June 15, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for June 15th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DeFate?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Claire Queskin? Here. Susan Buse? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on June 1st. Are there any changes? Hearing or seeing none.

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. We'll move on. This is the time for open forum. I know we have only two people in the chambers, but if anyone has a comment for any item not on our business matters tonight, please either raise your hand or come up. I see no hands, so we'll move on. We'll come to tonight's business matters. The first item is 507 South Hanley Road, and that is the sign sub-district. And we'll start with the staff report.

The property is located on the west side of Hanley, just south of Olinka Terrace. The site is zoned M1 and is developed with a single-story commercial building. The property presently has a signed subdistrict, which was approved in December 2015, and the applicant is seeking removal of the signed subdistrict. Removal of the subdistrict would result in greater sign flexibility, and no signs would become noncompliant as a result of the subdistric removal. Removal of the subdistrict could result in signage that differs from the established character in the area. However, signage would remain subject to review by the Architecture Review Board. Staff recommend removal of the signed subdistrict.

Okay. If the applicant would come up, identify yourself, add anything you'd like to add. Yeah.

Good evening. My name is Corey Gerringer. I'm with Lynette Realty and Investment and Page LM Properties. I represent the ownership group of the building. We had a new tenant that is under construction, had started the signage permitting process and had actually brought This information to us that there was a signed sub-district in place and our ownership group was actually not, either did not recall that request or was not familiar with that request. So we wanted to formally request the removal of that sub-district for our tenants to have the ability to do customized signage.

Okay. So essentially what we have read and was partially given to us by Ryan. Correct. Okay. It seemed to me that it makes sense in this case to remove it. I don't think we've ever deleted a sub-district, have we, in the past? Or me either. I've been here a long time. But I don't see any reason to deny the request at this point. Of course, we'll be talking about the actual sign in a minute. That'll be the next item. Helen?

No, I don't have any questions.

Jim? I'm thankful we have such a robust archive. I was able to go back and read when this was put in place. It was requested by the owners at the time, but I see no reason not to repeal it. Bruce?

Hi, apologies for coming in late here. I have a couple of questions. First off, and so I found that this went into place in 2015, the actual signed subdivision about this particular building. And it was clearly intended to create kind of a coordinated sort of visual impact back then. So it feels like if we are repealing this, then we are discounting what the ARB said in 2015. And I'm curious as to why we're either not amending ARB the sign district in this case, rather than repealing and appealing it entirely. And then also what happened to that original intent that we're now 11 years later that we're saying now we don't wanna do that anymore. So that's, have any idea about that? Might be a staff question, I don't

know. I'm not sure how it could be amended.

Maybe a one case only. I mean, for this tenant, it seems unless I'm mistaken, it seems like this is one tenant that's requesting a change for the entire building. And I don't know if that if the tenant necessarily is speaking along those same lines as the other tenants or if this simply is us repealing an entire sign. You know, the guidelines based on just one tenant.

Well, it's the building owner rep who's really requesting it on the part of the ownership, whether it's driven by one tenant or not. I'm not sure if we can really tell. It might be, but maybe you have... comment on that

yeah i to to kind of give you some context you know we were the ownership there's a the property is owned by five individuals that form the llc um the operating member uh Wasn't even familiar that a sub-district had been put in place years ago. Our tenant that is moving in now is our first new tenant in seven plus years. First time small business owner. She expressed a desire to be more creative and stand out a little bit more. We had also talked to our other tenants about potentially down the road, them having the option to do customized creative signage as well and everyone was on board with that so i'm not really sure why um you know the sub-district was requested initially it may have been one or two or three of the owners at that point in time when they were more hands-on with the operations but as it stands now we came to the decision that we wanted to give all of our businesses the opportunity to have customized signage and just stand out a little bit more so um So yeah, I don't know why. Again, it was requested initially. It was our understanding that as property owner, we have the ability to approve any tenant signage anyway. So it probably could have been avoided to even have a sub-district put in place in the first place. We simply could have had uh language in our lease agreements with our tenants stating that you know we could have any restrictions that we want um prior to you even requesting a signage permit from the city of clayton so um that's kind of a historical background of where we've where we've been and where we are now

and i think that helps i think my understanding um which was was mistaken was that it was the individual owner that was a one and two appeal for this not the property owner so my apology oh sure that's no further questions

later

I'm good. No further questions. Susan?

Yeah, I think my concern was what was the intent of doing this 11 years ago? And how has that changed? So I think that's been answered that we're really not sure.

Yeah, I think it's, you know, I think the biggest, I can't say for certain why it was decided years ago to be requested. I can just say now that there's a desire to give all tenants in the building the opportunity to have customized signage to kind of stand out a little bit more and advertise their business a little bit better.

And did I hear correctly, it was requested 11 years ago by the building owner at that time? Yep. And now the building owner requested that be removed. Correct. Okay. I have nothing else.

Susan, I can maybe take a stab at this because-

Yeah, you looked at the archives.

I have the email. You want to take it? You go ahead. The email, there was a sign company that emailed city staff on behalf of the owner requesting that a sign package was put in place to allow for very specific types of signs. They didn't say why they wanted those specifically, but I have the email in the file where they said my client would like a sign package C attached. Okay, thank you. This was in 2015. Yes. Yeah.

You know, back then, well, very few of us were here at that time. I don't know why we looked at a relatively small property for a assigned area. It seems like all the other ones we've done have been much larger.

So the sign districts are available at the request of a property owner. There is not a, like with a plenty of development, you have a minimum area to qualify for the size of your building. We don't have qualifying factors for a sign sub-district. So they requested this. It looks like there was some slight difference between the size and type of sign that was allowed under the sign code at that time compared to what they were proposing in the sign package. we've updated the sign codes since 2015. So as Ryan identified, removing it now wouldn't create any issues that might have been existing in 2015 with the signs. But it is a property owner's, they have the ability to request this of the board.

Thank you. Okay. Well, any other comments? I don't believe so, no. Any comments from the audience? Any hands up? No. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to recommend removal of the sign subdistrict. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve removal of the sign subdistrict.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll move on to item number two, which is the actual signage at 507. So

this application is for approval of a wall sign, which was previously denied as part of the now removed sign sub district. Given the difference in character of the sign to those nearby and the request to remove the sign sub district, the sign was referred to the architecture review board. The sign is an internally illuminated acrylic cabinet sign and signs nearby commonly comprised channel letters, awning signs or flat graphics. Other existing signs on the subject property comply with the sub-district and comprise of aluminum with LED backlit Plex face letters. Historically, the ARB has expressed a preference for cabinet signs with push through illuminated letters as allowed under the now removed sign sub-district for the property and has discouraged the use of acrylic cabinet signs. Given the difference in character of the proposed sign, staff have the opinion that an alternative sign design would better fit the character of nearby signage and staff recommend that the ARB not approve the requested sign.

Okay. Any comments on

this? No, that's well stated. We typically don't get overly involved with tenant signage. We typically will just provide a review process where we'll grant a landlord approval and then after that it's typically up to our tenants and their signage contractor to follow the permitting procedures with the city. So I think we're just trying to get a little bit more clarity on if in fact the sub-district is to be removed Would this signage fall within the City of Clayton's permitted signage code?

Okay, well, as you can see from the conclusion, it would have to now follow the standard regulations as opposed to the former subdistrict. And in this case, it really does not. fit our standard regulations. And of course, what was in the report, hopefully you got the entire report. about the illuminated acrylic cabinet signs are really not what we're looking for right now. And that it really does not fit in the character of the neighborhood. I would agree with it, having gone over and looked at it also. It really stands out and does not seem to fit in at all. So I would... not be in favor of approving it

okay is it is it more uh size or material or color or all the above i guess again we don't typically get involved in the details of of signage so i think my presence here is to try and just get some more clarity to to go back to tenant and give them some clarity on On where maybe they fell short, my understanding is our tenant sign contractor reviewed the sign code and didn't see anything permitting that type of signage. So they went ahead and proceeded with production. So maybe there was some confusion on their interpretation of the sign code. So I think if there's something that I could at least leave this meeting with specifically stating why it would not be approved, unless it's just simply a architecture review board opinion.

Well, I think you summed it up. The size, the material, the method of lighting are all different from what we are looking for in our standard regulations. And it was pretty well defined in the previous item on the sub-district. And if you look at the first page, you'll see signage, square footage and um because it is a wall sign and um we can certainly pull up all of the regulations about the lighting and how the letters are put in um it's quite different from what we see up there

okay would it help our case to present some signage in the neighborhood that mirrors our style neighboring tenants that would also have similar acrylic cabinet signage that's already existing and in place. We are able to provide those examples.

Well, we would always look at that. I'm really not familiar if we have any similar to this.

Yeah, Y-Down Dental Group across the street at 510 South Hanley has an acrylic cabinet sign. I

think we would have to look at that.

Yeah, no, that was my next question is if maybe we need to provide some examples of acrylic. My understanding is this is an acrylic cabinet sign. So they would, you know... again i that's why i was just trying to get clarity on is it a is it a size issue or is it just a a general aesthetic design issue um and i believe pretzels around the corner has a acrylic cabinet signage as well

probably 50 years

Well, in the white on dental group signs coming down also. So, uh, cause they've already approved for, uh, they've already gone through new signage for, or I don't know if they have gone through a new signage, but yeah, with their building going up, this will be coming down anyway.

So is it, am I summarizing this? There's nothing specific in the sign code that disallows this sign. It's more just the opinion of the ARB. Is that, is that correct?

Well, the ARB opinion does fit in, but I believe we have more definitive regulations about the lighting.

We have definitive regulations about lighting, but our sign code specifically references that. that ARB approves the materials, appearance, characteristics of the sign. And the sign, when they applied for a sign permit to install this, they were sent review comments that identified the deficiencies and told that their administrative approval would not be granted and referred it to this board. And it was installed anyway then. Was the primary

deficiency the fact that there is a sub-district in place?

Both were identified. Yeah, that was one of the identifiers is that first it didn't comply with the sign sub-district. And then second, they were told that even without that administrative approval would not be granted. So they have to come to the board as you are today.

Okay. But there's nothing specific about size or lighting that is prohibited in the sign code currently?

We allow illumination. So no, but it's... Not that it's specifically prohibited, but all the aesthetic characteristics have to be approved by ARB, any exterior characteristics. May

I ask a question? I see that this originally they had come up for permit and it was denied, and then the sign was installed. And I'm wondering if you know some history behind that. I mean, if we're being asked to ratify something that was not approved.

Yeah, my understanding is our tenant sign contractor, again, we don't typically get involved in sign permitting or coming to these types of events. Our tenant sign contractor had submitted a permit. They had come back to ownership stating, hey, we were denied our permit because of a sub-district that was in place. We went ahead and filed the paperwork to rescind that sub-district, but we were not communicated that there was something wrong with the design or the material or the lighting or any of those items. My brief conversation with the signage contractor is that they did not find anything in the Signage code with the city of Clayton that prohibited that type of signage from being installed.

Again, our code very clearly states that you cannot install a sign until a permit is issued. And within the code, it says that the permit, the design, shape, colors, materials shall be compatible with the building as determined by the city manager. The city manager may refer a sign to the architecture review board for approval.

Yeah, and again, that's not, you know, we're here on behalf of that group. They typically would be the party that's here, but we're stepping in as the ownership group on their behalf.

Well, the compatibility with the existing building, it really stands out. It's very different. However, I think I was incorrect when I said the size was not correct, but I believe it does fit into our regulations. So I would not have a problem with the sign, but I think the materials, we usually see a little better material in there rather than a flat acrylic. Even though you've shown us across the street, there is one, but it's been there forever.

So what are, yeah, go ahead. Oh, I was just going to say, would the recommendation be for a redesign, resubmission, and just wait for more feedback? Is that

correct? I believe if you were to redesign and resubmit, it would go back to the city manager. Is that correct?

So the sign as it's designed has been referred to you all. If you want to provide direction and then staff will review that administratively under the sign permit, you're welcome to do so. Or, you know, as in any other project that comes before you or you can request that the changes are brought back to you all for review.

Well, I think any requested changes that we vote for should go back for administrative review before having you come back here. Hopefully to simplify it.

Yeah, I think we're just trying to get some clarity on what may be, not necessarily say approved, but what you all are looking for, I guess. If they're trying to interpret the signage code, and she had mentioned that it ultimately falls on the ARB's review and approval, they're looking, I think, for a little bit more clarity on what direction to go.

Other comments, Blair?

It may just be me. I may be totally out on my own here, but I always thought that a blade sign would be beneficial on this building. I just feel like all the traffic is coming this way versus yes, people are coming from wide down, but at that angle, you can still see all of that. To me, that's always felt like the perfect place for a blade sign because you're driving up and down Hanley.

Yeah.

But I mean, that's not necessarily my recommendation. I just always felt like that was a good use of location.

Yeah. And I'm not a signage specialist, so I don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak here. I think I'm just trying to get some clarity for them. So

I feel for the applicant in this case that I don't like the sign the way it's designed. That's my personal opinion. But I agree that they're looking for some sort of guidance and I don't have signs right around there that they could look at so i don't i don't know how to proceed with this um unless staff knows of some really good representations of signs that have typically been approved in the last five years in clayton that are good exemplars of it

the salon sign turned out beautifully

Speaking generally from an administrative approval path, there are a lot of examples around of signs that have been approved in the last five years. Most of the tenants directly across the street, with the exception of the dental, those are all brand new signs. So the history of rulings by the ARB that then has been upheld by administratively approved signs has been the cabinets with channel push-through letters or... Channel letters that are illuminated by backlighting. This way or something like that? Correct. So there's examples of all of those types across the street. The one sign type that has not been administratively approved, I can say confidently in the last four years, as long as we've been here, is the full acrylic and internally illuminated cabinet. Okay.

Does that give you enough direction?

I think so. I'll provide that feedback to tenant and their signage contractor and see where they want to go from there.

I would add that when you look at the signage in that area, both sides of the street and around the corner, it's all very clear, direct. You can read it. You're driving 30 miles an hour. So the sign as you have it, I doubt that you could read most of it.

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe a

lot on it. And given the signs old and new are very clean, they're direct. I'm physical therapy and it says SSM health above it. You can see physical therapy.

I think we know why there was a sign sub district now.

Pardon?

We know why there was assigned sub district now, right?

Yeah. Yeah, it needs to be clearer and compatible with what is existing. The other tenants in that building may not want to spend the money on changing their signs. So you can't, we can't look at it and say, well, everybody will be doing this. We're looking at it today and This is what it needs to fit in with. And it really doesn't.

No, yeah. I mean, with the sub-district just now being rescinded, they're obviously going to be the first tenant that would vary from building signage. So they're going to be scrutinized, obviously, a little bit more than others because they're going to have different signage on the building. But no, I understand your feedback.

Yeah, a blade sign, something simple. I mean, Clayton not only looks at the design, but we're all interested in success.

Right, yeah.

So I would go back to the drawing board.

Okay. It's not my drawing board, but I will pass that along. But no, I think from Tenet's perspective is they want to stand out. So I think we need to find hopefully some common ground on what's acceptable, but what's also allowing her to promote her business and stand out a little bit more.

Other comments? I would recommend that we continue this to allow you to resubmit with a different design. Okay.

So to clarify, Steve, you want them to come back to you all for approval?

I'm sorry. Well, I really felt it could be administrative at this point. I think it's been made pretty clear

then we would not continue. If you continue it, it has to come back to you for action.

What would the proper word be to deny

it? So you could deny it or you could require the change of material and illumination method to be reviewed by staff per So it's really up to the motion that you want. If you want them to be able to just resubmit, then we don't need to deny it because that would close this file and require them to reapply.

I think we should make the motion to, in a positive way, say that we'd like it to come back with a different material and different lighting technique fitting within the sign regulation of size and materials similar to what we've seen elsewhere in the area, and the lighting with the push-through letters.

Okay. Does that capture historically the ARB has expressed preference for cabinet signs with push-through illuminated letters? Okay. So we caught all that in that amendment. Okay. Yeah.

And so resubmission would be, I guess, approved administratively at that point. Is that

right? No. If this motion passes, then you can direct the tenant or the sign contractor to submit the revised drawings in the portal under that pending sign permit that they have. Okay.

What's the time limit for something like that or the timeline? How long do they have to resub? I mean, since the sign is currently installed, could they keep that up for a year, two years?

I would have to pull and see how many days they were given by our inspector on the code enforcement case for installing without a permit.

Last I spoke with our code enforcement inspector on that is that they were waiting to see the outcome of this meeting before sending their official notice.

Can we go ahead?

Yeah, I think. Okay, I moved to approve the requirement that the applicant submit a revised drawing with different materials, different lighting techniques and combat compatible with area signs and with the prevalent raised letters seen in other areas of Clayton. And I move that this be reviewed and administratively approved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go on to item number three. And that's site plan review for one Mark Twain.

Ryan. Right, so the applicant is seeking approval of an addition to Clayton High School. It would be located on the southwest side of the school measuring 10,000 square feet. It would house new career and technical education space. Public high schools are conditionally permitted in the R2 district. Missouri law governing development of public schools provides a municipal planning commission the authority to review and recommend on the location, extent, and character of a facility in relation to an adopted comprehensive plan. review is provided to the board of education which may overrule a negative recommendation by two-thirds vote other zoning and architectural review procedures such as conditional use permits are not applicable to approve the planning commission must determine that the location extent and character of the proposal are in conformance with the clayton tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan some staff observations for location The proposed addition expands an existing institutional use on a site designated for institutional uses by the Clayton Tomorrow 2040 future land use map and is consistent with the plan's vision for the property. In terms of extent, the proposed addition is a modest expansion of the existing high school and will result in minimal site changes, maintains circulation and connectivity, and is compatible with the goals of the Clayton Tomorrow2040 plan. in terms of character. The proposed addition utilizes materials and design elements that complement the existing high school while supporting the established civic character of the Maryland Gateway Character Area and the objectives of the Clayton Tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan. Staff do not anticipate adverse impact regarding light, air, noise, pollution, utilities, water runoff, emergency services, parking or vehicle circulation. Staff are of the opinion that the location, extent and character of the addition are in conformance with the Clayton Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval as submitted. The

applicant.

Good evening. I'm Mike Younglin with Paragon Architecture, just the architect of record for the school district of Clayton. We also have Doug, the civil designer, civil engineer on board as well. I think he's on Zoom. So I think the staff report covered it pretty well, but looking at a 10,000 square foot addition along the south side of the high school, really what the program needs. They're looking for some additional classroom spaces. So along that side is their math department, their pre-engineering and shop area. So within the addition, they're doing a career technical education edition that will house geometry and construction and AMS programs, STEM learning lab, additional CTE classrooms and math classrooms. So location to that area is pretty important on that side of the school and just also with the available site area. As the staff report mentioned, too, we're protecting that existing drive around the building for just general circulation by lane access. The geometry and construction space will have garage door access as well, just like their existing shop does, just to get projects in and out of the building that need trailer access as well. Along the southeast side is their existing library. We are creating a courtyard alcove there. from the addition mainly to provide fire separation from the existing building, but also allowing daylight into the spaces and protecting some maintenance access into the library space as well. So other than that, I'll just open it up for questions.

Okay. Basically, it seems to fit all the requirements. But I did have two probably unrelated questions. Will the 23 parking spaces being lost be replaced anywhere?

They are not being replaced. We did do a parking count. I believe it's on sheet C1-0. So we did do a parking lot count analysis. We did remove the 23 parking spaces, but there's 122 shared parking spaces with Shaw Park and the City of Clayton. School has 598, and so the total spaces is 779 available. And I've heard looking at the required number of spaces plus the additional classrooms, we're indicating that 445 would be required.

Okay. In the second one, maybe Mr. Leipziger will be able to comment. Is there a major change to the sewer or any other utilities going under or around?

Hello? Can

you follow the drawing? I'll let Doug answer that

one. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, everyone. The sewer drainage for the campus as a whole will not really be modified much. For the addition itself, there is a slight increase in impervious area, but we are currently planning to address that with a hydrodynamic separator for stormwater quality and an underground chamber system for detention. Basically, we're providing stormwater management for the addition because the high school triggered the requirement with their previous additions. So on MSD's side of the ball, they require anything new to have stormwater management, so we are providing it for this addition.

Okay, so it's really based on the requirement from the previous edition. Anything you're doing now?

For MST purposes, correct. Clayton requires an increase be managed as well. So even if we didn't do, even if MST wasn't involved, we still would be doing something. But since MST is involved and has already triggered those thresholds with previous projects, we are basically just providing something that meets both MST and Clayton's requirement.

Okay. Thank you. I think I follow it now. Ellen?

Okay. I would like to thank you for the civil site plan and the architectural site plan. Both are so important and sometimes the architectural is overlooked. I really don't have any questions. I'd like your attention to detail at the entry, the accessible ramp has its own landing it's not steps coming up and the ramp coming up and then whoever gets there first it's their space which with a wheelchair you know There is significant size. People can move and kind of move over to the side and move more quickly a lot of times. So I think those details indicate the amount of detail you have put into it.

Thank you. The

amount of thought. So I have no questions.

Jim? Jim? I wish I had a good comment like Helen, ready to go. But yeah, I'm not used to seeing a project this large where I really can't come to anything that I have questions on. But everything was pretty much answered in the plan set and I think it fits well with the site and is a solid project. Great. Chris?

The only question I have is if I understand correctly that runoff after the construction is done is actually going to be better then or is it going to be neutral? And this might be for Mr. Leipziger.

It'll be a neutral or even better than we will be sizing it slightly over what's required. So I guess you could say better than.

It's currently nothing further. It looks

good.

Nothing for me. Looks good.

Nothing is savvy with the reading of the plans. And my question really has to do with, I know on the South side, there is glass at the entrance and on that side, And I'm hoping in this particular project and the rest of the school district is doing, which I thank you for taking care of our students and our kids and families. The St. Louis is Clayton is on, as you may well know, one of the major migratory paths for birds and 60% of our songbirds, 40% of our water birds fly through here, and we have millions of deaths from crashing into the lights and the windows. Your students that work with the Sustainability Committee have presented that and helped Clayton become a designated bird city. Hopefully the school district participates in the Lights Out during April and May and September when the birds are passing through, especially a place that's located near a park, a big open green area is where most of the strikes tend to happen. I would request that you consider on this particular project, especially starting new, it's much easier that you can do bird safe windows. There's decals, there's lots of products out there that can do this. The city is trying to do it on old buildings and that's much harder. So as you go forward, on behalf of all of us, I really hope that you all keep that in mind on how you can do that kind of a way.

there a film or something that could be added along with there are

films there are different glasses there are all kinds of products and um would be happy to share what we found out with the sustainability committee if uh if you're open to that that'd be great okay okay all right good thank you thank you

oh there were no other hands up so we do have a we do oh there it is

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

My name is Greg Spino. I live at 15 Topton Way, which is just across from Newman Green. I'll concur with the board. It's a lovely building. My big concern is the parking and I wanted to ask who normally uses the spots that are going to be lost?

Um, so to my knowledge, I know it's the shop teacher likes to park right behind there and the math department. So, and there might be some students that park back there. I'm not entirely sure. Um, but I know those people that use those classrooms and offices, they use that back door to enter the facility. I know as you get closer to the center of Clayton, uh, behind the boiler plant, there's a bunch of parking there. So I know a lot of. Basically, I think everybody who parks there will end up parking back there and they just cut through. the boiler plant area, and then we provided a pedestrian sidewalk to access that. So I wouldn't think that anybody would be parking all the way in the front circle just to traverse all the way around the facility just to get back to the addition.

Well, the number of spots that are going to be lost is pretty close to the equivalent number of spots that were available on Topton Way, which are very often full. As a matter of fact, we've even had students who started parking on Topton Way, which I think is illegal. I have sort of one question. Why does the board not require as you require for all condominium buildings that are being built to have underground parking so these spots aren't being lost? Because once the new building goes up at Topton and Maryland. And if when the opera theater project is finished, there's going to be huge demand for parking spots. And it seems to me that giving up park any parking spots is just not the right approach, given the density of parking that it's needed in this area.

I would comment that the 23 spots are full frequently on game days. So we're really, I see them full all the time when there are large games and especially games of people of, you know, districts from farther away during the day. And I live there. I walk around Shaw Park. They're never full. there are one or two cars that park in those 23 spots, but there are a lot of additional parking spots behind the school that are very frequently vacant. So something to consider for the Opera House and for your future concern.

Just to build on that, the city of Clayton for the resident cannot require the school district to construct underground parking. So that's why we do not Um, we did speak with the director of parks and recreation though about this. And just so that you can be aware of it as the designer, the parking that you referenced by the boy is used by maintenance staff and others related to the center of Clayton. Um, similarly, the director did note that while this parking is usually not full during the day. It is always full and maximized by other school district events, like when they rent out the baseball field. So it was the preference of the school, of the director and for the center that It's kept in the mind of potentially finding spaces to add more parking. Also, I'll just note for the record, the parking calculations that you completed metered parking does not count towards typically does not count towards the parking that's provided to meet requirements. And also this does. include counting a significant number of spaces that are there to support the center of Clayton and their visitors rather than the high school. So the number looks very large, but it in fact supports significantly more users than just the high school when you look at this area as a whole. So while staff does not believe that the loss of 23 spots is going to create an immediate issue for significant parking issue in the area, we did want to highlight that those are being lost because over time, more and more spots with the conflict between the use by the center of the Clayton's high school does get to be a bigger deal. It

does seem to me, I'm a bit confused about the statement that you can't compel the school district to put an underground parking, meaning that you can compel condominiums to put it in, but not school districts. And I'm not opposed to education. I'm all for education. I just gave out over $8,000 worth of scholarships to my fraternity kids. But again, it just seems to me like losing any parking in this area is just not a good idea. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, so I will let you get on with your meeting.

Just for a little bit of clarification, I'm sure I won't say it well, but the school district and the city are two separate government entities. And the city primarily has control over things like safety and not always the design or all the other things that we can do on other developments within the city. And that's part of it. I am curious, though, if these spots are used by the center, are they owned by the school district or by whom?

The 23 spots that are being replaced are not used by the center, but they're often used by school district events. And the school district does rent out their field, like Aztec Field, to other users. And in those times is when the spots are filled. But some of the spots that were referenced in their parking calculation as... Other spots that could be utilized to replace the 23 are spots that are part of the center of Clayton rather than the school district of Clayton parking lot.

I just have a quick question in regards to that. Where is the line between the high school on that northern side of the building of the high school? Where is the separation of the parking spaces?

It's a bit of a meld.

Got it. Okay.

Yes, I would agree. That's, yeah, with the parking counts as well. It's kind of a unique situation with the shared property.

Any further comment? No. We have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right.

Well, Blair, any further comments? No.

Chris? I've missed seeing you guys. It's been the last two meetings. So it's good to see you all. Glad to be back.

Tim? No further comments. Alan?

Yes, I would like to say that I have enjoyed working with everybody. And of course, a big thank you to the staff. My term ends June 30. So this may be my last meeting unless I'm reappointed. And given the new system, when every term ends, it goes to an open call. So I won't know till the end of June, probably. Next

clarification. You're correct. With this current term being appointments typically happen in June. We did approve for transparency and better communication with our community that each time a term ends, that it is published that this term has ended and the person who is serving can indicate whether they're interested in remaining on. For this particular June, as long as you're not termed out, which I don't think we do that here, if you express interest in continuing, then the board considers that. Going forward after this year right now, everything will be published when a term ends, but not this year. Okay. Thanks for your continued interest.

No, I think it's a good idea. Because I do read, I'm one of those people that reads everything that Clayton sends out. And it reminds people that they can get involved. And previously there'd be maybe something the Board of Appeals, but now we've got a list of And it's like, okay, if you're new to the community or even been there a while, you know, it's a reminder, get involved.

And it matters. And that's why we're all ambassadors too, that you do have a voice. And we've tried really hard over the last number of years. to stop just being that somebody, whoever's there taps their best friend or their friend on the shoulder to come take the spot and put it out to the whole community to get all the voices in of people who are interested and qualified to do this service. So that's where we're continuing to try to move, but now you know where we are right now. We've approved the processes and they'll be in effect as of next June. Yeah.

It's a really interesting discussion. If anyone wants to go back and listen to the board discuss it two meetings ago, so...

well thank you susan for that yeah sure board explanation and uh you know hopefully you will uh

i hope

so too but stay tuned express your interest to june i hope you hopefully you've already done that very good

yeah nothing further from me

And Stephanie, any comment?

I don't have anything this evening. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. We will see you July 6th, I believe. Okay. We're adjourned.