January 20, 2015 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

JANUARY 20, 2015

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met upon the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Craig Owens, City Manager Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Jim Liberman Ron Reim Sally Cohn Josh Corson

Absent: None

Also Present: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Louis Clayton, Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that everyone who wishes to address the Commission to step up to the podium and speak loudly and clearly and to be sure that the green light on the microphone is on for proper recording. He also asked that all cell phone ringers be muted and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

MINUTES

The minutes of the January 5, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. Sally Cohn noted a needed correction in the following paragraph on Page 6: “Sally Cohn noted that the pergola stops several feet inside the planter and suggested bringing the planter out to make it seem more integrated; she stated that this seems like an afterthought and not well thought out.” The sentence should read: “Sally Cohn noted that the pergola stops several feet inside the planter and suggested bringing the pergola out to make it seem more integrated; she stated that this seems like an afterthought and not well thought out.” The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.

2 SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 142 NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Lauren Strutman, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Denny Donnelly, seller, Dean Tiber, contractor and David Volz, civil engineer, were also in attendance.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the site plan associated with the proposed construction of a new 4,422-square-foot single-family residence (not including the basement) with a below grade, front-loading garage. The height of the proposed residence is +/- 31-feet 7.9-inches as measured from the average existing grade to mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located on the north side of the residence and screened by a wood frame lattice fence. Trash will be stored in a 52-square-foot trash enclosure located beneath the front porch adjacent to the garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 0 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 46.8 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The proposed impervious coverage for the required front yard is 49.3 percent, which exceeds the allowable 45 percent. In instances where an applicant can demonstrate just cause, the Plan Commission has the authority to approve a modification of up to an additional 5 percent of the impervious coverage requirements. According to the applicant, the proposed project exceeds the allowable front yard impervious coverage because the walkway extends from the front steps of the house to the public sidewalk, rather than to the driveway because the driveway has a 12 percent slope. Staff is of the opinion that the requested front yard coverage modification is relatively minor and that the applicant has demonstrated just cause. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.32 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.48 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.16 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts on the south, east, and north sides of the home will be piped to a dry well in the rear yard. The two downspouts on the front of the home and the trench drain at the garage will be piped to two pop-up bubblers in the front yard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds all aspects of the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover suited for this region. There aren’t any trees currently on the site, and the plan proposes 28-caliper-inches of new deciduous trees including Dragon Lady Holly, Columnar English Oak, Heritage River Birch, Thundercloud Plum, and Prairie Fire Crabapple. Two existing street trees measuring 24-caliper-inches each may be impacted during construction, and are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site, and recommends that a single tree protection fence enclosure be used around the existing street trees instead of two separate enclosures as shown on the plans. According to the applicant, the seller of the subject property is discussing a resolution with the neighbor to the north regarding an existing metal fence that encroaches onto the subject property. The applicant intends to remove the existing fence so that the construction fence can be erected on the lot line, and after construction, the metal fence will be relocated on the lot line. The site and landscape plan should be revised accordingly once a resolution has been met. The site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department. Exterior

3 lighting is proposed at all doors and the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or below. Susan stated that the proposed home is compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan provides for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover that is suitable for the area. The height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District, and that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant revise the site and landscape plans to show a single tree protection fence enclosure around the existing street trees, and the proposed relocation of the existing metal fence, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Ms. Strutman presented the proposed site plan to the members. She introduced the seller, civil engineer and builder to the members; noting that they are available to answer questions if needed. She stated the house is pretty straightforward, with a front entry tuck-under garage. She noted the locations of the walkway (and the reason for the requested increase in front yard coverage), trash area and HVAC units. The proposed landscape plan was also presented.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is nice to see the narrow driveway at the street. He asked if the vehicles will be able to be maneuvered.

Mr. Volz replied “yes”; noting the preservation of the two street trees.

Ms. Strutman commented that the house was pushed further back on the lot.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for an explanation of the drainage.

Mr. Volz indicated that the site now flows south to north; he stated that the amount of runoff to the street will be reduced by almost half of what exists today. He noted a large portion of the yard and house will drain to the drywell.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if this will improve the situation for the property to the north.

Mr. Volz replied “yes; by almost half.”

Jim Liberman asked if the house to the north had water issues.

Mr. Volz indicated that he did not believe so; that mostly, the water that ran onto their property was from their site, which will lessen with the drywell.

Ron Reim asked how long the lot has been vacant.

Mr. Donnelly replied “about 12 years”. He added that he acquired the property in 1980 and that he’s been a Clayton resident since 1976; living at 141 Linden Avenue since 1969. He stated

4 that he rented out the subject property for 15-20 years after which he demolished the structure. He added that he has come to a point in his life where he needs to move on.

Mark Winings asked why there is a specific coverage regulation for front yards.

Louis Clayton indicated that although the Code does not specify (except in the UDD), it is likely to maintain open green space.

Jim Liberman asked about the generator.

Mr. Volz stated that it has a 2 hour minimum run time.

Mr. Tiber stated that they don’t yet have the specs, but it is a fairly small piece of equipment.

Josh Corson asked where the generator will be placed on the lot.

Ms. Strutman stated that they did not know yet.

Sally Cohn asked about the possibility of adding an arbor or something across the garage to add the illusion of greenery.

Ms. Strutman stated that she’s sure the owners will put something on the front garage terrace.

Sally Cohn asked what happens to the evergreen hedge on the north side of the house.

Mr. Donnelly indicated that he believes that’s the area being discussed with the neighbor and that he believes they will be removed and replaced with new plantings once construction is complete.

Ron Reim asked the applicant if there would be a problem implementing a condition of approval.

Sally Cohn noted a reference made on the plans and asked if they could avoid trenching.

Mr. Volz stated those two street trees are critical and that to protect those two trees, the water line will be bored.

Sally Cohn asked about the gas and sanitary lines.

5 Mr. Volz indicated that because of the direct connection, those lines won’t be bored. He reminded everyone that normally new construction also involves demolition of an existing structure which is not the case here.

Sally Cohn commented that construction is tough on trees.

Mark Winings read an e-mail message from John and Jan Frank, of 144 North Bemiston which states: “We are concerned that the neighbors who live within 200 ft. of the building have not gotten sufficient notice. There are safety concerns with the driveway slope regarding pedestrians on the sidewalk. The trees on the north side of the lot are ours and we will not allow the roots to be pruned. The height and size of the building are a concern for the neighboring homes (for shade and lot size). We as neighbors hope to get another chance in public to air our concerns. Thank you for your understanding and concern with this matter-John and Jan Frank.”

Mr. Volz showed the limits of their disturbance on the site plan; noting it is their goal to stay away from their property. He added that not much grading will take place and none in the back.

Ms. Strutman stated that they lowered the house, heated the driveway and stair-stepped the house.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that because there is no basement below the screened porch, there will be minimal excavating.

Ms. Strutman concurred.

A discussion regarding the trees on the north side of the property ensued. Mr. Corcoran stated that he spoke with Baxter Gardens and that they can easily be removed, stored and replanted.

Kevin Stillman, property owner to the south, addressed the members and staff by stating that it would be nice to get more than one week’s notice. He voiced his concern with the height of the structure and questioned the location of the HVAC units.

Louis Clayton stated that the agenda is set one week prior to the meeting date and that’s when it is mailed.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the HVAC units are shown on the north side.

Mr. Stillman asked about the possibility of water drainage onto his property.

Mr. Volz stated there will be no water flowing onto his property. He explained the drainage system to him.

6 Mr. Stillman asked if a construction fence will be put up around the entire property.

Mr. Volz relied “yes”.

David Henson, 140 North Bemiston Avenue, asked for a comparison in height.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that height will be addressed during architectural review.

Ron Reim questions how the two property owners will work out their issues.

Being no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the design and materials associated with the proposed construction of a new 4,422-square-foot single-family residence (not including the basement) with a below grade, front-loading garage. The height of the proposed residence is +/- 31-feet 7.9-inches as measured from the average existing grade to mean height of the roof. Properties in Old Town are diverse in terms of mass, height, and materials. The basic massing of the proposed home is articulated on all sides with windows, front and rear porches, accent materials, and variations in roof forms. The 1.5-story home to the north (144 North Bemiston Avenue) is +/- 10 feet shorter than the proposed home. The 2-story multi-family building to the south (138 North Bemiston Avenue) was built in 1979 and is +/- 7.5 feet shorter than the proposed home. While the proposed home is taller than the adjacent existing structures, it is +/- 3.3 feet shorter than permitted by the Zoning Regulations. The primary building material is mixed red brick with stucco accents. The proposed roof is clad in architectural asphalt shingles, slate grey in color. Black casement windows are proposed. An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed and will lead to a below grade, front-entry garage. Brick retaining walls will be located on both sides of the driveway. Two louvered-style garage doors, black in color, are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines and staff’s opinion is that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures and therefore, recommends approval as submitted.

Ms. Strutman presented a color rendering to the members; noting that it is a traditional red brick home. She stated that the home does not have a steep roof pitch. Samples of the red brick (mixed), window (clad wood black), stone (to be used around the doors and windows), roofing material (gray architectural shingles slate color) and stucco (accent material) were presented.

Sally Cohn referred to a letter written by Helen DiFate addressed to the Commission (copy provided previously to the members). The letter reads: “I am sorry I am unable to attend your

7 January 20 meeting. I have reviewed online the submitted materials as well as the staff analyses and recommendations. In 38 years at 131 North Bemiston I have seen a lot of change and also contributed to the change as the architect of 127-129 North Bemiston. The addition of another home on the block is welcomed. However, the height of the new home relative to the adjacent homes concerns me. Could the west facing gable roof (above the second floor) become a hip roof? That would visually reduce the height as the roof plane recedes away from the viewer and the darker color of roof material would be less imposing. The actual height of the home would not change, only the visual perception. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Helen DiFate”.

Jim Liberman asked if we allow people to send in letters during the meetings.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that public comments are received and that a decision was made to allow them.

At this time, Mark Winings read an e-mail he just received from Jill Evans Petzall, who expresses concern about the driveway slope and height and mass of the home.

Ms. Strutman indicated that they carefully considered the front elevation and there is only a small amount of stucco in the gable and the owners prefer not to change that. With regard to the height, Ms. Strutman noted that at 31-feet, 7 ½-inches, they are 3-foot, 4-inches under the allowable height for this zoning district. Pictures of other area homes/properties where they believe vehicles are backed out of the driveway onto the street were shown; she noted their driveway will be heated. Ms. Strutman then referred to the fact that they are also under the maximum allowable coverage at 46%, where 55% is permitted.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the front garage features standard design for the area.

Ms. Strutman agreed.

Jim Liberman noted that the height of the house is under the threshold.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they would consider changing the roof to a hip roof to provide visual relief, adding that he did not believe that is unreasonable.

Mr. Corcoran stated that the gable is lower than the peak roof behind it and that they picked features from homes on Central that they liked.

Sally Cohn suggested a different color gable.

Ms. Strutman indicated that it is not white; it’s a cream, off-white color.

8 Sally Cohn commented that it still pops out.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he understands Ms. DiFate’s comments and that a hip roof would lower the “visual appearance” of the house somewhat, but doing that would almost destroy the character of the home. He complimented the fact that the north and south elevations (sides) of the home are not blank brick walls.

Being no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 234 NORTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD

Paul Doerner, project architect, Mike Rechan, builder and John Faulk, civil engineer, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the site plan associated with the proposed construction of a 4,352-square-foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence. The 8,625-square-foot R-4 zoned site is located on the southeast corner of North Brentwood Boulevard and Kingsbury Boulevard. The Board of Aldermen approved a subdivision of the property into three individual lots on January 14, 2014. On March 5, 2014 and May 7, 2014, the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved plans for two new single-family homes on the two southernmost lots which are currently under construction. This request is a proposal to develop the northernmost lot. The height of the proposed residence is 32-feet 1-inch as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. A 495-square-foot, 20- foot tall detached garage is proposed with access from Kingsbury Boulevard. The plans show the HVAC units located at the south side of the home and screened by an 8-foot tall privacy fence. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located adjacent to the detached garage and will be screened by a wood gate. The impervious coverage on site prior to the demolition of the previous structure was 57.83 percent. The plans decrease the impervious coverage to 54.35 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The proposed impervious coverage for the required front yard is 19.22 percent, which is below the allowable 45 percent. The storm water runoff prior to the demolition of the previous structure, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, was 0.547 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.535 CFS, which represents a decrease in 0.012 CFS, and therefore storm water mitigation is not required. Downspouts will be piped to two pop-up bubblers in the front yard along Brentwood Boulevard, and to three pop-bubblers in the front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds it acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover suited for this region. Two exiting trees totaling 56-caliper inches will be removed which requires onsite replacement. The landscape plan proposes 57-caliper-inches of new deciduous trees on site including Columnar Hornbeam, Bloodgood Japanese Maple, and October Glory Red Maple. Two existing street trees will remain. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are

9 suitable for the site and that the existing street trees to remain are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. Exterior lighting is proposed at the front doors, garage doors and rear doors, and will not exceed 75 watts. Susan stated that the proposed home is compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan provides for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover that is suitable for the area. Additionally, the height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-4 District and the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and staff recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Faulk indicated that drainage will be handled via three bubblers along Kingsbury Boulevard and two along Brentwood Boulevard. He noted that the project results in a reduction of impervious coverage.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this is the highest of the three (divided) lots. He asked Mr. Faulk to address water flow from this lot onto the lot to the south that is now being developed.

Mr. Faulk stated that water will be piped to the pop-up emitters and water sheets in all directions.

Ron Reim asked the location of the nearest inlet.

Mr. Faulk indicated that he did not know the location of the nearest inlet, noting that all houses’ gutters drain to the street. He stated that water will be forced to the gutter line and rise to meet the sidewalk; water should not flow onto the driveway of the property to the south. He noted that the driveway is higher than the street.

Sally Cohn referred to the note on the plan regarding boring. She asked if it will be boring or trenching, noting that most of the utilities are there; sanitary line (being constructed now) and the gas line (next to tree).

Mr. Rechan stated that he doesn’t think it will be an issue as they are coming in at an angle.

Jim Liberman asked about the pool.

Mr. Faulk stated that the pool is one foot higher than the surrounding grade.

Jim Liberman asked where the pool equipment is located.

Mr. Faulk stated it’s on the back corner of the lot.

Ron Reim asked if the pool equipment will be screened.

10 Louis Clayton replied “yes”, just as the HVAC equipment will be screened; behind an 8- foot privacy fence.

Sally Cohn asked if there is an apartment above the garage.

Mr. Doerner indicated that it is only studio space; not an apartment.

Ron Reim asked if there will be a bathroom.

Mr. Doerner indicated that there would be no bathroom.

Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan as submitted. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request to review the design and materials associated with the proposed construction of a 4,352-square-foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence. The height of the proposed residence is 32-feet 1-inch as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. A 495-square-foot, 20-foot tall detached garage is proposed with access from Kingsbury Boulevard. Susan noted that properties in Old Town are diverse in terms of mass, height, and materials. The proposed home has a symmetrical design, and the massing is articulated on all sides with windows, patios, accent materials, and variations in roof forms. The proposed home is approximately the same height as the home under construction to the south. The primary building material is gray brick with minor stone accents. The roof is clad in asphalt shingles, slate in color. Black double-hung clad windows are proposed. An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed off Kingsbury Boulevard that will lead to a 495-square-foot, 20- foot tall detached garage with a black paneled garage door. The garage materials match the home. No retaining walls are proposed as part of this project. An 8-foot tall wood privacy fence is proposed in the rear yard. The top two feet of the fence will be lattice. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-4 District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed home is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Doerner presented a color rendering to the members. Elevation drawings were also presented. He noted the two nice front elevations as this is a corner lot.

Samples of the proposed roof (black asphalt shingles), painted brick (teal), stone and a color sample of the cladding were presented.

Jim Liberman commented that it is a good-looking, huge home. He asked about energy conservation.

11

Mr. Rechan stated that they will be using an excellent grade of windows and insulation, but they don’t plan on using solar panels.

Jim Liberman asked if they are considering a geo-thermal unit.

Mr. Rechan replied “no”; they plan to use a Lennox high efficiency unit.

Jim Liberman asked if the property is sold.

Mr. Rechan replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he had doubts at first when the three lots were created but all three houses are very elegant and diverse; not carbon copies of each other. He’s very happy with the result.

Sally Cohn agreed.

Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – REVISION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 10 EAST BRENTMOOR PARK

David Williams, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the design and materials associated with proposed revisions to previously approved plans. The 1.76-acre property is located in the Brentmoor Park Subdivision and has a zoning designation of R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District. On July 1, 2013, the Architectural Review Board approved the design and materials associated with proposed exterior alterations and construction of multiple additions, a 394-square-foot porch and portico and an 895-square-foot attached garage. On August 15, 2013, a building permit was issued for the project and on September 17, 2013, an amendment to the building permit was approved administratively to allow the existing home to be torn down and reconstructed entirely per the approved plans. The home is currently under construction. The applicant now proposes changes from the original approved plans, which require approval from the Architectural Review Board. The proposed changes are summarized below. The applicant is proposing the following amendments to the design and materials that were approved by the Architectural Review Board on July 1, 2013:

1. Remove the existing asphalt driveway and pool house on the northwest corner of the lot. 2. Construct a 660-square-foot, 3-car detached garage and exposed aggregate driveway. The garage will be +/- 18.5 feet tall as measured from grade to the peak of the roof. The primary

12 building material is stucco, and the roof will be clade with clay tile. Three custom wood plank garage doors are proposed. The design and materials of the garage will match the home. 3. Remove the existing pool and terrace. 4. Construct a 648-square-foot in ground pool and a cabana which includes a trellis covered wood deck, bathroom, kitchenette, and outdoor hot tub/spa. 5. Construct a new wood trellis at the tennis court.

All other aspects of the project remain the same. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments are consistent with the other features of the previously approved design. Brentmoor Park Trustee approval has been submitted and staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant amend their building permit to reflect all approved changes.

Mr. Williams indicated that the home is currently under construction, noting that the entire house was demolished and is being rebuilt. He stated that the owners want to remove the existing 720 square foot pool house and asphalt drive. He noted that the existing pool and terraces are not really properly oriented so the owners want to install new ones in a new location.

Sally Cohn asked if the new garage will be able to be accessed from the front.

Mr. Williams replied “no”; adding that the primary home has an attached garage.

Jim Liberman asked who the previous architect was for this project.

Mr. Williams replied “Paul Fendler”.

Mark Winings commented that the original application preceded his appointment to this Board.

Mr. Williams presented a sample of the proposed clay tile roofing material, stucco and windows, noting that everything will match. He stated that the house is Spanish Santa Barbara style.

Sally Cohn commented that the pool house is a nice, modern structure which this Board doesn’t see very often.

Being no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Sally Cohn and unanimously approved by the Board.

*******************************************************************************

13

Sally Cohn referred to the nice article that was in the January 11th edition of the New York Times about parklets. She asked where they will be.

City Manager Owens indicated that the City budgeted for the construction of one and wants to give it a try (on Central Avenue); a lot of proposals came in and a company from California was chosen. He stated that the City is looking for a simple design and expects installation in the spring.

Sally Cohn asked if the City is afraid of “funky” as that’s a way to attract young people. She asked the cost of the parklet.

City Manager Owens replied “$28,000”, noting that it would be movable.

Jim Liberman asked if the City approved the project at the northwest corner of Gay and Maryland Avenues.

Louis Clayton stated that the use is approved; the ARB only had to review the signage, which was approved.

Mark Winings commented that he’s not sure how he feels about receiving for the record written comments from people who don’t come to these meetings.

Susan Istenes stated that the comments could be directed to staff for a summary to be provided by staff or the comments could simply be noted and summarized for the record as the members are not obligated to read comments in their entirety.

Mark Winings stated that he feels uncomfortable/awkward reading comments during the meeting that he receives and although public input is a benefit, he feels comments made in person at the meeting holds more weight.

Jim Liberman stated that he feels that comments that are made once the meeting begins shouldn’t be accepted.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that this is a good discussion to have. He indicated that when Helen DiFate called him, he advised her to send her comments to City staff; he agreed that the doors should close at 5:30 like Jim said.

Susan Istenes informed the members that the first meeting in February is cancelled due to the lack of agenda items and that a Request For Proposal (RFP) has been posted for architectural services on contract.

Being no further business this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

14 ______________________________ Recording Secretary