November 21, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for November 21st. Anyone virtually, please raise your hand if you have a comment or question. Here in the council chambers, if you have any electronic device, please silence them. And with that, we'll start with the roll call, Obie.

Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman. Here. Carolyn Gages. Bob Denlow. Helen DeFayt. Here. Kami Waldman. Here. Bridget McAndrew. Here. Anna Crain. OK.

Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman. Here. Carolyn Gages. Bob Denlo. Helen DeFayt. Here. Amy Waldman. Here. Bridget McAndrew. Here. Anna Crain. OK.

David Gipson, I'm here. Thank

David Gibson, I'm here. Thank

you. Thank you. We have minutes from the previous meeting on November 7th. Are there any changes?

No. Do we have a motion? I move that

we approve as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you. We have a couple announcements. The first thing is we'd like to welcome Bridget McAndrews as the now current aldermanic rep on this committee and also say good evening to Kevin O'Keefe who sometimes shows up before us. And then we have a minor change in the agenda tonight. The first item, the discussion session, we're going to hold off until we go through the new business, simply because the discussion session may take more time than most of the new business items. So with that, we'll get started and start on new business item one, which is 44 Arundel. And is the applicant here either online?

Yeah.

Hello, Preston Jordan for 44 Arundal here.

Okay, thank you. We will start with the staff report.

Great. The site is located at the southeast corner of DeMond Avenue and Arundel Place and is zoned R2 single family dwelling district. Due to the home's position on a corner lot, the property experiences a double frontage requiring the along the west property line with a sub front yard setback. The project consists of replacement of repair of a portion of an existing fence and the addition of a retaining wall within the front yard. The location of the existing fence is on a slight hill and which the applicant has stated contributes to structural challenges with the fence. To remedy these challenges, the applicant is proposing the installation of a retaining wall that will not exceed 24 inches in height. Included in your staff report under criteria for review is the provisions related to front yard fences and masonry walls. This section of Devon Avenue along the west side of the property serves only to provide access to the subject property's driveway, a dead end, and pedestrian through. Properties in the area address dual frontages with a variety of approaches. The applicant is proposing a short retaining wall along with replacing portions of the existing fence and reinstalling other portions. The proposed wall will range in height, but should not exceed two feet. The existing fence is located approximately 10 inches back from the sidewalk with a small planting strip located in the setback. The scale of items such as retaining walls and fences within front yard setbacks in the surrounding area should be consistent. And therefore staff is of the opinion that a fence on top of the two foot retaining wall should be limited to four feet in height measured from the top of the retaining wall. The height of the existing fence was not noted on the plans. The retaining walls proposed to be constructed of Versalock mosaic weathered block with a timber wood blend color scheme and conforms to the architectural review guidelines for block retaining walls. Staff is of the opinion that the wall and the wood fence material are compatible with the existing property and surrounding area. staff recommends approving with the following conditions. One, the retaining wall shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 inches to allow for a planting strip. And two, the fence located on top of the retaining wall shall the maximum of four feet in height.

Thank you. Mr. Jordan, do you have any comments?

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, 10 inches setback was intended to be with the plan so that will be noted and the fence is four feet in height and will be no higher than four feet in height from the top of the retaining wall. PB,

Harmon Zuckerberg, Okay, thank you. No problem. PB, HarmonZuckerberg, we'll go around I. I thought those two staff recommendations were important and thank you for agreeing to them. I had no comments. It's a pretty normal, straightforward request. So I'm in favor of it, but let's go around. I

don't have any comments.

Ellen?

No comments.

Amy?

No comment.

Carolyn?

I didn't have any comments either. Thank you.

and David, no comments. We do have a staff recommendation with the two conditions that the applicant has already agreed to. Do we have

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

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Good luck with it.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you all's time. Have a good one.

We'll move on to number two, which is 45 Arundel. Is

the applicant

here? Oh, OK. We'll start out with the staff report.

OK. The subject property is located at the same intersection as the previous. application just located at the northwest corner. As a corner lot again, this subject property has front yard setback requirements along both the south and the east property lines. The project consists of the installation of a new fence surrounding a pool area. A portion of the new fence is located in the secondary front yard along DeMunn Avenue. Again, within your staff report is the criteria for review pertaining to front yard retaining walls and fences. There are variations in front yard fences located on secondary frontages throughout the city, and this variation is based on different neighborhood character, lot configurations, and road conditions. The proposed fencing ranges from four to six feet in height. The four-foot section within the secondary front yard is located atop an existing retaining wall that ranges from two feet to three feet in height. A combination of the wall and fence at the tallest point would measure seven feet above grade and is located at the northeast corner of the site. The proposed fence and retaining wall are set back roughly five feet to six feet from the sidewalk and are shielded by some trees. Staff is of the opinion that the location on top of the retaining wall should be revised to provide for an angle at the corner, allowing for increased sight line for cars exiting the alley. A similar fence layout is used across the street on the other side of DuMont Avenue for fences at that alley intersection. While the sight line is already obstructed by the trees, they are not completely opaque and the addition of the fencing with the material proposed in this area would result in a further impeded view. The rear of the property abuts an alley which serves parking for a variety of homes on Arundel Place and Aberdeen Place. From the public right-of-way, the height of the fence is viewed in combination with the retaining wall. The intent of the height limit and the code is to protect and enhance the character along the public right- of-way and the pedestrian experience. Staff is of the opinion that the fencing within the frontage should be limited to four feet in height. The fence material proposed is to be constructed of a wood and plastic composite, which is 90% recycled materials. The boards have a wood grain texture with a brown and charcoal coloring, and the frame will be aluminum. Plastic composite boards are not currently recognized as an approved material within the architectural review guidelines. Fencing on nearby properties is most often a wood material, with a few exceptions that include metal fencing. Front yard fences are to be ornamental in character, and as previously outlined, the architecture review board also has a preference for the ornamental or the wood materials. Staff is of the opinion that the design proposed is compatible with surrounding properties, but that the material is not. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, all fencing that is located within the front yard shall be limited to four feet in height. Two, the fence at the northeast corner shall be revised to be at an angle to increase sight lines at the intersection with the alley. And three, a material approved by the Architecture Review Guidelines should be selected to replace the wood and plastic composite boards.

Okay, thank you. Good evening. You could identify yourself with your address.

Do

you have any other comments? Yes. Jumping right to the very end, the staff recommendations. I have... If you could just describe

it, though, so that Carolyn, the member on the board, can't see this. Thank you.

I wanted to address each one of the three points. Number two, if you look at our property is in the lower rank. I'm sorry, I can't hear. Can... speak

into the microphone better perhaps sorry

now it's green it was red before can you hear me now Yes, perfect. Wonderful. Okay, so on the handout, our property is in the lower right-hand corner and our proposed fence, our requested fence, is highlighted in green. The other three corner lots on this intersection, the existing fences are highlighted in blue. Those are all 72 inches or six feet in height. If you look at 43 Arundel and the upper right-hand corner of the page, you'll see that it is set back about 19 and a half feet from DeMond Avenue. There was six and a half feet of grass, five feet of sidewalk, and then they had an eight foot setback at which they did cut the angle to increase sight lines. If you look at our fence, we're also at 19 and a half foot from the edge of the street There's the six and a half feet of grass, the five feet of sidewalk. And then we have six and a half foot of landscaping which is a bed of mulch with columnar oak trees in there and then a stone wall. And so our proposed fence is the same distance back from the street as 43 Arundel and also as 44 Aberdeen in the upper left-hand corner, both of those. So we would be consistent with what's in the area right now. I'd also like to point out in the lower left-hand corner of the drawing is 46 Aberdeen. That's also a seven foot, sorry, 72 inch or a six foot fence that runs right up along the sidewalk and does not have a cutout or anything like that. It doesn't have a 45 degree cut. So, HAB-Jacques Juilland, Given that, and also if you look at our green fence in the bottom right hand corner. HAB-Jacque Juilland, We are set back from the alley three and a half feet, and if you wanted to see that visually go one two. No, I didn't have a very good picture of it. There's a photo of it on a couple of pages later. You'll see 45 Arundel on the top, the wide overview with the landscaping of the trees and the stone wall along the alley. So given all of these factors, Our fence is actually offers the best visibility. Our proposed fence would offer the best visibility out of the four corners. So what I'm requesting would be to build our fence at a 90 degree angle, which is it'll be inside of our stone wall and it would follow the stone wall instead of having to have some sort of cutback. That's my request. Okay, that's item number two. Are there any questions?

Let's go through one and three. Okay,

okay. And item number one would be the second page. And if you look at item number one, if you look at the second page, That is an elevation drawing of our fence all along the alley. This is not along DeMunn, this is along the alley. DeMunn is to the left. You can see it right there with the grass and the sidewalk, then our landscaping with the tall trees and that's our stone wall. Currently, the staff recommended that we keep the height at four feet before stepping up to six feet. They're recommending that we keep it at four feet for the entire front yard setback, even though the front yard is our side yard, but I understand it's a corner lot. So we've got two front yards, but this is our side yard. If we were to comply with the staff recommendation, we would not step up from four feet to six feet until 22 feet. which is 15 plus seven. So what we're requesting is to run our four foot feet, run our four foot fence for 15 feet, then step up to six feet. It's a small encroachment. It's seven feet. The reason we're doing this is to provide a little bit more privacy, but also to mirror on the right side of the drawing where it drops back down. It would just it would be more symmetrical on both sides. So we're asking the ARB for an allowance of seven feet. And please keep in mind, this is along the back alley.

Are there any questions or comments?

We'll come back to those.

Okay. And then item number three is the material that we would like to use. We would like to use a composite material. It's made of 90% recycled wood and, of course, plastic, a bonding agent. I have a sample here. Could I pass that around? OK. So these boards would be in our fence. The fence would be constructed with vertical aluminum posts every six feet. And then these boards, they're roughly six inches and their tongue and groove, they would be horizontal and the tongue and the groove go right in there. If you look at the color, the material is solid. So the color is consistent throughout. It's not surface. There's a wood, deep wood texture to it. They're very heavy, very strong. I think it's an excellent product. I think it was a very good upgrade. We're hoping that over time they won't fade, splinter. They won't warp. They won't grow moss and algae and things like that. That happens with natural wood. So

start over here. So if you could just pass that along, each person could take a look and get a better feel for the fencing material.

Okay, let's start with item one, where the staff recommendation is that all fencing located within the front yard shall be limited to four feet in height. And that would be four feet above any stone wall.

Correct. Correct.

Yes. The drawing on your page two, that we would be looking at the alley.

Yeah, you're standing in the alley and you're looking at our house would be behind that fence,

correct? I generally agree with the four feet. And what I see is it would be four feet on Daman Avenue. Yes. Correct? Yes. And it would be, what you're requesting is four feet on both the eastern and the western 15 feet. Yes. And six feet in between.

Correct. Correct.

I really don't have a problem with that. And it goes back to when we originally approved this relatively new house that I believe it was stated that there would be a pool in there. Good memory. In the future, which then meant that we would have a fence around the whole thing. And I don't remember if we talked four or six feet at that time, but I did feel that there's a difference between the demand elevation and the alley elevation yes the damon elevation has trees uh but as our director has indicated they're not solid right now especially and um but there's much less privacy on the alley um i would be okay i'm only one vote remember uh i like your vote though It's a good vote. To allow that intermediate portion to be six feet. Thank you. But let's see what everyone else says.

Yeah, we are along DeMunn. We're at four feet. We turn down the alley and we remain at four feet before stepping up. I'm just asking for that extra seven foot. That's all. Bridgette?

Yeah, I would also agree. I think having that elevation at DeMond stay lower than the one on the alley is it's much different. So yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Helen.

I agree with Steve and Bridget. You can have the seven feet.

Thank you for the seven feet. Amy.

I agree as well.

Good.

Carolyn.

Karen Hollweg, I agree with the seven feet, but have we talked about the actual materials yet

no

okay

up

there. Karen

Hollweg,

Okay, I agree with David

only concern would be whether or not this is a code requirement and something that the. Karen Hollweg , plan Commission can actually alter or if this is something that the board of adjustment would need to take up as a very.

Karen Hollweg,, that's a good point. yep. Mr. O'Keefe, would you like us to move on to

the next item of the conditions and give you a few minutes to take a look at this?

Okay. It's my understanding that the

commission has in the past granted waivers from the strict enforcement of this. And so if that is the commission's pleasure, I think that would be consistent with past practice. I'd like to ask the applicant one thing, however. Is there gonna be another fence? Is there a pool there now?

No, we are hoping as we can't break ground, we have the pool permit. We cannot start digging until we get a fence permit.

Is there going to be another security fence around the pool?

No, this is the pool security fence. And the pool code says it's a minimum of four feet tall.

Okay, that's what I wanted to check. Yes. whether that would satisfy the pool safety requirements.

Yes.

Which I think is now looking up.

With self-closing gates and it will be pool compliant. It has to be.

If there's not another fence.

Correct.

Then will you look at the pool element to get back? Okay.

Will you be continuing the fence going west on the alley and then going north on the western side of your property? So that the yes hi and it would and

then it would tie back into the House House.

Okay, according.

Well let's go on to number two right now um and that's the request to. put an angle. to fix the sight lines as you've shown on your first drawing. Here again, because your stone wall and the future fence on it is set back virtually eight feet from the sidewalk, I really don't see that we have to have that wall rebuilt. I think it's okay the way it is. I know it's not the angle that we have on the eastern side of Daman, but those are very different situations. Those walls are essentially at the sidewalk, but yours is not. Yours is quite far back. I would feel that we can leave it at the 90 degree

angle. Richard?

I mean, I guess I would defer to the expert here, because I mean, as long as I think people have sufficient sight lines, which again, I think, as Steve has mentioned, so we live far back. So again, I just want to make sure people

Yeah, well, we live there and we see the traffic and we see the foot traffic of all the pedestrians. And yeah, I understand safety is number one. And I completely agree with that. And I'm very comfortable that we're, we've got the best sight lines out of the four corners.

Thank you.

Ellen.

I am very comfortable with the visibility and it's very important to me. My car is low to the ground and I don't want to hit anybody walking.

So

I think this is a good solution and looks better than the other corners.

Yeah, thank you. Jamie? Yeah, I have no problem with this. Thank you. Carolyn? No, I think it's a good solution as long as it's not

in the first place. So everybody's comfortable with it.

Okay. David? I'm okay with a 90-degree corner.

Okay.

Let's move on to item three, and that's the material. that you're requesting the wood plastic composite boards. Mr.

Chairman, if I may, can I just confirm that the minimum height for the pool safety requirements is 48 inches. So there's not an issue with this fence in that regard. Since you're going into something other than dimensions, I just want to get that.

So we will have minimum of four feet, but on the alley side, it'll be a majority of six feet. Yeah, you can see it'll step up to six. Okay, we're back to the material that we looked at. It's not a bad looking material, but we have not been allowing that material in Clayton. I think we would have to change our regulations to allow it. I also like that you were going to run it horizontally. We are seeing more and more of that in the city, but we're seeing it done in woods. at this point. And I would recommend to go with the staff recommendation that an approved material in our architectural review guidelines be used. But let's see what everyone else says. Bridget.

I mean, just from a process standpoint, since it's a guideline, is it just something so we're kind of looking at what we've done in the past versus like a code section? It's a

Correct, it wouldn't need a text amendment to change.

It would just, I mean, it could come from

this commission. This commit for tonight, you can approve something other than what's in the guidelines.

Oh, so may I ask? So you're saying, is it a guideline or is a mandatory? That's the- Guideline. It's a guideline. Okay, thank you.

I guess because I'm new to this, have we approved any sort of recycled composite fencing at all in the past? I

believe we have not. It's hard to say for the whole past. There has been a different, not this particular material or brand that's being proposed, but there has been a similar kind of style of a Trex material that we see on decks a lot that we've approved through this process. But I can't recall any front yard fences that I'm aware of where we've done that.

have you, in terms of this product, like from a sustainability standpoint, you know, I don't know much about it. You said it's made up 90%.

90% is recycled wood. Yes. And then.

And about how long, like, is it supposed to last longer than wood fencing?

It'll last longer than wood fence. I don't know how, how long, but you could look at the, some of the photos on some of the last pages of the old wood fences that are aren't as attractive. So that's what we're trying to avoid. Try something that's going to weather really well and stay good looking for many years. So I understand the concern because I've seen vinyl fences in the past where it's a smooth plastic with the wood grain painted on there and it's not good. I think that this is really a pretty sharp looking material. It's a solid color throughout and the wood grain is strongly embossed on the surface. To me, it looks good. It looks like natural wood, which is kind of ironic, huh?

Well, I'm you know i'm I actually am of the opinion that I think it's I think it's somewhat positive to be using recycled materials and I like the idea of something lasting longer because ultimately will have to come down and be replaced. thrown in, so I mean I would be willing to or a different. Ellen.

I

am obviously still thinking, I think it's a good looking fence.

Sure.

And it's a very contemporary look with the horizontal boards.

It is kind of in keeping with the architecture of our home. We've got the black windows and black accents and Yeah, so

that's what we like. I think the jury is probably still out on whether or not it will warp and where other fences, when they're vertical, they warp this way, whether it'll warp, you know.

Sure, yeah, I can appreciate that. That's why I'm encouraged by the tongue and groove aspect of it, where each board is locked in together.

I could agree with Bridget that allow it

Oh, with Bridget, okay. Amy?

I like it. I like that it does, like the overall design of it, I like that it doesn't kind of tie into like the trim of your windows and of your house. I think, you know, it's a little bit more of a modern feel, which I think also your house kind of has that, you know, the newer architecture ties in. I love the horizontal aspect of it. I've seen a couple actually recently in my neighborhood where they have like the horizontal wood boards, not in this dark color, but it's still like a charcoal gray. And I think I can already see them kind of weathering. And so I am more inclined to go with this product because I do think it'll look better longer. And it does give you a little bit better privacy as well. And again, I just think it ties into the style of your house very well. So

good.

Thank you. Carolyn?

I'm worried about setting a precedent. I know that everybody else is leaning towards approving the material. While I like the idea of recycled lumber, I have seen the warping. The tongue and groove aspect of this particular design, however, is really unique. And I wonder if there's a way that we can approve it based on the actual engineering of this product type, as opposed to saying, okay, any recycled lumber is okay now. Um, because I don't think that's where we want to go. The other comment I had about this particular use usage is that you do have landscaping. You do have the columnar trees that are blocking a lot of it. So, um, to me, it's kind of like, who's looking at what, you know, um, I don't think I'd be focusing on your fence. I'd be focusing. On your house and your landscape and other things. So I, for me, I think it's okay. And, but I am worried about the precedent thing. And I would like a little bit more discussion on that and how we go forward. Um, with other projects that are going to come to us once we say, okay. Um, but, and I'm sorry, I can't be there in person. It's holiday season. So I barely could get on. Um, But honestly, I think we should have a little mini discussion about that because once we do this, then everybody is coming out of the quote unquote tongue in cheek woodwork saying, well, you did it there. And I want to make sure that we are specific about this project perhaps in some way.

I'll speak to that just briefly. So we do have the manufacturer products and we can make sure we have all the details of what you're installing. but also we can just be clear that any vote tonight would not be modifying the existing architectural review guidelines to add this as an approved material type, rather just approving this specific project that we're reviewing here.

Thank you. David? I think it's a pretty high quality material. If it was a standard vinyl, I would have concerns with it, but I'd be willing to give that a try.

Do we have anyone in the audience who would like to make any further comment about this?

Alderman Lentz.

Rich Lentz at 6,375 Alexander. And I'll just remind you that I have a Trek fence which this board approved. I'm on a corner lot and there's a, most of it's in the back and the side, and actually the next four houses have all have the same fence, but I do have about a six or 12 foot section that faces on Faqir. And so it was approved about two years ago, I think. Just wanna let you know that.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience in person or virtual? No hands up. Well, I think I

would defer to my colleagues at this point. And let's see if we can make a motion based on the three staff recommendations and any changes we've made.

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. I'll make a motion.

Carolyn, hold off one minute. I'm sorry. You have one more comment.

Carolyn, I just wanted to say, I thought your comments were really good. I think it is important. Maybe we start talking to the sustainability committee about, you know, coming up with potential recommendations for materials that we can use, you know, for these fences so that we're getting good quality materials that are coming in.

Thanks. Yeah, I

agree with that.

Caroline Miller,

carolyn okay i'll make a motion to approve.

Caroline Miller, With amendments to the staff recommendations number one. Caroline Miller, The fencing that is located within the front yard. Caroline Miller, It stated shall be limited to four feet in height, we have amended that to be minimum of four feet in height maximum of six feet along the alley way. Correct?

Correct.

Okay. Number two, we are approving with the 90 degree corner angle alteration. Number three, the material approved in the architectural review guidelines shall be selected to replace the wood plastic composite boards. We are saying We are voting to approve the material, but it is not a universal approval of any sort pertaining to every single project. This is a project-specific approval.

And it will not trigger a text amendment.

Thank you. It will not trigger a

test amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the plans submitted are consistent with Ms. Gatiss' revision. So I think it's approved as submitted would be consistent with the application and the discussion of the commission without the staff recommendations. And we'll shorten it up. Great.

Oh,

OK. I was trying to make the minute shorter.

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

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you for coming.

Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Okay,

now we'll move on to item 3602, Alamo.

Welcome back. Thank

you.

So hopefully this should be fairly simple. I'm Sam Shemento with 6611 Clayton Partners, and we're simply here to request a subdivision plat for some townhomes that we are currently under construction on.

So the subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Alamo Avenue and St. Rita Avenue. The property is zoned R5 medium low density multifamily dwelling district. The townhouse development currently under construction was originally approved as a condominium style development where all four townhouses would be located on one lot. Based on discussions with purchasers of the townhouses, the developer is now proposing a subdivision plat to allow for the development of four townhomes on fee simple lots. In the R5 dwelling district, there's a requirement for a minimum lot width of 20 feet per townhouse unit and a minimum lot area of 1,974 square feet per unit. With the fee simple lot structure, each lot created must meet these minimum standards. The proposed plat does so. Included within your staff report are the considerations for the plan commission reviewing a subdivision plat. Staff is of their opinion that the proposed plat conforms to the subdivision regulations and those of the R5 district with regard to size frontage and arrangement. The proposed subdivision plat does not change the design layout or density of the townhouse development as it was previously approved. Staff recommends to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. One, the applicant provide a mylar with the appropriate signature blocks to the city of Clayton for signatures after Board of Alderman approval. And two, the applicant files the plat with St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submits proof of filing within 30 days of Board of Alderman Approval.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments, Sam?

No comments. Happy to answer any questions if you have

any. This seems real cut and dry, but I do have a question. The driveway goes across all four of the new properties. Is that correct?

It does, yes.

And is there any provision to allow...

Yeah, absolutely.

Individual?

Yeah, there'll be a permanent easement that allows all of the unit owners to access their unit through that common area. It's not a common area, but through that easement area.

Yeah. And are you in agreement with the two staff recommendations?

Absolutely, yes. Okay.

I have no problem with it. Bridget?

No, no problem.

Ellen?

No problem.

Amy?

No problem.

Carolyn?

No problem.

Do we have a motion to approve and recommend to the Board of Aldermen?

I'll make a motion to approve, and recommend to the board of Aldermen. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

OK.

Thank you.

Thanks, Sam. Let's move on to

items four and five, 8001 Forsyth. And this is a conditional use permit. Is the

applicant here? Raise your hand if you're on Zoom. Oh, okay. Okay,

we'll begin with the staff report on the conditional use permit.

Yes, this is the conditional use permit request for a restaurant. The subject property is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Merrimack Avenue and has a zoning designation of PUD. First Watch is a restaurant that has submitted plans for the retail tenant space that has frontage along Forsyth Bouleuard and is located in the east tower of the PUD development. Review of exterior modifications that are also being proposed will be considered under the architectural review staff report. Within your staff report, the criteria for review lists the criteria that you should consider when reviewing a conditional use permit for a restaurant. I will just summarize some of the points from that report. In terms of compatibility, the property is developed with multiple tenant spaces along the ground floor that are intended for occupancy by restaurants and retail uses. The proposed restaurant has previously occupied this site prior to the development that is currently under construction. located along a highly trafficked street within the downtown area. This tenant space is ideal for a restaurant. The applicant is proposing outdoor dining. Adjacent restaurant uses also have outdoor dining, and the proposed hours of operation for this would end at 2 30 p.m. And I would also note that the outdoor dining proposed is located within an arcade area that was designed with the intention of supporting outdoor dining for future restaurant tenants. The subject property was developed with onsite parking garage that is sized to address the parking needs of all the various uses within the development. The applicant has stated that dedicated employee parking will be provided onsite. The proposed restaurant is not likely to generate more noise than adjacent restaurants or coffee shops and the site is surrounded by office, hotel and retail uses. In conclusion, staff said the opinion that a restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing, that the proposed restaurant meets the requirements contains regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other businesses in this area. Staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Renaud? PB Harmon Zuckerman, If you can. Oh, thank you. If you could identify yourself and how you're connected with the proposal.

I am Marty for nod and I am the architect for the tenant that out for first watch.

PB Harmon Zuckermann, Hey, do you have any further comment about the conditional use permit.

I

do not

PB

Harmon Zuckerson, Okay, then we'll go on. I really have no problem with it. It'll be nice to see First Watch coming back in the same exact location that they were a few years ago, albeit in a new building. But let's go around.

I'm excited to have First Watch back. Hopefully it will be run as well this time around as it was before.

Helen?

Good to have them back.

Amy.

No problem.

Carolyn.

Fabulous, all good.

David. No comments.

Great. Do we have a motion to recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen?

I'll make a motion to approve the CUP for the Board of

Alderman. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

You're on your way with the CUP, but now we'll move on to the architectural review.

In addition to the conditional use permit, the applicant has proposed minor modifications to the building facade. A portion of the storefront system will be removed and replaced with a door, a tiled facade and windows that can be opened for access to a service bar. As previously mentioned, an outdoor dining area is also proposed in the arcade. The Architecture Review Board approved a signed subdistrict earlier this month for this property. Signage that is shown on the renderings included in your packet will be reviewed for compliance with the signed subdistrict when a signed permit is applied for. Therefore, the signage is not evaluated within this application. Exterior modifications proposed will help transform the standard storefront. The proposed materials and modifications are in keeping with the character and the aesthetic of the First Watch restaurant brand. The window seating with the bar area will provide additional activation in the outdoor dining area. The tiles with a wood finish appearance will be installed around these new windows. The building features large amounts of glazing and storefront glass with accents of colored tiles and wood panels along the roof of the arcade. The proposed tiles have a gray wood grain finish. While this material is not featured elsewhere on the building, it is a softer natural tone that will help to differentiate the tenant space without distracting from other architectural elements of the building. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed modifications are compatible with the existing building in the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval as submitted with a note that the signage shown will be reviewed under a signed permit application.

Thank you. Mr. Renaud, do you have any further comments?

I do not. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Okay. I have a comment on the flip up windows, which I think are very different in the appearance of the building that they're placed in. But I think the seating counter right in front of it is so unique that I would like to see that whole thing go through as shown. So I think it's an exciting way to have outdoor seating as opposed to just at tables. So I'm certainly in favor of it. Bridget?

I also love the outdoor bar, like Steve mentioned. Just from understanding the perspective, like in the drawings. So there's the seating area and then outside the seating area. Is that all not underneath the roof or the arcade area? So the seating is all under the arcade? And then there's basically the sidewalk area where people walk by. Correct.

So the seated area watch. Thank you,

Ellen. I too like the window the bar windows and I think it's very different. I've seen seen it in magazines but not seen it locally. Although looking at the Sheet A003B, that far west barstool looks really close to the stairs. Have you thought about that?

Yes,

yeah. And we will look into the requirements, especially with the flip out. There might be local code requirements about the clearance underneath that. But yeah, specifically that booth is a little close to the stairs. So we will look into that.

Okay, it might be, you know, building owner might want to kind of change the handrail there so that people can use that side of the stairs. And the person on the far west bar stool is not in danger of getting too close to the edge of that top riser. So otherwise, it looks great. I like it. You know, When are you going to open?

We have to get through permitting first and hopefully the first quarter, first or second quarter of next year.

Amy.

I like the overall design of everything as well. I guess some concerns or maybe just to think about are the materials being used, you know, like the tile. I know renderings and like pictures don't really represent material as well. So I just want to make sure that, you know, like the tile around the flip up windows, does that really kind of go with the overall facade of the building? Just to kind of make sure it's just not standing out and look, you know, an eyesore rather than blending in. I know that's the intent. So I just wanna make sure that that's followed through. And then as far as the flip up window, the frame color, again, is your intent to match the building frames? Because it's shown black and I can't really read if there's a color listed anywhere.

Yeah, it is the intent to match the curtain wall framing of the building.

Yeah, so I would just make sure that everything really does kind of mesh well with the existing materials used on the building. But overall, I think the design is great. I love the countertop. That's a nice addition.

Carolyn?

Yeah. I agree with all the comments. I have a question for you, design-wise. Is there any reason not to push, sorry, I'm not there to point at something, but on A3B, looking at the enlarged site plan, to increase outside seating a bit by pushing that column all the way to the edge of where the main door is to allow for yet another table? It just seems like it's kind of smushed in there, agreeing with Helen and others' comments about the one seat that seems really, really close. It seems like if you could shift the four tops to the right and add one more, is there no room to do that and just not have the stairs be the entire length of that?

Unfortunately, this building is already built. No, but I'm

talking about the stairs to the sidewalk.

Adding a

Oh, I

see what you're saying. The columns are actually existing. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. OK, never mind. I'm being dumb. OK, I will admit it. I thought that was part of your canopy design. I haven't been over there in a little bit. OK, well, then I didn't really have any other comments. I agree with the comment about the last person sitting there going, oh, my God, I'm going to fall down the

stairs.

But otherwise, I think it looks great. My whole comment was based mostly on I wish you had more outside seating Like you have the, you know, the garden area seating and other areas outside. So it just seems like there's more opportunity, you know, or should be. But okay,

that's it.

Okay. David, no comments? Okay. Any comment from anyone in the audience? Okay, we do have a staff recommendation of approval with a note that the signage shown on the plans will be reviewed under a signed permit application. Do you agree with that, Mr. Renaud?

Correct, yes. Our vendor is handling that submittal process.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

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

All in favor? Aye. Okay, thank you very much. Now we have gotten down to item six, and that's 81-18 Forsyth.

The applicant is here.

The subject property is the site of the Triangle Garage located just north of Shaw Park. This property is zoned Special Development District. The project involves standardizing wayfinding signage for the Triangle Garage's multiple entrances. The project includes a combination of pole and wall signs. No signs will be installed within the public right-of-way. Aside from wayfinding and identifying signs, the packet submitted also includes some safety signs. These signs display height and clearance as well as entry limitations and do not require approval from the Architectural Review Board but are provided for context. The plan proposes pole signs at the north entrance from Maryland Avenue as well as the south entrance from Forsyth Boulevard. The signs will be made with a combination of aluminum and acrylic. And the pole signs will stand just over six feet tall supporting a six square foot sign. The wall signs are proposed at five entrances on all sides of the garage. The signs vary in size, but are consistent in design and materials. And they're made of vinyl and will display entrance information as well as safety information. The wall signs range in size from 19 square feet to 120 square feet. Included in your packet, there is a table that outlines the different signs proposed within this package. The two pole signs proposed conform to the regulations for accessory directional traffic and parking pole signs. The signs are taller than many directional signs throughout downtown. However, this height is necessary to be visible around planting beds and other elements within the sign area. Both pole signs are located on private property and will be set back from the sidewalk. TAB, Based on the wall area sign requirements and the size of the garage area a maximum wall sign of 25 square feet is permitted in each of those locations. TAB, Sign number four conforms to these requirements, however, signs 235 and seven exceed the maximum the applicant is requiring is requesting a sign modification to allow for this increased area. The garage is located on the interior of the STD and is utilized by all surrounding buildings. While the property does technically border surrounding streets, the garage is shielded from most sides. The garage is accessed via a shared drive that leads to the interior of the site and also provides access to some of the garages that are built underneath individual buildings. Staff is of the opinion that a practical difficulty does exist in this circumstance for the placement of the signs. Proposed signs are of high quality materials and will help provide branding for the triangle garage and also increase the wayfinding with the various garages in this area. These signs are directed towards visitors and will not have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the property. In conclusion, the proposed signage seeks to standardize and increase the ease of wayfinding for the triangle garage, and staff recommends approval as submitted.

Thank you. Welcome back.

Always good to be here. Hi, my name is Mike Shadle. I'm here on behalf of the owners of 8182 Maryland and 8235 Forsyth, two office buildings along the Forsyth, Maryland area. We're here tonight. We have been under a wayfinding project for our garage that's associated with our two office buildings. But that garage, as many of you know, is really the center point for the Clayton Triangle. Clayton Triangle, we're officially naming the garage the Clayton Triangled Parking Garage. It was something that was started back in 2004. So this is a long time coming. Essentially, the project is wayfinding for it's really being driven by our tenants, but really by the new hotel. Significant amount of new traffic that's going to be coming into this area. Guests, people who might not be familiar with it. The garage itself has some unique nuances with regards to how people enter and exit. traverse the interior pathways. So a lot of signage on the inside, painting on every floor, upgrading elevator lobbies, and then a significant amount of new signage at each of the five entrances of the garage. And if you're familiar with that area, the garage itself is in the interior. All five of the access and entrance exit areas are really not visible from the outside, but It is really important for us to improve the signage in terms of how people get to where they need to go. A lot of that, as I said, is driven by the hotel. As guests pull away from the hotel, they're going to pull down one of the alleyways into the one area. And so we're trying to add a lot of signage at those areas. Two signs, the pole signs that were mentioned. are at the Maryland entrance, our main entrance, where we really kind of direct most of our tenants. And then the other one is on the Forsyth area, which is really between the areas of Shaw Park and the hotel. And so we really want to try to promote as much of the direction to these entrances. In addition, we also, it was a place for public parking. So over the years, we've tried to improve the ability to be there for public parking. Currently we are installing a brand new parking system. So we're trying to address the process of making it easier for people to get in and exit from that process. So Scott Schulte, I believe is on the call. He is within graphics. He has a lot more of the details, but I'm here to answer any questions if necessary. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Mike, I was a little surprised. There are two entrances that I've never found. And I guess that's because the wayfinding was not there. That is

correct. We're trying to prove

that. I did notice that I think it's entrance number three is being rebuilt.

So entrance three is the one off of Forsyth, which used to be the bank entrance. When Regents Bank was in there, there was a drive-through. So you could go down, you come in off of Maryland and you pull into that side, you do your business and then you pull out. So that's been kind of an awkward situation really is only used for. We have a two level of the parking that are actually under 8182. So a lot of the people that park in that area utilize that access. The median, because of the way it was made for the bank, was right in the middle of the alleyway. And so we removed that median so we could put in the new parking equipment. But again, we're trying to improve just the whole process and the way of people getting in and out. Again, the hotel will probably mostly use the four-site entrance. Again, most of our tenants in the buildings are using the Maryland side. And please note, if you didn't realize it, the Parkside building, they have parking underneath their building, which they must access through our garage.

The Forsyth entrance, will that sign be on the property of the hotel?

Scott?

Yes, it will be. So the latest and greatest. rendering that we submitted is on the property of the hotel.

Okay. I really have no problem with it, even the size of the signs, given the large amount of area that you're covering and all the ins and outs. I think it's a good way finding solution that we never had.

Appreciate that. The signs, there are a lot of signs and a lot of it's because we have regular parkers. So people who park on a monthly basis, we have hourly parking, people who are coming to visit tenants in our buildings. Now we have guest parking for the hotel and we have valet parking for the hotel. So it's really, Again, trying to kind of pinpoint where the hot points will be in terms of that. And so we've tried to add as much signage as possible. All the other typical things, the clearance, all those issues that sometimes become very challenging.

Well, it's good to see a consistency in the design. So I have no problem with it. Bridget?

I mean, just as to the signs, yeah. I mean, the ones that say they don't conform to size, size requirements those are the ones that are more just up ahead with yes i don't have a problem with so um i was going to ask you though um you mentioned public parking and you know my casino we have a parking availability perception problem here in Clayton. So you talked about public parking. None of these signs say public parking, they just say visitor parking. So is there any thought about adding that? Because then you might just, I understand the public will come in and pay, but just, you know, there's visitor parking on the signs, but I'm just wondering whether or not to attract, because if somebody's not a guest of the hotel, but maybe they're coming to the restaurant that's going to be there or the bar, is there any thoughts to adding maybe just on one side public parking available?

We have steered clear of the word public. I do know that we've been listed regularly on the city's website and their maps as to public areas. And there used to be, Scott, I don't know if you remember, there used to be a P sign that was near one of our entrances. So I can talk to our team and see what they think about that. i mean i try to not

put it on the

mirror i do recollect that i think anybody with uh you know a little bit of gumption um would try to park in there anyhow

yeah

well i think you'd be surprised i think a lot of people don't i mean would see that and maybe think it's for the hotel so that's what i just think you

see a lot of private parking only or uh you know members only um in clayton but uh But I do think these signs are generic enough that you'll get some public parking in there for sure.

So with the retail shops along Maryland, we talk to them fairly regularly. We work with them if there's any special events. To that effect, if we know something's coming, we typically will work with their valets from that perspective. Nothing more detailed than that. A lot of it's just because we're managing the whole block. So after 5.30, 6 o'clock becomes a little more available. Clearly on the Clayton Art Fair, we just leave the arms up. Actually, if you've been around, we've had the arms up now for a month, better of a month. So I suspect there's been a lot of public parking the last month, plus all the construction people. I'll talk to the ownership. We'll see. At this point in time, we've steered away from public.

I mean, again, it's just kind of, and I wouldn't expect you to put it on every entrance, but the entrance by the hotel where people really might be trying to find somewhere to park that's, you know, to go to the bar. It's just a suggestion.

Okay.

Yeah. But I think it'd be great just on one or two of the signs to say, public parking or put the P in because I appreciate the fact that people look at our app as to our public but or look at the website, but I just actually seen a sign that says, Oh, I can't park in here, even though I'm not staying at the hotel, or even though I don't work in one of those buildings, it might be useful.

Okay. Oh,

I'm wondering, I like the signs. I like the simplicity, but the white on the light gray, will that be visible all the time? You know, when you get sunlight hitting it?

Scott?

You know, I'd really have to talk to the painters about this, but I do think that the dark gray is really going to pop and kind of highlight that bigger, lighter gray chevron. I don't think there'll be an issue there at all.

Okay, I'm just concerned about people are driving, they're dealing with traffic, where do I go? So I will say

the arrow is going to be acrylic and white. And so that's really gonna stand out and be a directional identifier for a lot of the commuters.

John Pimentel, Especially on Maryland that there's just a lot going on, especially the way the cars are parked now we're having a lot of trouble trouble, especially on that Maryland entrance with just sight lines so that was the reason for the height for the one sign, so I think it will be more visible than is today. John Pimentel

, No, yes, I go i'm Marilyn constantly. John Pimentle, So. And I know people looking for, if you work there or you're a guest in the hotel, usually you do valet and they deal with it or they'll tell you. But if you're visiting someone in one of the buildings and you're looking, where should I go? Is that visible enough?

And I will say that I think the differentiation of materials with the aluminum painted cabinet and the plex directional arrow you'll have that differentiation.

Okay, now i'm just posing sign. People know more than I do.

Well, and to that point, we work with each of our tenants or tenants. So we have a couple of tenants in there that have guests come, you know, financial services and so on. And they all have made these maps, which they hand to all their clients. So we try to try to facilitate that process because it is difficult. especially if you're on Maryland, all of a sudden you see it in quick turn. Great news is you can go around the block and there's five entrances. But for guests, there's really only two because of the ticket takers. And those are the ones we try to direct people

to. Okay. Other than that, I think I like it. It's well done.

Thank you.

Thank you. Amy?

I like it too. Just kind of curious, like why, you know, on page 2D, you have like the aluminum panel behind what, behind it and then on like 3D, you lose that for the lettering. Just why some of them are different and...

Scott?

Looking at the PDF right now, both signs will be identical.

Well, you see how one has like the aluminum panel, the painted cool gray behind it and then like this does not have that?

You kind of go back and forth. She's talking about the ones on,

So, yes. You're talking about

the... And then like on 3D and 4D, it's the same, but then on 5D, it's similar to 2D.

So there were some restrictions of power supply. So actually some of those over the entrances are backlit. Some are facelit, I believe.

Oh, gotcha. Okay.

That's it.

We have limitations with there's just a lot of stuff on top there. So we're trying to remove what's there today and put all the new stuff up but there's still some infrastructure that we just can't get beyond.

Maybe my two cents I just like it better without the painted panel, but I understand the limitations but overall I think it looks great.

Thank you.

Carolyn.

Yeah, the only question I had, I think, might have been answered already. But at night, what does it look like? I don't see anything in the drawings about night lighting of the signage.

Are we talking the two directionals?

Yeah.

They are not illuminated.

OK. Is that a good thing?

Just curious.

There is a lot of off-lighting that comes off of the buildings for that area. Plus, you have the streetscape. And remember, we'll be in the process soon of putting in a new streetscape along Maryland Avenue. So there will be a lot more lighting on Maryland than there is today.

Okay. Just making sure the wayfinding was actually going to work. Yeah. And I agree with what the folks said earlier, Bridget, et cetera, about it should say public parking. I don't think visitor parking is. If you are opening it up to public parking, then why not say it? I guess I'm confused about, you know, you could say something more like Clayton or something visitor parking. Unless you're trying to keep others, the others, quote unquote, out. which I'm not sure that you want to.

So the garage, again, as the center of that block, as you may or may not know, so there are parking spaces allocated to each of the property owners on the property. Right. And so there's a constant monitoring of parking spaces within that area. So our concern has always kind of been if we really make it open, one, we have a duty to our tenants. We also have a duty to the adjoining property owners which have certain rights to that garage. And so it becomes a little difficult to

say

we're wide open, come on in. We have... to our knowledge, we have worked very well with the neighboring retail properties and so on, the restaurants, to where I don't think there's a major issue from that perspective. People do come in off of Maryland and do use our garage. But again, we'll definitely take a look at it.

Well, no, I think it's okay. I trust that. I mean, if I was living in a building and I wanted to make sure I could have a spot or I was a somebody validating a parking pass for somebody who is in my salon or whatever use it is, I would want to make sure that there are spots for them. So I get that. It's fine. Thank you.

Otherwise,

I had no other comments.

David? I think it's been covered. I don't have any additional comments.

Anything else, Mike, you want us to hear?

No, sir.

Anyone left in the audience that has a comment? Okay. We have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted second.

All in favor. Aye. Okay. Thanks. Bye. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Okay. We've come to 81, 18 Forsyth. Glad you're still here. Oh, no,

sorry. We've gotten rid of the problematic applicant. I must take my leave.

Thank you. We already did that, sorry. We're down to 74-17, Oxford. All right.

element and I'm here this evening to present 7417 Oxford to new construction home that we plan on building and along with me this evening I brought Eric beat Meyer from Bowles engineering and Lauren Strutman from Strutman architects to show you this beautiful home we're getting ready to build. Thank you.

We'll start out with the staff report.

First is review of the site plan. The subject property is located on the north side of Oxford Drive between Audubon Drive and Glenridge Drive and has a zoning designation of R2 single-family dwelling district. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new, just over 4,000 square foot, two-story single-family home. In your staff report is the criteria for review for site plan. I'll just cover a few of the items. In terms of compatibility, the surrounding properties contain two-story single-family homes. The project meets the setback height and impervious coverage requirements of the R2 zoning district. HVAC units are located on the side of the house and will be screened by a combination of wood fencing and landscaping. The R2 dwelling district limits impervious coverage to 55% of the total lot. The existing impervious coverage is 43.2%, and the new plan increases impervious coverage to 25%. Existing runoff for MSD's 15-year, 20-minute storm calculation is 0.43 cubic feet per second, and the proposed runoff is 0.47 cubic feet per second which represents a 0.04 cubic feet per second increase. A drywall is proposed in the front yard to capture runoff from the roof and its sides to handle more than the increased runoff. The pop-up emitter for this drywall overflow is located along the east side of the driveway, less than 10 feet from the side property line. Staff recommends that the drywall and pop-up location is revised to allow for the pop-up emiter to be located in the front yard west of the driveway, providing for additional area for some infiltration of runoff prior to reaching the right-of-way. In terms of landscaping, the proposed plan provides a attractive design of tree shrubs and ground cover. There's a surplus of 109 square feet of canopy coverage with the proposed plan, and it meets the native tree requirement with 100% native. There's exterior lighting proposed at all entry points in the garage, and the lighting will meet the requirements to be 75 watts or less. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the proposed site is compatible with the surrounding area and conforms to the requirements of the R2 single family dwelling district. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size and site. the lot staff recommends to approve with the following conditions one the pop-up the drywall associated with the papa or the pop-up meter associated with the drywall will be moved to the west side of the driveway and shall be a minimum of 10 feet from property lines Two, the demolition plan sheets C2 shall be revised to match the updated tree protection plan as outlined on the landscape plan. And three, to ensure future protection and maintenance of the dry well, the applicant shall record the approved site plan and a deed restriction with St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds and shall provide proof of recording to the city prior to issuance of a building permit.

Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Lauren Strutman and I'm here with Eric Beekmeyer. We have a at-grade rear entry garage on this project with a tri-storage kind of at the end of the driveway as we typically do. And Eric's going to explain the drainage on the lot.

Good evening. Eric Vietmeyer with Volz Engineering. We're the engineer record for this project. I would first like to comment on condition number one about moving the pop-up. I'm very well aware of the rules that pop-ups need to be 10 feet away from property lines. The way it was originally explained to me 10 years ago was so that the water has that 10 feet to start to soak into the ground before it leaves the property. Where we had the pop-up currently, the neighboring property, even though it is less than six feet away, is uphill. So the water is flowing 10 feet before it hits the sidewalk, moving the pop-up to the west side of the driveway as staff would like. Gets it awfully close to the top of the dry well, which could make the hydrostatic differential not allow the pop-up the function. That's a consideration I would like to pose for approval without that first consideration by staff.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, The Papa. PB Harmon Zuckerton, Be moved even further was. PB

Harmon Zuckerberg, A with the way the front yard is graded we would be we'd have to go all the way to the other side of that front sidewalk where we're already having a pop up for the sump pump. Anywhere else in between there, we're almost at the same elevation as the top of the dry well. And you need some elevation difference for the water to make the pop-ups open.

Do you have your colored drawings?

I'll

just note that the staff's concern is, as Mr. Bietmeyer mentioned, the pop-up emitter is located down in grade from the adjacent property. However, that grade combination with how it's right next to the driveway will result in, staff's concern is that would result in either the overflow just immediately running down the driveway into the right of way or some sort of rivet being created just along the edge of the driveway that kind of results that we've seen elsewhere in perpetual kind of maintenance issues, either with mud located in the sidewalk or ice forming because of how that flow goes during the winter.

We had provided a minor swale for that pop-up to deliver water out to the sidewalk, which then there's an MSD curb inlet right there. We moved to the other side of the driveway. Probably would have the condition that staff is worried about with the erosion right there on the edge of the driveway. I struggled with this when I was coming up with this design, like they're not going to prove this. There's a sway.

Where

is this located? There's a minor swale. I'm showing a swale arrow. So it's, there's not a whole lot there, but it is a Contours will do kind of suggest a minor little swale. I can notice swale on there, provide a swale or something, but it's moving to the other side of the driveway. It's either gonna be right off the edge, similar to where we are now without the ability to have a swale or we're up the slope where it's

less likely that it will function. Well, I think I see the swale arrow.

But I really can't tell where the water is going to go.

It's just it's going to go out to the sidewalk and then into the curb that's right there, curb inlet is right there.

Could it go under the sidewalk?

I think that's probably even less than having a discharge within 10 feet.

Well, we have so many places in the city where we see the water coming across the sidewalk. And of course it freezes in the winter. Right.

That's one of the reasons why we had the 10 foot off of the sidewalk.

But we do see it coming down driveways, sometimes walkways. And I do think that's a safety concern for the citizens. Many people are out walking dogs or kids.

I know many people would prefer to just have that pipe daylighted out through the curb, but that's currently not allowed.

Also this property is across the street from a school. So there's probably more walking on this street than on many others. So I think we have to be concerned about the water coming across the sidewalk.

Other than a direct connection to the storm sewers, I'm not sure how we could eliminate runoff going over the sidewalk or down the driveway.

So is the dry well in the best location?

Yes, yes. The rear yard is actually above the front yard. So to put a dry well in the backyard just does not work hydrostatically

or hydraulically. Well, it would have been my first

preference was to put it in the backyard. The grids just don't allow it.

And you can't really shift it to the west. Is that correct because of

the... Yeah, the final discharge pop-up for the drywall really can't go west unless we can get closer to the sidewalk and then we still violate that 10 foot rule.

I see where the sump is the 10-foot distance.

Right, and to put the dry wells pop up near there, we're actually higher than the top of the dry well. It would be a

foot higher, so nothing would ever come out of it.

We can eliminate the pop-up and leave a vented cap on top of the drywall as its discharge point.

Not a huge fan of that, but I've done it in the past. Well, that then would...

hopped up out of the dry well, wouldn't it then flow down over the driveway? Yes. And then down into the sidewalk?

Correct. And that would not have the 10 feet of grass to flow over before it hits the hard surface. It looks like only maybe

four or five feet. Right. Correct. Maybe the least...

Problematic is where it is.

You think noting some sort of rock swell around the pop-up emitter so that it wouldn't have just run off over lawn?

Some decorative rock?

Right. Then that overflow is less likely to bring mud and other items

on. We can note some decorative cobbles or

stone. Okay. I'd be okay with that. I don't see anywhere else to put it unless someone else has an idea. Well, we're looking at the

site plan review right now. That was my only concern. Oh, sorry. I had one other concern. There is a new retaining wall in the back And could you explain that? I wasn't sure how the water is going to flow around it. Thank MSD for that.

Oh,

and number two, how do you get a

car around it? Well, through the review process with MSD, who has approved the plans, we had to provide for a 100-year overland flow path for the existing 30-inch sewer that runs under the east property line. runs along the east property line. There's a inlet in the back, just next door, and then the inlet out in the street. Because it is only 30 inches, MSD's rule is 30-inch pipes can clog. Don't know how, but it's okay. So we had to provide for an overland flow path for a worst-case scenario. in order to do that, we had to lower the driveway significant enough that gave us the long retaining wall and to get down quick enough, had to add the short little retaining wall off the end of the driveway where we otherwise would have had some kind of green strip to make upgrade. but since we were dropping enough, had to put in a short length retaining wall and the vehicles would go around that just like they would a landscape strip.

We'll go around

a

landscape strip they would drive over.

A lot of times when I'm doing landscape strips like that, I also include a a six inch curb because I'm trying to make up a significant amount of grade. Here, I just couldn't use a curb with landscaping. I actually needed a wall to make those grades up and to prevent that overlaying flow for the storm sewer from entering the garage. How

high

is the wall? I believe at the garage we were, I think 18 inches.

It's a little under a foot. Yeah,

a little bit from 548 and a half to 551.7. So a little bit under two feet. Just about around three feet. is a 10% slope coming out of the garage at that end, but the other end still just one and a half percent slope coming out of garage.

Well, MSD is requiring it,

but we can't get around it. That's what I needed to do to get the MSD approval, yes, and keep the garage dry. Keeping it dry is

important.

Next, otherwise

a hundred year flow can go down the driveway. Well, the whole site slopes up to the north. Correct.

Barely half of it. It's usually the other way. So could you raise the floor of the garage any? Or would that force the whole house to go up? It forces

the whole house up. Forget that. Okay, I don't know what to do with that. I think there'll

be a lot of scraped

car signs.

Yes.

Trying to keep these slopes as reasonable as I could. The steepest point along the driveway in between the two walls is 12%. That's for a short distance. And then, as I said, as you're coming into the garage facing in, the left is 10% and the right is one and a half. So going in and out of the garage

lower lowest sitting vehicle had to be on the right-hand side. Lauren, had you looked at flipping this house with the driveway on the west?

And putting the driveway on the West would not do well for MSD's concern of having the 100-year

overland flow path. So let's move on. Richard?

I definitely don't have a lot to add to that discussion, but I just want to clarify. So the dry well pop-up emitter, are we saying that it's not going to be moved? It's going to stay where it is or? Is that what? And then is there any concern just because it's not, then is it it's going to be closer to the adjacent property owner? Closer than we would normally allow?

It is, the grade goes up that way though. So the right based on the location staff doesn't have a concern that it will result in additional water on an adjacent property. It was more the potential for how to impact it the right of way but pretty comfortable with the idea of adding some rock and other items just to make sure that flows is not bringing dirt and other items on the driveway.

Thank you, I just wanted some clarification that it wasn't gonna affect the .

Helen?

Nothing further to add or

ask.

Amy?

Nothing further.

Carolyn?

Sorry, I'm laughing. Steve, great points. Great response from the applicant. The 12% slope on a driveway I do have to comment on that a little bit. I know that I used to work in Met Square downtown at HOK and we had a 14% drive into the garage and I had a manual BMW convertible and trying to even do that was not a joy. So I'm concerned about weather and things like that for your clients. And that's neither here nor there. If they've agreed to it, then they're fine with it. But I have to tell you, it would freak me out, especially with the law. My personal driveway

is 13% at my home. Yeah, my wife parks on it. She can open the doors. They stay open. You know, the only time we ever have any problems is if a two liter bottle of soda falls out of her back, then we're chasing it down the driveway. Otherwise, we haven't had any problems with that over 18 years.

Again, they're here nor there. I'm just commenting like if there was any way to change that. The other thing about the pump and the location, all that we were talking about stone or something to allow it to filtrate. What about changing the landscape slightly and not having it all lawn? Around that, lawn does not have deep roots. Our native landscape has deep roots. There are certain trees that have the capability to soak up 10,000 gallons of water a day if given the opportunity. So to me, it seems like there could be a sustainable approach to that whole thing, to take the water away from any kind of peril of the neighbors and even yourself to the client. But that again is, go ahead.

Yeah, I think if we had the option of stone versus deep blue vegetation, I think that gives us the opportunity to evaluate both. Take a look at the costs for either option and go with whichever option you have.

Yeah, well, ultimately...

And the rest of the landscaping.

Yeah, well, what's going on with my... Okay, never mind. Ultimately, after two years, a native landscape is gonna be less maintenance and less cost overall. Lawn, as we know, contributes to global warming and you have to mow, there's gas, there's carbon, Karen Hollweg, You know i'm just trying to try to make you know logical I

think they're helpful suggestions and so

yeah exactly Okay, thank you for that. Karen Hollweg, So the landscape. Karen Hollweg , comments that were made by the landscape folks from christener have been. Karen Hollweg,, adhered to now is that we're at Jonathan ryan's suggestions. HAB-Juliette Boone,

Good yes, I believe so

okay okay well then I didn't really have any other comments. HAB-Julie Petersen, So thank you.

HAB-Danny Teodoru, David no additional comments. Okay.

HAB-Michael Leccese, Anything else Eric unless there's any other questions. HAB-Masyn Moyer, um we do have three staff recommendations. HAB-Marie Slaughter, or. HAB-Mark to do in agreement with those. And of course, the first one will be modified to add the rock or deep root vegetation. They need to come back.

So I would recommend that we actually, if you want to go in that direction would just strike recommendation number one, modify number three to include adding either a rain garden with native landscape or a rock bed surrounding the drywall pop up, and that that would be included in what's recorded with the

deed restriction. okay so we'll get rid of number one and we'll only include two and three carolyn okay i'll make a motion to

approve with the staff recommendations excluding number one including number two including number three adding um the I don't know if requirement is the right word. Adding the requirement of a rain garden or gravel area around the drywall to thwart any overflow onto

neighboring properties. Yes, no, maybe. Carolyn, can you repeat that

number three?

Oh, okay. Sorry. Did I time out?

No.

Okay. I would say approve number three, but add the requirement of having a rain garden or gravel area and or gravel area at the dry well location as to prohibit overflow

runoff onto neighboring properties. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. We're through the site plan review. Let's move on to the architectural.

Okay.

Homes in the surrounding area on this block of Oxford Drive are two-story and feature a variety of roof lines and architectural characteristics. The proposed home is two stories measuring 29 feet and six inches in height. The existing home to the east is approximately 6.6 feet shorter than the proposed home, and the existing home to the west is approximately 2.3 feet shorter. Designed elements, including the entryway variations and roofline, along with brick banding and stone headers will help the new house integrate into the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design of the house is compatible with surrounding character. In terms of building materials, the surrounding area features predominantly red brick homes, but there are also many examples of white brick or wood and stone accents as well as stucco. The proposed home was to be constructed of red brick with accent materials of stone and a taupe fiber cement panels. Black windows are proposed along with charcoal blend architectural shingles on the roof. An exposed aggregate driveway is located on the east side of the home. A retaining wall will be installed along portions of this driveway. The exact material of the retaining wall has not been determined, however it should conform with the architectural review guidelines. Wood fencing is proposed for screening of the AC units and for the trash enclosure. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design and materials conform with the architectural review guidelines and with our two single family dwelling district requirements. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following condition. One, the materials for the retaining wall shall be submitted with the building permit and shall conform to the architectural review guidelines.

Okay,

thank you.

Good evening. This is a nice traditional all brick home. I think you guys are going to like it. We have our materials here with black windows. charcoal blend roof and a mixed red brick and limestone accents. I'm here to answer any questions on the home.

It's a good looking home. Thank you feel in the right place in the neighborhood. I think we've seen this house before haven't we are very similar. This is a new design. Yeah. Okay. Um, It put

a nice pitch on the front of the roof so you would see it. Yes. I hope you appreciate

that. Thank you for bringing that up. Yeah. Especially because this house sits up on the hill from the street. Exactly. So I think that'll really help. And it's not to make a third floor. Not to make a third. It's a visual thing. No. I really don't have any problem architecturally with it. It seems to do everything. I do think that staff recommendation number one, to submit the materials for the retaining wall is important. Yeah,

I

agree. Turned about that, but

everyone says it'll work or Bridget.

I like the visual aspect of the house. I think, as Steve mentioned, I like how it...

I can't hear you.

I think it will fit in with the neighboring community. I continue to be concerned about the height of new homes and having homes on either side kind of dwarf. Six feet is not a small amount, but I appreciate that it's still under the that, you know, the guidelines have been followed. So I just want to

I will say the neighbor to the east is familiar with the project already and is in support of it and her home sits down quite a bit because the street slopes downhill right there.

Right? Yeah. So I just you know, I always get concerned that homes around will feel dwarf but I do appreciate that if the surrounding property owners are, you know, supportive.

Oh,

I like the house. I especially like the brick details, the stretcher, the row lock, the soldier courses. So I think it'll be a good replacement for what's there.

Amy?

I like it a lot as well. I think it

fits really nicely within the neighborhood. Um, to Bridget's point, I again also mentioned the height. Again, I know you're following it, but that is always a concern of mine. But I think with the architectural details and the style of this house, I do think it does fit in nicely with its surrounding homes. I do also mention I like the brick stretcher band as well. I thought that was really nice detail to help kind of break up the side facades. Yeah, and I love all the window details. Really

pretty.

Thank you.

Carolyn?

um i'm gonna ask probably what's a really dumb question but i'm gonna ask it anyway what was wrong with the

house that was there the existing house

i can't hear whoever's talking i

said all you'd have to do is open the door and you would have your answers to your question it was nothing had been done in 50 60 plus years so it was okay

well that's true of a lot of central west end uh buildings but they get renovated i understand your your response that's fine i just i looked at the shape of the one that was there and i'm like oh my god i want that house so to me it like breaks my heart a little bit but um i think your design is very nice um I wish there was some sort of element that paid homage to the chimney that stuck up there. I just think that was a beautiful sort of like toast to the past and also functional, but that's an architectural thing. even though we are the Architecture Review Board. I have zero any conflicts with the house that you have designed. I just was wondering. That's all. Thank you.

David? Nothing additional. Okay.

To understand the condition, do we have a motion to approve with Condition number one.

Make a motion to approve with Stafford recommendation and condition number one. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, so when is groundbreaking?

Thank you. Okay,

well, good luck with it.

Now, we have come back to our discussion session on the Renewable Energy Zoning Code Revisions.

Do you want to do the solar panel one first and then? Yes.

That's the one we moved. We have two stalwart citizens with us, so we'll get started now.

Okay. Great. So as you all have recalled, we've talked about some solar panel revisions a few times now since there is a recommendation that came from the Sustainability Committee to reconsider some elements of our current renewable energy regulations. They started really specifically their solar panels and the idea of those being located on a front facing roof. ACM Conference 29th, Included in your packet, and this is just for a discussion item is a is some changes their red line for changes that are proposed so really based on the recommendation what we heard from the sustainability committee, as well as the couple of discussions that we've had here with you all. Staff had kind of three main goals when they looked at how to revise the existing code. So one is really expanding the opportunities for the installation of solar panels, as well as some of the other renewable energy strategies that are contemplated in the code to further the goals of sustainability for our community. The second one is to remove barriers for installation of these systems by kind of breaking down the criteria for review as well as the procedure for review within the renewable energy codes to align with some of the other processes and procedures that we have for items that are under the purview of the architecture review board. or the plan commission. And then the third is to identify some concepts as they relate to historic context that might be warranting of additional consideration by the architecture review board, especially when we look at changing that procedure of review policy. So the goal here was to highlight some opportunities as it relates to historic context to still cover some of those more unique situations where solar panels might still be a really appropriate tool for a property to become more sustainable, but might be something that we don't necessarily feel comfortable just allowing blatant staff approval of without them coming before this slightly more public board and those processes. But we also recognize that there's a need for more of these sustainable elements. And so just removing the barriers and allowing for an administrative review process and understanding that the context of how people look at solar panels and the use of those now is different than when this code was originally written. So we highlighted within the, I'll just briefly go over some of the red line changes that were contained within the packet. First, there are various areas where the use of renewable energy systems of solar panels as well as either building mounted or ground mounted and then wind power as well there are a few of those where they're really weren't allowed within a front yard so we did change a few of them related to solar panels we also kind of provided for those same changes to be considered when it differently in terms of solar panels that are building mounted compared to maybe a ground mounted system which we haven't received a lot of applications for but we still wanted to kind of look at all the considerations at this time and the same with wind. So instead of just as the system currently is, anybody who wants to put solar on the front roof really has to go through this alternative compliance section of our code. So we kind of remove that really strict regulation that does not allow it on a front facing roof and soften that language a little bit while adding some context as it relates to how that front facing roof might impact that property. And then really where the kind of the heart of the changes are is when you look at the procedure for review, so that's under 405.3890, where we've broken down the different types of renewable energy systems and kind of looked at them a little bit differently and added this language here for the city manager or his or her designee, which is really similar language to what we see within the exceptions category for the architectural review board now. Those exceptions currently don't include solar panels, so we wanted to clarify some of that language, but use that same existing process here with solar panels. So it outlines some criteria that would allow staff to administratively approve some of these applications and installations or minor changes to them without having to come back before the board. But for some of the larger projects that might be a ground-mounted project, we did not modify those to remove some of the conditional use permit and other site plan review elements that may be triggered. in this proposal. And then we added a section for criteria review and for historic context, when we allow for administrative approval of projects having some of this language that we have under criteria for review is really helpful for staff to be able to review some of those administrative projects and so we wanted to add some of the language that speaks again back to what is the goal of allowing this program to be expanded in the manner, and then also highlighting historic context. So we tried to approach this with a balance of not using our renewable energy code to become the way that we designate something as a historic structure, but we're just within this code recognizing other, whether a neighborhood might choose to go through our local procedures to become a historic district or some other elements where it might be a contributing building. We're not designating historic in the eyes of the city as it might relate to other sections of the code, but we're recognizing that there might be a historic context that we need to just understand and evaluate on more of a case by case basis. So by adding some of that context here and then saying that anything that qualifies under that might be something the board would wanna consider and we wouldn't necessarily do an administrative approval of. So that's a summary of what we've proposed before you tonight.

Thank you. I think what is being recommended is going in the right direction for us right now. It may be something that we may have to modify as we go forward in the future years. One thing that came up at a previous meeting was concern about painting plumbing lines and certain other ones. And I think that's still in here. Was there any further thought about that?

No, I know it was mentioned that it's something that can be hard to achieve with how they peel and there's lines come in a lot of different colors now and manufacturing terms but we didn't feel like there was a clear guidance from this board in terms of whether or not we should remove that so it's still in the code. But that's also why we have this proposed tonight as a discussion session and not as a public hearing for an actual text amendment, so that we can take down these recommendations so if that is another item you want us to look at.

Well, at this point I'm still in favor of keeping the paint to match the color of the surrounding area without deleting it at this point. That was my main concern from one of the previous discussions. Let's see if there were any other

concerns. Bridget?

I mean, I certainly don't have any other I mean, really my goal with these solar panels is to ensure that there's just, I think we have to make it easier for people. So I guess, Ana, just in understanding your comments that there would be certain applications that could be administratively approved, which I think is great because I think if we have a really straightforward installation, there's no need for it to come before the ARB plan commission. So I think that's great. Um, it sounds like obviously maybe with historic properties, we have to be a little bit more careful. Um, but I, again, I think my goal with this whole process is again, to make sure that, um, we are ensuring that solar panel installation in Clayton is, you know, can be done with relative ease, um, because it's just important, you know? So it's just something, it's a, it's a new fact of life and I think we just have to make it as simple as possible for people to apply if they are interested in putting a new source of energy on or near their home.

Ellen?

I

don't have a question about what was added. I do have a question on page two of something that is there right now where it says building solar energy systems residential item two, and then under B, it has building mounted solar energy systems. And under that it has, they shall be installed in the plane of the roof flush mounted or made a part of the roof design and it goes on or building integrated system. And then it describes mounting brackets and the building integrated system wouldn't have mounting brackets, it would be. Solar shingles or something like that that replaces another building material, so I was wondering what was meant by. Item see building integrated system. Mounting brackets shall be permitted to be placed parallel, and then it goes on. What was envisioned in that?

Well, I don't know that we can say exactly what was envisioned since we weren't here when this code was first adopted, but I did look back and find some notes about what was considered building mounted. I think maybe the definition of that has evolved since when this was used. There was reference to replacing awnings with solar panels, use those in the same way, which would require some sort of mounting brackets as opposed to just like replacing shingles or now you can even replace pieces of your facade and your glazing system. It might just be that it's referred to the slightly older versions of the integrated systems, but I think it doesn't substantially change how we might see shingles or other elements installed, but we can still look into that updated definition. Okay,

it just... looking at it, kind of the definition would be something that replaces a building material. So with an awning, if you don't have an awning, a fabric awning, you could replace it with a solar panel. Could we get a better definition, something that would be clearer to someone reading this? and wouldn't need to go back into the history and say, well, you know, they may have meant this or that.

Sure. I wonder, you know, do we need to go into certain definitions or is it just there was a need here to say that mountain brackets are permitted? And maybe you're saying we don't need to even mention mounting brackets being permitted. They're already permitted.

Because I think that's confusing because we've said Building mounted solar energy collectors and it says installed in the plane of the roof made a part of the roof design and then we're talking about brackets, I would delete that just. Building integrated system is. it's integrated it's part of the building it's not an applied panel it's a panel that is. serving, you know, an awning function, a roofing function, you know, instead of roofing shingles. So that was my only comment.

The rest of it looked good. Amy?

I just had a quick question about the ground mounted solar system or solar energy systems for residential. If there's any way, do we want to say that we prefer it on the roof? And if that doesn't work, then to put it on the ground or, you know, just to kind of, I don't know. I mean, cause eventually it's like, do we want them in the front yards and things like that? So I know we personally, I would probably prefer it on the room. So if that's something we want to say, like, go through that first. And if it really doesn't work, then you can put them on the ground or I don't know if it's like cost effective or what?

You know, I'll let you guys direct that if there's other elements for it. When we come when it comes down to making removing some of the barriers, if we what do we use as them proving to us that that is the best, you know, so we did, I just want us to spell all that out everything here. So if there's a general consensus that ground mounted in the front yard is something that we don't yet want to permit, we could clearly outline that.

I don't want it to be permitted. It's kind of like secondary, you know, you know, it's all, I don't want to put any barriers, but maybe be like, this is the best case scenario. If you can't do whatever this would be, then we would accept this kind of thing.

Right.

Kind of like, you know, we prefer them on the backside of the roof. If that's not optimal, then of course we can put them on the front, but like, let's try. Yep,

we can look at some language like that. And I think that would probably also be really consistent just with the way the lots are, especially in our single family residential neighborhoods. Ground mounted solar is probably not going to work very well for the majority of lots because of the large canopy trees with our street tree system. So I think it just kind of, they all reinforce each other. But we can have that general language too, especially when we look at how to further develop some of that criteria for review. Those are kind of more generalized statements of the direction that we want to go. So we can fill some of those out with kind of what you're talking about too.

Carolyn?

I agree with most of the comments so far. I think anything that we can do to make the language be accepting to having a smooth ride through all this process. I mean, people who want to do this clearly care about the planet and everything else. HAB-Juliette Boone, As long as it's within our design parameters mean we don't want the thing right on the face of your house or something which you've taken care of, so I think I really don't have comments I just had commentary. HAB-Julie Petersen, But yeah that's

all.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, David I think just a technical comments on the third page on i'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but number three. solar energy systems non-residential. We mentioned the conditional use process in there, but then say the plan commission may approve the location of ground mounted solar. Should we just strike conditional use permit process? Because the ordinance prescribes a very specific CUP process that involves the Board of Aldermen and hearings and everything else.

Um, yeah. So, so, uh, okay. Yeah. I can work on that language. The CUPs are required for the ground mounted unit. So that's why I was trying to call out that the plan commission would be reviewing that similar to a site plan review that would go with them as opposed to the architecture review, but I see what you mean about board of Alderman. So yeah, we'll work on that. Proved

to consider or something like that.

Yeah.

Okay. That's it.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, I would just on that being under section 405.3890 the procedure for review where it says, I mean, I guess, this is where. PB, Lupita Д Montoya, Like maybe when Kevin looks at it, but if under a it says all applications, you know Shell require review and approval by ARB. but then there's that procedure underneath that talks about administrative review. So that'd be taken out. I just feel like you've got the heading and it says they're all approved, but then it talks about how they don't need to be approved and they're done administratively.

So yes. So that's actually new that we've added. So right now there are.

I understand that it's new and added then when it become a separate letter or where it's referenced separately versus adding

We can double check that language, but it's almost in other sections of the code worked as like an exception. So we state that all of these elements fall under the purview of the architecture review board and then an exception to that process is our administrative review procedures. So in this one where I didn't actually put that in some of the codes, you'll actually see it called exception and then outlines us so we can make sure that that language is consistent. Yeah,

and that's in the way that code is drafted. I just want to make sure it just seems like it's calling out that it all has to be approved. And then there's an exception. So I just want Yes,

yes. We have any comments from the audience?

Hello, my name is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Bumaston Avenue and it's difficult for me to make comments when I don't have access to the changes that have been proposed. I've just heard you guys talking about it, but when you talk about like you've made all these changes, understand that I can't see those.

Sure, they're on our pending applications page of the website.

So they weren't part of the agenda, right? but they were at another part of the website?

Right, so we don't do combined agendas with staff reports. So on the pending applications page, which is how we pulled the one up on the screen. So if you go to the city's website, Hover Over Government. Thank

you, that would have been nice to know ahead of time, sorry. So my question is for section 405.3880, where it talks about solar energy collectors shall be located in the least visible location. from perspectives outside the property line where panels would be reasonably, though not necessarily optimally function and generally in other parts where there are further requirements about ensuring that any installed panels are out of sight. So when the sustainability advisory committee brought the recommendation to the ARB, was it not that they just wanted to remove the language that said that Rooftop solar energy collectors must be out of sight for my understanding that incorrectly.

Was that the recommendation? You pull up the exact

memo. Are you? I think there were a few discussion items that the boards have had in relation to all this. So in addition to just removing the restriction from a front facing roof, we're adding the administrative process and other elements.

But has that specific recommendation? Like, like, is it? Is it there? Like, are you?

I believe the recommendation was to allow them on the front facing side of a roof. And so this does that, but it sets a number of criteria in order to get that approval.

Okay. So that section of the code, like that language has been removed.

Right. So in the section, let's see. So section 405.3880 which is page two. Yep, B2 currently says when located on a sloped roof, solar energy collectors shall be located on a rear or side-facing roof. And we've revised that to say that they may be located on a front, rear, or side-facing. Yeah, you can scroll down to the next page and you'll see that there. Yeah, so that's where here is where we added front. And so it's not restricted just to a side or rear-facing roof.

Okay, so the... further up in 3880, where the generally.

So appears where we removed this language of though not necessarily optimally. So the, the idea that there's still consideration similar to what came is bringing up which we can refine further to kind of align with what she was recommending so we've removed the hard no to front facing that requires that currently requires them to prove that alternative compliance. And we've removed that. And so they are now allowed based on what's proposed. They were proposing that they would be allowed on the front page. The

hard no has been removed, but what is the soft yes? Like- Just so I understand when I go back and review this or I look at

this. Really, this is the section that currently would not allow the front-facing, and we've revised that to say that it is. And really all that we've added in terms of guidance is this general statement here that we would like it to respect the architectural features, which was something that the ARB has outlined. So there's no longer a hard no. It's just, if it's on a front facing roof of something that might trigger that historic context consideration, it would, whether it's on a fron, you know, might need an ARB or approval as proposed. If it is not a home that would meet that, then they could propose it on the front facing roof and it can be approved through that administrative process, which is the building permit process.

Okay. So if you, if the panels will not be visible, then it can go through the administrative review.

Actually in the way that it's proposed right now, it doesn't even make that differentiation. It just, it allows even the way it's proposed right. Now would allow staff to even approve a front facing solar panel.

Okay. But what does it mean about roof lines, colors and materials? Does that mean that if you have a gray roof and your solar panels are black, then staff would be, we better put it in front of the ARB. Like what, like,

No. Right now, the way that it's proposed and the way I would interpret what we have in front of you is that unless it was on something that triggered that historic context, then staff would approve it. So it's hard for me to think of everything right now that we'll ever see, which is why staff always has the ability to send something to the ARB. But right now, a lot of the houses that we have within the neighborhoods have kind of that charcoal gray, architectural gray, some stringles of those colors, solar panels for the most part, unless somebody went out and found some hot pink solar panels. It's going to kind

of- Can I have an example? What would an architectural feature be?

So that's what we have outlined here. So these are almost a little bit redundant in terms of respecting the roof lines, colors and materials with some of the other requirements here such as flush mounted or similar to the slope of the existing roof. So if somebody came in and they had a roof that was sloped so that it was sloped kind of towards the street parallel on the street, so to speak, and they wanted to put their solar panels in protruding perpendicular to that slope so that they could catch a different angle of sun. That would be something that I would say wouldn't respect the roof lines and the slope. So as a staff person, I would not likely approve that. We would send it to the architectural review board and they would have to look under this section of the code and the alternative compliance section. But what this does do is also allows that element of being more energy efficient to create an effective system. That's something that we also removed up there. So it allows that idea of a more efficient system that would actually provide benefit for being installed to be part of a consideration for an alternative design, whereas the language that's currently in the code kind of says, well, it doesn't even matter if that's a more efficient design. It would still not meet the criteria.

And what about the materials? would that mean that there are certain roofs that aren't solar panels will be barred from being placed on?

There aren't any specific ones proposed. So

you're saying tile roof. So that's, that would be an example.

I think that if there's something where the board specifically wants it prohibited, then they would, we would need to be told that as staff so that we could add it in.

that would end up being part of the text of the code as opposed to just in general like materials.

Well, it could be, but it's not in there

now. There's not currently any specific material that is proposed, but that would be something that if the ARB looking at these types and thinking about, which is another reason why it's a discussion session. So if you think through and you think of something, we can consider it. At this point right now, we don't specifically call out certain tiles or materials that would not allow solar panels to be installed on them, so.

Okay, so just so I'm clear and I'll go back and review this at home because I was just waiting in the back saying, I don't know what they're gonna discuss tonight because I didn't understand that it was actually posted on the website. So I apologize to you because I'm coming unprepared because I did not realize that. But Jamie, you said something about telling people Can you please put it where it's out of sight unless you can't do it another way? And it seems like that was what we had under, you know, that's historically what it's been like. And I think that that's what we're trying to get away from. Yeah,

and that's not my intent. My intent is to say best case scenario, could we put it on the back? If that's not optimal, then definitely let's put it on the front. If you can't put it anywhere on your roof, then the last resort would be like ground. So it's allowing it, but it's saying, let's try not

to. Well, I would say like if someone should be putting it on the back and the front and the ground, but that, I mean, is that part of our, like, is that going to be part of what the code is? Like a priority?

Well, I put notes down of, you know, what's been suggested tonight. So I think what we'll look into is how we'd want that language to actually be written out in terms of how it would be used. So I don't think that we're going to write anything in that says you have to put it on the front and then you have to prove some sort of level of efficiency that would then allow you to get the front as well. I don't foresee us going in that direction, but generally in some basic statements as a preference is to look at the roof surfaces first for efficiency before going to the ground-mounted system within a residential area could be something that we could outline here. But again, it wouldn't be a hard-coded requirement that would require somebody to go through either a variance or the alternative compliance section to override.

Because it's generally like people put solar painters where they're most efficient.

Yeah, I want to chime in here to ease your mind. I don't think any of us want to deter solar panels and any kind of efficient energy solutions. So however we go forward, I think it's clear to me that this entire group wants to make sure that we are looking forward for our planet and everything else. I think what you're asking for is more of a broad brush of, can we put it anywhere? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but I think- No,

no, not at all. I just, like I said, I didn't have what you guys have in front of you. So I'm just making sure I understand because I've been waiting since 530, and I'm the only one left. So I just wanted to say there's a bunch of people kind of like behind me who are passionate about this, and the recommendation was made, and I just wanted to verify that what we are trying to go for is expanded use, and not just expanded use on paper, but expanded use in actuality. So not like expanded use, well, you can do everything, but you can't if you've got a clay tile roof, but you can if you're in someone's neighborhood and the houses there are super expensive. Yes, we have expanded use but you know what we have this administrative review process but pretty much everything is going to have to go in front of ARB. Just because ARB wants to see all of it they've seen all of them historically so we want to continue doing that. That's just what I'm trying to clarify it's not going to happen so. Thank you, Carolyn. And thank you very much on it for the work. And I don't think this is the last of it. So I know and I will be I have been there for all of it. And I will be there till the bitter end. And just I feel I'm very, very passionate about this. And I think that once you guys, I'm trusting that you are going to push this forward. And I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised at what happens after you kind of like open up the gates. And I think it's going to be a really, really good thing. So that's all I just say. Thank you.

Thank you, Kathleen. And we'll look for your future comments also. Holderman

Lentz. Hi, Rich Lentz.

Just a quick question. Is there anything in there that speaks at all to future technologies? I mean, is it written so that as things develop we can continue to understand that those are still under consideration. I mean, it sounded like you've got it so wide open that it'll cover it, but I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything in the language that made it too specific so that if whatever the next new technology comes in, it's already covered somehow.

Yeah, that's a good, that is a good point. So I think that it is a lot more open and can cover new technologies as opposed to like earlier tonight we were looking at a fence that's of a newer material, right? That is an instance of us having specific materials contemplated within a set of guidelines. And here we haven't gone that far as to say we're opening up to solar panels in a shingle form, but then who knows what the next one is, the windows that are solar, whatever that is. So here we are a lot more open to be able to adapt to that future changes compared to some of the other elements that we've set up for

guidelines. Anything else anyone would like

to add? I think the work that you and the staff have done, Anna, is terrific. It'll move us further. Kathleen, I don't think we're going to see the end of it. I think this will be an ongoing process as we go through it, and things will constantly change, and we'll have to respond to it.

Yeah, I think Ryan and Hobie, Ryan did a lot of research to kind of get this started before you tonight. So we'll take everything we heard and kind of make sure that all that is addressed. The next step is that we will get the tax amendment process started. So the goal is to have December for the public hearings at the plan commission level, and then we'll be set to do the public hearing for the Board of Aldermen in January for the tax amendment.

Thank you.

We do have one more item, and that's the outdoor dining text amendment.

Yes. This one is actually a public hearing, Steve, if you

want to stay rich.

We have

one on online.

We'll open the public hearing. Okay.

Well, I'll go ahead and give an introduction to this one. So this is a public hearing to consider amendments to the existing outdoor dining regulations to allow for tents to be used. So just to summarize what's in the staff report, during some of the emergency efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, one of them was launching the outdoor dining temporary tent program. program, which allowed restaurants to really provide increased seating during cooler months when there were restrictions on their indoor seating options. And this program was utilized kind of throughout the city at a variety of different restaurants. And there was some requests for us to consider making that a permanent program. And so what we've done is proposed text amendments to add that under the umbrella of an outdoor dining permit. So as proposed applicants would provide the details for this temporary tent and provide any documentation to comply with building codes and fire codes, as well as our existing location requirements and insurance requirements as they relate to outdoor dining. They would provide that for review as part of their outdoor dining permit. In the code that was proposed and attached to your staff report, ACM Conference 29th, Just a few things to know what we have here, the majority of this of the regulations proposed here are really pulled from what was used during that temporary temp program we did. ACM Conference 29nd, Talk with the building official and our fire marshal to make sure that anything we needed to tweak based on the adoption of the 21 codes is covered. but a lot of that will be covered during review of the actual permit. We've designated these temporary tents based on November through March, so that kind of aligns with the building code, so a six-month is kind of a trigger for a temporary type of structure or event, so that falls within the cooler months when people are likely to want the tents, but then also is compatible with those codes, so That's how we'll differentiate between somebody who wants to do a more permanent overhang or awning similar to Pino is a good example. So they have kind of a three seasons area that they utilize that went through the process of getting approved as more of a permanent structure, as opposed to the tent that then could be erected in addition to that. So it covers a variety of items from the permitting review. And then there's also a few in terms of the information that we had wanted provided to make sure that it is still compatible with kind of the materials and architectural distinction within the area. So.

And

as Ana said, just to be clear, we did put this in place in 2020 in the language that's and the ordinance here that was really refined by the Board of Aldermen in 2021 for the tents that went up. So we have been doing this last couple of years.

So really, it's just extending the life.

So we did it under the emergency authorization that we had where we could basically put things in place quickly in order to adapt. So we did that for 20 and 21. We've had some requests to make this a permanent feature of the code. And so that's what's in front of you tonight. It's just a

continuation of what we've been doing. I think that summed it up,

like both of you have said. I really have no problem with it. I think conceptually, I think we need to do it.

Maybe we should have done it earlier. Sure. One thing we

did remove from the emergency program were specifically tents that took over parking spaces because this is now more of a permanent program that starts to get into some of the other permitting and requirements apps. So we removed that. So we do have a lot of examples of outdoor dining that does extend slightly into a right-of-way area. So this would allow them to put the tent over that same footprint that they might have. within the downtown area, but it still has the same requirements for the pedestrian access route width of five feet and some other elements. So more often than not, structures like this will not extend into the right-of-way, but we wanted to just allow that using the same kind of boundaries that are already outlined within the outdoor dining area.

But for the most part, it wouldn't be in writing. I mean, maybe they're just slightly extending and, you know, I just wanted to understand where there was ever a

place where they extended the

time.

No, for the most part, it wouldn't be. Off the top of my head, some that I could think of that might have that area. For example, Peel in some places gets a little bit closer to the right-of-way line with some of their outdoor dining, but it has a different...

And DeMunn. DeMunn

could be in the right-of way. Il Palato, I don't know exactly where the right-ofway line on that one is, but it has wider sidewalks. There's a few where we get kind of close, but everywhere will still maintain the You know, the minimum standards. Correct. I just wanted

to clarify that.

Yep.

Otherwise, yes. Sounds good.

Helen?

No, I read it. I think it's well done. And I couldn't think of anything that you didn't cover. So good job.

Amy?

Yeah, it sounded great to me.

Carolyn?

Yep, no additional comments.

David. No comments.

Well, let's see. We need to have the staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the amendment to the Board of Aldermen. We have a motion.

Yep. I'll make a motion to approve

the proposed zoning to the Board of all aldermen. I'm sorry. Yeah. Second.

Hold on. We didn't ask for public comments.

Oops. I don't

see any hands up.

If you're on Zoom and you want to make a comment, please raise your hand.

Okay, we will close the public hearing now.

Well, hold

on. We still need a vote, right?

Yes, we do.

Yeah.

I think we've had a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye. Okay. Pass that on. Okay.

Any comments, Carolyn?

No. Actually, the whole solar panel conversation was very enlightening and good. So Bridget, I have not met you. Hi. Hello. Sorry, I'm not there in person. I was making food for my son who just arrived at 6 p.m i was making food and tried to get there no

problem there's there'll be plenty of other meetings i think

yeah i missed it by 10 minutes literally so i'm like i better get on

so

sorry about that guys but i'll see you

next time

amy

nothing further

hello

nothing

richard

just happy to be here yes thank you for the thank you for the discussion

David, happy Thanksgiving.

Oh yeah, there's that.

Nope, nothing further. We'll continue to post any revisions and other items will continue to be on the public or on the pending applications page. So if anybody asks you in the future, that's where we host everything that goes before this board.

Okay, well, have a happy Thanksgiving and we'll see you in two weeks.

Happy Thanksgiving.

We're adjourned.