August 1, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Everyone here in council chambers, as well as on Zoom. Welcome to the Planned Commission ARB meeting for August 1st. Remember to raise your hand if you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak. And of course we see you here in the council chambers. Brian, roll

call. Steve

Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Robert Dinlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Robert Dinlow. Here. Helen DeFate.

Kami Waldman.

Ira Berkowitz. David Gipson.

Ira Berkowitz. David Gibson.

Here. Like Ira just now.

We have meeting minutes from the previous two meetings, July 5th and 18th. Are there any changes to either one? Seeing none, do we have a motion to approve them? Carolyn, you're on mute. Pardon, Ira, we didn't hear that.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, thank you. We'll start out with old business at 7601 Westmoreland.

So this item was continued from a previous meeting. This property is located on the north side of Westmoreland across from the Hanley House. It's zoned R2 single family. The applicant is looking to replace their existing yellow vinyl siding and they're looking to install white vinyl and replace the soffits. Homes on the block are predominantly constructed of brick with stone and some siding. Siding makes up about a third of homes on the block, usually in the form of wood or vinyl and colors tend to vary. Architecture guidelines state that primary materials should account for 75% of facade. If siting is used, then guidelines state that wood or stucco is allowed. The proposed siting wouldn't comply with these guidelines. However, since siting is more common, staff is of the opinion that it would be visually compatible with the surrounding properties in instances where an applicant can demonstrate demonstrate just cause in relation to matters of aesthetics and not structural integrity, the architecture review board shall have the authority to approve a modification for the use of vinyl siding. Staff concludes that the proposal is not in conformance with the architecture guidelines. However, that siding is more common on this block and would be visually compatible. Staff recommends approval on the condition that a material other than vinyl is used for the siding.

Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? Come on up and identify yourself with address.

Skyler Halverson, homeowner.

Welcome. Have you had a chance to read the staff report?

I had not. This is the first time I'm aware of it.

Okay. Our planner just went through most of it. So if you have any comments, Please state them now.

I think I was hearing that was the recommendation to not use vinyl. Was that the final statement? It is correct. And what is that based on? If there's multiple other areas in the, on the street that also have vinyl, the current one is vinyl.

The architecture guidelines recommend primary materials that usually being stone or brick to cover 75%. Um, of a facade, however, siding is allowed in some circumstances, typically not vinyl, usually recommending wood or stucco. So according to those guidelines, we would not recommend vinyl. However, the Architecture Review Board has the authority in some circumstances to approve vinyl siding.

Our goal would be to try and improve the look that it is now. The house is quite old. And I think that the kind of melted butter color is not any is not the level of class that we'd wanna see across from the Hanley House. Our desire is to try and update the house in many different ways and sticking with trying to improve its appearance, but being, David McGoldrick, M.D.: : recognizing for the cost, you know our appraisal for getting the vinyl siding which would be the cheapest is $90,000 or $90,000 for. David McGoldrick , M.D.: : pure aesthetics, I think, is always a big investment to make but we're trying to make our House look more appropriate and compatible with kind of the class of the overall street. David McGoldrich, M.D., looking at estimates for other materials that costs nearly doubled and that just isn't something we're going to do and we're not going to spend. 20% of the value of the home to do a non-vinyl siding. When three houses down is a vinyl house, four houses the other way is a vinyl house. To have vinyl siding is what it's been for the last 50 years there. And there's multiple other homes on the street, I think asking us to spend a crazy amount of money to not be vinyl. I don't think it was reasonable given what our neighbors look like and our desire, our willing desire to try and make the house look better.

Have you had any problems with the vinyl delamination, cracking?

It's old. There's a lot of places where it's, I think the prior owners hit it with our car a couple times. There's some portions by the garage that are missing big chunks. It looks like they put the vinyl on top of cedar and we'd try and check with someone to see if they could just redo the cedar. And that would be also cost prohibitive for what we're trying to do. So in our desire to make the home more attractive, but being recognizing that there's a lot of surface area to the house, so there's a lot cost to it, I think maintaining vinyl is our best option.

Well, I certainly agree with you about the white color. I think that would give it a crispness and a newness compared to the buttery color that you have right now. But let's see what other members have as comments. Bob?

Skyler. Sir.

Skyler, are you saying it would cost $90,000 just to do the vinyl?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And to do an alternative of wood or something else is.

One was appraised at $215,000. One was $170,000. And

I remember going down your neighborhood that long ago, there was a vinyl house. You said three doors down. And then there was another one.

about four the other direction.

And otherwise it's brick?

A lot of brick. The one next to us is wood

planks. I don't know if it's cedar or what, but the wood shingle. Wood shingle is directly next to us. That's what it used to be on our house before they put the vinyl on top of that. And I'm looking at that wood shingle. It looks like it's in pretty bad shape, but it's mostly brick or wood shingle or the vinyl siding.

And how long have you lived in the house or owned the house?

Since October. We're coming up on one year. In that time, we've done a lot of things to fix what has been neglected. I'm happy to go into and this is the next thing on that list of trying to make it more attractive with 20 years of weeds in the backyard that we've gotten ready and we were working really hard to make this house fit in with the neighbors. We've had literally every neighbor thank us for that. I think this is the next step in trying to get it up to what the neighbors have established as the Westmoreland level of decency.

And when you were thinking of putting on new siding, did you know that you would have to come for approval of that?

I did not initially. But then when we looked at the financial options and what we're able to work with, this was, that's how we came to needing to apply for it is recognizing that this is our most, what's within our budget and what we're

All right, that's all I needed. I have nothing more. Helen?

Cedar, why am I keep playing on words? Shingles, yeah. Wood shingles that are, we tried to see if they could pull that back and use that or restore that. And there's large sections that are missing.

Because there's enough missing within the shingles. The house has a tendency to fix problems by putting something on top of that, and that's what we're discovering is we're trying to peel away things and fix them the right way, is that what was inadequate before was just covered up by something. And so our initial goal was, okay, let's get this off. Let's get these beautiful wood shingles up. And in pursuing that, they discovered, okay, well, actually there's a large area that the shingles are either missing or in disrepair that would not be a reasonable decision. That was what we first, when we started talking to exterior companies, that's what we first wanted to go with. And then it was just that would, to do that would be too much.

I don't know on the top of my head specifically the other options that they talked with, but when I talked with the siding companies, the estimates based on the other things were outside of what we felt would be a reasonable amount to spend on aesthetics.

Amy?

So the new idea of the vinyl would be to do it white So then the frames of your windows and everything, that would also remain white?

We're redoing the framing of the windows. There's some other term we use for it. Well,

I know you were doing the soffits, right? Yeah. So that's kind of the roof line.

And then we're redoing some of the windows. But yeah, we're redoing the surrounding of the windows as well.

And then do you have any idea how long that vinyl's been there as

far? I think since the 70s.

Okay.

70s or 80s.

Okay. All my questions,

thank you.

Carolyn?

Yeah, have you checked into a mix of the vinyl siding and stucco?

Not specifically. Can you guide me more as to what makes you think that...

No, I'm just asking why exactly just vinyl siding is the choice here?

The vast majority of the house is already vinyl siding. And I think in terms of what we, our design talents aren't in home exteriors as much as finding problems and getting connected with people that can hopefully help us with them. And that was not brought up as an option as to what they'd recommend.

OK, I'm just looking at the top portion of the actual images that were provided. And it seems like from the lower windows, it seems like you could have a different material below there and then have the vinyl siding to the top. But I understand your issue with the, you know, how much it would cost to make it look better. And given it was 1970s, that's incredible to me that it's been that way for so long. I really love the look of your house. I think it's gorgeous. So anything that you can do to bring it up to the neighborhood standards would be great. So my comments would only be, it would be nice if we could have a combination of materials, but I think it fits in very nicely, and I have no issues with the way that you're presenting it. So that's all I have.

Ira? Yeah, I don't have any further questions. Everybody sort of covered the bases. Thanks, Steve.

Okay. David?

I don't have

Following up on Carolyn's, you heard her, she's on Zoom. I'd also like to compliment you on the front landscaping. It works very well, including how you have a car parking space in front, which I think you're the only one on that street and one of the very few in the entire city of Clayton.

That was one of the things that I know a lot of people, when we've been talking with people to try and help us get our house looking like we want, everyone kind of noticed that as a unique thing that was not our choice or our decision. It leads to a really hot car when the sun's spending all day looking at it. But the kind of the background of that is the driveway used to be for the two neighboring houses, but then they split that. So the driveway is too small to get into the garage. So I think there's a lot of character in the house and every little aspect tells a little bit of a story to it. And a lot of the stories end up with a little bit of frustrations. And the fact that we can't fit a van down into our garage, but luckily we have a spot out front for it. Yeah.

Well, when I was overlooking at your house this morning, you drove up. and backed right in and went into the house. So I saw how it works. And typically, I don't think I ever realized there was a parking space there. But that's off the topic. I'm just saying the landscaping works very well. Thank you. As I said before, I like the white that you're proposing. I also think that... What I've seen in the neighborhood is there are other homes that have vinyl. And even though our guidelines say we don't want any new vinyl to be put up, I think at this point, I would go with the vinyl as Ryan was indicating the ARB shall have the authority to approve a modification for the use of vinyl siding. In doing that, I would see that it should not set a precedent and we're not changing any of our guidelines, but we're making a modification if the Board agrees with it for this particular property only. other comments no

no

no carolyn or ira

um i i tend to agree with you on that um i have to say stark white is a little bit more of a statement that i would have been happy with um but That's the homeowner's decision there.

Can I follow up on that?

Yes.

I think our white choice was largely because the house a couple down with siding was white as well. I think if you have recommendations, this is not my skill set to choose a better color. Do you have a recommendation that you think would fit otherwise? We just see our house and see a big old pat of butter and say that it looks old.

It looks old, but some I mean, look at New England. Look at Rhode Island. Look at other houses that have vinyl siding. It's not always white. That really is your choice as to what you your aesthetic for your own home. So I can't really tell you I like watercolor or yellow. That's up to you. Stark white to me, I find that hard to believe that that's not wood, right? And when people look at vinyl siding was invented to look like wood, okay? It was the cheap version of wood siding historically. So when you have bright white like that, you assume people are just like painting it over and over again to look white. It's wood painted in white. So to me, I don't know. I mean, that's totally up to you. I feel like you're grandfathered in, in this instance. So I cannot, I don't feel comfortable telling you what I like and what I don't like. It's up to you. It's your house. So... I'm going to leave it up to you. But for stark white, that reeks of vinyl siding to me. If you did a different color, like a less bright white, it would seem like it was custom made and particular to you. That's all.

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Anything further, Ira?

No, not really. HAB-Jacques Juilland, You know I I oppose vinyl period so i'm not thrilled to to approve of someone, especially the extent that the vinyl would be on this house but it's already there. HAB-Jacqe Juilland, So kind of makes me think well. HAB-Judy Nogg- yeah it's already there, and so you know, maybe someday somebody will do it right. HAB-Joan

Leclerc-

But I don't have any further comments or things.

Anything further, David? No. Okay. Before we make a motion, I've noticed several other homes over the years before you moved in on your street that were siding of one sort or another. I can remember one that was vinyl, but others that were probably cedar or some other. They are now gone. And the houses that have replaced them are predominantly masonry, brick and stone. So as we see three vinyl houses on your street, someday you may be the only one. But it's just a comment and you're new to the area so I thought I would make it. Anyway, do we have a motion reflecting a modification for the use of vinyl siding?

I will make a motion recommending a modification on the staff recommendation number one to approve the use of vinyl siting in this instance.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay.

Thank

you for coming and following our process and good luck with it. And we hope you're resident for many, many years.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. We're ready for new business item number 141, Aberdeen Place. You can wait, we'll go through the staff report first.

This property is located on the north side of Aberdeen between Dumont and Skinker. The site has a two-story home and is designated R2 single family. Their overall project consists of a new front porch, two-story rear addition, interior renovation and demolition and reconstruction of the detached garage. The garage and rear addition will be constructed with materials that match existing home materials. This includes existing brick matching windows and matching shingles. The addition meets the architecture guidelines of requiring primary materials on 75% of facade. The addition and the garage will also conform to the height and setback requirements. Surrounding properties mirror the materials on this home, including red brick in the rear garage. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is compatible with neighborhood character in the existing structure. CoB, Jay Sugnetthi Muthunayake he or she, A new driveway is proposed to replace the existing driveway staff recommends that the applicant use Merrimack sand and gravel mix outlined in the driveway materials guidelines. CoB, Jay Suspensee, New patios are proposed in the front and rear of the property flagstone and gravel or post in the rear end pavers in the front. CoB, Kay Suspensee , railroad ties are currently located along the existing front path, these are not permitted and any new venture retaining wall would need to be an approved material. City Council Chambers, The proposed changes will also increase the lot coverage to 62% exceeding the 55% limits. City Council Chambers , Per section 405 1890 the planning Commission shall have the authority toward an additional 5% when just cause is demonstrated the proposal conforms to front yard coverage, but not total lot coverage. The applicant is proposing a previous patio system, however, a need or hardship has not been presented, therefore the plan should be revised to meet those coverage requirements. In summary, the addition and garage materials could inform to the architecture guidelines in the arts you requirements, except for lock coverage stacker staff recommends approval with the following conditions one the concrete driveway Shelby they. Miramax standard gravel or another material that is allowed by the residential driveway guidelines. The railroad tie retaining wall shall be an approved material and that the site plan should be revised to conform to law coverage requirements.

Okay, thank you. Would the applicant come up and identify yourself?

I'm Chad Jones. I'm an architect. The architect.

I'm Genevieve Caffrey and I am a homeowner.

When you speak, be sure to speak into the microphone so we can record it. Do you have any comments on the staff report?

Where did you get the 62% lot coverage? I'm sorry.

That's what was previously. The

previous patio was 55% based on my calculations.

The calculations were, so if you don't include the perviable pavement, adding in the front yard perviable paver system and the flagstone in the backyard is what increased the coverage.

Okay, well, okay. Well, I mean, we don't officially have a patio design in the back. It was there for, I mean, we don't know what that sign is yet. Can you hear? I'm sorry. We don't know what patio design is in the back. Thank you. And why is pervious? I'm sorry, I don't mean the question. Why is pervious as or paving being considered lot coverage?

The lot coverage requirement in our residential districts is kind of a twofold to target stormwater as well as just green space ratios. TAB, In terms of the overall coverage of a lot so we include that even though it's a permeable or permeable system it's included in the lot coverage calculation as a hardscape material.

TAB, Okay, we could probably reduce it to get down to 60% I mean it wouldn't be that difficult. TAB, And what what did you mention about railroad ties because they're all being removed.

Right. On the site plan was the only area where the paper system in the front, that new front patio and walk was noted. And so because there were existing railroad ties with the steps there currently and there wasn't anything called out, we just wanted to ensure that when you replace it with your new system, those same railroad ties would not be used.

Yeah, there was no attempt to leave those deteriorated railroad ties in place. But it was still required.

Can we have folks talking to the microphone a little bit closer? We

were having a conversation. Thank you. What else do you need to know? Yes. I guess we can go into questions. I just had a few questions. I'm

just curious. So if we did want to keep the... front the way that it is and dramatically reduce the back patio um would that end up likely getting to lot coverage requirements um i mean i know it's hard to tell just

yeah it's hard to say right now with the um the amount that you would need to reduce it and the two different patio and walkway systems i'd instead of forcing you to redesign one or the other, the staff recommendation allows you to make that decision before permitting of construction.

I do have another comment, I guess. The existing block coverage is probably more than what we're proposing. I mean, it has a garage in the back corner, a much larger driveway, and it has existing walk and everything in front. I'm guessing that it'd probably end up being over 60%. By reducing that, does that help our cause at all? you know, reducing from the lot coverage that we have now.

I mean, the driveway? No, no,

the existing way the existing configuration is. You understand my question? The existing lot coverages probably exceeds the, you know, the minimum, the maximum allowed by quite a bit.

Do you know what that calculation would be?

I didn't run it because I thought we were at 55%, you know, so I didn't see a need to at this point. I could easily give you those numbers.

Well, when I looked at it, I thought the new coverage might actually be a little less than the existing.

That's what I'm suggesting, yeah.

Because of the length of the driveway and the location of the current garage, the garage essentially is coming over to where the turnaround is. But there is more concrete in front of it. Not that much. But I had another question. Is there an alley back

there?

It's on the drawing.

It's been abandoned at some point. I probably went to school it was constructed.

I went round and round looking for that alley.

What?

I went round and around

all

around the neighborhood.

Our neighbors to the west, they ended up convinced 20 years ago when they put on their addition, they convinced the board that They could even put their garage all the way up to like, there was no five feet variance because there is no existing alley. There's just a school there.

Right. So right up against their property, right up against

the school.

And I couldn't find an alley entrance off of stinker either. So the alley has been. Yeah, I

think it's been abandoned. It's just grass. I mean, there's a fence and then it's the school. We're not

really sure why that surveyor felt the need to put it on there, honestly.

Okay, so is your property now former Alley property?

I think that was given to the school because her fence is on her property line.

Oh, it's a shame.

Yeah, we have a wooden fence and then they have a chain link fence. So there are two fences, but the chain link, there are lots of kick balls and things between the chain link fence and the, but it's not very much. It's just a couple of feet.

Well, the reason I bring it up is to get it below the 62% impervious coverage. And at first I thought, well, if you could enter your garage from the alley, Then I discovered no alley. Then I thought, well, if the alley had been either divided between the two property owners, north and south, you would have had additional square footage. But apparently that's not the case. So I think as our director has indicated, there are other ways that you could do it within your current property ownership.

I think we can get to the 60% number. I know that would still require approval, but I mean, with the patio and the design, it's hard, it would be hard to get back to 55%, no matter what we do, unless we eliminate driveway or something.

Because I understood that I thought that the patio area and the front area would not count toward lot coverage or toward the, I thought it was impermeable. We didn't really do much with, or we didn't talk about it a lot, but truly we don't want the patio to be that big at all. We would like it to be significantly smaller because we have little kids and we'd like to put a, you know, trampoline and have more grass area. So I just thought we could talk about that later. I didn't think it was going to count. So. I don't know if that matters, just hoping to- We can

resubmit a site plan. We can discuss it and we'll get to the number you guys want.

Well, I would recommend, and this is based on some previous applications that I would support going up from the 55 to 60% maximum. I know we're splitting hairs between 60 and 62. But I don't recall ever going more than 5% over the requirement. But I think that would have to be if everyone on the board approves at this point. And then secondly, as you stated, have it resubmitted to staff to make sure that we're at the 60% maximum. We can do that. Well, let's see what other comments we have. Bob?

What about the condition number one, the concrete driveway shall be Merrimack sand and gravel or another material as allowed by the residential driveway guidelines? Do you have an issue with that? I

honestly don't. I mean, they'll hire a professional contractor to install a driveway, and you'll have to meet your guidelines, I assume.

But you have no reason to worry about that?

Well, I mean, they go by six-bag mix or eight-bag mix and the subgrade. So if you, I mean, I don't know why would we have an issue with it?

I'm asking you, if you do.

I mean, if it's your requirements, then yeah, we don't have a problem with it.

Can I understand? Can somebody explain to me what is the issue? So they're in the plans. There's something different, but you guys are- All I did was

call out New Driveway. They have specific requirements for concrete driveways that contractors don't have to meet. Okay. Okay. The

Merrimack

sand and gravel mix is the same standard mix we use for our sidewalks, the driveway aprons. It basically just from day one is a little bit of a darker color with that exposed aggregate as opposed to the stark white concrete that you sometimes see when it's poured new.

I mean, the original, the remaining part of the driveway will not match them. But I guess if that was your question,

we're getting to it. And you have no problems with removing the railroad ties? No, we want them gone. And you feel pretty comfortable with 60%? Yeah,

I think we can get to 60%. I mean, just removing that little sidewalk in front would probably get us to 60%, honestly. And they can go walk down the driveway. I don't really think we even need a sidewalk.

If we dramatically reduce the patio and back, the patio and back is counted as permanent, correct? So yeah. I'm sorry. Okay, yes. So

yeah. But that's fine. Yes, I don't think we're gonna have an issue getting that and keeping a reasonable design. Reasonable usable design.

Yeah, I don't I don't have a concern that we could. Yeah, we could just make the front walkway then into the driveway a little bit. Make it a lot smaller.

Nothing further. Ellen.

That's a good question. There's two-color brick on there now. We have the original brick from, when was the house built? The early 1900s. We have that brick. Then we have the 80s brick on the addition. So we're waiting for numbers to come back in, but we're going to I mean, we'll probably end up having to match the 80s brick because otherwise we'd have to replace it all. I mean, we'd have to place all the way back to the original house. And that $40 a square foot would get pretty pricey. So we're probably going to try to match the mortar and brick from the 80s edition.

I really think it's an improvement on what's there now. Amy.

It's funny you ask about the bricks. I was thinking about that too, just looking at your photographs. So I think it is smart to go with the one that's probably, that is connecting to the newer part of the addition to try to match the 80s brick. I think that's a smart choice. I

mean, we would like to go back to the original house and replace it all way back because we can match that original red brick, but money, I mean, it would be, it's pretty irresponsible probably to do that.

Is there a way to stain it, like all the same? I mean, there's no way to do that. Because it does drive my husband crazy. I don't care at all. I would not want to spend the money on that, but it drives me crazy. He would like to. But is there a...

Not on that. You can a small patch, but you don't want to do it on it that

much. It's huge. It's

a huge amount. I've seen it done on smaller lentils and stuff like that, but not the entire elevation.

You bought the house with the two bricks. Enjoy

it. I was also, Steve, how you were saying that look like your existing 55%, 62%, whatever. It does look like you are shortening that amount when I was just visually looking at. So I think it would be great to kind of get those calculations I can hear existing versus the new and just

definitely guys comparison to when they're considering our 60% that might make it a little easier for

them. But overall, I think it looks great. I like the little stucco detail that you have you added, you know, to the back to kind of match the front. Looks looks like it's gonna be great.

Carolyn. unmute

i'm trying thank

you

yeah um yeah i i think all the comments uh prior to me are great um with the addition are you taking out any vegetation that we're not aware of

there are no trees or anything like that it's it's grass area well actually

there's one

tree there is most The addition is going almost in the exact same footprint as the deck and four season or three season room that we're removing. So, I mean, we're

not...

There's a tree.

One tree that... Oh, that

room.

Right. Yeah. There's one tree to get the driveway to go. Yeah. But... we would definitely plan on planting lots of trees in the front and the back just because. Is there

a plan for that?

Oh, no, I didn't know that that had to be on this plan.

It's a little ornamental.

Okay.

In the back?

I mean, it's not very mature. It's

maybe. It probably does.

Karen Hollweg, Okay, I haven't looked at it yet but i'm an arborist so if it's a. Karen Hollweg, If it's something over six inches it probably should be mitigated. Karen

Hollweg , Okay, right so would would that would you appreciate a what kind of a plan. would you, no, I, I would

just like to know verbally what you're getting. I don't know about the city.

That's it. That is what we were about to, I was about to talk about because,

um, the school photo book that we submitted.

Oh, there's a photo. Okay. Well, there's a, um, school, you know, right behind us. So any kind, so we've talked about putting a good amount of vegetation back, back there just to create as much noise, you know, um, stay away, but also privacy. And then also along the fence to the left, there's a fence there, but we would also like to put some trees for privacy along the fence. And then also we have, well, we share a driveway with our neighbors currently. I don't know if you can see that on the plans, but they are.

When you say tree, what do you mean exactly though?

Oh, I'm thinking, well, i'm a dogwood lover so i'm thinking like dogwoods and then um you're gonna get more of a

screening tree

screening tree

okay i guess no that's not what i'm saying when i when i think of tree i'm thinking dogwood or a maple or an oak something that's gonna give major benefit to you for climate and or for the community. So I'm not thinking arborvitae or something like that. I was asking, dogwood is good. That's a native. Okay.

I mean, I'll be honest with you. We have very mature trees in the front yard. They're attractive. But your rear yard is not very functional as it is. And to add a larger tree species like that would probably... I mean, I think she's more ornamental screening plants in the back than a big tree.

Well, that's fine. Dogwoods and serviceberry. I think on those lines, I would be really happy with that. So

yeah, my dad and I, we plant dogwoods regularly just for like events and things. And then what was I going to say? our next door neighbors who we share a driveway with and who our kids play together and everything. They are like really good at the, plant vegetation landscaping thing, and their yard looks a thousand times better than ours right now because of the deck and the back porch caving in. So we've talked about a variety of... I don't know if it's what you're looking for, not entire trees. No,

that's fine. On to a different topic. This is for Anna in the city more. I have a question about the... pavers, permeable or pervious pavement. Is there a way to get approved that kind of thing if they can show proof of the soil cross section in construction actually working? When I'm saying that, there's a cross section that you can create with clay soils that actually will allow infiltration of water. And in our current situation with the flooding and everything else, I think that if we could promote something like that, it actually would be great for our community because we'd actually get infiltration and percolation, everything into our soils and allow for you know, water to come in as opposed to just going on to basically clay concrete and flooding everywhere. So there has to be some kind of change, I think. And Anna?

Sorry. Sure. No, so that is one instance where people have used that as justification for the additional 5% through this approval, that modification. Right. But the reason the code doesn't currently contemplate that difference, and it's something that you know, is something we can consider in the future. The reason that we have held the hard line historically is because if we were to make that modification to allow for a system like you're calling for, theoretically somebody could cover their entire lot. with that system based on the way the code is written currently. So we haven't approached that change yet because I think it would require a more extensive code rewrite to make sure that the implications would still be protection of the ratio of hardscape to greenscape.

No, but they would have to prove their cross section underneath the pavement actually allowed for the infiltration is my point. There's a cross section that you can do that I've done in many areas in my entire life, that when you do that kind of payment, you have sand, then you have gravel, then you have soil and you make sure the soil is amended so that it can receive the water.

Right, we can require that. But if right now that's still that even with that cross section, that area would still be counted as lot coverage and included within that calculation to get up to the 55% maximum. So that's where there have been instances where that is part of the justification for or part of justification that people have applicants have presented to support their request for an additional 5%.

What do you call that process?

Okay. Anything else,

Carolyn?

Nope.

Ira? Well, I think a lot of questions have been asked and I appreciate all those. I would tend not to be inclined to go over the 55% recommended by staff. We do have issues of flooding and rain wash off and you name it. I don't know enough about the location of this house and how it affects or could affect the rest of the neighborhood. I certainly have a concern about allowing our houses to now get into that 60 or more percent situation. Yeah. I'm a little hesitant about it, Steve, in terms of agreeing with you on that. So I would be inclined to agree more with the staff recommendation on that. Otherwise, it all looks good to me.

Ira, when I walked around the house and tried to find the alley, It looked to me that the lay of the land, the water would drain to the north or to the south and not to the adjacent properties. Is that correct?

It seems to be. That's the way the pipes are laid out in the yard.

Speak more into the microphone so that I can hear you,

sir. Yeah, I believe that's correct. And I think we're actually improving that situation by relocating the garage. because it's giving us more green area toward the back, the rear of the yard.

Oh. You know, Steve, it's just a little too complicated for me to know without having a study done or something.

It is a relatively flat yard. It is. And I'm not sure how we can improve it, honestly.

What kind of information would be helpful? You mentioned a study. How would one go about doing that? We'd

have to get a topography plan to show actual grades on the property. OK.

Well, at this point, I think we're looking at whether we approve an additional 5% for this property over and above the 55% required. PB Harmon Zuckerman, The other thing I think as we talked that staff should be able to review it again. But if the large tree that we see in the pictures coming down. I think we need to see PB Harmon Zuckerson, In the same PB Harmon Zuckerton, Um, set of drawings where the new vegetation will be going and what type. I think Carolyn, who is an arborist, did give you some direction on that.

Okay.

I guess which large tree is coming down?

The one by the deck.

it's an ornamental it's not large oh

i don't know the

difference

between

it looks pretty big in the pictures it's as tall as the house yeah

okay i don't remember it that way i guess

it um i haven't measured it but it looks like it could be near a 12 inch diameter okay

yeah and that's a storm water uh Trees of large caliper or any trees can soak up to 10,000 gallons of water. Okay? So that actually was a mitigator for you. So...

Why would we not just put more trees in the back? It seems like an easy thing. I'm not

saying we don't. I'm just saying we should be selective on which ones to put back there and make sure that your yard stays usable the way you want it to. Okay,

yeah.

Do you have to get rid of that tree? I can't really tell from the existing and the proposed site plan.

So you see on the existing site plan, the wood deck has kind of like a hypotenuse, a slanted, it's directly in front of that, like almost touching that hypotenuse. So it's right there. So I don't, think it would be pretty hard to keep that there with the entrance to the mudroom and the new proposed driveway because the driveway has to start curving sooner.

Oh, that one.

Right? I think there'd be significant root damage.

Can somebody point out which one it is? Because I'm looking at your pictures and

You want me to look at something? There'll be one looking at the rear of the house. There'll be a picture looking at the rear the house.

It looks like a maple. You look

at the northeast elevation and the north elevation. That's the tree that you see directly behind the wood deck.

Yeah, I think that's a maple.

And I don't know how you would do any digging around it without affecting those roots. And you'll be digging down pretty deep next to it.

Yeah, that's actually a maple.

Yeah. No, that's a maple

Yeah, that's unfortunate. Well,

apparently we're going to lose that tree. Okay. So if you could work with staff on showing how you would be replacing the caliper inches on it, I think that would really be necessary to give you more protection and have more water soaked up over time.

Thank you.

Let's go around. Any further comments? Mr. Chair,

if I could, one suggestion to try to, I guess, come up with a condition for the lot coverage. Since we don't know the existing, I don't know if everybody would be comfortable approving up to the current coverage, but not to exceed 60%. because if it's at 58% or something like that, I think we should peg that number at 58% and not create a condition where we're actually having more runoff when this project's complete. So if we could get that existing calculation and then tie the new calculation to it, as long as that total amount doesn't exceed 60%, that would make me personally more comfortable with it. I don't know how everybody else feels about that or how exactly we might want to word that.

David, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Not to exceed 60%.

Not to exceed 60% total. So if currently it's at 63, it's an unknown to us. So if it's currently 63%, we don't want them to go back to 63%. We'd want to cap it at 60. But if it's 58%, I wouldn't want to exceed 58% and create more runoff than there is currently on the site. Does that make sense?

Yeah. My understanding is take away the permeable material the new addition and everything, if we take away the permeable coverage, we're at 55% or so. Yes. Okay. And so permeable to me is not the same as hard surface, although we calculated as such. I get that. But I don't care what the existing is. at the end of the day, their new structure and everything would be 55%. The permeable, they can only add up to 5%, right? That's how I'm kind of seeing it.

Or impervious, an additional 5%. Well,

I wasn't making any distinction between the two because there's no distinction between the two in the code. So runoff is one factor there. The other factor is trying to preserve that open space for heat and everything else, just trying to avoid having hard surfaces take up that much space. So I think as long as we keep that amount of hard surface where it's at, I'm personally okay with that so long as the existing amount of hard surface doesn't exceed 60% of what's on the line. but I just don't know what that number is without the existing conditions. Yeah, everything

under roof as well, correct? Like that three-season roof. Correct. That would be considered lot coverage. Correct. It would still be considered hard surface.

That's correct.

So I know that we're going to be, we're probably well below that number already, but I can, I'll calculate it and we'll get below 60%. I know we can't easily keep a decent design.

Well, I would agree with what you were suggesting, David, that 60% is the absolute maximum at this point. Right. And I would recommend that we include it in the statement that will hopefully vote upon. But it really is up to you, Chad, to prove the numbers of the existing and the proposed and get it back to the staff. Okay.

I'll do another line item square footage calculation just like I did for the proposed.

So were you suggesting, David, that the percentage be limited to the total coverage that is there now as long as that total coverage did not exceed 60% and if it was less than 60%, then they would have to go with whichever was last?

Correct, maintain the existing, right.

Okay, so I've written something like that if that's what we're gonna go with.

I don't know how everybody else feels about that kind of condition. if it's even clear for

everyone what I'm trying to do. I don't want to have more runoff than what is currently there. We don't want problems.

Let's go back to Carolyn. Carolyn, did you hear what Stephanie was saying?

Yes.

Were you comfortable with it?

Yes, absolutely. Yep.

Ira, any further comments?

No, no further comments. I understand what you're all trying to do. I still think 60 is high, but that's what you all want to do. Other than that, I have no comments.

Bob? No comment. Helen?

Amy?

Okay.

Well, I think we have probably reached the point of a motion. Carolyn, are you still with us?

Yes, but oh my goodness. Okay. I'll make a recommendation that we approve staff recommendations. One, two, three with the coverage. Do you like for me to read

that, Carolyn?

Yes. Thank you. Three.

So what I suggest is that number three would be revised to say the site plan shall be revised to reduce the lot coverage to the amount of total coverage of the existing hard surface as long as that existing total coverage does not exceed 60%. Okay.

I think we can vote on that. Yes. Yes.

Yes. I thought David had another point about if it was less.

Yeah, so it's limited to the total coverage that's existing now. But in the event that the calculations are made where that existing hard surface is less than 60%, then it would be limited to that. But if it's more than 60%, then has to be further reduced to meet that 60%. So it's really whichever is less. And I can work in that phrase as well. Okay. Yep, okay.

Okay, everyone on board? Does the applicant understand it? Yeah. Okay.

We're good with

that. Carolyn, that was your motion? Yes. Stephanie's addition,

okay.

Do we have a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Okay. I think we made it. And thank you for working with us. And I'm sure the staff will eagerly await revised documents.

I do have one more question. The deck, I mean, we had that small landing outside the Sunken Family Room. You do not include decks in park surface, right?

It's counted at 75%. So that's how we got to that 60%. So there's a staff clarification memo for that one. We can, we can, I can show you the calculation that got to 62%. And you can move from there and for permitting. I

got there. If you include the patio, I mean, that's how it got there. So the

back

patio. Yeah. Yeah. So 75% for deck. Okay.

And you're talking about the one with this one?

No, the little one. The portrait was already included as concrete.

How do we see all the, is it going to be on the portal? Like all the recommendations, all the things that you guys just voted on?

Yes, you'll receive an email that gives you the official results of tonight.

We just submitted the same way as last time.

You can submit. Yeah, so the email you'll receive probably tomorrow will tell you this, but through the portal, you can apply for a building permit. When you submit for that building permit, that's when we'll do a zoning review to ensure that it complies with what ARB approved tonight. So

how do we submit the current?

I'll make the revisions and we'll submit the drawings. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank

you. Before we finish, Anna, do you have any update on the solar panel study that you and Ryan were going to look at or the sustainability committee?

No, we'll add that to an agenda when it's ready.

Okay. That's fine. Well, let's go around. Kami, any comments?

Nothing further.

Helen?

Nothing.

Bob? No. Carolyn?

Nope.

Ira? Nope. David? Nope. Ryan? Anna? Stephanie?

No, but I will just say that I did add that second sentence to that condition number three, and it was, so by way of explanation, the lot coverage shall be the lesser of One, the current percentage of lot coverage or hard surface. Or number two, 60%.

If their coverage were 51%, this is hypothetical, then I would assume they would be allowed to go up to 55. I

think that that's by the code.

Yeah. That's going to happen.

Since

the ordinance allows it, we would allow it. Yeah.

And then I have nothing further.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. We'll see you in two weeks.

Thanks guys. Bye.