March 20, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the plan commission ARB for March 20th. If you have any electronic devices, please silence them before we get started. We'll be roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

Bridget McAndrew. Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Bridget McAndrew. Bob Denlo. Here. Ellen DeFate.

Here.

Kami Waldman. David Gipson. Here.

Jamie Waldman. David Gibson. Here.

Welcome, Mr. O'Keefe. That's fine, and you are also,

I hope. Good. We have minutes from the previous meeting on March 6th. Are there any changes? No. Hey, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll go on to new business and the first item is 7730 Bonham Avenue. Is the applicant here? We'll get to you in a minute. And we'll start with the staff report.

Brian. So the subject property is located on the south side of Bonham Avenue between South Bemiston and South Hanley. It has a zoning designation of high density commercial and falls within the Central Avenue Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The site is developed with La Meridian Hotel and has an attached parking garage. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of Hertz Rental Car. The applicant and the hotel have agreed on 30 parking spaces to be dedicated for rental vehicles. The washing, fueling, and repair vehicles will be handled offsite. Hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Staff is of the opinion that the use meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. Impacts to noise, light, odor, traffic, and emergency services are expected to be limited. Based on the information regarding the operation of the use as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the business is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. All off-site fueling, washing, and maintenance shall not be conducted on public streets or alleys. Rental operations including, but not limited to, granting, exchanging, and returning of vehicles shall be located on private property. And use of Bonham Avenue right-of-way and public street parking shall not be permitted for temporary or extended rental vehicle parking or idling for rental operations.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, please come up. Give us your name, address, and see if the green light is on.

It would look like this. Press the button.

Okay, and then what am I doing? I'm sorry.

Your name, who you're representing, and if you have any further information.

So my name is Terrell Lee. I am the... branch manager of the Hertz that's currently in Clayton now, and I don't have any additional information.

Thank you. That location at the Les Meridien has always had a rental car business there. So I don't see any problem with it, but we'll go around. Maybe someone else has it. But I do have a question. Yes. Are you aware of the three staff recommendations? Yes. And do you agree with them? Yes. Okay. Carolyn?

I used to walk up to, I think it was Enterprise was in there. I now currently walk up to the Hertz that's on Beemason to rent cars for work trips and things. So it's the same distance really from my house. So it's great. I had nothing about it.

Bob? I do remember when there was a car rental place there.

I do, I do. I think right before COVID. Way before then, I think,

wasn't

it? Yeah, so that's, I think when they left was right before COVID. Right after COVID, I guess they decided to move.

But yeah,

I remember when they were there.

Yeah, yeah. I know, I congratulate you. It's great.

No questions.

David? No questions. Okay. We have the recommendation to approve the CUP to the Board of Aldermen with the three conditions.

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

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. When will you be relocating?

As soon as they're done with the... refurnishing in the inside. We actually signed the lease back in December, so hopefully as soon as possible.

Good luck with it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Item number two is 62 Broadview Drive. I assume the applicant is here. No?

Okay. Okay. It will begin with

the staff report.

The subject property is located on the east side of Broadview Drive between Clayton Road and Claverac Drive. The property is owned R2 and is developed with a two-story single family home. The proposed project seeks to construct a new front porch comprising of treated wood posts wrapped with vinyl and black shingles. Vinyl products are not permitted materials unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Board. Staff is of the opinion that non-vinyl products should be selected to comply with the Architectural Review Guidelines. The surrounding block contains various examples of front porches and entryways. Most homes have small uncovered front porches with entries that are flush or recessed from the front wall. A minority of homes have large uncovered front porches or small coverings. The proposed front porch would be more prominent than others on the block, but it would not be of a size that contrasts with the neighborhood character. The roofline of the porch allows details of the front facade to remain visible from the street, including the trim around the doors and details above the windows. Staff recommends approval with condition that the applicant shall select a non-vital material for the front post and submit the material for administrative approval.

Thank you. The applicant, if you could, do you have anything you'd like to add?

PB John Gerstle, Yes, I would um I would like to add that I agree with the staff recommendations and we will go with wood posts, instead of the pressure treated would with a vinyl covering, we will no longer do vinyl covering and we will do complete solid wood cedar posts.

PB John Gerstler, Okay, thank you anything else. PB

John Geristler, Know

that that's all which. PB John Gerostle, She

was.

I had a few comments going through the neighborhood. I haven't noticed any, if I was correct in my viewing, porches that were so wide on the front of the house as this one. Secondly, I thank you for saying you would go back to the wood columns. However, I took a picture of your house and one next door and one across the street that all have columns. All the columns that are not at the front face of the house all have detail on them that are similar to what's on the house. And when I looked at your house, the columns that flank each side of your front door have detail at the top and the bottom. And for most of the height, they have a striated appearance. I would strongly recommend that you replicate that column on your porch columns. And let's see what other comments we have from the board. Carolyn?

I didn't have any comments about it, except for what you just said.

Bob? As I was coming here, I saw that we had received a letter from some neighbor, I believe on this one, who was concerned about the appearance that's being proposed of the front. And I wish I had a better color picture to really visualize what is before us. And that is why we have two wonderful architects who could do the visualization a little better.

Ellen?

Segway. I do have a number of concerns um first there is flashing is needed to go from the new roof to the existing brick wall and as it's drawn i don't know how you would get that flashing if you lower where the new roof meets the existing you've changed the slope And that most likely would impact the angle that replicates the pediment over the front door. So that's one concern, that there is no indication of flashing which will be needed. And then dimensions on the same items on the drawings don't correspond Karen Hollweg, It says on in several places there's a five foot dimension from the face of the existing wall forward for the porch and then other places, it says eight feet deep. Karen Hollweg, And i'm

happy to clarify

all three of those points. Please.

Okay, so let's start with the first point that was brought up and I agree with you when I look at the homes that have porches in my neighborhood there's actually five homes within the neighborhood that have full porches from end to end of the front of the facade. My proposed porch is not that. It is, there's four windows facing the front of the house. It would only cover two of them on either side of the door. So that's the first thing. The dimensions that we mentioned in terms of the pitch of the roof, you know, we are looking to maintain the facade of the home from when the street value, when you come across the street, you want to see the decorative work. And that was mentioned in the staff report for that very reason that it would meet that requirement of seeing the character of the home. The third point that was made in terms of the discrepancy in the length from the facade of the home, five feet and eight feet, it is five feet that is covered. So that would be the roof up to five feet and pass, according to zone, we do not go past five feet of covered. And the eight feet is the concrete on the bottom. So that's the difference.

So then the side elevations, the concrete slab does not end where the column is?

It does not. It goes forward.

It goes beyond. It

does. And again, the zoning allows a three foot overhang from the five feet mark. We have chosen not to go that far simply because it would take away, it would be too steep of an angle and you would not see the decorative portions of the facade of the front of the home from the street. And so we are very cognizant of that. And I've spoken to all of my neighbors on either side of me and across the street, and I have letters of signatures from both of my neighbors to the right and left of me that were more than okay with the proposed plans. I've actually shared those plans with those individuals.

Okay, so the slab is eight feet deep and the roof is extending five feet from the existing wall. On the side elevations you show two 2x10s but they're not reflected on the front elevation.

So the contractor drew those drawings, but you know, the dimensions that I've mentioned are those five feet because we wanted to make sure we kept it within code plate.

Okay, but that doesn't address the two by tens that are called out as beams. They're not visible on the front.

So maybe I don't understand the question you're asking about the two by 10 beams. Okay, if I look at- I agree, I'm not an architect so I don't quite understand. I'm a physician so I don't have the same technical background but I'm pretty sure we could figure out what needs to get done.

Okay, I guess my concern is that there are things that are not shown that what I'm seeing is not an accurate depiction of what will be built. So I have a problem with the discrepancies.

So the two discrepancies you mentioned are, which I clarified one of them, the five foot and the eight feet down.

Right.

Clarified that the one you're having is two by 10. Can you clarify that for me what the discrepancy or concern is?

That should be visible on the front elevation and that will be in front of most likely the decorative angle brackets that are shown.

The posts will be in between the door and the window and will not obstruct the decorative aspects of the house. That was actually something I was, obviously it's my house and I want it to be as attractive as possible. And so I wanted to keep the character of the house because it's quite old, almost a hundred years old. And so I want to make sure I maintain the decorative aspects of it.

And then my other issue was with the flashing. And when you put flashing at the top edge of the roof, the new roof where it meets the house that is going to lower that roof. So you're be changing angles. And I'm concerned that when those things are actually built, what, you would like us to approve will not look like what is built.

Well, I want to assure you that, you know, what we want to do is build it appropriately within the right frame. And that's why the pictures are representative of what the vision is. It is obviously behooves me as the homeowner to make sure the contractor actually does build the way he has drawn it as we have as per my vision. And as far as the angle and the pitch and those sizes, I will ensure that in fact it will meet that because we want to keep the character of the home. That is the whole purpose of this.

Okay, I have nothing further.

David?

I don't have any questions.

Mr. Vora, when we look at the photo that you submitted as well as the sketch by your contractor, the angle of the porch on the existing house is roughly about 30 degrees. Yet the drawing shows that the angle of the decorative roof line above the front door is 45 degrees. Are you taking off the detail that's on the house and replacing it with a 45 degree angle one?

So that is not the plan. The reason we have a 45 degree angle is to actually maintain the decorative material underneath that. So the two options were either we simply hide the decorative aspect and have a lower pitch roof, or we have a higher pitch roof and keep the decorative aspect. And I wanted to ensure we kept the decorative

aspect. Even though the

drawing is quite different from the photograph?

Well, it shouldn't be different. The drawing highlights the

decorative part of that house.

Do you have the drawing in front of you as well as the photograph?

I do. So I'm not appreciating what you are because we could see within the drawing the decorative aspect above the front door.

Yes. And if you compare that to the photograph of the front of the house, I think you should be able to see that on the photograph, it's a very low roof. The roof line is roughly 30 degrees from horizontal. And when you look at the sketch that was submitted, It looks like it's approximately 45 degrees. It's vastly different.

OK, so we're talking about, I think, different things. If you're talking about does the pitch of the porch facade in front of the door match the roof angle of my roof on top? Is that what you're asking me?

No, I'm talking about the pitch of the angle of the roof over of the existing decorative roof.

Got it, got it. Your

front door.

Yes, that will no longer be there because it will be replaced by this new roof and the metal that you can see over the picture, in the picture, you see the metal over the decorative roof, that will remain. What we're going to do is have the new porch roof

in lieu of this particular top.

And that's what you're seeing in the sketch where you see the decorative patina behind it, the copper patina abutting the brick.

On the photograph?

That's right.

So you're taking that angled roof, for lack of a better term.

Right, the facade there. Right, that's right. Because otherwise we would have to match it exactly. And I agree with you. If you have, it would be too stark of a contrast to see the 30 degrees of the facade and then the 45 degrees of the roof on top of that. That would look horrible.

Okay, I think we're talking about the same thing.

Right, yeah, now I understand what you were getting at.

And now I understand you're taking off that existing decoration above the door.

Correct.

Okay.

And we will replace it with obviously the other part of it. So we still maintain that angular feature of the door as you come in.

Okay, I follow it now and I understand what you're doing now. I really like the 30 degree angle, but if you're going with the 45, I really don't have a problem with that now that I understand. Sure. But let's go back to the columns. I don't think, are you going to keep the two columns that have those, they look like coach lights?

Yes, I think. And to your earlier point, we're actually going to groove. I think the contract calling routing the so they match the columns that exist. Right. The whole point is to make it seamless, that it was part and parcel of the house. And I want to keep the character of my home. I mean, I bought it because it's such a pretty house and it has classic colonial style. And I love it.

So then the four new columns would have routed vertical striations.

They will have routed vertical strations. As

well as the horizontal detail that we see on the existing house at the top and the bottom.

Randall Difuntorum, I haven't spoken to my contractor about the top and bottom is if you can see there, I mean yes, there is top and bottom. Randall Difuntorem, Horizontal groups or areas we had spoken extensively about the routing and that was never a problem I haven't spoken, to him about this part, but I don't see this as a limitation.

Randall Difantorum, Okay. Randall Difntorum, mm hmm. As you've stated, you'd like to keep the design of the house intact with this addition. So I think you really have to replicate the two columns up against the house right now, replicate those in the four columns that you're putting roughly five feet out from the face of the house to maintain the design element of the house.

Right, and again, I don't have a problem with that. These are minor, I mean, they're not minor, they cost a considerable amount of money, but they are not that complicated or will delay the function or making of this house.

Okay. I feel better now. However, I'd like to ask our planner, you did receive a letter today Do you have a comment on that?

The letter was forwarded to the reviewer vote as well from the trustees concerning the design of the home. They had concerns that the design that they reviewed was not the one that was submitted to the city. I don't know if there's a representative of the trustees that wants to speak on that, but I would defer to them on the intentions of their reaching out.

Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of the fact that there is communication suggesting that the commission should defer action on the application until, I believe the request is until the trustees of the subdivision have an opportunity to exercise their review responsibilities or approve the project pursuant to the subdivision indentures, I think is the gist of the request. And it is noted that our application does have for ARB submissions, has a provision noting that have you received subdivision trustee approval and make folks aware of it. The city, however, does not and cannot enforce the private contractual rights of the subdivision and property owners within the subdivision. Those are private agreements to which a property owner subscribes and agrees by purchasing property that is subject to those restrictions. But those are, again, private agreements and not laws of the city, and the city can only enforce the laws that it is empowered to make. By granting clearance or approval under the city's ordinances, be it a building permit, architectural review clearance. We still do not empower anyone to do that, which they are prohibited from doing by a contract they've entered into or by any other circumstances separate from the city. So the fact that we issue a permit doesn't mean that they can ignore restrictions applicable to their property. By the same token, we do not say we won't give you a permit because there's a private party who says they have a right to reject it or have rejected it. We can only act on applications for conformity to the city's ordinance. We want to call that circumstance to the attention of applicants so they don't waste a lot of time and money coming here and waste our time and money seeking approval for a project they are ultimately unable to build because they have private restrictions. But those are matters, the enforcement of which is up to the trustees, the objection of which is up the property owner, and the solution to which is in the courthouse, not in city hall.

And I'm aware of, so we are in discussions on the trustees, but as was pointed out, right, these are separate issues. I was seeking, making sure I meet all the city standards, the city zones and going through the architecture review board simultaneously. I will speak with the trustees. and are undergoing that process. I've already met with all my neighbors. I have already had their approval of the plans you're looking at, so I'm not sure where that statement was made. The plans you have in front of you are the same plans that were given to the trustees.

I was speaking generically with respect to the question of the city's role versus the role of the trustees and the private indentures. And, you know, it's to be successful, an applicant has to jump through two different sets of rules and clearing one doesn't mean you've cleared the other.

I completely understand.

Thank you, Dr. Varo, but I also want to make sure that those in the audience and the members of the commission understand T. John McCune, M.D.: : appreciate what our role is in this process as well, so i'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have, but I think a little reminder is to the limits of our our roles healthy

we appreciate it, thank you, we do have a hand up in the audience if you'd like to come forward identify yourself and. comment.

I think it's green, am I on? Okay. My name is Anna Ives. I'm a resident of Claverac Park, 55 Claverac Drive. I'm a trustee of the neighborhood. I've been a trustee for four years. The letter referenced earlier was by Jim Arsenault, trustee of the Neighborhood for seven years. I think everyone has a copy of it. I have a copy of it here. Does anyone want me to read it? I think the gist of it generally, I think we'll discuss tonight. Thank you for the clarification on the trustees versus Clayton. And I think the reason that you hardly ever see any of us here is that usually all of these conversations among the trustees happen before a project even arrives at your door. So typically, the way it works is an applicant will send us their drawings. We'll review it. We may come back with some comments. typically it's a very collaborative process. Everyone's kind of open to the conversation because, you know, the people that live and buy homes in our neighborhood are interested in upstanding or maintaining the quality of the architecture that's already existing in the neighborhood. I am an architect. I have a practice here in Clayton, and we have a division of that that focuses on historic preservation. So I've clearly bought into the neighborhood for a certain reason, but I know everyone there sort of has done the same for different various reasons. And just down and up the street from Dr. Vora, people have taken off their asphalt shingle roof and put back a slate one just because people love where they live. So I think... specific to this project, you know, and kind of every project we review, we look at these all as a precedent for the next project. And so considering what every resident does to their home, removing character defining features of that home becomes a precedent for future projects within the neighborhood. And so we really like to look at every project as the precedent for the next product. And so we, certainly do not oppose the idea of a porch on Dr. Vora's house. You know, I think it's really a lovely feature of our neighborhood that a lot of people like to be out in their front yards and kind of sharing that experience. So this is not about opposing the porch in general at all. I think, you know, when we look at Dr. Vora federal style house, you know, the character of that pedimented front door is really, you know, one of the most special features of the home. the proportions are sort of simple and elegant, you know, that I have a book, you know, back at my office that shows, you know, several houses in our neighborhood as, you know, precedents for, you know, types, typologies of homes, you know, and this is a textbook, right? So these are important houses, not just here in Clayton, you know, building kind of the architectural language of this community that we live in, but also on a national stage. These are important homes. And so when we look at a project like Dr. Bora's, I think, you know, what our initial suggestion was was to look at other federal-style homes. What you see is sort of a thickened edge often, maybe a pedimented front that picks up on some of these comments about replicating the style of columns and the heft and weight of the types of building materials that were used at their turn of the century. There are, I think, some very quick and... easy to digest ways to improve this project, to make it a more historically sensitive addition to our neighborhood. You know, I think a lot of these questions about the discrepancies in the drawings are, that's something that, you know, makes us very nervous because as architects, we know, you know, when you get to the site, if it's not drawn, it's not going to turn out how you want it to turn out. And so I think sometimes when people are embarking on a project, they don't maybe have as much experience with even the construction process, they aren't able to spend the time to be on site and watch everything, every single question about where's the flashing going to go and know that this little thing gets adjusted there. If it's not drawn, it doesn't come out the way you want it to necessarily. So we would really love to continue the conversation with Dr. Vora about how we can just add more detail to the design that he already has. I think, you know, The sort of lack of clarity is a question for us. I think, you know, the vinyl has already been addressed. The very slim, the very slim roof edge, let's say, and sort of the lack of robust construction, you know, where we would see a more heavy timber with a little bit more detail typically does have concern. And I think there may be exposed tilty anchors at the base of this, which would be something we would see more on a deck type project. So we, I guess in short, you know, would welcome a continued conversation with Dr. Vora about this, but, you know, I've never shown up here to object to a project in our neighborhood. And I think hopefully that shows that we're not here to obstruct the process, but really to, you know, feel very strongly that this project should be reconsidered.

I think it's green, am I on? Okay. My name is Anna Ives. I'm a resident of Claverac Park, 55 Claverac Drive. I'm a trustee of the neighborhood. I've been a trustee for four years. The letter referenced earlier was by Jim Arsenal, trustee of the Neighborhood for seven years. I think everyone has a copy of it. I have a copy of it here. Does anyone want me to read it? I think the gist of it generally, I think we'll discuss tonight. Thank you for the clarification on the trustees versus Clayton. And I think the reason that you hardly ever see any of us here is that usually all of these conversations among the trustees happen before a project even arrives at your door. So typically, the way it works is an applicant will send us their drawings. We'll review it. We may come back with some comments. typically it's a very collaborative process. Everyone's kind of open to the conversation because, you know, the people that live and buy homes in our neighborhood are interested in upstanding or maintaining the quality of the architecture that's already existing in the neighborhood. I am an architect. I have a practice here in Clayton, and we have a division of that that focuses on historic preservation. So I've clearly bought into the neighborhood for a certain reason, but I know everyone there sort of has done the same for different various reasons. And just down and up the street from Dr. Vora, people have taken off their asphalt shingle roof and put back a slate one just because people love where they live. So I think... specific to this project, you know, and kind of every project we review, we look at these all as a precedent for the next project. And so considering what every resident does to their home, removing character defining features of that home becomes a precedent for future projects within the neighborhood. And so we really like to look at every project as the precedent for the next product. And so we, certainly do not oppose the idea of a porch on Dr. Vora's house. You know, I think it's really a lovely feature of our neighborhood that a lot of people like to be out in their front yards and kind of sharing that experience. So this is not about opposing the porch in general at all. I think, you know, when we look at Dr. Vora federal style house, you know, the character of that pedimented front door is really, you know, one of the most special features of the home. the proportions are sort of simple and elegant, you know, that I have a book, you know, back at my office that shows, you know, several houses in our neighborhood as, you know, precedents for, you know, types, typologies of homes, you know, and this is a textbook, right? So these are important houses, not just here in Clayton, you know, building kind of the architectural language of this community that we live in, but also on a national stage. These are important homes. And so when we look at a project like Dr. Bora's, I think, you know, what our initial suggestion was was to look at other federal-style homes. What you see is sort of a thickened edge often, maybe a pedimented front that picks up on some of these comments about replicating the style of columns and the heft and weight of the types of building materials that were used at their turn of the century. There are, I think, some very quick and... easy to digest ways to improve this project, to make it a more historically sensitive addition to our neighborhood. You know, I think a lot of these questions about the discrepancies in the drawings are, that's something that, you know, makes us very nervous because as architects, we know, you know, when you get to the site, if it's not drawn, it's not going to turn out how you want it to turn out. And so I think sometimes when people are embarking on a project, they don't maybe have as much experience with even the construction process, they aren't able to spend the time to be on site and watch everything, every single question about where's the flashing going to go and know that this little thing gets adjusted there. If it's not drawn, it doesn't come out the way you want it to necessarily. So we would really love to continue the conversation with Dr. Vora about how we can just add more detail to the design that he already has. I think, you know, The sort of lack of clarity is a question for us. I think, you know, the vinyl has already been addressed. The very slim, the very slim roof edge, let's say, and sort of the lack of robust construction, you know, where we would see a more heavy timber with a little bit more detail typically does have concern. And I think there may be exposed tilty anchors at the base of this, which would be something we would see more on a deck type project. So we, I guess in short, you know, would welcome a continued conversation with Dr. Vora about this, but, you know, I've never shown up here to object to a project in our neighborhood. And I think hopefully that shows that we're not here to obstruct the process, but really to, you know, feel very strongly that this project should be reconsidered.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other comments?

I'll be brief. My name is Justin Bruggenhemke. I live on Broadview Drive as well. I'm the newest member of the Trustees of the Neighborhood, and all of this is very new to me, so forgive some of that. But I just wanted to echo much of what Anna has already said, and Jim submitted via email or letter today. And as the third trustee, I just would like to say that we're all in agreement on the feelings of the project. And we have some of the same concerns that were brought forth by the folks on the board today. And so just want to say thank you for your time and consideration, and we appreciate it.

Thank you. Other comments

from the ARB? I would like to address the board as well.

Go ahead.

Okay. I mean, I appreciate the comments of the trustees and they are right in their assessment that we all share in keeping the character of the neighborhood. That is why I purchased here. So we need to separate out several points. The first point is the concerns the board had about the vinyl, the pitch, these kinds of clear issues we dealt with. So there is no concern. We had some clarification about the five feet versus the eight feet and so we've addressed all of those. So this doesn't undermine any of the purpose of the board, it's simply we wanted to clarify that. So I don't want to conflate those two things of the role of the trustees versus what we're doing here. Now, the second point about their concerns They did share their style with me. And I think we have a disagreement in style and I'm happy to work with them, but that should not hold up the whole city process versus the trustee process. I understand there's multiple hoops here that I have to work with. And just because I get ARB approval does not mean that I get to build anything I want or even the plans we have. I do want to work with my trustees, even though the three individuals who have mentioned this do not live across from me, who do not have gotten the letters of approval that I've gotten from my neighbors. So this is simply a matter of disagreement in style. I may not be an architect, but I do know, as the famous judge says, when I see something good, I know it. And I have looked at several contractors, looked at several homes and felt I found the home, the porch that fits best for my needs. house, my children's ability to use it and the character of the neighborhood. I 100% respect their opinion and their ideas. But frankly, I disagree with them. But I am willing to have a conversation with them, continue the conversation with them. But that is a separate process than the one we're discussing today.

Thank you. In response to that, I'll be honest. I am not comfortable with the appearance as drawn in the sketches. I think as Trustee Ives has indicated, it really changes the style of that federal home quite a bit. I think the angularism is somewhat disconcerting And the lack of heft, as you find under the eave of your house, would probably be replicated on the edge of the porch itself. As I stated at the very beginning, I'm uncomfortable with the style I've come around to accepting the size of the porch. And I think we've agreed on the detail of the columns, but I think there's much more to it. So I still have a problem with it. I certainly understand your concerns, Dr. Vora, but that's where I stand. Are there any other comments?

I would just say for us to go forward with a vote, let's say it would be yes, just for a moment. And yet he's still going to work with the trustees. And if he does change his plans with the trustees, then he would have to come back here again. Am I not right about that?

If if the plans are changed.

Right, that he has to come back. The second thing is in this day and age, it'd be so easy to do like a color presentation of what it's going to look like. And it's just hard to appreciate it in the form that it's come. This is me speaking for myself. Third, I have no idea if the trustees have a veto power or not. I don't know what your authority is And I'm not even asking to know tonight. I don't know if you have a legal say or just let's have some wine and let's figure this out, kind of. I don't even want to know. And I would like to maybe see a deferral of this until it's up to the the owner, I guess. But I think I would feel comfortable if a vote was deferred until he talks one more time, maybe have a little more definition of the plans that he wants to proceed, even if it's these plans. And then I would feel more fully informed for a vote.

Dr. Vora, we, of course, as our counselor has indicated, we're not ruling on anything that the indenture or the trustees may be discussing, but only from an ARB point of view. We can offer you the choice of deferring this to the next meeting or a meeting in the near future to allow you to discuss with whomever you wish, including your contractor and coming back possibly with something that might be more amenable to some on the ARB. Do you have any comment on that?

Yes.

Well, it's disappointing. And if I read between the lines, if I push for a vote today, it seems I don't know what the overall outcome would be if it's yay or nay. I don't know how many are needed to have a yay. I want to be clear with the trustees. I have no problem working with the trustees. We all live together and we're all neighbors. However, if there is a, look, we need to have your house the way we think it should be because that's my aesthetic, which is different from my personal aesthetic, that I find questionable and specious of an argument. And that's why I wanted to take it to the ARB to make sure I meet Randall Difuntorum, The recommendations of the staff and we've and Ryan and i've had multiple conversations to make sure I was in code, making sure I was part of the plan and that's why the staff recommendations were approval of this. Randall Difuntorem, So I guess my question back to the board is if. I would prefer not to delay this. I would prefer not deferring it, and I would prefer to get approval to do it. But I recognize that I will not actually proceed with construction until we have clarification with the trustees. I do not agree with the trustees thought on the thickness of the front facade. It's a smaller home in this very big neighborhood. It's one of the smaller homes and having a porch as is envisioned by the trustees would dwarf the house. Second, the homes in this neighborhood literally across the street is an ultra modern home that meets none of the characteristics of this neighborhood.

Excuse me, Dr. Mora, this is Kevin O'Keefe, city attorney. I apologize for interrupting, but I think we're getting a little off the subject of what the plan commission and the ARB are here to do this evening. If I may offer, I believe what you have heard is that the commission members do not believe that the information presented to them, the graphics and the details, are adequately presented to persuade them that they have a basis upon which to make a reasoned determination that the project meets their standards, the city's standards. And in large part, that is because of some at least perceived discrepancies in in specifications shown. For instance, the visibility of the beam, the crossmember spanning the two columns on each side of the doorway, the angle of the pediment, and would be more comfortable at the very least if they were presented with more detailed graphics that were obviously consistent with one another for them to make an informed decision. They will make a decision on the basis of what is before them, if that is your wish. But I I think what they're suggesting, and you have heard comments for instance from the chairman as to whether or not the angle of the pediment matches the concept of a federal house or whether it is incongruous for that. And I don't know that anyone agrees or disagrees with that, but the idea of whether or not the materials you have submitted are adequate to persuade the commission they should sustain your application is perhaps a more meaningful question for you at the moment, if I may suggest.

No, thank you. I think that clarifies a few points for me. So thank you for that information. Given that, I think the next step would be to defer at this point provide the ARB with more consistent as was recommended, you know, maybe computerized drawings of the pre and post plan. And that might help a visual representation better than a sketch would. And I think that's probably the best next step. So I take that on that council on board.

Okay, from your comment, Dr. Vora, we can go ahead and make a motion to defer to the next meeting or

maybe- If I may suggest, I don't know how long it will take, what your next meeting schedule is, what the deadline is to get on the agenda, or how long it will takes to produce what Dr. Vora wishes to submit. If I may, Dr. Vara, with your concurrence, I would suggest that that the commission consider a motion to table the application until such time as you requested it be returned to the agenda.

That would be acceptable.

Okay,

thank

you.

I'll make a motion to table, the project to table. for a time when the applicant can come back with completed points.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you, Dr. Vora. We'll look forward to seeing you in the future.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, doctor.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, that now brings us to old business. I believe all we have to do is make a motion to continue 48 South Bemiston to April 3rd. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

I'll make a motion to Continue until April 3rd.

And if we could clarify that that's both the public hearing and the application consideration.

Yeah. I'll make a motion to continue the 45 South Bemiston Avenue for the public hearing and the rezoning PUD until April 3rd.

Second. All in favor? Aye. That brings us

to the very end of the discussion session. And Ryan, I believe you've given us a sheet. Can I?

Yeah, so as far as the staff report's considered, it wasn't one of those items that was too detailed to really provide one that far ahead of time. I just wanted to give you one to have for the future to consider. But essentially what we're looking at here is whenever we did the renewable energy, provisions recently, what we did was we created an administrative process to allow the use of solar so it didn't have to come back to ARB every single time. As we've started to get those applications in, there's been consistency of circumstances where people have wanted to put solar in locations on their roof that did not abide by our zoning code setbacks. So whenever you put solar on a roof, it has to be at least two feet from the edge of a roof, a ridge, a valley, whatever. Well, the IRC and IBC, those are residential building codes, have lesser setbacks than what we require. They grant exemptions to those setbacks. For example, like on a non-occupied accessory structure, such as a detached garage or a shed or a pergola or something, they don't have to abide by the two foot setback according to the IRC and IBC. So the question before the board is, do you want us to revise the code or do you want us consider revising the code to allow an administrative process to grant exceptions from that two foot setback? Or do you want it to leave it as it currently is to where if they wanted to, you know, get an exemption from that two foot setback that they would need to come before the architecture review board.

Who's

the I have a question about the two foot setback? I thought that was a I thought it was a request from our fire department.

It was and I think in that context, we were talking about occupied structures primarily. So now we have situations out there where as Ryan had indicated, we have folks that want to put these on detached structures, but we still have that two foot setback requirement. There are code provisions elsewhere. And then that there are exceptions in the IRC that allow you to forego that on single story on occupied structures. And so I think that's what we're trying to figure out. I do think the most important piece is talking to the fire marshal and figuring out whether or not our fire department's comfortable with that. And if there was a, perhaps a fire in an unoccupied single story structure if they would attack that fire using the roof. If they're going to just fight it from the ground, then I don't know that it's a huge concern. But if that's something they want to get on the roof and vent that structure, they're going to have to have access to it. Thank you.

I would really want to defer to the fire marshal in this. If they are in agreement with it, I would have no problem for the accessory structures. Are there other comments about that? I agree

with you. David, your reasoning is on all fours. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I'm in total agreement with everybody. I think if the fire marshal is comfortable with it, then I don't know why we would have concerns at that point.

Good.

Gotcha. Well, I'll follow up with the fire marshal and get his opinion if he does see a path forward for something like this, those exceptions that are in IRC and IBC, then we can bring that forward at a future meeting.

Thank you. I think that brings us to the end. Ellen, any comments? No.

It's always good to see everyone.

Carolyn? Nope. David? Nothing further. Brian? Nope. Toby?

Well, before we started, Ryan said we're going to have a fairly full agenda on April 3rd. Is that correct?

I'm expecting, I don't have the agenda finalized yet. If you had the misfortune of seeing my desk right now, you'd be a little worried, but there's a lot of site plan review that's going on right now that I expect to come up over the next couple months, as well as the PUDs, both at 50 South Beamiston and then Merrimack and Pershing is gonna come up very soon.

Okay, well, then we will see everyone on April 3rd. Okay, thanks everyone. Meeting adjourned.