August 15, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening everyone and welcome to the August 15th Plan Commission meeting. If you have any cell phones or any other electronic gadget here in council chamber, please silence it. For anyone on Zoom, I don't see anyone right now. They can raise their hand of course when necessary. We'll start with the roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Here. Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DeFay.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss. Here. Bob Denlo. Here. Helen DeFay.

Here.

Kimmy Waldman. Ira Berkowitz. David Gipson.

Kimmy Waldman. Ira Berkowitz. David Gibson.

Here.

Okay, we have meeting minutes from the previous meeting on August 1st. Are there any corrections to it? No. Okay. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay.

We'll start out with Old Business, and that's 750 Winokur Drive is the

applicant here. Okay, good evening, Mr.

Zhang. We're going to begin with the staff report and we'll get back with you

in a minute. Ryan. The owner of the property

located on Winokur Drive has proposed six rooftop solar panels on the west street facing portion of the home's pitched roof and eight solar panels on the east facing rear roof. Currently, Solar panels are not permitted on roofs facing the street unless approved through a variance or alternative compliance. This item was first introduced in May of this year and was continued through several meetings to consider options and to allow the sustainability committee to examine current renewable energy policy. Gareth J. At the plane Commission architecture review board meeting on July 18 this year air be recommended that the applicant pursue a variance or alternative compliance. Gareth J. The applicant has chosen to seek approval for alternative compliance now describe the staff and staff analysis by reading the criteria and providing the relevant analysis, so the first criteria. The proposed alternative approach accomplishes the intent of these standards equally well or better than an approach which complies with the standards. So current renewable energy standards seek to balance aesthetics and function. As presented, the panels would produce just over half of the needed energy for the home. If revised, the panels would reduce less than half of the energy needed. The design does not provide any mitigation of their appearance. The roof has a low slope and the panels are a similar dark color to the roof. The second criteria, the alternative standards will have no adverse impact on any other property or unreasonably disturb the peaceful occupancy of adjoining or nearby property. The panels would produce no noise or odor and have minimal visual impact. and the applicant has also submitted letters of support from adjacent properties. Staff finds no adverse impact. Given the analysis criteria, staff recommends approval of alternative compliance to allow the solar panels to be installed and operated as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Zhang, if you would unmute yourself,

if you have any comments. Hi, thank you very much. Do you have any comments? Can you hear me okay? Hello, can you hear me okay Sorry, I think my connection is very bad

Hello?

Sorry, I don't know if you can hear me, but no comment at this point. But thank you so much for your considering and then continuous support for residents like us who wants to adopt the green energy initiative. Thank

you.

We apologize, Mr. Zhang, we're having some technical challenges and we're trying to figure out a good solution for you.

Hi, can you hear me okay now? I see if Ira can talk and speak.

Ira, can you say something for us for tests now, whether or not we can hear you?

Yeah, can you hear me okay now?

Hello, hello? I'm just typing my comments if you can still hear me. Ira, can you

unmute and talk

for you?

Yes, I'm doing that. I don't know if you can hear me or not.

is correct. And I would be in favor of supporting it in this instance, but not to make it a rule for any other project coming up. But let's go through and see Carolyn.

Thank you. I tend to agree with you on this instance. Thank you.

Oh, now it was.

I was just saying that solar panels are becoming a routine and common feature so that doesn't even really stick out anymore as you walk past them. And I think our alternative proposal or the alternative submitted by the in this application or in the alternative compliance is suitable and should be supported.

Okay. Helen?

No further comment. Everybody said what I was thinking.

Okay. Ira, do you have any comments

if you can hear us or text it back? Bill.

We need

David.

No,

he's still on mute. He's on mute. If somebody could try to talk either the applicant or Ira. Hey, Ira, can you unmute? I can now. Can

you hear me? Yes. Good. Yay. Okay. Thank you. Ira, do you have any comment on the 750 Wenneker proposal for alternative compliance?

I just want to make sure I have the right one. That is not what they're looking for is the, is it additional 59% or is that a different one?

No, this is about the solar panels on the front-facing roof. Oh, I am totally in favor of them doing that, yes. Okay, thank you. Are there any comments from the audience on 750 Winokur Drive? Any further comments from the board? Do we have a motion?

We'll make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Zhang. You're still there. Good

luck getting it hooked up now.

Okay, we can go on to new business. The first item is 6464 Ellenwood Avenue. And is the applicant here? Yeah, okay. We'll start with the staff report.

The subject property just over 29,000 square feet is located on the south side of Ellenwood between University Lane and Cecil Avenue. It has a 3,400 square foot home that is zoned are two single family. The proposed project involves replacing existing patio and landscaping walls with a new with new patios. And outdoor kitchen two story detached garage, with a screened porch attached garage does include a bathroom but no kitchen, so it does not constitute an accessory dwelling unit. The proposed structure is in the rear of the property and informs to all setback height and coverage requirements. The structure will be composed of primary materials similar to that of the main structure. Materials include red brick, stone and wood. The structure meets primary material requirements. Two-story detached garages and pools are common in the neighborhood. In the scale location, materials are compatible with surrounding structures and neighborhood. Stone pavers and walkways are proposed to replace the existing patios. A metal fence will surround the pool and replace the existing wood fence. A retaining wall will be added, and the driveway will be extended and repaired with matching materials. The proposed structure and plans conform to the architecture review guidelines of the R2 zoning district and are compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval as submitted.

Thank you. The applicant, please come up and identify yourself. And if you have anything

to add to the staff. Can you just make sure the green light is on

on the microphone? There's a small.

There we go. I repeat, my name is Brian Smith, president of

Gunn & Smith Architects. I do have a question, and that is

about the retaining wall at the south side. I really couldn't figure out what the drop in elevation was there, and if there was any other reason for

it. It's really a primary programmatic purpose of leveling out the backyard. there's an existing wooden fence that's six feet tall between the neighborhood to the south, that's being rebuilt. And so the retaining wall, is hidden basically, but it will allow them to level out some of the land that helps comfort the pool arrangement and the new development basically. So it's a very beautiful aesthetic kind of idea, but it's not a visible thing at all. I don't know if I answered your question, but. You did,

because I wasn't sure about the wood fence either, but it all goes together. Yeah. What about water drainage? Is it going to change in any way affecting the residents to the east, the west, or the south?

I don't believe so. We're working with Bowles Engineering, Eric Bietmeyer specifically, and that will all be developed, but I don't believe there's any issue with the drainage of the site. You know, we're reconnecting the sewers and sanitary sewers and storm sewers to the existing, as far as I understand. But no, I don't think anything dramatically affects the drainage of the property. Certainly the retaining wall doesn't, you know, so it's just mild contact during a changing of the grade just to build a garage and a pool?

Well, the construction of the new garage and the pool is upping more impervious land.

Yes.

So I would recommend since we don't have that updated proposed water drainage, if you would have the civil engineer submit that back to staff, assuming we approve this.

That's obviously, I mean, it will be part of the process. Yes, we'll do that.

Thank you. Carol?

With putting in the new utilities, it says that you're going to be taking out some of the current driveway material and replacing it. What are you replacing it with?

Well, the idea is to either bore or however we connect the existing house utilities to the new garage. And wherever we have to patch the existing concrete driveway, we will, you know, to match. So that's the plan.

Okay. Glad you got this because I couldn't read where some of the items were because the text was so small. I do have a question and this might be for more of the actual building architects on this board. I'm a landscape architect. So the synthetic slate roof I have heard horror stories about how they can fade over time and also curl up and cause some drainage issues into the actual building over time. I guess my question is, has anybody else had that experience with that material? Because it's not slate, it's actually

The synthetic imitation. It's

rubber, basically. Yeah. So I didn't know. The

roof slopes are steep and not on the screen boards. That's EPDM. But the roof slopes are steep. And also we're using the simulated slate on the side of the dormers. Excuse me. But the old house, it doesn't have a lot of visible slate because the roof is so high. but there is slate on the side of the dormers. So we're just trying to simulate it. You know, it's an old house, but apart from trying to use another kind of material.

For a slate itself.

Except, yeah, for slate itself. I mean.

I was just asking because I've heard some. I just, you know.

I think that the material, I'm not an expert by any stretch, so. I think the material product has improved over the years, but don't have a huge amount of experience with it. But that's something I know it's being used all over the country. So it must be approved and tried products. But I'm not, I don't, I'm not saying that that's not

a thought. That's fine. I'll let Ellen, she's looking at me, I'll let her make comments on that after. I have a question about some of the landmark trees going away. I could not see the numbers on the document that I had for where those were. Are they, excuse my oldness, are there numbers

I don't believe there are any trees that are significance.

Well, there's a 30-incher, a 20-incher, or a 31-incher that are on the landmark tree chart here. So I just kind of wanted to know where those were because I can't see the numbers on the

line.

Wondering if the regrading could save them at all or some kind of way to save them.

Edge, why are those getting removed? or

offhand? Not offhand. I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't.

That's

regraded.

I would assume so, yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's because of the wall

and the pool. Okay. Right. Well, I'm assuming staff has approved um with their landscape, the landscape person who's, you know, being used by staff, I'm sure it's been approved that it's okay. And they've met their quota for having canopy covered.

Yeah, this project didn't automatically trigger site plan review. So if you so it was not sent to the contracted landscape architect, but that is something that this board can forward

it on to.

Okay, that's a shame.

That's all I have.

Bob? No comments. Helen?

Okay. Yes, the fake slate has had issues in the past a number of years back, but I believe that they've remedied that. So I would... make your decision the same as you've made it. Give it a try. The only thing with slate is watch the slope. You know, that's the big key. And with any roof, it's the water, the snow getting back up underneath. But yeah, I would say maybe about 18, 15 years ago, I looked at the fake slate And it looks great, but what I was hearing was not good. And they've addressed that. So barring any other issues. No, I think the design looks great. I like it.

You know, well done.

Ira, comments?

Sorry, I was muted. Muted

again. Just a couple of comments. I will reiterate from what's been said about the slate roofs. Actually, this board approved my slate roof on my house about 13 years ago, 14 years ago, and it only took about seven years before that composite slate basically crumbled. So, but I think it's, they did, TAMCO was the name of the company we went through. I don't know who you're going through. But the, you know, it becomes your problem in the end only because if it crumbles, you're going to have to replace it again. So it's another expense. But so to me, if they've corrected it, that's fine. So far we did replace and we did replace with a different product.

What did you replace it with?

It was a composite that they said was new and improved. So it's one of those things that, I mean, it was new and improved back then. I actually remember being at an ARB meeting, and Steve was up there. He had the product in his hands, and he said, this looks great. This would be great. Give it a try. So... So it's not nothing Steve's fault. I mean, the, you know, the product looked great. And so they may have improved it. They may not have, but do it at your risk, you know? So, but otherwise, yeah, no, I think that it looks good. I, you know, I don't have any other, any questions other than that. Okay.

David. No questions. Okay.

Yeah. We had a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. I've suggested that we add the submittal of the drainage plan at some point in the near future. To wrap it up, I also think it's a good looking addition to that property. It works with the house design and it also fits into the neighborhood. Luckily, it's a very large site. So you have a lot of space to work with. So do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with the recommendation that there be a submittal of a drainage stormwater plan to the city and then proceed.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Okay.

Real quick question. What is the timeline for submitting the drainage plan? Is there a critical time?

You submit it as part of your building permit package and we'll review it then.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And actually,

will that one vote cover both the site plan and the ARB?

This item only is ARB.

Oh,

no. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Okay. My fault. Okay. We'll go on to the next item, 8027 Forsyth. And

start with the staff report.

Right. Okay,

so the sort of property is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Merrimack, and as a zoning designation of PUD planned unit development. On March 24 2020, the Board of Aldermen approved plans for just over 960,000 square foot mixed use building, including a 14 story tower at the west and 16 story tower at the east end. The architectural review board approved the materials and design of the building on March 2 2020. The applicant is proposing revisions to the facade treatment at the southeast and southwest corners above the main entrances to each tower. The previously approved plans included backlit cut metal panels with an artistic design. The owners of both towers have completed the process of selecting public art pieces for the tower entrances as required by the PUD. As the art selection process unfolded and the final design of the interior of the parking garage was completed, the facade treatment at The applicant is now proposing to install a pattern of backlit glass panels at each corner. The proposed glass facade will provide a unique appearance at the corners but will direct attention towards art pieces rather than compete with them. The applicant is proposing to use a sandblasting technique to add texture to the glass and create a patterned appearance inspired by the garage screening fins. The glass feature will be backlit with LED lights to provide additional variation in the appearance. The lighting is intended to highlight the pattern of the glass that would not otherwise be expressed at night with soft lighting. The lighting can be programmed to change pattern and color. The original corner features aligned with the columns at both ends. The corner feature has been shortened slightly along the east facade and the west facade. This change is partially due to the layout of the garage and need to recapture some of this corner space for interior function. The proposed glass features will provide a material contrast along the facade that will accentuate the corners. The glass pattern provides a modern design element that is complimentary to other materials and features of the building. While the corner proposed will not be as artistic as the cut metal design originally approved, it will likely result in a similar impact. Staff recommends to approve as

submitted.

Thank you.

going to speak.

My name is Scott Haley with U.S. Capital Development and my address is I was going to say 8027. It's really now 7911 Foresight. But I'm happy to be here. We are progressing with our Foresight Point project and very excited how it's evolving. And I think we have with us tonight Jeff Ryan, and Bob Johnson with Krishna, our esteemed architect, and also in the back room representing Commerce Bank is Denny Holzer. And appreciate your time tonight so we can take the next step to complete the building and hope everybody's been enjoying it the last year and a half while it's going up. So

thank you. Okay, great. Good evening, everybody. Jeff Ryan with Christian Architects. Test my glasses here. So I have a

small PowerPoint show. that is just like eight slides, really. But it helps really illustrate the corners.

Well, I sent

a PDF earlier just in case this happened. That's a brand new flash drive. And so I don't know why it's not opening. It says it can't read the flash drive basically.

That happened once before when I presented to the ARB. It's security. Something happens with that. So PDF security.

It is, let me get out of this.

I can, I'll try. Well, let's

try this.

This is enjoyable.

Yeah, I don't quite know how to get out of this. Maybe I can.

That is, this is a mock-up.

So it shows the, it shows the material quality of glass. One of the things we'll talk about in the show is that we mocked up both a clear glass and a low iron glass. The client said go to the low iron glass so we'll have green in the glass. So you can kind of see it there. It's a sandblasted glass and it's sandblasted in two different densities. We had designed around an acid etch glass, but with procurement issues these days, we could not get acid etch glass procured for this project. So we ended up sandblasting it instead. But what it will do is it will diffuse the light in the chamber and we'll make it more volumetric.

Can you say more volumetric? Does

that mean greater depth?

Yeah, the actual chamber or the corner is four feet deep and about 16 feet wide. And so light is about four feet behind the glass. So that light, it'll translate to the glass in a more diffuse way that's right behind the glass.

Okay. Okay.

OK, next slide, please. OK, so this is just the elevation.

I don't know if it's possible to go to full screen there. So that's the elevation as it is today. It's extremely close to what you saw in March of 20. The garage screen, as you've probably seen, is basically installed. It's 99% installed, except for where the tower cranes are. And if you remember, the garage screen is dynamic. So the colors change, the apertures change as you move around it. It changes depending on the time of day and the temperature the cloud cover. So sometimes it'll look more base and those will look more blue. Sometimes it looks silver. So we wanted the art corners to, and it's continuous around the podium of the tower. And we really felt that the previous design with the kind of floral etched metal didn't really fit with the vocabulary of the enclosure. So we created a glass corner that would pick up on that pattern and turn the corner, but also become these kind of lanterns in the evening. to kind of announce the presence of the project. So if you go to the next slide, so there's two, and this is what you saw last time. So you saw this kind of metal etched corner, and it was, you would just see through it, and it had a kind of a floral pattern to it. And you can see it up close to the left and far away to the right on the commerce side. If you go to the Yeah, so this is what a rendering, not a photograph, a rendering of this project during the day. And you can see there's, it's a glass that turns the corner. It has a pattern in it like the garage screens and that glass is made up, the pattern is made up of

a...

or a translucency. And you see, so you see the striation in the glass and you'll see different reflectivity in the glass that will pick up on the striation in garage screen. And if you go to the next slide, please. And this is just a three-dimensional, it's really a diagram showing how this works. So there's a concrete block wall four feet back from the glass, and then there's a curtain wall that stands out from the glass four feet, and it has anchors basically pinning it back to that concrete wall. And then on that, what the blue wall is, it won't be actually blue, it'll be gray. There'll be light fixtures, which you'll see in the next image. So this is an elevation. This is actually the Commerce Lantern, and it's three bays high. The one on the U.S. Capitol side is on Shell Park side is four bays high. But on the outside, it's got this kind of, that's the strided pattern of the two different acid or translucencies in the glass. And then behind it is the elevation of LED lights that can change volume, color and places where they're illuminated. So if you go to the next slide, there's a kind of a picture of a, what that glass is gonna look like up close. Then we found an example of a project that was interior, that was very similar to our glass, not the same, but very similar. So it will look something like that, but on the outside of the building. And if you go to the next slide, that is our light fixture and there are four foot lengths and in the four foot length, it has four cells and each of those cells can change color or intensity. If you could go to the next So this is just kind of, this is from the Shaw Park side, the west side, kind of showing it during the day. During the day, we will not have the lights on. LEDs don't like to be hot. So during the day, they'll be off. And then if you go to the next slides are a set of different potential configurations of lighting. And this is kind of a staggered pattern. And in the PowerPoint, this is all animated. So you could see it kind of evolve over time. But in the PDF, you can't see that. But these are different frames. If you could imagine these fading into each other, you would go from this pattern. If you go to the next slide, it looks like the same, but it's actually changed a bit. And then so that over the course of time, this thing will have life to it. It would slowly change over the course of

And you

can scroll down through those. And then this, I think that I have one more slide here. Is there one more? No, okay.

That's the presentation, so I'll take any questions. Okay.

I'm glad we were able to see it and everyone else can see it also. I really like the change. I initially liked the original proposal from two years ago or whenever. And what I liked about it was you would notice it both in the daylight and at night. I have a concern about this one during the day. I think it'll look very flat unless there's some sort of light reflectance from behind it. And the reason I bring that up is I've been watching the vertical striations covering the parking garage. And it seems to have much less color and much less dynamism to it than when we looked at it initially. The slats seem very tiny, and actually I'm disappointed in it. So I'm looking for something on the corners to give a little more stature to this part of the building. What I do like is the glass reflects the tower above and the glass that we see at the ground level. Another concern that I have is who's going to control the lights and the colors. The fountain diagonally across the street at times has colors put into it. I'm not really in favor of having a bunch of flashing colors on this building. I would like to hear what the proposal is, because if they're moving, would that constitute a sign of some sort? And then I think we have some regulations on it. So I think we need a little more information on that.

Yeah, we chose to not put up, it's not a TV screen back there. So we can't actually replicate an image, for instance, in this piece. We intentionally made the density low enough that you can only be abstract with it, for instance. So if you wanted to have an image or a letter in there, you wouldn't be able to do it. Those are all the lights turned on at once. So you can imagine trying to convey a brand or an image with those light fixtures would be impossible we've intentionally designed it this way because over the course of the build you know life of the building that you know the control could change hands and you just don't know what you get there but this is we designed it so it intentionally stays abstract all the time uh the whole the whole um the corners are designed to be dynamic and to be programmable and you could program in almost an infinite number of combinations of these corners so the the uh But the way we discussed it with both owners is that this would be something that is subtle and changes over time, but not in a rapid fashion. But it just slowly changes through the course of the night. And that kind of sensibility has

resonated with the two owners.

Okay. Well, I could see if it were programmed to be sort of going along with setting sun in the evening and getting dark and then coming back in the morning to relate to the sunrise. But you probably know we have had some issues with other buildings in Clayton that have had light designs put on it. And sometimes it can get out of hand. So I'd like to state right up front that I think some sort of controls, preferably from the building owner voluntarily rather than imposed by the city would be the best way to go.

And is there a way you want us to define those controls? Steve, is it?

Well, I gave you one suggestion that would be very slow. I don't know if it's doable or not. But I'm concerned with potential garish colors that may show up at some point. The forefoot length had some pretty dynamic colors on it. I don't think you want the building to be represented by that. You use the word subtle. I think that's where it should go.

So, yeah, if we had a narrative that would describe that, how that could be programmed, a set of parameters for the programming, is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes. Okay. I think that would

help me. Otherwise, I do like the glass. I do like the vertical striations because the glass relates to the glazing above and below. The striations relate to the striations that are supposed to have a color gradation. Really doesn't show up even in the bright sun on the rest of the garage. But I

think this will help the corner. Carolyn? Yeah. I guess

you opened with design that we had seen before was detracting from the art that was below. That's correct, yeah. I'm not seeing how color changing and lights changing do not detract from the art below.

Well, because it's not attempting to be the whole issue is, is this a piece of art or not. So having commerce has a very significant piece of art at their corner for instance. So to have another piece of art that maybe is not the same stature above that seem to be a mistake. So we try to move this into the realm of architecture and architecture feature, rather than art. So we wanted to acknowledge the corner as an important architectural corner, but we didn't want to compete with Barbara Hepsworth below in particular. But I agree. I think a lot of this is like if you programmed this in a way that was garish and loud, it would detract from the art below. Well, I can't

imagine you guys doing it in garish and loud. So that wasn't really my concern. It was more of that let's look here, especially at nighttime. And I also had the same concern about the daytime appearance and what that would look like, but I'm less concerned about that now because it wouldn't be much of anything except for a really cool pattern.

The daytime will be fairly subtle. It'll be like an ice cube with pattern in

it. And unlike Steve, I really liked the garage. and how that was designed because I drive by it all the time. And on different weather, I do see the changes in color and I've walked it and I look back, I actually think it turned out exactly kind of how you wanted it to. I did have a question on A807. It shows four different options of pattern, but it doesn't say... Is it just all of

them? Oh, yeah. Okay. They're just actually two pieces of glass, two patterns. So there's an expense with creating a pattern like this. So we invented two patterns that could be flipped horizontally and vertically to create a pattern that didn't look like it was being copied.

And it looks like from this slide that you're matching those lines up with the garage. That's correct. Okay. I didn't really have any other questions. comments about it other than, and I would agree. The only other comment, if you scroll back up to the one that showed the actual lights themselves with four further up.

The fixture.

Yeah, there you go. Could they just, do they have to have four in one of them or can they just be one?

well that's um that is the uh that's the maximum resolution you can get that fixture meaning you couldn't do like 18 colors in one light you can only do you can only do four and and it's not just the color but you can have one that's lighter darker it could all be white but it could be lighter darker medium it could all be blue yeah yes exactly yeah no yeah that's just showing the potential of the light fixture not actually what is

that would to me that wouldn't be in keeping with what you did in the garage. It would just be very

different.

Those were my only comments. Thank

you. Bob? Your name's? Jeff Ryan. What I understand is, so you're going to have LED lighting for the height of the garage. And it's going to be rotating depending upon whatever you decide to make it.

Yeah, the owners. It would have a programmed rhythm to it or patterns to it.

And then down below, we approved art that is also LED lighting that's going to be rotating all through the night.

I don't know much about that

art. Scott?

Again, Scott Haley with U.S. Capitol. The light under the campfire piece that was... recommended for approval. It does have some internal, external as though the ribs are all polished stainless steel. Internal of that is an LED light that just is a slow movement giving the emulation of some movement of a flame or some pattern. I think one thing is that that piece is to be viewed and enjoyed in a more human scale, where the corners are going to be seen largely from a distance or on that block.

So you don't see these two sources of light competing with each other?

We do not. We look at it from two different angles. I mean, that's one of the reasons why we kind of looked at the corners themselves as well as the elements of the corners in a different light as well. So no pun intended. But we believe as an owner on the West Tower and commerce on the East Tower that we have some, you know, we're going to be very gracious and elegant with how we light these lanterns and the term gaudy or whatever, something similar to that. I mean, I don't think that that's going to be part of that. I think it's going to give some added enjoyment when you come to that corner. I think that our whole building is about activating and bringing people. And I think having these things, I think will people will recognize this building coming into Clayton or seeing it every night when they, when they live here or whatever. So. I was

hoping you were going to say this is the first step towards a Times Square in Clayton.

No, not a Times Square. Not at all. But I do think... But I do think it will, we all believe it's certain our team and the owners think that this will be an enhancement to both towers and give some vitality, but in a very elegant and gracious way in a controlled fashion, which both Commerce and 8027 Foresight Point will be working towards that. We're not going to, we like the flexibility and I think we're going to be able to control it in a way that it's going to be appreciated in the community. Thank you.

You know, like Steve, just one of my concerns, I'll just say this. I hate to think an adjoining property owner with a restaurant without side seating is going to complain that this has turned into basically a very loud sort of searchlight in the area. So you keep saying settle. You keep saying it's going to fit in at night. I just hope you're right. That's all.

Well, the light doesn't have enough power to it to actually project through it like a flashlight, right? It'll just light up the glass. But again, the intention is for it to be a subtle changing lantern.

I just keep thinking about Times Square. That's all. I don't know. Okay. Helen?

Okay, I'm very disappointed. I really like the metal screen, the perforated metal with the light, mainly because during the day when most of the people are in Clayton, it has a presence. You can enjoy it. where the glass really relies upon the evening. And most of the visuals you've shown us are evening shots.

Yeah, that was only because we thought you'd be very interested in understanding what the lighting was doing.

Well, sometimes it's good to see things in their less than ideal. And it'll be what most people see. You know, Clayton is not teaming like Times Square at night. Sure. I think what bothers me the most about this is that originally the corner of Brentwood and Forsyth, the metal panels were equal legs. Now what you have is decidedly one third on Brentwood and three thirds on Forsyth. So it really, the opportunity for reinforcing that corner, that one being the important one because it's diagonally across from Shaw Park. And you look at the Ruben Brown building across the street and they chamfered the whole front of the building to acknowledge that corner. This, the corner could go on most any corner in any place. It's a fine solution, but I think here you've missed an incredible opportunity to really set off your position in Clayton The Merrimack-Forsyth corner, that's a different corner. That doesn't have the prominence. Is there any way that you could make those two sides equal?

You've seen the buildings under construction, right? So there's no way it could happen.

Shorten the long leg?

No, it's impossible. I mean, it would take a significant... a significant change in the building to do that.

It's really a shame because you've got an almost square bay. The bay doesn't, I couldn't read the dimensions if they were on here. It's slightly longer along Forsyth than it is along Brentwood.

That is correct. And that was very intentional. That was our design opinion that that was a better design. As you know, that the Forsyth elevation is much longer than the Brentwood elevation. So it's a proportional response. It also is that on the commerce side, that's the elevation that faces Commerce Bank. So it had some meaning there that that corner was facing the original Commerce Tower. But we don't think that the fact that it's not equal in the corner takes away from the fact that you're marking the corners being important.

I still find it bothersome that you've created this wonderful two-story space. You've got a sculpture with LED lights, an enhanced sculpture, and then what you're taking my eye either up or down, depending on how I initially look, is off-center. Now, the... original, what we saw on March 2nd, that the bay is not perfectly square, but the architect pulled the paneling over to give the impression of two just about equal legs of the art.

Yeah, I think one of the things that's missing in this elevation you're not seeing is that the corner of the tower itself has got planters up it, right? But they're not equal. They're not, it's not 15 feet in one direction, 15 feet in the other. It's actually, it's asymmetrical just like this piece. So the intent was for this piece to connect to those planters.

Then I wouldn't draw attention to it by doing programmable lights. I share Steve's concern that along the condos, along Parkside, Topton and Brighton will see that corner. Constantly. And I see the blue bands from my windows every night. And it's not

attractive.

And they're supposedly reduced in brightness, but they're awfully potent. So I would downplay leave the glass. If you light it from behind, just basic light, no colors, and don't compete with the sculpture below.

Right, and that was our intention for moving away from the metal sculpture above, was to not compete with the art below. So I think we're totally in alignment with you on that.

Make this a back. No, it's that corner. Jeff, let me

jump in.

You may have to refresh my memory, but when the artwork on both corners separately went through the PAAC, the Public Art Advisory Committee, were they aware of what was going on above it? Did they look at the entire composite of the sculpture and the glazing above it?

I don't know the answer to that question, but maybe somebody here does.

The PAAC, when we went through that group, we actually had the renderings that included what you see is before you tonight. So the items, the imagery that's being presented tonight has been designed probably 15 months ago and was used as the baseline for both art pieces when it was presented, at least for the campfire. And I'm certain it was when they went with the commerce piece as well. So we were focused on that piece. It was set, you know, it was set shown in its context, not, you know, from a distance as well as close up. And it was not utilizing the piece that, you know, the piece that was to the right or to the left here. When we were here two years ago or more, you know, is really, it wasn't an unanimous decision on that. There was a lot of people that on the board and others and, even internally here with the commerce ownership, our ownership and even our design team. And we went through a lot of iterations to get to this point tonight. And so, but from your context, the Public Arts Advisory Committee looked at it in totality with the current elevations and renderings.

Well,

I certainly take your word for it. However, I don't recall in their recommendation that there was any mention of anything above the sculpture?

They only reviewed the sculpture itself. Scott's referring to the renderings that showed the sculpture that they presented to the pack had the glazing at the corner, which is part of what triggered the conversation between staff and them to come back before the board here for revisions to that piece. However, the PAC only makes a ruling related to that sculpture itself.

Well, where we are right now, it seems like we have two pieces of art on each corner. We have a sculpture that the PAAC approved and eventually came to us. And now we're dealing with another one above it. So I have that concern. Not sure if it needs to go back to them

or not. I mean, these pieces that are on, these elements on the building are not in the purview of the Public Arts Advisory Committee. I think in our PUD ordinance, the two sculptures at the entry plazas was the... the requirement to get before those committees. And I don't let Ana speak to that.

Yes, the ordinance approving the PUD zoning specifically referred to sculpture pieces at the entryways. The original approval of the cut piece is artistic in nature, but was not a part of the actual art required to be in conformance with the PUD. Those were the sculpture pieces that have gone before the pack. So this piece itself does, or the treatment of the corner, the lighting, the glazing, whether it's this metal, does not have to go to the pack for approval.

Well, I certainly

understand that better now. I'm just concerned that we're not really looking at that piece of art that is very special, two pieces, one on each end, in the total context of where it's going to be sitting with something above it that may overshadow it at some point.

Yeah, I think that what's above it and the art below it operate on totally different scales. So one operates on an urban scale, and you see it from a distance like this. But in this view, and I don't know if you can see this, Steve, but in that perspective, you can't actually appreciate the art because you're not close enough. Right. So the beacons or the lanterns, they only draw you to the corner to a point where you can start to appreciate the art. You can see it's there, but you really need to get about 50 feet closer before you appreciate that art. I think this really describes our intent, which is I think that's a very quiet and subtle gesture on the corner, but it just marks the corner, right? It doesn't try to compete with the piece of sculpture below it.

I agree. I like this. But then when we get to the nighttime view, I have more concerns.

Yeah, I would, you know, could I maybe make a proposal here? What's important to us now is that we can go forward with installing this corner which would include the curtain wall and the light fixtures. It sounds to me like the big concerns here are in how we actually choreograph the light fixtures, and could we get approval to go forward and install this, but with the understanding that we come forward with a forthcoming narrative or description of exactly how we would govern the lights, how much movement they would have, we could actually for approval. So we could, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean,

yeah,

yeah, I think that's basically it. I mean, it seems like there's a bit of an impasse here, but I would like to see if there's at least a partial path forwards to go forward with corners to construct them, but come to an agreement about actually how vibrant or how loud or how rhythmic those corners would be.

Bob? Yes, it just. Yeah.

If you guys are speaking to each other, I

cannot hear you.

Basically, I'm sorry, I had it off. I'm just kind of being persuaded by what Helen is saying, that the metal is a different texture, a different look, would capture the pedestrians as they walk by it. And I think it would have a wow factor, as opposed to, Jeff, what you're proposing now, it's just more glass and light. And we have a

lot of that in Clayton. It's actually... um it is not just more glass and light this is the actually this current wall is going to will be extraordinary will not look like glass in an office building and it's because of a few reasons one is it's it's low iron and it has an etching in it which you don't see in the glass around so it actually will appear different the other is that it doesn't actually have floors in it so it's going to look like one continuous sheet of glass but i would i would say that um What we're trying to do is take the garage skin and turn the corner with a patterning, right? So it's a continual podium or plinth. And then that makes the space for the art below it more distinguishable. If all of a sudden you start saying this is a really important piece of art and we're going to have another piece of art on top of it, it gets really confusing. So we're trying to make sure that this glass piece is part of the skin of the garage skin not another piece of art, not another thing on the building. And we're trying to make that balance. I would be very concerned if you had another artist up there putting a piece of art above Hepworth. And I think treating this architecturally, I believe is very strong. This is the right thing to do, to treat this as a piece of architecture, not as a piece of art on that corner. I also would say this building is giving so much to Clayton already. It's putting a significant piece of art on there. It's got retail around it. It's got two lovely lobbies. It's got planting all around the base. It's not that it's wanting for interest and activity. It's not like it's a building that needs something. It already has so much that's there.

Jeff, I mean, you guys certainly have your sweat equity into it. You know, I'm just thinking, does the sculpture on the second floor and third floor and fourth floor, does it give it a wow factor as people walk by it? And I kind of say yes. That's all.

Anything more, Bob? No. Ira,

comments? Yeah. And boy, Steve, I hope you were intentionally being, you know, sort of obvious, you know, those slats. I've had so many people tell me, is that what it's going to look like? And I kept saying, I said, yeah, but, you know, that's not quite the imagery we had. you know, shown to us. And so I, you know, I just think it looks just bad. You know, I don't see the coloration, I don't And it's really bad. You compare that to the Centene building and what they have going for their garage along Forsyth. And you guys just look, you just look kind of silly. That's all that there is to that. So as far as you're asking for this, you know, I mean, I like the artwork. You were in front of me last week at the, you know, at our BOA. And I voted in favor of the artwork. I thought it was fine. It was good. It's not unbelievable, but it's good. And, you know, if you're going to do something or doing if you're trying to do something here to complement the artwork or at least not take away from the artwork you might you might be able to blend the artwork in somehow. in terms of what you're talking about as what you're looking at as the flavor of what you're trying to do as a gathering place under those overheads there and in that area of the entrance. And that's fine. But I don't see why this how this adds really anything at all. I just, you know, I just don't see it. And I, you know, like the earlier comments, you know, dealing with how this entrance certainly on Forsyth and Brentwood could make could be just a whole lot more inviting and more of a centerpiece than you have right now. So I'm not wild about any of this, so that's my opinion.

David? I personally like it. I think from an architectural standpoint, I think it's an interesting corner. My bigger concern is looking at our code of ordinances and our exterior lighting regulations and making sure that when you talk about the lights moving or changing that sort of thing, we do have a prohibition in there against kinetic lights on a building. So I just wanted to make sure that we had something in place that would regulate how and when they would change colors. So we were working a little bit on a condition where you're looking for some guidance there. So that was my bigger concern was making sure that we were compliant. And I think if those lights were to change all at one time, like once a minute, something like that, then it probably falls within our ordinance guidelines. But if it was actually kinetic and those lights were moving or fading in and out or switching, I would have bigger concerns with that, I think. But overall, I do think this corner fits well with the building. I realize it's pretty radical change from what we had looked at previously, but I do think it's in keeping with the architecture of the structure. Those would be my comments.

Thank you. Jeff, these are glass panels, correct? They are. Even though it says aluminum.

It's, I think, aluminum curtain wall. So pattern, I can't see what the note is on that. It should say pattern translucent glass and aluminum curtain

wall

system. So the verticals are aluminum, but the panels are glass.

Following up on David, I could really see maybe no light at all at night or just a very simple glow without the lines in it. I really think it needs to be made more subtle. I think Helen had a very, very valid concern that this building sits on a half block. And yet the glazing, what we're looking at tonight, really only faces south and the east and the west,

they're just sort of left over. Let's open it up and see if there are

any other comments in the audience. Scott?

Just one point. I mean, it is a little disheartening to hear that what we've done is silly and not very well appreciated. I'm sure, as I mentioned earlier, both ownership groups, our design teams, we vetted a lot of different things and I think they'd be extremely disappointed to hear that our building, at least the skin and some other parts are not taken very seriously. I know that both ownership groups certainly enjoy what they have seen with just even the garage skin and more importantly, what we've done to enhance those corners so i just wanted to make that on the record that um i know people can make their own comments but saying that this you know we spent over 200 million dollars at the building in essence which is captivated by this garage screen is silly i know everybody has their opinion but for whatever reason it doesn't resonate very well so thank you

I would like to say something about that. Actually, I had already said that I really do like to call it the skin on the garage. I think it does change. It's not exactly like a rendering but nothing ever really truly is. I don't think it was the purview of the architects to come up with an etched stainless steel anything on the edges of the buildings. They happen to And now they're sort of stuck with that and trying to present something else to us that they believe is more in keeping with the building itself and not detracting from the below. I think what we're having a major issue, more of an issue with here is it not wrapping the corner as much as it did before. So it was a continuous motion the whole way up. and the idea of any kind of changing lights and things like that. I happen to like it. I am a little bit concerned about what happens in the daytime, but nothing really has to happen in the daytime in my opinion. I think just at night, like David said, we have to be careful that we're not doing something that's gonna cause traffic issues or residents issues or any kind of you know anything that's visibly like visible noise that's going to offend some people but just as you're showing this right here i think that is quite lovely so um but

As I

indicated before, Jeff, I like the glass. I think it has a very good connection to the towers above and to the glazing at the ground floor level. I have a concern that Helen brought up that it does not equally ramp the corner. But the lighting really bothers me. But you said before, maybe we could... make a proposal, I believe you started it. You were looking to be able to install it. I will talk a little more about it, but I would be leaning toward that to allow the glazing to be installed in the aluminum curtain wall system, but not approve the lighting at this point until you would come back with some proposal that relates to what we've been talking about. But let's see if there are other comments on the board.

I wonder, Steve, if that's tying their hands behind their back. If this goes forward, it sounds like it can be regulated. And I'm not sure I agree how subtle is this subtle. If you're going to approve it, I would just approve it. That's my recommendation.

I think that The once once if we improve if we install the lights, then we can actually use the use the construction to then come up with an acceptable narrative. Because this is something that kind of the material phenomenon of this something that's very, very hard to predict. And in fact, the whole thing is very dimmable and controllable. So our intent was to install it and then sit on the corner and go, okay, yeah, take it down, take it down until you get it right. So that would be a benefit of installing the lights now is that we could make a proposal and we could connect it to the controls of the

light. I certainly understand what you said because we've gone through that on other projects. Helen, did you have any further comment?

Ira? Sorry. No further comments, Steve. Thanks. Okay.

I think it may be best to err on the side of approving it and then working with the city to make sure that everyone feels we would get the best bang for the buck without going overboard.

Yeah, I think we'd be happy to work with you. And everybody wants this to be spectacular and to be something everyone's proud of and feels doesn't detract from the vitality of Clinton. So I think we'd happy to, we're gonna go through a whole set of mock-ups and we're happy to report back for sure.

Okay, will those mock-ups be publicly viewable?

I think we'll go through our own private mock-ups to work out making of the sausage, so to speak. But I think then we could invite people to come look at it.

Okay. Other comments from the

board? Ira? I'm not sure. Well, we're trying to figure out what it is that we're going to be voting on tonight. And what sort of, what are we agreeing to do? What are they agreeing to do? How are we putting that into basically a vote?

Well, it looks like where we are right now, we would be voting on what they are showing us right now. But I think we could put a recommendation on there that as far as the lighting goes, we would need to see what they are proposing to do. for the density of light coming out, the colors, the timing, anything that would fit into our regulations.

Is that we or the city?

I think it's the city, not just us, not just the architectural review board.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, All right. So, so you're saying that we are going to be voting with the with the idea that that we're not we're not voting to approve of any kind of a lighting. PB Harmon Zuckerton, Provision proposal by them. Is that what you said. PB John Gerstle,

That's how I see it. PB John Geristle, But it would allow them to install the lighting.

Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we at least pass a condition that would set a minimum standard for the lighting and then in addition require them to come back to the city with a with an architectural lighting plan. And that minimum condition would be, and it might affect how they install it, is the lighting shall not produce kinetic scenes, effects or chasing patterns and the programmed rhythms of the overall lighting shall not produce changes in light intensity or color more often than once per minute. And then they would have to use those minimum standards then to come back with an architectural lighting planned for the city.

I think I've comprehended all of

that. Just for context, that condition was kind of stemmed from regulations within the sign code. The location of both of these corners are next to intersections, so there are kind of minimum or general standards for how often lighting or signage or that sort of flashing, anything like that, changes. because of the relation or the closeness to an intersection. So that is where we started for the condition.

And what does that basically say again?

It basically says that any sort of pattern within the lighting that they're talking about can't change more than once per minute. Well,

and it can't produce any scenes and it can't be used to produce some kind of effect. And it can't use the different lights like across, you know, I'll just use the word floor just for lack of a better term. But they can't change then or they can't look like they're chasing each other or changing each other. like all in a row or almost like a strobe light effect. And so you can't use the overall lighting for those kinds of effects. And so the overall change in all of the lights together could only occur once per minute in intensity or color or just any kind of changes.

I hear you, but I'm looking at the normal light standard is probably, you know, a third of the height before you get to their lights. I mean, there really wouldn't be a – I'm not sure what you're really accomplishing, though. I don't think there really would be a compatibility issue with the light standards below. I mean, it's way down. Oh,

I – If I said anything to make you think that it related to the lighting standards or to the streetlights, I didn't mean to. This would be the lights behind this architectural curtain and the etched glass. Okay. and it would just prohibit them from frequent movements, from creating some kind of scene or making the lights look like they're changing very quickly in a pattern or chasing each other or something like that.

Would it address the intensity of colors?

So nothing in here addresses the number of colors that could be used or the intensity of the light itself. That would be part of an architectural lighting plan. So I think that that kind of specific, this is just, this would just be a minimum standard, but I think that those, that that kind of information, the number of colors how intense the lighting can be, that kind of thing would, I think we need a lot more detailed information. And my idea was that they were going to go out actually on scene once lights were installed and that they would kind of gauge the light from different perspectives and then come back to the city with what they thought worked best. And then at that point in time, the city could say yes or no.

So that would be a proposed plan?

Yes.

Is it not easier just to say they have the right to install the lights, they will have the right to use the lights, but the way the lights are used shall be on such terms as agreeable to the city?

Yes. Mm-hmm. Well, with an improved plan. And the question would be, do you want the plan to come back here? Do you want that to be more administrative? I do think that if you want it to be more administrative, you do need to provide some kind of standards for them to go by. I

don't think the one we just talked about is a meaningful one. I don't know.

I'm

not sure it's substantively really addresses the issue. That's all. I'm trying to help you guys to move forward, but we want to have some voice that's really well over saying. I think Helen's issues and Steve's issues and Carolyn's issues about the intensity and how it looks. I mean, me, I'm a Times Square guy. I love it. But I'm sure I'm in the minority here. And But it's got to be agreeable to the city and allow you guys to achieve what you really want to achieve at the same time. I think there's a commonality there.

What I think I've gotten from what council has proposed is that you could go ahead with the lighting, but you would need to come back either for administrative or for the board approval. I would recommend that maybe it come back to the entire board for approval once you have looked at it, because I think it's a very substantial range that we could be looking at from very subtle to Times Square. And it's probably somewhere in there. But I think that puts the burden back on you, the designer, to come back and recommend what you think is best within all of our regulations and guidelines, and for us to take a look at it. Apparently right now I think there's some problems, but I think the proposal that was read would allow you to proceed with only having to come back for the actual lighting itself.

Yeah, I think that sounds like a great path forward. I also think the language I heard in the code is also a good baseline for us. Even if you don't include that today, it's good for us to know that. And I certainly know we can work with that as a foundation to what we propose going

forward. Stephanie, will we be able to incorporate that?

Oh, I'm sorry. I suggest that a condition be placed on the approval which would allow the glass architectural feature but that the condition read that the proposed lighting for the corner shall only operate in accordance with an approved architectural lighting plan and such plans shall be approved by both the plan commission. And do you also want Board of Aldermen or just the plan commission? Just plan commission? Okay.

I'm comfortable with that.

Are you?

Yes.

Can that be a motion?

Yes.

Yes. Uh-huh. Did you just make the motion, Ira? I did make the motion, if that was the motion. I'm incorporating what she just said as my motion.

I'll second.

Okay, thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. I think we made it. Thank you for working with us. We'll see you again.

Okay,

now we have come to 337 North Forsyth. Looks like the Melmans are here, but we'll start with the staff report.

All right, so before I summarize the staff report, just to clarify there, we will go over the site plan review one first and then we will move on to . after that, so right now I'm just going over site plan review. So this 10,200 square foot site is located on the west side of North Forsyth Boulevard, just south of the Northern Clayton City boundary. The property has a zoning designation of R2 single family and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing house, the construction of a 3,284 square foot single family residence. The purpose of the site plan review process is to review a series of criteria for which I will summarize in this analysis. So the project is found to be compatible with nearby uses, zoning requirements and form of surrounding properties. HVAC trash lighting and utilities comply with code requirements. The site plan states that all driveway sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by Public Works. Impervious coverage is typically limited to 40% of the total lot area in Clayton Gardens. However, the design includes a rear loading garage grade which increases the allowable coverage up to 55%. This plane will increase coverage from 42.7% to 53.9%. The existing stormwater runoff according to MSD 15 year 20 minute storm calculations is 0.59 cubic feet per second. The proposed runoff is 0.63 cubic feet per second, which represents a 0.04 increase. A drywall will be installed at the rear of the yard to capture the differential runoff and has been deemed acceptable. The applicant has submitted a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed, replaced, and the species of those trees. So existing canopy coverage is 8,493 square feet. with 6,013 square feet to be removed. The plan proposes adding 5,250 square feet of canopy coverage, which is 550 square feet more than what is required for a placement and 35.7% of those trees will be native. In addition to these criteria, a series of objectives has been included in staff report for the board to consider when making their decision. staff concludes that the proposal meets compatibility zoning and code requirements for the site. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. And so just to clarify before this first condition, one of our reviewers did not get back in time. So it was agreed with the applicants that a condition of the approval would be that they're going to address this reviewer's comments. And that reads, the applicant shall address outstanding comments from the city's contracted Superviewer prior to the issuance of construction permits. Continuing with the conditions, the tree protection fencing shown on the demolition and so shall be revised based on the comments from the city's Contracted Landscape Reviewer to remove grading and construction operations from within the tree protection zone of street trees. The third, to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County and submit proof of recording to the city prior to issuance of the building permit. Staff recommends to approve with those conditions.

Okay, thank you. It's a whole group here. Evening, I'm Lauren Strutman.

It's really nice to see everyone in person again. I'm here with David Bowles and Scott and Blair Millman are here, the developers.

I kind of garage. Very straightforward project and

Davis here.

yeah it's

the color drawings

really like.

First, I really appreciate being here. My name is David Bowles. I'm with Bowles Engineering and it's probably been two years pre-COVID that I was here. So it's good. It's always fun to come before you guys. So I always like to do this where you can see the existing and the proposed drainage because I know that's always a concern for everyone. And so this red area, this is the existing condition and the red areas is draining to the back of the lot and the blue area is draining towards Forsyth. And so you can see the existing condition. And then the proposed condition, I can tell you first off that there's less water going to every property owner on all sides. So that's always the goal of what we're doing here. But the blue area is still headed towards Forsyth and you can see that it's much smaller. The red area is draining towards the back and it's sheet flowing off here and it's actually reduced by about one-third. Currently, I think there's 0.45 CFS and it's going to be reduced to 0.3 CFS. The way that reduction is achieved is the entire home area of the roof is going to be piped around and then go into the dry well right here. That is a dry well that will store basically the differential runoff there and reduce the amount that were sheet flowing off. The other thing I'd like to point out is now, since it's a rear entry tuck under garage here, this is pavement here now. And in order to prevent drainage from speeding up or accelerating there, we're actually proposing to put some type of cobblestone along this back right here just to slow the water down, even though there's significantly less water that'll slow any water that leaves the site. I don't think that that was on the landscape plan, but it should have been and we're showing it on the site plan. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Well, the main thing is you're not putting any more water onto any of the adjacent properties.

Have the... Yeah, okay. The

adjacent properties were notified of this, right? When I see the dry well and now hearing how it's being piped to it for the roof structure, I feel pretty good about that. So you want to go on with the rest of the site plan or is that about it?

Right.

Well, I'm sure Carolyn will have a comment on that. I feel comfortable with the drainage, but everyone else can certainly type in on that. But let's move on with Carolyn.

Actually, I didn't have that much, but I had a question on C5. Asphalt pavement excavation repair detail. Where is that?

And where is that? I didn't think we had asphalt pavement. All right. Let's see where that is.

Asphalt pavement excavation repair detail with utility trench.

That's part of the right-of-way standards. Right,

that's in the

street. Right-of-way for a street, if any... Right, it's just for utility excavation within the street.

Nevermind, just making sure we are using asphalt. The only comments I had on the actual landscape plan were Vinka is an invasive species in Missouri and so is Creeping Jenny. So I would prefer if we would stop using those. Creeping Jenny and Vinka, which is periwinkle, they're both considered invasive species in Missouri. They pretty much choke out forests. So they're they're on the invasive species list. So if we could replace those with something else, that would be great. And the other comment I had was just an FYI, the green giant arborvitae in the back trying to screen, you probably need two more in there because if I'm reading the scale correctly, those are pretty far apart and they don't really get that wide. So you're going to have at least five feet between each one of those trees, almost at maturity. So you're not really actually going to get the screen that you really want. And two more trees is really not a lot of money. It's probably $200. So it's something just to add and yeah, just to make the neighbors happy. That's actually all I have. Otherwise, I think it looks great.

Oh,

I just want to say I thought your visual aid for the drainage and your presentation was to the point concise and congratulations.

Thank you. Ellen.

David, I would add the same thing that your visuals were very good.

Oh, you know what, that's taken place over a period of probably four or five years. So it started off not that great. But I learned that that is a good way to portray where the drainage is going, which is everybody's concern.

We

react to the color.

Ira? Yeah, no, I also didn't. I didn't get to see as much as you all could see of that, but I could hear from David's description. It sounded very, as Bob said, concise and well presented. So thank you for that. Could I ask maybe, I think, did I read that the dormers were going to need to be removed? Is that what I read? Well, we'll deal with that in the architectural

next. Oh, okay. All right. No, that's fine. Pick with site plan here.

Yeah. Otherwise, that site plan is great. I very much appreciate it. Thanks.

I did actually have one question probably for Hannah here. The condition having to do with the no disturbance within the drip line. Now there's an existing driveway that's going to come out that's in there. So obviously we'll have to do some disturbance within there. You're talking about just this, this,

Yeah, just within the driveway obviously has to be removed, but then removing any other kind of construction items such as stockpiling of materials, et cetera, within that, as soon as the, you know, as much as possible limiting that without outside of the tree protection zone. Okay. It's always a little difficult when the tree production zones are shown on the finished product site plans compared to what they look like when you start the demo.

Okay, is there any comment from the audience on this project at 337 North Forsyth? No. Any further comment from the Land Commission? No. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second. With all three recommendations, correct? Conditions?

before we vote. Sorry about

that. You agree to the conditions?

I'll make a motion to approve with the three staff recommendations.

Do you want the conditions you also stated earlier,

Carolyn? Do you want your conditions from earlier trees?

Okay. I'll make a Motion to approve with the staff recommendations and add a recommendation number four stating that the use of Vinca and Creeping Jenny not be used on the project.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Now we'll move on to the architectural review, Ryan.

So continuing with the same property.

So newer homes on Forsyth are often two stories and constructed with brick. This design is comparable in materials and massing with those other new homes. The renderings provided to the board include the faux dormers. However, these are not permitted under the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District and the applicant has agreed not to construct those. The home to the south was constructed in 2020 and is of similar height. The home to the north was constructed in 1951 and is 12 feet shorter. The design seeks to mitigate this height difference through tree plantings on that side. The proposed building materials include bricks, stone, and stucco. The proposed percentage of secondary materials meets the district guidelines. The proposed roof is clad with the charcoal blend architectural shingles. The staff believes that the proposed design materials are compatible with the neighborhood character. Staff recommends approval on the condition that the dormers are not constructed.

So city staff, board members, chairmen, Lichtenfeld, thank you all for allowing us to be here. My name is Blair Melman, half of Melman Brothers Development with my brother Scott. And so what I really wanted to address before turning things over back over to our architect or installment is the dormers. I believe there was a little miscommunication as to what our preferences or what our intention would ideally would be, which is we would like to keep the dormers and so I think there was a miscommunication with that. And so just to kind of further that what we have done is we have actually gone around to a number of the residents actually all five of the residents adjacent residents on foresight. Just to kind of talk to them about this. And we actually got a letter of support from each of them that I can share with all of you with their signatures recommending that we are able to build the house as currently designed with the dormers. And in addition to that, what I have done, I have a copy for everybody is there are at least five houses in Clayton Gardens right now that have dormers on this third floor. I know at least three or four of these are what I guess is considered faux dormers with not living space on that third floor. It's a little hard to tell on some of them, so I'm not entirely sure. But I just wanted to pass along these pictures so that everybody have those just to kind of establish that this is a neighborhood that has already had this design in place. And so we really think that it would just continue the beautification of Clayton Gardens. And we just look forward to working with you all to hopefully come to a resolution that works for everybody. I'd like to hand these out.

Yes,

thank you.

I only have one copy of the letter.

Property address is also listed.

I actually think Blair described that really well. And I do want to add that we're not proposing any living space on the third floor of this house. This is a trust roof. These are simply faux dorms. And I think we all really like the look of that. Other than that, we have a beautiful traditional offering. We also have, as you see actually in one of these, passed out some nice architectural downspouts with scupper boxes on the front of the home. And I think it's a really straightforward submittal that will blend in with the neighborhood and we're here to answer any questions you have.

Okay. It's a nice looking house. To me, it's a little flatter than some of the flat facade compared to some of the recent ones that you've shown us. But let's talk about those dormers. I find each of the dormers themselves okay, but I don't think they relate to the rest of the property. You have a metal roof over the front door. And it's fairly flat sloped up and on the sides, but we have a curved roof over the dormers. And they just don't seem to fit. Then as I'm looking through the pictures that Blair showed us, most of those dormers are aligned in some way with some windows on the front facade of the building. Not all of them, but most of them appear to be. And these, none of the three align with anything else. And yet the house is somewhat symmetrical. The center portion is asymmetrical in the window placement and the door placement. And to me, the dormer placement, if they are to be there, are just sort of floating around They just don't relate. I'm sorry? Yes, but nothing else relates to that, that centering. So I'm not really crazy about the dormers, but I could... be attracted to it if they had some other design element that related to the rest of the house design. I don't know if that means a metal roof above it or a slight repositioning of it.

Can you? Make sure to speak in the microphone it's recording

Thank you,

we could do the tops of the dormers with the metal roof to tie into the front porch roof down below. Is it the curves that are bothering you, Steve?

When I first saw the curves, I thought, oh, maybe you have a curve over the front door. But you don't. And I actually like the metal roof over the front door, think it gives it more prominence than a curve would do. It's also more traditional than a curve would be. So I would not change the roof over the front

Okay. But if we put metal on the curved dormer roofs, is that something that would improve it for you?

Would they still be curved or would they?

They would still be curved.

Oh, I'm not sure I would be able to see the metal.

Okay. Or we could do a little hip roof more like the front door over the dormers with the metal

roof. That could be possible.

Okay.

we'll hear what everyone else says it's not my decision alone but then i'm also talking about the spacing up

there

i can certainly see centering the center window but maybe the other two could be spread a little further apart if

we need to keep the dormers No, only the dormer windows.

I like the composition of the first and second floor. I'm only talking about the dormer windows,

the two outside ones. Yeah. So with those two conditions, let's see what everyone else says.

I think it's, for me, it's actually the curve part that was bugging me. I just sketched on this and made them not curved.

Yes.

And it actually feels like it goes better. It's a red horrible pen, so I apologize.

You

know what I'm talking about though? I mean, it just seems like now it kind of, it feels like it's this roof line over the thing. windows again. So not the curve design, but it just seems like it makes it more horizontal and kind of just fits in with the house. Other than that, I didn't have any comments about I think it's a lovely house.

There's no living space up there? Well, I will say this. The dormers make the house look bigger because there's almost an assumption there's living space going on up there. And it does do the trick. I like the idea of spacing that Steve talked about, if that could be done to line it up better. Curves versus lines, I don't react very strongly to that. What I do react to is just the fact that the three dormers make the house look bigger.

You know, you're going to have to talk in front of the mic.

There are a lot of larger homes on Forsyth because there are some larger lots and this is a particularly large lot at 85 feet wide.

I think it's the largest non-corner

lot. Ellen? I agree with

Steve and Carolyn's remarks, and I just sketched with a black pen the really a hip roof there. I think that it makes the whole front has a very horizontal look. I like it. And the curve just It didn't work, it needs something. The dormers with the curved looked like they were fakes, which even though they are, you don't really want them to look like fakes. I think the hip roof will do it on the dormers.

Happy to do that. David? I agree with everything that's

been said, no additional questions or comments.

I'll make one other comment. I like the steepness of the roof. As we've talked before, sometimes the roofs are so low that from the street they look like they're flat. And this one I think will stand out. It will not be as high looking as the rendering when we get down there and stand on the street, but it'll work well.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have Actually, there are no new staff recommendations on this. It's a repeat of the

previous one. Yeah, they are different, sorry.

Yeah, it's only that the roof dormers shall be removed. So we'll have to modify that.

You would have technically that would require you approving alternative compliance for the urban design district regulations to allow

the dormers.

Okay.

So

the Urban Design District is what limits homes to two stories and specifically states that there should not be any living space above two stories, which is what triggered the staff's comment to remove the dormers. So if you allow the dormers, technically you would be approving under alternative compliance the design of dormers. I'll also note that two of the homes that they provided images of are not in Clayton Gardens Urban Design District.

I think directly that the curve

would be replaced with hip roofs, similar to that over the front door. With a slight re spacing of two outer former windows.

Just incorporate what he just said.

face it

with the intent to line it up with the windows below?

No. The only thing I could say, Lauren, is maybe the one on the right, that would be the north, maybe the north side of it should align with the second floor window below it. Absolutely. Wherever that is, then the south window should parallel it. Be equal, correct. Yeah.

I'll make a motion to approve the change of the staff recommendation for an alternative compliance approval from the Urban Design District regulations to approve the dormers with a design change to change from the curved topping, for lack of a better word, to hip roof design and to re-space maintaining the center window as shown with the north side, the line on the second floor below the edge of the window and then the south side window being equal distance as the spacing of the north window.

if we could add one more condition that no space above the second floor be occupied. That way we can ensure compliance with that regulation. Thank you.

Yes, and comply with the regulations that the third floor not be occupied.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. So when is groundbreaking? Tomorrow. We'll start working on that.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, and we've come to 8104 Pershing

Avenue.

Yes. The subject property is located on the south side of Persian Avenue between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Forsyth Boulevard. The just under 7,000 square foot lot is developed with a two-story single family home and detached garage. The property is zoned R2 single family dwelling district and located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed project consists of construction of a two-story rear deck, demolition of the existing garage, and construction of a new detached garage. The proposed project does not automatically require site plan review. However, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance for lot coverage requirements. Lot coverage is under the purview of the planning commission and therefore site plan review was required. The following is a modified staff report related to their alternative compliance request. In your staff report is the criteria for review related to site plan approval. In terms of compatibility, the project meets the requirements of the R2 and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District with the exception of the deck setback and lot coverage. Decks are allowed to encroach up to 12 feet into a rear yard setback when located at or below the first level of the structure. The first floor of the deck is in compliance. Only balconies are allowed to encroach up to five feet into a rear yard setback when above the first floor level. The proposed second level of the deck does not qualify as a balcony and therefore should be revised to conform to the rear yard setback. In the Clinton Gardens Urban Design District, lot coverage is limited to 40% of the total lot with additional coverage based on the design and placement of the garage. A detached garage warrants an additional 15%, allowing the maximum lot coverage for the subject property to be 55%. the proposed project would result in 55 59.5 percent lot coverage which is above the maximum the zoning code grants the plan commission authority to approve modifications of up to an additional five percent over the impervious coverage requirement unless the property is located within an urban design district as the subject property is located in the clayton gardens udd the applicant has decided to pursue alternative compliance uh the front yard coverage conforms to the regulations. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year 20 minute storm calculation is 0.43 cubic feet per second and the proposed project would increase runoff to 0.44 cubic feet per second. That plan is proposing a rain garden at the Southwest corner of the property that would be sized to handle the increased runoff generated from the project. In terms of alternative compliance, alternative compliance is intended to apply in unusual circumstances that might arise where an alternative approach would provide or resolve a better or equal to superior than the, sorry, superior than which would be provided by the approach outlined to meet the standards. For section 410.350, the intent of lot coverage maximum is to protect and enhance the presence of open lawn and landscaped areas, which is a strong character defining feature of the neighborhood. Lot coverage regulations also protect against increased stormwater runoff issues. In the applicant's request for alternative compliance, the rain garden is intended to accomplish the mitigation of runoff increase. Other than the installation of the rain garden, the applicant has not submitted plans for significant landscaping or additional trees. The applicant has stated that the design of the decks and detached garage is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project has not met the criteria for approval alternative compliance. While the rain garden would help mitigate stormwater concerns, the proposed plan does not create or enhanced open lawn or landscape area that would accomplish the same intent as the standard. The scale of the two-story deck will have a similar impact to an enclosed one-story addition. The location of the deck encroaches into the rear and side yard setbacks. While with some modification, those encroachments will conform to the zoning code, the result is still a loss of wanted open space within setback areas that are nearest to adjacent properties, rather than a concentration of building coverage towards the middle of the lot. In conclusion, staff recommends to approve with the following conditions to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. One, the two-story deck shall be revised to conform to setback requirements. And two, the site design shall be revised to confirm lot coverage requirement with a maximum of

55% coverage. Okay,

thank you. The applicant.

Good evening. My name is Steve Hunsaker. I'm with 527 Architects and I'm the architect for the project. And then the Radels here are the property owner. And I think that in working with Radels on this project, we looked at a number of different ways to manage the site. and just to address a few of the site coverage issues right up front, I think that one of our other alternatives was to put the garage as a continuation of the house on the southeast corner and have a driveway that came all the way down and then a side entrance into the garage. In doing that, we lost lawn. And so it was the RADL's preference to actually have a lawn You'll also notice on the site plan that they have a stormwater easement, MSD easement that comes down through their driveway and through their property. The current garage encroaches on that easement. And we have been forced to take our new garage and take it off of that easement. I believe it is a few feet. I don't remember offhand what it is exactly. So the design that they actually decided to come forward with is a design that actually does preserve more over and above the alternative. And I think that was something that they wanted to have and i think that that does actually meet the intent of some of your site coverage ordinance language so uh the existing site uh exceeds the 55 um requirement uh so in order for them to be able to even do the garage and build the deck they are going to be exceeding the 55% coverage. And this is something that we've discussed quite a bit among ourselves and obviously other homes in the neighborhood have side entry garages that are on the back of the site and would definitely exceed that 55% lot coverage. So things that have been done in the neighborhood have already gone to that level. Now, I'm not sure exactly what the criteria is for you all approving the additional site coverage, but our stormwater calculations have also shown that we have very little additional runoff as a result of the additional coverage. We're talking... 1,100th of a cubic foot of water per second. So there is a stormwater feature that has been put in by MSD on the neighbor to the south. They actually do have a problem with stormwater and a stormwater catchment basin was put in right on the other side of the Radles property line. We have not proposed to attach to that, but that water and slowing water going into that should make that more effective terrain for the future. So that is some of our complications. Obviously we've reduced the amount of driveway coming in and out of the site so that again would reduce runoff. So We felt like this was actually a more responsible and more accommodating layout than to put the garage at the southeast corner and have driveway coming down with a side entrance into the garage and having no lawn. So that was really the big compromise that they came to. And then the decks, of course, were just their opportunity to be able to use their backyard. The small decks they have right now don't really afford opportunities for them to really sit outside. And this way, they can access their lawn. So I would say that's kind of our line on the site coverage. As far as the decks and the encroachment of the decks on the building line, I would submit to you that as far as the upper deck and it being qualifying as a balcony or not, if we built to the building line and we put a balcony on the building, we would end up at the same place. And so our structure that is holding our decks up is actually within the building line. So our balcony would be cantilevered balcony and it would accommodate and conform to the language of the ordinance, which states it has to be supported off of the structure. So if it's not a balcony, then it's either a deck or it's part of the original structure. We're not sure what it becomes if it's not part of the expansion of the structure. So in our minds, building the decks to the building line and then adding the five feet for the balcony above would qualify for a balcony. So that's kind of our position on it. In addition, the balcony or the cover covers the stair to the lower deck. And that is benefit to the homeowner who has MS and has concerns about navigating from the garage to the house without having rain, snow cover. And so being able to cover the stair was a important aspect of the upper deck. The actual additional square footage on the upper deck is less significant. It's really the about of coverage and protection that overhang can provide to the stair below. Another piece that was in the report from the staff report about side yard encroachments, I don't believe we really have any side yard encroachment. The way the site plan is shown, we actually have stairs that are entitled to go past the building line. So the stairs that come down on the side, on the east side of the deck are actually allowed by the ordinance. So I'm not sure if we have any side yard encroachments, but we, I know we obviously have disagreement on how the rear yard encroachment might be interpreted. So that is really what I had to say. So I'd be happy to take any questions.

Okay. First thing, the BMP area. Yes. How is that? Is that solid surface or is that pervious?

That detail that is on there is the MSD detail. And it's basically a percolation detail. I've seen where they actually have a restricted outlet, but that isn't actually in the MSD design. So I have not shown that if an outlet or an overflow is important, there would be a curb essentially or a small berm that would be put at the end, the south end of that, which would allow it to retain a small amount of water and water could be released up to a point of overflow. The overflow point for us would have to be lower than the garage elevation, which I believe is a 605. On the garage floor elevation is not to flood our garage. So right now, depending on how deep we would actually excavate that BMP area would determine how much water or freeboard you would require. But MSD doesn't seem to require any on this BMP area. It's really just a percolation And obviously they know that significant rainfalls that exceed the 15-minute rainfall are going to overwhelm the area and then flow as it does overland.

So that entire shaded area is

permeable?

Yes, yes. It's just a permeable rock area. That's basically where we intended to put it. As far as volumes for the BMP area, there wasn't any particular calculation. And actually, the stormwater calculation from MSD didn't really require any because our stormwater differential was so low.

Well, we're talking about site

plan right now. Yes. Not talking about architectural. The garage is quite a bit larger, the proposed one compared to the existing. Yet the driveway looks like it has less square footage

than the existing.

Is that correct?

Yes. And I think that's one of the issues is the John Potter, Entrance into the garage is very difficult we've actually shown on the site plan and the plans that we're going to actually park the cars at an angle, because we literally can't get the cars square in the garage. John Potter, So that is one of the compromises that the rails were willing to make just because the garage provided some modest modest amount of additional storage by being a larger garage. John Potter , So. With that, the driveway gradient is going to have to be carefully monitored there. We've shown a trench... drain crossing the driveway there to try to intercept storm water that's coming down the driveway and divert it into the BMP area. And so that is true. We have less driveway paving. We're going from a nine foot, so for approximately nine foot driveway down to a, or 10 foot driveway down to nine foot driveway. So we are reducing the width of the driveway in order to try to get to within the, or get to below 60% of Saiko. Although the driveway is moving

to the west.

Yes, the driveway is moving to the west. We're trying to create a green strip there along the house because the driveway that's currently there actually butts up against the house. And we think we can mitigate some stormwater and issues into the basement by moving it away, keeping it away from the house because they... natural grade or the grade that meets the house we don't want to expose more foundation that's already exposed so we expect that there'll be some slope grade between the house and the driveway once the driveway grade gets met

well uh i could not figure out the grades yes drawing

yeah

so

we

haven't shown any new gradient uh grades on the drawing i haven't we have completed an actual grading plan for this project. We're basically just looking at site coverage. So that's basically what we've got today.

Well, I made that comment because I believe the houses on the south side of Pershing

are

higher than the houses

behind them. Yeah, the

houses on

behind you.

Yeah. University? Yeah, I think so. Right. So yes, that's true. They are higher.

So I'm really concerned without seeing a civil study of where the water is going about going forward with the site plan until we can see that. That's my main comment on this. I have some other comments about the circular stair outside, but I'll leave that. Let's see. Site plan review. What other comments we have?

Besides what Steve has already mentioned. So you're saying the BMP is a rock area?

Yeah, put a detail on there that is MSD detail and basically I see

that, but it has grass.

Yeah, there would be succulent and water tolerant plantings that are putting there. We don't have a landscape plan at this time. So we're basically just proposing that that's the general intent for that area.

I encourage the owners to go to grow native and also MSD does have a link to rain garden plants. And when you pick natives, the root system goes very deep because they like our soils. So they will actually hold that area more so than just lawn

or whatever. So pollinators. Yep. Yep.

Yeah. And even if you threw in a bald cypress tree or two, that would soak up most of the water flowing off your property, honestly. Then like 10,000 gallons a day, they can soak up. So I encourage any kind of planting that you can do there.

I think that is the intent. I'm not a landscape architect, so I haven't done planting. But I am. Yeah, there you go. Well, yeah,

perfect. So I like the idea of the driveway moving over. Does that encroach on anything that we need to worry about? No. Other than that, I didn't really have any. I noticed what Steve did too, that it seems the driveway got smaller. How are you getting out of that? You're just going to back out?

Wow.

Okay.

Can you guys please speak in the microphones? It records us. Thank you.

as steve covered you know the challenge we had is the original lot was 50 feet wide and one of the previous owners bought five feet of the western lot but they bought five feet of an easement so the 10 feet of the west part of our lot is an easement we can't rebuild the current garage is in the easement but we can't rebuild a new put a new garage in the easement so that caused us to move over which caused the garage to get wider because steve's calculation showed we couldn't back out and straighten the car so we have to back out at an angle as my wife said we have been backing out for 25 years we've lived in a house but that was another reason to get the driveway a little removed from the house itself because backing out you don't want to hit the chimney so we're you know we

Yeah. No, I think that looks, that's nice. That was the only comments I had.

Bob? No questions. Ellen?

No, I did have a question about getting out of the garage, but if you back out the full length of the driveway now, you'll still be doing that. Now, Other than what Steve said, I'd like to see more about what's happening with the water.

David? I

don't think I have anything new to add. I think it's difficult to consider the alternative compliance for the overall lot coverage when we don't have the landscape plan and we don't have drainage information in front of us. So again, nothing new there as far as a comment.

Well, to go forward, I think David summed it up pretty well. We need some more information. And I would recommend that we table this to a future meeting where we could see both the drainage with the topographical lines as well as the landscape plan. And I think that would probably... resolve our comments, but it would not take a look at the alternative compliance. But I think we would need to look at that when we look at everything at once instead of part tonight and part in the future.

The alternative compliance, I thought there was language that suggested that part of that was based on landscaping or improvements to the front yard or the street side. And since most of our stuff is in the rear yard and back, are we making any progress there if we show you a landscape plan of the rear yard? Not that we're refusing it. I just wonder if there's room there in the alternative compliance approval for us to make any headway with the landscape.

Well, I saw the landscape being mainly in the backyard.

Yes, we did too. We're not doing any work in the front other than just the driveway. So that was our, that was just my comment. Well, I'm happy to provide a landscape plan and I'm sure everybody would like to see one. It's just that if the alternative compliance language is about the front yard and our improvements to the front yard, I wonder if we're...

No, the alternative compliance is

related to the backyard. Is? Okay. All right, great.

So let's not make it any bigger project. Yeah, I

agree.

Before we go further, I saw a hand up. Do you have a comment?

Please, please come up to the microphone.

Identify yourself with your address.

I'm Chris Stark. I'm 8105 University. I'm the property that South that you guys were referencing. they're great neighbors. I'd like them to get their stuff done, but we do have the water that comes. We do have a lot of water that comes because we are downhill, so when the water, we get it right now, and that just was the concern, be just making sure that we don't get any additional. There is a, I think, I'm not sure when I moved in, there was a There's a catch base, and I think that was built from original owners. I think maybe it was MSD built it there to catch the water because a lot comes down the driveway into our northwest part of the yard. And it is hard to gauge with the rain we have had, but we did have it come down to where we had maybe this much water in our backyard. We have spent some time regrading and trying to get water to move away as fast as we can, but it We just wanna make sure no additional water comes because that's gonna be a concern.

Well, that's why we will look for the drainage and the landscape plan to

be able to move forward. Any other comments? Are you in

agreement that we can table

Yes, I mean, we can go ahead and get a civil and landscape plan created for this site plan. I think that the question will remain as to whether or not in going to that expense producing the site plan, if the 60% coverage is even a possibility because obviously if it's not, you have a whole different design to produce.

I think that's a good point. I would recommend that you attempt to follow the staff recommendations, and that would be a lot coverage with a maximum of 55%, which I believe I heard is where you are right

now. Yeah, the existing site plan exceeds 55%. Those numbers are on the front of the drawing, 55.1%. So trading garage for garage, obviously a garage is bigger, reduced driveway. So we're doing what we can to try to get the site to accommodate a larger building. But obviously if we're going to do any additions whatsoever, we're not going to be able to get to 55%.

I thought the staff report said you're going to have 59% in excess of the 55%.

Well, we're moving from 55 to 59. We're going to increase 4% site coverage is how that...

And the cap is 55?

Yes. The cap is 55, and I think that this board is allowed to approve up to 60 under certain conditions. That's kind of what we're...

Over 55 conditions. Right. But if that's under alternative compliance, we would have to... make sure that it all fits. Right now, we haven't talked about that, alternative compliance. And I'm recommending, correctly or not, that we table it and then deal with the entire issue, the alternative compliance, the impervious coverage, everything at once in lieu of piecemeal.

And that would be fine. If we're able to get a site plan and a landscape plan, we'll have that submitted. As far as the architectural review, I believe that we were in conformance with the staff review. And I don't know if there's any reason we're able to get through that tonight and then just have the site plan issue, or do you want to table both of those issues? We

still have another outstanding issue, which is the setback matter that we need to discuss. Right. So, you know, we haven't talked about that and I agree. I wouldn't want them to go through any expense of putting together a site plan and everything else, but the setback question unresolved because if the ARB or the plan commission basically sees it the same way as the staff recommendation here. It may take care of that coverage issue as it is, so.

Good point. Thank you. Well, let's talk about that setback. Actually, I am in agreement with the staff recommendation that we should not exceed the setback for many reasons that they included in their report. Basically, that's where I stand. But let's see where everyone else is.

Please skip me for a second.

Sure. The extensions go on the side of the house and the back of the house only? I'm just trying to understand that.

that decks extend off the rear of the house. Just the rear. Yes, now there are. Not the side. Yeah, there are stairwells, stairways off of the deck that extend into the side yard to the east. But they're considered stairs and they are allowed by the ordinance. But the decks, as we've drawn them, the lower deck extends stops at the building line

okay with

a stair that encroaches past the building line because that's allowed that comes down off the south side of the

house so do i understand it is the stairs that exceed on the lot the setback on the side now

according i mean generally speaking stairs and the lower deck are completely in conformance with the ordinance. It's the upper deck overhang that is the debate. The overhang on the upper deck is not being viewed as a balcony, it is being viewed as a deck and is not allowed to extend because it is actually a second floor deck. And the ordinance only allows a first floor deck to extend past the building line.

So. So the second floor deck does extend beyond. Yeah,

so that second floor deck extends. And how close is it to the property

line? How close is it to property line at that

point? The second floor deck extends, I believe five feet. So it would be 31, we're at 26 feet from the rear property line.

I personally think I could have a problem with the side on the second floor.

I'm sorry, I didn't.

That would concern me.

That would concern you to have the side?

Right, on the side.

On the side, for a neighbor to the side, having the deck extend south. Right.

Okay. I will just state that staff's interpretation is within your packet of how the code should be applied to this design. appealing staff's interpretation of the code is actually a Board of Adjustment matter, not Architecture Review Board or

Plan Commission matter.

Okay, that's good to hear. I have nothing else. I would agree with the staff. The setbacks need to be observed. David, did you have any other comments?

No, I don't think so. I think that kind of sums that up. It really comes down to an interpretation of those definitions and the regulation itself. And if we want to deviate from the staff determination there, that would be the Board of Adjustment that would ultimately make that decision.

Okay. I do have another question, Steve, and that when I'm looking at the various elevations on A3 and then relating it back to the plan on A1, because I don't see any other architectural plan, on the east side of the five-foot building setback, I see the circle, which is the circular stair coming from the second floor to the first floor deck. And I don't see on the plan where the stair is from the first floor deck going north down that I see on the east elevation. But I can figure out where it is from that east elevation. And it is probably at the southeast corner of the house addition.

It is. So on the site plan, I have highlighted in yellow the decks and you can see this stair. It's not drawn as a stair, just shown as a yellow box going down the east side of the house right extending past the southern end of the existing house so that's yes that's right but

then there is from the western the first step of that stairway going down the east side of the to the circular stair yes is part of the deck

PB John Gerstle, Yes, there, there is a landing there to get to the to these so yeah that that would be in this part of the deck was the landing at

the top of the stair part of the deck.

Well, that's what we have at the south end. So on the south side, you walk onto a landing in order to turn 90 degrees to go down the steps. So there is a landing at the top of that that is considered part of the stair, not part of the deck. But so that would be the same issue you'd have on the east side is you have a landing that's part of the stair. Not part of the deck so that's how that was drawn. So yes, again, another interpretation issue.

Well, I'll go back to, I am in agreement with the staff recommendation at this point. And I just see a lot of areas that seem to be over the setbacks and over the impervious coverage. Certainly the drainage plan and the landscape plan may help us understand part of it. But I think... we may have a problem with those setback requirements.

Well, right. So as far as we're able to determine, the only setback requirement that we violated is the second floor. So you're suggesting we might have others. I don't know where they are.

Well, I...

It depends on the interpretation if the stair.

Yes, yes. And that gets to this issue of a landing, a stair landing being a part of that or not. I don't.

Staff interpreted the landing as part of it. So you get off of one stair and then you travel to the next. So the recommendation based on the staff recommendation is to revise for the rear yard setback, but the stair encroachments are permitted by code.

So the landing for the stair is part of the stair. Correct. It is not a part of the deck.

Correct. And the encroachment of those is allowed. It was part of the discussion piece within the staff memo for alternative compliance, even though it is a permitted encroachment, the stairs and the the landing that's required by code as part of designing the stair. Those are encroachments that are permitted. However, they just, and when you look at it in whole of what is being requested as part of alternative compliance, it's an example of encroachments within areas that are traditionally reserved for non-built space to allow for the open space. So that is one of the areas that was called out and identified by staff in the report. There are multiple stairs from this deck. Part of one of the stair structures encroaches into a rear yard setback, which is permitted, but located towards the middle of the lot. The other encroachment of the second stair that's part of the deck encroaches into side

yard setback.

Well, I'm not in favor of encroaching into the setbacks,

except where it's allowed. Well, and that's kind of what I'm kind of nervous about is because it sounds like you're not in favor of it, but that ordinance says it's allowed, so I don't know where to go with that.

Well, it seems like it could be allowed on the south stair, but not on the east stair.

The stairs, both of the stairs from the deck, there's stairs that are encroaching into the set. The side yard setback and in the rear, both are permitted encroachments the way the code is written. However, they are duplicates. So now we have two sets of stairs to the same deck. So that's where it kind of comes into play when we talk about the density of development on a lot, the setbacks, the coverage requirements. If somebody built out every inch that's allowed per encroachments and setbacks and buildable area, there would be far over the lot coverage permitted. So that's where there's trade-offs and that's where I think your staff calls out some opportunities for redesign where maybe not all of the encroachments are necessary and that would reduce the coverage and ultimately allow the

design to comply. Go

ahead.

And I just wanted to say why. Maybe when you see the diagram of the land with the slope, immediately, the deck itself will be five and a half feet from the property line. But that land slopes away sharply. So you really can't walk in that space. The basement door is on the east side. So the only way to get to the basement door is to build a stair coming off of the deck because the land is far from flat. It's very steeply sloped and you couldn't walk on that last five feet. So that was the reason why we had an extra stair, as you call it. We needed a way to get to basement door. See, we don't see that

door on the east elevation. Well, I do think you need to

do a little redesigning. If you could keep it within the setback lines, I think we could probably make it work better. that might mean that the circular stair would have to encroach upon part

of the upper deck. Right. Well, other

than the east side stair, which I can see you guys have a problem with, managing that design is a little different issue. managing the upper deck and pulling the upper deck back to the building line is the only absolute issue based on the staff review and conformance to the ordinance, as far as I know. So the alternative design for the east stair is something that we just need to consider and figure out if there's a better way we can manage that. But there is a basement door, as Mark said. I didn't bring that up. But that is their only basement, exterior basement. And that was part of the original house. So as far as what I'm taking away is we have site plan or civil plan with stormwater as well as landscape plan to return with. And we'll modify the design as we need to.

Right, so in effect we would table both the

site plan and the ARB.

Is there a time frame for either of those plans? Is there an expiration date on the tabling? I don't know.

The same submittal schedule would apply So the meeting dates and submittal schedules, you can follow that. The next submittal deadline is the 23rd. If you're able to turn around plans by then, that would get you on the next meeting agenda.

I just didn't know if we had six months to do this or four months per year, or it's only good for three months.

We can table it to a date uncertain.

Yeah. Okay.

Sure.

and said Helen that you didn't like the big deck on top. And I will just tell you that our neighbors to the east of us put an addition in, it is an entire brick wall on that side. So really our deck is not going to be seen so much because that brick wall that we look at every day is right there. So that's just one thing to consider. The other thing I'd like to say is thanks for considering that 11 years ago, we did add on to our home. We didn't do a big tuck under a garage and we didn't do a full two story. And we tried to preserve as much of our property as we could because we really love our neighborhood. And we see what's going on now with some of these cavernous driveways. And We're not trying to do that in our neighborhood, in our street. We're trying to preserve our original home and our original yard as much as we can and still have a garage that we can get in and out of because my husband does have MS. And I would like it to be easy for him and me as I get older to get in and out that garage because we'd like to stay in our home. So I hope you will also consider that when you consider this. And I hope we're not spinning our wheels trying to get our 59.1%, 4% additional coverage, especially when I see some of the things that are approved and how the houses are starting to look a little cookie cutter-ish in our neighborhood in Clayton Gardens. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anything further Steve know

I just get back to you with our site plans it will vote on tabling it to a date uncertain. That your motion

i'll make a motion to table date on certain

second all in favor aye. Thank you very much alrighty.

Okay.

Before we leave, Helen, any comments?

No, no comments.

Bob? No comments. Carolyn? No

comments.

David? I'm good. No comments. Brian? Anna? Well, thank you, everyone. A little longer than we had imagined, but That's where we are. So we'll see everyone on September 6 today. Have a good holiday and the rest of

summer.

Oh, yes. Motion to adjourn? I move.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you.