July 27, 2021 — Meeting Transcript

All right. Well, welcome everybody to our meeting of July 27. And anybody in the audience, welcome to you. And Ms. City Clerk, if you want to call the roll.

Yes. Alderman Lentz. Here. Alderman Berkowitz.

Here.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to call for the approval of the July 13th minutes.

I move for the approval of July 13th minutes

I'll second it.

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Alrighty. Now's the time in our meeting for public requests and petitions. So if anyone is in our listening or viewing audience that has a question about something that is not on our agenda tonight, we would entertain that question or comment now. And I see a couple of hands. So I'll just go down the line the way they appear on my screen. Kathleen Gund was at the top. So Kathleen, do you have a question or comment for us?

I do. Thank you very much, Mayor. I just had a question. I was reviewing the capital improvements plan projects and I saw $35 million for Central Business District streetscape. Can you tell me a little bit about what that is? And also, is there a plan for funding it?

I'm going to let the city manager or our finance director address that

Actually, we have our public works director on here as well. It is listed as an unfunded project currently. So there's no funding for that project at the moment. As you said, it's $35 million. Really what I, and Matt, please correct me if I'm wrong. This is the project that would complete the streetscape in the downtown areas and basically fill in all the gaps where the streetscape hasn't been installed by developers or the city at some point in time. So we still have some significant portions that don't meet our streetscape standards. This particular project would bring all of those areas into conformance. Is that correct, Matt?

That's correct. There was an exercise a couple years back to look at everything and just plans and long-term goals to to capture them and take a look to see what it would entail. As the city manager described, that's what the scope of the project.

Hello. Thank you guys. And then we have our next person is Josh Dubinsky.

Hi. Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Can you see

me?

Hi, can you see me?

No, can't see you.

Oh, okay. Well, I guess you're spared that, that atrocity, I guess.

Right.

Um, Well, first, I'd like to say thank you for hearing me tonight. And thank you to the Board of Aldermen and thank you, Mayor Harris, for hearing me. And I'd also I want to thank Mr. David Gipson and Mr. Malik and our police chief, Mark Smith, for all the work that they've done on this issue. I know that they're busy and I know that their time is valuable. And I appreciate the efforts that they've taken to help us Diagnose the speeding issue on Audubon. It's been a year in the making. And I've sent emails to everybody. I don't know if I should rehash the whole history of everything that's transpired over that year. Maybe I'll just hit on a couple of the key points and then we can go from there. Yeah. So when we met in the fall of 2020, I believe that we had already done our first traffic study. And at that time, we determined – I'm looking at the – you know, I realized when I emailed you guys the – Results, I don't think it came through properly in the email. So I don't know if Mr. Malik has provided you with a better copy than I gave you. But what I'm looking at, what you can see from August, September of last year, the 85th percentile on 916 Audubon portion of the study shows traffic traveling at 29 and 26 miles per hour based on northbound southbound traffic. And that actually increased in April, um, to 31 and 26 respectively. Um, and, uh, For those of you that aren't familiar with 85th percentile, I mean, I wasn't familiar. Maybe you guys are. But 85th percentile is 85% of all vehicles are comfortable traveling at that speed or under 85%. So and Mr. Malik can talk maybe more in depth about this, but I believe some of the high speeds are thrown out. So in this study, when we're trying to figure out how fast people are going, we're also throwing out some of the highest speeds of the cars that are traveling on Autobahn. But. I guess my point is that both studies, the one in the fall of last year and the one in April of this year, both determined that vehicles are very comfortable traveling over the speed limit on the south part of Audubon Drive. And that's a concern for us. And the reason why we're here today is for our children and to keep them safe. There's been a lot of turnover in the neighborhood. There's a lot of young families that have moved into Audubon and speaking specifically about Cromwell in South on Audubon. So that very strip that we're talking about, there's been a lot of turnover. Young families have moved in with kids. There's a lot of biking going on, kids going to other kids' houses. Obviously, when school starts up again, there's going to be kids... riding to school, walking to school. So kids are in the streets. This is a family neighborhood setting. And I think we as Audubon residents feel that people traveling, motorists traveling at 30 miles an hour or faster is just too fast. And I believe, I don't want to speak for Mr. David Gipson or Mr. Malik, but I believe that they would agree in that assessment that there is a speeding issue on Audubon. Now, where we differ is how to resolve that issue. We put forth last fall, we put forth the ideas of speed bumps and speed humps, rumble strips, stop signs, aluminum horses, even slow children at play signs, which probably wouldn't be that effective. All those options were not seen as good options by the city staff. And when we met in February, the idea that was being discussed was chicanes. And As I discussed that with my neighbors, it became quickly apparent that because of the parking restrictions on Audubon, adding chicanes into the mix would make it even more difficult to park on Audubon. Some neighbors would probably have no parking in front of their house on either side of the street, which for me, not as much of a problem, but for many of my neighbors, that's a problem. in order for the chicanes to work properly, there would have to be no parking signs added to both sides of the street to keep the lanes clear for emergency vehicles. So we would need no parking signs on the chicane and on the other side of the street from the chicane. So now we're talking about littering the neighborhood with more signage, which takes away from the residential feel. And I know I mentioned that in my email, but It's an important point to hit on. So I think at this point, you know, my neighbors, the residents of Audubon feel that a stop sign at Cromwell and Audubon makes the most sense. It's economical. It's effective at slowing people down. When people see a stop sign, even if they roll a stop sign, they're going to be alert to other cars, to pedestrians, to what's going on around them. I know that I've rolled stop signs before. Certainly, I've gotten better as I've gotten older and I don't do it. But I know that when I come to a stop sign, I'm very alert and I'm very aware of my surroundings that in the event that there is a child or a car and I have a stop sign, So the other point I want to make in support of a stop sign, and I know that Mr. David Gipson is going to have objections to this, that when people roll stop signs, when motorists roll stop signs, they are less dangerous than somebody traveling 30 miles an hour. You have a full chart yourself. So I'm sorry, there was some feedback. I was getting some feedback. So, I mean, when it comes down to it, we're going to be a lot more concerned about a child getting hit at 30 miles an hour by a motorist who's not aware than somebody who's rolling slowly through a stop sign and doesn't happen to see a child or a child thinks that they have the right of way. The other issue that was brought to our attention was, well, people will speed up in between stop signs in order to make up for the time loss stopping at a stop sign. My argument to that would be that the distance between the Clayton stop sign from Cromwell and the Wellington Way stop sign going northbound from Cromwell is not far enough for people to gain enough speed to become the dangers that they are when they're traveling 30 miles an hour without the stop sign. So I also want to point out, too, that we have stop signs in the Moorlands at Glenridge and Parkdale, at Crestwood and Claverack, and Crestwood and Hillvale that all seem to be being used as traffic calming stop signs. I don't see what functional purpose they serve other than for that reason. And the stop sign, actually, at Cromwell and Audubon would make even more sense than the stop signs that I just mentioned. So... We've had 42 residents sign the petition. It was met with overwhelming support. It had a 96% approval rate from the residents in Audubon. It had unanimous support from all the residents who live around Cromwell and Audubon. And it is very popular in our neighborhood. And that that's really that sums up. I mean, I'm sure after I stop speaking, there'll be other things I wish I would have said. And I certainly would open. I'm happy to field questions if there's any questions. But just in closing, I just like to say that the reason why we're doing this is for our kids. We want to make our kids safe. They like to ride their bikes. They like to play out in the street. And kids can't always be. expected to do the right thing. They make mistakes. They're kids. They don't have a lot of experience. They don't look both ways sometimes when they go in the street. They ride on the wrong side of the street. They drift out into the middle. They're more susceptible to accidents than kids that are older or adults. And we need to make the street safer for our children. And I think this is and I think and I think that the neighbors, the neighborhood, the neighbors on Audubon feel the same way, that this is the best effective, most effective, most economical. And the last thing I'm going to say, too, is that, you know, if this doesn't work, you know, we're going to be out in the street. We're going to see cars if they make it more hazardous rolling through stops or not driving. not obeying them at all, then we can let you know. And we could easily take the stop sign down if it causes more problems than it solves. And with that in mind, I think there's really low risk in trying it out. And we could do another speed study if necessary. You're certainly going to get feedback from the parents that live on the south end of Audubon regarding that stop sign if there's problems with it.

Um, Well, first, I'd like to say thank you for hearing me tonight. And thank you to the Board of Aldermen and thank you, Mayor Harris, for hearing me. And I'd also I want to thank Mr. Gibson and Mr. Malik and our police chief, Mark Smith, for all the work that they've done on this issue. I know that they're busy and I know that their time is valuable. And I appreciate the efforts that they've taken to help us Diagnose the speeding issue on Audubon. It's been a year in the making. And I've sent emails to everybody. I don't know if I should rehash the whole history of everything that's transpired over that year. Maybe I'll just hit on a couple of the key points and then we can go from there. Yeah. So when we met in the fall of 2020, I believe that we had already done our first traffic study. And at that time, we determined – I'm looking at the – you know, I realized when I emailed you guys the – Results, I don't think it came through properly in the email. So I don't know if Mr. Malik has provided you with a better copy than I gave you. But what I'm looking at, what you can see from August, September of last year, the 85th percentile on 916 Audubon portion of the study shows traffic traveling at 29 and 26 miles per hour based on northbound southbound traffic. And that actually increased in April, um, to 31 and 26 respectively. Um, and, uh, For those of you that aren't familiar with 85th percentile, I mean, I wasn't familiar. Maybe you guys are. But 85th percentile is 85% of all vehicles are comfortable traveling at that speed or under 85%. So and Mr. Malik can talk maybe more in depth about this, but I believe some of the high speeds are thrown out. So in this study, when we're trying to figure out how fast people are going, we're also throwing out some of the highest speeds of the cars that are traveling on Autobahn. But. I guess my point is that both studies, the one in the fall of last year and the one in April of this year, both determined that vehicles are very comfortable traveling over the speed limit on the south part of Audubon Drive. And that's a concern for us. And the reason why we're here today is for our children and to keep them safe. There's been a lot of turnover in the neighborhood. There's a lot of young families that have moved into Audubon and speaking specifically about Cromwell in South on Audubon. So that very strip that we're talking about, there's been a lot of turnover. Young families have moved in with kids. There's a lot of biking going on, kids going to other kids' houses. Obviously, when school starts up again, there's going to be kids... riding to school, walking to school. So kids are in the streets. This is a family neighborhood setting. And I think we as Audubon residents feel that people traveling, motorists traveling at 30 miles an hour or faster is just too fast. And I believe, I don't want to speak for Mr. Gibson or Mr. Malik, but I believe that they would agree in that assessment that there is a speeding issue on Audubon. Now, where we differ is how to resolve that issue. We put forth last fall, we put forth the ideas of speed bumps and speed humps, rumble strips, stop signs, aluminum horses, even slow children at play signs, which probably wouldn't be that effective. All those options were not seen as good options by the city staff. And when we met in February, the idea that was being discussed was chicanes. And As I discussed that with my neighbors, it became quickly apparent that because of the parking restrictions on Audubon, adding chicanes into the mix would make it even more difficult to park on Audubon. Some neighbors would probably have no parking in front of their house on either side of the street, which for me, not as much of a problem, but for many of my neighbors, that's a problem. in order for the chicanes to work properly, there would have to be no parking signs added to both sides of the street to keep the lanes clear for emergency vehicles. So we would need no parking signs on the chicane and on the other side of the street from the chicane. So now we're talking about littering the neighborhood with more signage, which takes away from the residential feel. And I know I mentioned that in my email, but It's an important point to hit on. So I think at this point, you know, my neighbors, the residents of Audubon feel that a stop sign at Cromwell and Audubon makes the most sense. It's economical. It's effective at slowing people down. When people see a stop sign, even if they roll a stop sign, they're going to be alert to other cars, to pedestrians, to what's going on around them. I know that I've rolled stop signs before. Certainly, I've gotten better as I've gotten older and I don't do it. But I know that when I come to a stop sign, I'm very alert and I'm very aware of my surroundings that in the event that there is a child or a car and I have a stop sign, So the other point I want to make in support of a stop sign, and I know that Mr. Gibson is going to have objections to this, that when people roll stop signs, when motorists roll stop signs, they are less dangerous than somebody traveling 30 miles an hour. You have a full chart yourself. So I'm sorry, there was some feedback. I was getting some feedback. So, I mean, when it comes down to it, we're going to be a lot more concerned about a child getting hit at 30 miles an hour by a motorist who's not aware than somebody who's rolling slowly through a stop sign and doesn't happen to see a child or a child thinks that they have the right of way. The other issue that was brought to our attention was, well, people will speed up in between stop signs in order to make up for the time loss stopping at a stop sign. My argument to that would be that the distance between the Clayton stop sign from Cromwell and the Wellington Way stop sign going northbound from Cromwell is not far enough for people to gain enough speed to become the dangers that they are when they're traveling 30 miles an hour without the stop sign. So I also want to point out, too, that we have stop signs in the Moorlands at Glenridge and Parkdale, at Crestwood and Claverack, and Crestwood and Hillvale that all seem to be being used as traffic calming stop signs. I don't see what functional purpose they serve other than for that reason. And the stop sign, actually, at Cromwell and Audubon would make even more sense than the stop signs that I just mentioned. So... We've had 42 residents sign the petition. It was met with overwhelming support. It had a 96% approval rate from the residents in Audubon. It had unanimous support from all the residents who live around Cromwell and Audubon. And it is very popular in our neighborhood. And that that's really that sums up. I mean, I'm sure after I stop speaking, there'll be other things I wish I would have said. And I certainly would open. I'm happy to field questions if there's any questions. But just in closing, I just like to say that the reason why we're doing this is for our kids. We want to make our kids safe. They like to ride their bikes. They like to play out in the street. And kids can't always be. expected to do the right thing. They make mistakes. They're kids. They don't have a lot of experience. They don't look both ways sometimes when they go in the street. They ride on the wrong side of the street. They drift out into the middle. They're more susceptible to accidents than kids that are older or adults. And we need to make the street safer for our children. And I think this is and I think and I think that the neighbors, the neighborhood, the neighbors on Audubon feel the same way, that this is the best effective, most effective, most economical. And the last thing I'm going to say, too, is that, you know, if this doesn't work, you know, we're going to be out in the street. We're going to see cars if they make it more hazardous rolling through stops or not driving. not obeying them at all, then we can let you know. And we could easily take the stop sign down if it causes more problems than it solves. And with that in mind, I think there's really low risk in trying it out. And we could do another speed study if necessary. You're certainly going to get feedback from the parents that live on the south end of Audubon regarding that stop sign if there's problems with it.

Okay. Okay, Josh. Thank you. You know, that's a good overview. And I don't know if any of the aldermen have questions for you. I don't. I read your email. I think really the thing to do. I think we all understand, you know, the issue and take it very seriously too. And so I think we need some time to have our staff look at the issue again, look at the numbers that, you know, you shared, but that they provided and take a look and see if there's something else that they might want to recommend. And I, and I would say that we could put it on a future agenda for a full discussion with their input. If that's okay

with you. Okay. I know. I know that some of my neighbors are waiting to make comments too. And I hope that they get a chance to be heard as well. Thank you, mayor Harris. I appreciate

it. We'll let them talk. Of course.

What the, what the reason is for not doing the stop sign.

I think that question was to me. So the stop sign just has a standalone device mentioned by FHWA in the manual on uniform traffic control devices. It specifically calls out that it should not be used for speed control. There are different criteria that you have to meet for a multi-way stop sign installation. Are you ready? to warrant that stop sign. So there's different approaches you take, but that was the genesis of us looking for other directions. OK. Thank you.

OK. We do have some other residents that want to comment. If there are other residents that want a comment on this particular issue, let's have them come forward.

Mayor, I'd like to say something as well. Oh, sure. Is that all right? PB Harmon Zuckerman, Just to say, Josh, you have put in more time and more effort into this project. And I know that the reason is it's for the kids. You want to make sure your streets are safe. PB Harmon Zuckerton, And I have been super impressed with the effort that you have made the hours you put in trying to get neighborhood support looking at neighbors wanting to know what they think. And I just wanna tell you, I'm impressed just by your efforts. I think it's been incredibly valiant and I think it's a great example of how to get things accomplished in our city very often. It's the way to do it. And you really put in your time and effort. And I just wanna thank you for that on behalf of the city. So thank you for that.

Okay, I think I see Deb Dubin Do you want to comment about this issue, Deb?

I do. I do. Thank you, Mayor Harris and honorable alder people and city staff. I wanted to quickly, I'll make this very quick. I support a three-way stop at Audubon and Cromwell. I've lived at the corner of Somerset and Audubon for 18 years. And I can see that intersection from my house. I've raised my family here. Cars drive too rapidly down Audubon. And I think this solution seems smart. We want to avoid a tragedy. not just children, but elders and a lot of dog walkers in the neighborhood. It's common sense that we have a stop sign put there. And I want to thank Josh Dubinsky as you did Alderman Berkowitz for his leadership on this issue. He's put a lot of time in. He and his wife, Vicki, have very cute children and we want to keep them safe. We want to keep all the kids in the neighborhood safe. So thank you for listening and we appreciate you and your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you. I see someone else, PJ McDaniel.

Yes, hello. Thank you so much for really giving us the time to kind of voice our opinion. I'll just really echo what has been said. My only addition, I've got three boys that are active, but if you could just sit there and watch not just the speeding, but the distracted driving is what really scares me along with the speeding. you combine those two with, with an active young street. And I feel like that's a recipe for a potential just a big accident that would potentially happen. So that's my only addition that I really do support a three-way stop sign on a very busy young street. So thanks. Thanks again for giving us an opportunity to voice kind of our concern on this matter.

Yeah, no problem. Thank you. So Naveen, I don't know if you're talking on this.

Can you hear me? I'm not sure if I'm doing this right.

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay, great. I really can't reiterate what Josh said. He summed it up really well. And all I can say is that there are a lot of children. We have a four-year-old and six-year-old. We live across from Josh. The stop sign would probably be on our property or next to it. And I think that the risk benefit to putting it in is very low. If it turns out to be a risky maneuver or cause problems, it's very easy to remove. I think it's an easy attempt And if it fails, it fails. But I don't see much harm in putting it in. And then we can do the speed test again. It's very cheap. I know finances were mentioned being post-COVID. There were some issues with that. And it's a lot cheaper than the chicanes and other speed bumps and things that require a lot of maintenance. So I don't see a real issue in trying this out. And we have no reason to... you know, say that it's working when it's not if our kids are in more harm. So I don't think we need to delay the matter any further. As you had mentioned earlier, saying that we should delay. It's been over a year. I think we've been very patient. We looked at all the options in extensive detail. And I prefer not to kind of kick the can, I guess, any further. It would be nice if we could maybe set a date to resolve this or come up with the final answer. It's been going on for quite a bit. We've done a lot of research, a lot of time has been spent, and Josh has done a lot of work. So that's all I really have to say.

Thank you, Naveen. Yeah, I mean, I think we need to have it on an agenda in order to make a decision perhaps Mr. City Attorney? Well,

actually I don't want to address the merits of it but I would ask Mr. Naveen and I'll speak up for the city clerk in order for our minutes to be correct we need identification, we need to know who you are. Could you please provide your name and the spelling of it since we don't have access to that so that Ms. Frazier can be complete with our minutes.

Sure, it's Naveen, N-A-V-E-E-N, last name C-H-A-P-A. I'm at 901 Audubon. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So we can definitely talk about this whenever Matt, I don't know if we can talk about it at our next meeting, which is in two weeks or the one after that. We can set a date. That's not a problem. Matt, do you have a... Yeah, go ahead.

I do know that both the city manager and the director of public works have asked me to provide some input to them, and we will do that promptly. And I think when we have marshaled all of that information so that there's a complete presentation, I think Mr. David Gipson will schedule it for the agenda, and that will be published in advance. Also, when we expect the full complement of the boards to give that attention, so.

I do know that both the city manager and the director of public works have asked me to provide some input to them, and we will do that promptly. And I think when we have marshaled all of that information so that there's a complete presentation, I think Mr. Gibson will schedule it for the agenda, and that will be published in advance. Also, when we expect the full complement of the boards to give that attention, so.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, Can I ask a question. Also, so I don't remember in all my years as an alderman that we've ever voted on a stop sign. So I'm wondering what is the, what is the procedure for that Kevin is that do we vote on stop signs now. I mean, PB Harmon Zuckerson, What happens PB

David Ensign, That's one of one of the things we're going to look at PB

Harmon Zuckerton, Okay, that's okay.

That's exactly right. So what we'll do is we'll set this up for a discussion item first before we bring any kind of ordinance forward. Typically, these are approved by ordinance. And again, as Mr. O'Keefe said, we're verifying that process. But I would anticipate that either August 10th or August 24th would be the date. Those are two regular meeting dates in August. So as far as the data itself, the speed data that was referenced, we do have that. That's easy for us to package along with some alternatives, some reasoning. The neighborhood certainly laid out their reasoning for it. Matt alluded a little bit to the the traffic manual. So we'll provide some of that information as well, but we should be able to get all of this together either on the 10th or the 24th. And we will be sure to give the neighborhood plenty of notice. We certainly have their contact information from the discussions we've been having over the last 12 months or so. We'll move it forward and quickly.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you for coming and sharing the information and your concerns with us. And yeah, thank you for involving your neighbors in sort of you're getting together with a total point of view from everybody that is helpful. Okay, I think, are there any other topics for us under public requests and petitions? I don't see any hands. So I think we have a presentation now from Spire. Is that correct?

June, could you move? Todd Fagan and Mike Leidy over.

I believe I unmuted it. Can everybody hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. My name is Todd Sagan. I am the director of right-of-way land management for SPIRE. I thank the mayor and the board for allowing us to come, SPIRE, to come and talk a little bit about excavation safety and safe digging practice in the city of Clayton. At Spire, safety as you can imagine with what we do is one of our core values. We have our own internal safety department that goes out and does thousands of inspections of our internal crews to ensure that they're working responsibly and safely. We also have a damage prevention department that our inspector goes out and whenever there is a third party damage to our lines and a third party damages is a contractor or municipality public works department that would hit our lines. They go out there, they inspect the scene, the damage, and they try to find that root cause of how that happened. And then the goal is, you know, not to point blame, but to educate and inform of, you know, maybe improve digging practices that would help avoid these damages to our lines and, quite frankly, any other lines underground. With the safety program, what we wanted to do is we wanted to recognize our municipal partners, right? Shine a light on the public works departments that are working around our lines safely and responsibly every day. So that's why we came up with the SPIRE. We created the SPIRE Civil Shovel Award for safe digging practices. And part of that criteria, we got three criteria. One, you gotta be in our service territory, obviously. Two, you have to be a member of the Missouri One Call in good standing. What that means is I'm sure the board knows, but anytime you excavate by state law, you have to call it a locate. You have to hand dig and find that utility before you start using your equipment. So following those rules is important. And the big one for us is no at-fault damages in a calendar year. So that's the tough one, right? We started this in 2020 last year and started doing this. And of the 150 plus municipalities that we serve on the St. Louis side, the east side of the state, last year we had five winners and Clayton was one of them. And this year we have eight winners and Clayton is once again, another, a two-time winner award of this. So what is really awesome is Matt and his team called in almost 350 locates requests, you know, in 2020 and not one single at fault damage. And that's, you know, that's a lot of work. That's a lot of commitment to make sure that they're not hitting our lines. We appreciate it because last in 2020, we, Our lines were damaged 1500 times in the state of Missouri, right? That's like five a working day. So if we had more of public works departments like Matt and his guys and contractors, we could keep reducing that number. So we are excited to once again give Matt and his team the Silver Shovel Award for safe digging practices. Matt, we thank you and your team for doing this great job. I know it's not easy. digging around and working around our lines. So congratulations to you and your team. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Todd. And we do have a plaque that you might can come through. Oh, it's probably reversed. So come through Public Works sometime and check it out. But we were pleased to see this developed last year. I think I've told probably a handful of the people that are on this call. I think we do a lot of things well, but one of the things we don't do well is promoting and advertising ourselves and the things that we do good. So I appreciate Spire taking the time to recognize the communities that do this. And then a special thank you to Michael Lee, our public works superintendent, and the teams that are out there doing the work and making sure these accidents don't happen. Thank you very much.

And as you see on the plaque there, there's multiple spots. So we look to come back hopefully next year in 2022 to award it for 2021 and hopefully do that in person. So thank you, Matt, and thank you to the board for allowing us to come and talk tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We're very proud of our Public Works Department. They have really... They've really killed it following the recent storm that we had. And we've received so many compliments from people about that work and just the work they do every day. So I've told that to Matt in person, but also love the chance to say it in a public meeting. Okay. Thank you for that award. All right. So next on our agenda, actually, the first thing is a public hearing. for bill number 6851, an amendment to the overlay and urban design districts in downtown Clayton. So I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor. H3 Design Studios has been under contract with the City of Clayton to assist the city with the updates of two existing downtown overlay zoning districts. The Central Business District Downtown Core Overlay District Evaluation Study has been conducted over a period of approximately 18 months. The study began with the consultant identifying the project area and conducting an on-site survey of existing conditions in the project area. Once the data was collected, analyzed and graphically depicted, interactive work sessions were conducted with the Board of Aldermen, Clayton Plan Commission, the Planning Department and a steering committee comprised of key developers, property owners, residents and business owners within the immediate study area. The purpose of the work sessions was to gather feedback to establish the vision, principles, and parameters for the proposed new design guidelines and development standards for the study area. On June 21st, 2021, H3 gave an informational overview of the study process to the plan commission as a refresher. The presentation included a summary of the public process, key decision points and the resulting draft written development standards and design guidelines which will be considered for adoption in accordance with the schedule that was in the packet. As a primer to the upcoming public hearing and future ordinance consideration, the same presentation is being given to the Board of Aldermen this evening. There are three documents included in the packet for the board's examination. Those include a hard copy of the slides created by H3 for the presentation to the plan commission on June 21st and the presentation this evening on July 27th, the draft design guidelines, and a draft ordinance for text amendment to Chapter 410 for the overlay and urban design zoning districts of the land use code. On July 19th, the plan commission considered both the ordinance and design standards and recommended that staff and the consultant make some minor modifications to the ordinance. The second public hearing with the plan commission is scheduled for August 2nd. The board's role this evening is to review the presentation materials, hold a public hearing to consider acceptance of the proposed design standards, and then continue the item to the meeting on August 10th. And with that, we do have Tim Bryant here with H3 Studio, and he will be giving the presentation this evening. We also have our Director of Planning and Development Services, Susan Eistenes, available to answer any additional questions.

I might just throw in there that we have some members in the audience, I can tell, that are here regarding this. And if they would just save their questions to the end, that would be good.

Excellent. Thank you, Mayor. With that, I'll turn it over to

Tim. Thank you, David. Thank you, everyone. Give me just a moment to get the presentation up on the screen. Can you all see that in full screen presenter mode? Yes. Great. So as David mentioned, we want to give a fairly brief summary overview presentation tonight of what is now referred to as the Northeast Downtown Overlay District. And what we'd like to do is to summarize the engagement process by which these recommendations were developed. We conducted a number of community engagement and public engagement activities during the course of this process with various bodies, so we'd like to provide that documentation of those key decision points. and then present a summary of the final draft development standards and design guidelines. Before we get started, I do want to mention that I have added a few slides to this presentation compared to the version that is in your packet. And this is to document a few items that were added to the design, the development standards. And I will call those slides out when we arrive at them just for your understanding and clarity. So again, the purpose of this process is to review the final draft development standards and design guidelines as part of a public hearing process. And in terms of the engagement activities to date, H3 Studio conducted a series of interviews with the mayor and the members of the Board of Aldermen. Um, we also conducted interviews with the members of the planning commission architectural review board, uh, as well as stakeholder interviews of, um, of non city official downtown stakeholders. Uh, we've conducted two separate visioning work sessions in April and May of last year, one with the board of Alderman and one with the planning commission. And then, uh, the mayor assembled a steering committee for the project. And we conducted a series of four work sessions with the steering committee on May 27th, June 11th, July 7th, which was an onsite walking tour and September 16th of 2020. And then in parallel with those, we conducted three joint work sessions between the Board of Aldermen and the Planning Commission Architectural Review Board, which were open public sessions. And those were held on May 22nd, October 23rd, and November 11th. So looking at the decision-making summary for the project, beginning with the visioning work sessions, we presented a summary of existing conditions and an analysis of the existing overlay district regulations for the downtown core and central business district overlay zones. Key decisions coming out of those first two visioning work sessions were to combine the two existing overlay districts into a single district and expand it to the east and to the south, to redesign North Central Avenue to better function as downtown's primary dining and entertainment street, and consider removing two travel lanes and providing wider sidewalks. And a recognition that the development standards have to acknowledge the current market conditions and not by default push every development into a planned unit development scenario. And just to give a little bit of additional clarification about that, through the interview process and through the analysis, it was determined that current overlay development guidelines, which limit buildings at four stories in height are by default not meeting the market demand for development in this area. And what that does is it then incentivizes developers to pursue a PDD, which occurs essentially outside of the development guideline process and therefore has less, gives the architectural review board and planning commission less control over how the project is realized. In our first work sessions, joint Board of Aldermen and Planning Commission work session and our first steering committee work session which occurred a week apart, H3 Studio presented three preliminary district height and setback options for the combined overlay district. There were no key decisions made at those meetings, but feedback was collected, which was incorporated into revisions of those three preliminary options. Then we met with the steering committee a second time to present the three updated district height and setback options. And key decisions that were made at that meeting were the appropriateness of a three-story minimum building height in the district, A six-story maximum building height before upper floor stepbacks would occur. A statement that Maryland Avenue must have a contextual relationship to the neighborhoods to the north. A 10-story to 20-story step up from Maryland Avenue going south was deemed to be appropriate. And stepbacks above six stories make sense so that the streets don't become canyons. We then took the materials presented at June 11th and met with the steering committee on site in the afternoon of July 7th for a site walk to discuss the height and step back options on site in the context of the district. And again, key decisions, the six-story maximum building height before upper floor step backs was considered appropriate. Upper floor step backs along Central Avenue and Beamiston Avenue were deemed as desirable for a visual transition between the residential neighborhoods and downtown. West of Merrimack Avenue, higher maximum building heights were viewed as appropriate with no upper floor step backs given the existing built condition of those parcels. And there was a statement that the architectural design guidelines for the district were very important to maintain the character of the streets. Using this feedback, the feedback gathered to date, we developed then a preferred hybrid option, which was presented to the steering committee at their fourth and final meeting on September 16th. And the key decisions were a confirmation of a three-story minimum building height, confirmation of a six-story maximum building height before upper floor step backs on Central Avenue, Beamston Avenue, Forsyth and Maryland. Confirmation that maximum building height along Maryland Avenue east of Merrimack is 10 stories and confirmation of a transition between a 10-story maximum building height and 25-story maximum building high, which would occur west of Merrimack and south of the service alley south of Maryland Avenue. And finally, in this meeting, we discussed and identified the components of the architectural design guidelines. We presented the draft recommendations to the joint Board of Aldermen Planning Commission work session number two on October 23rd. And that work session provided confirmation of all the development standards draft recommendations. And then on November 11th, we presented the drafts of the architectural design guidelines to the joint session of the Board of Aldermens Planning Commission. And we discussed the documentation of proposed revisions to the architectural design guidelines. We confirmed all architectural design guideline draft recommendations. We also confirmed the incorporation of three elements dealing with building articulation, ground floor retail design and tower placement design incorporating those into the development standards, whereas they had previously been part of the architectural design guidelines. And I'll explain the significance of that in a moment. And those additions comprise the additions that were made to this presentation this evening. Also of note, in early December, we also then presented this information in a public meeting. So what I'd like to do now is to go through the final draft development standards and design guidelines for the Northeast Downtown Overlay District. And the statement of intent for these differentiates between development standards and design guideline. So development standards are regulatory standards governing the placement, configuration, height and bulk of the maximum and minimum building envelope within the district. These are regulatory like the zoning code. And what the effect that they have is to modify portions of the underlying zoning code within this overlay district in the same way that the current overlay design guidelines functions. The design guidelines themselves are focused on really fostering a sense of design excellence within the area and guiding the identity and character of the district at the scale of buildings, landscape and open space. Typically, design guidelines can be either regulatory like the zoning code or advisory. And in this process and in the city's proposed adoption, the design guidelines would be advisory only. So these would be things which would inform the application of the development standards and inform the review of projects by the architectural review board. but they would not be adopted as part of the city's code of ordinances in the same way that the development standards would. And again, that differentiation between regulatory and advisory was one of the reasons why those elements that I previously mentioned why the Planning Commission Architectural Review Board requested that those items be incorporated into the development standards to better regulate those detailed aspects of development in the district. So what we're going to do now is go through the development standards in detail, and then following that, we will just go through a brief outline of the components of the architectural design guidelines but we won't go through the specifics of those in detail because it is quite lengthy. So first of all, it's important to look at and consider the revised district boundary description. So the two overlay districts have been combined into a single district, which basically goes from the center line of Maryland. And then it goes down the south property line behind the properties on the east side of Beamiston. So behind the post office and city hall, crossing Forsyth behind the parcel where Cafe Napoli is located. Then down the service alley, down the center line of North Bemiston, the center line of Crandallet, up the center line of South Central to Forsyth, center line of Forsyth West to Brentwood and then back up. So essentially what this does is it combines the two existing overlay districts and also adds in the post office property and city hall property as well as the current county owned parking lot across from the government center. The development standards consist of the following components. They deal with building placement on the lot, which is defined by build two line setback in building form. They deal with height and massing. They deal with articulation. Again, this is one of the items that was transferred over from the architectural design guidelines to the development standards. They deal with ground floor retail design, the second item that was transferred from the architectural design guidelines to development standards. And finally, with tower placement and design, the third element that was transferred over. They also deal with encroachments, which is where portions of the building can overhang the public right-of-way, things like awnings or balconies. They deal with building use requirements by both the ground floor and upper floor classifications, building parking and building service requirements. And then they set out a series of illustrative building types and allowable frontage types that are permitted within the district. So now we'll go through these items one by one. So within the district, The build two line refers to the specific line at which the building facade will be placed as measured from the parcel boundary. And on all streets, the build two line is set at zero feet from the ground level up to floor six. So in those cases, the building is required to be placed at the back of sidewalk or at the zero lot line. And exceptions to this include that ground floor facades may be set back a maximum of 12 feet for up to a maximum of 25% of the total facade length. And upper floor facades may he set back from the build two line up to a maximum 12 feet or up to a maximum 50% of the total façade length. So that permits articulation of the building facade on the lot. And that works in conjunction with other guidelines to ensure that we don't just have a consistent sort of unwavering building facades along the sidewalk, but Also ensuring that there is a good relationship of storefronts and a consistent street wall condition along the streets in this district. Setback refers to the distance at which the building facade will be placed from the parcel boundary And whereas the build to line refers to the sides or the frontages of the parcel that are actually directly adjacent to streets, setback refers to either the side parcel conditions or the alley or rear parcel conditions. Side parcel setbacks can range from a minimum of zero feet. So again, permitting a zero lot line or party wall condition up to a maximum of five feet. and alley setbacks, a minimum of zero feet up to a maximum of 15 feet. And so what this means in principle is that no building would have more than 10 feet between it and its neighboring building, which again provides that consistent street wall condition and avoids dead zones of open areas which are detrimental to creating a walkable, vibrant streetscape and built environment. And then building form refers to the percentage of the build-to line that is required to be built. And so along the primary streets, it requires that a minimum of 85% of the primary street has building occupying it up to a maximum of 100%. So what that means in principle is that for any street facade, a minimum of 85 percent of that total length has to be occupied by a building. create that consistency of buildings and to avoid dead spots or open areas that would inhibit a comfortable pedestrian environment. Moving on to the second section, which is building height. So again, the development standards specify both a minimum building height and a maximum building height. The minimum building height is set at three stories or 40 feet for the entirety of the district. So no building under these guidelines or these standards rather would be permitted to be built at a height less than three stories. And the maximum building height ranges from 10 stories or 140 feet to 25 stories or 300 feet depending on the particular block. And so, as you can see for the parcels that are indicated in red located between North Merrimack Avenue and the Eastern District Boundary and north of the service alley between Forsyth and Maryland, those blocks, parcels on those blocks would have a maximum building height of 10 stories. And all other parcels in the district indicated in purple would have a maximum building height of 25 stories or 300 feet. And so again, this is designed to respond to the existing built character of the district, concentrating greater height in kind of the Maryland Brentwood intersection where you already have taller buildings currently existing today, transitioning down to a lower height adjacent to the residential neighborhoods north of Maryland, and then transitioning back into taller height as you move south towards the core of downtown. The building heights are further modified by an upper floor step back requirement. And this refers to the setback of upper stories, which is required above a specified building height. And this is organized according to street frontage. So starting with North and South Central Avenue, which you see here indicated in red, there is a upper floor step back of 40 feet required for all floors beginning above floor six or 80 feet. And that 40 feet is measured again from the zero lot line. So in these, along Central, any portion of a building that is taller than six stories would be required to be set back 40 feet from the street above that height. moving on to Forsyth Boulevard indicated in pink. The upper floor step back along Forsyth would be 50 feet again for all floors above floor six or 80 feet. Then moving to Maryland Avenue, that upper floor step back would be 60 feet for all floors beginning about floor six. And then finally along North Bemiston between Forsyth and Maryland, the step back would be 70 feet for all floors beginning above floor six. And so you can clearly see in the diagram, the precise locations and parcels by which or at which those step backs would be required color coded by their step back distance. And again, this is to minimize both the canyon effect of taller buildings along the streets to respond to specific existing build conditions and to respond to neighboring adjacencies with things like the residential neighborhoods to the north or the St. Louis County government campus. Building height also deals with ground floor levels and ground floor and upper floor ceiling heights in order to ensure that in general buildings are being built with floor to ceiling heights that are compatible and related to one another. So because this is primarily an entertainment district and retail district, the finished ground floor level is zero feet above the adjacent grade. So that's done to encourage storefront development along the sidewalk and permit that free walk in from the sidewalk. Ground floor ceiling height, the distance between the finished floor and the ceiling of the ground floor is 12 feet minimum to 16 feet maximum. That is a taller height to again encourage those retail and dining and entertainment spaces on the ground floor. And upper floor ceiling heights, again, measured from or referring to the distance between the finished floor and the ceiling of the upper floors has a nine feet minimum up to a 12 foot maximum for that ceiling height. And so when we then begin to look at this in terms of the context of the existing zoning, and the maximum height and envelope that is permitted. Here you can see the minimum height in the district, all the parcels here in dark blue, the minimum height of three stories, the maximum no setback height of six stories. So again, this is very much, in line with the Ceylon development. If you want to know what that looks like, this would be basically the minimum height before which the upper floor step backs would occur. And then the overall maximum height increasing to 10 stories for these three blocks along Maryland and then increasing to 25 stories for the rest of the district. But again, a modified street by street with the upper floor step back requirements. So this is the overall maximum massing. And as you can see, this is designed to be very responsive to the existing zoning and existing build conditions along for instance, North Merrimack moving into the Old Town Residential District and then stepping up in relationship to the taller development at the corner of Maryland and Brentwood, as well as moving south into the core of downtown. The next section is building articulation. And again, these are the slides, these next several slides are the slides that have been added relative to the version of this that you receive in your packets. And these represent the portions of the development standards that were added based on the Planning Commission and Board of Aldermen feedback. So building articulation deals with building facades, and there are a number of specifications Within these standards, number one, clearly differentiating between the ground floor, middle floor and roof forms to set up that hierarchy so that we're not just developing unarticulated boxes. Establishing a sense of scale in the design of particularly in larger buildings through vertical and horizontal articulation. A requirement that buildings with facades over 70 feet wide must incorporate wall projections or recesses or changes in wall plane with a two-foot minimum depth at least every 70 feet so that you begin to get a rhythm of smaller increments and not simply a straight, unvaried facade. Requirement that 30% minimum of the length of the skyline shall be varied by at least one story, again to introduce variation into the skyline. The roof line of the building shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 70 feet without changes in elevation. Minor wall offsets of up to two feet should be utilized for articulation. And the upper floors should be distinguished from the building base through varied geometry to reduce perceived building bulk. Building articulation further deals with block corner articulation and building base articulation. So block corners are viewed as special conditions and opportunities for special articulation. Namely, that the full height of tall buildings can be expressed at the corners as a way to provide variation or step backs or rather buildings can be chamfered or set back and plan to create additional sidewalk space for outdoor program space at building corners. And these should be primarily focused at the intersection of North Central and Maryland, North Central and Forsyth, and Beamiston, Maryland, which are seen as the key gateway entrances into the district, as well as the corners adjacent to major public buildings. And then finally, looking at building base articulation, this provides some additional requirements, which are again designed to articulate and provide variety in building bases, particularly as it relates to storefront conditions and the typical kind of rhythm and pattern of a retail dining or entertainment storefronts along the sidewalk. And then additionally, The other two sections that were added deal with ground floor retail design. So this provides a series, and I'm not going to go through these one by one, but it provides a series of design standards dealing with the size facade treatment, lighting access and fenestration windows and doors for retail or storefront units on the sidewalk. And again, these are designed to provide a welcoming and visible pedestrian environment along the street at all times of the day, including into the evening and into the nighttime with lighting requirements. And then finally, tower placement and design. Of course, this deals specifically with taller portions of buildings And it deals with things like limiting a tower floor plate dimensions to maintain slenderness and allow sky views, varying tower geometry to add visual interest, varying tower heights, modulating and articulating facades, varying tower placement and orientation, and limiting the apparent face of towers. And again, these tower design standards would all fall within and be governed by those maximum building height requirements that we talked about previously. So within the district, for example, towers would be limited again to either 10 stories in height or 25 stories in height depending on the specific location within the district. Then moving on to encroachments. Again, this refers to any part of a building that physically intrudes upon overlaps or overhangs the build to line an adjacent property or an adjacent public right of way. These would typically apply to things like building signage, awnings, balconies, bay windows, but they can also apply to things like outdoor seating and dining areas that are located on the sidewalk or at the sidewalk level. So within the district, all primary streets, which is to say all street facades are permitted a six foot maximum encroachment zone. But side lot lines and alley lot lines are permitted no encroachments. Next, building use requirements, beginning with the ground floor use. It is required to be either entertainment and dining uses or primary retail. And primary retail would be permitted as a conditional use only for all building frontages on North Central Avenue because that is viewed as the primary entertainment and dining street within downtown, and that's something that's been re-articulated in the entertainment overlay for this area. that non-entertainment and dining uses for north central would be permitted as a conditional use only, and there are no other uses that are permitted on the ground floor of buildings. So all buildings have to have active commercial ground floor uses. Upper floor uses, which would be any floors above the ground floor, are permitted secondary retail or service business uses, office uses, and residential uses. And then moving on to parking and building service. So this deals with both location, as well as access and required spaces. So the location standards specify that parking will generally be located at the interior of the block. And it is governed by setbacks for both at-grade or above-grade parking, as well as below-grade parking. So the setbacks from any street frontage for above-grade parking or at-grade parking would be 60 feet minimum from the build to line, zero feet minimum from the side lot line and zero feet minimum from alley. So this dark gray area that you see on the map diagram would indicate those areas where above grade or surface parking is permitted. And the light gray represents areas where surface parking would not be permitted. So again, the intent here is that you would not have any Mark Benthien, ECA- Parking structure that would be directly adjacent to the street, but rather there would be a minimum of 60 feet of building program space or essentially liner buildings. Mark Benthien , ECA- Which would front any any surface or above grade parking keeping that in the middle of the block. Below grade parking, however, is permitted to be built up to the lot line. So for any underground garages, those would be permitted to be built at zero feet from all lot lines, including the primary street build two lines. Access, parking and building service will generally be accessed from existing service alleys with the following conditions. If the parcel or parcels to be developed have access to or abut an existing service alley, parking and building service access is required to occur from said service alley. And if the parcel or parcals to be developed do not have access to or about an existing service alley then parking building service access may occur from adjacent streets subject to the following requirements. No access may be provided on North Merrimack Avenue, North Central Avenue, South Central Avenue, or North Emiston Avenue. So in other words, any service access would have to occur either from Forsyth, Maryland, or in the case of the westernmost block, North Brentwood Boulevard. And secondly, no access may be provided within 60 feet of a street corner. In other words, this 60 foot area between the street corner would again be prohibited from service or parking access, garage entrances, ramps, et cetera in order to ensure a good active corner condition at each block. And then required spaces for parking. This, I'm not going to go through this in detail, but this, I will say that this matches exactly what the two downtown overlay districts currently provide in terms of dwelling units, commercial business office and service uses, and restaurant uses. So what is currently provided in the downtown core and central business district overlay districts has been directly translated into these this new east downtown or northeast downtown overlay district. And again, Again, carrying over directly from the current overlay districts, mixed-use developments can, with the approval of the Board of Aldermen, have modified parking requirements based on a traffic and parking And then the last two components of the development standards are the building types and the frontage types. So the purpose of the building types is to ensure that the buildings within the overlay district are consistent with the character goals of the development standards. Building types are a series of model buildings for development, which are both regional and application in particular to downtown Clayton and the overlay district. And all of the building types that are presented in the development standards would be permitted on any parcel within the overlay district. So all building types are permitted in all portions of the overlay district. Building types consist of a live work building typology, a flex building, a commercial block building, a high rise building, a live work building and a liner building, which is a specialized building type for a front of parking garage. And again, I apologize, 1.9.5 should state podium building, not live work building, that's a typo. A podium building, as you can see in the illustration, as many of you are probably familiar, is a building where you have a larger podium base, which typically would contain an interior parking garage. And then above it, you would have a setback tower. And so this again matches in general, the upper floors step back requirements that are required in many portions of the overlay district. And then finally frontage types. The purpose of frontage types is to provide a series of options for how the chosen building type will address the street. And this is in order to provide variety in building features and encourage vibrant and active street life. Frontage types vary in their suitability for different uses. For example, a shop frontage type would be suitable for retail uses while a balcony would be suitable for residential uses. Frontage types help to define the characteristics of the public space within the overlay district. And each building is required to utilize at least one frontage type on the ground floor and at least one front edge type on the upper floors, but they may, depending on the character of the building, feature multiple frontage types. And again, all of the frontage types presented would be permitted throughout the overlay district as appropriate to the specific use and the specific building type. And the frontage types consist of a stoop which is an elevated residential entry, awnings and canopies, balconies bay windows and oriole windows, shop fronts and cafes. And then finally, I'd like to conclude again with a brief summary of the outline of the architectural design guidelines components for the Northeast Downtown Overlay District So the design guidelines consist of design excellence principles, district design guidelines, which deal with the overall district character, the relationship of the blocks to one another and the relationship of the built environment to the streets. Architectural design guidelines building elements and materials, landscape guidelines, and public art and placemaking. And the objective of these guidelines is to achieve design excellence in a vibrant, attractive, and human scale downtown entertainment district. And they're designed to help to ensure that project designs within the overlay contribute to a distinctive district character and identity while providing a positive human scaled pedestrian oriented experience and encouraging architectural contextuality, creativity and diversity. So again, these are not regulatory in nature but are rather advisory and they are to be used by property owners developers as well as the architectural review board in evaluating the design merits and providing solutions, creative solutions to building design and development within the district. So that concludes the formal presentation for this evening. So I'll hand it back to David for any Q&A.

I have a question just right off the bat, if I can start. And I'm sure we'll have some questions. We may have questions from those listening that are interested in this. But I just think for people listening, and actually as a refresher to me, could you go back to where, you know, we combined a lot of districts into one.

Yes.

Can you just review what districts we did combine and... you know, what the basic parameters were for those then. I mean, we have the central business district. Then we have the entertainment district. And now we have this new district. But were there other districts that were combined? And what were those two?

So... And yes, and I appreciate that question. And unfortunately I don't have in this presentation a detailed map of the current districts but you can actually see it here in this lower modeled image. So this is an aerial view of the two current districts. And so you can see here is Maryland Avenue, here is Forsyth. Emiston, North Central, North Merrimack, and down here in the corner, North Brentwood. So the two districts currently, there is the downtown overlay district, which is currently essentially one block bounded by North Merrimack Forsyth, North Brentwood and Maryland Avenue. And This is the block where, for instance, Oceano is located on the corner and the southern half of the block is currently being redeveloped as the Forsyth Point And so today that downtown overlay district is really only remains as the northern half of the block because the Forsyth Point PUD actually took the southern half of the block out of the district. The other district is the Central Business District Core Overlay or CBD Core Overlay. And that's what you see here in the pink color. And so this is basically North Bemiston to North Merrimack, Maryland South to Forsyth. And then as well as this portion South of Forsyth. So this is next to, this is the corner next to the Centene Garage where Cafe Napoli is located. And then the block between Bemiston and central on the south side of Forsyth where World News is located, but north of the county parking lot. So those boundaries represent the two current overlay districts. So essentially...

So those are combined into one and then the entertainment district

So that's one currently. And then the other one is

like this. Okay. Yes. And the entertainment district is really, it's about usage.

Right. The entertainment district is a use overlay that basically looks like that. It's essentially Merrimack North Central and North Bemiston between Maryland and Forsyth.

Okay, very good. I just want to clarify again for me and for others.

Yes, very good. And the entertainment district doesn't change in this case. That stays intact.

Correct, yes, because that's a use overlay, not a physical form overlay. Just clarifying, thanks.

Well, I wonder, a couple of things in the presentation, and there seems to be a long time between us becoming familiar again and again with this. So I think some of the questions might have been answered previously. So I apologize in advance, but- No worries. What is magical about 25 stories? Why not 30? Or why is there a limit in terms of the height in an area where certainly 25 stories would take you pretty high, okay? So what would hurt for someone to go 10 more stories than that? You know what I'm saying?

Sure. I think ultimately it came down to kind of looking at a variety of existing conditions within downtown more broadly, but within the immediate context of the overlay district more specifically. And looking at kind of the prevailing heights, you know, the general height range of new buildings that are being constructed and trying to balance that with the fact that even along Forsyth, we are essentially at the Northern edge of downtown and transitioning into a lower density residential area.

So

we wanted to ensure that that there was a good contextual transition between those areas and through a lot of discussion back and forth with both steering committee and jointly the Board of Aldermen and the Planning Commission Architectural Review Board. It was deemed that 25 stories stepping down to 10 stories along those key blocks on Maryland seem to be the best arrangement of responding to market conditions for development, but also having a contextual urban form that relates to the various surrounding areas.

So I understand the step down, I understand the gradual down, I understand that the part of that has to do with, you know, not having, you know, you've got a residential neighborhood right across Maryland and so there has to be respect for, you know, for their rights too in terms of whether it be sunshine. I'm just not sure why there was a limit to 25 stories on those buildings in areas where obviously height is not necessarily some kind of an interference with anyone's enjoyment of their buildings or life. Was there a certain, was 25 chosen for any particular reason?

Well, again, it was really looking at kind of the typical heights of some of the taller buildings that have been built recently immediately around the area. So looking at things like the two new Centene buildings, Maryland Walk, as well as some of the older buildings like the Pierre Laclede Center and some of those in the immediate area. And again, the 25-story or 300-foot maximum height was determined to be kind of a good contextual response. But again, I mean, the overall, I do agree with you that in those areas that we are currently specifying a 25-story maximum, with perhaps the exception of that of the corner block at Maryland and and Brentwood, which is really responsive to the Maryland Walk development. But in the areas along Forsyth, particularly south of Forsyth, I do think it's certainly possible that additional height could be permitted. But again, in the various areas discussions through the engagement process, the consensus agreement with all of the stakeholders involved was 25 stories was the appropriate maximum.

And Tim, if I could just add as well, that was a big part of the discussion amongst the group as far as trying to find that acceptable height that would be permitted by right or through straight zoning. There is nothing that precludes a developer from asking for a PUD, even with this overlay in place. And as you probably recall with those PUD standards, You can ask for a waiver from the standards that are in place, and you could ask for more height. You could apply for a 40-foot building. In order to get that excess height, though, they would have to supply some type of public benefit and utilize our point system to make that happen. So while we're trying to capture more of the market reality here and hopefully drive people more towards straight zoning versus using the planned unit development process, I would still envision that, you know, there's still going to be a decent percentage of developments in the future that are going to come in under a PUD and height is one area where they could seek to go above what the standard lays out. But as Tim had said, through all those discussions, 25 feet was kind of where the group as a whole had pegged the by right maximum height.

Yeah, thank

you, David.

the comments from the board or questions. I have a couple of

questions. Um, thank you. So, um, just out of curiosity, would the Forsyth point development have been allowed under these guidelines or would it have required a PUD still? Can you say,

so there, um, HAB-Jacques Juilland, In general, well there's there's a couple of aspects to to that. HAB-Jacque Juilland, I just want to hop ahead a little bit here in the presentation. HAB-Masyn

Moyer- And thinking this setback right away like we're requiring a setback after six floors everywhere, but I don't think foresight point has that. HAB–Jacques JuillAND,

yeah that's that's correct so so the one area where the one area where foresight point not be compliant would be in terms of the setback along foresight Boulevard. The other area, and I'm going to admit that I'm not completely familiar with how that project was ultimately designed in terms of the ground floor uses. But as I recall, there were non-commercial or non-retail, there are some non-commercial in that project. So that would also be an aspect of the project that would be non-compliant. And then I think there are some specific considerations related to the facade articulations in the draft, the proposed draft overlay that also would not have been, that Forsyth Point does not fully comply with.

Thank you. The one other question I had was about floor height. So you talk about like upper floors, the minimum and max, I think was nine and 12. Yes. And so I'm thinking that doesn't allow for something like a restaurant or event space on the top floor of a building with a higher ceiling height without then a PUD. Am I understanding that correctly? So if someone wanted to put in, you know, like Armstrong Teasdale or the St. Louis Club or other places that have top floors that are really impressive, that would not qualify under these guidelines?

No, that's actually a really good, that's a really good point. And I think that there are potentially there are potentially a couple of solutions to that that would permit that. One thing that we could do is that there could essentially be an exception notated that would be conditional on the building design or the intended use. The other thing that we can do is we can... we can specify how things like mezzanines are treated as they relate to an overall floor count. So that's one thing that is sometimes seen in form-based codes where you permit a, you basically permitted double height space for a certain percentage of the floor area. In other words, any floor can basically for say, 30% of the floor or 50% of the floor, whatever is kind of makes sense in terms of the overall you know, the kind of the prevailing size of buildings, things like that can be specified to be, that it can be treated as a mezzanine condition or a double height condition, but then that effectively counts as two stories, not as one story, of course. So yeah, there are some different solutions to that, but I think it's a great point that you bring up about permitting those upper floor entertainment or venue or dining spaces and ensuring that you have a good physical condition to support that.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments? I know that we have some visitors that are interested in this. I'll just ask if you all have any further questions. And I'll ask Terry Curley, did I get your question answered about districts adequately?

Yes, you did. And I thank you for that because I still am a little confused. But I do have a couple of questions if you're willing to take a minute and hear them. Of course. My first question is regarding that upper floor step back. Why is it only 40 feet for north and south central? And it goes up progressively from Forsyth and east of central and Beamstead. I don't understand why it is like that. And I wondered if someone could explain it to me.

Sure. Thank you for the question and I'll be happy to explain that to you. So the upper floor step backs were, the distance for those step backs was based essentially on two conditions. So first of all, we wanted to ensure that the upper floor step backs were not so great that they were essentially making parcels undevelopable above six stories because the tower would be so small based on the setback. And so we threw again, this was developed through a lot of, discussion with both the joint sessions of the Board of Aldermen and the Planning Commission Architecture Review Board, as well as the steering committee. It was determined that 40 feet as kind of a minimum upper floor step back distance made sense. And because North Central is really the primary area dining and entertainment street within downtown Clayton. We wanted to ensure the greatest level of density and intensity along North Central. And then we also began to look for the other streets, at contextual elements as a way to help to define those upper floor step backs. So on Forsyth Boulevard, for example, The 50 foot upper floor step back generally or closely matches the setback of the St. Louis County Police Headquarters, which is located right sort of in the middle of Forsyth Boulevard, just adjacent to the property. That building has a front lawn setback of about 50 feet. And so by setting the upper floors of Forsyth back 50 feet, there was a contextual relationship between those buildings. Also the new Centene Tower on the east side of North Hanley or South Hanley rather, it has approximately a 50 foot front step back. Likewise on North Bemiston Avenue, the 70 foot upper floor step back was again based on the setback or the front lawn area of City Hall, which is again about 70 feet from the parcel line. So that in terms of overall massing, the upper floor step back along Bemiston relates to the placement and setback of City Hall. And then the 60 foot step back along Maryland was actually just developed through, a number of options working back and forth with the community or with the committee rather, the steering committee and the joint Board of Alderman Planning Commission sessions through modeling and kind of beginning to mass out these options. And it was determined to be kind of a good way a good step back to mention that again, would preserve enough of the upper floor area that you could actually build above six stories and that the step backs weren't making the parcels essentially undevelopable above six stories. So it was really a variety of conditions but it was all based on on different contextual relationships on each of those key streets.

Okay, great. Thank you, Terry. Anybody else have questions on the board or in the audience?

Mayor, I did have two comments that I received today. I actually had a meeting with Mr. Winkleman, who I believe is in the audience this evening, but he did submit two public comments to me that I'd like to share this evening on his behalf. The first one that he submitted was he's advocating for a six-foot setback rather than a zero build-to line Mark Benthien, ECA- For the buildings and really for two reasons first that balconies or other projections at that point wouldn't approach upon the right of way. Mark Benthien , ECA- And secondly, that six foot setback would allow adequate outdoor dining space. and also for walkway width. A more comfortable experience for pedestrians in that area. That was his first point. The second one relates to concerns he had about corners themselves, about some of those public spaces similar to what you see at Herbie's there and how those would be allowed in this plan. Really the setback in articulation of those corners. HAB-Jacques Juilland, His suggestion was to require a certain area or a certain square footage of open space that could be utilized either corners or across the frontage of buildings. So the way these development standards are written. If you remember on an earlier slide I realized we've looked at a lot of stuff tonight. HAB-Jacque Juilland, 85% of the frontage has to be on the actual build to line. but 15% you can play with and you can actually set some things back to create pockets for outdoor dining or those types of things. But rather than make that optional with an 85% minimum and a 100% maximum, his suggestion was to require, again, a certain area be preserved for open space, either corners or along the frontage. So I just wanted to pass along those two comments that were received from Mr. Winkleman.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, very good. PB, Lupita Д Montoya, I don't know if I think IRA is our architectural review board liaison. So I think Ira, it would be a good idea if you just carry those thoughts to the next meeting. I know ARB is going to review this again in the plan commission and just to mention it as a point of interest and see what that whole group would think about these items.

Okay. Can I just follow up on that a little bit now that it's been brought up?

Sure.

You know, before we had a little brief conversation about streetscape and I guess I'm going to ask Tim the question. How much of this design assumes that we're going to do some PB Harmon Zuckerman, Increasing sidewalk space. I know that was one of the big discussions we had about whether we were going to be able to increase the sidewalk and whether it was going to be cutting down traffic lanes or what does, does any of this anticipate that or does this assume PB Harmon Zuckermann, Sidewalks remain as they are. And we have a zero bill too long because if if we're going to keep the sidewalk says they are i I think that pushing the Bill 2 line back certainly helps, just like Mr. Winkleman says.

Right. So the architectural or the design guidelines in terms of the district design guidelines do address the recommendations for various streetscape improvements throughout the district, particularly along North Central where it was proposed as you stated to remove a single traffic lane in each direction and provide wider sidewalks. That said, we understand that those recommendations are outside of the purview of the actual development standards, the regulatory portion of this study. And so while it's a recommendation, we are not anticipating that it will definitely be implemented that way. That said, the recommendation for the zero foot build two line is also driven very much by maintaining a contextual relationship with other existing buildings in the district, which by and large, all of the commercial storefront buildings that exist are zero lot line buildings today. And I think there is a stated desire from a number of that's been articulated a number of times throughout the process, that to the extent to which some of these buildings can be preserved or at least the character of some of the buildings can be preserved, that would be a desirable outcome. And these new overlay development standards are really designed to maintain and require some of those characteristics to the extent possible as these parcels redevelop over time. So I think being able to maintain that consistent build-to line between new buildings and existing buildings is very important. Obviously, the standards do in a number of ways permit additional setbacks for portions of the facade at the ground floor and the upper floors to provide additional outdoor program space for dining and things like that. And I think to the extent that that can be combined with streetscape enhancements over time, that would be certainly the best outcome. But I think that the challenge with requiring a say six foot build two line as opposed to zero foot build two line is that then you start to get an inconsistent relationship between the storefronts of new buildings versus existing buildings and that can cause some problematic relationships.

It does seem like there's a trade-off between wanting walkable sidewalks with nice cafe space and the consistency of those storefront at the build to line. So I don't have the answer for it, but it does seem like a trade-off that we're having to deal with. So I'll kick it over to Ira to take the ARV.

well you know what rich i'm glad you kind of um drilled down on that a little bit because i agree with what you're saying um i know we've come this far with it this way um the the if i'm just thinking about central avenue uh we have a development that's about to try to happen and uh I don't know how that would affect them, but as we move on down northward or southward on Central, there's a lot of opportunities for future development. And the problem is when we looked at trying to widen the sidewalk for this portion of North Central, The portion that's the half block that's butts up against Maryland, it became really problematic to widen the sidewalk. It became because of MSD requirements and all kinds of things like that, lane turn radiuses and all this, it became really, really tough to widen the sidewalks. So the opportunity for us to actually follow through on the recommendations for sidewalk widening that are in your great plan Tim, you know, and they are great recommendations. To some extent, they're not realistic in a lot of these locations. And so I guess I bring this up as a sort of a conundrum as to how to solve it. And we've got some real experts here, our city manager being one, that I mean what is the answer if we want to get to this point someday because the more we you know we we do one development under one set of guidelines and then we say oh gee we wish we could have widened the sidewalk and we move on down the block well now we want to be consistent with what's already there or whatever and it's just um I I feel like it's um it's a conundrum and I I don't have a good answer I wish we had a good answer

you know that the difficult thing mayor is is It's not something, as far as the width of the roadway, that sort of thing, that we can regulate through zoning. If we want to address streetscape on Central, as you pointed out, when we looked at the sidewalks on the east side of the street when Bemiston Place was going through the process and whether or not we could widen it, You know, it really takes a reconstruction of Central to make that work, to make the drainage work, to make turn radiuses work. You have to reconfigure your traffic signals at the intersection. There's a whole lot that goes into it. So it's not really something through zoning that we could manage that way. Really what it is, is a large capital project to really reconstruct that roadway and put in what would be the ideal streetscape at some point. And I think with the buildings that are there, the recently approved Bemiston Place and then Ceylon, which is still relatively new, you know, we could work all that in. Really, it's just like everything else. It comes down to a matter of funding and development. how we would go about paying for the reconstruction of that street so that we can enhance that streetscape and widen the sidewalks really within the public realm more so than within that area that the developers have been working on over the past couple years. So it's tough. The other thing that makes it tough too is the whole northern half now is developed or about to be developed. So, you know, it's just kind of being done piece by piece. You almost have to let the development play out and then come back in and do your capital project later and maybe expand the sidewalks. But in the end, it's just going to come down to dollars and figuring out a way to get it done sometime in the

future. That's a good explanation. Thank you.

But it's not a good answer. I agree.

If we know from a practical point of view, is very unlikely that we're gonna ever rebuild the street and the sidewalks, then move the buildings back and go ahead and do that.

And we could do that on the remaining Southern blocks of Central. We are where we are with Ceylon and Beavis in place at this point. Absolutely, yeah. Right. I understand. And so it gets back to that trade-off. We can get more depth, we just won't have a consistency with building placement.

Well, I agree.

Some is better than

none. As Tim stated it really well, that's the trade-off there. We can approach it either way. It is a discussion worth

having. We have discussed this a few different times. I think I'd be in favor of, you know, asking the plan commission and the RB to discuss it once again with you, Tim, and whoever else wants to give input. Maybe, maybe we need to reconsider that. I wouldn't be against reconsidering that. And it is just, you got to start somewhere sometimes. Questions. So David and Tim, can you make sure, and Ira too, make sure that this kind of gets replayed at the next plan commission meeting where this is considered?

Absolutely. Yes. You bet.

Great. Thank you. Okay, if there's no other questions or comments on this, I think we are done here. As everybody knows, we're not gonna have the first reading tonight because the plan commission actually hasn't made a full recommendation to us on this, which actually is fortuitous given this whole discussion. So I'm going to close the public hearing And we can move on to the next item on our agenda, the Bemis in Place clerical error corrections.

All right, thank you, Mayor. On December 22nd, 2020, the Clayton Board of Aldermen approved Bill 6814 for the establishment of a mixed-use plan development a planned unit development known as Bemiston Place. The applicant recently approached the city to clarify the amount of retail space, which was originally approved at 10,667 square feet. Upon further review, the applicant determined that the initial square footage calculation included a hallway measuring 308 square feet in area. It should not have been classified as retail. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application to revise the ordinance to ensure accuracy. While reviewing the applicant's request, staff identified two other locations in the ordinance where the number of apartment units was not consistent with the final development plan. Specific areas being amended to reflect the corrected information are listed in the packet. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance as proposed.

Okay. Any comments or questions from the audience? All righty. Comments or questions from the board? All right, Alderman Lentz. You're muted.

Sorry, sorry. I'll introduce Bill 6852 to correct clerical errors in ordinance 6674 related to be missed in place project to accurately reflect the intent and action of the Board of Aldermen to be read for the first time by title.

Second. Any comments? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6852 first reading an ordinance of the city of Clayton Missouri authorizing and directing the execution of corrections to ordinance number 6674 to accurately reflect the intent and actions of the Board of Aldermen with respect thereto.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move that board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6852 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in Aye. Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect the board's given unanimous consent.

And I will introduce Bill 6852 to correct clerical errors in ordinance number 6674 to accurately reflect the intent and action of the Board of Aldermen to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Further comments or questions? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6852, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance of the city of Clayton, Missouri, authorizing and directing the execution of corrections to ordinance number 6674 to accurately reflect the intent and action of the Board of Aldermen with respect thereto.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right. We have the disposal of records next on our agenda. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. It is the recommended guideline of the Secretary of State to formally approve disposition of records at the Board of Aldermen level. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve a motion to dispose of EMS training records from 2000 through 2015 in conformance with the Missouri Secretary of State General Records Retention Schedule.

Any questions or comments? Okay. Time to

talk, to have your scintillating conversation, Ira.

So far it's going quite well. I'm enjoying it.

Okay. Seeing no comments or questions.

Then I'll move to approve the disposal of records for the EMS training, training records from 20,000 to 2015. Second.

Discussion? Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Well, the last thing is appointments to boards and commissions. We have a couple new appointments. Mr. City Manager.

Mayor, I actually don't have a copy of the board and commission appointments.

I

don't either. I was going to ask June about that. There's no request for board action because I didn't know who was going to be

appointed. Correct. I don't believe we ever received names.

We just listed the title on the agenda.

Well, okay. June, you and I had a conversation and I told you who they were. So what was the holdup there?

I'm sorry. I didn't get any information. I know there was one for Parks and Rec that you would like, but I knew Bridget had questions about another person. And then a couple of the board members had recommendations on another person for the same seat.

Well, we had two seats available on sustainability.

Correct.

And we had at least one candidate that we could have approved tonight?

And we still can. We still can.

And we had at least one seat available in Parks and Rec, and we had one candidate we could have approved to tonight. And those were made known.

OK, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I got

confused then. It was my mistake. Well, maybe I'm confused. Maybe I dreamed it. OK, so what would you like to do?

You can give their

names and make the recommendation, yes. All right. So let me do that and see if anybody has questions. But Cheryl Rideau had submitted her application for the Sustainability Committee. And she... She has previously served for several years as the parent advisor to MIAC. And so I believe she would be a very good active member of sustainability. And so that is one that came forward. The other that came forward is that Eric Schneider submitted his application for Parks and Rec. We have a vacancy there. And again, he has served in previous years, but again, is very passionate about our parks and rec systems and programs. And I think would also make a terrific member once again. So those are the two that I know of and that I thought I discussed with our amazing city clerk.

We had one more, but I think that Bridget wanted to... review the application. Okay. And since she's not here tonight, I didn't think we were going to bring it up. Okay, that's fine.

I get you. I get you on that one. So if it's okay with everyone, we could appoint these two that I mentioned. Okay. So do we need to, I guess we need a motion then. Correct.

I would point out that Ms. DeForest has her hand up in the attendee list.

Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't see that.

That's okay. Just popped up.

Hello, Patty.

It looks like we're winding

up. Hi. Can you hear me? Karen Hollweg, Okay. Karen Hollweg, There you are. Karen Hollweg , When you appoint Eric Schneider he also needs to be appointed by the board to be the Chair

oh. Karen Hollweg,. Okay, thank you. Karen

Hollweg,, Melanie I believe Melanie is leaving the board and. Karen Hollweg., he's going to come back as chair okay Board of Aldermen point the Chair and we'll need a chair next Monday.

Okay. All right. Just in time. All right. Well, that would be...

Could I interject also that I think it is the mayor's nomination... The mayor may nominate anybody, make a motion to approve, or anybody can make the motion, I guess, really. But do we know the length of terms for each of these positions? Is anyone filling a vacancy and it's only for the unexpired portion? Or are these new terms? Because we... We do ordinarily indicate in the minutes, the term for which the appointees are appointed.

I think there are two, I don't know about sustainability. I think for Parks and Rec, it would be filling a new term because I think Melanie- Okay,

sustainability. Um, it would be Jenny Abel's, um, spot in her term expired this year. So it'd be three years or sustainability, Cheryl read all. Um, and then we have Melanie Tamsky on parks and rec parks and rec. Her term was at 2021 this year. So he, uh, he would be appointed for three years.

Very good. Thank you.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And you would be chair for three years.

Yes, he would. Okay. PB,

Harmon Zuckerberg, So do you want a motion.

Yes. PB,

HarmonZuckerberg, I'll make a motion to approve the two appointments to the boards and commissions Cheryl read all for three year term to sustainability and Eric Schneider as chair for a three year term to parks and rec

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Any further discussion. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that's a done deal. June, I'm really sorry about the confusion. That's quite all right,

that's quite all

right. All right, well, that ends our business and I'll take this opportunity to just thank the members of the audience that sat through our whole meeting. I'm glad to have you as always. And now we've come to that part of the evening where we go around and talk about anything that anyone would like to share, meetings they've been to, et cetera. And I'll go in order of seniority, but I know we are all really anxious to hear about Ira's inaugural experience on ARB, but we'll get to him second. Okay, Rich, it's your

turn. I don't really have anything. Becky and I did a... very well attended coffee on Sunday to talk about the tax increase. It was raining, so it scared away a few people, but two people showed up or three people showed up actually. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah, three people showed up. PB Harmon Zuckerton, So anyway, that was, it was, it was a good discussion.

PB Harmon Zuckerberg, Did you did you convince them is what I want to know. PB

Harmon Zuckleberg, Um, I won't say that we did or didn't they they did not tip their hand in that regard, although they were all very PB Harmon Zuckerberger, Civil in their conversation. PB Harmon Zuckingberg, Asked good questions.

PB David Ensign, Very good. Very good. Ira, tell us.

You gave me a buildup here that I can't possibly meet. I've had two meetings now, not just one. But now I have an infinitely more respect for Richard than I ever have in my life. So the first night we had about seven different applications to go through. and they were all individual homes or I think they're just individual homeowners. One was interesting because it involved the expansion, or I'm sorry, the building of a new build on a house where the turns out the driveway next door, the woman apparently had lived there for many, many years. And when she used her driveway and she opened her door, her door actually opened into her neighbor's property. So now the neighbor is building a new house and they want to put a retaining wall right where the door of her car always seemed to open. And this was a big problem for her. So It was amazing to me to see what happened from there on. The developer actually agreed to expand her driveway on the other side so that she could drive her car over from the property, and then she wouldn't have her door hitting the new retaining wall. I thought that was amazing. I mean, what developer in the world is going to make that offer? I thought it was great. So I think there was some discussion about whether we could actually codify that. But I think the point is a developer was doing it, you know, basically voluntarily. Other than that, we approved of the art for the Commerce Bank or the brand new Robert Forrant, Development on foresight that Brentwood the art for I guess the Commerce Bank side of that project. Robert Forrant, And it is a, it is a beautiful piece. It really is so. So we've done that and Other than that, like I said, it's individual houses and just whether they can get a retaining wall on their sidewalk or whether we need to push it back from their sidewalk so they can have a little green space between the sidewalk and their retaining wall. Those kinds of really very interesting situations and decisions to make. So anyway, it's actually been interesting and fun. And, you know, David and I spoke after our first one. We talked about some things that I think we can probably do to help streamline the process so the meetings are maybe a little shorter. So, but otherwise these have been, they've been very interesting. So Mayor, thank you for appointing me. I really do appreciate it.

You're welcome. Becky? You have anything to report to

us?

Yeah. I think just in addition to what Rich shared, certainly want to thank the folks who came out to our coffee and who've engaged otherwise on all variety of issues recently. I registered my daughter for youth soccer. So we're excited to be able to do that again this year following COVID. not being able to do it last year with the pandemic. So thanks to Parks and Rec for going forward with that. And I think this is probably the first year that I've ever actually registered before the deadline. I'm usually a late filer. So as part of that, I actually made my first visit into the Center of Clayton. I am a member, but I have not been going. And I was really pleased to see how the renovations look and the space and folks that were there. The only other update that I will give is that I'm participating next week in the St. Louis Racial Equity Summit. So this is a second event put on by Forward Through Ferguson. I attended their inaugural one, which was in person in 2019. And it was really a phenomenal event with leaders and organizers and educators and all different kinds of folks in the community um so i'm this one will be virtual uh next week online i think thursday and friday but i'm really looking forward to it so thanks very

good all right well i i would just i have a couple of things i just will comment on that forward to ferguson session though i went to one um about a year ago it was after the it was virtual but I will say that it was extremely well-run and I learned so much. And they are really good at virtual brainstorming sessions, et cetera. They have virtual post-it notes and all kinds of amazing things. So it was really enlightening. So I'm glad you're going. You'll have to report to us on it then what you learn. I will just say that over the past week or two, we've had one... well-promoted public forum that we all attended that I thought was very informative for everyone. And we had lots of great questions, which I was really glad about. We had some public attending in person and online, which is kind of a first for us to get those two things going at the same time. And I thank our staff for all the hard work they put in to make that happen. And secondly, I've attended myself two other sort of public sessions at various condo towers, Maryland Walk and the Park Tower and had really good attendance at both and really good questions at both. And it was a real positive experience. I think, I hope for everyone, but certainly I thought it was. And I know Bridget who went to the Maryland Walk session, who went to both, really thought it was a positive outcome as well. So lots of information shared and that was the goal. Also, something different I just want to share with you all is that a couple of weeks ago, I had a call from a person who's unhoused and she wanted to meet with me. And so I was able to finally get that scheduled with her this past week. And it was a really enlightening conversation. She shared a lot of ideas about affordable housing and how it can go wrong and how it can adversely affect those who are living there and even become sort of, it can become out of their reach very easily. And so I thought I would just mention that to you. She also ask for some help. And so, um, but I'm going to be sharing her thoughts and also, uh, her situation with the chief. He's very kindly offered to help me on this and he, um, deals with these issues regularly. So I know he'll have some good suggestions, but I just thought, um, this is something that we don't always see in Clayton, but, um, this person is living in Clayton and is from the area. And so, uh, I look forward to really trying to help her out, but also taking some of her ideas forward if we eventually go down the road of a different sort of housing, more diverse housing here in Clayton. I realize that's a long-term goal, but still, I think we'll have those conversations at some point. So anyway, that was my week. So anyway, I appreciate you all. Susan Peterson, And your time and your all your hard work that you're doing all the time and staff to in June. Again, my apologies for getting the boards and commissions mixed up. And so I'll try to do better on communicating next time.

Susan Peterson, No apologies needed. Susan

Peterson,

It's fine.

Okay. All right, all. I don't know if we are PB, Lupita D Montoya, Going to reconvene at mugs or if it's too late, but I'm game. If anyone else is going so let me know.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I think there's a contingent going PB,

Lupita Д Montoya, Okay, then I will be there to anyone is welcome. PB,

HarmonZuckerman, I would point out that it will not be reconvening PB, Lupita Di

Montoya, Oh, thank you. PB, Lupita Dychonoff, All right, you're right. Okay. Bad choice of words will be a little gathering social gathering. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Kevin. What would I do without you?

Informal.

I'd be in jail. Okay. All right. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Good

night. Good night.