Which is a highly traffic street staffer have the opinion that proposal will meet the architecture review criteria with retention of the real mural staff recommend approval with the condition that the paint not cover any portion of the exposed mural on the north side.

Okay, you know we can.

that we actually wanted to

could you uh

oh i'm marnie miss sally clark and i'm with hoffman commercial real estate and the only question we wanted to clarify was that the top of the end with the mural is now yellow we just wanted to make sure that it was okay to go ahead and paint that white not painting the mural at all but just pulling the white around the back of the building I have a picture of it. I don't know if everybody can see that.

If you could circulate that. I've looked at the mural many times, but don't remember yellow.

We just feel it would give the building a more cohesive look if we don't have yellow on the end, white around the sides.

So that would be the only change in the paint scheme, and you would maintain the mural in its present condition?

Correct. The entire top of the building right now is yellow, so we are proposing to paint that all white with the gray accents, but take that around to the back. We just wanted to make sure because we're not going to touch the mural. Initially, they were saying paint the whole back of that whole end of the building, but then after... Staff gave their recommendations. We looked at it a little bit further and understand the significance of that mural, so we just want to make sure we can paint the top white.

I think that's a fair minor change, but let's see what everyone else says. Thank you. Helen?

Are you painting the west side of the building? Yes. Okay. The north section of the west side? there's a small one-story building. If you look at it from Forsyth to the west of your building, there's a small, one-story building, and currently the whitish color, white off white yellow, turns that corner. But if you look at it form the back from the alley, that same wall is red brick.

So are you talking about inside the alley area?

Yeah.

Okay.

So it would be the continuation of the west wall of your building. Okay. Are you painting that? That

west wall that is all red brick at this time, yes. We did plan to paint that with our request.

Okay. That's all.

Okay. First, I'm glad to hear that you're planning on keeping the mural. My concern, I always hate in these situations just to get into matters of aesthetics and paint colors is something which is something so particular. But Sherwin-Williams Extra White is a very bracing, cool white. And I'm worried that it's... although maybe next to this background, you know, it looks kind of this softer, creamier color that is going to be this, you know, really kind of like stand out on that corner in a not positive way. And I didn't, I'm wondering how you came about that color and why you're going for something that's such a pure white when the area has kind of typically more muted tones and the building now has a more muted tone.

The extra white is the color that Pure Laclede Center painted that wall in the back as well. So that they're just pulling that color into another property that Hoffman is managing and owning.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, the building could use a paint job when you see it up close. So it's like, I definitely understand the need. Yeah. would certainly prefer it be a more muted or a little more subtle color. Um, but obviously like that's, that's just one opinion. That's not something I think worth necessarily holding up the project on. I just, I wish the color would be reconsidered. Okay. Chris

I'm just curious, Helen, when you were mentioning that brick section, are you talking out of the street level or up top? I'm looking at the building on Google Earth or

something. That one story building over

there. Yeah,

it's

the. When you look at it from the alley. The front part of that west wall is painted white or off-white. OK. But my thought was to paint it.

OK, which it is being done, right? I'm glad you're keeping the mural as well. I'm wondering at what kind of demarcation line you'll do for that mural. At what point will you say that this is where it stops and have a nice clean line?

In the picture?

Yeah. If you see it in person, there's like a band of black that's between the mural and

the

wall. Okay. So that is where it'll go to that band of black, and that's where

it

stops.

Perfect. Thank you.

I also am glad. I happen to love that mural. I was super excited to see that. So I'm glad you're keeping it. That was all. I was concerned.

Can I take a look at your picture again? We have multiple mural questions, sorry. I guess there's nothing we can do about this, but I assume the mural extends up the rest of the height of that elevation.

We don't

know. They've only got half of an evaporated milk can.

Yeah.

So I'm assuming that whole side of the building was likely mural at some point. So what we're doing is agreeing to... yet another layer of paint covering the existing mural. It looks to me like about two thirds of it or half of it is showing at this point. I don't know that we can have any effect on that unless we want to ask somebody to remove the yellow paint to expose the rest of the mural, but I doubt that we can do that.

Well, I think we have to deal with the existing condition here. if we knew that there was a mural continuing up to the top, I think that would be different. But I don't think we have any preservation ordinance that would even cover this.

No, we don't. I was curious personally if they had talked to an artist about finishing the top half of the mural. Yeah, but it's...

We have asked a power washer, and they said that if we would power wash it, it could pull whatever is underneath that yellow paint as well off. So to try and maintain everything that's there, we're just...

Because we can probably find... photographs of what was there with enough research um we or somebody could probably find um it's and i suppose it doesn't the fact that you're putting another layer of paint on it just protects it that much more in some ways potentially but um yeah i really wish when i saw that i got that first thing i thought was boy i'd love to see the rest of it you know and see the whole thing because it's it's so cool it's very cool um I guess that's just a comment, maybe not a direction. I wish we were seeing the whole thing. I do though, I think agree with Jim's comment about the white-white. I wish it was a little less white than the white that's proposed because it's a pretty... And whites like that tend to over time start to dirty up in a way that sometimes isn't great. So I have a little worries about the stark white

paint. I don't have much to add, but picking up on your comments, maybe if that white starts looking dirty, they'll decide to take it off and get the whole mural exposed. You know? Yeah, now thinking about that, that would be really awesome. The mural is great. It's a lot of fun. Probably good for business. But it Can't make it come back at this time, I don't think. So yeah, I have no problems with it.

Is anything being done to preserve the mural itself?

I don't have that information at this time. I don't know that there has been any talk of that. I think we were just coming to this point to try and figure out where we were going to go. If we're going to keep the mural, what our next steps would be. But that is not a discussion that we've had at this time.

Well, hopefully the building owner sees the value in the mural. Definitely. And following that, may want to look into preservation techniques. I'm not suggesting that it go in our review here, but that you take it upon yourself.

Definitely. Can we suggest that? I mean, can we? I mean, I think that we should. I mean, I would like

to.

I think I thought it was absolutely incredible when that was discovered. So I was so pleased. I mean, if that's something we can do, I definitely think we should do that, to recommend that.

Well, I'm afraid to open up too big of a can of worms and stuff. But I was curious if you're able to share your long-term plans for the building. Are you planning on keeping this building as is and operating as it is? Or how long these leases go? From

my knowledge, there's no plan to change anything, to leave the tenants as they are and keep the building. But I don't know anything beyond that.

Okay. Just because I think it's, I think it's unfortunate, but at least most of the information that's been shared to me in this area is, but people think that this building is not for long. Well,

Jim, years ago we did look at the buildable sites in downtown. And this site was seen to be as relatively narrow in an east-west direction. And that might hinder some long-term redevelopment. But someone with a creative eye and ideas could certainly come up with something.

Yes, I also just know with... But the building that came down to expose the mural in the first place by, you know, even if this building stays here, the mural could often be covered up because there's awfully valuable real estate that's really not being used right now.

I'll add one thing, and this is completely, it's on topic, but. I think that Hoffman could also commission a really cool artist to do some sort of an evolution that goes from that advertisement up to Chipotle and recreate that. And you talk about how good press it would be for that. That's just something to take to your client or consider.

There are comments.

I do have a question. You referred to a black band above the mural. Is that painted or is that the sealant and caulking from flashing that went from one building to another?

We have tuck pointing that's going on, and that is part of what they're going to look into is exactly what that material is so we know how to treat it.

Okay. Yeah, because on Google Maps, it did, looking at it and trying to blow it up, it looks very rough. So it has the characteristic of a piece of flashing was removed and all of the caulking and sealant is still there.

It does look rough.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, now that as long as you keep the mural and a black band there would be fine. It's probably a good ending if you don't want to continue the mural upward, which I think would be fantastic. But that's beyond our what we can require.

Any other comments? Any audience comments? No. Okay, so we do have a recommendation with one condition in it. And Jim, did you want to add anything about the color?

I'm worried that's a slippery slope requiring someone to go to another color. Would it be something that you guys would be Would you guys be willing to consider and come back to the staff with a toned down color? Or is, I would have a hard time believing that Hoffman is dead set on it being pure white.

I am not 100% on if it is dead set on white. I know there are other properties around the country who this is like their white that they use. So I would, I mean, if it's what I need to do, I can definitely take that back to them.

I don't know. I would certainly like to see it reconsidered. I'll say this with something, and I think Jeff is kind of echoing my sentiments here, where if I sent my son to the paints to Sherwin-Williams and I said, just bring me back a white. You're going to pull what looks to your eye the purest, cleanest white. And then a lot of times people see that color then go onto a building, onto a wall, and they have kind of this, oh man, like I didn't quite know what I was getting myself into. Now maybe this isn't the case because they've already painted another building there. I do have, I mean, I do have concerns with this being right in the center of Clayton and that it looking like some brand new construction rather than this century-old building.

So the bottom line, are you recommending a condition to that?

If it was up to me personally, yes, I would recommend that the color be changed. With staff approval, I don't... if staff would be willing to take that on. I don't think that's necessarily that they would have to come back to us for approval on a specific color, or if staff's not comfortable with that, then maybe so. But yes, I guess if it was solely up to me, I'd prefer a more muted color than that white beyond the building. Just I'm worried about the effect of that pure of a white on the building.

Well, my opinion is if we want as a board a different color, we should put it in there and not have it forced on

the staff review. Okay. Given that I was not the only one with the comment, then yes, I would suggest that they go with another comment, another color.

Are you thinking a warmer tone? I mean, is that the... It sounds like the extra white was the cool tone that you were trying to get away from. So if you're looking for something that was a warmer tone...

I would say, yes, a warmer white that cuts down on the brightness. This is a very bright, cool-toned white tone. And, you know, I don't want to say necessarily, you know, narrow it down to a specific color, but the build, I mean, it's been referred to as yellow. I honestly think it almost looks a little more topish when you go by like, I'd prefer something that kind of stays in the same color family as it is now, something that's a little more muted that doesn't jump out as much.

That require coming back to once they choose the

code. I think it would have to, it sounds like. It's just probably the cleanest way to go forward with it.

i have two questions in regards to that um being that i haven't been through this color process before i mean like i would comment that i think the residence in is the ugliest color and is horrific to pulling up into clayton so do we have i mean are we suggesting a color i i mean going being somebody that picks out a lot of paint colors on buildings, it's a really hard process. And when you say that, you know, that's a go-to color in a lot of other cities, I mean, that's irrelevant because, you know, every city has different colors and different surroundings and whatever. So are we suggesting a color? I find that a really hard process and a really sort of slippery slope to go back. And I agree with you. I don't know that I would have chosen these colors, but... I do think it's within a range that I might choose opposed to saying paint it purple or that yellow that's on that building.

I don't think we would suggest a certain color, but typically- Disagreeing. Typically as a board, we react to what is brought before us and don't necessarily try and build the architecture or build the colors or something like that. It's usually not something that I speak out, but I think this is bit of an extraordinary circumstance that sounds like there's other people in agreement so I guess would the best with the best thing to do would be continue it to a future meeting or upon like a new color selection

we could continue it and request that we see a selection of colors in the white range that might be a little more muted

Okay. Do you have like a suggestion? I guess there's a lot of white range. So I think it would be maybe easier if you said these are the ranges which we require if there is a color requirement.

I would say, and Blair, you're an expert in this. I would say if you start with extra white and then look on each side of it and see what the range might be. I don't know if we'll see much difference or not.

I mean, I think if you also just said warmer, I'll go ahead and review it as a staff level. Leave it at that. Yeah, I just think that they're trying to clean up the building they just bought, and if you give some direction, staff will help. do the final review as opposed to coming back for another meeting for this. It makes it easier on us.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

Okay. I would refer to it as a warmer muted white if you can, Helen.

You're going to require them to stay with white? You just don't want it as a... Yes, I wouldn't

It seems like they want to go with white. So, yes, I have no reason to necessarily add white to that. I guess staff could always kick it back to us if they felt uncomfortable making the decision. So a more warmer muted tone, we can say.

I mean, Sherwin-Williams 7005, which is directly adjacent, is pure white, which is a warmer yellow toned one, which might work. I'm being serious. So that could, but that's, I think, Ana, you've got the right idea. You know what we're looking for and you guys can.

Okay.

Okay, I move to approve as submitted with the staff condition that no part of the existing mural be painted over and with two additional conditions that the west wall will be painted in its entirety and that a warmer color, a warmer white color will be submitted to the staff for review.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item four, which is 125 Hunter Avenue. Is the applicant here? No?

The applicant, I believe, is online. Give me just one second.

Dan, can you hear us?

Yes.

We'll start with the staff report.

All right. The subject property is located on the west side of Hunter Avenue between 170 and Shaw Park, is zoned S1, and is developed with a commercial building occupied by Caliber Collision. The south and west portions of the lot contain a parking lot screened by vinyl fencing. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing gate and install a new adjacent gate within the fencing. The existing gate provides screening for a trash dumpster while the proposed gate would provide access to a recycling dumpster. Both gates would consist of chain link fencing with white vinyl slats. The architecture review guidelines for fencing do not permit the administrative approval of new chain link fencing or vinyl, therefore review by the architecture review board is required. Staff observed that chain link and vinyl are present nearby and that traffic is limited at the subject property. Staffer of the opinion, the proposal would have a minimal visual impact and recommend approval as submitted.

Okay, Dan, do you have any comments?

No, they're what they're trying to do. They're trying to the gates by the dumpster with the vinyl are just getting destroyed. It's actually their attendant there. And this stuff was done prior to them taking occupancy. Yeah. The gates keep falling apart because they just keep being up. And with the new gate proposed for where the metal recycling bin is, they're trying to get that more accessible and moved over. That way... With cars waiting to be worked on, they're going to free up probably I think six or seven spots in the back to get more cars, customer cars that are waiting to get worked on in the back to them off the street because they have overflow. They're trying to improve the property.

Thank you.

Yes.

Having looked at the location on the cul-de-sac at the end of Hunter Avenue, Very few people will see this, but I agree it really does need to be improved from what's there. So even though the construction of the fence is different because it's chain link, but it does have the white vinyl inserted in it, I really have no problem with it. But let's go around. Ellen?

I only have one question, and it's more curiosity. Why are you switching from vinyl fencing to chain link?

It's more durable. The trash truck drivers, when they pull up, they just fling the gates open. And then if it's windy, they... The gates swing while they're removing the dumpster to empty it. They swing open, and they hit them, and they run into them and beat them up, and the plastic vinyl just breaks. It's not durable. The new gate hardware is heavy-duty. We're upgrading the hardware to heavy-duty commercial-use stuff.

Okay, that's what I suspected.

Yeah.

Nothing further.

Jim? I'm usually the vinyl police, but this is where I think context is everything, given this specific site. So I think this is a more than adequate solution for this given site. You like the white? I will not be on record saying I'm a fan of any white vinyl, but given the specific site and constraints, I understand this application. Chris? nothing further later

you're the vinyl police against vinyl

yes i'm anytime anytime someone has a vinyl substitute i'm usually the one arguing to have it

i'm with you i don't have any questions i'm fine with everything thank you

no concerns

okay uh any comments from the audience or anyone else online no okay We have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move that we approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, and we do have a quorum.

Steve, should we maybe take a five-minute break or something? Yes,

at 7 o'clock we will. If 9 Southmore can hold off for a few minutes. There's a break for everyone. Okay.

Thank you, everyone. We'll continue now. Item five.

on 9 South Moore Drive. And of course, the applicant is here. But we'll start again with the staff report.

The subject property is located on the north side of Southmore Drive, adjacent to the Forest Ridge neighborhood. The property is zoned R1 and is developed with a two-story single-family house. The house has an existing hip roof which was damaged during the May 2025 tornado. As part of the structure's restoration, the property owners are seeking to redesign the roof to incorporate habitable space. The roof renovation would consist of a gable roof rather than the existing hip roof. The gables would face the side yards while the roof faces would face the front and rear yards. The front roof face would include dormers. The gables would consist of white cement lap siding. New windows would match existing windows, and as proposed, the project meets the architecture review guidelines. Half stories in the use of siding are in common throughout Southmore, and staff are of the opinion the proposal will be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Great,

thank you.

Who's going to speak?

I'm Mike Antkowiak representing the client for Forney Plus. Jane Ann couldn't be here today, so I'm stepping in their place. Have anything to add? I did hear from just talking here while we were waiting that we did change the window to all wood instead of a clad wood. I couldn't remember if the drawings actually specified that, but I just wanted to clarify that. But other than what we've written up and what you've seen, there isn't too much to add. Do you need any clarification on the design or how it came to be, what it consists of, anything like that?

Well, until I saw this, were many other roofs... damaged like this one in that neighborhood?

I don't know. Well, John's here. So actually, I think that we have the distinction of being the first home to lose their roof. Like our roof is... is structurally hilarious. I mean, it's safe to live in right now, but it's wrapped and the engineer when we were looking at a repair was like, absolutely not, this whole thing's coming off, right? So I think if you look at the tornado damage map, it looks like a V. If you take it all the way down, we should be the first. I think that lost their, completely lost the roof. And in terms of like the change, if you drive through Southmore, our house always sort of stands out in that we don't have a third floor and we don't have dormers. And I think in 30 houses, there's like three. We're one of them. And I think one of the houses was built in the 50s, right? And so when we were sort of coming to terms with the fact that we're gonna be out of our house for a year and we're gonna have to rip everything completely off, the opportunity to make it match the rest of the homes became present. And I think, I don't know, maybe it was part of the grieving process, right? But it seemed appropriate to have it match. And that's where this whole project started instead of just bringing it back to what it was originally, which if you look at it, isn't even... Like, there's a little more on the left than the right side. It was never really uniform. But to make it something that if we were building a new house today and I presented you the top one, you would say, have you considered the bottom one? That would match more appropriately for your neighborhood.

Thank you, John. I did have a comment on these two that are on the screen right now. Both of those we would have foreshortening effect on the roof and neither one of them would look as massive a roof as shown on this two-dimensional drawing. I don't recall seeing the roof before. It was severely damaged. I would, of course, have no problem if you were to replace it. But also, I have no problem with you adding the third floor with the three dormers either. There might be other comments as you go around the building, but looking at the front, I'm okay. Helen?

I do have a question about the existing that there's a photograph of and then the existing that there is a drawing of, that front elevation. The door seems to have moved, the front door. Where is the front door?

The front door is actually on the left. There was an addition to the house very early on, almost right after it was first built. So if you look at... Is there confusion? Because... Now, the picture

shows... The large picture

shows a front door. This is a very peculiar house, and I could go on about peculiarities, but this is just one of them. So in the center of the house, you would say that's the front door, but you would be wrong because there is nothing when you go inside that would actually make it so. The way that the floorboards work, there's no place to hang your coat. That is like the middle. You'd walk into the middle of the living room. It's very bizarre. Mm-hmm. It is a side entrance home. To the left, that is the main entrance. It has the closet and all of that. It is one of the many things that makes me scratch my head and think, I wouldn't have built it like that. But, you know. Oh, and then that drawing, we're missing a...

Yes. In the rendering, yes. We... In the event to save time on modeling all this in 3D, we omitted certain aspects of the 3D model. So yes, the front entrance does remain. All the existing trim does remain, the archways, the stone. Yeah, we're not tearing off the facade. Thank goodness.

Okay, so you're not changing the front door. Yeah,

just

the top. OK, now that. I think it would be if you did change the front door, it would be a challenge on the outside, you know. Because the brick behind all of the trim may be a different color and then attaching it and that could open another can of worms. my other question is what is well on your right elevation which shows prominently here what is the cantilever dimensionally

two feet ten it projects out five feet i think we do show that on the plan

I couldn't find a dimension for that exactly. And of course, these can't be scaled.

Yeah, I believe the cantilevered portion is roughly five feet by about 21 feet.

Okay.

I thought if you go to the attic plan, I thought, or either that or the roof plan, I have dimensions shown on there. Yeah, on the roof plan. Well, at both plans, actually. So the dashed line represents the area

that's

the overhang.

So five feet, it's roughly six feet.

Yeah, including the overhang, yeah, including the additional overhang from the gable end.

How, this is not within our purview, but it's a curiosity question. Are you using steel? How are you cantilevering?

No, essentially the whole roof is built out of repeating attic trusses that allows for the livable space in between. And those attic trusses are typically top cord bearing, meaning like only the ends are the bearing points. And so the structural engineer came up with a design for a very thick wood beam that would extend off the back of the house, cross the cantilever to hold up those attic trusses.

Okay. Are the angular braces needed?

No, it's decorative.

But

we added them to, you know, enhance the look of the house we actually went through about four different designs for that and uh the the brackets seem to be the one that that always won out

yeah the goal is like i while i I'd sure like to live forever. I know I'm not. I inherited this house from someone who took good care of it. My goal is for the next people to say, I don't know if it was built this way originally or not because it seems like it's appropriate. If I was going to build a house from scratch, I don't think I would go colonial, but to make it to where it looks like it could have been original. Those brackets, I would say that like what would the house have chosen was sort of something we would say often. And what's sort of given some of the oddities of the house, how to apply a...

Well, an architectural language for it. Right.

How can we standardize it a little bit? How can we sort of rein back some other decisions that might've been made? But yeah, those are strictly visual.

Okay. I guess the size of the overhang and the brackets, I'm not sure about them.

Jim? Yeah, I think overall, I think this is a very unique situation because i don't think this is a project you probably would have undertook had uh you not lost your roof so given that you lost your roof uh what is proposed seems to fit in the neighborhood uh well i think like helen i actually do have some concerns about the bracket but with them being in the back of the house i was willing to Judging that being, being that they wouldn't be visible from the street, it was something I was willing to let go a little bit. Um, I will say too, typically, um, If this was in maybe another neighborhood where the house is presented a little differently or it was closer to the height limit, typically when we see a context drawing, it's not a street view like this. It's rendered out where we get a true understanding of the discrepancy of height, especially since we're going up. Now, you're still well... I believe a good eight feet under your height limit. So I don't think especially given this situation and scenario, the this is being done to absolutely maximize that height to the top level. But I think future if you were presenting, if you could have a more rendered out context view just to better understand the difference between the houses and the roof, but I like especially that you showed 14 Southmore as contextual reference for the neighborhood and showing how it will fit in. And I think a lot of effort was put in to make it fit into the neighborhood. So I appreciate all that.

Chris? I'm of two minds on this. I think from the front, I think it looks really nice and it looks very matching with what is in the neighborhood there. I agree with that. I really don't like it from that right side. It feels like a house was uprooted and I think the scale is just off on it. Feels like a house was plotted down on top of a house. And I think the thing that's most doing that for me is just this big expanse of, just this big triangle and this big expanse but it's on the side of the house. So, and I'm not a fan of the brackets as well. Um, they just seem a little off putting. So it's a, it really is hard because from the front, I think it's just beautiful. And then if I were to walk around to the side, I w I would wonder again, I think this is quirky. Why was this decision? Um, this, this choice made, um, I believe this house had a slate roof on it beforehand. Is that correct? When you had it before the tornado?

No, it was, well, I've owned it for about 14 years and it's always been. Okay. But at some point I'm sure.

Yeah, it did. I'm sure originally then, but it was not so prior to the tornado. It was an, it was shingles.

Always shingles since we've had. Okay.

Okay. That was a concern. I didn't want to see this because it looks like more of the roof is going to be seen. I agree with that. that there's going to be a foreshadowing when we're looking at it from farther back. So I'm not as concerned with that. I just wish there was some other treatment of the right side that wouldn't be so jarring, but I don't have an answer to that. And it's certainly not enough for me to say that... not to approve it. Because I certainly do appreciate what you have done with the front of the House, and I understand the novel concerns in this case. And in some cases, it's a... you're making lemonade out of lemons out of a bad situation here. You're coming up with something that's going to be more usable. So I respect that.

Yeah.

Um, Really, my only thing now that I misread these with the door situation is now I really like the casework having been removed from the front of the front of it. You know, knowing that that is not a door because, yeah, that's totally confusing when you pull up. So, no, I actually like what you're doing. I mean, yes, architecture aside, I think that, you know, everything works really nicely. Definitely. i approve

jeff um i'm really struggling with the right side of the house um and i i think i think the how the existing house is having a tough time holding up your addition it's the large the gable shape that's been placed on top of the house just creates some unfortunate situations i think including the big exposed white surface and the fact that yeah i i you have to do something with the overhang but i wish that something was not having the overhang to begin with i wish it was still somehow a hipped roof not a gabled roof because as i look at your existing pictures on AO.2, I mean, I'm seeing a lot of gable roofs. There are some, I suppose. I see the reference to 14 Southmore, but certainly the house next door and a portion of the other house to the left have hipped roofs. And it's interesting to hear your comments about trying to make it fit in the neighborhood more. It feels like it's fitting in the neighborhood a little less just by its shape. I agree that the gables work better with the neighborhood, but I think you could still do a new roof shape that had gables on it. I just think the fact that it's a large gabled roof set on a house that maybe was meant to have a hip roof is where some of us are struggling with it a bit. and and you even admitted you're struggling a little bit with that one side of what to do with it what to do with that big overhang i wish it wasn't there if possible now if we've if you complied with all the requirements all the ordinances i've been in the same boat we probably can't disapprove it but i wish it wasn t quite doing what it's doing especially on that side elevation

to my thought susan

uh i do like the way you found opportunity in a in a tough situation and the front view is very attractive door no door but did you consider other options on the side or How did you come up with

several? Yeah, it was more design options. We came up with where we're more about how we treated the underside of the overhang. The overhang was always going to be there. It was just a matter of how you deal with it. Very early on, we talked about possibly dropping a column down or something vertical to the ground, which was not desirable. It was going to end up. providing very little use to the house and be extremely expensive um so we opted to keep this overhang and i i think we've done as good of a job as we can to try and make the design language fit the house

Any comments from the audience that's left? Anything online? Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. I don't think we have made any modifications to that. So, Ellen?

I move to approve as submitted

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? When will this occur?

Anybody knows of a place that is renting ? Yeah,

it's been under that tarp for a year. Actually, if I'll add to this, if you go to Google Street View where we did get those images from, They actually have a street view, the timeline. If you go through the timeline, there actually is a time that was literally a month before the tornado. So you could actually see the before and after, and you can see how many trees were lost. How many did you lose?

we lost every tree except for two in the back. So looking at the front, there it is. There it is. Gosh. So we could hardly grow grass because it was so shady. There's no sun that hit the ground. Now it looks like this could be a new build in Chesterfield. I mean, there's nothing there. It's heartbreaking. Yeah, in the back, I don't know, 10 trees. They're just all gone. It went directly through our homes and then behind the home to the right, front of their house was fine. Everything behind their house went right through us, and then it went.

So did the tornado take out that second door right in the middle?

Well, if it had, it wouldn't bother me because we don't use it.

I definitely relate to not wanting to render that out. I've been in that situation before, so...

Yes. Well, and for a project like this where we're only doing the roof, it's like how much do you model of the house? And we had enough photographs that I thought, hmm. And also the decorations around the actual front door that are missing too. But I didn't even notice that the house next door has a very large white roof.

I think those were 80 feet.

Well, we're sorry that you lost so many trees. That really is distressing to see this picture. But hopefully, you'll be back in the house with a roof.

Thank you, guys.

Good luck with it. We've voted on it, so we're OK. Thank you. OK. That brings us to the end of our new business. And now we have two public hearings coming up. And we'll start with the first one on outdoor dining. Think Hobie?

Okay,

I'll try to make this

quick.

Thanks.

Okay, so in the comprehensive plan process several years ago, one of the goals for outdoor dining was placed in the transportation and connectivity section. And that really says something about what we're going to try to do with the changes, placing them in the transportation and So the feedback we got was mainly focused on the conflict, the kind of daily whack-a-mole conflict between managing the interests of diners and their chairs and pedestrians to the public right-of-way. And Unlike other permit types, just because you're in compliance on Monday doesn't have any bearing at all on whether you're in compliance. So it really is kind of a difficult set of regulations to enforce. So that's what we're going to try to do a better job of. So the current process, outdoor dining permits are acquired for every restaurant that has outdoor dining, whether that's on completely private property, completely public property, or a mix of the two. And it really focuses more on the aesthetics of the furniture of the tables and chairs. Because of that... the enforcement of the rules has really been kind of reactive that we review the submission and then we don't, um, the verification isn't, uh, isn't as stringent. Um, we, uh, issue the permit and then if there are issues, then we address them then. And a lot of the reviews is spent on the aesthetics. and, um, so the goal is to kind of, uh, change that process and make sure that the required pedestrian route through the public right-of-way is respected every day, day in and day out. So some of the biggest changes that we're proposing are removing the outdoor dining permit requirement for private property um, and focusing just on the public driveway in the, um, in the sidewalk. Cause it doesn't really make sense that we'd regulate, uh, crushed reds after dining area the same way that we would, um, this, uh, seating in front of the seven gables in, cause they're pretty different situations. Um, so by regulating, um, after dining on private property through uh... the conditional use permit that every restaurant is required to have That would streamline the process, make it easier for restaurants in that situation. It would free up staff time to focus on the public right-of-way. And if a restaurant that has an already issued conditional use permit wants to add outdoor dining, we could amend that CUP administratively at City Hall and review against the regulations then as opposed to... getting the outdoor dining permit process the way it is now. So, Another change is shifting from either one or two year permit links and moving to just a purely seasonal approach so that, you know, it's spring, spring happens, it's time to renew your permit. You don't have to remember, oh, last year did I do it for one year or two years? It's just something that happens in a standardized way for everybody. Yes.

Sorry. Question for you, is there an end time for these? If the renewal is seasonal, is there guidelines that say that you can only open here and you have to remove everything off in October?

The rules, it's allowed year long. There isn't a date that you have to close up shop or once the weather hits 50 degrees for three straight days or anything like that. It's allowed year long

Okay. So in essence, it would be from if you decide that the renewal seasonal date is March 1st, then it would go from March 1st until February 29th, 28th, whichever. That would be the period, the permit period. Exactly. Okay.

Also on that slide, when you say removing the permit requirement for private property, would that mean that they could put whatever type furniture they want on their private property?

So the same regulations would be, it would be more when we would review it. We'd review it as part of the CUP when the restaurant opened or if they opened and then the next year wanted to add outdoor dining, we'd amend that CUP to hold them to those standards.

Currently, I believe we don't allow the molded plastic chairs and tables.

That's right.

But would that be allowed on the private property?

The same material recommendations would apply to both. It would just be a question of when, of what was enforcing those rules, the CUP or the outdoor dining permit.

So then to answer my question, the answer is no.

Correct. Yeah, we haven't changed that. So the language and the text that Hobie, the text that he drafted for materials, furniture and umbrella rules, all of that, nothing is changing there. So it applies to everything. The only thing that changes is the procedure section where then Hobie identifies that an outdoor dining light permit type is required for the public property side. Yeah.

Whatever the length of the permit, once it's on private property, they wouldn't have to renew that permit however many times. It would be handled at the start, but the materials and stuff would be handled then. And then I guess, yes, if they changed it, they would be out of compliance then, but not through the outdoor dining portion of things.

Exactly. And and the conditional use permit stays in effect as long as the restaurant stays open and until unless they want to change those terms.

And why don't we allow plastic furniture? Why don't we allow the plastic molded furniture?

Well, years ago we decided maybe it wasn't the right aesthetic.

I've always wondered. I just agree that I have always wondered.

So the final big change would be there would be an initial inspection before the permit is issued. It would be on site with someone at management level to verify that the code required pedestrian access route of at least five feet exists and explain what enforcement would be like and The permit and then the approved layout would have to be kept on site so that as staff come and go or different people are working, it would try to ensure continuity and communicate the city's expectations. This has especially been an issue with chains that where the person who um, applies for the outdoor dining permit might be at the corporate office, you know, who doesn't go to the site very often. And then they don't communicate with the people working at the restaurant that, you know, you have to, you can't put the chair here because that's over a tree grade, something like that. Uh, so this is kind of, uh, the changes are to keep everybody on the same page, um, through the whole season. Um, And one of our inspectors and I came up with kind of a door hanger violation notice saying what they did wrong and how to fix it and how to get ahold of us to work with them. So the whole idea is to kind of streamline things for both restaurants, city staff and pedestrians to ensure that everybody's on the same page.

I would like to see under the violation for nuisance, rather than just cleanliness of public waste, also orderliness with the idea that if we're towards the end of a season and a business doesn't want to put away those chairs or doesn't have space to put them away, that they're not just kind of strewn all across there. And I think specifically of the outdoor furniture at Cafe Napoli towards the end of the season, it tends to... I always think that, like, someone just didn't come and pick it all up because it's waiting there and it's on the sidewalk. And so I think it would be easy enough that under the nuisance, just adding an order... cleanliness and orderliness of public ways with kind of an express or perhaps implied... understanding that that means that the chairs and tables would have to be stacked or put in some way that wouldn't impede on the public way is that something that could be added or so there is a line

that says that the storage of furniture when not in use can't um impede upon the the five feet pedestrian route so if um i think in most cases um That would cover that issue.

Okay, great. Chris, I think in this case, I think Cafe Napoli's outdoor dining would probably be considered private property because it doesn't come onto the sidewalk. It's all on the footprint.

Yeah, but they still – so when you read through the outdoor dining regulations, there's general requirements that apply to everything, and we do have provisions about neat cleanliness, all of those sorts of things. It's just purely the permitting that doesn't apply to the.

So once again, this wouldn't apply to the outdoor dining permit, but the situation that Chris is describing could be enforced through other means.

Correct. Because anybody with outdoor dining will still be held to all of those standards. They just have a different permitting so we can cite them. Yeah. So I think this one, the nuisance is a reference to a specific section of our code that talks about right away, but we can add easily add a more general one as well that they could check. Yeah.

Well, I'm looking at the violation notice. I really appreciate all your attention to creating as a walker, as a dog walker, actually. I've experienced many restaurants that don't leave anywhere near a five-foot path through. So we will have approved a plan that shows the correct path. When your inspector or some member of the public arrives and that path doesn't exist, they haven't put the tables where they said they were going to. Is there a box on here that gets checked that says you haven't complied? You haven't complied with the plan that you submitted?

I guess the inspector would then probably take a picture with a tape measure saying... You said that you would have at least five feet here. This shows three and a half feet. That violates the terms of your permit.

I just didn't know if the violation should say, hey, your layout is not in compliance in some way. Thanks.

Can I ask in studying this? Because clearly you talked to the inspectors. I know in places like New Jeffery Yorg, there's people who are... purposely cheating the line of where they can because that they're gaining extra revenue is it the city's experience that people are like habitually taking more space than then they're allowed to be able to get more seats out there or is it more do you does it strike you that it's more of just like a an accident

Can I ask in studying this? Because clearly you talked to the inspectors. I know in places like New York, there's people who are... purposely cheating the line of where they can because that they're gaining extra revenue is it the city's experience that people are like habitually taking more space than then they're allowed to be able to get more seats out there or is it more do you does it strike you that it's more of just like a an accident

i think it's probably a little of both you just you know If every day you took an extra inch, you know, after a little while, you'd be taking up the whole sidewalk. So I think that happens, and I think it happens a lot, and that's kind of what we're trying to crack down on. So everybody's on the same page. Even if they have the desire to take the whole sidewalk, they know that they shouldn't.

I've noticed customers pulling tables away from the building wall. which then could go over the limit. It's not always the proprietor. Sometimes it's us.

Totally. I'm thinking of several different scenarios, but I also just didn't – I was curious what the city's experience was because I could very much see, especially the way this is worded, that there's just genuine confusion and people are just trying to make a living. I could also see, you know, especially when it's nice out, you know, a lot of these buildings can substantially – get a lot more people in the door and that's you know that can be the difference between making it not picking it especially if you've got a great patio space

i think it is important as long as we enforce that and i think ada compliance somebody's who's really having difficulty with accessibility as well as the rest of us walking and everything else but i think it's really important that we make sure i don't know if it can impact their application for the following year if there's a series of violations and you keep that record to come back and say I'm not so sure we're approving you again

right there is a section that says that if you have three or more violations in the same year your permit can be revoked so that's not changing

in previous to this rewriting I'll show you what I don't know about our existing codes was there a clear requirement to leave a five-foot pathway through

there was but they were cut there was kind of confusing language about absolute minimum three feet at least four feet recommended but not required and then as the standards change there's no grandfathering in but so we tried to make it less confusing so that maybe busy people can can read it once and know exactly what they need to do

sure because i'm i'm all for al fresco dining for i i like the look of it i but I think they have to recognize that people need to get through too. I mean, sometimes I've walked through those situations and it's sort of, you get one of these looks like, well, what are you doing cutting through here? This is our dining space. Well, not really. It's a little backwards. It's public. It's the sidewalk. So thanks.

Anything else, Obie?

Nothing else for me.

Okay. Any other comments?

I'll just say I appreciate, I think the basically bringing the meeting to the beginning of it. I forgot exactly how it's worded here, but, you know, kind of to set clear expectations from the beginning. And I think that separate, that will separate the people who are well-meaning from the people who are trying to cheat the system. And then hopefully the enforcement system will weed its way up. But I think it's written very clearly. And I think it's, I think it's a great way to kind of balance the needs of pedestrians and businesses by setting clear expectations that everyone knows what to follow.

And also, I think the communication process is being improved. And I think that's vitally important. Good work. We do have a recommendation to approve it and send it on to the City Council.

I move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council

Second. All in favor? Aye. OK. Now we'll move on to item seven, which is our final item, text amendment on the PUD district.

Okay.

All right, so we're going to go brief overview of the final draft of the planning development regulations. So we've talked about this a couple of times. Our goal here really being to update the public benefit point system to then reflect back on all the goals and visions that we have set. after the comprehensive plan. So after review of the existing situation, we came across two recommendations. The first being to adjust our base qualifications. So we did that with the mixed use zoning districts that were adopted recently. So that reestablished kind of the the entry level of what we're looking for in different districts. And so that allows us to then make the modifications appropriate with the planning development structure. So then we've proposed to adjust the benefit structure to use a tiered system and identify our goals and our priorities. So in general, there are a lot of regulations within the text amendment that are existing. They're carryovers similar to what we just talked about with the text amendment for outdoor dining. So we have a section that identifies the types of PUDs. That's mostly unchanged. We have residential and we have a mixed use and there's different types. depending on your base zoning district and the aspects of your property, you're either going to do a residential or a mixed use. The one change there is we added a provision for a residential PUD that would allow somebody to do a residential PUD in the M3 zoning district when it matches the single use residential requirements of that district. So we added the provisions In the M3, that would allow somebody with a higher density to do a single-use residential building that has that higher unit density. So if there's a property that would qualify for that under M3 and they were doing a PUD for some reason, increasing the density beyond or height, or so there was some other thing that triggered the PUD, then they could do a residential PUD on a previously commercially zoned property. Then the minimum project standards we outlined. So these were kind of the expectations for any PUD, so designing to lead silver using high quality materials. If you have a CEA use that consumer emphasis uses, then we establish what retail ready is with a minimum interior ceiling height for those spaces. And then we also outline the uses, how to identify what uses would be allowed within that. The procedure section at the end is also mostly unchanged. We have a summary table, so following the unified development code standards, trying to provide summaries and outline things. We do have this table, but again, the process itself has not changed. It's just worded with this summary table now to help the ease of explanation.

Anna, back on that, the community conference, that's optional, isn't it?

No, the conceptual review is optional. Oh, okay. Yep. And then going into the framework, we've created three tiers. And the tier you fall in is established by your modification qualifier. So we kind of went through this at our discussion previously. After the discussion, we did make a slight adjustment. So in tier three, we increased the public benefit requirements. That was something that kind of came out of that discussion. So basically, depending on what your modifications are, you would either become a tier one, tier two, or tier three modifier. PUD project tier three being the most intensive in terms of what you're modifying. And then the public benefits, kind of the requirements increase as you go from the lower impact tier one up to the higher impact tier three that you'd be required to do more in terms of the benefits that your project provides. And then we outline our public benefits in again, in a section where we've identified the benefits that fall under each tier. And then we've also identified the priority benefits. So within the, the tier one project, if you're a tier one project, you can choose tier one benefits. you could choose tier three benefits, even though you're a tier one. But then if you're up to tier three, that's where there's requirements that keep that higher. So we say if you're the higher impact one, then you have to have at least two of your benefits need to be a tier three. So there's a little bit more option to mix and match when you have to have more benefits. So then we go through the benefit options themselves did not change too much from where we were discussing previously. So I did update language on a few elements. So we have our tier one, tier two and tier three which we can go through if there are any specific questions. I did make an adjustment to the architectural distinction definition. So we no longer have unique across that. So I replaced unique with notable. I hope that's a good replacement. And then I also added a reference that still makes sure that people recognize architecture view board standards, so it has to still fit within that context. So that was the minor change that was made for architectural distinction. Thanks for that. Can I

ask a quick question? You probably thought I'd bring something up. Architectural distinction, you all may disagree. Should it be evaluated by the city council or should it be evaluated by ARB?

Well, the city council is the one who has the approval discretion for the PUD itself. And so that's why ultimately they do that. You do have a recommendation. So you do as the ARB have to approve the architectural because that's a concurrent project. But in terms of evaluating the benefit aspect of it, that is the council.

Okay. I guess that's, I was stuck on the word evaluated. I thought they were approving it, but not necessarily evaluating whether or not it was distinct architecturally.

They are. So the discretion is with the council. You were still acting as the ARB to approve architecture of a project. So if a PUD came before you and they were not requesting benefit points for architectural distinction, you would approve the architecture or deny it? If they are requesting public benefit points because of their architectural distinction, you still have to approve or deny the project as the ARB. And you're also making a recommendation to the council as to how you view.

So if we saw something and they said one of our benefits is it's architecturally distinct, we looked and said, no, it's not. They sent it to the city council and they can overrule us, I guess, and say, no, yes, it is. And

that's right. Yep. That's

their discretion. Yes. Yeah. I think traditionally the city council has also relied on the opinion of the architecture review board to make this. I've wondered some of those things in the past too. And I think they lean on our expertise to kind of guide some of those decisions and don't necessarily make them in a vacuum if that helps. Yeah.

Yeah, with a PUD because that is their discretion in making this zoning decision. We wouldn't want to separate it out and say they are approving a PUD of a rezoning except that this one portion is then approved by a different body. So you are one of the bodies that makes a recommendation to the council with your expertise on that element of it, but it's still ultimately their decision.

And in the next sentence, after the for example, it says standard block. Did you mean block or did somebody mean to write brick there?

No, I meant block. Yeah,

because I certainly wouldn't think that somebody would propose that a standard block facade would be architecturally distinct. Is

that

what's being implied?

So we've had many projects that were – Just square glazing, and they previously under PUDs have requested points for architecture distinction. Concrete block, that's what we're talking about? No, I'm talking about, I mean, they were nice looking buildings, but they were just glazing. It's just a rectangle of glazing. I think it's saying that that would not be allowed.

Well, right, but I don't even know why it would be an example, you know, so that somebody would be allowed to suggest that.

It's because it has been. That's why I put it in there.

Now, you know, I mean, the synagogue addition that was done a couple years ago, that's stone, large block.

Right, but I think that's part of where you guys will weigh in, but... that has other significant to it. So there's elements that people might look at that addition that Colran did and said they think it's significant and distinctive because of other elements of that project, not if you just looked at a vacuum of that rectangle with the stone side, I don't think you would. So similarly, this doesn't say it's absolutely not, but that alone, having a block, a rectangle of glass alone is not necessarily architectural distinction.

Oh, okay. So you standard block massing. Okay. You don't mean, yes. Yes. This is only in reference to massing. It's not in reference to the material. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's the part I was missing. Yeah.

And then, so this is the summary and we can talk about any other elements. We did send out the draft to anyone who is a property owner, developer, designer who has worked on a PUD in the past in Clayton or has been associated with a potential PUD or anything else of that nature and ask them for comments. We didn't get a lot of comments back. I know we have one person who did engage is in the audience, and we did exchange some emails, and then there was one other developer who made some recommendations. But other than that, we didn't really hear back from anyone. All

right. Yeah, very good job. I think it will clarify it hopefully for everyone, especially the development community as we go forward, make it easier on the staff and all the regulatory boards also at the same time. So very good job. I think you've captured what we were discussing previously, and it looks good to me.

I think it's an excellent job. It's well written and the requirements are very clear. If I were a developer coming in for PUD, this tells me exactly what I need to do and the process. I think it's great. Thank you.

I agree with all the comments before me. And also, I feel the need to bring it up again, too, that since we've reduced the threshold, we should be seeing less PUDs, too. So this process will probably only be reserved for the,

you

know, truly kind of tippy top of these developments. We, you know, we don't have to necessarily worry about these for a more middle ground project, because hopefully that falls without outside the scope of it now. So chris

excellent work all of you

player

great job

jeff no very very good job really thorough um i had a question about section four under studies um do we require a context study of any sort again if this is for large projects do we yeah Two blocks. I'm talking about a larger context. How does this project fit into the surrounding neighborhoods? And that could be a couple blocks in each direction? I don't know. I know that comes up on larger projects, but do we require it anywhere? A

context in terms of size or material? Passing. Okay. We... Do require a 3D model. That is not a requirement in the code, but it's a requirement under our application list. So we do have that. And then if there was an issue, we could always require additional studies. But just in the code isn't automatic. There is not a block based study that's required. Because I know I

see shadow study, and that's what made me think. And then how far does the shadow study go? And how does that new project building relate to other things around it? So that's the only reason I'm bringing that up. I'm thinking of the Centene process, which quite a bit of that was done, which was useful. Now, maybe it was because it was asked

for. And also because that's under a special development district, which has phases. So it's a little bit different when you have multiple properties like that. I would say under especially a special development district that has as many properties involved as Centene did, we would probably require all of those studies to be done every time. Yeah.

Dave Kuntz, The other thing and maybe it's not I thought I saw it in here somewhere, this is just a general question we we put out notices to I think the I think the dimension is 200 feet from the project site which seems woefully. Dave Kuntz , Small it we don't you know it doesn't it doesn't reach. very far in terms of neighborhood comment, neighborhood awareness of projects that are happening. Has there ever been any discussion of making that 200 feet larger? I bet it's going to be a legal question.

It is derived from the fact that under Missouri state law, zoning decisions, property owners within 185 feet are given special status with respect to the ability to file a protest to a proposed zoning action and thereby trigger a requirement for a supermajority. So our notice is intended to encompass those who have that special status and the right. Folks outside that scale do not have the same impact or the same right to cause a trigger of a supermajority. So the notice requirement is geared to cover the folks who enjoy that special statutory status.

Okay, thanks.

nothing to add thank you

anyone from the audience who would like to comment

welcome back my name is joel montgomery i'm a commercial property owner in the city of clayton um first of all thank you all for your time uh that you come and do this as regularly as you do and spend your time serving the city is commendable. I appreciate your hard work and staff's hard work to put this new PUD language forward. And I do think clarity can be very helpful and should help us evaluate what the opportunities are, the challenges might be. The one concern I have is that the plan might present some feasibility challenges. It's hard to say without quantifying the cost of some of these public benefits, and that's hard to do in the abstract. I tried to do that, and I really couldn't quite figure out exactly what sort of impact this has on the budget and as a result pro forma. And the concern is that what is meant for good and what could work for good in some circumstances might end up working for bad. It might create some really serious disadvantages for a particular property or properties, and ultimately for the city. And that's because as developers, we're competing for capital, and capital is looking for opportunity to generate return, obviously. And to the extent that there are public benefits that require additional investment, items in the budget if if the budget can't be made to attract that capital the project doesn't get off the ground and um i'd hate to see this kind of become a situation where we're hoisting on our own batard we've created this thing but it can't be used to accommodate perhaps some opportunities that might be great for the city because of that i thought perhaps There could be more flexibility built into the plan to help avoid the problems of creating some serious feasibility hurdles. And I also think that flexibility could help the city because a list of public benefits today that might be be helpful and good in the mind of the council might not be good tomorrow. And could there be a need? Now, obviously, you can go through an amendment, but could there be some flexibility built in so that that wouldn't necessarily a process that you would have to undertake in order to, uh, make some adjustments to what you want to accomplish as well. Um, examples of flexibility, what, you know, you did, I, I noticed in reading of the, of the language you did have in here, some language in paragraph two where you could trade out a public benefit for, um, maybe something else that's not on the list that's brought forward by a developer and set in exchange or in lieu of one of the public benefits that's in the table. And I think that's a good example of flexibility. You allow that one time, I would maybe suggest you consider allowing it more than once. Another example of flexibility has to do with the requirement for accommodating some affordable housing, workforce housing in a apartment development. The question is, could there be some limits on the time frame for something like that? And can some flexibility be built into the plan to allow maybe some adjustments to that requirement that might help offset some of the challenge associated with making that happen? If there's a limit to their time requirement for 15 years or something of that nature, it may help attract capital to a project that otherwise can't be brought out of the ground. I don't know that I've been able to come up with other ideas at this point on how maybe to add flexibility, but I thought that might be something to consider. And those are really the extent of my comments. I don't mean to disparage it because I think it's a worthy effort, and I do think that clarity is important. But I also think added flexibility might be helpful not only for the developer's sake but for the city's sake as well so that you could maybe adjust when times change. Anyway, those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you.

If I understand correctly, so are you basically suggesting that like there's another category? You know, if you're filling out a form and you had all these options and then you had an other write-in that would then be reviewed by staff as a possible substitution for, you know, we don't want to do any of these public things or these are no longer applicable 10 years from now. However, we do propose this, which is a novel public benefit, but that's not specifically listed. Would you consider that? Is that possible?

Yes, and I think that's built in here to some extent already, but it's limited. And I thought, well, maybe there'd be some thought given to expanding that sort of opportunity. You might find that what the developer comes forward with is a better public benefit than what you had envisioned here, and it would be worth swapping out, you know, that kind of thing.

I appreciate your comments very much. And it's always good to have different viewpoints coming in at these things and flexibility in what you have. Try this instead. A lot of these came directly from the comprehensive planning, extensive process with the community, which is why they're here and we're trying to have that development that fits that goal. And given that, we do have to balance it with what's feasible development that we want. But that's a lot of where this...

Yeah, and I think you're doing exactly what you're called to do. I don't think that it's just how we're doing it. And it may be that this is great. I don't know. Because for me, it's hard for me to evaluate exactly what kind of impact or burden this would have in a particular situation. It's hard for me really put together a financial analysis that helps me determine whether or not I need this flexibility. But because I'm kind of flying in the dark there, I thought really maybe there should be some built-in flexibility because maybe we realize there are some things that could be done better or could be done differently and try to accomplish the same overall objectives.

I think you've got to be a little careful. I appreciate staff's specificity, added specificity of benefits because I've been on your side of the table and sometimes benefits are proposed that aren't benefits and then you get into a subjective conversation with groups like ours as to was that really a benefit or is that just something you want to tell us is a benefit? So I like that we're we're being a little clearer about what benefits are and that some of those benefits need to be these specific things. Right. You know, so... And I can appreciate that. A little flexibility, but not

too much. Right. You don't want the tail to wag the dog. I mean, if the exception becomes a rule, you don't really have a rule. So I get that.

I'm just curious, looking through the list, does anything in any of the tiers strike you as, like, particularly onerous as a developer?

Uh... I don't know whether the workforce and affordable housing requirements, I'm not sure exactly how that will impact a pro forma. It could be significant and it could be prohibitive. I just don't know yet. It depends on density. It depends on other factors. I can't really quantify sitting here today. Anyway, there's flexibility with that particular provision I think might be helpful with the workforce housing and the affordable housing. I think it could be helpful.

I can certainly see where some flexibility like there might be helpful. I know on the other side of that, a lot of times people come before and say, oh, we have one unit of affordable housing or, you know, hey, we've actually, we've upped this to two units in this project. And they're saying like, okay, kind of going anything above that would be just like next to impossible. So I think it's important to at least set a threshold that has an impact That's not just superficial. I certainly understand from a financing perspective, every dollar that you can bring into the project is going to help you get it financed. But at the same time, when weighing that, if those limits are set too low, I think we've seen traditionally people will put that at just one or two units. Right.

I understand your perspective and why pushing that would be important. It could mean that you accomplish your goal, the developer has every chance to accommodate it, but it could mean there are projects that can't get off the ground.

That also wouldn't have to be something that's taken from that tier. That's just an option. There's plenty of other options in that tier as well.

Yeah, but if I had some flexibility, I might like to provide some sort of public benefit that isn't necessarily already identified, and the city might actually think it's a better option. Now, you have allowed that to some extent.

Yeah, we allow that for one, and I do want to make it clear that affordable housing is only – you only have to meet that requirement if you choose that as a benefit. Right. So you could build a – multi-family building that doesn't have any affordable housing under the PUD.

And something I thought you might bring up, I just don't know from previous projects, have we built PUDs with 50% of the parking being EV charging? Have we done that? That seems to me like a high bar if I'm standing here. Yeah,

I think the closest would be the Forsythia condos. I know they did a couple of EV charging and conduit for everything.

They ran conduit. They are not providing it. It is an upcharge. And they are providing it if it is requested for 50%. So one of your two spots can have it. But it is an extreme charge.

Yeah, because that jump from being Tier 1 being 10% to Tier 2 being 50%. I mean, if you were doing 150 parking spaces in a project, 75 of them are going to have EV chargers. That's aligning your portfolio, for sure.

And I think residential code, you have to wire for it now, but you don't have to necessarily provide the full charger.

But it is also in... power issue too. So, I mean, there are other things that are along with that in terms of just saying we can do 50%, right? I mean, or whatever it is, like there are a lot of other.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you to the staff for an excellent presentation that we can understand. Any further comments? We have a recommendation to provide feedback, and I think we've done that. I don't think we have to vote on anything. Is that correct?

The public hearing is open for this item, so you should take some form of action.

Thank

you.

Was there a hand

up? There's no hands up. No. No, so the public hearing has been opened. So you can either continue this or you can recommend approval or you can recommend denial or you can make changes.

I move to recommend approval of the text amendment with regard to PUDs.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Thank you, and we can close the public hearing, both of them. That brings us to the end. Jeff, any comments? Nothing else. Thank you. Blair?

Chris? We were wondering what the developer's name was that just had presented. Do we know? Anyone know who that developer?

Joel Montgomery. Joel

Montgomery. No, thank you all again.

Jim? After three weeks off, it felt like coming back to school after a summer break. So nice to see everyone again. Alan?

No additional comments.

The only thing is ending with that was actually helpful because as we do all of these, it's remembering back all that information from the comprehensive planning and what our neighbors actually want. And from looking at the houses and from looking at this, it all kind of comes back to where we're going with each of our decisions. So that was helpful too.

all coming together finally

briefly for me at least then it goes back again but

yes it is thank you brian for me obi

nothing for me

anna thank you mr o'keefe for uh your expertise good to see you okay and we will see you all on monday may 4th and the meeting is adjourned