February 10, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

good evening uh it's tuesday february 10th we're here for our city council clayton city council meeting at six o'clock um Anna Krane our planning director is going to give us a presentation on planned unit developments

good evening uh it's tuesday february 10th we're here for our city council clayton city council meeting at six o'clock um anna crane our planning director is going to give us a presentation on planned unit developments

okay are you good good um great so today i apologize for my voice that's going, I think I've finally succumbed to the cold that's been going around despite my best efforts. Um, so today I want to take us through planning developments. It was, I kind of looked back, it's kind of been almost a year since we talked about PUDs and we kind of put it on hold to, um, finish the non-residential mixed use zoning, um, that we adopted recently. So now it's time to pick back up on the plan unit developments and our public benefits. So the purpose that we're implementing here from the comprehensive plan is to review our public benefit point system, to identify opportunities to better align with our objectives. Summarizing the purpose of a PUD really comes down to trying to create a more desirable creative atmosphere of a development that doesn't fit within all of the standards of our base zoning district. So usually we're trying to either address some sort of unique circumstance that's created by that lot. So we're doing a more natural development or preserving aspects of a property that create unique situations, or there's some aspects of the new development mixture of uses otherwise that would move it outside of our base zoning districts. So looking at the existing regulations, the common modifications, the top one, minimum unit size, was one that sent almost all of our more recent developments into the PUD. We've already addressed that issue by removing that minimum size from the base zoning districts. That would no longer be a trigger. Outside of that, most projects go into the PUD category because they're They're increasing the floor area ratio, something that we also have addressed in a pretty significant way with our new base zoning district for these non-residential zoning districts. Or decreasing a setback, decreasing your parking requirement. So essentially what most often gets somebody into a PUD based on what we've seen as PUDs so far is facilitating more building that wouldn't be allowed in the base zoning district. And then our common benefits, so we're trying to create that more creative development. We see architectural distinction, we see lead, EV charging, and public art is what's most commonly used right now. And the modifications establish how many points you need, and then you have all of the points assigned to the benefits. So in reviewing previous projects, best practices, everything like that, what our takeaway was is that the existing system really doesn't reflect what I would call some of our obvious priorities. So those are the ones that we value the most. We should I feel like a PUD when it's a public benefit system, like what we want to set up here, we almost should have that flashing sign, like pointing, you know, making it hard for people to ignore the things that we want them to do. Our code, the way it's set up right now, doesn't really do that. And one of what you see kind of an example is that we require lead silver design to qualify for a PUD. So people are already designing to lead silver, but then some of the most common benefits that people experience point to for their developments are also requirements of lead silver. So they're not really elevating their project more beyond what we find is like that minimum threshold. And then some comprehensive plan goals, and I'll go into this list a little bit more. So what we've done is adjusted our base. So that creates a better kind of starting point for development, especially within our downtown area, that M3 zoning district now. And then we want to adjust our structure. So we want to guide development like that flashing sign I talked about. And the biggest thing that I also want to frame our minds about with zoning. So zoning is it facilitates development. development of property and construction and land use, but it isn't the catalyst for it. So in an ideal world, what we need to do is find that happy medium for facilitating development that's already going to be built because that's what's being demanded. So developers are really good at following what the market dictates because that's what they can then successfully fund and finance and get revenue from, right? So developers are good at telling you what the market demands, especially in our area. So what we want to do is make some predictability because if you can find that happy medium between a code that facilitates development, creates that predictability for a developer, and you're requesting the uses that the market's already demanding, then you get the projects that come here. So what we don't want to do is have our zoning code or a PUD system be kind of like the barrier to that market demand? So how are we going to do that? Going into recommendations, today I would like to get some feedback from you guys. So there's going to be a little bit more. I know I didn't send this to you in advance, but that's okay. I want to hear a little bit kind of what comes to mind firsthand through some of this. So we're recommending going into a tiered system. The requirements for qualification, the base requirements for the project, I'm not proposing any changes to it this time. So for a residential PUD system, Currently, you have to have a residential zoning district as your base zoning district that you're rezoning out of. And the land area of that project needs to be a minimum of 30,000 square feet. So it should be the larger residential projects that are facilitating. There's something about that project. What we wouldn't want to do is lower that and have people come here. to get PUDs for a single story or a single family home or something of that nature. So I don't see the need to adjust that and similarly for mixed use, we have a minimum of 50,000 square feet for the gross building area. So again, you want a little bit of a larger more substantial building that's directing you into this PUD format. And then what i'm proposing is tiered system of three tiers the base is kind of just a more standard project, but it has some unique elements. So we want to be modifying standards that are not impacting our density or use so, for an example. A setback so you might move the setbacks you're facilitating more creative or different orientation and placement of buildings. but you're not substantially increasing the density of that use compared to its neighbor. So for base one, tier one, we'll get into what a priority benefit is on a future slide. So if you're a tier one PUD, you would need a priority benefit plus one additional benefit. So that's two benefits that we'll add on. If you go up to a tier two, now you're slightly elevated. So now you're modifying standards that impact your density up to a 90% change. So looking at past projects, we had anywhere from essentially a 20%. So their setback was being reduced by 20% or their floor air ratio is being increased. So once we start impacting density, this might be they want to have four stories where they're only allowed three in the base zoning district. That's increasing their density or their floor area ratio. Or if you're modifying a use requirement. So that one, I think the reason that I elevated that to Tier 2 is because it just requires a little bit more scrutiny because we go through a process to have what uses are allowed in certain areas. And that's a pretty intentional process that we do. So Tier 2 has elevated that. Under Tier 2, you would have, again, a priority benefit and then two additional benefits. And out of those three benefits that you need to have, at least one of them has to be classified as a Tier 2 benefit. And then Tier 3 premiums, so those are those larger projects where you're modifying either four or more standards, so you have a lot more things you're asking to modify, or you're more substantially increasing the density of that project related to the base zoning district. So really just creating a hierarchy in terms of like the scale or impact development and the modifications might have. So this is a lot of words on the screen. We'll go through in segments what this is, and that's where I'll start asking for a little bit of feedback. But just to give you the overall framework of what we have, we have our required qualifications. So meet lead silver design. That's maintaining something that we already have for the PUD requirements. But we're removing a lot of those lead silver aspects, not all of them, but a lot of them from the rest of the benefit list. So we'll do some retail-ready if that's applicable. So if it is a project that has a retail first floor component to it, then we're having a little bit more of what does it mean to actually produce a retail product that's ready for somebody to occupy. And then we need to create this priority benefit list. So I have a couple of more general ideas of the priority benefits based on looking at the comp plan and some of the things I've heard, but I want us to talk about that a little bit more later. The idea of the priority benefit list is these are benefits that would be classified under a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. But these are the ones with the flashing yellow sign that's pointing here. So those are going to be very specific. Everybody has to choose one from the list and how that would be incorporated into their project. So under the tier one, what I try to do is look at some of our existing benefits or elements of projects that have been approved in the past. The tier ones should be a little bit more achievable. So maybe the cost for a developer to choose this is a little bit lower. They might have to tweak their project a little bit less to get it, but it's still something that we value. So that's the tier one. Tier two gets into a little bit more impact on the project design as somebody chooses that. Or it might be something that we just value a little bit more, even if it isn't going to be that much of an impact on a developer's bottom line. It's something that we value. And then again, tier three are the ones that we value the most. So I've lumped these into some categories to try and help you guys think through what might be missing from the list or other things you might want us to consider. So we're looking at design benefits, the category of design, things that would impact that. Under Tier 1, so our entry-level benefits, I would say, we have access features or provisions to existing or planned public transit facilities. This is an existing benefit. We don't see it often used. So that's why it's kind of a Tier 1. I think it would still be benefits. potentially to people depending on how they facilitate it but we'll leave that at one public art is something that we do see chosen a lot from the list right now, but I wouldn't say that that public art while it's, you know, the ones that we see around are nice and they look nice and. You know for city, I think that those are great additions to help that that building but it's not really significantly adding to the context of the environment that we're creating so put that one at tier one. extensive use of high quality building materials. So that's another one that seems to be a pretty much almost like an expectation of PUDs that they're using these high quality materials. Rooftop activation is an interesting one that came from a conversation I had with Ryan, our planner, and he was talking about how rooftop creates a destination point and really can attract people. And the success of a lot of people that frequent, I think, the rooftop at the AC Hotel that might not otherwise have been coming downtown. So I think that's an interesting one that I wanted to call out. So as we think a little bit outside of the box, what are those elements of projects that you find unique or exciting or something you might want to, a trend you might want to build on? So this list of I think will need to be revised every few years as things happen and change in the context changes. But rooftop activation was a feature that I wanted to throw in their architectural distinction into your two enhancing public open space or public infrastructure. and preservation of architecturally historically significant buildings, kind of going back towards we want to value a little bit of an element of preservation. We've heard about it a lot before, but the most sustainable thing you can do is not tear down a building. So I do think that while people can go back and forth under historic significance and their personal preferences there, it kind of is tied to both design and sustainability. And then tier three would be that fully below grade parking structure. So that's one a great example of valuing it as a tier three because it's a very expensive endeavor. It's one that we've all heard about from people about the costs involved with it. So you want to kind of weight that value accordingly. i'm going to pause here with design as as i went through all of that is there anything when you think about great design or benefits in the design category looking at projects here places you've visited that you would want to be considered by staff under a benefit of a design

we don't have to go in order if anybody wants to just jump in if

What about, I don't recall, I know that this is a cause for an issue, but whether it's a benefit or not, and that would be a more significant setback of some sort, creating more either sidewalk space or some other visual benefit on the ground floor. Yeah.

Yep. Give

me an idea.

Yeah, exactly. I'm not going to directly endorse or refute whatever you guys say because I do want you to just talk because I can then use what you're valuing and figure out how to work it in.

When you said the retail ready, does that fall under here?

That would be if they're including retail as a component of their, so if it's a mixed use project and to provide that mixture of uses they're choosing to provide retail, then that would be retail ready would be necessary. It is not listed here under uses, use category, which we'll get to later. I do have a little bit about that, but Retail ready itself isn't under design. It's not under design. But I hear that that could be a priority we want to make sure is hit

home. Well, I just, you know, I don't know. I only bring that up because in terms of a design element, because I found it frustrating learning that a lot of Bemis in place does not have high enough ceilings for elaborate kitchens except for at the corner. So I don't know, thinking about how we encourage them to have higher ceilings at the first floor so that there's more interest from retail tenants to have Again, I think everybody appreciates higher ceilings, but you can't have a restaurant unless the ceilings are high enough.

Okay.

Like a full-service restaurant.

Yep. So... Ana, you're probably going to get to this, but with your benefits, is the system you're proposing still one where it's on a rating system from 1 to 5, that type of thing?

No. So what I'm proposing here removes the point allocations. So... I'm trying to pull back a little bit and find a little bit more of that happy medium. So the predictability is that we have essentially valued our benefits as a tier one, tier two, or tier three. So that is how we value it, rather a numeric value of one to five. So they fall into those categories. So it gives you guys still some discretion to evaluate what they've proposed, but a little bit more flexibility in that. I was wondering particularly

about the ones that sort of lend themselves to being a matter of opinion. I think we've differed in the past on like architectural distinction. You know, the plan commission thought, yeah, it looks pretty distinct. The developer asked for a five, we'll give them a three. And then we come into this room and some people said, I don't look that great to me. I'd only give them a one. So I'm glad we're getting rid of that approach, but it still raises questions about who decides whether something is architecturally distinctive. But that's just a problem that's inherent in that, I suppose. I think so.

Yeah, I think that's a good point. Yeah,

I was going to say. I am concerned about that and would suggest we even consider removing it or, or how can you, how can you like quantify it or like, like how would you actually define it? Right. Cause I don't believe I've ever seen in my top five years here, a building that I would describe as architecturally distinct, but the plan commission would come to us with three to five points on that category. And I was like, how, like, I don't, no one is going to be like, recognize that building if they see it out of context or, you know, anyways.

So just, oh, I was going to build on that, but yeah, sorry. Was just to say then, you know, as an idea, would it make sense or would it restrict creativity too much to provide guidance on this? For example, here's the definition of architecturally significant A, B, and C need to be qualified. You know, whatever, or all the other things, you know, the bad news part would be it narrows it perhaps. The good news part is it becomes more objective, right?

yeah the other thing i was going to add which i as an idea that i've brought up before that i think you basically have covered here is the um public open space like there's that privately owned public open space idea um and so i like that um and i don't have any other ideas

yeah and i'll pick up on what both you said at the open space i think that anything um I mean, the public gathering space is great if there's a flow around the city. And whether that's the sidewalk connectivity, whether it's bike lanes or something that helps connect the connectivity around the city itself. The other part is I like the transit access. And I think the bigger goal there is to reduce the reliance on needing to drive around Clayton. because you know parking spaces end up taking so much of the development that we actually want to happen and it stops the connectivity in the open spaces so i don't know what that would be whether it be you know a residential place that has their shuttle or whatever it might be but that idea of reducing um providing some transportation mode

yeah yeah and i think with the the con the concept of architectural distinction you know with The public benefits, the way that we're outlining, part of the nice side of removing the quantified values is that we are able to be a little bit more broad. But we can get more specific. So if there are specific architectural elements of buildings that you all find to be distinctive and things that you would want to see that we're not getting here. I mean, I think a lot about a former playing commission member Bob Denlow is wanting some sort of curved facade, you know, he would talk about that. So, things like that we can put in here to qualify what our architectural distinction is. the code is a little bit set in stone and that we have to go through this public hearing process to adopt it. So if we put elements like that, it's in the code. If the first curve building you see you actually hate and you never want to curve building again, there's a little bit of a delayed effect of having to remove that from the code. But at the same time, if there are elements that you all agree in the ARB agree or important, we can have some really broad benefits outlined in here and we can have some specific ones. I would encourage you all to spend some time over the next couple weeks thinking about buildings that you do find architecturally distinctive and significant and help frame that a little bit.

yeah yeah and i think with the the con the concept of architectural distinction you know with The public benefits, the way that we're outlining, part of the nice side of removing the quantified values is that we are able to be a little bit more broad. But we can get more specific. So if there are specific architectural elements of buildings that you all find to be distinctive and things that you would want to see that we're not getting here. I mean, I think a lot about a former playing commission member Bob Denlo is wanting some sort of curved facade, you know, he would talk about that. So, things like that we can put in here to qualify what our architectural distinction is. the code is a little bit set in stone and that we have to go through this public hearing process to adopt it. So if we put elements like that, it's in the code. If the first curve building you see you actually hate and you never want to curve building again, there's a little bit of a delayed effect of having to remove that from the code. But at the same time, if there are elements that you all agree in the ARB agree or important, we can have some really broad benefits outlined in here and we can have some specific ones. I would encourage you all to spend some time over the next couple weeks thinking about buildings that you do find architecturally distinctive and significant and help frame that a little bit.

I assume this system would still be where the PUD application goes to the plan commission and ARB with a recommendation.

Yeah, I think the process itself is functioning well. I don't think that we need to change any of that process in this.

I would hope some of this heavy lifting in terms of architectural distinction would rest with the plan commission and the ARB because those are people we select to be on there because we think they actually have some background in architecture real estate so that when it comes to the council we might give them some presumption that they know what they're talking about I

guess I would want to add like you know green space and public gathering spaces and like like seating you know if people from the building can come out and just have a place to sit and just like activate corners and things like that. I think maybe defining like street level distinction, you know, like when you're like walking downtown, what is it? Like the first 12 feet in height are really important so that if there's something like that, that we can kind of define to elevate at least like the walkable, you know, street level distinction, I think would be a good idea. And then like, you know, with the rooftop activation, I think that's a great idea. I just don't know if we want to say like rooftop ready, you know, kind of like how you were saying with like retail ready, but, But then how does that play if you have to have a green roof or kind of those things? Is that still part of the LEED or silver, or how does that work?

So they can get LEED silver without green roofs. So we've had a couple blue roofs, I think, that have gotten some points. So there's ways to do both.

Is that still going to be listed somewhere? Yes. Okay. Yeah,

and I wonder too, I mean, I think having architectural distinction would still be important and thinking about how we can define that better because i do under i mean i i understand everybody's concern about that but when i think about architecturally distinctive of course i think about you know buildings in downtown chicago but also the new residential building on skinker i mean that is everybody knows where that building is so i think thinking about something like that I would also just wonder extensive use of high quality building materials, because I feel like that was also something that people would throw like at the PUD, like before ARB, they'd be like, oh, we used high quality building materials. I just wonder how you'll decide that, how your, you know, because I would hope that everybody's using relatively high quality building materials to build anything down around here. So I would just wonder how you quantify that too. Okay.

Yeah, I would agree. One other thing. I would be interested in considering the um giving benefits to the preservation of a building even if it's not architecturally historically significant like i don't know um if we actually have buildings that we like want to be torn down but if we're talking about it from a sustainability perspective then it really is a benefit even if the building isn't that interesting So I would want to incentivize, I wouldn't want to like caveat it with architecturally historically significant. Also, has the ARB seen this? No. Yeah, so I'd be interested in their ideas about how one could actually try to define architectural significance and distinction.

Yep, absolutely. Yeah, we have an update with them on the next Planning Commission agenda for a bunch of topics like this. Okay, use benefits. So this is where we get into a little bit more specifics on the use. I did not identify any use benefits under Tier 1. Tier two, we talk about provision of missing housing types. So this is one that needs to be massaged a little bit but the goal of this is the comp plan talks about facilitating town homes or maybe we've talked about mixture of uses within apartments having a little bit more weight on those multi bedroom units, that type of a thing would be a benefit. And then tier three is where getting into the benefit when you actually create affordable or workforce housing with that, so rather than just providing that mix of market rate when you actually get affordable, then that goes into tier three. Inclusion of public parking I think is another one, so as much as we can facilitate shared parking. Entertainment use as a significant component. contributing to affordable CEA, so our consumer emphasis area uses. So we've designated a lot of uses, as you recall, with our new non-residential mixed use zoning that identify what we kind of think are consumer driven uses. So provisions to contribute to those spaces either through establishing lower than market rate rents for a certain number of years in your development for that first floor. We're covering some of those tenant fit out costs. That's something we're diving into a little bit more to quantify, but I do think that that would be something that if they're already building those spaces, maybe we'll have kind of a lower impact on their, if they know they're doing it up front, a lower impact on bottom line, but a really significant positive impact from us. from our standpoint. And then also something that we need to kind of, I wanted to leave a little bit vague. The comp plan talks a lot about diversifying our tax base or significant sales tax revenue generators. So leaving that a little bit more open, because again, the applicant has the burden of proving what they're proposing meets this for your all approval. So that's a little bit more of an open-ended category for tier three.

Just a thought on that last one. generally like the idea of encouraging something with significant tax increase, sales tax revenue. However, then I think of like a dispensary. I mean, I wouldn't want to have a whole bunch of dispensaries come in as a result of this. Well, that might be good for sales tax. I don't think our residents would be in favor of that. So I don't know if we can qualify that in any way, but yeah. Yeah.

Are there only like a couple parcels, where we could have one anyways just not specific example is that right

yeah I don't like have to be there's I mean because of the one and so from the current one.

Is we can qualify that or attach it to see a. approved uses from that list.

Yeah, we can expand it. I mean, also to qualify the project has to be at least 50,000 gross square feet. So it's not every project that's going to qualify for a PUD anyway. An example is the Sterling Bank project doesn't even qualify to go through the PUD process because the building they're proposing is too small. So we have, yes, but I do want to make, I hear you on the accidentally leaving a door open for something. Yeah. Any other use-related thoughts? Okay. They're going to all come to you when you leave. Okay, sustainability benefit category. So EV charging was a big one that we've been hearing a lot about recently. So I took a stab at it in establishing 10% of your required parking being EV. That would be a tier one. And then if you wanted to go over 50%, you get into that tier two category. Are those like actual stations or is that just EV ready? This would be actual stations, the way that I was thinking of it at this point. Other ones being green infrastructure for stormwater mitigations, that would be any green roofs or bioswales or other things like that which might also get somebody lead points but would also be something that was more specifically called out. Extraordinary landscape and green space, I see that one maybe is with some tweaks covering kind of something you were talking about earlier with open space. And then going into tier three, alternative energy sources or elevating your design to meet LEED gold or higher standards. So silver being the minimum entry level, if you go above that, that would get you a tier three. I

was just looking at my notes from the St. Louis Climate Summit. I was paying attention. But one thing that they talked about a lot was in design and development, like look at it with your budget, the cost of the emissions and the coal and everything else you're using, the long-term impact of that. And typically, you're going to find that by being more environmentally aware, you're actually saving money in the long term. So how you put that into a building code, I don't know if it's with the systems, with the benchmarking. I don't know how to do it, but it sounds like it can be done. And that could be something beyond just looking for EV chargers and things. And in the development of the building, because whatever is built there carries forward many, many years.

Mm-hmm. I guess you could put the thing I mentioned before about building on this slide.

Yeah, I just grouped them into categories to try and help facilitate the discussion. Yeah.

And alternative energy sources would be like solar panels, like a broad solar panel.

Wind power.

Power, yeah.

Yeah. okay so breezing through this the uh priority benefits list so a little bit of this will then come once we have those those benefits of one two and three called out but this this was my initial thought um the providing workforce or affordable housing for a priority benefit it might be something you know listen for some feedback on this. If there's a floor, so as a priority benefit, if somebody were to select this, is there some sort of floor on the number of units that would get to a level of a priority benefit versus a lower level benefit? I'm not sure where that falls with everybody. The affordable commercial retail spaces for small businesses, entertainment uses in downtown, again, that public parking provision, As well as ev charging, so I want with the priority benefits to try and have a little bit of a range. Of some smaller priority and some larger one because remember with tier one you have to choose it, no matter what tier your project is, you have to choose a priority benefit. And then. for the higher tier, like a Tier 3 project, they could choose their priority benefit is also one that's leveled at Tier 3, or they could choose a Tier 1 priority benefit and have their Tier 3 benefit be something else from that Tier 3 list. So what we don't want to do is have our priority benefits be only the really large elements of a project that are really expensive just in terms of facilitating all levels of development.

But each tier has to pick one priority benefit?

Correct.

Yeah, because EV charging seems really easy.

Right. So that might be something you say is a priority, but you don't want it on this list, in which case we could say it's a priority by moving it up a tier or something like that.

Yeah, I just feel like if tier three is choosing that, that seems like. A little bit of an easy out for them. They would also have to choose

a tier three.

Say that again?

They would also have choose a tier three,

which is

over the previous list.

Okay. It's a little bit of like, I, I'm almost get it, but I'm not totally all of them. So like, yeah.

Um, so for example, if a, uh, two, if a project is classified as a tier three, just to qualify, they would have to design to lead silver. If they're also mixed use, they would need to be retail ready for that retail component. And they would choose one of these priority benefits that's listed here.

And lead silver doesn't have EV charging?

Oh, so lead silver, there's a variety of ways to design to meet the points. So it could be that they kind of layer EV charging in that way. So the tier three person would choose one of this list. That would be one of the four benefits that they're required. they have to have at least one Tier 3. So if they chose EV charging, which is a Tier 2, they're doing 50% or whatever, Tier 2, they would still have to choose another item from this list along with two other benefits from any tier.

I guess I'm struggling with the quantitative versus the qualitative. Yeah,

this one played out. I

was trying to understand the difference. Either it does qualify as silver or it doesn't. But when you get into, do you have a developer basically come to staff and say, okay, well, we're going to do some affordable housing. We'll do a couple of units. And then you ask them, so what do you mean by affordable? I mean, I'm trying to figure out at what point this is still, so many of these are subjective issues. that it's hard, you know, you do pick one off the list and you do a little of it, but then you're trying to decide is that enough? And is that the staff I guess can make a recommendation

Yeah, with this type of zoning, we're never going to build the perfect black and white system because PUDs or plan developments inherently need to have a little bit of that discretionary element that the city council holds in approving it. So the wording that I had on those screens for benefits, those were not completely flushed out wording. We're not at that level yet. So there will be a variety of pretty easy, you know, Are 50% of your parking spaces fit with EV chargers? That's pretty much a yes or no question. Architectural distinction is a little bit up to the discretion of the ARB and the city council. So there's going to be a mixture of both of those in here for sure.

I'm going to push back a little bit on the public parking because, again, if we say we have all this parking here that's not being used, and, again, I have said it before, it's so well documented that parking ends up pushing out everything else a city can do So if we have spaces now, if there's an alternative, provide the parking and or an alternative to the parking to get people around or partnership with the building next door or however you want to word it. So it's not you get benefits for building more parking spaces, but you still have to provide the need for the people using the building and the public.

I feel like public parking is the biggest thing.

It is, but the more we build parking, the more we push out other activities, and it's a long-term impact on what we're doing. So if we have the parking spaces, let's get incentives to get those used.

Yeah, what do you think about shared parking agreements? Okay.

yeah i think this is a real area of tension because i i'm glad you brought it up the because we know people always feel like there's not enough parking and they want more parking that is right in front of the door that they're going to and i still believe that I like, I have this idea that, I mean, across the city, we have more than enough parking spaces. It's just a question of whether people know where they are and are willing to walk the distance that they'd happily walk from one end of a mall to the other, but they have to do it outside and they feel like that's really hard for some reason. Like, you know, so, and, and like, I feel like a lot of the trends are, that I've heard about are talking about actually like reducing parking requirements. And so, I don't know what else you would say about that or how to think about it, but it feels a little like fraught to me. Or can you say even like if it's in a place where there isn't Or can we identify certain areas that we think really need public parking? I don't know.

You could also put it on the developer to come up with that proposal. The incentive is to come up with providing parking without whatever.

So just in terms of the framework, I like the framework. I think it's creative. I think it is... going in a direction of trying to be more definitive and achieve goals that we want as we go forward. So I like that. I'm wondering, and I appreciate your comments about planned developments carrying a great deal of discretion. I'm wondering, though, if we can either look to other communities or if there are any constraints from a legal standpoint about the kind of guidelines we give or the thresholds. Like are there some things that we already know wouldn't stand up? You said 50%. What if we said 75? And I'm not arguing for that, but I'm saying when does it become a threshold that's too high? And when do we create goals or standards that aren't reasonable? Do we have some kind of standards to look to that we can be assured or at least comfortable that's what we're doing?

I mean nationwide a lot of planned development so if you if you look at other communities most of them will refer to it as a plan development planned unit development actually came out of unit like residential unit planned developments but anyway so planned developments across a lot of them rely on what used to be our PUD system where you really much you pretty much have your purpose statements and then you know are you meeting those things or not So there aren't that many systems across the country that are really black and white with the point systems that have remained because it's hard to stay relevant and predict those ins and outs. But when you adopt this code, you're setting what you feel are the benefits that inform or implement those purpose statements. I don't know if you want to add anything.

I would just observe that the courts have given us really great advice black and white guidelines on how far you can go with exactions. They have to be rationally related to the regulation in question and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. So there's real clear guidance that we could apply without any problem. Okay.

Yeah. The number one clue, if you make the PUD benefits just not balanced with what people are developing, is that people won't develop under a PUD. That will be the biggest clue. If we put the threshold of how do you meet a standard of benefit for a PD too high, we will never hit it and they will never ask about it or they will constantly be asking for you to change it, that type of a thing.

And I guess all the other part then, you know, aside from the constraint standpoint was, you know, it's always helpful to learn from what others have done before you. And so this may be unique, but if there is, if there are others, it's always good to know, especially in that area where we intended this to happen, but this is what is happening as a result of it, just so that we can learn from that. Yeah,

definitely. I guess one other thing is like the mechanical and the HVAC, does that fall under lead design? Because sometimes that was like a separate application for like the mechanical systems for lead.

Yeah, so a lot of times people are so under some of the categories for lead, people were providing that information. We had like there's energy efficiency components to lead, some of which we had pulled out. where we currently pull out and provide one point for. So sometimes in previous projects, people provided more information about their mechanical systems and the efficiencies of those to back up asking for maybe more benefit points than we had listed. So we always are, I intend to leave a little bit of the door open for that with that category that would allow, and I don't remember if I even highlighted it on the screen when we were on that one previously, but I do here, I do think that we should still allow an applicant to try and make a case that there is a benefit that's missing. So we have a purpose statement that we currently have in our code under PUD outline some of these greater vision points. So I think there's a little bit of flexibility and that somebody could make a case as to how their benefit meets these purpose standards to not completely throw everything out the door under every project, we wouldn't allow them to do that for all of their public benefits, but they could do that for one.

Yeah, because to Susan's point, like that's like such a huge energy issue with these buildings is just all of that equipment. And so if there was some sort of like provision in here, I don't know how we could word that but just something about designing the mechanical systems to be just more energy efficient and all the greenhouse emissions and all that um especially if it's you know ground up building but i don't know if that would deter every developer to be like well we're not going to do that

i mean that's why i wanted a little bit more of departure from some of our typical presentations using this a little bit more of a brainstorming. So then we'll go back and we'll pull these and I'll review them a little bit more in light of what the zoning is and try and hone in some of this stuff. So there's nothing off the table right now.

It makes me wonder if we'd want to put in something. I don't know that it's appropriate or how it would be structured, but as we're embarking on bench building benchmarking, um, like participation in that, or obviously if they're building a new building, it's not going to be like an old building that they're improving, which is partly what the benchmarking... But it's good to have the metrics. ...designed to do, right? But, like, I would... encourage us to think about if there's any aspect of that program where we yeah that does bring up an interest because

we have so in our requirements right now you require that they design the lead silver we don't require that they certify the building um and then we don't have any sort of continued follow-up with them about how that building is then performing so you bring up an interesting

thing would allow us to do that without necessarily requiring them to pay the lead

Well, we're here benchmarking in private.

Yeah, I know. But I'm just thinking related to some of the lead performance reports or something that it's making me think of some other stuff.

Although the benchmarking is by size. It's only the right. So maybe it extends down to the whatever. Yeah, I don't see. Right. Yeah, they're big buildings that we require. Right.

A hundred thousand, I believe. A hundred thousand. So a PD would qualify at 50,000. Yeah. There could be. Yeah. So that. Yeah. I'll think of. Yeah.

I love the catch all that someone can come to us with an idea that we haven't thought about to. To get that's

built on that, though they catch all like you and i'm not you're qualified, but then, if you're like is your staff, the one that's like no i'm sorry that doesn't qualify.

Well it's it would fall, the same way that we have kind of that catch all right now with the beauty system. where people are proposing what they think their points are for that project.

And there's a little one tier two or tier three. Yeah. So they would

have, they would have the burden of proving that it's a, however they

decide. They would prove

it to you because the council

is, yes, you

have all the discretion.

So

at the staff level, we'll make recommendations back to them on how we interpret it and how we're going to propose it to you guys. But they, they would have that opportunity to make that case.

The other thing I was just going to say with EV chargers is I just don't want to encourage something or I don't want to give points for something that developers already realize that they have to do. I mean, I don't know how you build an apartment building these days unless you have EV charging because how do you attract like, you know, I think tenants expect that now if you're building a new building. So I guess I would think about EV chargers available to the public. You know, so because, you know, people come to areas because they have to charge their car because maybe it's not available at home or maybe they realize they forgot to charge their car and they, you know, I don't know. That might be something where, you know, if it's, and also if there's a retail component, somebody comes in and charges their car and comes and has lunch or shops at a store. Okay.

Adding to that, Maplewood now requires, I think you know that requires them in residential, but again at the summit, Webster Groves was there and they were talking about how they're studying putting them all over the downtown area for that very reason to get people to come in. Right, yeah.

One of the other things I was going to bring up, similar to what the mayor just said, was this idea of wherever the priority benefits are listed, there's the option for the one, do you know which slide it is, that says, like others can be, applicant may propose an alternative priority benefit. To the city council. So it's probably back on the like.

Oh, yeah, that was on our

initial page. And so what I worry about in that case there to be weighted at discretion of council. I worry about things that really haven't been defined at all. somewhere, and that by the time it gets to us at the City Council, the applicant has gone through so much work and so much back and forth with the Planning Commission and ARB. And so I'm almost trying to think about like, it can make it hard for us to make changes or overrule or deviate significantly from what the Planning Commission, ARB approves or sends on to us and when we're talking about. Something like wide open like that. I just don't know that I'm comfortable with them weighing that. And so I don't know what it would look like for if something doesn't fit into an already defined category. Is there a process step in which it could come to us for some simple evaluation or discussion? I mean, I know this is complicated, but I do... I feel like that's a real issue. First, it's a lot of pressure and responsibility to put on unelected members of the plan commission and ARB. And it's also then may not be very consistent with what we're thinking. Like they don't know what we're thinking, I guess, you know, we generally have a representative there who knows what most of us think, but I don't know. Those of you who've served on the board might have thoughts about that too, but I just worry about that. I don't.

That they approve. So basically the idea is that they're potentially approving something at Plan Commission ARB. And then it comes to us and there already has been a lot of discussion. We're like, actually, that's not

really... You don't think that's valuable. Like we don't see the benefit that the Plan Commission ARB saw here and it can derail projects.

Yeah. I mean, they are in the, in the case of this, you do have the authority to decide that. Right. And the planning commission ARB is just a recommendation body. So they're one opinion for you to consider. I mean, I, I, I'll think about that a little bit. We have a conceptual review requirement for PUDs so we can see if there's some way for them to get some initial feedback on it. I do think a little bit of it is them taking on that risk though, when they choose not to

yeah if they choose that

they're not choosing something that we've already pre-established how we feel about it um and they're going with one of those more gray areas that's a risk that they are taking so i don't want to

but the whole like project just be say like a no if we're just if that one you know benefit is disagreed on i

mean that's depends on yours so it could be something where it's a conversation with them and they can make tweaks or it's something where you're just saying no to it. Like they

could end up picking something else instead. Right. Or we could be like, well, you're saying 10% of something, but we don't feel like that's a priority. We want 50 here. I mean, I don't know. And so it could, or they could just be like, yeah, I'll do that. Or I'm going to do this other thing instead.

Yeah. I don't want to close the door completely to that discretion though, because. I do think sometimes cities everywhere do themselves a disservice by trying too hard to predict the future or over design regulations, and you end up removing this element of creativity and flexibility that can result in some of the best projects that you might see. So I would hate for us to show present as a person as a group that is not somewhat open to hearing any of that understanding that the people pursuing that are doing so at their at their risk.

Yeah, and so I think what you're emphasizing is that you generally believe that they know they're taking on that risk.

Well, we would outline it that. To be

talking to them about it. Yeah, that's

where we would massage that a little bit and what are the kind of the grounds for pursuing that avenue.

Thank you.

I would just add that if you're thinking in terms of the council's flexibility on valuing benefits, a variety of types of benefits, the one constraint you do have is you can't say, well, we no longer value workforce affordable housing. If you don't want to value that, if you've got it in the rules and you say that's a benefit, You can't, when someone comes in saying, well, we no longer think that's a benefit, we don't give you credit for that. We get to change the rules. If we don't want to continue to value that, amend the ordinance and take it out.

Like we would need to put in really potentially... a review process on some timeline where we, maybe it's a retreat item or something like, is there anything here that we want to revisit?

Yes, absolutely. Especially because we're going a direction of getting released.

Yeah. Like then all of a sudden we're going to be like, this isn't a priority more because everybody did it. Exactly. And now we have way too much public parking.

But like the workforce housing on a how do you envision, because I don't want to have if somebody is going to build a residential I don't want To have just like four units you know what I mean like how will you. I mean, will you. Again, I don't want people to say we have we have affordable housing and it's only a half of a floor of a 2020 floor building, I don't know.

It's a hard value at this point, honestly. I think the reason we haven't gotten a lot of it is because the value on the units doesn't overcome all other factors of a development project at this point. So that's where we have to value it high enough that even a few units break that barrier of being... That one's going to be something we have to continue to work with. And again, stress it again, setting this zoning up is not going to be the catalyst of projects. It isn't. There's so many other things that are the catalyst, a lot of that being the market that we're in what is the demand for different types of developments. That sort of thing, so this would facilitate it, but even if we valued affordable housing and you put it like 10% of your units and it's valued at tier three. I don't think that we're all of a sudden gonna have a bunch of people building apartment buildings with 50 units of affordable, you know? So I don't think this PUD system is gonna be able to value it enough that it's gonna change our affordable housing market substantially in this alone. Yeah.

Okay. Good. Thank you, Anna. Yeah, thank you. You got everything I feel like was the discussion. Yeah,

it was a good one and we'll be back.

We can take a short break and then add a few minutes. Good evening, everybody. It's Tuesday, February 10th. Welcome to our Clayton City Council meeting. If the city clerk could call the roll.

Council Member Buse. Here. Council Member Patel. Here. Council member Gary Feder. Here. Council Members Waldman. Here. Mayor McAndrew. Here. City Manager David Gipson. Here. City

Council Member Buse. Here. Council Member Patel. Here. Council member Fader. Here. Council Members Waldman. Here. Mayor McAndrew. Here. City Manager Gibson. Here. City

Attorney O'Keefe.

Here. Thank you.

The first part of our meeting is an open forum so if anybody has anybody, anything they'd like to discuss with us on an item and that's not on the agenda. I don't think that's anybody in the audience here. Is there anybody online. Seeing no raised hands and nobody in chambers, we will move to our consent agenda. I will open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments on the consent agenda?

Council Member Buse? I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council Members Gary Feder. Aye. Council member Rick Hummell.

Second. Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council Members Fader. Aye. Council member Hummel.

Aye.

Council members Jeffery Yorg.

Council members York.

Aye.

Councilmember Waldman. Aye. And Mayor

McAndrew. Aye. Thank you. We don't have any old business. We'll move on to new business. And the first is a contract or amended contract with St. Louis County.

Yes, Mayor. The City of Clayton and St. Louis County are parties to a contract for housing of municipal inmates originally executed on February 9th, 2004 and amended most recently in 2023. Under this agreement, St. Louis County provides detention services for individuals arrested or sentenced under the authority of the City of Clayton. On December 16, 2025, St. Louis County Council adopted an ordinance authorizing an increase in the per diem rate charged to municipalities for the housing of inmates at the St. Louis County Justice Center. The approved order increases the daily housing rate for municipal inmates from $50 to $75, effective January 1, 2026. The county has provided an amendment to the existing contract reflecting this rate change. All other terms and conditions of the contract remain unchanged. Staff expect this increase to have a minimal fiscal impact as the city of Clayton rarely houses inmates at the county facility and any stays are short in duration. Staff recommends that the city council approve the ordinance authorizing execution of the contract amendment with St. Louis County.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from anybody on this council? right council member abuse

i introduced bill number 7129 approving an amendment to the contract at st louis county justice center for housing municipal prisoners to be read for the first time by title only

second any discussion mr city attorney

bill number seven one two nine first reading in order it's approving an amendment the contract with st louis county for housing municipal prison

all those in favor aye any opposed council member abuse

i move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7129 on the day of this introduction second

all

those

in favor

aye aye

any opposed the vote passes seven to zero let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent

i introduce bill number 712 9 approving an amendment to the contract with the St. Louis County Justice Center for Housing Municipal Prisoners to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7129, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving an amendment to the contract with St. Louis County justice center for housing municipal prisoners.

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Gary Feder?

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Fader?

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell? Aye. Councilmember Yorg? Aye. CouncilMember Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Councilmember Hummel? Aye. Councilmember Yorg? Aye. CouncilMember Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is a contract for masonry repair, masonry repairs at our historic Hanley house.

Yes, mayor included in the fiscal year 2026 capital improvement budget is $225,000. for exterior repairs at the historic Martin Franklin Hanley House. Staff have prioritized the repair work needed at Hanley House and begun by issuing a request for bids for masonry repair to the foundation of the building. The scope of work includes tuck pointing and overall restoration of approximately 1,200 square feet of interior limestone foundation at the Hanley House. The project is scheduled to commence in March and be completed by May 31st of 2026. On January 30th, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Department held a bid opening for the Hanley House Masonry Repairs Project. Two companies submitted bids for the project, and Western Specialty Contractors submitted the lowest responsive bid. Staff recommends a 5% contingency to correct unknown issues that become apparent during the project. We recommend that the city council approve the ordinance authorizing a contract with Western Specialty Contractors in the amount of $41,865 plus a 5% contingency of $2,090 for the masonry repairs project at historic Martin Franklin Hanley House.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from the council?

I have just one comment. I certainly support continuing to maintain the Hanley House as something we value within our community, but we've had on our to do someday for some time now wanting to look long-term how to keep this sustainable and best managed and talked about how other cities with the different foundations, whatever they use to preserve and best utilize for the community historic buildings. So I just hope that we get to address that soon so that we can continue to do what's best for the city and for that historic site.

Thank you yeah I know the clayton Community foundation is working hard to you know, and I think it's important to that I mean everybody read this in the memo but. There are other repairs that will be needed that will be done later to which I think will be very important so, but I know the claydon Community foundation is making this a priority to right. But yes, and I don't know if you want to add anything. That's what I

was going to say is that I know it's on Alex's list and he continues to research opportunities that we might have like a shared person that would go, or people that would go like from house to house in different municipalities and be able to open that up for interpretive learning.

Right. We've talked before about models, again, what other cities have done. So I assume Alex is looking at that as well. Okay,

great. And there are, I think, descendants of the Hanleys coming to visit. In May. In May. They come from Seattle. So I know there's some festivities planned around their visit. Yes. So, yeah. Any other? I

guess I said a quick question. I know that this was about like 18% of the total budget for this. How does that compare to like the remaining repairs percentage-wise? I guess that's 18% of the total

repairs needed. Right. So our intention, as I had stated, originally we were hoping to package everything together. That didn't work. So our intention was to start with the most things that needed the most repair First, our intention is to next put out the bid for the roofs which we think are the items that need to be repaired next. However, if those are significantly over budget I would say we were going to have to go to our third item on the list so I think we're just going to have to start chipping away at the things that need to be done there, based on the amount of money that we have in the budget. Got it so we're not thinking this will

cover. like the budget will cover all these items?

Or maybe not. Just depends on how some of the bids come in. Obviously, those two that came in were wildly inconsistent. So yeah, we are going to have to look at all that and see how they come in.

But we're probably short. Now, another thing that CCF is looking at is not only how to use Hanley House better than we're using it now, but also improvements on the grounds and how they might be able to participate with that. So I do think we'll get this work done, but it may take a mix of public and private funds.

Right. I know Alex is also looking at some grant funding for that as well. Thank you. You're welcome.

Anyone else? Council Member Buse.

I introduce bill number 7130, approving a contract with Western Specialty Contractors for repairs to the Hanley House to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7130, first reading, an ordinance approving a contract for the Masonry Repairs Project at the historic Martin Franklin Hanley House.

All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Council Member Buse.

I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7130 on the day of its introduction. All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? The vote passes 7-0. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce bill number 7130, approving a contract with Western Specialty Contractors for repairs to the Hanley House to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Discussion? Mr.

City Attorney.

Bill number 7130, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Western Specialty Contractors for the Masonry Repairs Project at the historic Martin Franklin Hanley House.

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Gary Feder?

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Fader?

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell? Aye. Councilmember Jeffery Yorg?

Councilmember Hummel? Aye. Councilmember York?

Aye.

CouncilMember Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. The next item on our agenda is a preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC for the property at 121 South Merrimack.

Yes, School Lot Development LLC intends to renovate the property located at 121 South Marimac Avenue. In connection with this proposed redevelopment, the developer has requested that the city consider certain economic development incentives to ensure that the city does not incur out-of-pocket expenses during the valuation and negotiation phase of the project It is standard practice to require a funding agreement. This agreement establishes the developer's obligation to fund all professional, legal and administrative costs associated with the city's consideration of this request. The proposed ordinance authorizes the city manager to enter into a preliminary funding agreement. Approval of this ordinance will not have a fiscal impact on the general fund. Staff recommends that the city council approve an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC.

Thank you all open the discussion, are there any questions or comments from the audience anyone online. If you have a question online you're welcome to raise your hand, are there any. Questions or comments from the Council.

Just, I want to make sure that I noticed that there's a notation here about the acknowledgement of $55,000 in funds. Is this what we anticipate the whole budget to be? Or is it just the what do we anticipate to occur under

this? So we do believe that this should cover all of it. We've talked to our bond counsel, we've talked to attorneys trying to figure out from an hourly standpoint, what this will end up costing. So $55,000 is the estimate. So we'll receive this money, we'll put it in escrow, we'll pay all of those associated expenses with it, and any money remaining at the end will then return to the developer. But it should be enough to cover it.

I just have one question. Is this, I know a lot of the work that will take place Related to this is contractual services that we get from third parties. Do we track any of our own expenses for internal employees? This will

be all for third party expenses. It's only

third party.

Correct. Okay. For the creation of the documents themselves, which we don't have the capability of doing in-house.

Understand. Thank you.

I just want to confirm, and I think it's been said that this is simply a process to allow us to continue to consider and evaluate whether to move forward on incentives in connection with the project. So that's correct. Once that's done, we will come to some final decision about that. Yes. Thank you.

I introduce bill number 7131, approving preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC for property at 121 South Merrimack Avenue to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7131, first reading in ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC in connection with the proposed redevelopment project at 121 South Merrimack Avenue.

All

those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? Council Member Buse.

I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7131 on the day of its introduction. Seconded.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The vote passes seven to zero. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce bill number 7131, approving preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC for property at 121 South Merrimack Avenue to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City

Attorney.

Bill number 7131, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a preliminary funding agreement with School Lot Development LLC in connection with a proposed redevelopment project at 121 South Merrimack Avenue.

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Gary Feder?

Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Fader?

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell? Aye. Councilmember Jeffery Yorg?

Councilmember Hummel? Aye. Councilmember York?

Aye.

Councilman Waldman? Aye. Mayor

McAndrew? Aye. Thank you so the last item on our agenda is an appeal of the architectural review boards decision for construction of a new single family house at 436 Oakley drive. So just in terms of a process, we will I think our city attorney will just remind everybody. What has been made available to the Council ahead of time, you know all the minutes he'll go through a list of items that we were given as well as you know, a copy of the appeal packet that all of you submitted i'll invite you to make a presentation and then see. there might be member council members that have questions um and i invite you to answer those um and then i'm not sure if there will be anybody online um i'm not sure si there's anybody else online or i'm sure you guys have all figured out one of our council members is online so he might have questions um so that is how we will go forth so um with that if you want to wait for a second Kevin, if you would like to just remind us what we've relied upon and what's been made available for us to assess. Thank you, ma'am.

through the processing of the application, which is the subject of this appeal so that the council will take administrative notice of the municipal code of the city of Clayton as amended to date in total. And in particular, title four of the Clayton Municipal Court regarding land use regulations and especially chapter 400 of the Clayton municipal code, including article three thereof relating to the architectural review board. In addition, the Council will take administrative notice of Sections 400.230 and 400.240 of the Municipal Code relating to appeals of ARB decisions. The Council will also take administrative notice of appellants' initial and subsequent applications for site plan and architectural approval of a new residence at 436 Oakley Drive. All files and records of the Department of Planning and Development Services relating to the appellant's applications in consideration thereof. All documents, testimony and evidence offered at the Plan Commission and ARB proceedings with respect to appellant's application, including the agendas, minutes and visual and audio recordings of the Plan Commission and the ARB meetings regarding appellant's Appellant's appeal filed in this matter and all exhibits attached thereto. Appellant's appealed to the Clayton Board of Adjustment regarding the same allegations as raised in ground number two of the appeal down before the council. And finally, the council will take administrative notice of the staff reports filed with the Plan Commission and ARB with respect to appellant's applications and filed with the council with respect to this appeal. Thank you, ma'am.

Thanks, Kevin. So we do have new speaker time limits, but you're like an applicant. So when an applicant presents to us on a new project, there aren't any time limits. But if somebody were to pop in online, there would be some time limits related to people just speaking in support. But as the applicant, you don't have any time limits or the appellant really. But given all the things that we had, have been able to review i would just you know you don't necessarily have to repeat everything that has been given to us but yeah

good evening push the button at the bottom

And then once it turns green, then I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat that. All

right. Let's try that again. Good evening. Otherwise

the recording and the people online can't hear. Understood. Thank

you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Clayton City Council. My name is Stephen L. Kling Jr., and I'm an attorney with Jenkins & Kling PC, offices at 150 North Merrimack Avenue, Clayton, Missouri, 63105. And I'm here tonight on behalf of AMJNC LLC, which is the owner of the property that's subject to the appeal, the manager of the property, and its agent is Dr. Tom Lucas, who's also here tonight. Before I get to the two appeal matters, I do want to make a couple comments preliminarily. One, with respect to the staff report, there's a suggestion that the second appeal, with respect to whether or not the 60-day time limit was in effect or not, should go to the Board of Adjustment. I will suggest strongly to you that it should not. The provision of your code that says those decisions go to the Board Of Adjustment apply only to decisions for building officials and administrative officials. The city attorney is not an administrative official. He has no decision-making power. He is not an administrative service that's identified in your charter. Your charter goes on to say that the city attorney's position is advisory only, which is consistent with the Missouri statute section 98.340. So it's only advisory. You can't give make decisions. The advice he gave to the ARB was obviously taken by the ARB because they didn't act to the contrary on it. and he was merely advising the ARB with respect to his opinion. Since your code has a specific provision that ARB decisions are appealed to this body, and the code also says the specific governs over the general, then obviously our position is that both of these appeals should be heard by you all tonight. So on to the appeals, there are two appeals tonight briefly. The first one, there were two plans that were filed during the architectural review board. I think for simplicity, unless anyone has any questions, I'll refer to them as to the brick exterior plan which is the second plan and the stone exterior plan which was the first plan. So I'm gonna take up the second plan first. The applicant's position is that the decision to deny that by the ARB was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. And really what was at issue with respect to that particular plan was the height of the building. There was a concern that the building was too high and that it should be reduced two feet which the applicant was unwilling to do. The applicant did provide as part of the record all sorts of pictures of properties in the neighborhood The staff recommended approval of the plan. The height of the building complies with the code, so there wasn't a request for something outside of what the code permits. The height issue didn't come up earlier, it only came up in connection with the last hearing. So it was a little bit of a surprise. There were no studies, no reports, no extrinsic evidence saying why that additional two feet was making the building incompatible with the neighborhood. And in support of that, we filed, in connection with the appeal, letters from two architects indicating That they believe it is compatible with the neighborhood together with some letters from them some neighbors I will note, no one showed up to speak in opposition to that plan at the hearing. So it's our position that oh and there's also a site plan drawing that we submitted in there, so you could actually see. The site plan of the roof, it's part of the appeal package. So we feel that the building is compatible. The code section has goals and of which are to be looked at by the ARB. They are not conditions or criteria. And our position is that this particular building plan, the brick exterior plan, if you will, is compatible with the neighborhood. I guess before I go on to the second plan, would you like to ask any questions or would you rather wait until I finish? That is the pleasure of the council. Why don't we just wait until you're finished? That's fine, thank you. With respect to what I'll call the Stone Plan, which was the first plan, it is applicant's position that this plan was submitted by, submitted on, excuse me, This plan was submitted before November 3rd. It was actually first heard on November 3rd, 2025. Your code section says that if the plan is not denied within 60 days after its first submittal, it's deemed approved. It is applicant's position. That plan was never denied. There is an exception if there's a written agreement for an extension. My client never signed a written agreement that I am aware of, and I will submit to you that that original plan still has not been denied. So even if there's an argument that it extended to January 5th, here we are well more than 60 days And there's been no decision denying that original plan, which I refer to as the stone plan. So by operation of law, our opinion is that that plan is approved. I would like, in light of the staff report and my suggestions with respect to the issue of whether or not the second appeal should go to the Board of Adjustment, that the city charter be made a part of the record because I cited some charter provisions here tonight. Also, I do understand that there were two letters that came in from residents after we filed our appeal and support of this project in addition to the ones we filed with our appeal package. And I would request that those also be added to the record of this proceeding. All right, happy to answer any questions.

Does anyone have any questions? Yeah, can I ask one question?

At the ARB hearing, there was discussion of substantial change, whether lowering it by the requested two feet would be a substantial change. And then you just said that your client was not willing to consider reducing the height. Is that right? Can you just clarify that?

At that hearing, yes. I mean, we have looked at some alternatives since then, but at that hearing, that is correct.

At that hearing, it's correct

that? My client was unwilling to reduce it by two feet.

Council Member Patel, do you have any questions?

Not at the moment. Thank you.

Just a curiosity. So my understanding is that at the initial meeting, the ARB voted to continue to the next meeting and then your client then resubmitted a new plan. So I guess what I'm wondering is, I heard what you said regarding the stone plan, but what I'm wondering, is that a plan that you want to move forward with or is it the brick plan that you wanna move forward with or you wanna move forward both plans?

We are appealing both decisions. Obviously, there might be an effect where if you approve the brick plan that we would withdraw the stone plan.

Does your client have a preference for one plan or the other?

I believe he would prefer the brick plan. I think that was the one that was generally agreeable, other than the height issue. As I said, there may be some ability to reduce the roof a little bit without, what my client's concerned with is the interior heights. There may be some options to possibly mitigate that a little bit. I don't know that it can be done entirely, but yes, he wants the height. He believes that's important for not only for his living there, but for saleability.

Mr. Lucas, do you have anything to add? Oh, I'm sorry, Jeff. I didn't see your hand. Go ahead. Do you have questions for the appellant?

Yeah, I just put it up. So I'm just clarifying. So your client would be open to addressing some of the visual external height issues. Maybe not to the extent that the board and you were talking about initially, but it sounds like he's open to that down the line. Is that correct?

My understanding, and I'll look to Mr. Lucas to correct me, but since the appeal was filed, we've obviously talked with architects looking for possible ways to mitigate some of this, and my understanding is that we can, without compromising the interior, we could reduce part of the roof line so that the total height of the building could come down. In other words, the pitch of the roof could be reduced. There may be some issues on materials that we use for the roof that we'd have to work through, but you aren't going to see the roof anyway. So yes, that is a possibility, yes.

Okay. Which from my understanding, watching it is, I think it sounds like they were talking about the heights of the floors, but ultimately they were getting at the height of the visualness outside. So that's why I wanted to kind of provide some clarity there. on exactly kind of where dr lucas was at at the point moment so thank you that was the only question i had thanks mayor

i don't see anybody online there's nobody else here So if you are finished with your initial presentation, I guess I'd like to suggest that we, I think there's some legal questions that we'd like to discuss with our attorney.

May I make an inquiry first, Mr. Kling? First of all, your request that the city charter be taken in administrative notice is fine. And the two letters, I don't know where they are. I don't know. I have copies here. I can submit them. They should have been filed with the city clerk, I believe. If you make sure you give them to Ms. Frazier, that would be the city clerk. That would be fine. Okay. We'll take administrative notice of that as well. And I noticed under the city's ordinance, the city council sitting as the appellate body for the architectural review board has authority to affirm, reverse, or modify the ARB decision under appeal. If there is a modification you want the council to consider, I suggest it is incumbent to get that modification in the record and before the council's ASAP. I'm sorry, describing it seriously.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not sure. I need my client to describe that, but I think he can describe the roof potential modification. Well, it's the plan. It's

not someone's opinion of it or what they think. I can't submit a plan tonight, obviously. Do you want the opportunity to do that?

I'd kind of like to know what...

I think what he's suggesting,

well. If you could come up, because I'm sorry, otherwise, yeah, otherwise Jeff

can't. I'm Tom Lucas from 8010 Pershing. I guess I would like to know what the city council thinks about this. You know, the one option that's come up that might be done would basically be to change the pitch of the roof, which would probably then mandate that that roof be a steel roof instead of an asphalt roof. But in a way, it's sort of a moot point because probably that roof, as was discussed in the ARB, even the way it is isn't even gonna be seen. I don't know what happened. People got hung up. They were talking about interior heights when they're... I don't really understand how that's in the jurisdiction of the ARB. They're looking at the outside of the building. And if they're talking about the exterior heights and then the roof, and then they're saying, well, you're probably not even going to see the roof. Well, if they're hung up on it and want to bring it down, I can make a more expensive roof out of steel that you're still not going to see if they want a couple feet shorter roof. I could do that if that's what the city council would think would be needed. But I think it kind of makes a more expensive house for maybe no practical purpose other than satisfying someone who says they want the house two feet shorter.

Mr. Lucas, we're not in a position to advise you what the council's opinion is. I was inquiring with your lawyer, if you want the council to consider a modification, you need to tell us what that is. Well, no, I

think they asked him about it. So

it sounds like you would ultimately like us to make a decision on the appeal before us. Yeah,

and then I can come back again if it says, no, we're not approving it. I don't even know what else. If you just say yes or no, or you make other comments, I don't know how that works. May I

ask a question?

Sure.

And this is for the city attorney, I think. So my not my like limited exposure to the plan commission and arb has been that there are sometimes approvals of things that are not perfectly specked out on a plan document but with some relative clarity of the condition like approve with the following condition to be verified by staff upon submission of compliant plans or something. That's how I've understood that. So if we have the ability to approve, reject, or modify, I'm interested in how our ability may be different from what I've witnessed prior.

The appellant has framed the question posed to the council. That's their prerogative. And that question is to affirm, modify or reverse the ARB's decision. I would not speculate as to how the council might reach some judgment of a modification. I don't think it is the council's obligation to create a modification. And what I was trying to do is to get the appellant to tell us if they want you to consider a modification or want you to consider the plan that was ruled on by the ARB. And if they want you consider a modification, I think we need to work with counsel on how that is going to occur.

Can I ask, having served on the plan commission in the past in the ARB, I agree with Mr. O'Keefe's point because I think what the plan commission does, it approves a specific plan that is in front of it that the staff has looked at. There's actually a specific drawing, drawings, renderings. In front of the Commission members, and I think Mr. O'Keefe's point is that I understand both Mr. Kling and Mr. Lucas are saying, well, we could change the pitch of the roof, et cetera. But until we know what that looks like, if we're going to sort of substitute ourselves now for the ARB in this modification process, which is authorized, we need to see what it looks like. And we can't say, well, as long as the staff thinks that they kind of did what we thought they were going to do, that doesn't cut it.

Mr. Kling, did you want to respond?

Yeah, I disagree a little bit with Mr. O'Keefe. It won't be the first time that we've disagreed. But I believe that your code gives you the authority to modify. You may choose not to do it, but you have the authority to modify it however you think is appropriate. I don't disagree that, you know, maybe there's some details here. I mean, we were just this is a recent development in terms of the possibility of having some sort of compromised position. But I do want to state that I believe you have the power to, you know, it's very clear that it says that's a power that you have.

With all due respect, Mr. Kling, if you want the council to consider a modified plan, I think it's incumbent upon you to present what that plan is going to be. If you don't wish to do that, that's okay. I just would suggest to you that if there's plan C, somebody's going to have to draft it and present it, and I don't think it's going to be the city council.

Two minutes. Council Member Waldman, I think this might be a good time for us to have some legal discussions with our attorney. I know you have the, would you mind reading that and see if there's a majority of us in agreement to do that? No.

I move that the City Council hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by Section 610.021, 1, 2, and 3, revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate, and or personnel negotiation of contract pursuant to Section 610.0112 RSMO. and or proprietary information pursuant to section 610.02115, and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to sections 610.0 2118 and 19 RSMO.

Mr. O'Keefe? One second. Just one. I'm sorry. Yep. So we have a second. Council Member Buse? Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Are we adjourning and closing discussion? I

mean, like

when we're just yeah, let's just decide. Yeah,

you can have the vote now and conduct a closed meeting at the time when you're considerate appropriate.

Okay, so we could still allow the appellant and his counsel to speak. Okay, then I say yes.

Aye.

Aye. Council Member Rick Hummell? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. I'm sorry, Council Member Jeffery Yorg?

Aye. Council Member Hummel? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. I'm sorry, Council Member York?

Aye. Thank you. Aye. So we will go into closed session. As I mentioned to you beforehand, you're welcome to wait, but we're not adjourning our meeting right now, so we will come back in. Mr.

Lucas asked a question of Mr. O'Keefe because I don't seem to be able to answer it for him. I'm sorry? Can Mr. Lucas ask a question of Mr. O'Keefe because I can't seem to be able to answer it for him to his satisfaction.

I'm not sure I can either. Okay.

Sure, go ahead, Tom.

I was also on the understanding that this council could modify if they wanted to. I was hoping they wouldn't modify them. They'd just say, yeah, you came here to appeal. It's good. But if they had the option to modify, it sounds like that's going to be discouraged even though it might be allowed. If I say, well, let's continue to next time and I'll come back with plans. When I submit plans to be reconsidered, can I submit them to be considered at the same time as those instead of saying, okay, forget the ones that I brought to this meeting tonight. And instead we're gonna look at the one with the lower pitch on it. Can I say, hey, I'd like the council to look at both of these. Can that happen? Can you look at two sets of plans at the same

meeting? I think my understanding is that because we don't have concrete plans in front of us, Tom, that might be hard for us right now.

Right.

But why don't you let us? We've made a decision to go into closed section to discuss some of these legal matters, so why don't you just let us do that?

Okay.

And then we will come back to you.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Thanks.

Good evening. We are back from our recess where we had a closed session. Mr. City Attorney, if you could.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. In consultation with the attorney for the appellant, I understand that appellant wishes to have the opportunity to submit a revised plan which would address the height of the building through changing the roof pitch and changing the roofing materials, and would like the opportunity for the architectural review board to consider those revisions. So by consent of the applicant, the appellant, I recommend that the council move to take the appeal currently before the council under submission on the record established thus far. to suspend further consideration of the appeal and allow the appellant to submit a revised plan for consideration by the ARB as to building height, roof pitch, and roofing materials, and any other additional adjustments that the applicant may wish to make. Excuse me, Mr. Kling, have I stated the situation correctly?

Yes, it would be in suspension while that proceeding is going on. The only other thing I'd ask is I think you're all aware we filed a precautionary appeal with the Board of Adjustment and maybe if that could be held off to be scheduled while all this is going on so we don't spend more time on this. And I appreciate your patience.

Yep.

We'll

take that as a request and ask that you send an email to the planning department to do that because it's not really up to the council to schedule the Board of Adjustment proceedings, but understood and agreed with no objection. I will do that. So if it pleases the council, a motion to the effect I stated in terms of taking the matter under submission and suspending it pending consideration of a revised plan by the ARB would be in order.

So moved. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Klink. Yep. Emmett?

Thank you.

Good to see

you, Steve.

We've come to the end of our meeting. If anybody, we've been here for a little bit, but if anybody has something that they'd appreciate telling us, otherwise I will take a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.