June 21, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for June 21st. Anyone in the audience, if you would please keep your phones silent, we would appreciate it. We'll start with the roll call.

Chairman Lichtenfeld?

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Ira, we see

you.

Can you hear us, Ira?

You're muted right now.

Yeah, I can hear you. Okay,

great. Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

Kami Waldman.

Helen DiFate. City Manager David Gipson and Bob Denlow, both absent.

Helen DeFate. City Manager Gibson and Bob Dunlow, both absent.

Okay. We have minutes from the previous meeting on June 6th. Were there any changes? No? Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay,

thank you. We'll get started on old business. And do we have the representative of the applicant here for 750 Winokur Drive? Yes. Okay, Mr. Zeng. Yes. Okay, thank you for joining in

and also we have Stacey from power home also joined from zoom.

Hello. We'll begin with the

staff report.

So this request was first discussed on the May 16th agenda and was continued to the following meeting to allow time for the applicant to resubmit additional documents or for the city sustainability committee to make a presentation regarding the existing regulations for solar panels. Since then, the applicant has submitted some additional information. However, the sustainability committee presentation is not scheduled until the second meeting in July. The staff report has not changed since the applicant first submitted. Did

you give us the recommendation?

The staff's recommendation is to table until the July 18th meeting.

Okay. Mr. Zhang, have you had a chance to read the staff report? um which documents. The staff report data June 21 today.

No. Is that for the decision for the system ability more postponing to July 15.

Yes. July 18th.

Yeah, so I understand we have most likely we have to wait for that. However, there is another alternative that we could take. Anna sent us an email about possibility of using the alternative compliance So we are thinking about pursue that route.

Are you speaking that you would like to look into the alternative approach?

Yes, I'm seeking your advice. If that's a better way to go and while we're waiting for the next meeting in July,

Well, the meeting

in July would be to hear and discuss with the Sustainability Committee how we as a city should proceed with the solar panel installations, whether they should be allowed to be viewed from the street on the front side of buildings or not. And however you're looking to see if you could have the alternative compliance prior to that, is that correct? Yes. We do not know what the sustainability committee might recommend to us. My feeling is that since they are looking into it, we should wait and continue this request until that time so that there would be no conflict in what the plan commission might consider and what the sustainability committee might recommend.

That's fine, but we just wanted to make it clear to everyone on this committee that we've got panels on our roof that are sitting there doing nothing while we wait for that decision.

Well, we certainly understand that they're there. We've seen them there. And I think we need to consider what the city is going to do before we start making alternative compliance exceptions. Let's see what the others on the plan commission or the ARB have for comments. Helen.

I would suggest that we wait till the Sustainability Committee makes their decision and presentation. It's jumping the gun, and it's not that far off. July is fairly close. So I would, if asked for my vote, I would vote to wait.

Thank you. Kami?

Okay. Carolyn.

I agree to wait. Thank you. Okay. Ira? Ira, do you hear us? Ira? Ira? We've texted him to unmute. Ira, do you hear us? If not, we'll have to go on without him.

We do have a quorum.

Correct. We have a quorum without

him. Okay. Mr. Zhang and Erica, I think you've heard the comments from four of the ARB members. Do you have anything other that you would like to say?

No, we agree to wait.

No, we agree

Okay, thank you. We will move to table. Should we do it to the July 18th meeting? Okay. We'll table to the July 18 meeting and look forward to seeing you then. Do we have a motion to that effect or maybe- I'll make a

motion to continue the request to July 18. And I'll

second that. All in favor?

Okay, thank you. We'll see you on the 18th. Thank you. We'll move on to Item 2, 7439 Buckingham. Is the applicant here? No? on Zoom.

So the subject request was previously presented to the architecture review board on June six. The previous meeting discussed concerns regarding the roof design being overpowering for the front elevation and not compatible with the character of the House clarifying the use of colored concrete. and that the proposed layout did not conform to front yard setbacks. They are be voted to continue their request to allow the applicant to consider options. The applicant has resubmitted a revised design for consideration. The front porch has been reduced to meet the front yard setback, and the slope of the roof has been revised to reduce the visual impact on the elevation. The colored concrete has also been replaced with exposed aggregate. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following condition, the exposed foundation of the new porch shall be clad in brick or raised planter beds and shall be installed to screen the exposed concrete sides.

Okay, thank you. Do we have, oh yes. Ms. Payton, if you unmute yourself, John Potter, Good evening. John Potter, Do you have any comments. Karen

Hollweg, i've looked at raise planner bed options. Karen Hollweg , That would be in that there are they do exist that are tall enough for what the porch needs to be to meet the door. Karen Hollweg,, So I think that that that will work to have raised planter beds with plantings to screen. The porch. John Potter,

And that's part of the staff recommendation.

Yes.

That sounds good. Any other comments about the staff report or the revised drawings?

I agree with the drawings that were submitted.

OK. Well, I would agree with it also. I think it fits all of our regulations. Adding the raised planter beds, I think, will soften it up. It'll look more like the flowering bushes that you have around the house right now. And it meets everything. I like the lower slope roof also. It doesn't overpower the facade. So I'm glad you came back. Let's see other comments while we're here. Helen.

I like the changes.

Amy. I

Carolyn. I

agree. Thank you.

Thank

you.

Ira? Yeah, I'm good. I'm good with it. I think it's nicely

done. Good. Do we have a motion to approve with the condition?

I'll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thanks very much. We'll look forward to the improvement.

Thank you.

Now we're ready to move on to new business and we'll start with item one, 6466 San Bonita Avenue. And is Mr. Thomas here?

He's also on Zoom.

Oh, okay. Good evening, Mr. Thomas. Hello, I'm here. Okay, thank you. We'll start with the staff report.

The subject property is located adjacent to the intersection of University Lane and San Bonita Avenue. The proposed project consists of replacement of the existing three-tiered block retaining wall in the front yard with a new two-tiered boulder retaining wall. The reposed wall will be similar in style to the retaining wall on the adjacent property, which was installed in 2017. The proposed design and materials of the retaining wall are consistent with ARB's preference for masonry front yard walls. While the wall does not leave space between the first tier and this public sidewalk for landscaping, the tiered wall will provide landscaping at the top of both of the tiers. Additionally, the subject property is located on a street with a variety of front yard retaining walls that vary slightly due to the difference in grade between the finished first floor of the homes and the street. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house. Staff recommends to approve as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Thomas, do you have any comment on the staff report?

No, I agree with the staff report and I greatly appreciate everybody's review of this.

Okay. Oh, I went by to look at your neighbor's installation and I was a little surprised with the size of those boulders. They look like they've really come down the mountainside. But I do think it's an interesting textural composition where we don't get that appearance with many of the concrete block walls that are attempting to simulate natural material. So even though it surprised me, I'm fine with it. But we'll go around. Helen?

I too find the stones more, the boulders, excuse me, out of scale for residential, but they are being used a lot. Interestingly, houses to the east have a similar front landscaping, the tiering, step up that you have, and the one to the west of you has the boulders. So while I like what you currently have, if you would prefer the other, I could agree to it.

Amy?

Carolyn?

Karen Hollweg, I have no objection.

Curt Brown, Ira. Ira Spiro, yeah I mean it's it's it's certainly a rock stone, but it looks great looks fine i'm in favor. Okay. Curt

Brown, We have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted, we have a motion.

Karen Hollweg, Make a motion to approve as submitted. Karen Hollweg , Second.

Curt Brown,

All in favor. Opposed? Thank you and good luck with the installation. We'll move on to item two in new business, 706 DeMonte Avenue. Start with the...

The subject property is located on the east side of DeMond Avenue and is currently occupied by the restaurant known as Sasha's. The applicant is proposing alterations to the upper level deck, including relocation of the existing AC unit, a new shade and trellis structure, and a canopy over the bar. The general function of the upper level deck will remain the same. The deck currently receives a high amount of sun during different times of day and the applicant is proposing to install a metal trellis feature over the deck with a retractable canvas to provide shade and protection from light rain events. As part of the steel structure, trellis features that resemble trees will be installed with vines. A curved brass canopy is proposed over the bar area. The proposed design provides needed shaded elements in a modern design while also incorporating natural features to soften the appearance. The use of vines and tree-like structures will create a connection between the upper level deck and the large open space with mature trees across the street at Concordia. The materials and colors proposed are compatible with materials and design elements featured on the rest of the building elevation. The brass canopy bar will add a visual interest piece to the mechanical screening wall, but will not be visible from the sidewalk and therefore not overpowering the building character. While the proposed structures will provide a heavier feature above the deck than simply adding shade umbrellas to tables, they will create a more functional and visually appealing space. The deck is adjacent to a two-story portion of the building and therefore the scale of the roof features proposed will not appear too out of place. Staff's recommendation is to approve as submitted.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Alan Richmond for Sasha's Wine Bar. It's nice to see you again. keep coming back uh the deck is really cool but it's really cool as an interesting cool but it's not cool as in climate it's hot and the umbrellas blow away they just don't cover it so we should have done this when we first built it but too many reasons the canopy would retract so we could have open air when it's nice out night time for the sky and There'll be some heaters attached to the underneath so that we don't have those big clunky Boston space looking heaters that we have to move around and carry the tanks up to. I think it should make it much more functional, much more enjoyable to sit up there. And while I have your attention, can you also approve that we just close it in permanently because of the global warming and we're going to need to air condition the whole space soon?

That's a joke. I'm not going to do that. It might be a different application.

I hope I'm not here asking for that. I really do. It would be disappointing. Thank you for your consideration.

Well, Alan, you've done it again with a creative solution. And I really commend you for putting trees up that will shed no leaves. But I did have a question. I didn't understand in all the materials submitted how the shade structure will move where it's located. I'm

going to have the architect address the technical aspects, but My understanding is that there's motors in the center that retract. We've got another rendering that might make it a little clearer.

Also, I think the bar, the shape of it, and the material finishes look very, very nice. Thank

you.

So then looking, Tom, you're Tom,

right?

Okay. So they will retract like this to the center. Okay.

Yeah. Tom, do you mind attempting to verbally describe that for the two members that are not here in person? Right. Sure. Thank you.

Hi, Tom Niemeyer with Space Architects. So what we have is we have an overall metal frame structure that is over the top of those decorative steel trees that you see. The steel trees also attach into that steel system for stability. In the middle, on either end of that metal frame, there's a post that's a little higher that creates the slope of that roof. It slopes off either side. And when you want it open to sky, it retracts up into the center.

That's motorized, right?

Yeah, it's available in manual or motorized, but I think we were going to look at the motorized.

Now I see in the middle elevation, I can see that slope now. I missed it before. The three... trees that are on the west side, do they overlap any public sidewalk area? Is that all on your

property?

Canopy. Yeah.

Can you repeat that into the microphone?

The trees do not overlap onto the sidewalk. There's a canopy above the sidewalk, above part of our patio. That's, I didn't measure it, but it's probably a good six feet out from, from the face of the building, because originally the facade of the building went that far out. We brought it back in underneath. So the short answer is no, they don't protrude over public space.

Oh, the sheet number A502, those are street trees, are they?

Do you have sheet A202 by any chance?

8502.

Right.

Yeah, we have

both. 8202 shows a plan view that shows those trees and it shows how much they overhang. And you can see that they're less than what the canopy overhangs right now.

Oh,

okay. Sorry, Tom. They overhang the deck, but they do not overhang past the building.

Right. Yeah. The recess from the building, they overhang the canopy, but the building steps there. You see, this is the facade of the building out here. So it's behind the line of the facade. Right. And it's behind the edge of that awning that comes out over the front entry.

That's my error on 202. I took the line that then curves at the bottom as a sidewalk line, but it's actually the canopy.

That's the awning.

Yeah. Okay. Helen, comments?

I think it's a great idea. Very creative. One question. You mentioned side panels for when the sun comes down. How will they work if from this, the structure for the covering doesn't extend past the trees?

They're housed in these sections and they drop down like shades. Can you speak into the

microphone, please?

On the canopy structure that is the square, like each section will have what looks like a shade for a window that drops down, which is... one of those mesh, you've seen

them in. Yeah,

not a blind, just to block out a little more sun and maybe a little wind. Hard to tell if it's going to

be similar

to

Tony's.

Yeah.

From the top of the awning structure to the the shade would hang down to the top of the tree structure. It won't go through the tree structure.

No, not the roof. The roof doesn't go through the trees. There's Right, so the shades are mounted to, I explained that rectilinear metal frame that wraps it, right? And the trees are underneath it. The trees are positioned to where you see how they get like spokes of a tree that support that ring. The trees are position that between the spokes of that tree, they're lined up right directly above the railing of the deck. So we have these shades that mount to that frame and they come down through that pie-shaped piece of the tree and they come down to where about the railing height is, if you wanted them to come down. They

come through the tree? They

come through the trees.

Okay.

Yeah.

I was just wondering, I think it's an excellent idea. When will it be done?

Yeah. As soon as a contractor can get to it, I suppose. Amy?

Thank you. Carolyn?

Yeah, I really like it as well. What are you planning to plant as the vine? I don't see that anywhere.

Something that's easy to maintain. I'll consult a greenery expert on that one.

It'll be a type of climbing ivy of some kind that can grip on

that. I would skip ivy, maybe do a trumpet vine or wisteria, something that's fast. Ivy can be invasive, but it doesn't really matter up there. So whatever you decide. I just wanted to ask. Yeah?

Whatever you recommend, I'd be happy to put up there. But

make it really

easy. Does it grow easily? Does it take a lot of calcium?

No, it's native and it will go everywhere. You'll be happy.

All

right. I like it.

Ira? Yeah, this is fantastic. What a great improvement to that Devon commercial area. It's fantastic. You've got a great restaurant, too. I enjoy a bit of it. So I'm excited to see the improvement. I'm excited to say this all happened. It's kind of exciting. I love I love listening to Carolyn because she always has some good ideas. It just seems like the plants are like it's like the it's like the dessert. You know, it's like. Yeah. Yeah. ready to put the really good stuff in by the time when you're done and you just really make it look as nice as possible. So I look forward to that as well. So

good luck. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. I don't think we've made any changes. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted

all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thanks, Alan. Good luck with this. We'll look forward to your next creative application. Thank you. Okay. We're ready to move on to items three and four on new business, and that's 6370 Alamo Avenue.

All right, the first item is site plan review. This is a request for review of a single family addition, detached garage and site alterations. The subject property is located on Alamo Avenue, west of Dumont Avenue. The property is a zoning designation of R2 single family. The proposed project consists of demolition of a previous side addition, rear yard patios, a rear parking pad, and the construction of a front porch extension a two-story addition and a detached garage. The height of the proposed residence is approximately the same as the existing structure. The height of detached garage is approximately 17 feet as measured from grade to the mean height of the roof. In your packet is a list of criteria for review for site plan approvals. I'll summarize some of the points. In terms of compatibility, the surrounding properties contain single family homes. The project meets the setback height and impervious coverage requirements of the R2 zoning district. The project does not conform to the architectural review guidelines for building materials, which will be addressed under architectural review. A lot coverage in the R2 district is limited to 55% of the total lot. The proposed project does increase coverage from 42% to the maximum 55%. Front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45% and the proposed project conforms The project would result in more than 5% increase in impervious coverage, and therefore stormwater pollution protection plan has been required. And the mitigation of increased runoff has also been required. The proposed project conforms to coverage regulations, yet the proposed project will substantially increase a lot coverage on the property. There have been similar size additions in the area. However, the subject property will be substantially different from directly adjacent ones. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15-year 20-minute storm calculation, is 0.32 cubic feet per second and the proposed runoff increases to 0.35. A drywall system is proposed in the northeast corner of the front yard to mitigate the increased runoff. In terms of landscaping, the proposed or the subject property does not feature any rear yard trees. One tree in the front yard will be removed with the project. The removal of the front tree would result in no trees on the property. Per section 405.4110, R2 properties should provide a minimum of 46% tree canopy coverage. The proposed site plan is deficient 2,481 square feet of canopy coverage, which requires a fee into the city's forestry fund. Under this landscape regulations, the Plan Commission does have the authority to approve up to a 20% reduction in the required tree canopy coverage square footage when the following conditions are met. One, there are mitigating circumstances affecting the site which do not generally apply to other sites for the same use and in the same district. Two, a good faith effort has been made to retain or replant trees as many trees as feasibly possible, and three additional understory plantings and ground cover is provided. The size of the lots in the immediate area are small. The majority of the sites only feature one large tree and some also feature ornamental trees. The subject property does not currently have rear yard trees and the proposed project will further reduce the available area for planting in the rear yard. Staff recommends that the 20% reduction is granted under the conditions that additional understory plantings and ground cover are provided. A new tree is planted in the front yard to replace the existing tree and the remaining canopy coverage is provided. The 20% reduction would result in a requirement for 1,984.8 square feet of canopy coverage. As an example, planting one large deciduous tree, one small deciduous tree and four medium evergreen trees would provide 2,000 square feet of canopy cover. Evergreen trees planted in the rear yard would also provide screening of the larger detached garage to help buffer and integrate the structure with the surrounding context. In conclusion, the height setbacks and impervious coverage of the proposed project are in conformance with the requirements of the R2 single family dwelling district. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and revisions to the landscape plan are required to be in conformance and to help mitigate the impacts of the large addition and garage. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following conditions to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. One, dimensions from all pop-up emitters to the nearest new property line shall be added to the site plan to ensure termination is a minimum of 10 feet from property lines. Two, the approved site plan showing the location and design of the drywall system shall be recorded with the St. Louis County Reporter of Needs to ensure future maintenance and protection of the system. Proof of recording shall be provided to the city. And three, a 20% reduction in the required tree canopy coverage shall be approved under the conditions that understory plantings and ground cover are provided and the remaining required canopy coverage is provided or compensation is paid to the city's forestry fund.

Okay, thank you. And who would like to respond?

Hi, my name is Terry Dowdy. I'm the architect for the project and the one that made this submission. Ken is here though from the civil engineers GNW. So I'm gonna let him address the site plan review. Okay.

We have actually addressed the comments from the original review and made the adjustments. We are proposing the low-well system, which will accommodate and mitigate the increased runoff. with this dry well system that we'll be using. And we'll also have yard drains in the middle of the site and have swells to capture the runoff from the existing and the proposed building and from the adjacent owner's property. and to pretty much keep all of the runoff onsite and containing it onsite and allowing the runoff by using a pop-up emitter at the end of the lowest point of the site under the property.

Do you have a drawing that shows that?

Say

it again, Carolyn.

I said, do you have a drawing, that shows this design

Yes.

That we can see.

Now. I think I have it. Is this the one? But we

have actually made modifications.

Oh, so we don't have the correct drawing. Okay. I was going to ask for all of those. You have not submitted that to staff yet. Is that correct?

I just received it from him at 410 today. So no, it has not been submitted.

Okay.

Typically we have that submitted and would Public Works be reviewing that as well as?

Public Works does review all the SWIP plans for, so without looking at what the revisions are, I can't say if there would be a staff review involved.

I think we would have to have that submitted and reviewed by Public Works because we can't look at it right now. We hear your description, but it didn't sound like the drawing I was looking at. But we can go on. Was there anything else, Tim, from on the site plan? Do

you have any questions?

Could you give us your last name? I don't think I heard.

My last name is Burrus. Burrus, B-U-R-R.

Did you get that?

We have his information with the application.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we're still on site plan review. It's a pretty big project. It really covers up to 55% of the site. And when I looked at the drawings, it seemed really large. But as I drove down the Alamo Alley, I find that there's some other houses that cover just about the same amount of the total yard. From the front, it really won't look much different except for materials on the west side of the building. So as far as the site plan goes, except for what Tim was talking about, I really had no problem with the site plan itself. Let's move around the room. Helen?

The lack of tree canopy concerns me. I realize you can just do so much on a site and trees do get to be quite large. I do note though, in reading the staff's report that staff recommends that the 20% reduction is granted under the conditions that additional understory plantings and ground cover provided. A new tree is planted in the front yard to replace the existing tree. That didn't get included the way I read the staff recommendations So I would like to see a new tree planted in the front yard. And then the staff goes on to say that the remaining canopy coverage is provided. So you get the 20% reduction, and then you have to provide the 80% of the canopy coverage. And that can be with the understory plantings and ground cover. So everything else looks fine, it's just the landscaping that was my concern.

Amy?

Carolyn?

I agree with Helen, number one. I have another question though, might actually come down to architecture building review on that one, but is there a reason to not attach the garage so that you don't have a gap between buildings? Because it seems like you're just creating an area that will be kind of just a leftover space that might be

This is Terry Dowdy. One of the considerations was the homeowners have young children and they wanted to be able to provide a place for them to play in the yard. If you pull the garage up to the two things, if you pull the garage, up to the house, we lose the green space for them to play. And plus with the added dimension or the added area of the driveway, we exceed the green space requirements. Are we short on the green space requirements?

Well, if you pushed the garage to the addition, you'd still have green space in the

back. Because I'd be driving over that to get out of the alley into the garage. Unless I misunderstand what you're saying.

Well, I mean, you have a turning radius there that would just slide up. I mean, I don't know. What I'm saying is you don't need to extend the driveway, you could leave it the same configuration but move it closer. Maybe I'm not making sense and it would be easier to draw it. But it seems like that space in between the two buildings is not really a play space. I don't know. I question that. It's kind of weird. Any thoughts on that? I mean, it seems like if you combined it, then you have an attached garage, which would connect right to the building, which is safer, right? And more desirable. And then you'd have more space in the back.

But I enter the garage off of the alley. So to get from the alley to the garage, that that we slide it to connect to the house now becomes impervious because it's driveway. So I lose the green space that's between the house and now I don't meet the impervious to green space ratio that I have to, unless I misunderstand what you're asking us to consider.

Yeah, I'm not, okay. I see what you're saying, but I'm just saying that the area in between will not grow grass more than likely. So you're going to have to come up with a plan for that, right? I mean, it's all shade at this point.

There is no way. So the alley, if you had, yeah, I mean, it just,

without designing it myself, I feel like it's a big monster off the back and You're not getting what you really want or the client wants. It just seems like it's a garage that's separated and they have to go outside to get back into their house, or they can have their kids play in a weird alley between houses is what I'm seeing here.

So I'm not sure what you're gaining there. Anything else, Carolyn? No, no, no. Thank you. Ira. Ira unmute yourself. All right. Sorry guys.

Had to get them on you. Um, PB John Gerstle, yeah I mean it's a it's it's not it's not my favorite looking. PB John Gerstel, improvement over there, but you know it seems to at least check boxes so i'm okay with it so. PB John

Gerastle, Okay, thank you. PB John Gerestle, I had a similar feeling of what carolyn said, but when I went over there and looked at it, I realized what Terry the architect indicated. that you're at the 55% coverage, and to move that garage in only makes it worse. So I more or less agreed that that's about all you could do. As far as play area goes for the young children, it could be between the house and the garage, and on that relatively narrow sliver on the west side. Hopefully there'll be a fence all around it. I believe I saw a fence there now that you'll be replacing, I would assume. Any other comments on site plan review? No. Well, Helen, you were modifying recommendation number three. So would you like to... make the motion, including your statement.

Okay. I move that we approve as submitted with the recommendations of the staff and adding to recommendation number three, a new tree to replace the existing shall be planted in the front yard.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Hold on. Can I make a modification to that modification?

Yes.

When we say tree, can we say deciduous tree, not ornamental tree? Meaning an oak or a maple or something of a larger caliper in size than an ornamental tree, like a Japanese maple or something. Can we be more specific about the size of the tree?

Yes. I like the modification. Thank you. Okay. That's fine. I mean, people could put a

tiny little Japanese maple in and yeah. Right. So we I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations one through two. with the modification on number three, stating that we request a deciduous tree native in species, no less than a caliper of three inches be provided onsite.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Okay, thank you. Okay, site plan with modifications is approved and we can move on to the architectural review. Well again, we'll start with the staff report.

Okay, so in terms of architectural review, the homes located on the south side of Alamo are predominantly one and a half to two stories in height. The basic massing in the proposed two-story addition is articulated on all sides with windows and doors. The proposed project and massing are similar to the addition City Council Chambers, constructed at 6358 Alamo avenue the addition will be relatively screen from the street by the existing House and the proposed front porch addition large front porches both covered and uncovered are prominent features in the surrounding neighborhood. City Council Chambers , The proposed detached garage is approximately 17.3 feet tall. Accessory structures are permitted to be a maximum of 20 feet tall. Detached garages are common in the surrounding neighborhood. However, garages with half stories above are not. The rear of the property is the highest elevation so the garage will be visible. Revisions to the building materials for the garage along with the landscape as discussed under site plan review will help buffer and integrate the larger garage into the context of the site. Homes in the neighborhood are predominantly constructed of brick with stone and stucco as secondary materials. There are also homes with siding as a secondary material, which is typically used for dormers, sunrooms, or smaller additions. The proposed front porch addition will be constructed of red brick to match the existing covered porch. The proposed rear addition and detached garage are clad with siding. Pearl gray lap siding is proposed as a primary material with iron gray vertical siding panels as accents. The city's architectural review guidelines limit the primary wall material to brick and stone, stating that the primary material should account for a minimum of 75% of each facade. The proposed addition and garage do not comply with the city's architectural guidelines, with brick or stone accounting for 0% of the proposed facades. The proposed siding is gray and will stand in contrast with the red brick of the existing house and the majority of the homes in the area. As previously stated, there are small additions in the area with siding. However, the proposed addition and garage are significantly larger in scale. White trim boards are proposed on the addition and garage which match the white trim on the existing house. White casement windows and garage doors are also proposed. The proposed addition will be highly visible due to the size and proposed material and will not integrate the addition in the garage. The proposed project does not feature similar design elements to the existing house, such as arch soldier headers above the windows. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials are not compatible with the existing structure or neighborhood character. In conclusion, the project as proposed is not in conformance with the requirements of the architectural review guidelines Staff is of the opinion that with recommended revisions, the design would be compatible in terms of mass height and design with existing nearby homes. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following condition. The addition and detached garage facade shall be revised to include brick as the primary material covering a minimum of 75% of each facade. Siding may be permitted as the secondary material covering a maximum of 25% of each facade."

Thank you.

Comments? Again, this is Terry Doughty. And with review of the staff report, it sounds like we're in pretty good shape with one major issue and that is the siding. And so to give you a little history as to how we got to where we are and why we made the proposal that we did. The existing house built in 1921 has a wire cut red brick exterior wall We cannot find a brick to match that, or at least we have not been able to today. So we felt we needed to look at alternatives. What were the alternatives? Review of the architectural guidelines, certainly brick and stone are the primary requirements But it also says in there that wood siding, if other properties around have wood siding, could be a considered alternative. So we went back and looked, and since our addition is primarily rear yard addition and no larger than the house from the front, we felt that it's going to be less than visible from the front. So the rear yard addition, we looked at the neighbors and as staff says, and in the submission that we've provided you, there are several additions, rear yard along the block that have siding. Some looks to be real wood, some even looks to be vinyl siding I think. So we felt like coming in with a substitution in place of the brick that we cannot match was a good alternative. Staff takes exception or at least commented about our color, our gray maybe being in contrast. Well, certainly we'd be happy to talk about colors. We are proposing a hardy board siding, which is not real wood. Our proposal is for that because of its durability, because it's impervious to wood rot, to insects, moisture damage. but we would clearly be willing to have the conversation about a real wood siding if that made it more palatable to the city. The garage at the rear of the lot, if that siding is a concern because of its separation from the brick house, if it had to go to a brick wrap on the garage, we could pick a brick that would because of the separation, not be so noticeable as to be not the same brick. But to turn that brick that we haven't found yet and die into that existing brick and not match at all, we just felt like that was not the best approach to the building. So from our perspective, we'd certainly like your consideration since other homes on the back and all primarily back have siding of some sort. We'd like your consideration. Thank

you. Going around the alley and peeking in backyards, I did see some other siding. but not to the extent that this siding is, two stories plus the garage. And the only thing I could say is yes, it might be hard to really match the existing brick, which is now a hundred plus years old, but the way you've situated the addition, you have offset the connection between the existing house and the new. So it seems like a complementary brick, even though it doesn't match, could be used because you're not aligning the existing and the new brick in the same plane. There's always an offset. One side, it juts out, I believe on the west if I remember. And on the east, it's actually recessed in from the plane of the existing building. I feel that we do need to follow our architectural review guidelines. Otherwise, we open a precedent of more and more non-masonry material. As far as hardy board goes, we have allowed it in many, many instances, but it is a secondary material, not a primary material. So I think you hear my consideration, and I'm basically aligned with the staff recommendation. But let's see what other comments are. Helen?

Steve said exactly what I was thinking. I do have a question about you mentioned you couldn't find the brick, yet the new porch is shown as brick.

We are removing the rear wall of the house and salvaging that brick to rebuild the porch around the corner. So it will be the same brick that's on the front of the house.

Okay. Now, I agree with Steve that It just, looking at the elevations, it's two different buildings that are married, put together. And the wider windows don't help tie it in with the existing window width. Yeah,

but they're bedrooms, so I don't have a choice.

Right. No, I understand that. But it compounds the difference. And I think it just, we have the guidelines and I think we need to adhere to them and have 25% of every facade, the back of the addition, all of the facades as a secondary material. And that could be hardy board But I think the addition in the garage overall, if they were in brick would look just a whole lot better. It would add value to the house, the property. And as far as matching brick, I was pleasantly surprised when damage was done and the low walls and either side of the brick steps to the front of my house had to be replaced. And I expected they would find some, the house is 118. Yeah, it was built in 1918, so it's over 100 years old. And the match they came up with was amazing. And it's the textured, the vertical textured brick and the smooth brick. The match of the texture and the color was incredible. I know it's new because I know what to look for that will distinguish old from new. But 99% of the population would never know. And as Steve mentioned, you've offset the addition. So that creates a shadow and you can't follow brick lines. So the fact that the brick may not be exactly the same size, the mortar joint may be a little bit more, it's starting from a corner. So you're not going to pick it up. I would agree with the staff requirement.

Amy?

Carolyn?

Yeah, I'm in agreement with all of the comments that are made when I'm looking at this and, you know, this is a instance of your amazing amount of drawings actually did not do you a service really because it actually exemplified or brought out exactly how different the surfaces are and how bad it feels. Um, to me, um, I think for your, you know, obviously for the requirements, you should, uh, definitely comply. That's how I feel. Um, the other comment would be, you're going to, the homeowner is going to get a lot more, uh, down the road for their addition and the garage if they don't just do the signing. So, um, that's not our, our but I agree with the staff recommendation. Thanks.

Ira? Yeah, I think this is too large of a project to have sighting, and I think the staff recommendation makes sense, although I would probably say, I mean, I think they're giving you 75-25 on the recommendation. Isn't that right? Yes. Yeah, so I think that's kind of a give. I mean, I probably wouldn't be in favor of that, but I guess that's the staff rec. So go along with it, but you definitely have to make that at least that kind of a proportion for your materials. Otherwise, I'm good.

Thanks, Ira. I had one other question and that is, I think to the owner and you're Mr. Morrissey? Okay. You have the one and a half story garage and it shows a loft up there. Had you considered not putting that up there and lowering that roof which would then allow potentially more sunlight into the space between the house addition and the garage itself? I'm not sure what you have planned for the loft, but it could do two things. Increase the natural light, sunlight coming in, and also decrease the massive look as you're in the alley,

especially. No, I'd not. It's going to be an office. I've been working in my 19th century coach house since it's been five years. So it's really nice to have the physical separation when I'm working. So that's the use. But as far as you're just proposing, instead of having a vaulted ceiling, it would just be a flat roof or

attic space.

Yeah. Oh, and just drop the roof down. PB John Gerstle, To make it just a garage Oh no that's going to make it super challenging for us for many reasons, but mostly you know, obviously work, but also lifestyle. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Well,

I appreciate your comments and I won't go any further. PB Harmon Zuckerberg, Any other comments.

PB Sarah Silver, Is there not a

bathroom up there or in that building.

No, because that would qualify then as an accessory building or do you have to be removed from property lines?

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you, Terry, for adhering to that. Okay. And do you agree with the staff recommendation about the brick 75%

At this point in time, yes. We'll

work with that.

Well, I would suggest, assuming that we approve it with that condition, that the architect revise the drawings and send them back to staff for final approval. Otherwise, we do have the staff recommendation with one condition. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendation of number one and also to make sure that the

drawings come back to the staff for review for compliance. What do

we think

on

that?

The part of the building permit review will be a zoning review to ensure that they comply with any conditions that you have.

Okay. Do we need to add? To approve. You don't need to add. Sorry, with the staff recommendation.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. Good luck with the project. And how many children do you have?

Two children and one on the way. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Enjoy the house after construction. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Okay. PB Harmon Zuckerman, I believe that brings us to the end of the meeting. And let's see any comments, Amy. No comment.

PB Harmon Zuckermann,

Ellen none

Carolyn.

Caroline

Miller, The only reason I brought that up about the 75% and seeing the actual design is without seeing it. What's to keep people from doing a weird brick course that goes vertical on the building or something completely cray-cray and doing 75%. But you're saying that it goes to the city staff and they will review it? Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes. So when they apply for their building permit, part of our reviews that are automatically created in our electronic portal system we have now, part of that review, one of the first things that happens is that right now myself and soon the new planner, we'll review to make sure that they align with whatever the architecture review board has approved or any conditions that you included. So if there are any substantial variations from something that was presented to the ARB, then we can at that time require that they come back before you for re-approval. All right. Thanks, Anna. I was like,

what? All right. I trust you. So I'm good. Nothing else. Thank you.

Okay, Ira? No, nothing else. I know Carolyn mentioned once in the meeting, if maybe we could remember to have the people speak into that microphone. There's a lot of times where they kind of drift or walk away from it. So, but other than that, yeah, no. I hope this is good meeting and thank you, Steve.

Okay, we'll try to remember that. Thanks, Ira. That one question. Oh, yes. Any word on when we might have a new planner on staff.

Yes. So one's actually starting on the 27th is his first day. Yeah. So he'll be at your next plan commission meeting. Yeah, hopefully. July 5th. Yes. So he's he grew up in southern Missouri and went to Missouri State for undergrad in planning and then got his master's in city and regional planning at Clemson and has been living in Colorado and working for a consulting company engineering planning company in Colorado and now is moving back to St. Louis so

congratulations yeah thank

you I'm excited I think it'll be a good fit so yeah he'll be in front of you next time I know you're missing that next meeting but Yeah, you'll see him soon.

Okay. I feel like St. Louis is way more than Colorado. There's no doubt

about it in my mind. Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. This was one of our shorter meetings. Thank you for everyone attending. I will not be here at the first July meeting, but I'm sure you'll carry on very well without me. So I'll see you in about a month.

All right, thanks, Steve.

Thanks, Steve. Thank you. And good night. Could we stop recording? We need a motion. Oh, yes, a motion to adjourn.

I move we adjourn. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. We are adjourned.