April 18, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Hey, good evening everyone. And welcome to the plan commission ARB for April 17th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them. Brian.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Carolyn Gatiss.

Here.

Bridget McAndrew.

Here.

Bob Denlow. Here. Helen DiFate.

Bob Dunlop. Here. Helen DeFate.

Here.

Kami Waldman.

Here.

David Gipson. Here.

David Gibson. Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on April 3rd. Are there any changes to it? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We'll move on to new business. And the first item is 8500 Maryland Avenue. Architectural review. Is the applicant here? Just hold on. and Brian would you begin the report.

So the subject property is the site of the barton a mixed use to be located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Maryland and gay avenues. And it's located against the city's boundary with will do the site has a sign sub district approved in 2017 and amended in 2021. The commercial component is on the ground floor of the northern facade with awning signs for retail tenants located above windows and entrances. There is an existing awning on the northernmost point of the western facade that does not feature signage or graphics. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the sign subdistrict to allow an additional awning sign here. The awning is black and measures 105 square feet. The graphics measure 24.7 square feet. It is immediately adjacent to a sidewalk, landscaping trees and parking lot for the property to the west. The sign proposed by bespoke apparel would be identical to their existing signage and similar to other signs in the sub-district. The proposed sign differs in that it is not located on street frontage which is prohibited unless approved via sign modification. The proposed sign would be visible from the street frontage due to the setback of the adjacent building. Staff is of the opinion that the character and orientation of the proposed sign is similar to street frontage and recommends for approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Will the applicant come up and identify yourself and add anything you'd like to?

David Corbett, Bespoke Apparel owner, founder, bottle washer, whatever. Yeah, just to clarify the sign, it would kind of complete the building and

I appreciate your considering it.

I had no problem with it. I go to the bank right next door and always thought, why was there no sign on that awning? So now you've come to it and we'll see if you get it. I have no problem. Let's see, Carolyn?

I had no comments on it.

Richard? I think it makes it look more complete.

No, I agree with Bob. It does complete it. And now that it was brought to my attention that it was missing when I drive by, it's like really strange that every other awning has a logo, a business name. So good idea. I have no issues with it.

David, no? Do you have to replace the awning, or can the graphic be applied?

Yeah, the graphics will be applied by the same company that did the front sign for me five years ago now. And he's just going to come take it to his place, clean it, print it, put it back up.

Good. Good luck with it, and we'll be looking to see it

finished. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, you're

right. We need a motion to approve as staff recommended.

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

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay.

We'll move on to item number two, 7700 Shirley Drive is the applicant here. Hold on. And... Ryan, we'll start with the report.

Subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Shirley Drive and South Family Road. The property is developed with a two-story multifamily structure and is zoned R4, low density multifamily dwelling district. The applicant is seeking to replace an aged front porch. The area comprises two-story multifamily structures consisting of brick, stone, and colorful terracotta roofs. The existing front porch on the subject property comprises brick and stone, landscaping shields the front of the facade and the structure. The proposed porch would be reduced in size and comprise of brick, concrete, and stone. Brick and limestone from the existing porch are proposed to be salvaged for the new balusters. Handrails would also be reused. The porch will be repaved with exposed concrete ranging in height from 18 to 30 inches. This is in conformance with the architecture review guidelines that limit exposed concrete to 30 inches. The reduction in porch size will result in greater exposure of the primary structures foundation. The applicant proposes applying stucco painted red to match the structure's brick facade. Landscaping is proposed along the entire front facade of the structure. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is compatible in terms of design and materials with the existing structure and surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Come on up. Identify yourself and add anything you'd like to.

I'm Michael Kelly, the applicant and also the owner of this four family apartment building. And I have been the owner for 25 years now. The porch is original to the building, which is about 86 years old. That's comprised of a concrete slab, brick and stone railing, stone balusters and a limestone coping And there's a large cedar tree at one of the corners that has grown now to about 18 or so inches in diameter. And the roots I believe is what caused the railing to collapse over. And it's in such a state of disrepair because of that and its age, that it's not worth repairing. I got estimates on it. It unfortunately should be replaced. So I've came up with a design for that and I think you all have a copy of that design? We do. Yeah, okay. Do you have any questions?

Sure, you'll be decreasing the size of the porch.

Yes, I had to because otherwise that cedar tree probably would have most likely been to be removed because it would have been in the way.

That cedar tree is at the west end, correct?

Correct.

There's a lot of other landscaping in the front. Yes. It looks like you'll be replacing it. Is that the plan?

I'm going to keep what I can, whatever the contractor can keep without being in the way of his demolition and reconstruction, I want to keep it. The yews are going to have to go for sure. The Japanese maples I can keep as well as some of the larger bushes like the hydrangeas and the nandinas and another bush on the east side. It's all labeled on the sheet.

Okay. PB John Gerstle, And the finished new porch and the stucco home with the color to match the brick who will probably look very similar to the building across the street

better yes. PB John Gerstel,

um but that's the idea right, but hopefully your landscaping will be a little more.

That too. I'm going to get as big of use as I can get so that they're already big enough to hide most of the stucco.

Looks pretty good. Carolyn?

They'll grow anyway. Excuse

me?

They will grow. That's what plants do. So sometimes it's better not to plant huge sizes because they were happy where they were when they were dug out. So I wouldn't stress too much about having to get the same height because it'll

grow.

One of the questions I had for you was about the depth of your three quarter inch compacted rock fill. Where did you get that depth information from?

That's existing. The current slab is elevated The new slab will be on grade, a compacted fill.

Okay. Because usually it's not that deep of rock is why I was wondering. I didn't understand. It's fine. You're fine. So you drew this little landscape

plan? Yes.

That's really good. You picked really good shrubs and plants. So congratulations. That's awesome. So yeah, I had no other questions. Thanks.

I

don't have any

comments.

No questions. Ellen.

Not really a question. I would just suggest that you consider where you're going to do the raw concrete as the walls of the new porch. It may want to consider painting that concrete or a thin parge coat of Portland cement. Concrete in its raw form doesn't always look great. Sometimes it comes out really well, but it may not. So I would just think about that. The concrete building on Brentwood Boulevard, the tall high rise. That is painted. Medical

office building?

No, it was a hotel originally. Clayton on the Park, I think it was called. It is all painted concrete. So think about that because you'll have patching from the form ties and things like that.

I've even considered coloring the concrete. I called Keenstra Ready Mix Concrete. That particular color to match the red brick, believe it or not, is very expensive, $130 per cubic yard.

I'd go with paint.

It also degrades the strength of the concrete slightly, the interval. It's better as pavement than it is for walls.

Okay.

Yeah.

No, the slab will be fine. The edges of the slab, that's... different mix, but the walls that you're using for the structure, just keep it in mind. So other than that, it looks fine.

Amy?

Yeah, I had no objections. Looks good.

David?

No hands up. Any other comments from the audience? Okay, we have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

I'll make a recommendation to approve as submitted.

Second. All in

favor? Aye. Opposed? Good luck with it. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to item number three, 750 Wenninger Drive is the applicant here.

We will

hold off on that and come back. Let's move on to, is somebody on the screen?

Yeah,

that's Hank.

It's just Hank. Oh,

it's just Hank. Okay, we'll move on to items four and five, and that's 65, Arundel. Yeah, we can just here. And what we'll do is we'll begin with item five, which is our site plan review. And then we'll go to the architecture. So Ryan.

The subject property is located on the north side of Arundel Place between DeMunn Avenue and University Lane. Property zone R2 is developed with a two-story single family home and rear detached garage. The project scope consists of the demolition of a previously constructed addition, the construction of a new addition for your landscaping from porch alterations and repairs to the existing garage. So we're doing site plan review first, correct? A full analysis for site plan review is detailed in the staff report. To summarize, the proposal meets all height setback coverage screening and material requirements. HVAC will be moved from the east side to the west side of the home. 15 year 20 minute runoff is projected to decrease by 0.02 cubic feet per second. Downspouts will discharge at the base of the structure and at pop-up emitters. Existing canopy coverage is 4,742 square feet with 2,184 to be removed. The plan proposes adding 2250 square feet of canopy coverage, which exceeds their replacement requirements 80% of proposed plantings are native. The garage will be renovated in the driveway will be reoriented to the north to connect to the adjacent alley the existing driveway will be replaced with landscaping. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions. The sign and sealed civil drawing shall be submitted for the building permit. and that plans shall be updated to reflect the new locations of AC units on the west side of the home.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, come on up. Identify yourself and add anything. My

name is Jennifer Taylor. I'm with Finlern Associates Architects. So I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have. Okay,

well, right now we're looking at the site plan. Yes. And... I really had no problem with it. It seems like, well, we know you're decreasing the impervious coverage, which we appreciate hearing, and you're regaining actually pretty much green space in the back even after the addition is built. On the west side, I wasn't sure about the site setback of the

new addition. West side. So

you're not sure about which dimension are you asking about?

From the west face of the new addition to the property line.

The property line? Well, there's a five foot setback and then the addition will be 18 inches from the setback.

Inside?

Inside, not over. Yes.

Okay. And that's where the driveway comes out.

Where the driveway was, but we're removing that front drive. So all of that front drive is going to be reclaimed as yard space as well.

OK. On the site plan, Carolyn, did you have any questions? Or on landscape?

Not really on landscape. I had a question about the drawing on 1810. The front porch elevation shows the railing. I believe differently than A11 shows the details. Looks like the porch rail is a completely different fence, unless this is a different location. I'm not seeing the

fallout on it. I'm sorry. Say that again?

These set of details doesn't look like the drawing of the rail that you have on the front coming out. That's not for the front. OK.

That's for the back porch. Yeah, that's for the back. I was like,

that doesn't even matter. Sorry about that. That's okay. Otherwise, no, I didn't. Oh, the... the vinyl fence on 301. Yes, so

that is, they were requesting that because their neighbor has that fence already and they liked it and they wanted to have the same look in the rest of their yard as they have up against their neighbor. Is

that? Yes, that is the

picture of the neighbor's fence that they're wanting to continue with.

I think

those are the only questions I have. Bridget?

I don't

have any

comments. Bob? Helen? No questions. Amy?

No questions.

David? No questions. Any other comments from the audience? hands up. We have a staff recommendation with two conditions. Are you familiar with those?

Yes. And those are updates from the civil and the landscape, I believe.

Right.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, and those will be, I think those have actually already been done and we just need to get new copies to you guys when we submit the permits.

Yeah, that'll go to staff.

Yes.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

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

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

I'll just stay here.

We'll go into architectural now, Ryan.

So the existing home is constructed of red brick with black windows and white accents. The existing addition rear porch, rear walkway, rear driveway are proposed to be demolished. A new 1,013 square foot addition, 58 square foot rear porch and 320 square foot patio will be constructed on the rear of the home. The rear addition will match the materials of the existing home. The existing garage is comprised of brick stucco and siding. The garage will be renovated to move the door from the west facade to the north facade, and the new doors will be white aluminum. The west elevation will be infilled with stucco and painted white. A new drive will be poured to connect the new door to the rear alley. The existing driveway will be removed and replaced with landscaping. The existing front porch will be demolished and reduced in size. The existing columns and overhang are proposed to remain. The new porch will be clad with brick to match the existing home. A new walkway matching the city standard mix is proposed connecting the new porch to the street. The property includes both vinyl fencing and chain link fencing. The project poses to remove the chain link fence and replace it with a vinyl fence to match the existing fencing. The Architecture Review Guidelines restrict the use of vinyl in favor of wood and metal fencing. Staff is of the opinion that the use of vinyl fencing is appropriate to match the existing fencing on the property. Overall, the additional iterations seek to blend and match existing materials. Staff recommends approval as submitted.

OK, thank you. Anything to add?

That's pretty

much it. It was a complete report. I think it's a terrific addition to the house. It'll virtually double the living area, and it really doesn't change the facade on the street. It's only in the back of the house. I found no problem with it, but I would comment on the roof. It seems very, very complex with all the valleys and ridges. I'm not sure you know what could be done with that but um that's what happens when you yeah

yeah it's uh it's one of those things where the the shape of the new addition kind of you know dictates what what we had to do and we had to take off one of the dormer that is existing on the back is coming off in order for the new roof to come in and attach to the existing roof.

But I do have a question on A5, where the east slope of the new roof abuts to the east slope of existing roof. There are two lines there.

Yes, it's just really close because of the bump. That little bit of a setback is just so small that that's where it hit. So

it'll actually- It will

drain, it will slope properly in it, yes.

Carolyn?

In the future, are they going to make the other, uncap the other chimney and still

use it? The front chimney? No. It is not functional at all. And it's actually coming out the inside on the floor plan. On A3, on the floor plan, we're showing that that fireplace is coming out completely on the interior and it was gonna be really expensive to fix it. And so with some of the things that they were trying to do on the interior, it just made sense to remove it. But we're leaving the chimney on the outside. So we're just gonna cap it so you don't get birds and things in there.

Yeah.

I had no other questions, thank you.

Richard.

Oh, it looks really nice. No, no comments. Big project. It is going to take a while.

Yep. I think it's a very nice project. So good luck to you. Ellen.

It looks good. The drawings are impressive, a very complete set. And I know how many hours you spent working on that roof. I've had some more. Yes. Yeah, to make sure it drains and the planes. Yeah, yeah.

Amy?

Yeah, it's beautiful. I commend you on the design. It looks great. Great, thanks.

David, no comments? On A6, where you have repair masonry is needed on the south elevation?

Yes, on the front.

What does that masonry

require? It's separating. The wife's of the wall are separating and The damage that is on the front porch, the reason we're having to replace the front porch is because of settling and everything is pulling away from the house. And that has caused the front wall of that house to sink. And one end is, the west end is really bad. And it is several inches lower than the other half. We're actually peering as well to keep it from moving anymore. And so that has caused over those two arches on the front, it's separating and it's cracks going all up. So they're gonna have to take it apart and rebuild it. It's not just tug pointing. they're having to rebuild sections. So that's what's going on.

I saw where it would need tuck point, but I had no idea.

Yeah, it's bowed and it's sinking both. It's a mess.

We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted.

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

All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

When do you envision this beginning?

I think it's possible. We'll be getting permit plans in very soon.

And who is the GM? This is for personal

reasons. General

contractor. We're doing something similar on our house, hopefully. So I'm taking these home with me because they're so good. Give me a call. Exactly. Well, my husband's a building architect too, but that's okay. I'm going to do all this. He doesn't have time. So yeah, sorry. That was on a personal note.

Okay, let's go back and see. Is anyone here for 750 Wenneker Drive? Apparently no, and they're not online again. Okay, well, do we have a motion to continue this to a future meeting?

I'll make a motion to continue to a future meeting. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Well, we're not finished. So we have a discussion session on retaining walls.

So let's dive into the fun, exciting world of retaining walls. So right now under the current code provisions, the process for reviewing and approving retaining walls very much varies by the application that comes in. And these are often projects that take considerable time because right now the review process, there's a very narrow scope for administrative approval versus pushing a very wide scope of pushing things towards ARB. And every time the staff goes through that process, that is time that Anytime something like that goes through ARB, there's the additional review that takes place. There's the staff reports. There's additional mailings. which takes that considerable staff time. So what staff is interested in doing is kind of revisiting the review processes for these retaining walls to see if there's ways where we can move towards administrative processes. And there's a couple areas to kind of break this down into, and I want to look at it in terms of the front yard versus the backyard. Another way to look at it is what's seen from the street versus what's not seen from the street. So going back to that narrow scope review, if you're looking at a backyard, TAB, Ryan Schuchard, MN, there's a very narrow scope of material that is allowed, regardless of whether or not it's seen from the street. TAB, Ryan Shuchard, Mn, But staff was interested in doing is saying hey instead of this narrow scope of what is allowed, which is right now the brick stone or the specific modular block is let's just talk about what's prohibited so right now, that is. concrete retaining walls and railroad ties. As far as modular blocks, staff is not necessarily concerned with keeping the very specific requirements that we do have for the front yard. If somebody wants to put a modular block that is a little bit more uniform, that can't be seen from the street, we're more comfortable administratively approving that versus say something in the front yard. So there is a provision in the code pertaining to ARB reviews that grants exceptions for minor exterior alterations. Gareth J. And so, when we're looking at that we would like to look at with minor exterior alterations in the front. Gareth J. Are say they're a placement of existing retaining walls pertaining walls that fall under four feet. Gareth J。 Either of those meeting the current guidelines of the brick or stone retaining walls or the modular block with the roller tumbled edges, with the different sizes and varying color. Gareth J." And so what that's going to do is it's going to create a narrow scope of things that have to go to air be. So that way it takes less staff time on the administrative side and fewer items that are ending up on this agenda. But for anything that's still ending up, for things that do end up on the agenda, there's still going to be those things that are primarily street facing that are more prominent, that are things that maybe weren't there before, a new retaining wall, a larger retaining wall. So with that, do you guys have any questions or comments or anything you want to add to that opening? What are your thoughts on the materials and approval processes? The

way you described it from what can be seen from the street and what could not be, it sounds pretty good. I think I'd have to see it in writing to make sure I understood it completely. But I think any way we can simplify the process, mainly on residential properties, whether it be retaining walls or anything else, I think it could help the staff time that's involved in it as well as the residents' or the applicants' time. because we always hear from residential applicants that it seems to take a very long time for them to get through the entire process. So in general, I am certainly supportive of that. I'd love to see it in writing when you get to that point, but I'm

in favor of it. Yeah, I think,

If you can't see it and only the resident can see it, I don't know why we would have to vote on it. So I agree with Steve on

that.

Waste of everyone's time, frankly. I mean, after that one woman fought for that retaining wall on one of the recent meetings and it took almost 45 minutes, I just honestly, it was silliness, so. HAB-Masyn Moyer- i'm sure that's probably why this was because it i'm guessing, but yeah no I have no problem with streamlining things.

HAB-Terry Palmos-

Richard yeah I would agree and then Ryan did you mentioned like even in the front yard potentially if they're just replacing an existing one and they're using materials that are approved that you know, then you can do that administratively as well.

Yeah, there's been a couple examples of that lately. If you guys will recall, there was a project on Cromwell and Clayton Road not terribly long ago. There was another one in Clayshire where they had examples of retaining walls. They were old concrete ones that were falling down and they needed to replace those a bit quicker. And they came around with approved materials per our guidelines, but they still had to go through the entire ARB process, which I can assure you applicants were not terribly thrilled with when they called me.

Yeah, so I'd certainly be in favor of streamlining those as well. And then were we gonna broaden the materials that could be used that you could administratively approve or are we not to that point yet?

We're not proposing broader administrative approval of materials in the front. So like we would still keep the current retaining wall guidelines. We're not proposing say more uniform modular block in the front yard. Okay,

sounds good.

Bob? I think it's a good idea. What I really understand is it comes before us only if it's new or if it's substantially larger, something like that for the front.

Yeah, so kind of what we're looking at proposing right now, if there is an existing retaining wall and they're going to replace it with an approved material, that we wouldn't consider that to be a substantial change and we would not send that to ARB, but if say that there's no wall or they need to replace a wall with a material that's not administratively approvable currently, or they want to build a bigger wall, that's something that we would send to ARB. Okay.

Ellen? Sounds good. Amy? Agreed. I think it's a great idea. I'm all for efficiency. It's good. Great.

So what is the next step?

Yeah, so Brian's going to pull up the code to show you how we will achieve this. There's an exceptions category under the Architectural Review Board right now that establishes the administrative review process. We're going to essentially write a policy statement in combination with an update to the guidelines for retaining walls. Under the code exceptions, statement talks about significant changes to the appearance and also talks about retaining walls that conform to the building code. So what we'll do here so that it's advertised and everybody knows is we're going to write a policy statement that existing walls within a front yard that are being repaired or replaced in conformance with the material guidelines and the building code would not be considered substantial alterations. If they wanted to repair an existing wall with a material that does not meet the current front yard material guidelines, it would come to you. Or if they're going to construct a new wall in the front yard that's right now our building code is four feet is what triggers a a building permit for a retaining wall. So we're going to be aligned with that. If it's less than four feet in height, then we would consider that the way that we're going to draft it, we'd consider that a minor alteration and not a major alteration. So if that wall is larger and it's a new wall in the front yard and it's four feet or greater, then that would require Board of Aldermen or architecture review or approval. Looking back in the history of it, Some years ago, there were some projects done that this is how we used to apply that section of the code. There were some projects done upset a few neighborhoods and they wanted a more, a different approach to front yard alterations that sent more projects here. But what we've seen is that a lot of projects are coming here that we know are gonna get approved And it's just creating an elongated process. And especially like the examples Ryan mentioned, it's especially painful when it's related to a project that somebody is trying to do to fix an issue, like a failed retaining wall. And we're making them go through the three-week process that it adds to send it before this board. is a lot. So I think we have a good history based on the decisions that this board has been making for a number of years to update the guidelines. And then we'll attach our policy analysis that shows how we're taking the stance that it falls under this exception category already. So it doesn't require any sort of text amendment to change this list of exceptions because it says, but are not limited to here. So we don't need to do a text amendment. This is strictly just a policy that you guys will present to you essentially so that the public all knows it, but it won't require any sort of public hearing process to change.

Well, thank you for making it more citizen friendly. I think we need to keep that in mind at all times. That sounds very good. Do you need anything else from us?

No, Brian, we'll get everything drafted up for you. And once that's finalized, we'll present it to you with the final wording so that you can review before we start enacting that.

Thank you. Well, we've come to the end. Kami, any comments?

No comments.

Ellen?

No comment.

Bob?

Bridget?

Nope, nothing.

Carolyn? David? Stephanie? Anything else, Anna?

Those of you that are serving on the steering committee for the comp plan, you all received my email earlier today. So we're going to have the first kickoff meeting for the steering committee next week. So we're meeting with the consultants tomorrow to get some of the kickoff in place for the website and whatnot. So hopefully we'll be launching a initial website page by the end of the month. The real heart of the engagement for the public side will be couple months out, because the first few months are going to be spent, the consultant's going to be doing a lot of data gathering and existing conditions analysis to help set up what the engagement will look like. So we'll have this kickoff, but then it will kind of seem a little bit like to the public, the project's gone away, there goes a little dormant, and then we'll have a lot of engagement initiatives kick off in the summer.

All the steering committee meetings will be public. Correct.

I mean, they'll be housed here. We won't prevent anybody from entering the room if they wanted to sit in on it.

That's what I've told people who advance.

Right. I mean, we're going to keep the meetings shorter because they're happening during the day and productive. We aren't going to use that meeting time to gain input from anybody from the public who wants to sit on the meeting. There will be plenty of engagement where we can gather feedback from them, but they are free to watch the proceedings, so to speak.

Thank you. Brian, anything coming up for the next meeting? Plenty. Plenty. My desk is still a mess, so it's a good time. So we get out early tonight, but we'll be here longer next time. Probably.

And I'm sorry for, so the, it says, I just, I was just looking at your email. So does that mean, are you recording the meetings for the members that are not able to come to each meeting or will they, so it's not, those won't necessarily be posted online or will they like for the public?

Right. We haven't, Dave and I really talked about that. There is a member who's not going to make this first meeting. So that's why I'm recording it for them. I don't really know what exactly what, we would have to share for that. So I'll talk to David about it.

Okay,

I was just curious.

A lot of times folks won't speak up if they know they're being recorded. So you want to get enough participation from the steering committee members that they're

prohibited. We don't typically do that when we do it. But we open, we have public forums where everything is recorded.

Okay, well, then meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone. The sun is still up.