January 14, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

is it good okay hey good evening everybody sorry for the delay we had some technical difficulties which we have now resolved and so welcome to our january 14th board of alderman meeting and we will get started with a roll call

alderman mcandrew here alderman abuse here alderman patel here alderman Gary Feder

alderman mcandrew here alderman abuse here alderman patel here alderman fader

alderman Rick Hummell

alderman hummel

alderman Jeffery Yorg Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

alderman york Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Okay, before we get started, we have something fun to present. We have An amazing chief of police. I'm sure you all have met him. If you haven't, he's sitting in the back of the room right now, Chief Mark Smith. And he is celebrating an anniversary. And we are now going to recognize all of his great work and achievements over the past 25 years. All right. And you believe all these people turned out just because.

So I have a certificate here for Chief Smith, who's been with the city now for 25 years. He's ascended our ranks. His leadership in the police department has just been incredible. Appointed chief in 2020. We're very, very lucky to have him. I know a lot of you in the room are active residents that have probably had chances to interact with Chief in the past, and we couldn't be more proud to have him here in Clayton. So congratulations, Chief, on 25 years, and I'm sure there are many more to come. Yes,

sir.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Very good. Now's the time in our agenda for public requests and petitions. So if anyone is here tonight to talk to us about anything that's not on our agenda, now is your opportunity to come talk to us. And no one's online. No one's got their hand up. Okay, very good. All right. So as you know, we've been considering something called the Big Bend Overlay for quite some time. And as you also, I think all know at this point, we, the city has received requests from Washington University and Concordia to withdraw the overlay as it is. And it was, you know, the overlay was developed again, as you know, in response to the institution's plan to develop the area as a joint athletic use. And while this process is going to be put on pause, I want to state that the use of an overlay for a project like this remains best practices and the best way to regulate such a development. The potential action to withdraw this in no way inhibits the potential for the project itself to at some point move forward either under another overlay, this overlay, or something completely different. And before we get started on the actual business of this, I want to make a couple comments and allow some comments and also will allow some comments from you all who've come tonight. First, I want to commend our city staff for their dedication to the process. And also admiring, you know, their expertise. Ana's not here tonight, but she certainly, or is she sitting in the audience? No. Oh, there she is. Okay. Usually I might see you over here. And anyway, I want to make sure that we, that they know how much we appreciate all their hard work and dedication and also their talents. And also thank the elected officials for all of the dedication to seeking robust input on this issue over the course of more than a year. And, you know, again, you know, of course, I want to recognize that you are residents and businesses and the institutions themselves have engaged in a very active and consistent ongoing way for all of this time and you should know that that engagement is truly valued and respected. So while we certainly support an effort by these institutions to step back and take a broader look at their options, I want to encourage them to continue their collaborative efforts since the synergistic uses proposed with this plan do conform to our comprehensive plan just completed. And I also want to be, I want to tell you that I'm encouraged by the notion that the city can now explore a lot of the things we learned during the process of developing this overlay and leveraging the substantial time that we've put into it. And capturing, you know, some of the, some of the again, the key learnings and the good things that can come out of it. And we can use those to improve our city as a whole. including things like tree canopy protections, dark sky lighting, and other things. So before we consider the request to withdraw, I want to offer the board also an opportunity to make any comments they wish to make. And to do that, I want to start with the ward that has been more of the focus of all this, which is Ward 1. So I would offer the senior alder from Ward 1 to go first and make any comments she would like, and then Rick, and then we will go around and do others as needed.

Thank you, Mayor. And mostly thank you to all of you who are here tonight and have been at countless meetings over the last, I feel like it's been more than 18 months now since we first met on this topic. And so really do appreciate those that are online from wherever you are also joining us today. I think through this process, we've had more learning about zoning than any of us ever expected outside of Ana and David than any of us expected to have. And I think a lot of really good ideas have been co-developed by residents and the staff and ourselves as we work together on through conversations, visits to the site. I mean, I've walked around the site with many of you where it's near your property and not visited with David just a couple of weeks ago to get renewed sound readings along the border to inform the latest draft. And so I think through that process we've had a lot of engagement and collaboration that has yielded some really wonderful ideas. So many good ideas, layering tree protections with transition zones, implementing dark sky international lighting standards and many others. So I want my the message that I have is that we won't abandon what we've learned through this process. I have received dozens of messages of support via email, phone call and conversation on the street from residents and neighbors of the site. And throughout the city. And it's definitely my intention to continue to look for opportunities to like implement the learnings that we have had through this process. So thank you all.

Okay, would you like to comment?

um well similarly um i'd like to certainly thank our staff who really worked tirelessly on this process going to countless meetings spending hours refining the ordinance and explaining to all of us and all of you how this process would go i think you'd be hard-pressed to find a planning or legal expert who would disagree that this could have been the best result for all the parties involved here, Anna and David especially. Thank you very much. Um, second, uh, to our residents, whether or not you ultimately agreed or disagreed with this overlay. Um, I really want to thank you for spending so many hours engaging with us, engaging with your fellow neighbors, um, and coming to all of these meetings. Um, this was time away from your families, your work, um, simply sitting and relaxing in your homes. Um, and we certainly, as everyone has already mentioned sincerely appreciate how you participated in this process. I know I can speak for our entire board when I say that this process began because we really wanted to find the best way to make this work for our residents, for all of you, and be supportive of our institutional partners in developing land that we do not control. But again, thank you all very much. And I look forward to seeing how we can move forward and use the data that we've learned to find something that will work in the future.

I echo thanks for the Community input this staff expertise and explaining to us Bridget said explain to us and i'll say explain to us over and over and over again, the different aspects of it. And this the overlay was obviously crafted to have a comprehensive protections of a specific site. in relation to a specific plan. And with that specific plan gone, there's certain parts of it that, as everyone has said, that we have learned a lot from and we need to carry forward. Some of them should be carried forward citywide. And it is fortuitous that it comes on the heels of our livable communities and our comprehensive planning because staff is already geared up to start looking at our zoning and our other ordinances and updating things. And this is additional information, additional community input that will inform that and help make that even more effective. And it's already geared to happen. The challenge then is, of course, is preserving everything that's come out of that and to play it forward. In addition to the things that I think are community-wide, which comes with some of the sustainability issues that we all believe in for every site here, Lights Out Heartland, the Dark Sky Standards, updating parking ordinances, recognizing alternative transportation, and noise and traffic awareness. There are things that are specific to the site, even if not to the project, that we have to be sure to preserve in a, and again, in a comprehensive manner. And that includes the things in the overlay, like the setbacks, the preserving the trees, the transition zones, the topography and the grading preservations, the impervious surface restrictions, things like that. hopefully the staff can work on now to be ready. Again, comprehensive work with that site to see what projects come next. Other things more directly tied to the proposed athletic use, obviously we have in our arsenal not ready to be put anywhere there to inform us if and when that time is right. So timing is important, and we just have to keep that ball rolling, even if we're not proceeding with this particular overlay. Okay. I also have a bigger picture comment. Um, I know Washington university does not have anyone here tonight, but I certainly hope they are monitoring this and I am speaking largely to them. I was on school board when WashU proposed offering the CBC site for the current middle school and the community outcry was so immediate before there was even discussion about how that might happen. It was loud. And what I keep kept hearing was lack of trust, lack of trust. And now here we go again. Um, Our community relationships need work, and Washington University chose and chooses to be a part of Clayton. This proposal shows that. It was tied to increasing more housing for students in Clayton and building the recreational facilities within our neighborhoods. WashU students engaged with us. They tutor at Y-Down, proposing ways to support and connect with our city. 15 to 20 graduates every year from Clayton High School go on to Washington University, matriculate to WashU. WashU staff and professionals, many live here, as do many of us who are proud alumni. But the business side, the investment in our community, at least a perception of it, there may be a lot I don't know about. I see value, and I think most of us do, in having Washington University as part of our community. And Washington University obviously values being part of Clayton as well. We need that partnership. Washington University is tax exempt, while the city has a very tight and challenging budget. Peer universities to Washington University embrace pilots, which are payments in lieu of taxes, and they otherwise directly invest in the health of their chosen communities. Why? because it's their community too. And I mean, look where we are with WashU. It's a difficult situation. So what to do? WashU, I hope you're listening. I suggest you look through the city's comprehensive plan I suggest you look and think about helping us with a livable communities plan. Our goals in these, if we can reach those goals, benefit every one of us, including everyone involved with Washington University. This is the chosen community. Show that you're part of it. Reach out to our Clayton Community Foundation, Alex Amstead, 314-290-8553. Support Kate Young, the awesome WashU student. who's interning with our sustainability committee. Give her some resources for a project. Support Dylan Colbert, another impressive WashU student who's presented to us several times over the last year with detailed plans and how Washington University and Clayton can connect their pathways and be more one. If you watch you can proceed in developing this Concordia site, consider extending your current arboretum efforts to it for your use, the neighbor's use, Clayton community use. Offer this or some other community welcome and community benefits. I appreciate our neighbors and all the input, the difficult and sometimes aspirational conversations. I appreciate Washington University, especially Joanna and Mary and the architect who sat in that front row through so many hours of meetings. as I appreciate our neighbors who have done the same. We appreciate Concordia, Dr. Egger, and value you as part of our community. There's a lot of good here. Let's work together. But many of the things that have been underscored throughout this process and for too many years come down to a community perception of a lack of trust. Washington University, it would help tremendously if more community members believed that you saw us as neighbors and believed that you would make your decisions with our Clayton community interests always in mind. If we started our discussions with this assuming goodwill, we could probably get a lot of very good things done for everyone. Engage in, invest in some business savvy generosity. Washington University, you've spent a lot of resources in this effort, as we all have. And there's no doubt there's more university development coming all around us. Perceptions matter. It would be great to start assuming best intentions and to move forward from there. And again, thank you for everybody who's been in this process. I think we are in a better place. It was difficult getting here, but I think we're ready to move forward.

Yeah. Thank you. Good ideas in there. Yeah. Go on,

Gary. Well, I support the withdrawal of Bill 7045 at this time, and I'll explain why in a moment. A few positives, just to mention things that have already been said. I think from the beginning, the staff's recognition that a new WashU proposal should not be considered under the R2CUP because the It has been used in the past on projects with Washington University with very disjointed and non-comprehensive way. And I think they were smart enough to realize that institutions like Washington University deserve their own, for the betterment of the city, their own kind of institutional zoning. And so I think that's a real plus. And Bill 7045 is an example of that. And just the language itself, the introductory language in the bill that is For us tonight says to substantially enhance clayton's ability to regulate and constrain the spread of institutional land use in residential areas. they've recognized that this was a better approach i've said from day one, I think it is the better approach, I think it's actually the only approach. I think the staff's work generally to introduce institutional zoning for Washington University is demonstrated through the placement of that kind of category on the South 40. I think that's an important step forward. Again, the efforts by the entire board, the mayor to really work on this issue, I will have to say special kudos to Alderwoman Patel. I saw the Q&A that she sent out, which was exhaustive. the very long list of people that she's been dealing with. And so I really appreciate her effort and the citizens, you know, I've been around a long time. I've never seen a project in which we got not only comments, they weren't always constructive, but most of them were constructive. And most of them went to the level of actually going through the ordinance and making suggestions on wording changes. You know, that's, that's a level of input you don't see very often. And a I would also add in my list of people who did good things, not Washington University, who is not here tonight, but Washington University does actually ultimately provide us a lot of valuable information. The number of people who attend various sporting events, regulations from NCAA. It was like pulling teeth, but they did produce them and they produced them in the last six weeks. And I think the point of that particularly was that it made for a very good ordinance, which is the one we have in front of us tonight because we were dealing with very real numbers. Also Concordia. Their mission here is very clear. They obviously thought they had a deal with Washington University, not just one that was talked about but was one going forward because they spent the time and money to prepare detailed plans for their new residential housing. They submitted them to the city, went through the process, and the clock is now running for them on getting those things done. The ultimate best thing about this is Bill 7045 as it's presented tonight. I really think it is a perfected document for all the reasons I just said, which was we finally got enough information from Washington University to actually make it a very meaningful document. Development standards, for example, dealing with the different venues, the very now specific maximums for the different facilities, I think would not have been possible if we had not gotten all of that kind of data. And I'm very glad we did not choose to stopped this process four weeks ago because actually the last four weeks have probably been the most meaningful in actually perfecting this ordinance. So here we are, however, with letters from Washington University and from Concordia. And then I think the letters are very interesting. The letter from Washington University says, we believe the overlay version now before the city for debate on Tuesday, January 14th is not feasible to meet the primary objectives of this effort. As a result, we request the city withdraw the overlaying zoning legislation while we evaluate our future options. That's their wording. Concordia sent out an email that says remarkably almost word for word exactly the same thing, asking that we withdraw the overlaying for the Big Bend area while we evaluate our future options. So I guess that means, that really is a question. What does that mean while we evaluate our futures options? I think what it means is if you, Clayton, pass the overlay district bill, we won't submit a plan for our fields if if we have to go through that ordinance because it's too restrictive. That's essentially exactly what they say in their letter. What it doesn't say is if there is no overlay district, Washington University can still apply for these fields, for these 27 acres. And it's almost certainly exactly what I believe Washington University intends to do, what they have always intended to do. And so in that respect, the letter we received is no surprise at all. They never wanted the overlay district. They don't want it now. And they don't need the overlay district because our existing zoning provides them exactly a path to go forward to do what they want to do. Now, I noticed perhaps the post-dispatch reporter who put an article in the front page today is obviously smarter than I am because she doesn't read the letter the same way I do apparently, because the letter, the article in the paper says, has a headline, Wash U halts plans to build new athletic fields. And the article says, the school no longer wants to move forward. Now, I don't know how she got to that conclusion looking at the same letter I did. And when the article goes on to say that they reached out to Washington University for comment, they got no comment. Hey, big surprise. Because WashU doesn't want to answer the question of are they going to go forward? Because I think clearly they intend to. So where do their letters leave us? Does evaluate our future options mean Concordia and WashU really aren't going to go forward with sports facilities on the 27 acres? If so, then we don't need a sports related overlay. And so on that basis alone, we might as well withdraw it if they're not going to do it. But frankly, I don't believe it. I don't believe that for a moment. And frankly, I'm tired of guessing what Washington University wants I think it's time to put it politely that Washington University either does it or doesn't and lets us know what it's going to be instead of having us guess. After a year and a half of talking about what a possible transaction with Concordia is going to be, it really is time for Washington University to put up or shut up. Concordia is on the clock. They've already gotten a CUP. They have essentially one year to move forward with their project. So I think it's time for Washington University to either put the money up with Concordia, let Concordia build its buildings or announce they're not going to do the project at all and not rely on the post dispatch to determine what they mean in this very ambiguous letter. So I believe Washington University will go forward I frankly think even if we had passed the overlay district tonight, which frankly would have been my preference, but even if we passed it, they'd be grousing for two weeks and three weeks from now, they'd be announcing that although they're not happy about it, they're going to go forward when the time comes and apply for the project under the overlay district. But maybe not. Maybe what they've said is true. Maybe the project is over, but I'd be willing to bet almost anything it's not. So when I say I support the withdrawal of Bill 7045, it is with the understanding, at least my understanding, that the bill is not going to go anywhere other than the desk of the city manager or perhaps that of the city planner. It's going to be sitting there waiting to be brought back at the appropriate time. And I think that appropriate time is going to be when we learned that Concordia has submitted building plans for their new building, which they could only do if they get funds from Washington University. And so then anyone who hoped that the project would never happen will know that it is going to happen. And then the question will then be, how do we regulate it? So this matter almost certainly does not end tonight. And I hope no one is naive enough to believe that it ends tonight because it's not. So my ultimate thought is we cannot allow a CUP application from Washington University in 2028 or 2029 be the only way in which the city can regulate this project. We have time, we have the ability to evaluate the situation, and I hope we have the commitment of everyone to do that. I applaud everyone in the room, the board, all the citizens who've been part of this process. I think we have done our job. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for WashU to come forward and tell us not in ambiguous terms, but tell us what they are going to do so that we can properly prepare for it and as a city deal with it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. I think now is a good time to allow anybody that's here tonight that would like to further comment on this before we take action to do so. And I'd like to just first ask Tom Egger, who's sitting in the back, if you would first come up and just make any comment, just based on what you've heard here. Because I know that this whole situation is very, very important to your institution.

Now it's on. Thank you. I'm Tom Egger from Concordia Seminary, and let me just preface my comments by saying genuinely thank you to all of you, especially to the city staff for all of their work, excellent work on this project, and for the mayor for all of your help, to Becky for all of your conversation with so many people around this, which is so important. I think I mainly want to just follow up on the comments that were just made and say, with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into the situation that there's a great orchestrated plan here. I think the request on WashU's part to step back and evaluate is echoed by Concordia Seminary the situation has evolved, and especially because WashU's posture on this has evolved our own sense of the path forward. We now need time to regroup, rethink, and there is no behind, I can say in all honesty, there is no behind the scenes shared understanding of exactly what we're angling for. This is not a ruse to try to manipulate the process. My understanding, though I have not been personally directly involved in the conversations with WashU in the last couple of weeks, My understanding is that in general terms, they are not comfortable moving forward with this project under the proposed overlay. I'm not sure the details for what specific things they would like to see different. And I'm not sure if cumulatively the whole process and where we're at now has landed them at a place where where they may change course and decide to go a different route with this. We need to have those conversations with Washington University. Tabling this for now or withdrawing it for now gives us the opportunity to have time for those conversations. And so we certainly support the motion of of withdrawing this legislative action for now. And I don't know if now is an appropriate time for me to comment as well, but I would really encourage the alderman not to take preemptive action hastily to try to create some alternative overlay district that would relate to our private property out of frustration that Washington University is not yet definite in their plans for things. This portion of our property has been parceled off specifically for this project. It has not legally been parceled off. We do not own two properties as Concordia Seminary, we own one property, our 72 acre property. It's only been conceived of in two parcels with anticipation of this deal going through with Washington University. If they are to step back, we would strongly oppose any kind of special zoning parameters for one portion of our private property. without any sense yet, any definite sense on our part of where we're going with that, the use of that portion of our property in the future. So I would just beg for your patience. I know this is frustrating to all of you and it is to me as well. I wish we were on a clearer path right now, but we're working towards that. We'll continue to work energetically towards that. And we've been as transparent as we can with, with the city and with the community from our first public meeting. And we will continue to be so. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Tom. Okay. Would any other of our guests like to address the board on this topic? Sure, Branko.

Bronco Marusic to Tuscany Park. Thank you all the Alderman Mayor for your efforts in this and the patience in dealing with residents and trying to address everybody's concern. A couple things real quick. The first, I would agree that this ordinance, it should be tabled in some way, withdrawn at this stage. It's premature to do anything at this stage without, as we've always said, the residents have said, we'd like to know the purpose. What's the purpose going to be? So whatever premature sort of things that we put into it, it doesn't make sense at this time. Second of all, the alderman spoke to trust in Washington University. And I am – I got my law degree at Washington University. Love the school. But I do agree that from the very beginning of this long process, that trust factor was really missing and primarily, as we've always said – I thought we started with a couple intramural fields and then we moved on. And we had a discussion one time, Mary, you were in this group when you tried to get some compromises, which was we tried to say, well, let's if WashU had come forward. and said okay here's what we're trying to do how can we make this work a little better what would be a better way to do it get some input that way as opposed to saying well we're going to do this we're going to have these wonderful public meetings which will show that we did legally everything we're supposed to do in order to get the notice out to everyone i think this could have been done a lot differently um finally the last point i wanted to make is And it's something you said, Mayor. I'm not in agreement that the long-term plan of Clayton was so specific to say that that parcel should be an athletic complex. I don't doubt we had robust input into that plan and that our academic institutions who are partners in Clayton should thrive. But to say that that residential neighborhood that was being surrounded by 100 years of residential should turn into an athletic complex, I don't think that question or that issue was put before the people who gave that type of input into the long-term plan. I think something that specific, I really question whether that would have been the answer that they would have given back. Thanks for your time.

Are there others who would like to? Yeah.

Hi, I'm Betsy Betsy Meyland-Smith. I just wanted to thank the city staff and the board for your proactive efforts on this issue as part of the Comprehensive Planning Committee. One of the things that I learned is that it's really important envision what is possible in a space and be proactive instead of reactive so i want to encourage you to continue that work um i think it will benefit our community in the long run and i appreciate your commitment to making this a great place to live so thank you thank you

Hi, I'm Betsy Malin-Smith. I just wanted to thank the city staff and the board for your proactive efforts on this issue as part of the Comprehensive Planning Committee. One of the things that I learned is that it's really important envision what is possible in a space and be proactive instead of reactive so i want to encourage you to continue that work um i think it will benefit our community in the long run and i appreciate your commitment to making this a great place to live so thank you thank you

okay any others nobody else okay deb did you want to say anything or You had sent us an email. Be brave. I know you are brave. Without that,

no. Again, I think you're correct. You're spot on. That's why I didn't jump right up. I have sent an email around to various people that are seated here. For those of you that don't know me, I'm Jeff Grossman. I've been a resident of Clayton for over 30 years now. We first lived in Ward 1 and then we've lived in, I'm sorry, in Ward 3, but we've lived in Ward 1 since 1999. I've served in a couple committees for the city. I currently am the chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee. And that's kind of at the heart of what I wanted to just point out in terms of the overlay district. So I'm also, I should full disclosure, I'm also a WashU alum and an active volunteer in a whole bunch of different committees for them. And I think they do bring a lot to our community. I won't go all the way down that rabbit hole, but we all benefit from them as well as they benefiting from us. There are some concerns that I have about not only the overlay district property, but also any similar kind of property we might have in the city of Clayton and in our community. And I really felt fortunate that when I raised some issues about lighting and noise abatement, stormwater management, our tree canopy, transportation and safety, and overall sustainability issues, every single comment that I made was heard. And I know working with Anna, who just did a fantastic job, I cannot say enough good things about how responsive She was, and the whole of staff was very, very responsive to those things. So I am one of those people that went through the whole ordinance and looked at it and made specific comments. And so those are the things that I would ask us to continue to go forward with. You already have my laundry list so i'm not going to read it out, but really trying to pay attention to how do we address these things. Not only for that specific property, but what do we want to do about that Community wide so asking that we consider lighting noise abatement stormwater management. Our tree canopy transportation alternatives so it's not so dense again many of you already know we're about the carbon emission problem. and looking at how we take down things as well as put up new things. So change is coming, whether we like it or not, it is not gonna be the same as it was 20, 30 years ago when I first moved in. So we have the opportunity to embrace that change and make the change for the better for everybody. That's all I got.

Very good, thank you. Yeah. Anyone else before we take action on this? Oh, and is there anyone online with their hand up? Okay. Very good. All right, then. In that case, we will move on to Bill No. 7045, the Big Bend Overlay. And did you want to – do you have any kind of a staff report on this?

No, not really. Everyone's seen the letters. They were attached to the staff report. Our recommendation would be withdrawn.

Okay. So – repeating we've had the two letters asking us to withdraw the overlay i'm now going to ask if the person who introduced the motion originally would

like to withdraw it i would mayor um i'd like to make a motion to withdraw bill number 7045 if you

would like to withdraw unless there is any objection is there any objection on this board to withdrawing it okay we don't have to have a motion and a vote we simply have agreed that we'll withdraw it. And so it is withdrawn and perhaps to be considered somewhere down the road. We don't know, but nothing would prevent that. It is still a viable thing for us to pursue later if that should be the direction this board would want to take. So we are done. It is withdrawn and you can all now clap and everything that you wanted to do. I know I've been waiting. Go on. All right, and now we have a lot of other business

to do. Mayor, before we move on to the next item on the agenda, I would like to make a motion that staff explore options to implement the ideas that were not specific to the use at this site. The good ideas we've heard about that were developed through this process and report back to the board with recommendations for implementing what we've developed through this process, whether it be at the site specifically or citywide.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. Can this just be a voice vote? Yes. Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. So we will duly consider all of our learnings and see how they can be leveraged throughout the city and wherever. All right. Thank you very much, everyone, for being here. Now it's your chance to escape. Do we want to take a two-minute break? It's

a pretty interesting agenda for anyone who wants to stay. It's about as good as they get.

Oops, sorry. The next thing on our agenda is the storefront window coverings. And so I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, mayor vacant ground floor premises, particularly in commercial and pedestrian friendly areas negatively impact the city's aesthetic appeal reduce foot traffic into terror deter potential business investment. To address these challenges, the proposed ordinance introduces comprehensive regulations designed to enhance the appearance and functionality of vacant properties. There are some key provisions of the proposed ordinance as far as window screening it must be installed within 15 business days of vacancy. They must cover at least 80% of storefront windows and comply with city-approved design standards. Under signage and display, temporary signs advertising space availability or announcing future tenants are permitted subject to existing sign regulations. Alternative displays such as artwork or products sold by other businesses or alternative graphics may be approved by the city manager or designee. For maintenance, storefronts must be maintained in a neat, clean, attractive, and well-lit condition. adjacent sidewalks must be kept free of dirt and debris, and there are penalties included in the ordinance for non-compliance. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the proposed ordinance submitting Chapter 425 of Clayton City Code of Ordinances to address the management presentation of vacant ground floor premises. We do have Mr. Gary Carter here, our Director of Economic Development, that has a few slides here relative to the storefront window coverings.

Good evening. So this is a follow-up conversation from our August meeting where we discussed this previously, and this evidently PowerPoint's gone crazy on me with this format, but this was a breakdown of all the available or current at that time vacant retail space in Clayton, which I think the number's no longer there, but it was around 94,000 square feet, so a substantial amount. The existing ordinance covering this was basically that it had to be covered in a workmanlike manner with white butcher paper. And at one time we had, in the past, created a program in 2012 to add a decorative paper here. It's just a blurry version of an outdoor dining scene at Napoli. It was – we spent about $3,200 on it, but it had significant other costs. As the city was providing the paper, the staff was delivering the paper to the developers, and again, it was printed on regular paper, so it fared no better than the white butcher paper, meaning that the tape would not stick, the paper would fade, and in some cases we had – some spaces that went through several applications of this that they were vacant so long and just kept getting replaced. The key provisions, David just went over those, so I'm not going to bring those up again unless you have any questions. One thing I did want to point out that the staff report did contain an error on the penalty summarization because it did not survive draft iterations that we finally wound up on. What we did wind up on is the standard penalty in most of the planning ordinances where it's under the 100-110 and it would go to city court for enforcement with the judge. So that is what is in the ordinance. And I think we're trying to maintain some kind of consistency with the regular rest of the ordinances of that nature. I do have, as the ordinance stipulates, that it is city approved designs approved by the mayor and alderman. I do have four options for you to consider tonight if you would like to. That way we could set this program up immediately. And the way this would work is that we have these sized digitally so that planning could put this on their section of the website and the property owner or their vendor could simply download that to do the printing. This is the first one. The second one is an iteration of the St. Louis Art Fair posters. Third is a artistic rendering of downtown, a la AI. And then another AI-generated general storefront one so those are the four that i have for you tonight to consider these were the same ones that you've seen in our august presentation also and

so do you need two or

one as many as you would like

oh so you could have all of these available you

could have all them and the property owner could choose or their provisions in the ordinance that would allow them to do other things with the city manager or his designee approval also

well okay um i'll just go around does anybody have some thoughts about what they like or don't like or

um well and then in addition to this which i know is in the ordinance somebody could propose like what's on um the dark place, they can propose something that advertises their establishment if it's coming in.

Yes.

I mean, that presumes, I guess, that somebody is coming in, but during the vacancy period, there could be something put up that would advertise.

Yeah. I mean, certain national retailers like that would do something more of a local shop would probably just stay with what was up already.

Um, I mean, I certainly agree with the ordinance. I think that the Pan Commission too was very in favor of it. Um, I think one of the questions that was asked was the durability of the product. And as Gary had mentioned, I think that, you know, this is a very durable product. It's long lasting. And, um, that was one of the concerns, um, as for the ones that are proposed, um, I don't know who's going to use number four. I mean, I like, yeah, no, it's cute. Maybe if something, I mean, maybe if, yeah, I don't, or Baker. Yeah. I like two and three. I like the art fair. I think it's great. I'm not so sure about one. I don't know. It just looks kind of like scary to me but i don't know but maybe that's just me so that's the only one where i'm kind of not sure what's happening there but um the other ones you know i think it's good to have one that's kind of playful like the cupcake and the other two are focused on clayton which i think they should be so the first one's the only one i guess i have a little question on

edmund s

yeah and

All right. Any comments? Very similar comments on the proposed graphics. I like promoting Clayton. The ones I think are great, and I like the opportunity for the owner to propose something as well. I also just wanted to comment that I'm still it's hard that I understand the durability and everything else that we wanted the product. And I'm arguing in my head that that's sustainable because we're not replacing the products all the time. And I hope we can keep hopefully someday moving toward a product itself that is more consistent with Clayton's sustainability values. And I saw on there, you had the, there was some language allowing for biodegradable material. if there's something like that. It does, and I

think when it becomes prevalent, we can reevaluate this and simply change it to exclusively that material also. But to my knowledge, there's currently nothing available. But I did want to allow the flexibility to get ahead of it in case it does come up.

Yeah, I caught that, and I appreciate that you're staying on top of that. And then with court enforcement versus an automatic fine, is that – if that's what you all think is the effective way to – proceed with this i support that but sometimes by the time you have to to file the you know complaint that someone reports it then it gets filed and it goes to court and by then whatever is the most effective way to make sure this is a real that this has teeth um i hope we could do

the city does not have legal authority to impose a penalty without going through a judicial process

okay well there's my answer all right thanks very much

I support the proposal. I would vote for graphics two, three and four. Four is a little like silly, but I can think of worse things than cupcakes all over Clayton. So I like including the option. So thank you. Alderman

Gary Feder, any comments or questions?

Fader, any comments or questions?

Two, three and four for me. One is a little weird. I think a little too weird. I guess my question on maintenance requirements, maybe this is for you or David, as I understood we were staffing up to be able to patrol downtown on somewhat of a more regular basis to sort of check on storefronts and the like. And so I'm just wondering where we stand with that because I think that's an important part. at least I perceived with some of these sites that are, it's not just that they don't have paper. They also do a lousy job in front of their sites. And so we really need to push on that. So I don't

know. The downtown position will be more public works heavy and maintenance heavy than necessarily code enforcement. Although that person will have the ability to call in code enforcement issues. And then those inspectors that we have can come out and issue citations to do whatever's necessary. As far as that position is concerned though, That's something we want to get posted in February. And then, as you might recall from the budget process, it's a mid-year hire. So our hope is that we post it in February and then have that person on board in April. And that's how we budget it, and we're on track to do that. Thank

Ed Rick.

Very good um so I like everything here i'm you know, thank you for putting all this together and doing all the research, I agree that option number one is probably just not that festive looking or inviting and so I wouldn't want to propose that, however, I do have an alternative to propose. And I think I might have mentioned this the last time, but if we can say something, if we can have a covering that shows St. Louis Art Fair, why can we not have a covering that has a nice graphic of our jazz festival and says Clayton Jazz Festival on it? I mean, what is wrong with doing that? We promote ourselves. It wouldn't have a date. It would just because we do it every year. I guess if we stop doing it, we still have the other three options. I mean, is there a reason why we can't do that or we wouldn't want to do that? We've got some amazing photographs of the jazz festival. Although there's

people. I

don't know if people. Well, they are released. They're musicians. Oh, the musicians. Yeah.

Okay. I suppose it doesn't give any greater awe than the art fair performance. But I think we need to be sensitive to requiring property owners to carry a message that we craft. There can be First Amendment issues implicated if the... The product we require them to post carries an advertising or message on behalf of the city, and we compel property owners to convey our message.

So that wouldn't – so A, they could opt for a different visual. They don't have to use that one. That's an option. And B, we're kind of doing that with the art fair.

I said it probably gives me the same pause as the art fair.

So I would just like to see us do that if we can. I mean, I like to promote ourselves. We have people coming in and out of Clayton. I know the Jazz Fest is already very popular, but it's something that is a regular occurrence that we could promote. We could promote any other thing that you think is worthy. I don't care, but I just like to do what we can to promote ourselves and what kind of great

community we are. Something on that too. And I think Rick, you made the comment that the more variety, the better. Is this a deck that can flip, that can evolve as different things happen? And again, if we have a broad enough choice, including the option of the owner proposing their own, I hope that would address some of Kevin's concerns. But is this something that can change as we go forward? And what's the cost to that?

i mean this this body is the ultimate deciding factor on these so you can improve these whenever you direct staff to give you more options so um cost is these so far have cost you nothing well some costs but we can have that discussion later at the economics class um you know, if you were going into artist or a committee or something like, I mean, it just grows from

there. But if you said, oh my gosh. If we

did it like this, nothing.

And then, you know, whenever you say, oh my gosh, this is a great, whatever, I wonder if you take back the board, see if we can put this one in the deck as well. That's easy to do. Yeah. Okay.

So we have some flexibility there.

I would just say that the ordinance requires that any graphic offered is approved by the mayor of board. So staff does not have the option of sort of generating and offering additional ones. And I would just ask, compared to the cost, I never thought about it until now. Do we own the copyright for like the art fair? We

ask permission from the art fair.

And they own the copyright?

Yes.

Okay.

Do we want this to be something that always has to come back to the board with that or do? Up to you. We want to always approve this.

I believe there was a provision where a request could be made by the property owner and the city staff or his designee could, the city manager's designee could approve it at his discretion. Like we're allowing for that. Somebody

brought an alternate design. We have the discussion. Yeah.

I mean, I feel like we're over-processing this. We have a couple of nice options. Like people will make a choice.

Yeah. I would like to add the fourth option of something about us and so i think the jazz fest is the most visually exciting thing but

would you like to revise this so that staff can approve any number of these as opposed to all alternatives being submitted to and recorded approved by the board

i think that'd be appropriate i would support that make a motion um still move to amend The ordinance.

So the bill has not been introduced. The revision would be in section 425.100A3B. The window screening shall consist of graphic elements predetermined by the city and available through the Planning and Development Services Department, striking the language, and approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.

Yeah. So moved. Okay.

Well, the bill's not been introduced. That's right.

Okay. Right.

We can, that's what we can do.

You can help me when that comes around. Okay.

All right. So I don't know how to. Did you have a comment? Oh, so can I, do I have everyone's agreement that we can develop an alternative that is the jazz festival? And we have the ability, if that

amendment's made, to do that. So, yeah.

Okay. All right. So I will close the public hearing. And Alderman McCandless.

I'll introduce Bill No. 7050, approving an amendment to Chapter 425, Section 425.020 and Section 425.100, revising the requirements for storefront window coverings to be read for the first time by title only. Seconded?

And would we concurrently add that new language?

No, just introduce it, then we'll take an amendment.

Okay. Any discussions? No? Okay. Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7050, first reading and ordinance amending sections 425.020 and 425.100 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code pertaining to vacant ground floor premises. And now, if I may, the motion would be to amend proposed section 425.020 excuse me, .100 subsection A3 lowercase c b by striking the words and approved by the mayor and board of aldermen.

Don't

lose. Second. Okay. And Just a voice vote on that. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay, very good. Alderman McAndrew. I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7046, no, 7050 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Let the minister reflect the board's given unanimous consent. I'll introduce Bill number 7050, approving an amendment to Chapter 425, Section 425.020 and Section 425.100, revising the requirements for storefront window coverings to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr.

City Attorney.

Bill number 7050, second reading and consideration for adoption. In Ordinance of Ending Sections 425.020 and 425.100 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code pertaining to vacant ground floor premises.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldernan Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldernan Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right. Next up, the licensing regulations for bars.

Yes, this is a public hearing to solicit input regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 405 and Chapter 410 to modify definitions and use regulations for bars, entertainment venues, and live performance venues in the HDC High Density Commercial District, which is essentially downtown Clayton, and to repeal the Entertainment Overlay District, or EOD. In September, the Board of Aldermen set the fiscal year 2025 priorities for implementation of the Clayton Tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan. Included as a priority was a key result, update liquor licenses to allow bars in downtown Clayton. Proposed text amendments were presented to the Plan Commission during a public hearing on January 6, 2025. And at that meeting, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the text amendments with the condition that the definitions be reviewed to streamline the business types and remove unnecessary regulations within Chapter 405. The proposed ordinance reflects the changes made by staff based on the Plan Commission discussion and recommendations. allowing bars in downtown Clayton requires modifications to chapter 600 alcoholic beverages to establish the liquor license regulations, as well as modifications to chapter 405 zoning regulations to introduce the use type and operational standards. The conditional use permit process will allow for an additional layer of review and information about operations for specific businesses at each site. Through the CUP process, staff, the Plan Commission, and the Board of Aldermen can add conditions to mitigate potential impacts. In addition to the CUP requirement, staff recommend maintaining some of the operational and submission requirements for specific uses that are currently allowed in the EO, such as noise abatement plans. Liquor license requirements are outlined in chapter 600 and are largely dictated by Missouri state statute. Modifications proposed include adding liquor licenses for bars and updating definitions to coordinate with zoning definitions. Staff also recommend moving many of the provisions from section 405, 340 alcohol services as accessory used to chapter 600. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance with the desired amendments. And we do have Anna Krane here if you have any zoning questions. She's our Director of Planning and Development Services.

Yes, this is a public hearing to solicit input regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 405 and Chapter 410 to modify definitions and use regulations for bars, entertainment venues, and live performance venues in the HDC High Density Commercial District, which is essentially downtown Clayton, and to repeal the Entertainment Overlay District, or EOD. In September, the Board of Aldermen set the fiscal year 2025 priorities for implementation of the Clayton Tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan. Included as a priority was a key result, update liquor licenses to allow bars in downtown Clayton. Proposed text amendments were presented to the Plan Commission during a public hearing on January 6, 2025. And at that meeting, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the text amendments with the condition that the definitions be reviewed to streamline the business types and remove unnecessary regulations within Chapter 405. The proposed ordinance reflects the changes made by staff based on the Plan Commission discussion and recommendations. allowing bars in downtown Clayton requires modifications to chapter 600 alcoholic beverages to establish the liquor license regulations, as well as modifications to chapter 405 zoning regulations to introduce the use type and operational standards. The conditional use permit process will allow for an additional layer of review and information about operations for specific businesses at each site. Through the CUP process, staff, the Plan Commission, and the Board of Aldermen can add conditions to mitigate potential impacts. In addition to the CUP requirement, staff recommend maintaining some of the operational and submission requirements for specific uses that are currently allowed in the EO, such as noise abatement plans. Liquor license requirements are outlined in chapter 600 and are largely dictated by Missouri state statute. Modifications proposed include adding liquor licenses for bars and updating definitions to coordinate with zoning definitions. Staff also recommend moving many of the provisions from section 405, 340 alcohol services as accessory used to chapter 600. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance with the desired amendments. And we do have Anna Crane here if you have any zoning questions. She's our Director of Planning and Development Services.

So I'll now open the public hearing. And we've already had proof of publication. Okay. Any discussion? Any questions, you guys? We've talked about this a lot, but it's finally here.

No, I would just say that it was supported at the plan commission. Everybody asked some good questions. I will say that a resident reached out to Gary and I expressing concerns. There's a number in here, I think as many as 12 residents. But I think it's important, maybe just for my, and I probably should ask this at the planning commission. I know we've talked about it and that we put a number in it just to like have a number, but that obviously doesn't mean at any point we could modify this if we felt like we were getting too many bars in a certain area. I just want to make sure that the residents concerns are addressed. Um, cause it, it does seem like a large number dust in our high density commercial.

So the, yeah, the number was actually, um, zero based on the discussion at the playing commission level so there was a an existing restriction on the number of wine bar liquor licenses that could be issued and so we streamlined there's a limit on the number of live performance venues allowed under the entertainment overlay district during the previous discussions when we kind of streamlined what uses are and combined live performance venues under entertainment venue and separate from bars we removed that 12. So right now, as the ordinance stands before you, there is not any limit. And we also removed the limit on number of wine bar permits. As Gary's mentioned before, we don't have any currently. The reason we did not incorporate wine bars as a bar is because wine bars are allowed uses within our C1 and C2 district. So we wanted to maintain those uses along Clayton Road or other areas. And if we just kind of folded those under bars, then essentially you would be adding a bar as an allowed use within our C1 and C2 districts, which was not the goal here. It was only HDC. So if you want to add in a limit on the number of permits that can be issued to certain types, then we would need to add that back in to the ordinance.

And then if we are, you know, I am comfortable, you know, just because I want to be sensitive to the fact that we have some residential neighborhoods that are very close to our HTC districts and I just want to make sure we're being careful. So if we start, you know, I understand that we have the CUP process to mitigate potential impacts related to noise. But if a bar were to apply, you know, for instance, on one of the areas on Central, like the very second or even maybe right on the corner, that's considered an entrance on Maryland. So that would not be allowed.

The main entrance couldn't be facing Maryland, but it could be the one tenant bay in from Maryland on Central. You could have a bar.

And because now it's not allowed use, we wouldn't necessarily be able to say no to that

unless

they couldn't mitigate any impact.

Correct, yes, unless they couldn't meet the CUP criteria. I would say that we, at this point, We've tried adding wine bars. We've tried adding entertainment overlay districts in various forms, and we haven't really gained success in our primary goal here. So I would be hesitant to say we need to right now put in some limit of five or whatever it might be, but we'll be able to closely monitor it and could look to see if there's a need to have some, you know, a lot of zoning codes might say there's a separation between similar uses. So you don't get 10 bars located on the same block because then, you know, they kind of compound each other. But I would recommend that we monitor this process, see how this text amendment progresses, and then we can always make amendments to the ordinance moving forward.

Okay.

And yeah,

I mean, I appreciate that. I think your expertise is helpful. I just want to, again, be careful monitoring this if we, you know, I understand that we haven't, well, we're getting a few new entertainment venues, but, you know, again, just want to be sensitive to all the neighborhoods around us. Yes,

definitely. Alderman Buse? Yeah, the only question I have is not that long ago we passed something that required training of anyone serving alcohol. And I was wondering how that was going, and it may be even more relevant to making sure that we're having that that's working for us as we, assuming it's successful, when we start getting some more establishments. Has there been enough time to know whether everyone's complying with that? It's still a

work in progress, just like any new regulation like that where you have some stragglers. We've stayed after them. Where this will really have some teeth this cycle is when we go to get the liquor licenses renewed. So at that point in time, you can have them furnish that proof in order to get the renewal, and that's where you really have a hammer. But otherwise, yeah, we've had... Since that was put in place, I think we've had two instances where we've gone out and done the checks where we bring a minor in. And the last two that we've had, Chief, if I'm not mistaken, we haven't had any violations here in the city. Yeah, zero. So that's a huge improvement. Because if you remember before, I think we were running like... Maybe 60% or so failure rate.

It was ugly. We had

maybe three in a row that were really bad. So there's been a big improvement,

I

think, where it's out there. And you see that reflected in those safety checks.

Very good. Thank you. Great. Good question. That's

a great update. I have no comment on this. I support it. Okay, good. All right.

My only question was this email we got from one of our residents quoting from the plan commission and Take it for what it's worth. It says, I was literally shocked to hear Anna Krane suggest that the city could adopt a new proposal authorizing up to 22 drinking establishments. I can't recall if it was 10 bars and 12 microbreweries or vice versa in downtown Clayton. So I'm still not sure I entirely know what the answer is to that. A

My only question was this email we got from one of our residents quoting from the plan commission and Take it for what it's worth. It says, I was literally shocked to hear Anna Crane suggest that the city could adopt a new proposal authorizing up to 22 drinking establishments. I can't recall if it was 10 bars and 12 microbreweries or vice versa in downtown Clayton. So I'm still not sure I entirely know what the answer is to that. A

city can dream. We don't have a limit right now.

Limitless. Yes.

The answer is

zero. Where did the 22 come from?

Originally, there is a provision in Chapter 600 that limited the number of wine bar licenses that would be issued. And then also under the Entertainment Overlay District, there was a limit on licenses for live performance venues. But there wasn't a limit under the Entertainment Overlays for entertainment venues. So we had a couple of limitations and a couple of not, and that was a big part of what the playing commission said. They were kind of like, why or how is a live performance really substantially different from an entertainment use? So why are we limiting one and not the other? So instead, when we streamlined everything, we took away that limit. So I guess now the answer is limitless.

Limitless. Got it. Great.

Unlimited. Okay. Rick, any comments, questions?

separate provision in Chapter 600.

a general provision.

in Chapter 600.

The sections you see from Chapter 600 are only the ones that are being amended under this proposal. So temporary licenses for events or other things is another section. under 600 that we're not modifying.

There's provisions relating to picnic licenses, caterers, there's all sorts of licensure provisions in chapter six. So

That's another provision that's been existing under liquor license. I couldn't, I would have to defer to other people who enforce the liquor license regulations on.

I understand that when the police department goes in before 6 p.m., anyone that looks happy is working.

yeah i was careful to not touch a lot of chapter 600 that wasn't directly involved with the discussions that we had had previously about the entertainment overlay or bars so

that's an existing

right that's exactly that's an

mean i'm sorry i apologize i completely that completely got by me i'm glad you brought it up i mean every many places have happy hours i won't uh name

i would suggest that places in clayton have happy hours yeah i think that's

kind of the point i would have to defer to somebody else if i may i

believe the focus here was on a land use issue If you want to reconsider licensing regulations for alcohol, that was not staff's focus in preparing this or drafting the amendment. So we intentionally didn't tinker with anything that was not required to be changed in order to accommodate the land use goals that staff objectives that staff was given. I respectfully suggest there may be a lot of antiquated provisions in the liquor code, which you may wish to consider in a context of licensure and public safety, as opposed to the land use issues we tried to address here.

I have not researched whether there are parallel provisions elsewhere in Chapter 600 which ought to be adjusted if that provision were changed. I

We could certainly take a look at it and I'm sure the chief and the finance department that's responsible for licensure can take a look at it

so i i would agree that it's it seems counterproductive to outlaw happy hour um i would like to get this basically passed um so i can we can do it either way we can delay passage assuming you all agree that we want to change that and go at it the other way. Amending

the Liquor Code does not require a P&Z review or public hearing and notices and all that sort of stuff. It's a pure legislative act. We can take it up at any time without all the run-up that was required for this legislation. And I just don't want to suggest to you that we would know the knock-on consequences of tampering with that language tonight.

So what if we approved this and then later came back and adjusted the liquor license regulations? Would that automatically then fall in? This would automatically pick those up? Right, because

the reason you have the red line is because if you go into our code books tomorrow, if this were to be approved, the red lines that you're seeing, the changes that were proposed, would be mixed right in with everything that's already existing, such as the ban on happy hours.

So the happy hour is actually banned for essentially retailers of alcohol that have sampling on the site. So it's not actually a restaurant. I was going

to say, I mean, we got a lot of happy hours being advertised in Clayton. Like, I go to them. I've been to them. There's a list of the 38 best happy hours in Clayton.

If you look at it, it's all license issued pursuant to subsection B shall be subject to the following restrictions. Subsection B talks about retailers, basically package retailers. that have sampling on the site can't have happy hour and they can't have a bar service. So

happy hour is not illegal in Clayton. I'm so glad we cleared that

up. Yeah, only illegal if you have a liquor store, you can't have a happy hour.

All right. So in that case, I don't find that concerning. Alderman Rick Hummell, are you okay then with that?

All right. So in that case, I don't find that concerning. Alderman Hummel, are you okay then with that?

Okay. Thank you for asking the question. All right. If there are no further discussion, Alderman McAndrew. I will close the public hearing.

I'll introduce Bill No. 7051, approving an amendment to Chapter 405, 410, and Chapter 600 pertaining to land use and licensing regulation for certain hospitality businesses to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

To the attorney.

Bill number 7051, first reading, an ordinance amending land use and licensing regulations pertaining to certain hospitality businesses.

All

those in favor? Aye. Opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7051 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Let the minutes reflect the board

has given unanimous consent. I'll introduce bill number 7051, approving an amendment to chapter 405, 410 and chapter 600 pertaining to land use and licensing regulation for certain hospitality businesses to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7051, second reading in consideration for adoption and ordinance abetting land use and licensing regulations pertaining to certain hospitality businesses.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye. I always depend on them to tell me. Yeah, that's good. Thank you. Alderman

Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay. Next on the agenda, our consent agenda. Any comments or questions about that?

Mayor, I noticed a little belatedly a few typos in the list of attendees at the last public hearing. All

right. Did you submit those already? I have

not. I forgot to, but I'm happy to do it now or I can tell June afterwards.

I can take them now.

Okay. Take them now. All right. In the list of people, I believe it says Bronco Music, and I believe he spoke tonight, Bronco Marusic. M-A-R-U-S-I-C. I seem to have seen him on some emails.

Yeah, that's correct.

And then Marie Bone, V-O-N-E, is Marie Bone, B-O-N. And on two situations where we mentioned the Wiles, it's W-E-I-L-S as opposed to I-E. Josephine Wile. And in the other case, it's plural. But in any case, it's I. It's E-I instead of I-E. And that's all for me. Very good.

Anything else there? I

A-N-K. Chuck Shagrin is S-H also, I believe. It's a C-H.

His name is C-H. Last name, Shagrin? Uh-huh. Oh, okay. Thank you. It is, yeah. Okay. Let's see. I've got

i don't know have like they talked about

next week or

yeah i mean like soon okay god

that's great

they got ahead of uh

wow yeah they should be open within the next year

they beat out uh five iron license in here so five iron is moving at when does five iron say they're opening these have they applied for a liquor license yet

No,

I don't

think so.

Okay. Well, good. All right. So if that's everything on the consent agenda, you please

move to approve. I'll move to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Second. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldeman Hummel.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. All

right, the fire sales tax.

Yes, the city of Clayton is authorized to impose a sales tax at a rate not to exceed one half of 1% for the purpose of providing revenues for the operation of the city's fire department. And in April 2014, the voters of the city authorized the levy of a one quarter cent fire sales tax to support operation of the city fire and EMS services. Since that tax was authorized, the effects of inflation, the enhancement of the city's EMS and fire prevention and suppression services, advances in fire service technology and equipment, and expansion of the fire department workforce coupled with paying competitive compensation to those in our fire service has substantially eroded the contribution which the current fire sales tax makes to the operation of the fire department. presented for your consideration as an ordinance authorizing an additional sales tax for operation of the Clayton Fire Department to be placed on the April 8th, 2025 ballot. This proposal would authorize an additional sales tax of one quarter of 1% tax on all retail sales made in the city which are subject to sales tax under chapter 144 of state statute for the purposes of continuing to provide fire and EMS services at the current levels. Revenue from a fire safety sales tax can only be utilized for fire and EMS services. It is estimated that the additional quarter cent sales tax would generate $980,000 annually. In Missouri, when a new sales tax is approved, collection of that tax begins on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the tax is approved. If approved in April of 2025, the additional sales tax collection would begin on October 1st, 2025. St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners requires the governing body to pass an ordinance placing the issue on the April 8th, 2025 ballot. The deadline to submit items for the ballot is January 28th, 2025. And should the ordinance be approved, it will be submitted to the Board of Election Commissionors for the April 8th 2025 ballot. Staff recommends first reading, second reading and approval of the ordinance on the day of introduction.

All right. I'll open the discussion. I'll just go around

in order. Yeah. David, can you just remind, is the numbers required to pass something different from April and August? I just can't remember what you

said. Not for a sales tax.

Okay. So it doesn't be a simple

majority.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I would like to try to put this on the April 8th ballot. I think the messaging could be pretty clear. Um, So that, that would certainly be my preference. I think if a majority of us think that we should wait till August, but I, I would just assume like to try to get this going and start collecting as soon as possible. It sounds like our fire department is certainly on board and I'd like to get our fire commission or I can't remember how they're called, like how they call themselves the charitable organization related. It'd be great to get them involved. Yeah. Because I think, you know, our community loves our fire department. So I think this wouldn't be a hard thing to understand. It's not related to property tax. And so, yes, ultimately, I would like to root for April 8th. Susan?

I will say ditto to those points made. It is something that I think will be easily comprehended and something that our community um to get behind without a lot of we don't and any opportunity costs we must go forward with it now we've waited a while to do this and i think that we can do it well in april

um if it doesn't pass how soon can we try again all

right bring it back as soon as you'd like

like we could do it in august again or

you don't have to wait a year you would have time to certify it

My only hesitation is that I would like to know what information we have about who will actually campaign for this and what folks' capacity is to do that. My capacity is limited over the next couple months. And my sense is that this would not be a hard sell, but I'm not. I think it would be unwise to put something on the ballot and not. understand that there is a plan to actually advocate for it. And so if anyone has information to suggest that we know there are actual people who are going to do that advocacy, I would support April. If not, I think like I could personally be committed to do more on the way of August, but we have someone who's coming up.

Thank

you. Thanks for sitting through the meeting. Of course,

it's joy. So to answer your question, the campaign for being a shop store at the union, I already told all the guys and girls about this, and we will be happily to get our boots on the ground and campaign for it. And like you said, I think it will pass easily in April.

Okay. So you can be ready to do that in the next couple months.

Oh, yeah.

Okay. Thank you very much. Can you say your name again?

Jesse Roots.

Thank you, Jesse. Penn North

Beemiston.

Appreciate it. All right. There you go. Question answered.

Okay. All right.

Well, my only concern, I think it was just dressed, which was logistics. And that is the concern that can we really get this done effectively? Other than that, I would go for April because first of all, there's and we didn't even know this when we met last time, there is no contest for mayor, there is no context for the Board of Education. I think the only thing we've heard is that the county might have a use tax measure in April, but the county seems to be very lax about even promoting these sorts of things. So I think that this is the kind, and frankly, unfortunately, given the tragedy in Florida, if people weren't already uptight about fire, I think it's even more so. So this should be pretty much a slam dunk. I can't imagine who out there is going to be opposed to it, the CCBA or anybody else. So as long as we can get this done logistically in August, we're very possibly have an election, a contested election for Ward 3 Alderman. I understand the county, at least some people in the county, would like to have a charter amendment to try to be able to remove the county exec or other people more easily. So there's a number of things that could bring more people out in August. So if we can get it done logistically, I think we ought to go for April. Wouldn't tell me if it was August, but I think there's some arguments here to just get it done with. So I'd probably opt for April.

Go ahead, Rick.

Well, I definitely support doing it. I do have a concern about, you know, the ability of our ability to get a the real education done, it's the middle of January. We will not be able to utilize CityViews because it's already done. So we will have to rely on putting information out.

We can hit CityViews. Before April.

We can?

The spring edition will go out in time. The winter edition has passed.

Well, it's true. Okay. All right. So it'll come out. Hopefully it'll come out before the first Tuesday in April. Okay. Okay, good. I thought maybe that would already be gone by. So, yeah. And so, again, I do share Becky's concern about who really will organize things the communication effort on the part of the city or outside of what the city does. And so I know that our staff can get the communications out on that part, but otherwise, you know, I don't know. I don't have the capacity or the bandwidth. And so it will be relying on others to make sure that happens. So in that case, yeah, I mean, April is good. I think it has every chance of passing, so. All right, so in that case, Alderman McAndrew.

I'll introduce Bill No. 7052, a ballot submission on the April 8, 2025 election authorizing a sales tax for operations of the Clayton Fire Department to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr.

City Attorney.

Bill number 7052, first reading, an ordinance of the city of Clayton, Missouri, calling for submission to the voters of the city of a proposition authorizing an additional sales tax for operations of the Clayton Fire Department.

those in favor

aye

aye the opposed i move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7052 on the david's introduction second all those in favor aye opposed let the ministry flag the board is given unanimous consent i'll introduce bill number 7052 a ballot submission on the april 8th 2025 election authorizing a sales tax for operations of the Clayton Fire Department to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Discussion?

Okay. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7052, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri, calling for submission to the voters of the city of a proposition authorizing an additional sales tax for operations of the Clayton fire department.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Aldermen Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay.

All right, next up, something I've been wondering about for a while, our new door to the police station.

Yes, bids have been received. So the exterior front doors on the west elevation, this is facing Brentwood, the 10 South Brentwood facility or the police station need repairs due to deterioration. Bids were received on January 3, 2025 for replacement of the exterior double wooden doors. The bids were on a table in the packet. Seals Enterprises was the lowest responsive responsible bidder and Public Works is recommending the bid from Seals Enterprises an amount of $39,750 be awarded. This project was funded in the general fund in fiscal year 2024 for $36,500 and will be included in an upcoming budget amendment. The savings from other projects are not realized to bridge the gap. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve an ordinance authorizing a contract with Seals Enterprises Incorporated in the amount of $39,750 plus a contingency of $4,250 for the 10 South Brentwood front door replacement project. Okay, open discussion. Any comments from...

Just that I'm glad it sounds like the company recently was successful and other work there. So I'm always happy to hear that when they're also the lowest responsive bid. Yes.

Okay. Yes. Comment? No. Alderman Gary Feder, any questions, comments?

Okay. Yes. Comment? No. Alderman Fader, any questions, comments?

No, I'm just going to go visit so I can try out the new door.

Okay. Okay.

Solid doors. The doors that we have there now are laminated and delaminated over time. One of them, I think, is missing a handle at this point. Then you have all of the electronic stuff that has to go along with it. Here comes Matt to talk about it.

Yeah,

that's what I've asked the same question over and over again during budget process.

Yeah, we had it in the budget a few years and the prices continue to go up. We feel like we got competitive at this time, but the doors themselves will be, they're currently a laminated door where these will be solid wood that will perform better for the exposure that these doors get. But the hardware and the safety bars that go with the door add up to more than really the doors themselves and the labor associated. So, and it's a quick turnaround as far as schedule because of the way this facility operates, it needs to be secure and be done quickly.

Very good. All right.

If there's no further discussion, Alderman McAndrew. I'll introduce bill number 7053, a contract with Seals Enterprises, Inc. for the 10th South Brentwood Boulevard door improvements project to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Mr. City

Attorney.

Bill number 7053, first reading, an ordinance approving a contract with Seals Enterprises Incorporated for 10 South Brentwood front door replacement. Shut the front door.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7053 on the day of its introduction. Second. those

in favor aye

opposed

hey let the minutes reflect

the board is giving you unanimous consent i'll introduce bill number 7053 a contract with seals enterprises inc for the 10 south brentwood boulevard door improvements project to be read for the second time by title only second

any discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7053, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Seals Enterprises Incorporated for 10 South Brentwood front door replacement.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Fader. Aye. Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay.

Next up is Pods.

Yes, this request for board action recommends amending section 505.150 of the clayton municipal code reflect evolving Community needs regarding portable on demand storage units or pods. The code currently imposes strict limitations on pod usage, including placement duration and frequency. As these units have become a common and practical solution for temporary storage, particularly during moves a code update is necessary to balance convenience for residents with maintaining public safety and neighborhood aesthetics. The current Section 505.150 provides a framework for the use and placement of pods, and again, limitations on placement usage, etc. These provisions do not, however, adequately account for the widespread acceptance and utility of pods as a residential moving solution. We do have some proposed revisions, which includes allowing short-term placement on city streets, implementing a limit of three occurrences during a 12-month period, And again, that street placement, we limit the duration in here to three days. So staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance. I would just state this is responsive to a condition we're seeing all over the place. So it's common now for people that are moving to get these pod units. The city will actually go out and block on-street parking spaces for individuals that are moving. So these do show up from time to time within that particular space. New residents coming in, you know, a lot of times aren't aware that this ordinance is there. They may not have a driveway that they can place the pod on, and they're in a situation where if they want to move in, they've got to basically utilize it. So we feel that the time limitation of three days allows us to still enforce it and give those new residents and those people moving some flexibility there.

Yeah. Do you feel like three days is a sufficient amount of time?

It should be. Typically, the moves are one to two days. We'll have those closure signs up for a few days, but you typically see the truck come and they're done. They pick them pretty

quickly

after?

Okay. I mean, I've just not had one. I just don't want to set people up for failure.

Yeah, what we're not going to allow is like my house is being renovated and I've got to have all my stuff in the storage unit on the street for a month. Something like that wouldn't work, but especially for those new residents coming in. What we really don't like is if their first interaction with the city of Clayton is somebody coming by saying, hey, you can't have this storage unit out on the street for one day while they're trying to move into their house. Right.

Okay. Thanks. Refresh my memory. What is the limit on the driveway?

You can place it on a paved surface.

On a paved surface. And is there a limit to the time that you can have it in your driveway? Just curious. I don't recall what that is.

Gary might know. I

think it's seven days.

Seven days. Okay. I just wonder if there's a limit there at all. Okay. That's good. All right. Yes, further questions or discussion?

I have a question. So is the placement allowed like anywhere that like parking is allowed or is it only allowed and or if they get this signage from the city? It would

be where parking's at.

Yeah.

And that's where we place the signs is where we allow street parking.

yeah and then um can you talk about the three occurrences during 12 month period is this it like uh is the limit on the individual requesting it or the location

it would be for the individual requesting it yeah okay we'll keep track of how many times each address

yeah We want to make sure they don't

have one out there every weekend. I think it's highly unlikely

anybody would have this. Could you have three occurrences in a row? Nine days? I'm not saying that would be terrible. No, you would

need a break between occurrences.

The ordinance has a 30-day period between each occurrence.

Okay. I should read more carefully. That's what you're telling me. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks. Any other discussion over here?

And we would only allow those where street parking is allowed. So in those particular instances, if a car could be there, the pod could be there. That makes sense. Probably the same size. It

also prohibits alleys.

So, you may very well have instances and neighborhoods like the Morelands where you have a couple of people that are moving into a building say on the first day of a month or something like that. So, yeah, there could be circumstances where you have two different units that are moving in and you have two of these on the street at the same time but I would think that those occasions are relatively rare.

an issue as far as the meter is concerned um i guess if they got a If it's similar to a space that they rented that particular meter and we have a meter rental program, if you're going to exceed the time limitation, they could come and pay a fee, a daily fee, a daily rate for the metered space.

As long as they went through the meter rental.

all.

Good questions. Okay.

All right. Alderman McAndrew. I'll introduce bill number 7054, an amendment to chapter 505, section 150, portable on-demand storage units to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City

Attorney.

Bill number 7054, first reading and ordinance amending section 505.150 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code pertaining to portable on-demand storage units.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7054 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in Aye. Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board's given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce Bill No. 7054, an amendment to Chapter 505, Section 150, Portable On-Demand Storage Units Project to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7054, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending section 505.150 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code pertaining to portable on-demand storage units.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldernan Rick Hummell.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldernan Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

okay uh last is it last second to last oh there's one more thing uh second to last but not least um the uh the proposal for the marker of the for the osage commemoration

yes so in the packet we have the uh marker language that has been approved by uh the Mayor's Community Landscape Task Force by the Equity Commission. And so we do need approval of that language tonight, but in some subsequent conversations with the mayor, we had some, well, we had more discussion about the site plan that's also mentioned in the RFBA. So we do have a cost estimate in there. There is in front of you this evening, a more detailed site layout for the proposal that was seen recently by the Parks and Recreation Commission. But I'll turn it over to the mayor to talk about the site planning portion of this.

Okay. So what I would like to do tonight is ask for your approval on the marker language. And as David said, it's been approved by all the appropriate commissions and including the Osage in Oklahoma. And then I would like to share with you the idea, the concept for and site plan for the actual installation in oakland park that has also been approved by everybody, including the sage except the task force what we will meet tomorrow that we just we had to reschedule our December so I cannot imagine that they will. have any issue with any of this we've talked about it before so it'll just be the final. look see so um if we could so i could if so i can i'm going to share all this and then we can go back and if we can have a one one approval for everything will that work

that would work and ultimately if you want to approve the expense we just need the

expense yes and the

expense

yes okay so um is it possible to share just the actual visual of oakland park to begin with Not that. No, this piece here that was in the packet. And I'll ask to pull up some of the plantings as well. So just by way of background, we did ask Carolyn Gatiss, who was on our plan commission for about six years and is a landscape architect, to pro bono do the site plan concepts for this. And she did two. One was more extensive than the other. And as I'll explain when we see it, but the one that the Parks and Rec Commission really liked the best was the more simple version which I think is great too because it's less a little bit less intrusive not that any of this is intrusive but okay so if you look at this visual you can see the project site there in red um there's a little uh circle of trees here and Tony is not here but uh or Justin but Justin has developed um he's planted six sycamores there in a circle and he had already done that just as a an interesting I can't think of what that's called, but they will eventually grow together into sort of a web and it'll be really, really amazing. So that is kind of the center of this, what I would call a council circle. And so then if we move on to just the other drawing that you pulled up first, the one that you have at your seat, but also we'll put it on the screen. Okay. yeah that that piece and you might want to just look at it look at it on your on your printout it's essentially the trees are in the center there's around the edge is simply arranged in a circle some stone benches and some mulch and some plantings which are listed here that are traditional plantings that the sage would have used when they lived here and had purposeful uses for but smooth sumac purple poppy mellow and also. Oh sage orange trees are planned for the site. If we could, are you able to show any of these pictures. Okay, if these show the benches this this one.

Which was the simple one that you said? Did they like the cut stone seating?

Well, so in Carolyn's original packet that she sent to us, she included a variety of things. But the things that the Parks and Rec Commission focused in on were the less curated, the less intrusive, the more natural. And so, you know, you see there's an option there for cut stone benches. But they really liked the idea of these boulders-type benches that And so you can see on this drawing, this drawing that you have, there are little indications of the benches. There are four of them shown there. And that would be, the recommendation was this, which Parks and Rec and everybody liked. There would be no gravel. There would be cut stone. It would be mulch in a circle there. And then the rest of the ground would be as it is turf. Um, so some of these other plants, this is the, if you see these, the trees that have kind of grown together there in a web, those are the sycamores. And that is what Justin is shooting for, which is kind of amazing. Um, again, he was already on this path and those trees are planted. So that would be at the center of this. And then, um, the smooth sumac, you see a picture there. Osage orange trees, you see a but there it is at the bottom, and so it's a low-growing ground cover. So that is the concept, a circle with four benches, some plantings that are significant to the Osage, and the plaque would be located there somewhere, but I think that's kind of the exact spot is yet to be determined, and what I... suggested to parks and rec and they they liked it and i hope you will too is to let justin and tony have a little bit of creative license with exactly how this all works out when they get into it um so the cost to do this tony has said is ten thousand seven hundred dollars um they justin you know they're i think they can do it anytime so if we don't mind approving the expenditure and the concept they can, again, I would defer to Tony as to when she wants to embark on this. So that's what I'd love to have your approval of the marker language and the concept and the expense. And then the expense would be brought forward in due course in a budget amendment whenever Tony wants to proceed. Does that make sense to everyone? Sounds great. Okay.

Any questions? I have one comment. Versus changing the proposed language, I think it would be powerful. I think it's really powerful to use plantings that would have been part of their nation. I think it would also be powerful to have something in the Osage language. And again, versus messing with your plaque, which is a much bigger deal, I wonder if we could do something like have the names of the plantings in the Osage language next to where they are.

I think that I kind of mentioned at the Parks and Rec that it'd be nice to at least identify the plantings. and what they were used for. So I think that would be a great addition. Yeah, there's a lot of

things about keeping a language alive. Yeah, yeah. Language. I think it would be,

yeah, if we could do

that.

Yes, I think that would that would be awesome. Becky, any comments, questions? No, thank

you. Is this item already in the budget in some form?

I was just saying it would have to be a budget amendment.

The

board approved the expense and we would put it in an upcoming budget amendment. That's assuming you want to do it in fiscal year 25. Otherwise, we could program it into a Cip. I guess it wouldn't be a

any grant considerations. We should be taking i'm

sorry are

there any grant opportunities?

No, the the only grant that would be out there unless there's something maybe through the Osage nation would be the municipal, but we're maxed out project right now. You can only have 2 at a time and remember it's.

is

still incomplete

right and we still have things we've got some larger projects that we'll be

chasing money down for

okay

um

Yeah, I agree. I see your point. But today I'm reading it again for myself. Hang on. I think today what today is is representing there is. And the present time. So now in the present time, at this point in time, we wish to acknowledge, and I will say this as much as I hear you, unless it's a pill to die on, the OSH have approved it. I'm

I just hate to go back through that whole process because it can be quite involved. So,

okay. If Parks and Rec does put any type of markers by the plantings and things like that, whether they do it in OSH language or not, is there going to be a change to the amount of $10,700? Are we approving it? It says approximately. We're all okay with that. It could. But we're okay with approving this as it is tonight with that?

Yeah,

so

what we have in there is an estimate. If you want to approve the expense, you still have to approve the actual dollar amount at the time you do the budget amendment, and we'll want to refine that before we actually put it in the budget.

So can I just call for a voice vote then? Or do I need a motion? Yeah, go ahead. I

move to approve the language for the Osage Nation marker.

Concepts and the budget.

and the concept and um the budget allotted in the staff report

okay there's no further discussion uh mr does do we have to we don't have to read anything obviously so all in favor aye aye any opposed okay very good thank you guys appreciate it a lot of work went into that on the part of the task force and so they'll be very happy The citizen survey is last but not least.

Thank you,

Andrea, for your help

with this. The biennial citizen survey is scheduled to be mailed to residents in mid-February. The goal is to receive the results by early May in time for the Board of Aldermen retreat and fiscal year 2026 budget preparations. To meet this timeline, the survey instrument must be finalized by January 17th. The survey will include a cover letter introducing the purpose of the survey and providing a link for residents to complete it online. Additionally, the cover letter will feature a QR code to encourage residents to sign up for city communications attached for your review and discussion as a draft 2025 citizen survey items for consideration. The survey cannot exceed seven pages. Pages 1 and 2 are primarily used for benchmarking. Pages 3 through 6 focus on guiding future programming and planning at both the departmental and citywide levels, and red line changes reflect input and revisions made by staff. Also in your packet are questions that have been suggested by members of the Board of Aldermen for inclusion in the survey. So we'd really like the board's guidance on questions that you guys would like to include. And as you can tell, our space is limited.

So we submitted, I think some of us submitted some questions ahead of time. And I don't know if those are what are represented here. Yes. So none of those that were submitted ahead are actually included in here. Is that correct? Correct. Okay.

So if you add any of those, you would have to remove something else because it's a pretty full seven pages. Yes. I mean, I guess you could add a couple of things.

I didn't bring my questions, but I do think that I had some that aren't on that list. And so maybe you included them.

The only question that was not included on this list was the question about the fire safety sales tax. All other questions that I received are. Okay.

Yeah. And is that question in the survey then? It is not because the board already going to be on

the

ballot. Yeah.

Okay.

I just had a question about this page limit. Is that because our arrangement with the folks who do the questionnaire is that there's an absolute limit? Is that where that comes from?

The survey company that we use is ETC Institute, and they recommend that you do not go past seven pages because people are significantly less likely to complete the survey given the length.

I just had the observation, since it's already been noted, if we're trying to add a bunch of stuff and we have a page limit, really don't have any room to put anything. So that being the case, I just wondered about particularly the demographics section, which is really sort of trying to identify who the participants are. That's questions 30 through 37, whether that somehow could be in a separate page because it's really sort of a background page. Some way to try to open up some space and still have a questionnaire of a certain length, but the demographics is really just trying to figure out who's filling this thing out. It's really a different animal than the rest of it. So that was just a thought about how to make some room if we want to add some stuff.

I will share that in the past, ETC has recommended that demographics are inclusive in that seven-page limit.

That's part of the seven pages. Correct.

I guess I'm just, I didn't submit any recommendations. And so I'm kind of, and I think it's always really tricky to try to develop survey questions and figure out what we would do with the answers, especially if they're like one-offs and we don't have past data To compare them to for trending or anything, and so. Like I don't know what. how we would um use information that we got from many of these questions and so i don't necessarily want to talk about it i don't know if someone wants to really advocate for ones that they put in and we talk about it or i know what process would be helpful here um but from my perspective it's um i don't really want to take a vote on Eliminating the bike lanes like we have a plan to talk about that and like talk about it as part of our livable communities master plan follow up and things like that, like.

I would go back and review any questions that I had thought of before um. So I guess there was a question submitted about should we get an opinion about the bike lane? Should we actually do a survey? Because we didn't really ask the specific question about that bike lane when we did our livable communities plan. That's what I think we heard. It wasn't... I don't

think we asked anything about any specific bike lanes around the city. But

we do get a lot of citizen input about that bike lane, citizen and business input. So... I, you know, I don't know what we have to lose by putting a question like that in other than if we only have seven pages. Yeah.

So it kind of stuck out to me when I read it. It sounded like, oh, this is somebody who opposes the bike lane. And just when I, yeah, it, it, and then I went back to see where it would fit in and the language is different. It doesn't feel as neutral to me. uh-huh and if you already have a plan to talk about bike lanes under the livable communities i don't know there's a big way to

ask it

both of those um

it wasn't something that i submitted but i don't care who's gonna buy it so i'd just like to you know if it's that it's due

right it when i read it that was my takeaway and that we don't want that in a survey

um I'm just looking for a place where there's transportation issues. Well, it's at

the very end, yeah, number 25, where it talks about developing additional bike lanes. Let's see. What

I would recommend is not necessarily that these questions go in as they're written, but if you were to ask the question about the bike lanes, it should be asked about any of the specific bike lanes throughout the city. So you'd want to structure it so that there were multiple questions or line items so that it wasn't just on one bike lane specifically. We're not just

calling out

this one.

Yeah, and picking up on what Becky said, I wonder how we do that. If it's not expanded, should we keep it? Yet we're not to the point of knowing. Well, I mean, anyway.

I don't know. Is this too simple-minded? Rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following. The ease of travel. availability of the where are you sidewalk on number 24 okay thank you and what if you just add i mean what if you added in there um your satisfaction so number 12 the current bike lanes in clayton that would be i guess that'd be wide down and maryland different than

i don't know available yeah because there's already bicycling oh here availability of bike lanes that that could mean i mean We only have the two, so somebody could easily respond to that. I'm very dissatisfied.

No, I just think that bicycle lane on, I don't think you, the bike lane on Y-Down is very different than the bike lane. It is different. So I just don't, I don't know how you. I

don't know what we would do with information that we got on that question. Yeah.

And I'd just be confused. I'd be like, what am I, you know, which one am I talking, you know, I do use. Oh, then you

could identify specifically.

Not in number because you're just creating your satisfaction. Are you

satisfied with the bike lane on Maryland Avenue? Are you satisfied with a bike lane on Y-Down Boulevard? I mean, you could. I'm just putting it out there

because it's been a point of consternation. I got a lot of feedback from the community on this kind of stuff and I thought we had a plan to do a next step here. So I'm just not like sure what like what this how this acts as an additional data point that actually helps us make decisions or

prioritize things i don't know if you had a great response saying that we love the bike lane on maryland wouldn't that give you more confidence in whatever we plan to do with it down the road or what if you had a response that said you know the majority of people don't want it I mean, wouldn't that give you some information? I think

half of Clayton doesn't know there's a bite. I'm sorry.

I'm not going to fall on my sword over this, but I just want you to consider it because it's just something that I think all of us get a lot of community feedback on over time. It has never stopped. Just saying it's a chance to affirm something that we believe in, or maybe we'll get an answer we don't like. I don't know.

Let me fess up that I was the one who proposed one of these. And I do think, as the mayor says, this is a topic that at least in Ward 3, because we've got Maryland Avenue, we have the bike lanes. We do hear about quite a bit. And I don't think any of the questions in here really get to the central question, which is what do people think about the bike lanes and do they think we should continue to have them? I had raised the question if they're only going to be those four blocks and it's not going to be extended, does it really make sense? We're not going to make a decision based on this response, but I think right now our questions about bike lanes don't address the elephant in the room, which is that there are a bunch of people who don't like them. And I'd like to know, I'd like to see if we could get some response from the community as to what people's feelings are. It's not going to be determined if what we do, but I think it's something we'd like to know.

If it could be a neutral, not eliminate, should the city expand or eliminate the bike lanes on Maryland? That sounds more consistent. That's not the language of the survey, but it seems like when you start asking about bike lanes, it's going to take more and more questions when you pull out a specific one. But if it's neutral, that's fine. I'm

okay with neutral as long as we get it out there.

yeah I just I feel like a lot of the survey is very general. So I just worry about pinpointing a specific topic, well, I just I don't know i'm just trying because I you know I feel like it's availability of parking and, yes, we asked about our police force in our fire department, but that is different than. You know, I don't know.

Do we say anything about parking ambassadors?

Oh, yeah. So I don't know, I will tell you this, I think if you could fit in one more line there to ask that somewhere, I would support it just because I really, I would love to have something to say to people because i think it will be like oh yeah we you know people want bike lanes we found that out i guess in our in our livable communities plan right so i'm not i'm not um i'm not actually worried about the response coming in as oh no we hate the bike lane 98 you know i i i would love to have something i can say to people look we went through the uh livable communities plan process and and bike lanes in general were very very highly desired in particular we have this survey it's quantitative people want this bike lane

i mean i sorry well i'm wondering you know under 25 level of support could you be very general and say instead of developing you could say maintaining protected bikeways on city streets i don't know would that be You know what I mean? And that way you're not really pinpointing. We have only one protected bikeway in the city, so it's the one on Maryland because Y-Down is not a protected bikeway. I'm just trying to think of a way where we're just being a little bit more neutral. I don't know.

I thought Susan's version of it was very neutral. I liked it. Either way, I

said expand or eliminate. This kind of... is very specific for this survey

but it's a specific question that people ask yeah um yeah could we perhaps defer to our staff to develop the actual question would you be okay with that or do you want us to write it right here

do you want it yeah i mean we just need to know do you want the maryland you want it called out specifically or not

because that's what people keep hitting us with so

I think it should mention it.

Okay. I don't think it makes sense to mention it. I think the idea of like, should we expand our network of bike lanes? That has

nothing to do with the Maryland bike lane.

But it does because the whole thing that people complain about is that it's a bike lane to nowhere. Well, if we build a network around it, it won't be anymore.

Yeah. I

mean,

that doesn't answer it for me. So I wouldn't be able to tell people. I think

half the city does not know there's a bike lane on Maryland Avenue. I understand that they're a very vocal portion of the city feels, feels like it's an eyesore and a major issue and they talk about it all the time, but it's going to be very odd to call it out. Like that's my perception. I don't, I mean, I think actually the safety, like question number five is what's your feeling of safety in various situations related to walking and being a pedestrian in our city in a variety of situations? I think you could actually ask questions in that section about safety using bike lanes. And you could even have like using bike lanes, like biking in downtown, biking in residential neighborhoods, biking in, I don't know what, if there's a different scenario. Like you could put stuff in like that and see what people say.

I think Maryland Avenue is the only place in the city where we've not only added bike lanes, but we've narrowed the street in order to accommodate them, which is part of the complaint we hear. You'd go wide down or other places where we designate a lane. We still haven't changed lanes. street maryland is not just about the bike lanes it's about narrowing it people's concern that they're closer to traffic and when their door opens now i'm not necessarily those are legitimate but we hear it all the time maryland is different from everybody else and it's different for a number of reasons

didn't white own used to be two lanes yes and then it was cut in half and we added a bike lane and a pedestrian walking

lane two lanes i guess was it

People used it that way. I'm sorry, I don't mean to digress. I'm just trying to...

Yeah, I mean, that's a different kind of... Like you said, it's very different. So we're not getting... I don't get any questions about that bike lane. Zero. So I just, you know, I mean, it's like I said, I'm going to make one last point here. I mean, I would like to have data that says citizens... want this bike lane. To me, that's helpful. I think we would get that. And if we don't, we still are going to go through our process of evaluating our whole bike network. So I don't see what we have to lose by putting it in. And I don't think anybody's going to read the survey and say, oh my gosh, all these questions are general, but that one is specific. I just don't see that happening.

Well, a minute ago, I was saying that if I had information that was quantitative that supported that specific bike lane, that would be very useful because people are constantly hitting us up about it. If it came back uh otherwise which based on our activities in the comprehensive plan i would tend to think it would not but if it did then you know we would just incorporate that into our overall planning i mean that doesn't mean we have to remove it that just means we know that there's more than a handful of people that are unhappy with it and we have to try to deal with that so you know That's all. Again, it's not my hill to die on. I'm suggesting that we find out something quantitative.

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out because my impression is that the Livable Communities Master Plan was a process that did get us some quantitative data about how our community and residents feel about biking and bike lanes. Do folks agree with that? Am I right?

I mean, that was affirmed. And that's why the bike network is a big part of the community master plan. So we

have that data. Like, I mean, we know that people are interested in bike lanes and a strong bike network. And that is quantitative data developed over many months in an extensive process. So

I guess I'm...

I think that's it.

I've asked about this in the past. And I've asked, so that data, where's the specific data on that bike lane?

So we didn't wait, so the conversation though on the livable Community master plan was about establishing an overall network for the city not necessarily do you like this one. segment of it that exists presently yeah so that we don't have the answer to that question because those surveys that went out didn't save you like this one segment, it was getting into what what's the favorability of moving forward with an expansive on street bike network and that's that's really.

It's very

different. But the survey was after. Well,

and if we know that's what people want, then why would we start asking our residents whether they like a very particular one? Like, I don't know. Well,

I think it's the difference between a concept. People can easily say, oh, yeah, I think having bike lanes everywhere is terrific. But then we have one area in which we've implemented it. which is at least potentially very unpopular. Now, I don't know either whether it's only unpopular with 12 or 15 people or with a lot of people who live around Maryland, but that's the issue. It's not whether people conceptually like biking. They do. They wish we could... have bike lanes everywhere but when you look at a specific project that we've implemented it appears to be unpopular and but i think the mayor's point is maybe it's not if you do a survey maybe people on demand don't even care about them the maryland bike lanes i think that's possible but i don't know i think they get over there sometimes they drive on maryland so i think they have trouble parking sometimes and all that it's a specific issue that i think to turn a blind eye to and say, oh, we don't want to ask about it. I don't get that.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's something we have to look at, which I think we've all agreed. But I'm just not sure asking a direct question on a survey is the best way to do it.

I think all we're doing then is kicking the ball down the road. Instead of at least starting to address it, we're going to go, well, this isn't the best place for it. So let's deal with it some other time, which could be two years from now or three years from now. Here's our chance to actually ask the question and get some information. So it's easy to defer it, but I don't know what the point is of that. I

don't know if it's deferring it. You know, it's it's it's that conversation what does that tell us if we under the livable communities plan are doing a bike Network we're going to find out if this is the appropriate place to connect and continue or if it's not and pulling it out now as a very isolated question this is hard to know how we handle that whatever we get

That's fine. I tend to like to have quantitative answers. What you're suggesting won't be that. And so it'll be, I mean, I don't think it will be quantitative. It'll be more of a planning steering committee discussion. Just public engagement who attends decision, which is, which is fine. That's the way we want to go. And so I'm not gonna go crazy on it. Because when you do it, I probably won't be here anyway. So

yeah, I mean, the only I, again, I would be somewhat supportive of adding maybe a question for the level of support if it was maintaining, you know, maintaining protected bike lanes in downtown clayton something that feels at least more general but i mean again i'm just trying to come with come up with some middle ground because i do understand your point gary because yes i hear about this every single week every single week So, and again, that could be like a, that could be something that we've seen today with, you know, WashU. It could be, like you said, the same 15 people. And it would be nice to know that. I mean, who knows if we get a survey back and it's like, oh gosh, look, 60% of survey respondents support the maintenance of protected bike lanes in downtown Clayton. So, but yeah. I don't know. I'm also not a survey expert. So I'm not sure the best way to do this. So without... coloring somebody's view of it i mean i don't

know and the other one the other questions on here i mean how are we gonna how are we gonna process all of those yeah

this is kind of a lot okay so um bridget do you want to make a motion to add the question you just stated or would you like to let it die created the question

um I'm trying to see where

it could fit. It would be 25, number four, most likely.

Because I feel like a lot of those questions we've asked multiple times about the bike lanes. And we were always trying to get some idea of how people felt about bike lanes, but it was also so specifically related to the Maryland. Like, you know, it's like a reduction in vehicular traveling. I mean, so we've done that on Maryland. So I think trying to, if there is a question, maybe taking out one of those and somehow asking it in an indirect way there.

David, you had a suggestion. No, I was

just saying, I think question 25 would be the appropriate place if we were going to ask for level of support for...

Level of support for maintaining protected bike lanes.

Developing and maintaining, yeah. You could say developing and maintaining on-street bike lanes in downtown Clayton, something of that nature.

Does

that meet the objectives? That's good.

It's better. We need to do anything other than just all say, okay.

If you all say, okay,

we're good. Okay.

Great.

All right.

Any other questions about the survey? I mean, does anybody want to advocate for any of the other ones or are we

just. I'll say that I added, I think all of the sections on elected officials and simply because it seemed to me there's lots of things that as the board putting this together, I would think we would want to know as the board what people think about how what we do, what these commissions are, you know, Again, I didn't try to put them in the framework of the survey, but it just seems to me this is an area that's sorely missing in the whole survey. It says, you know, how do you deal with the police department and public works? It really doesn't ever ask anything about what's your relationship with your board of aldermen or your plan commission? Do you care about those things? How could you have a better experience? Those were all my questions which was attempted to get at that subject, which I think is important.

I mean, under customer service, we could add something related to overall responsiveness of the board of Alderman, the mayor and the board of Aldermen to your concerns. I don't know. I mean,

yeah.

But don't you write most of the questions, Andrea? Yeah.

Oh, no, I will give them red lines and they'll look at it and make sure that it's survey acceptable.

Yeah, so I did ask them for some feed back on that. And some of the suggestions that they came up with were overall quality of representations by members of the Board of Aldermen. And really just making a change to, so sorry, question 16 and adding a few lines for under awareness of services and engagement efforts for ward coffee, board of aldermen meetings, plan commission meetings, and then a 16A with the follow-up question. But I do want to share that Just those additions alone maxed us out.

I think those would be good additions.

Yeah. Yes. Then we would not have room for the other question about the bicycle lane. So I just wanted to share that. We would be pushed over the seven pages.

Couldn't we take out one of the other questions, though? I mean, I don't know. Like one of the ones like about reducing traffic lanes. It seems to me that the other question is more important to everybody. So I feel like because. Why can I

yeah I knew you have you have two cycles worth of that data and similar questions that were posed during the livable Community master plan, so if you're going to trim something down that may be an area to do it

right. Right about code and. stuff yeah. One question

about elected officials one. We maxed out without including the rest of the suggested new questions. the bike lanes, then it was winter sports and yard signs.

No, so we would be maxed out if we were just adding the questions about elected officials as proposed by ETC.

And the ones they proposed were quality of representation by elected officials and awareness of ward coffees

and what else? Board of Aldermen meetings. plan commission meetings and then also they suggested a 16a um that says you know uh various standing committees and then list the examples so we don't need all that

detail i don't think we need planning either because we have a whole section on planning like anna pointed out don't we we have a general planning and development process

I

was going to say, my comment on 20 and 21 is it's actually, I think, a very limited question because while it's certainly true that people show up to object to someone's application, the number of people who actually apply... where a planning and development permit is exceedingly small. I mean, you know, it's every once in a while someone has a variance request or they're building a new house, but that's a handful of people. I think 20 and 21 doesn't really get to what we want to get to. I think it's, you know, if you're someone who's concerned about 139 North Bemiston and you come to a meeting and you want to object and you get 50 people, but that's not the applicant. I think the question isn't should be about, you know, what's your experience when you attend a planning and zoning meeting? So I think this 20 really gets ask the wrong question it's much too limited in scope because who the hell applies for these permits it's either a builder who probably doesn't even live here or it's a handful of people so i i understand it's important to get to planning and development this just doesn't get there very well i don't

think it's directed to those who have applied right but that's it that's very

that's very few people

okay

very few people

i know would you agree with that yeah i mean i think i remember like question you proposed is

that i mean we know how many people attend the meetings it's and

it's not satisfied by the process it's going to be completely different of an opposition of whatever results They're going to say that was a great process. If whatever the item wasn't approved, they're going to say, I'm not satisfied with our process. So from my standpoint, that doesn't provide me a lot. From your standpoint of asking if they're satisfied with your, you know, you're really hard to frame. But I think we should, Probably don't need to ask it.

Since we haven't done it before, we could just ask about ourselves this time and see what kind of responses we get.

Just one question. I mean, we do do

this again in two years.

Yeah.

So.

I think it's good. We don't need all the subcategories to it. I think we could just ask. Ask about the board. Yes. See what people say. And definitely leave out the mayor. Just go with. Okay.

So, to clarify, the suggestion from ETC was the overall quality of representation from the Board of Aldermen and Mayor. Is that what you guys would like to include?

Yes. It's interesting, and it's fine if we want to do it, but we are elected officials. That's right. Who are electing us, and so to ask... That's true. I mean, we get information about how the city is doing. Yeah. we get information about their approval of us with the election time. So we can put it in here, but it hits me as kind of funny. How much contact you have and how effective are the communication methods I get? I don't know.

I think the question is about the group as a whole. Does the Board of Aldermen as a group represent you well? That's different than do you think your Ward 2 representative is the best person? They can decide that at the ballot box. They can't decide it generically whether this is an effective way to run the government.

Like people generally hate Congress and vote their rep back in.

That's the truth, isn't it? One other thing. I do not have a complete list of what was submitted, I guess. I just have a few questions here on my thing. That's fine. You guys are picking out the ones you like. That was a complete list. But bike lanes are not on it. They may be. what is this page what

are you looking just that first page 87 and 88 of the bar packet

i have this these questions additional questions also on the other side has okay um okay very good um all right so i do do are we gonna assume that people know what market rate residential is We can use another descriptor.

I don't know what, what's the point of asking that

question. And I don't know. There's a question in here that says something about market rate.

I don't, I would have to answer no. If I was being honest and not, then I would want to know as a member of the board of Alderman, what am I doing with that?

No, I mean, there was a phrase in there that said what it was and said market rate residential.

But what are we going to do with the information? We'll

understand the question and be able to answer it better. What is the question that has that in it?

Are you saying there's a question in here that talks about market rate residential? Oh, I didn't realize that. I thought you literally wanted to find out how many of our residents know that. And I was like, are we trying to make people feel stupid? I think

I referred to the question in my email, but I don't have that with me.

No, it's under question 22. And so the question was originally put in here to gauge interest and incentives.

Right. And

so market rate residential was added there with downtown high density.

So what is market rate residential?

That's just regularly priced apartments in a high rise building.

So I mean, I just think, should we just say?

It's housing that doesn't have a reduced or subsidized rate. Right.

yeah that's the oh it's confusing though is that an is that an ad or has that always been there

that's a question we've had in there

right yeah i mean i

don't know i just thought people don't know what that is i don't know what it is i didn't

um in context in the context of the question thanks i would be able to answer it

it's a yeah it's a it's a post 212 question that was added

and again we want consistency to see trends so and changing stuff. Okay. Never mind.

And then my only other thing is I really would love to have something at the end that offers people the opportunity to sign up to receive our email communication.

Is that in here? There's a QR code on the cover letter of the survey.

Right. Okay. Good. Perfect. Okay. Is that everything, everybody? All right. Then... Andrea, I hope you have what you need. Thank you very much for all your work on this. All right. I think that concludes our business and it's almost 10. So I doubt that we want to have a round table. Okay. Very good. Thank you guys. Motion to adjourn. Yep.

Can I just say, I'm very excited to see the new designation above the chair.

Yes, Andrea, good job. Matt, you built it? Wow. Nice job. Very good. Well done. That's great. We finally have something for Pete's sake. Okay, gang. Thank you.

It's a circle instead of a, like a ring instead of. Yeah.