January 18, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld.

City Manager David Gipson.

City Manager David Gibson.

Helen DiFate. Here. Bob Denlow.

Helen DeFate. Here. Bob Denlo.

Here.

Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

George Hedich. Ira Berkowitz.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Yes, Anissa's on vacation.

All right. So the subject property is 8416 Kingsbury Boulevard. And on December 6, 2021, the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved the construction of a two-story 4,809 square foot single family residence. Due to a buyer purchasing the home, the applicant has proposed several revisions to the original design, which was approved by the ARB. and the majority of the revisions occur on the front elevation, and there are some minor changes to the site plan. The revisions include, excuse me, on the front elevation of the home, the gables and the two-story box bay window has been removed. On the main level, four windows have been replaced with French doors with ornamental guardrails. On the upper level, the style of the windows has changed. The covered porch now extends five feet over the front yard setback with an ornamental rail above the porch, and the archway at the door has been squared to match the squaring of the roofline. On the right elevation, the walkout has been extended. On the rear elevation, the four-panel swinging glass door has been changed to a four-panel sliding glass door, and the three-wide window has been changed to four-wide window. All grille patterns have been changed to horizontal mullions only. The roofs of the master bedroom and breakfast room have been changed to gable roof. To accommodate the architectural changes, a small number of modifications have been made to the site plan. The first is a retaining wall, which has been added to accompany the side entry to the basement. And a French drain is proposed due to the difficulty of draining the new side entry. Second, the trash enclosure, formerly on the west side of the rear driveway, has been moved to a location beneath the rear deck stairs And third, the drywall has been relocated slightly east and south. In terms of the building materials, they haven't changed from the design formerly presented to the architectural review board. The house continues to utilize white painted brick as the primary building material, but the fiber cement panels that clad the box bay window have been removed. Stone surrounds the archway at the entry to the front door of the home. On the left and right elevations, the windows feature brick soldier course rather than the stone headers on the front elevation. The left and rear elevations also include the use of fiber cement panels. All fiber cement panels are limited to less than 10% of the elevations they are featured on. The proposed roof is clad in architectural shingles, charcoal blend in color. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials complement the design district's standard requirements and are compatible with the neighborhood. HAB-Juliette Boone, In conclusion, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the RT district and the Clayton gardens urban design district and the architecture review guidelines. HAB-Julie Peters, Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass height and design with existing nearby homes and staff recommendation is to approve as submitted. HAB-Michael

There's really no changes to the civil portion that was approved last time. As Susan illustrated, most of the changes were just architectural. I'm here just in case there are any questions about the civil.

ahead. I'll turn the

over to Lauren.

Okay, basically Blair and Scott have some very excited buyers who just wanted a little simpler front elevation. They didn't want the gables. They wanted a more straightforward roof line and a little different style of windows and doors. And they asked us to add the ornamental iron touches on the front of the house. And we've just made some very simple changes to suit our buyers.

It did. Thank you.

isn't.

Steve took the words out of my mouth. I have no comments. Helen?

Nothing to add to what you said, Steve.

Absolutely nothing to add as well. Thank you.

George? Silence is golden. I have nothing to add.

Ira? The only thing I was... Here I am. I'm the non-architect guy, right? So I'm looking at this thing and trying to figure out... There's a mention of a retaining wall. Can somebody tell me where that is?

Eric? I'll let Eric describe it. Go ahead, Eric.

Let me... Let's see. Okay, yes. So part of the change when going, you know, extending the walkout, we had to add a short retaining wall on the right hand side to allow the walkout on that left elevation access to the rear yard. HAB-Jacques Juilland, it's nothing that is going to be seen from the neighbors it's all it's creating you know essentially pockets, you know at the at the building face on the right hand elevation.

insert IRA. Yeah, as long as the planning department is okay with it, I'm okay with it. So I like all the changes as well. So I appreciate it. The buyer seems to have a better eye than the rest of us. So that's good.

Well, thank you. We actually designed the home on the right, so I already have that drawing.

And I thought you would like the revision, Steve. So we're glad to hear that.

All

I'll make a motion to approve and submit it.

Thank you all as well. Thank you.

We will be looking to probably demo the house in about 30 to 45 days, depending on when we submit our permit for that or our application for that. And I think real construction foundation work, which should start end of February, beginning of March. We'll be watching. Wonderful. Thanks guys. Thank you all very much as always.

Thank you. Have a good evening, everybody. Okay.

Can you hear me?

Okay. I'm sorry. I'm having problems like I've been kicked off my computer twice today, including about five minutes ago. So I can't explain why, but I am connected by phone. So if I disappear, I should keep my phone connection. We had talked about this at the last meeting and had asked that you give it some thought and that each individual member send email us names if they wished and that we would summarize them on a report and then hand the report to you all for discussion. Um, and we had talked about the possibility of suggesting more than one name, which, um, we, you can do that. So really this is just, um, to decide on which names you would like to submit for consideration. Um, as part of the plan commission, I'm sure there'll be other submittals, so you'll be in competition.

Well, I wasn't here to participate in the discussion last time. I had to leave in the middle of the meeting. Yeah, but my feelings about the name is Maryland Park would probably make the most sense to me because since it's on Maryland, people are either going to more likely call it Maryland Park or the Library Park since it's next to the library anyway. And following the common sense approach, that... that is gonna be how it's gonna be referred to probably in the future. So we might as well let reality reflect, the naming reflect reality. I like an easy name that would be easily, used by people. It's kind of like, you know, Washington U somebody makes a big donation and the building is named after Smith but everybody calls it the history building or the physics building. And that's just the way it is. The name is just to make the donor happy that one day that we honor him or her. So in this case, I would just use Maryland Park. That's my initial reaction.

Helen? I would agree. A number of the suggestions listed were mine, but I think Maryland Park, it identifies where it is. And looking at the names of the 14 parks that exist in Clayton, unless there's a connection like Taylor Park to the school that was there, most are names that locate the park and i think that's important and if we want people to use it especially in the business community saying i'll see you at maryland park you immediately know where it is it identifies it so that that was my first preference and um Yes, Susan did list them in that order. Old Town, it's part of Old Town, but Taylor Park and Hanley House, that park is also part of Old Town. Beamiston subdivision, it's within Beamiston subdivision. But Beamiston Park, you know, why not Central Park, but then I think to too many people, it would remind you of Central Park in New Jeffery Yorg City. It's so well known. And City Park is a name that's given to a lot of parks that are within the city. Alphabet Park ties it to the library. But I think my preference is Maryland Park. It identifies it immediately. And it's similar in Maine to the other parks that we have in Clayton, those being Hillvale, Claverick. They're names of streets. So I think I like Maryland Park. That would be my vote. Okay.

Helen? I would agree. A number of the suggestions listed were mine, but I think Maryland Park, it identifies where it is. And looking at the names of the 14 parks that exist in Clayton, unless there's a connection like Taylor Park to the school that was there, most are names that locate the park and i think that's important and if we want people to use it especially in the business community saying i'll see you at maryland park you immediately know where it is it identifies it so that that was my first preference and um Yes, Susan did list them in that order. Old Town, it's part of Old Town, but Taylor Park and Hanley House, that park is also part of Old Town. Beamiston subdivision, it's within Beamiston subdivision. But Beamiston Park, you know, why not Central Park, but then I think to too many people, it would remind you of Central Park in New York City. It's so well known. And City Park is a name that's given to a lot of parks that are within the city. Alphabet Park ties it to the library. But I think my preference is Maryland Park. It identifies it immediately. And it's similar in Maine to the other parks that we have in Clayton, those being Hillvale, Claverick. They're names of streets. So I think I like Maryland Park. That would be my vote. Okay.

Karen Hollweg, i'm actually like Maryland park to apply that was on there that's. Karen Hollweg, I agree with everything that was said, of course, I put forth the alphabet park and i'm just gonna have to put that park somewhere else, I guess. Karen Hollweg , But no, I agree with all the comments I like Maryland park it's nice. PB John Gerstle PB, Jorge Boone &

George. having been involved on the fundraising for this park, I have always referred to it as Maryland Park and it will stay that way for me, regardless of the name that comes out of it. So I am in favor of Maryland Park.

Ira. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Oh yeah, I'm going to refrain at this point. I'm going to have to go through whatever names come to the Board of Aldermen and I PB Harmon Zuckerton, Just assume just I want to hear from everyone. I'm glad everybody has an opinion and I definitely will take that into consideration when I'm looking at PB Harmon Zuckerson, It gets to the board of aldermen. So PB Harmon

Zuckery, Okay,

kind of like the alderman. I'm a compiler on the other end of this thing. So we're going to take all the names, the recommendations from the various boards and commissions, pass those on to the Parks and Rec Commission that will make the ultimate recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. So I'll be involved in that phase of the process, but I definitely appreciate the comments tonight on Maryland Park.

Or do we fill it out? No, we can take that name, plug it in, say this was the recommendation from the plan commission and then forward that on to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their consideration. Okay.

or not? I don't think that'll be necessary. Since this is being discussed in a public setting like this, we should be fine to fill out the form and pass it on. Okay. Thank you.

everybody get a chance to read this? Yes. Yes.

Let me

just highlight, it's a pretty lengthy report. But to summarize, if you flip back to your report on pages 4 and 5, specifically page 5, we've gotten some comments and complaints about the style and ultimately the height of roofs in this area of Clayton Gardens. And a lot of it really, or most of it really has to do with the way the roof is measured per our code. And so the concern really is that the heights are out of context with the existing neighboring homes. And then the measurement, of course, it's complicated by the fact that it's dependent upon the type of roof that is utilized. And so the height for roofs in the urban design district is the vertical distance from the average existing grade of the site to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of a gable hip or gamble roof. And so in that case, for new construction, building height is measured from average existing grade prior to the commencement of any construction. And these large gable or hip or gambrel roofs result kind of in a massing that's incompatible with the surrounding area given that the measurement of the height is to the mean of the roof rather than to the top of the roof line. And in some cases, the peak of an accessory structure roof like a detached garage reaches the second floor level of surrounding homes. So these structures are code compliant in terms of height, but they contrast quite a bit to some of the surrounding homes and their appearance just makes them look a lot higher than the roofs around them because of the way it's measured. So the steep roof pitch, for example, really lends itself to something that looks very imposing in terms of a roof, both on the principal structures and on the accessory structures. And so we thought Anissa and I thought we would bring this forward to you for some discussion or thoughts on this. This is in the urban design district, so it would only apply to those structures located in this district. if we wanted to change the way we measure roofs or we wanted to change roof height. The other thing to consider is that part of your decision-making as the ARB when it comes to appearances is compatibility with neighboring structures. And so, while I'm not 100% certain it's necessary to change the code, maybe this is just a way of bringing some awareness to the ARB that The way the code is structured, although these roofs technically are allowable and meet the height limits, their design really lends itself to something totally different and a little bit of a degree of incompatibility with the neighborhood. So that's the summary. That's it in the summary. We had posed three things for you to consider. Really evaluate the existing standards. And there's three questions in the report. And the first is, should the measurement of building height for Clayton Gardens and Clay Shire be modified? Should a compatible roof pitch maybe be required between neighboring structures? Or should a compatible roof pitch between a proposed single-family home and a proposed accessory structure be required? So it's not just the principal structure Susan Marvin- Single family homes. It's also including detached garages, for example, or accessory structures so Susan Marvin- That's it in a nutshell. And we're just kind of opening it up for discussion and or awareness and will take your, your direction. Curt

Bob? I drove around there this morning trying to get a feel for what are the issues because I really I wasn't sure what is really going on here. And Susan, when you say there are complaints, are we saying that it's the older one-story, the older two-story homes that just don't quite match, if that's the word? the slew of newer homes that have been built over the last several years there. I mean, the newer homes has definitely been taking over just walking around there. So my first question really is, Are we trying to preserve the compatibility with the older one-story and older two-story homes? Is that what is driving this? Or are we just trying to make sure that 8140 is maybe more compatible with all the newer homes that are going up?

I can answer that if you want. And the answer is no, it was the complaints we got were not from folks in single-story homes. They were in two-story homes, albeit they were older homes, but they were still two-story homes. And I think the mass of the roof as it relates, and so if we look at 8140 Kingsbury as it relates to, for example, a bedroom window on the, that would be the west side, or maybe a deck off the back, it really just wipes out I know views are not promised to anybody, but it really just increases the mass, the visual impact, not only from an appearance standpoint, but from a livability standpoint where it just gives the feel that you're up against a structure that's much higher than yours, even though technically it's not because it meets the code. And so you're kind of blocking out some of the... skyline there or the sky view and what have you by just having that massive flat roof. But no, it was not from single-story homes that were older. It was from two-story homes.

I mean, I have to admit, if you have a new home like 8140 Kingsbury and it's substantially higher than, let's say, another newer building where it overwhelms it, there's an inherent flaw with that. I think it is important that there needs to be some compatibility in the neighborhood of heights. I think aesthetically it works, and I think for creating just a desirable friendly neighborhood, those kind of issues matter, just like setback lines matter. And I think heights matter as well. So I don't know enough architecture to make sure we have that measurement, but I do think we need a little more uniformity. No matter how you measure it, you can't have like two steeple sticking out like two mountain peaks and everybody else is much lower than that. And with regard to one story homes, I'm very sympathetic towards, the situation as they see their neighborhood change. But I think that march is well on its way and that's kind of irreversible, I suspect. That's it.

Yeah, I think it's the compatibility and probably A or B, we should look a little bit more closely and maybe be stronger in our requirement for compatibility? Because 8140, when you looked at it on page five, the second floor windows are bay windows. They're very prominent. So most times your second story windows are, your main windows are on your first floor. The larger windows and the treatment of those windows is more heavily done on the first floor. The second floor you're, you've got bedroom spaces and maybe a home office or something. This from, What we see here looks like the second floor is very prominent, which doesn't help it to be more compatible with the adjacent buildings, the adjacent homes where the second floor windows are treated very simply. And both of the homes from the pictures on either side are very straightforward. They don't have a lot of embellishment on the windows. The roof, the double peaks, I think it just seems taller visually whether or not it is. It obviously has a permit so it met the code requirements but visually that flat end gable looks taller. If those had been a hip roof, it would have appeared to be lower. I don't think a hip roof would have been looked right. Maybe if one had been broken into two, it might look better. But I don't know that change requirements, I don't know if that will get us where we want to be. I think it's we, the ARB needs to look more closely at compatibility and be more insistent that this is not compatible. It may meet the requirements, but It does not fit in. So unfortunately, I don't have an answer that says plug in this and all will be good. So those are my thoughts.

agree with Helen and everything else that was said as well. When we start putting into language compatibility Is that one foot? Is that two degrees off of the other one? Is that five degrees? I mean, you start to get into specifics that are going to be hard to actually manage. So I think if we did a better job of looking at what's around, I think that would be more helpful than actually trying to come up with some kind of formula that allows for variance within a certain range. I think that gets really nitpicky and very difficult. So I agree with everything I said prior as well.

George? The photos that we have do not have a completed roof. So I think there may be some deception as far as those photos, but regardless of that deception, I do feel that the pitch is something that we really need to start looking at a lot more closely and pitch is compatible or in perspective to other developments or other homes that are in that area. not necessarily to the older homes, but maybe towards the newer construction that's going on in that UDD. Given that though, I do think that using compatibility and not having parameters around that within a certain pitch up to a variance of some sort, I think we probably need to have a little bit more stronger wording at our UDD.

thank you.

Ira. Yeah, I liked Helen's comments quite a bit. I was struck not only by height, but we're also talking about design and the kinds of, it's not just material, but the design of how certain homes are going to end up not really being able to fit in or not fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood. And height is only one component of that. I'm sure when they started building two-story homes in the area, the one story felt somewhat like they were losing their view or losing sight of things or whatever. And that's fine. It's understandable. But I think there's also the power of having homes with, you know, that are just that different from the rest of them that just... architecturally makes it also, I think, unpleasing. How do you legislate for that? I don't know. I mean, I think there's something to be said for homes in your neighborhood that are all designed somewhat differently. Having everything look the same is not also a great thing to look for. I know the homes in White Owl Forest are all designed differently, but I think they have a certain level of compatibility to go with it. So how do you legislate that? I don't know. They just come down to these members of this ARB or planning. We become a little more mindful of how those things operate. It seems that my short tenure so far That seems to be what everybody does. I mean, everybody does seem to come through with opinions about how things fall into context within neighborhoods. So I've been pleased with that. That's been the focus. So I'm not sure what to say about how to go forward with this particular kind of initiative.

Yeah, I think compatibility is tricky from a regulatory standpoint. And if you're just hanging your hat on that, then you're more likely to make arbitrary decisions. And obviously, you don't want to do that when it comes to zoning. And there are some cities that have been wrestling with this. I'm going to share my screen real quick. You know, you think of the Kirkwoods and Websters and Glendales. This has been the big topic in those cities for decades. For years now, as far as teardowns are concerned, I pulled Kirkwood's regulations real quick. And here's their building height measurement section. And again, they spent years talking about how do we ensure that the new homes are more compatible with the existing homes as they come in. So Number one here basically says in certain residential districts, and this is where they're seeing the largest number of those teardowns, they just measure from grade to the highest point of the building. And that measurement includes flat, mansard, gable, hip, all roof types. So in those particular districts where they had an issue, they just said we're going to measure bottom to the tip. And that's what we're going to use for height. For all other districts, they're using essentially the exact same definition we have almost word for word in how they measure height. So I say that because they wrestled with this for a long time. I know that they talked about compatibility and could not come up with a better solution than just changing the measurement formula for those districts where they had issues. And that was it, because if you start to get into compatibility, you know, it's not architecture where... You can do some design tweaks and you have some discretion. There's some authority there through the architectural review board. Height is one of those things that's measured just like a setback. And there's some element to property rights that goes along with that in a district where if it says that you're allowed a certain number of feet, it's hard to argue that they shouldn't get that for some reason. So that's just a consideration. And I figured I'd pull this example again from a community that's, that's wrestled with it. And really this shows that there's, there's really not, there's not a good answer. The best way to do it is to have a hard cap. I think we could look at pitch potentially roof pitches. What gets you into these, these issues when you measure the way we do from the, from the Eve to the Ridge. But, Aside from that, there aren't a lot of options out there. And I know a lot of smart people have been looking at this for a long time. So I just thought I'd share that.

you.

Could I comment

on that? Go right ahead, Susan.

I was going to suggest that we could always ask for more information. So we do get the roof pitch and we do get the height. But we, in the cases where the height is measured at the mean, we don't get the total height of the roof to the tippy top, if you will. So, I mean, we could ask for additional information so you could evaluate it a little bit with some numerical data and it not be necessarily a change in height, just a suggestion that might just give you an additional tool to help evaluate the compatibility. Keep that in mind if you wish.

David? I was going to say to your point, You know, these are smaller districts, right? Well, they're not small, but I mean, it's not a citywide, you know, you're not changing our whatever as far as the height's concerned. We're just looking at Clayshire and Clayton Gardens in this case. You know, if we could find what that acceptable maximum or all-in height is, You can always write this, keep the language you have basically that allows the variation of roof lines. And then just simply say, and the total height shall not exceed X and have a not to exceed amount. It's just a matter of figuring out what that acceptable not to exceed amount is. And that way you're giving the full envelope, the absolute maximum, but you're still allowing that height measurement that we have to play with within there to have a variation on the roof line. John Potter, I don't know if that's an option as well and how we would determine that acceptable height for those neighborhoods is something we need to wrestle with a little bit. John Potter, But I think you could you could regulate it that way, and I think it would work it's just a matter of setting those numbers. PB John Gerstle,

No, I think I've got enough to go forward at this point. We could certainly bring back several different proposals or language changes or request additional information on our applications to help you decide and just kind of walk through options if you want. And we could try to figure out what that would look like and what that would mean to you, if that makes sense. So Anissa and I can play with it. I've got enough information I think I understand and we'll bring something back at a future meeting to talk about in terms of either regulatory change or something to that effect.

No, just always enjoyable to be here.

Ditto. Good to be here.

No, I don't have any comments and thank you for making a very nice meeting for us, Steve. Thank you.

No, no comments. Thank

you. George? Yes, I just wanted to let everyone know that I have tendered my resignation to ARB planning commission effective the end of March. I am going to be retiring and will be traveling quite a bit. So I am not going to be able to participate in the meetings either in person or via Zoom while that's going on. It's been great working with everyone and I will be here through the end of March.

George.

Congratulations on your retirement.

I just want to voice one criticism. Why isn't he taking us with him on all these travels?

Bob, you're welcome to come anytime. But you've got some photos I believe you're going to be taking over the spring. So I'm keeping you busy outside of this. Okay. Well, congratulations.

Congratulations, George, also. And I'm impressed that you were able to retire at the age of 35. Thank you. It's remarkable you've been able to do that. So you'll let us in on the secret someday, I'm sure.

Oh yeah,

yeah. George, congratulations and enjoy your second chapter.

That's exactly what it is. And that one is starting to fall into place now. So it's good to know there's something new coming down the road. Well, that's good.

Absolutely. Thank you all.

No gray hair and he's retiring. How do you explain that?

David? Nothing for me tonight. Thank you.

Yeah, I just checked the files and I didn't see anything in there, but that doesn't mean anything because Anissa has been out since last week and she's the recipient of the application. So so I'm sure we will have an agenda for you. And then I also wanted to let you know that I've accepted a position with the city of Springfield in Missouri. So I will be leaving and the February meeting, first February meeting will be my last meeting with you guys. So I really enjoyed working with you and I'll really miss you and I'll miss Clayton.

Thank you. Springfield will be getting a great asset. That's for sure.

That's really kind of you to say that. Thank you. I'm really excited about that. I've always liked Springfield and so I'm really excited to go down there.

I will.

we should reconsider the naming of Maryland Park. I don't know now. I

already did that joke with her. The last email I sent her, I said, it's Dennis Park.

Oh, wow. Okay.

Bye.