September 19, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for September 19th. If anyone has electronic gadgets, please silence them. Anyone listening virtually, raise your hand if you wish to speak. And with that,

we'll start with the roll call.

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld?

Here.

Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

Bob Denlow. Helen DiFate.

Bob Denlo. Ellen DeFate.

Here.

Kami Waldman.

Amy Waldman.

Here.

Ira Berkowitz. David Gipson.

Ira Berkowitz. David Gibson.

Okay, thank you. We have minutes from the previous meeting on September 6. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Okay.

I will start off with new business and the first one on the agenda is 632 Audubon and we'll go to the staff.

Okay, so this is a request for architectural review for alterations to a single family property. The subject property is located on Audubon Drive between Ryan Place and Parkdale Avenue and has a zoning designation of R2 single family. The property is developed with a two-story single family residence and it has an attached garage. Above the garage sits an asphalt open terrace with a metal railing. The applicant is proposing to convert this space to an enclosed screen porch. In terms of compatibility, this neighborhood contains many homes with a variety of color styles and massing. Common materials include red bricks, stucco, and siding. Architecture for the area often incorporates step downs as heights increase. Covered porches and sunrooms can be found in the neighborhood on both side and rear of the primary structures. The proposed porch would not expand the footprint of the home due to its location above an existing garage. Staff is of an opinion that the proposed porch is compatible with the surrounding environment. The porch will be wood with aluminum and composite trim. All porch elements are to be painted white to match the stucco of the primary structure and a decorative guardrail following the west and southern perimeter of the porch as proposed. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the proposed porch is compatible in terms of use materials and massing with the existing structure and the surrounding neighborhood. And staff recommends to approve as submitted. I will also note that the applicant has provided letters from four neighbors to support the proposed project.

Thank you. We have the architect and the owner here who would like to give us more

information. Is your green light on?

Is that better okay um Hello, my name is JESSICA Dean and I am the architect for this project. We as described this porch is to be mainly would construction with some elements being aluminum and composite trims depending on you know exactly exactly the details and what is available in the market we're wanting to keep it as durable as possible low maintenance as possible. And the screen enclosure is an easy breeze system which allows for a year round use or near year round use, I should say, but we have designed it in a way with more of a traditional transom look so that. the EasyBreeze system could easily be removed in the future and wouldn't really affect the aesthetic of the porch. So if a future owner wanted it to have screen or completely open air, we kind of designed it with that flexibility in mind. And yeah, we just wanted to kind of have a fairly traditional look with with a slightly updated, more open air than you might see on a porch in this area. But we think it fits in with the style of the house pretty well and it should, we think make a great improvement to the otherwise kind of bare look of this just asphalt roof that is pretty visible and not really used. So I think that just about covers it. Do you have any questions?

I do have a question. Does the, do the glass portions go up and down vertically?

Some of them do, yes. Yes. And that's behind, you know, that's in the plane of the columns there behind the railing so that they're a little bit less visible.

Okay, so could you have some of the glass panels up adjacent to screen panels?

It is possible.

Okay, we'll leave it at that.

Hopefully the owner has the attention to detail that an architect does and would open them all equally at the same time, right?

All open or all

closed. That's right, that's the only way. Yeah.

Talk to the owner. I like it. In fact, I think it will make the entire house and property look more complete at this point. And the house to the south has a one-story porch, I believe. So it helps the space between the two homes. Also, I think the owner did a beautiful job having the walls along the driveway replaced recently. So this really will help finish it off. I had no problems with it. I think the materials all go with the house and it looks good. But let's see if we have any other comments. Carolyn?

I did not. I agree with Steve. I think it looks great. Thank you.

Helen?

No comments. I think it's a nice change.

Jamie? I

think it's a great addition. Looks good.

Anyone in the audience or online? Okay, Ira? Steve, I'm here. I'm sorry I was

late. Yeah, no, I think it's fine addition. I think it's good way to go. Congratulations and good luck.

Thank you. We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

Make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, you're on the way. We'll see you.

As soon as we can.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item number two. and three, 8131 Westmoreland.

So first we're going to hear the request for a conditional use permit for a second dwelling unit. The site is located in Clayton Gardens Urban Design District and has a zoning designation of R2. The site is on the north side of Westmoreland Avenue between Forsyth Boulevard and North Brentwood Boulevard. The property is developed with a two-story single family residence and has a rear detached garage. The garage contains a second floor which is currently unfinished, and the applicant would like to convert the space into an accessory dwelling unit. The unit will consist of a studio that includes a kitchen and a bathroom. The unit will serve as a home office but is classified as an accessory dwelling unit due to the addition of both a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area. Per the City of Clayton code, this accessory dwelling unit will not serve for rental use. In your packet is a summary of the criteria for review for second dwelling units. I'll just provide some summary. Staff found that the criteria for second dwelling unit is met. The two parking spaces required for the principal structure will be maintained as well as additional parking within the driveway. The proposed unit is about roughly 400 square feet, which meets the requirement for size. The unit to be converted as an existing space above the garage, and there is a significant renovation proposed for this space. And that will be covered under the architecture review board portion of tonight. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the proposed second unit meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing second units. Provided the structure is used in accordance with these regulations, staff believes it will be adequately screened and buffered from neighboring properties and will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommends to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. One, all conditions of Chapter 405, Article 2, Section 405.330 shall be adhered to. And two, the applicant shall record a deed restriction pursuant to Item 3 under criteria for review in the staff report and shall submit proof of their required deed restriction to the city prior to issuance of any building permit.

Thank you. The applicant? Come on up, identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

I'm going to let my architect lead. Tim, are you online?

And I would like to say that we do have neighbors that said that

they were. Could you speak into the microphone? We need to record it.

I wanted to say hello to everybody, first of all. And we have neighbors that say that they're in agreement, that they are not opposed to it.

Anything else we should know?

Tim, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Anything to add? My name is Tim Schatz with Blaze Architects.

Any questions for Tim?

Mr. Schatz, do you have any further comment?

TAB, Mark McIntyre:" yeah. TAB, Mark MCIntyre:" Well, do you have any questions I feel like it's pretty straightforward it's a story and a half accessory dwelling unit. TAB, With a front facing gable and side dormers that. TAB, TAB, Better end scale with the rest of the neighborhood in the existing House.

Thank you. We'll go into our comments right now. And I find it looks good. Actually, your next door neighbor to the west has a very similar second floor. I don't know if it's occupied or not, but there's obviously precedent in the neighborhood. Also, I think the materials... And the way the roof is constructed actually makes it look lower than it would be had it been a full two stories of walls. So, um, I did have a question. Well, no, that's material. So right now we're just looking at the conditional use permit. Um, I have no problem with it. I would support it. Um,

So are you Tony Webb?

Yes.

OK. I didn't know if it was some other relative that was going to be living in the.

No.

OK. I don't have any other questions other than making sure it's not going to be like an Airbnb.

No.

OK, I had nothing else then. Thank you. Ellen.

My only question is the survey that we received doesn't show an existing garage.

That is the survey we provided was was before 2017 when the existing garage was built.

Okay, the survey stated April 15th, 2016. And there's no surveyors indication. So is your existing garage within six years old or? The last

two years.

Okay, no, it could also quite possibly be the wrong survey. That has happened.

Okay.

I think it's fine. I assume that the existing unfinished space is accessible by a ladder and a hatch?

Yes.

Okay. No, it's a good idea. Enjoy the office.

Amy?

I have no problem with that. I think it's a great idea. Thank

you. Ira? Yeah, I think it just, I mean, is there enough guidelines here in regards to whether they can use it as some kind of a residence? Because if that's the case, I'd kind of like to take a harder look at it, but

No, it's not going to be a residence. Strictly. It's coming

in. It's not going to make sure it doesn't become one. Yeah,

this current city regulations would prohibit them from renting this out.

Okay, so we're covered on that. Otherwise, I'm good. You know, idea and something that will you know would be useful so thank you congratulations and good luck with it

thank you we do have two staff recommendations are you familiar with them and do you agree with them

uh yeah i did read that over uh camera recall what it was but i think it was okay

well we would hope so yeah yeah of course um Are there any other comments? Mr. Schatz, your hand is still up.

Oh, I don't have anything for the conditional use permit.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we do have the two staff recommendations. Do we have a motion including those?

I'll make a motion to agree with the two staff recommendations? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you. Additional use is approved. Now we can go on to the architectural review.

Okay, so for the same subject property, homes in the surrounding area contain a combination of attached and detached garages found in the rear of the properties. Most detached garages and Clayton Gardens have shawl roof lines that with minority containing taller roofs and dormers. Detached garages are often the same or similar building material to the primary structure. The current design is similar in height and massing to the adjacent properties detached garage. The proposed half story will relocate the pitched roof perpendicular to its current configuration and include one large dormer on both the east and west slopes. The addition will include a combination of brick and siding to match both the garage and primary structure. In terms of building material, staff is of the opinion that the proposed building materials are compatible with the surrounding structures and the existing property. Current lot coverage is at a maximum 60% allowed in our two dwelling districts. The proposed design indicates 1.7 square foot reduction in coverage from the concrete driveway, resulting in 59.9% coverage. It is not clearly identified in the plans where this reduction is occurring, and staff is of the opinion that the coverage changes should be clarified during a building permit review. The proposed project The proposed addition includes a change in height from 15 feet and 10 1⁄2 inches to 16 feet 11 inches. The height limit for accessory structures in Clayton Gardens Urban Design District is 16 feet, which is more restrictive than the R2 limit for accessory structures of 20 feet in height. The Architectural Review Board may relieve the applicant of the Clayton Gardens height requirement through alternative compliance, and the section for alternative compliance is included in your staff report. There are various sections of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District that can be used to establish the intent of the regulations and specifically the height restriction. The intent of the Clayton Garden's UDD can be described as preserving greater open space, avoiding tall and blocky structures, and limiting heights to one or two stories. Structures generally have gently sloped roofs and incorporate dormers as partial stories. The code promotes structures that avoid large gables or blank walls that are parallel to the street. There are five sections of code from the Clayton Gardens UDD that are specifically highlighted within the staff report that help establish the intent of this regulation. The proposed design increases the height and the prominence of the existing garage. It would be the tallest garage in the surrounding area. However, the prominence is reduced by some mitigation techniques which are specifically called out in the code, including using a sloped roof, the garage's location towards the rear of the property, and the use of dormers. The location at the rear of the property allows the existing house to provide extensive screening of the structure. The proposed height is less than one foot taller than the maximum requirement. The design incorporates the mitigation techniques specifically called out in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the garage is also located adjacent to several other detached garages. Staff is of the opinion that the design meets the criteria for alternative compliance. In conclusion, staff recommends to approve with the following conditions. One, if this conditional use permit is not approved, the applicant shall modify the interior plans that it does not constitute a second dwelling unit. And two, as part of the building permit review, the applicant shall submit revised plans that identify where the coverage changes will occur between the existing proposed designs to ensure that site coverage is not increased from the existing condition.

Thank you. Any comments on the staff report for the architectural review? And of course, we have the two recommendations, but we've already approved the conditional use permit. The

conditional use permit will go to the Board of Aldermen for final approval.

That's right. Thank you. And of course, your architect could take care of the second one about the coverage. As I said before, I think it looks good. It fits into the neighborhood. The alternative compliance makes a lot of sense here. And I really have no problem with it, architectural. Excellent. Carolyn?

I have no comments. Thank

you. Ellen.

I do have a question is the white portion show on the elevations will that be siding or panels,

yes, that'll be siding. him deciding right to yes, yes, that will be siding to match the existing House message this team

okay. Karen Hollweg, Now it looks good and I assume, are you keeping the existing and extending upward. Karen Hollweg, And if it's fairly recent matching brick shouldn't be a problem yeah now it looks good,

thank you. TAB, Amy.

TAB, yeah I think it looks really nice, I think it with the details of the roof. it does fit in very nicely. And I don't, I think you mentioned Steve with the slope of the roof. I don't think it looks obtrusively high or anything like that, even though it's slightly over, but I think it fits in nicely.

Thank you. Ira. It looks good to me. No problem with it.

Okay. Thank you. Any further comment? We have the staff recommendation. And do we have a motion?

We don't need the first conditional use permit.

Yes, we do, because it has to go to the Board of Aldermen

for

approval.

Then I'll make a recommendation to approve with the staff recommendations.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Thank you for your time. On the way. Thank you.

Thank

you.

I have one question, though. It says garage guest suite for Tony Webb. Are you kicking him out of the house?

No. We have our grandkids that visit us sometimes. I was kidding. It was

just a funny title. Thank you.

Let's see, we'll move on to new business item four, 7801 Forsyth. And I see the applicants are here.

Yes, so this is a request for approval of signage. The 14, just under 15,000 square foot property is located at the Northwest corner of Forsyth Boulevard and North Beamston Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of high density commercial and is located in the Northeast downtown overlay district. In June, the Architecture Review Board approved plans for site renovations and alterations. The applicant recently submitted plans for various signs along the property. The applicant is proposing two wall signs located at the roofline, one wall sign above the entrance on Forsyth Boulevard, one ground sign on the wall adjacent to the Forsyth Boulevard entrance, and one directional sign adjacent to the drive-through access from North Beamston Avenue. Two of the signs proposed match signs depicted on the plans approved by the ARB in June. The directional sign was a condition of approval for the site and drive-through renovations that were also approved in June. The two wall signs located at the roof line do not meet the sign regulations as they are located above first floor height. The applicant is therefore requesting a sign modification per section 425.180. The subject property is a single tenant building located on a corner lot. The sign regulations allow for multiple wall signs on a facade so long as the total sign area does not exceed the maximum allowed. The proposed signs conform to the regulations with the exception of the location of the two wall signs above first floor height. All of the proposed signs are constructed of black aluminum letters and some of them will be backlit. Included in your staff report is a table that outlines the different signs proposed and how they conform or do not with any sign regulations. Sign modifications can be approved by the ARB for the location of wall signs above first floor ceiling level. In the alternative compliant or in the sign modification section, it specifically talks about when ground floor tenant space is obstructed from view by trains and salters within the right-of-way. The subject property is not unusually shaped or shielded from view or oriented in a way that obscures potential wall signs. Locating the proposed wall sign at the first floor height would not result in signs obstructed from view. The applicant has provided a narrative to support the modification request and referenced previous tenants of the property, which have established signs along this roof line. This is one of the only buildings in the city that has had signs in that location. There are locations of signage above first floor height to support visibility and address issues of affixing signage to facades throughout the city. The purpose of the city's sign regulations is to encourage excellence in the design of signage to promote compatibility with the immediate surrounding areas and to protect Clayton as a premier business environment. Signs in the immediate area are located at first floor height. The building located across the street to the south is a multi-tenant building governed by a sign sub-district and features wall signs of the second floor height. Staff is of the opinion that the east facade is not directly obstructed and that signs along this face should be located at first floor height or below. With the slope of grade and tree trees along Forsyth Boulevard, a wall sign at the west end of the south facade could be obstructed at first floor height and therefore a sign located at second floor height would be compatible with surrounding character. In conclusion, staff recommends to approve with the following conditions. One, wall signs on the east facade should be located at or below first floor height. And two, wall signs on south facade should be located below second floor height.

Thank you. The applicant?

Yes, Scott Schulte, New Graphics. Hello? Hello?

We're just turning on the computer.

Oh, my apologies. I was worried it was technical defeat on my end.

My name is Tyler Stevens. Good evening. Nice to see you all again. I'm here with Core 10 Architecture representing our client, M1 Bank, who has attended here behind me. Let me pull this up presentation up just so that we have something to look at visual. Okay. So we were before you all back in June is honest mentioned with approvals for everything we've come back now for the final piece, which is the signage. At the time, there was a question about starting. We're happy to announce the construction start is a little bit sooner than possible. PNC has agreed to move out a little bit early. So it looks like December 1st, we will be getting started. We're all very anxious and excited about that. This property is, as you know, located right across the street from here at City Hall, on a pretty prominent corner of the city of Clayton. When we started this project, it was important to us to retain the existing structure. This is a building, I have to admit that when I was a grad student at WashU, I used to ride my bike through downtown Clayton at night just for fun and exercise. And this is one of the buildings that I always admired. It is sort of a mid-century modern. It's kind of a unique property. I think it's the shortest high rise in Clayton, is the way I like to think of it. Because it definitely looks like a high rise. People think it's very tall, but it's really not, just due to the architecture of it. PNC has been in the building since we think somewhere around 2011, 12. But it has been a bank for as long as I can remember, even those years, 25 years ago. I think it was still a bank back then as well. You can see the existing bank and we're talking about the signage. The existing signs that are on the building are in the same location that they've always been. There's one over the door. And then there's one up here in the corner. And as you go around, there's one on the opposite corner. So those are all located at the roof line. Now, I know that the signage ordinance in the city of Clayton, I've read it before. I've dealt with it before on other buildings. And I understand it in terms of not wanting to have a city skyline that is kind of polluted with signage at the tops of the buildings. So signs are encouraged to be down at this lower street level. This gives you an indication of where the sign, like this is previously, this is back in 2007, a previous bank, again, in the same spot there as well. The sign regulations, as Ana pointed out, I pulled them up here just so we can see them. I've highlighted a couple of things, but when you read through this, you can see that there is a little bit of leeway in here. There's what I would, like to call the spirit of the law in terms of the sign regulations. And this matches up with a lot of other things around Clayton. If you look at other zoning ordinances, there's a magical sort of three-story 45 feet that you'll see written all over the zoning code. And that seems to be a height where the city kind of dwells at this lower level. And then there are exceptions in certain areas of downtown where you're allowed to go above that. some other places in the zoning code, you can go above it as well. And when you do, there's always some sort of indication that you need to have a step or a difference there. You have a base of the building and then you have other things that are allowed to be taller. And when you look at the signage around in the area, it also follows that sort of, that same sort of spirit that's all over the city of Clayton with this base level and then things that are up above. This picture is taken right out here in front of City Hall looking west up Forsyth. And you can see the building across the street has that similar kind of notion. See how the architecture changes. There's a base architecture that has a lot of glass to it, and then it changes at that belt line and goes on up with a different language. And that belt line corresponds to sort of the heights of the other buildings around, which corresponds to our building across the street. As I said, this is a deceptive building. It looks much taller than it is. But that signage that's been up there, when PNC installed that signage, the current signage ordinance was in place as far as I can see. It was simply replacing the location from the previous bank. And so that's essentially what we're asking for here tonight is to replace the signage with the current M1 bank signage, all following that general idea of the signage staying down at the base, allowing taller buildings to go on up with a different look. We just don't happen to have a taller building here. We're not adding onto it. We're not building a high rise above. If we were, if I were proposing a new structure here and it was gonna be 10, 12, 15 stories, PB, David Ensign he or him, There would be the same sort of base language where we would come up so high we'd have that belt. PB, David Ensigne he or him, And then go on up with a different look and we would probably honestly be asking for the same thing in terms of that Beltline being about where it is just similar to the building across the street so. PB, David Elsieman- It seems compatible with what's going on, it just happens to be the roof of the building, and I know that. technically the signage ordinance does not allow signage at the roof of the building. So that's what we're asking for here tonight. But then there's another issue with it too, which just has to do with good architecture and pleasing, which is what the assignments ordinance is written for, to make sure that everything looks nice around the city. You see the building that we have proposed here, this is the rendering we've been showing all along. We have this roof belt basically at the top that makes a very nice signage panel. That's the same, if I go back, that's the same roof panel right here. We're just moving the glass out to the edge of it. I'm increasing the box footprint. PB Harmon Zuckerman, As it were, but that top of there is the same and we're replacing the metal with a nicer metal but that band will still be there and that's where we're indicating the signage to be. PB Harmon Zuckerton, The one thing I would point out that's a little different than this is just a clarification. Ana, you said that the signage was black and I think it was submitted as that. We're not exactly sure why it was submitted as black but what the intent has always been that would match the same kind of bronze metal color that the panels are up above. So that's one technical thing I did wanna point out. But if we were to come down and this around here on the east side is where we were talking about that in this rendering, We don't have any trees depicted here because we were trying to show the building and show what it's going to look like. If we put the trees in from the landscape plan, you wouldn't be able to see that base. But this kind of leeway of obstruction applies all around. You can see that on this south side, the trees, and these are mature height trees, but if I go back to, you can see those same trees here in C here anything, a sign at the first floor ceiling would be behind all of these trees. You wouldn't see it. So they would definitely be obstructed. And I think that we would rather have trees than signs if we were picking between the two. So I don't think eliminating the trees so that we can see a sign at the floor is necessarily the right solution. But then most of all, this is a glass structure and putting a sign in the glass doesn't really look good either. Then it's floating in this glass and it's a little bit odd. Putting anything down on this low wall, that's another place you could put it would be down on the low wall but that would be pretty hidden by all the landscaping and down at pedestrian level that wouldn't really have the visibility that's required. So architecturally we feel like this is the most logical and best place to put it is on this band which is probably why it's always been there from all the previous buildings. So with that, we are asking for an approval in terms of the signage as we've submitted it, not necessarily with the conditions that the staff is recommending. And with that, I would take any questions and certainly we can discuss that further.

Okay, before we go any further, Tyler, was there someone else who had their hand

up? The sign company representative is on Zoom.

Oh, okay. Does he have any comments that he'd like to make right now? I can't. He's not unmuting.

No comments.

First thing I want to say is I'd like to commend your client, M1 Bank. for reusing this building in lieu of knocking it down and building something new. I think that's something that is very important to us here in Clayton, and we appreciate your headquartering your business here and making it work with both the adjacent properties you've purchased and with the renovations here. The architect's design where he's moving the glass out made me think that I don't see any place to put the signage on that glass. I think if it were attached where our regulations actually say it should be, the signage would be floating in a sea of glass and would not be anchored to the building itself. So from an architectural point of view, I would rather see the signage on both the east and the south up at the roof line where it's shown on these renderings. I know that goes against our regulations and the recommendation, but I could not come up with a satisfactory alternate location at this point. but I'm only one person. And let's hear what everyone else says. Carolyn?

You know that I like the building, because I was on the board when you presented it in the first place. I almost feel like I'm so glad it's not black.

Yes.

First thing. And we need to get that into the record, because it is listed in our documents as being black in color. I almost think like it could be more subdued than that even, like not be so bright white. Is it just stainless?

Well, it looks bright white in this rendering, and I will tell you that, as you know, renderings and getting materials to show right, but it's not stainless. No, it's a bronze kind of gold. It's the same, not the exact same material because the band at the top is a material from a certain company and then the sign is from another company. But the idea is to match them in color. So this rendering has a little bit more sun reflection coming on the actual letters.

It seems like there's more contrast here than there actually would be in reality, which I kind of like that it won't be so contrasting.

Right.

What about the lighting? Tell me a little bit more about how it's going to be lit. This LED for now, but what's the degree?

I would like to let one of the other people on the panel here answer that question, whether it be the representative from graphics or Amanda Norris is on as well.

Says internal LED.

Yeah, can one of you explain how the lighting is working? Because I don't know all that much.

This is Amanda Norris. And Scott could answer this as well if I get it wrong, Scott. But they are backlit signs. I think each individual letter has an LED inset in the back of the letter itself. So it kind of has a glow from behind at night.

Yes, correct. halo lit is the terminology we use for that. So it is soft kind of glow that kind of comes out of the back of the can and illuminates the surroundings. So it's not projecting towards the street. It's more or less lighting up the metal in the band.

Okay. I agree with Steve on, I would rather see these up there. The only other solution would be to etch them into the glass, the science into the glass itself, which is not in keeping with how the original bank, which I also appreciate, was intended. So I don't have a problem with that. Ellen?

I do have a question. Why did you move on the south elevation? You moved the sign from the eastern corner to the western corner.

Redundancy. I think this photo shows that probably the clearest, well, either of these. When you're looking at the corner, you're seeing the exact same thing right next to each other. which is, it's redundant and it makes, I don't know, it makes it look more cluttered to me. It's like, why would you have two signs when you can have one? So by moving it down to the other end of the building, it also follows with the graphics of the sign, which is a left justified kind of a reading of it, the M and the one in the way it's kind of written. So in my mind, it makes that whole band at the top, it's like a ribbon. you know, where the text is on the left and the ribbon stretches out to the right and it does the same thing on the other. And then you don't have the two right next to each other. So we thought that was an improvement over the redundancy of the corner.

Okay. I was thinking of it more as a design detail, if you will. There was something going on at the corner

that

wraps around the corner. and not looking at it from a point of this is a duplicate more, this is an interesting band and happens to be letters and a number. The other thing is driving when you're coming north on Bemiston, you would see it on the corner on the eastern corner, that would be directly facing you. So it would identify, if I'm looking for the bank, it identifies it immediately.

I see what you're saying.

So I don't know the rationale behind the original placement. None of us probably do or will ever know. But that I would prefer it on the eastern corner which would also give it more space from the M1 bank that is on the low wall on the south elevation.

Yeah, the one that's on the low wall is more pedestrian oriented really. That's about people walking essentially at the door.

So I would spread them out if I were doing it. But Other than that, I think they're fine. I can't see putting them any other place where they would be visible because the one that is at pedestrian level, you can have people, cars parked there, get a big SUV

and

you're not going to see it. And putting it on glass, You would see what's behind it, which might not be what you want to promote.

There'd be a lot of wires and cables.

Yeah.

Clamps. And

you might see people who don't get a clear background, a solid background.

Right.

So I think it belongs at the top. I would just move it to the east end.

Amy? Amy?

I agree with Steve, I like it across the top of the building. I'm very happy that it's not black as well. I'm curious as to why there is black on the brick and not matching or kind of a cohesive.

That's a good question. And this rendering actually shows it the best. If you remember back to when we had the architectural review approvals back in June, if you don't remember, I don't blame you because a lot has happened since June, right? A lot of this is to the design. We started with this original building here on Bemisden, which is a low, it's the old Sollingersman office. And the idea is to unite this into a campus. And one very much wants to think of this as a campus of buildings. And so that low building had this language of a very strong roof band with these panels of glass down below and the black windows and with the brick. And so what we did in order to, that's a very different architectural language. It's like colonial, you know, a little house over there. And how do you unite that with this building? And so what we do is use that low building as a base and stretch it all the way around the block essentially as a plaza that the parking that's all there now will be buried underground so that you won't see the cars. And then we're raising this kind of pedestrian plaza at that level So we chose to keep the fence or fence rail, whatever you want to call it, at the top in the black to pick up. It also has the same patterning as the windows. It's in the same location, sits on the brick wall, similar to how the windows go into the brick wall of the other building. So that's an intentional language that's borrowed from next door to carry as a base, further contrasting this very clean glass box that rises above it that is something new and different.

Thank you.

Anything else, Jamie?

Ira? Steve, I agree with your comments about preserving the building. I think it's great. Tyler, how are you? It's always good to see you. You too, Ira. So, I mean, my comments, I like Helen's comments quite a bit. Something to consider. I don't think I would vote against it if you don't, but I think she has some good points to be made. I liked the signage on the top. I think that's the proper place for it. So those are my only comments.

Thank you. Do we have any other hands up?

I

can't see any. No, okay. I had one other comment and that's about the two signs potentially being at the corner, similar to the current one. When I looked at the drawings, I actually liked separating them for two reasons. One that you said the left- Justified. Justification, yeah. But also it indicated to me on the south side that that sign at the west end was related to where the building entrance is. I know it's not directly below it, it's in the next bay, but it seemed to have a purpose for being there also. But I think the main thing is, I think most of us, if not all, feel that we should allow the signage to go on the band at the top. And I think that will accentuate the entire architectural design to be a very pristine, glassy little jewel box compared to what it is right now. And I think we're all eager to see it up and operating someday. We do have two staff recommendations, but I think we may have to change them.

I'll make a motion to approve the submittal with one alteration. Signage is to be bronze in color and not black in color. And we are allowing... the signage should be on the top band as proposed.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you, Tyler. Good seeing you again. You too. Thank you for reinvesting in the city.

Thank you all.

Well, like I said, the demo should start beginning of December, first week of December. You should see, and there's going to be a magical point. We're going to post something on Facebook. There's going to be this magical point when everything is off the building except for this concrete structure. And you'll be able to see right through it. It'll be like this little skeleton. And it's going to be quite interesting. Yeah. Yeah.

So where will all the staff that will be in that building, where will they be during construction? Will they be next door or

offsite? No, they're moving out end of November.

Yeah.

Yeah, completely gone.

It'll be empty. Good. Okay. Well, thank you. We'll look forward to seeing it. Before we finish, Amy, any further comments?

No comment.

Helen?

No comment.

Carolyn? Comments. Ira?

Nope. Thanks, Steve.

Okay. Anna? Stephanie?

Nothing this

evening.

Okay. Hobie, thank you for sitting in tonight.

Oh, yeah. Hobie is our new planning technician, so he will, yeah, will be joining us every once in a while.

Well, with

that... So thank you, everyone. I see Ryan, are you on?

Yeah, he's driving back currently. So I think he's listening. He saw someone in the car. Yeah, he might not be able to actively unmute at this moment.

Well, thank you, everyone. We'll see you for, I think it's October 3rd. See you in a couple weeks. So we'll see you all then. Thanks, everyone.

Motion to adjourn.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? OK, we're adjourned.