August 19, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for August 19th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Denlow? Here. Bridget McAndrew?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Denlo? Here. Bridget McAndrew?

Here.

Helen DiFate?

Ellen DeFay?

Here.

Kami Waldman?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. David Gipson? Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on August 5th. Are there any changes? No. Seeing none, do we have a motion? I move to approve the minutes.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll move on to old business. The first item is 8125 Westmoreland. Is the applicant here? No.

Old.

Okay, we'll get started. Mr. Chair. I'm sorry.

Eric Vietmar from Vols Engineering. I'm virtual this evening.

Oh, okay. We'll get to you in a couple minutes. All right. Ryan, will you lead off?

The project was before the ARB on May 20th and was continued for revisions. The property is on the north side of Westmoreland between Forsyth and Brentwood and is zoned R2 and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is developed with a two-story single family home and has no garage. The applicant is seeking to construct a two-car garage at the rear of the property. The applicant is requesting approval of alternative compliance to use permeable pavers to meet coverage. The pavers are revised to measure 60% impervious in conjunction with their 40% open area. Additionally, some coverage is proposed to be removed. While permeable pavers are permitted, the zoning code does not include them as a method to meet coverage. The paver area would measure 139 square feet or 2% of the lot area. If the pavers measured 100% impervious per the code requirement, coverage would increase to 55.8%. If the pavers measure 60% impervious as requested by the applicant, coverage would increase 54.9% and the maximum permitted is 55. The ERB must grant approval of alternative compliance for the paver system to be measured as 60% impervious. To approve, the board must find that the proposal provides a result equal to or superior to what is mandated by the zoning regulations and that the proposal is the product of unusual circumstances. Given that there is no unusual geography for the lot and that the construction of a garage is not required to maintain conformance with the zoning code, Staff are of the opinion that the proposal has not met the criteria for alternative compliance. Staff recommend that the item be continued to allow the applicant to consider revisions. A detached two-car garage qualifies for administrative review. If the design is modified to comply with the lot coverage requirements, then the project would be able to be processed administratively.

Okay. Who's going to respond to that?

That would be me, Mr. Vietmeyer from Volz Engineering. Okay.

What's your first name? Eric. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add?

Well, the original project was a new infill house done by our office 10, probably 15 years ago. The original plan had a detached garage on it. At the time, it was determined that for some reason to not build that garage. And now they're wanting to build a but there had been some other changes during the initial construction or sometime thereafter that had inadvertently, not one involved in it, added some impervious coverage here or there. So A new topographic survey, along with the plans for the new detached garage showed that doing everything without permeable pavers, as Mr. Hell pointed out, would increase the site coverage in excess of what is allowed. To that point, a couple items, a couple different approaches were evaluated. The first was moving the new detached garage up to the existing patio and driveway that is currently on the site. It was determined real quick that this would not allow sufficient turning movements to actually use the garage. So we had to push it off of the existing driveway. It was discussed with the owner and the architect to try to do this alternative compliance by using permeable pavers. and we selected a product that has a minimum 40% open space, although I think it's probably a little bit closer to 50% just based on the information I've seen from the manufacturer's website. Doing this allows us to get to the coverage numbers that we need and still maintain some drainage on this new section of driveway. If there's any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. But it is our belief that this is the best chance to provide a detached garage for this particular parcel that not only helps the current owner, but also helps resale down the road.

Okay, thank you. I know we'll have some questions. Jim, would you like to begin?

I guess just based off what we have, which is... I was not here when we discussed the original project, so... I'm not privy to any of that discussion or anything, but... I mean, has... have you evaluated any other methods other than the pervious pavers as far as how to situate the garage or anything like that? If you said, you know, if this house when it was originally designed had a detached garage, I guess what in the meantime was built that took that pervious coverage all the way to the edge of the calculation and basically like have any other ways been, um, explored that you could get under that 55% besides the pervious papers.

Very good question. To start off with, the patio and the driveway kind of grew from the original design, so that's what put us in the situation where we're at now. One of the alternatives that we did originally toss out there, it's an idea that's not generally approved by the city, but a ribbon driveway. putting a green strip down the center of the existing driveway for green space it gets us there but it's typically not allowed in the city of clayton

okay um yeah i i can say overall um you know with with the city's report uh not supporting this and at least even in my limited time here on the board, I know pervious papers have been discussed on a handful of projects. And that hasn't necessarily been a means of compliance that people have been widely open to. Kind of relating back to the Clayton 2040 plan that was just approved not too long ago, one of the main concerns of residents of Clayton is really filling these lots to the brim with pervious coverage and the water problems that come with there. I know in practice, especially these pervious pavers are supposed to work, you know, to be 40% pervious and stuff, but there are clogging issues and stuff like that. And then, you know, there is, there's a lot of structures here on the lot, and there's a lot water issues that could come from that. So at least from what I'm seeing, I don't know if I'm 100% there yet. Amy?

On a quick question, we did allow a green strip recently, right, on a driveway?

There have been a few examples in the last few months that have used ribbon driveways, yes.

Is it just like the length of the house, like you can't have it in front of it?

The last few that you've approved have started past the front of the house and just run along the side of the house where before a vehicle would make any sort of turning movement.

Okay, because we're talking about what about like 56 square feet? Is that right? Okay. And just a quick question for on C2, all the like gradient areas, are those all existing concrete that you are removing? Is that

right? Yes, that is areas that we were proposing to remove to help get us to compliance. And even those still required us to do the permeable pavers or if the board and staff are amenable to a ribbon driveway, if the owner is still open to that, that could be the option there. But yes, those areas shaded are set to be removed.

I mean, I can't do the quick calculation. Is a green strip like the length of the house, would that get you 56 square feet? I

would have to run the numbers. It was just briefly brought up at the beginning and that's when I told the rest of the design team that there is documentation with the city that says it's not allowed. If the city is going to start allowing that on a case-by-case basis, I would still need to do the calculations to see if that would get us to compliance.

Okay. Yeah, because when I look at C2 and I just see, you know, all the stuff that you are willing to eliminate I mean you're taking away some of the stuff on the side of the house part of the patio all the, you know, the individual little pavers. I don't like little stepping stone style things in the back. I feel like they're really trying to meet this. And so maybe we could look at that green strip to see if that helps at all. But I do feel like your client is really trying their hardest to do this. So, you know, if we could look at the green strip, I think I would be more inclined to approve it if we could check to see how long or how much square footage that would be.

Okay. I appreciate that. Helen?

Okay, taking off on what Kami said, and I see that you've removed part of the driveway. I believe you've narrowed the driveway. Am I correct on C2?

Yes, yes. About eight inches to a foot adjacent to the house.

Could you get another couple of inches out of that?

Then it starts to become a little too narrow to comfortably traverse.

Okay, so the wheel base would be a challenge keeping the wheels on. What about the patio? Could that be curved or angled? I mean, it seems like you just need to pick up a few feet here and there.

Right, right. And that is items that I've brought up, met with the owner and the architect on site. And the owner and his family, they use the patio. So shrinking down that patio any much more than we already are is not a welcome subject, if you will.

Right. But in this case... It seems that there may be need to sort of give and take a bit. I'm not saying eliminate it a lot, but a foot eight inches. I understand what you're saying about the driveway or the turntable in front of the garage. Can the garage be angled a bit? You know, they're all small contributions, but you may be able to get it to the square footage that you need.

Right. Angling the detached garage would actually be counterproductive because we're already on the accessory building setbacks. So angling it will push it actually the left hand side of the garage closer to the house. rendering part of the garage a little less usable for a vehicle.

Okay. Now, I wouldn't initially recommend angling because you wind up with spaces that, especially at the side yard setback, you get a space that is not particularly usable. You lose some of your usable square footage. But I think here is a situation where, you know, maybe these small things can add up for you.

Yeah, numbers that up is certainly true. And this is all information. I'll have to take back to the architect and the owner to see how they would like to respond. It's all good feedback.

And maybe from what we've said, they can come up with even better ideas. Hopefully.

Yeah. I guess I was just curious, is it, is this using the pavers? Is that something that you advocate for other clients or you have in the past? I'm just curious.

This particular style of paver I've actually never used before. This is more of a grass paver. It's reminiscent of a very, you know, kind of a 70s paver style where you have a lattice work with grass growing in the open spaces in between. The particular style that I am promoting on this one is actually a recycled material, so it's not concrete. It's not going to get hot like that in the summer. It's not super heavy to maneuver. It's recycled material, but it stands up to even heavy truck traffic. So this is actually a new one for me because typically it's your standard permeable pavers with sand in between the blocks. This is something different. This is something that offers significantly more open space for drainage. So it's new to me.

Um, okay. Um, I guess I'm, you know, and I'm also, as others have said, I'm, you really tried to, um, find some alternative ways. Um, but from what I gather, you know, from what I understand from our code is, you know, in order for us to grant this or allow this alternative compliance, obviously allowing the permeable payers to count for 60%, we have to ultimately find that that does a better job of complying with what our code requires. And it's just difficult for me to come to that conclusion, you know, because the pavers, what our code requires is, you know, we of course want to handle stormwater, but we're also very concerned about green space. As somebody, as Jim and Kami, everybody's already mentioned, we're concerned about you know, losing green space in Clayton to homes that just are taking a bigger and bigger footprint. So I just, again, I'm empathetic to the homeowners. I understand that they want to build a garage, but I think there just has to be a way where you find more green space rather than relying on these pavers.

Bob? Fair enough. I just want to make sure we have the big picture here. Is this about adding 50 square feet of pervious green space? Is that what this whole matter is about? 50 feet, 50 square feet? To clarify, it is 139 square feet. It is quite small, 50 square feet, very small.

Ryan, wait, didn't you just say 139 square feet?

It is 139 square feet equivalent to 2% of the area of the lot. Okay. So it's at 50, it's 139 square feet.

If they're only

0.8% over, if you just, how does that work? That's if we count

the- Okay. So at 139 square feet, it's kind of like a very small lawyer's office.

We'll just start real quick. So wait, so if it's at 100% impervious, it's at 55.8% impervious. So if we- If 0.8% to get it down to 55, how many square feet is it? Like the 0.8.

That make sense? They'd have to run the calculation on that one.

Okay. That's where I just roughly came up with like the 50. My

question really is how much green space is this homeowner short?

At 0.8% is 52 square feet. Yeah. The

100 is the size of the permit. The 139 is the size of the area that they're proposing to be papers.

So to solve a 52 square feet... Well, would the 100 plus square feet cover pre-existing pervious or impervious? Are they taking out a driveway that's all covered up? Well... Let me say it like this. Whether it's 52 square feet or 139 square feet, that's very small. Okay? I mean, we all can do the math. It's a very small amount. I think the homeowner with his staff, with his team, have tried to push things as far as he could do it. And then... I did, I talked to a couple of esteemed colleagues here. I did a Google search about these pavers. Do they work? Do they not work? Some people, some communities will let you count them. Some will not let you count them They have problems with maintenance over a long time. You don't want to put them in areas where there's heavy traffic, which would exclude a driveway, I think, you know. I think the maintenance is a concern. The aesthetics over a long time can be a concern. This is what I read of the downside. The upside is it does do in part what it proposes to do. It may not be as pretty, but it can do it. That's the conclusion I kind of drew from the research and what have you. That being said, I think for us, You know, these people are going to invest big money. They want to build a garage. They have a 50 to 100 square feet issue of trying to make it as green as possible. I think the pavers would go a long way to solve it. It's their driveway we're talking about. And... i would say the alt it would fit the criteria of an alternative compliance given the big picture given the small amount of land we're talking about on this house and given the fact that i think they have been pushing the boulder as far as they can go to make their project work

david

i think i'd like to see a little more creativity to get some more green space on the lot i do have concerns about the long-term maintenance the pavers Over time, they can silt in and those things, and then you're over that percentage. So I'd like to have another look at some options.

When I looked at this and realized that the original garage was turned into livable space, I think it's very important that we try to get this new garage onto this site for many reasons. It increases the value of the home. It also takes cars off the street, so it makes the neighborhood look much nicer. However, when I see that it's about 50 square feet or so of green space, I don't feel that it meets the alternative compliance as Bridget really outlined. I also feel if we were to give it the alternative compliance, that the next time around we'll see someone asking for 100 square feet and it can just roll on and on and on. But since we do not really accept the pervious pavers, I would not go that route. So I would agree with several of my colleagues that we need a little more creative way of doing it. The green stripe on the driveway from the front building line back would be part of it. You might have to make the... concrete patio at the back of the house a little bit smaller, but it seems like a bunch of small changes could get you to the point where we don't have to consider alternative compliance and we would be able to accept the proposed garage in the current location that is shown. So As city manager David Gipson just said, I would agree that we'd like to see another creative solution that may remedy the whole situation, allowing the garage to go in and not forcing an alternative compliance. Eric, your comments?

When I looked at this and realized that the original garage was turned into livable space, I think it's very important that we try to get this new garage onto this site for many reasons. It increases the value of the home. It also takes cars off the street, so it makes the neighborhood look much nicer. However, when I see that it's about 50 square feet or so of green space, I don't feel that it meets the alternative compliance as Bridget really outlined. I also feel if we were to give it the alternative compliance, that the next time around we'll see someone asking for 100 square feet and it can just roll on and on and on. But since we do not really accept the pervious pavers, I would not go that route. So I would agree with several of my colleagues that we need a little more creative way of doing it. The green stripe on the driveway from the front building line back would be part of it. You might have to make the... concrete patio at the back of the house a little bit smaller, but it seems like a bunch of small changes could get you to the point where we don't have to consider alternative compliance and we would be able to accept the proposed garage in the current location that is shown. So As city manager Gibson just said, I would agree that we'd like to see another creative solution that may remedy the whole situation, allowing the garage to go in and not forcing an alternative compliance. Eric, your comments?

I will take all this feedback back to the architect and the owner, and I'll craft my own proposal to them as far as how I think we can best meet your requests and see what we can come up with.

Okay. We will continue this item to a future meeting. All right. I appreciate everybody's time. Okay. Thank you. Do you

need a motion?

We do. I move to continue the owner's application to a future date.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Now we'll move on to new business. And the first item is 9 North Beamiston Avenue. I know the applicant is here. So Ryan,

yeah, we're ready. The subject property is the site of Beamiston Place, a mixed-use PUD bounded by Maryland, Beamiston, and North Central Avenues. The proposal includes a sign package for residential signage that does not impact retail signage along Central. The staff report identifies the location, size, and materials for the signage. Signs EO4 and 8 are not subject to the sign regulations because they are internal to the structure. EO5 and 6 are identified on the sign plan, but no additional information has been provided. I'd like to clarify that the applicant did reach out today and provided additional information about EO6, and that is something that we could review administratively. Staff are of the opinion that the complete sign package should be submitted to staff for review. The signage not submitted for review by the ARB should be subject to the requirements of Chapter 425 sign regulations. The applicant is requesting approval of sign modification for signs EO1, 2, and 3, which do not comply with the signage requirements. 1 and 2 are located on the north facade just south of the Shanley building and driveway that connects to North Beamiston Avenue. The signs do not comply with their location requirements given that they do not face a fronting street. Staffer of the opinion that the location of signage is logical given their presence above the front entry and adjacent to the passenger loading area. Additionally, staffer of the opinion EO2 does not take the form of a traditional awning sign as applied to the code section since it is not applied directly to an awning face and staffer of the opinions that the sign will have a minimal visual impact. EO3 is located on the eastern facade. Signs are limited to a maximum of 50 square feet, but this sign measures roughly 70 square feet, equivalent to 0.4% of the facade area. Staff are of the opinion that the sign is likely to have a minimal visual impact on the surrounding area given the small proportion of the facade occupied by the sign and the limited visibility to adjacent uses. And staff recommend approval with the condition that documentation identifying the location, size, and materials of signs EO5 and EO6 be submitted for staff review under the relevant sign permits.

Okay. And Ryan, could you put this drawing up? No, the plan showing all the sign locations. There. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. Steve, would you are you going to speak for this?

Other

than say we need to record you. Give us your name.

I'm Steve Brown. I'm the president of the company that develops the project, and I'm the managing general partner of the project. And been working on this for about four years. We just opened the building, and we have 20% of the building leased already. So we're very excited about that. I apologize to the group. I thought that the signage was part of the PUD. And although there was references to signage in the PUD, I was mistaken. So I'm here to ask for your forgiveness. I think the signage looks great, but that's up for you to decide. And that's really, I'm here to answer any questions that you might have about the signage. The only other difference from what was shown at the PUD, there was a large 7800 that was shown on the north wall of the Shanley building. We elected not to do that. We thought it was a little bit too much, even though, again, that was shown in the PUD. That's the only other difference on the exterior. But overall, I'm super pleased with the way the building's turned out. I hope you are too. And once we get around to having our opening party, I'll invite you all to it. So...

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I hope for others. It's a fabulous project. It was a long time coming. We went through many different ones over the years. I think it's a great addition to the city. I like everything. I like all the signage. But I have a question. Why is it Bemiston PL and not Bemiston Place? Okay.

It's our logo. Well, if you look at a street sign, you know, it, it's, it's a little bit of a play on words PL, but it's not a scientific answer. It's just, we wanted to be, I think the designers wanted to be a little bit more creative with it. And it is, it really is on North Bemiston Avenue. So, but I don't really have a good answer other than it's our logo and it maybe looks better. But I think that's not a black and white opinion there.

okay well i'm in favor of everything i think the conclusion uh in the staff report which hopefully you had

yes i saw it

okay um i agree with it so thank you go around bob uh i

just want to echo steve what uh this d says i think your building is really beautiful i love the exterior oh thank you different colors uh It really fits and it really is a model for maybe future buildings. Oh, thank you. That means a lot to me. It's very

classy. Thank you. It's also the last building of my career of 40 years too. So I spent a lot of time on it. It meant a lot to me

Okay. And as far as the recommendations? They just said you didn't have enough paperwork to document signs five and six, I think it was. I actually submitted

five I couldn't find but six. I sent that to Ryan earlier, it is a logo that really just has the stylized B, and it's a 20 by 20 logo. And Ryan said that that was within a size that we could submit that administratively. And those are just logo decals that will go on the glass walls on either side of the glass doors.

Well, it sounds like this is a very minor issue to rectify. Fine.

Yeah, and then we'll come back to you for the retail signage. Really, we have kind of an overall concept in the PUD, but we'll come back specifically. We're actually working with It's been slow to get the retail space leased. It's hard. But we actually have a solid signed letter of intent for the corner space at Central and Maryland. And we have a really strong prospect for the corner of the alley and Central. So, yeah. But the residential has been amazing. People just walk in and they just go, wow. And they're so excited. So I'm very confident that that's going to be a very thriving residential community there.

Well, I hope you can solve the first floor answer because all the developers have that same response that you do.

It's hard. Yeah. It's harder than I thought it would be, retail. But I think we'll get there. Because the building is really beautiful and it's in a great spot. There's been people that have approached us along the way and we've decided not to engage because I met with Michelle Harris a couple weeks ago. The worst thing we could do would be to put someone in there, then they go out of business six months later. So we really want to work with people that are going to be there for 10, 15 years. And so that's what we're really committed to do there. And people and businesses, it'll add life to the neighborhood.

Richard?

uh yeah steve i just want to echo what everyone else has said i you know we and it's nice to see you in person when all the approvals were going through it was all zoom so yeah zoom zoom yeah um but yeah i mean i live around the corner from the building and i so i drive by it you know it's you know it's neat always i mean i think it's cool to see a building go up so i've you know seen the progression of this building and i i agree i think it looks fantastic oh thank you definitely don't have any trouble with uh i don't have any problem with uh signage i think it looks nice too

okay that's nice

yeah and just let me know whenever the frozen yogurt place is coming out

i know we're still still working on it

i know i'm just teasing

it's hard yeah helen

I will say ditto to everybody else's comments. I'm just up the block, so I'm a neighbor and I love it.

Oh, great.

Thank you so much for the wider sidewalk on Maryland.

Oh, isn't that nice? It used to be a little skinny three-foot wide thing.

Yeah, it is wonderful. And I like the apartment private entries on Maryland.

Yeah.

You know, I am so happy you did.

Oh, good. You know, I'm glad you brought that up. And maybe this can be another meeting. But in our design, and we actually showed it in the PUD, we had those numbers to those apartments just like they're built. Jackie, who's great, she's been out at the job every day with your building permit group. She said that by code, those signs need to... face Maryland, that they're not appropriate to be like that. So that's just something, I guess we could move them, but I don't know if that's something maybe I got to come back to you guys later.

Yeah, that piece is actually related to our building and fire codes. So that's where your fire code... Yeah, that's not a sign regulations at the ARB. Okay,

so that's not an ARB issue. Right. I got you. So I'm trying to figure out... I didn't want to just rip them out and move them until we really thought about it because they were actually shown that way in the PUD. So I... I don't know. Maybe you guys could give me some advice on what to do. I don't know if PUD overrides

or fire

overrides PUD. Yeah,

the fire would override PUD. The numbers are a requirement based on fire code so that we can find the addresses from the street. So if you wanted to have both the projecting signs, if they conform to our sign code with projection signs, you would need ARB approval for those. But you would still need the numbers that face the street to conform. If

I move them to face the street, do I have to come back? Because they were shown the other way. They're showing the way they are now. No,

as long as they're the just address numbers don't have to come through here unless it's the large nine. That's because of the size. So just the number address numbers typically don't require their approval.

Okay. That's good to know. That'll help me think it through because those are also secondary entries, by the way. I didn't know if everybody knew that. They're kind of like kind of like the back porch of those units. But I guess from a fire point of view, look at it differently.

That would be a question for probably our fire marshal or Jackie can help you with that, whether or not they're required. But if you're on having them shown there, that's probably the coach who is referencing

for you. Thank you. Thanks for Claire. And thanks for your comment, Helen.

Now, I think to me, that's the unit I would want.

Oh, yeah. If you have dog, if you have a dog, it's great.

And just it's like a townhouse, but it's apartment size.

Yeah. Two bedrooms. It's perfect.

Yeah. So now and I love the fact that it puts people on the street. You know, you feel like there's people around someone come out.

That's actually my favorite facade is the one that's on Maryland with the bays and the townhomes. And I love it. So.

Yeah, my only question was Steve already asked it about why you used PL and not place.

Yeah, well, I don't know.

Great.

I don't really have a good answer for that.

No, I mean, place would have been much

bigger. Yeah.

It really looks good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy. Amy.

I think the buildings look great, and I think your signage fits the buildings very nicely.

Oh, thank you. Thank

you.

Jim?

I also am a very big fan of the building. And more importantly, my five and three-year-old are very, very big fans of the construction. Oh, you live

nearby then?

Yes, we actually spend most of our mornings doing a loop before we go to daycare because they want to see the progress and are waiting eagerly for that corner to be filled by something so they can visit it. I will say, knowing that this was on the agenda and then saw the signs on the building, I'm like, oh no, I hope this isn't a case of it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. But I accept your contrition. Yeah, thank you. And also as someone who has written about the Shanley building in the past, I just want to express, I'm very thankful that you saved that building. Yeah. I think it's a very good example for, you know, lack of better words. There's a lot of people who are coming up here basically saying it's too hard to build like with all these restraints. And I think you showed ways that, you know, so many people are like, oh, it's just too hard to save this building and build an attractive building around it. I think you've more than met that challenge. And hopefully, that's an example to other people that, you know, maybe to think a little more creatively on some of these projects.

Yeah, we're happy with the way it's almost finished. But yeah, when you go inside, it's beautiful. And you guys were the lobby's open. So you can walk in any time and just tell them you're with the ARB and one of our staff will give you a walk around. anytime you're interested. But yeah, the Shanley turned out great. And we've got a whole art program. And the art program for the Shanley is going to be a little more educational on the history. And we have a wall there that's going to have a picture of the architect and kind of educate people so they can appreciate it more. So yeah, but I'm really pleased with the way it's coming out. Wow. I'm overwhelmed with your support. Thank you.

David? I don't have any questions. Looks great.

Thank you. Well, hopefully you'll fill that corner or the early corner, maybe even with a business that was displaced from that previous location.

Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Love to see things filled up, but we understand how difficult it is.

Mm-hmm.

So we do have a staff recommendation to approve with the one condition that we've already talked about. Do we have a motion?

I move we approve the staff recommendation with the one condition to provide... documentation for signs five and six as specified in the application. But

I can do that administratively. I don't have to come back to ARB. So we'll just go back with Anna, right? With you? You'll

just apply for the sign permit and Ryan will process that for you. Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming in.

All right. Have a good night. You too. All right. Bye-bye.

It will continue with new business and we'll go to items two and 317 Brent more part is the applicant here. Hello hello do you hear us Doug

yeah do you hear me,

we do okay we'll get

started. Ryan. The subject property is located on the south side of Brentmore in the southwest corner of the Brentmore subdivision. Property is developed with a two-and-a-half-story single-family home and is zoned R1. The project scope consists of the demolition of the existing driveway, installation of a new driveway, and landscaping improvements. Total lot coverage would increase from 24.9% to... and sorry total out coverage would increase to 4.09 percent front yard average would increase to three four one two percent project meets all coverage requirements storm water runoff is projected to increase by 0.068 cubic feet per second to a total of 1.05 cubic feet per second the project includes a variety of landscaping improvements and no trees should be impacted by the project Existing HVAC units, utilities, trash and lighting will not be impacted by the project. Staff recommend approval of the site plan review as submitted.

Doug, do you have any comments on the site plan review? Sure. Good evening, everybody.

The owners of the property pretty much wanted to provide a more aesthetic driveway as well as landscaping and also provide a little bit more room for visitors and vehicles. The increase in impervious area was offset by an amended soil area in the front that works around the proposed landscaping. I believe we have landscape architect on the line as well, in case there's any questions for them. But yeah, that's pretty much the project for the most part.

OK. Well, I think it looks great, especially having gone over there and walked around the existing. This, I think, will be a major improvement in front of that very large historic house. So as far as the site plan goes, I think it's a great improvement. I thought the landscaping was looked fine, but others on the plan commission may have other ideas. So, Jim, do you have further comments?

For site plan, I don't really have any comments. I think it's a great project. Cami?

No comments. I just think it is definitely an improvement.

Ellen?

Nothing

further.

Richard?

No

comments. Bob? No comments. David? No comments.

Okay. Any comments from the audience or any other hands up online? No. Well, on the site plan review, we have staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I move we approve the staff recommendation to approve the application as submitted.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Let's move on to the architectural

review. The existing asphalt driveway would be removed and replaced with a new exposed aggregate drive. The driveway would be roughly in the same location and expanded. Two stone walls would be constructed adjacent to the driveway one in the form of a decorative screening wall in front of the home and the other would be a retaining wall on the south side of the driveway. landscaping is proposed throughout the front yard and exhibits a hybrid design of both organic and curated placements. Given the variety of driveway landscaping and front yard walls and neighborhood staffer have the opinion that proposal will complement the existing property and surrounding area staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay. Doug, any comments on the architectural?

Sure. Is Jeff Davis on the line, Ryan? He was a landscape architect. Doesn't look like it. Okay. The walls in front, I believe, are brick with a cap. Let me pull them up. And if you look at the sheet L200 of the landscape plans, you can see kind of a elevation view of the proposed standalone wall that will kind of block visitor parking and also provide an aesthetic feature. The smaller retaining wall on the side of the driveway is a modular block wall really meant to just make up a little bit of grade. It's only about 18 inches tall and the side of the property so it's a little bit harder to see and then as far as the landscaping i will do my best here i'm not a landscape architect but i believe jeff coordinated with the owner for some plantings and landscape that they thought would go well with with the project

Doug, the way I'm reading the drawings on L200 is that all of the walls are faced in stone. Is that correct?

It is correct for the wall that is next to the visitor parking in front. There's a very small wall that's on the side kind of where the Let me see what's a good place to look at it. If you look at CHC C2 near the south or the west property line or planned south, there's a very small retaining wall that is basically just getting the driveway a little bit higher in that area so that Potentially somebody could park there temporarily. Is

that the 35-foot long wall?

Correct. It goes from about 6 inches exposed to about 18 inches

at its maximum. And that one is not faced in stone.

Well, it is. It's a modular block wall, more like what you would see, I guess, at... You know, it's not CMU, but it's kind of like a decorative stone that stone units that lock together. I apologize. Jeff had a little bit more information about the walls than I do.

Well, that wall really isn't going to be seen.

Not really. I think there's some landscaping in front of it. It's on the side yard.

And it has a trash enclosure.

Yeah, roughly in the same spot as the existing trash area.

Okay. I think I understand the differences now. Bob?

It looks nice to me. It's a nice addition. We're not building a house. We're just redoing the driveway. Richard?

I don't have any comments. I think it will be a nice improvement on what is there. Ellen?

No comments.

Amy?

Just an agreement. I think it'll be a nice addition.

Tim? I wasn't 100% sure just looking at the plans that was exposed aggregate, but that's been called out. So as long as that's the case, I think it's a great addition.

Correct. That's right.

David?

No comments. Any comments from the audience or online? Nope. Okay. Well, here again on the architectural, we have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move we approve the staff recommendation approving the application by the owner.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Thanks, Doug.

Thank you.

Hopefully it'll get moving soon.

Yeah, I think it's starting in September or October.

Before the winter.

Yep.

If we have a winter.

Yep. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you. PB John Gerstle, Okay we'll move on to items three and items four and five it's 201 brighton way is the applicant here okay good we'll get started with the report first.

The subject property is on the west side of Brighton between Maryland and North Forsyth. The property is developed with a one-story single family home. It's zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The project scope consists of the demolition of the existing home to construct a new single family home. HVAC units are proposed on the south side of the home and screened with landscaping. Trash would be stored in the rear garage. Lot coverage is proposed to be 46.2%. Existing runoff is estimated to be 0.52 cubic feet per second during a 15-year 20-minute storm event. It would increase to 0.57 cubic feet per second. Downspouts would connect to a flow well and pop-up emitters in the rear yard. No trees are present on the site aside from street trees. The plan proposes adding nine trees totaling 5,000 square feet of canopy coverage. The site exceeds the site required canopy coverage by 452 square feet. 100% of the trees are proposed to be native. The height setbacks impervious coverage of the proposal are in conformance with the requirements of the R2 district and Clayton-Garvin's urban design district. Staff are of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions. One, that the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the Flowell system with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds and shall submit proof of filing to staff prior to approval of a building permit. That the pop-up meter shall be relocated to at least 10 feet from a property line.

Okay, the applicant, come on up, identify yourself and add anything you would like.

Hi, I'm Don Stucco. the applicant, the owner, future resident. And I live right next door. So this is right, the construction will be in my face. So I enjoy doing this. I'm not a contractor by profession. I'm an engineer, but I've done building all my life. But anyway, I can, as far as a site plan review, I can maybe address any questions General questions. Vance Engineering did the actual calculations and everything, but I can speak to the general, I guess, flow conditions of the lot. And from what has been done, it's an improvement from what is there, the existing lot, and with the flow well system. And that's about all I can add to how the water is. behavior there. There are concerns in the past, the lots Up north, they're all downhill toward my lot, the lot next door, and it keeps on going down all the way. So it just forms on heavy rains. You have to slow the flow down as much as you can to improve that. And I have a neighbor who's here. He's going to ask some questions about that. I met him this afternoon. So I like to assure him that what I'm doing is going to be an improvement for what's there now. And I was going to ask if there's any questions in particular on the... Well,

Ryan, if you could pull up sheet three of three on the engineering drawings. And Don, if you could then, when we get it up, explain where the water might be going from your property to any adjacent property. There we are.

Right now the flow is from the street generally to the back of the lot. It goes from east to west. That flow is not going to change. It's just that the only difference now is the downspouts now will be picked up by the flow well system to slow down the flow to the west side and off the lot.

So I think we see the flow well in the backyard. Is that correct? That's correct.

It's on the west side on that one corner there, that would be the southwest corner.

Yes, right near the arrow. Right. And that will take all the roof downspouts. It will take...

Does as in the there's a I guess a good diagram there in the sheet three or three. That shows that. Rectangle that is what's being caught by the roof and a downspouts okay the rest of it, and it goes directly to the flow well the other two downspouts in the front come around and they go across. surface flow to the rear.

Oh, okay.

Okay. Well, it's a tough neighborhood with water.

That's one of the more hilly spots in Clayton.

Okay. Okay. think I got my answer

Bob I just want to make sure I assume your new house will cover more grass than the existing house you'll have more impervious

there is there is an increase in in uh impervious square footage but it meets the Clayton requirements

okay but I appreciate that but practically speaking um Are you concerned you'll be increasing more water coming off the house, but you have a better system for catching it, is what you're saying?

That's exactly what I intended to say, is that the flow is going to be slowed down. The retention is going to take a little longer to get off site, causing less flow in the direction... that it's going

now. And if I lived right behind your new house, assure me that the water is not going to be coming an issue on my property.

I have a person that is in the room right now that lives directly behind me. He's concerned with that. I had a discussion with him today. We've been talking about that and he's not, you know, the neighborhood is such that the flow comes across those lots and it's pretty darn quick. And it's not coming from my lot alone. It's coming from everything that's up north. And, you know, it's just, you know. We've had these issues before in our neighborhood. Right. So all you can do is try to design to decrease the flow, to slow it down. That's all you can do. And I guess talking to the neighbor here, he doesn't have a real problem with The West flow he's got a little problem. He showed me on a corner of the lot that is coming from other sources so and it's But he's concerned about the flow in that neighborhood in it Not much

the fact that the water in the front is just going to run back. Is that what you're saying? The water be captured the water in your front yard

the front in the front yard will its level basically it level right to the street and But then anything from the downspouts of the front of the house will get put into the sides and then down the swales to the rear, if you can picture that.

With regard to the house itself? We're not talking about the house yet. No, no. You answered my concerns.

Yeah, it's a good grade down to the... to the west, and water flows downhill very well. Okay.

Richard? There was just mention in the staff report about where the pop-up emitter is going to be.

Yes. The drawings have been, I guess... We added the dimensions. They're 10-foot minimum as per the requirement. Okay. So I don't understand where that comment came from. The most recent revisions have the 10-foot minimum on it.

Okay. So is the pop-up emitter in the front yard somewhere? Right, right.

Yeah, there's one on the side of the house still that's less than 10.

They're on the side of a house. But as she just indicated, it sounds like there's one that's on the side of house, but it's not 10 feet from the property line.

Well, the driveway is 10 foot wide and there's another. So if I can show you that, the one pop-up, it doesn't have a dimension on that one pop-up because it's 11, 12 feet from the property We can dimension that also. That's not a problem.

That's the one on the south side, so if you see the corner there, not on the driveway side. It says just north of, just up, if you move your cursor up a little bit, Ryan, right there is where the pop-up emitter is in the swale.

That's the when it was moved.

That's the 1 that's not 10 feet from the property

line. On my drawing, it shows 10 feet on sheet 1.

When you, for the condition when you submit for a building permit, we'll check it again. But this is the most recent plan set that we have.

Yeah, I submitted everything that I had and on my drawing, I show it. Okay, I moved all the emitters to accommodate that comment. So maybe it's just a matter of revisions.

Yeah, I mean, I just want to make sure that we're not pushing, you know, water. Oh,

no, no, no. No, it's been changed. And I don't know why it's not showing up. Okay. That is a previous revision as on a screen right now.

Okay, so is it closer to the house then? No,

it's actually 10 feet away. It's in the front of the house.

So there's no pop-up emitter on the side of the house anymore? No. Got it. Okay. Yeah, I

moved all the piping around. Okay, great.

Yeah, that's what, you know, as you said, water's an issue. So right now, you said you live next door right now?

Yes.

So if you're facing the house, you're on the left? I'm on the right. You're on the right, okay. And then are you moving into this house? Yes. Okay. Hope so. You hope so. Okay. And then in terms of, you said water, so water goes behind you right now? Or the house, I mean, you find that water moves... like goes i guess because topton is behind you so does it flow behind is

that the water i've seen water flow down there for eight years now so i'm very familiar with that and on a heavy rain there is a uh flow that i see that's in in my lot that i own i see that flow and i i see it slow down as it goes to the left So I don't actually see rivers. I mean, maybe you can see drainage to other lots. I think my neighbor behind me said there is a access point between the lots that some of that water, as it comes down from the north, goes into that little area. But it's all driveway and it looks like it's been graded to accommodate that. But that's a bigger problem. That's just not 201 Brighton. That's a lot in that neighborhood.

Well, and it looks like at least in the front of the house, there's a drainage, like, I mean, MSD. There's an MSD drain in front of the house. So in terms of collecting water from the street, there's a drain in front of that.

Oh, there is a sewer. Yeah. Yeah. There's a sewer there. Yeah. It catches off the... Yes.

So that should help at least with water in the front of house.

Yeah. There is not much source of water from the front of the street level, it really starts with the rain hitting the surfaces and running west. And that whole block.

Okay. I don't have any other questions.

Ellen?

I think all my questions have been taken. Thank you.

Amy?

Yes, I have nothing further.

Tim? Nothing further for me either. I appreciate the additional landscaping too. David?

I

don't have

On the site plan review, anyone in the audience? If you'd like to make a comment, come on up. Well, no, we need you on the recording. Please identify yourself with address.

My name is Dennis Plummer. I'm my wife, Carolyn 200 Topton. Met him a couple hours ago because he's watched me. I got the materials, you know, for this meeting and Right now, uh, the water flow goes where it needs to go. It's going down. Uh, it's not a big problem, even though it comes downhill, you know, uh, on the one side, there's an easement and a lot of water comes down that easement and there's a catch base in the, uh, That catches a lot of that water from your new lot and from the other lot. And then that continues. I don't want to call that, but it's a big round and it catches a lot of what I'm concerned about is in the construction that that is somehow the backyard that's kind of crested about, right. That you change that right now it's working. And if that was to be changed, then the water might flow down right into the middle of my backyard instead around both sides. Right now it's actually flowing around both sides and there's going to be water, but, uh, it kind of works, but you know, when you have new construction, if something changed and there's a bunch of arrows and things that I just, you know, got something I could look at about an hour ago, um, As long as that grading is not alterably changed, the water will continue to go to places it is, but when there's something new. So I think I made him aware of some stuff that he wasn't aware of.

No, Dennis is saying there's a lot of detail. The details on a drawing show there's no change in grading. at all you know in which case it should work but if there is you

know i i saw little you know holes and things so i asked him and you asked me what i just want to make sure we don't change something so water's coming in the middle of my backyard instead of around the house like it's supposed to is

this grating subtle i mean could i tell that there's a slant in the backyard right now sounds like the water falls to the side and then it falls back sort of

it's actually it's actually the right now uh there's a swale between the houses to the south that swale is going to continue It's not going to change in elevation or higher slope or anything. In fact, it's going to become flatter, so there's less flow going to come to the point that he's talking because I'm going to level it with a deck, so that will retain some water. The other side is basically the driveway, and that's going to stay the same as what it is now. It's flat.

It sounds like he's addressing that issue.

I think so. Like I said, we just met a couple hours ago and I wanted to understand.

Is your house significantly lower than this house? Yeah, I'm right.

80% of that back matches up with this new lot. He's not

the only one that's complaining about the water.

No,

I know.

We just we want to, you know, I think it's really important that as we build new houses, we're addressing the concerns of current owners. So I just want to make sure I'm happy to hear that you're not getting water now that, you know, because you have new construction kind of on either side of you behind you. So I'm glad

that flows, but it flows where it needs to flow. Right, right, right. And

I'm happy to

if we don't change that, that part is.

Anything else?

No, that's all for me.

Okay, any hands up? Oh, it's Tetri.

Yeah, thanks. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, please identify yourself.

Exactly. This is Brent Tetri. I'm at 140 Brighton across the street from Don and Joyce. Hi, Don. Sorry, I didn't bring this up before. And I don't know if this is the right committee to bring this to. And it's a landscaping issue. It's a tree issue. And am I correct that those are two sweet gums on the property now on the street?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I mean, they're frankly a nuisance. You know, the sweet gum balls on it. And I don't know how the city feels about the old sweet gums that are still around. Are we trying to get rid of them? And is this an opportunity to get rid of him? That's my only question and thought.

Are those city trees?

If they're street trees, then yeah, that would be under, that would be a public works control.

Are They are both in good condition. They are very old. One is a landmark tree. Surface roots, I mean, it's an old tree. Still standing, and not too many limbs have fallen off since the years I've been there. But it's a nuisance. It's a nuisance, but we have to keep that street tree. Now, Clayton is one of the... There's a lot of municipalities that have gotten rid of them, I understand. And right now, I think we've got a few left here in Clayton. That is the two that... All right, just bring it up.

There's still some around, and we leave them in place until they become unhealthy, but we certainly don't plant them anymore. Good.

They're there

for

the

foreseeable future. Can he propose to remove those and plant new trees if he wanted? I'm just asking. We

typically do not. If we have a large canopy with a healthy tree, we tend to leave it in place.

Yeah, I've been through the process, and I understand it. I'm not an arborist, but those roots are shaped, but the trees still have green leaves. Anyway, I'd be willing to remove

them.

But if there's an issue with, this may not be the correct, but there are a lot of guidelines and all I can do. Thank you.

The other thing we can do is we actually have all of our trees mapped in a system. We have the health of every tree in the city graded. We can take a look at that at this particular location and see what the current status of that tree is.

I've been in contact with Mr. O'Mara. Okay. And it's outside of the architectural committee.

Thank you all.

Okay, thank you. Any other there were no other hands were there? Okay We do have a staff recommendation Did you get a copy? Yes. Are you in agreement with the two? Okay, we have a recommendation to approve with the following with the two conditions

I move we approve the site plan application as a staff recommends its approval with the two conditions. And you're familiar with these two conditions, the deed restriction? Yes.

It's ready to go.

All right.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Let's move on to the architectural. Ryan?

Okay,

well we're gonna we'll do the staff review first. Right

and way contains various styles with the use of brick and covered or accented front entries being the most common architectural elements neighborhood trends towards the demolition of existing smaller homes in favor of larger new construction and Proposed home would be two stories with part of the second story presenting as a half story. The garage would be accessed at the basement level at the rear of the property. The property would retain the common architectural elements of brick and recessed front entries. The project mean roof height is 27 feet 10 inches. Given the variety of home styles nearby and the similar height of the adjacent homes, staff are of the opinion that the height and massing of the new home is compatible with the surrounding area. The new home proposes a combination of traditional and modern architectural features. The home would be primarily comprised of white stone brick veneer. Windows would be off-white with composite cedar wood atop the window and brick row lock below the window. A black metal roof would accent the front dormer. The front door would be recessed within an arched entry framed with lighting and accented with composite cedar wood atop the front door. Hardy plank is proposed on portions of the side and rear facades. The Hardy plank is identified to be either cobblestone or desert stone. Per the manufacturer documentation, both colors appear to be an off-white sand color. Staff have the opinion that the applicant should specify their preferred material. A main level deck is proposed at the rear of the property. The deck is proposed to be composite cedar with vinyl wrapped posts. Vinyl is not an approved material per the architectural review guidelines and staff are of the opinion that the vinyl should be replaced with an approved material such as wood, wood composite or metal. An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the north side of the home. An exposed aggregate path would connect from the driveway to the front entry. The modular stone is proposed along the driveway. Staff are of the opinion that with recommended changes, the design and materials of the proposal would meet the architectural review guidelines and would be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that the vinyl decking would be replaced with an approved material such as wood, metal, or composite to reflect a wood texture. or a composite reflecting a wood texture and shall be revised as part of the building permit. The siding at the rear of the home shall be specified as part of the Building Permit Submission.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening. Good evening. I'm Edward Stevens, Principal Architect of Edward M. Stevens Architects, LLC. And where do you want to start? If you'd like to

add anything to it.

No, I would just like to say this is a cottage style one and a half story home with 3,578 square feet of designed living room space complimented by a convenient basement level two car garage. And it's a side entry garage. As we already talked about, the property site slopes toward the back of the home. And the home was designed to maintain a consistent proportion with the neighboring residences, ensuring a cohesive architectural aesthetic. The predominant material on the exterior is brick and excellent with siding that blends with the architectural character of the neighborhood.

It's a good looking house. I'm glad you said it's a cottage style because it makes it look smaller than the square footage that it contains. However, when I was looking at the context drawing, it looked very big. But I also realized that that roof line is going back. So when you're on the street, it'll appear much shorter than we're seeing in the two-dimensional drawing. So I don't have a problem. Initially, when I looked at it, I did. But in reality, I think it'll be fine. But let's go around. Architecturally, I'm comfortable with it. Bob,

I really like the slant of the roof above the entrance. Thank you. A real eye grabber. It's very nice. And I like the metal roof to the front dormer. Better than just having asbestos. Thank you. Works very well. It's very attractive, I think.

yeah i was i bob took i agree i like the slope of the roof and i like how the dormer it's the roof is really large um so but i you know i appreciate that you kind of captured how large the roof is with the dormer and i also like the metal um accent so um yeah i mean i think it works you know the architectural there's not really an architectural style in the neighborhood there's a lot of new buildings so i think it certainly fits within the neighborhood Thank you. Alan?

I'm glad that you gave us the rendering because, excuse me, the context drawing, like Steve said, doesn't do you any favors. And I know it's, how do you show brick? All of these lines, it looks dark. I like what you've done. The only thing that kind of bothers me a bit is the wood grain over the windows. Have you looked at the same material, but in a gray, a dark gray or something that would look more like stone because, and I know stone may not be an English, it reminds me of an English cottage, but with the front roof that as it goes over the door, the front door, In an English cottage, I would expect a thick wood piece. Okay. Which would be hard to obtain now. And that was just those little details.

Okay.

But I like it. I think you've done a good job.

Thank you. Kami?

I like it as well. I'm glad that it's, you know, an asymmetrical house, you know, and it's not just kind of like a box. Um, I did have a little concern about the roof, just that visually there is so much of it on like the front facade. I don't know really how you solve that. Um, I mean, I know you have like the one dorm where, and I do like the metal roof, but I don't know, there's just something with the spacing of the roof. It just is a lot in my opinion. Um, I, uh, Actually, I like the wood tone. I think it kind of plays on a little bit. Sorry to contradict. But I just think it adds something you don't see every day. And I think it's a nice touch. It's just the front of the roof just sort of overwhelms me a little bit.

Jim? I can say overall, I like the form of the house a lot. The... These composite wooden lintels over the windows, I do quibble with that a little bit. Typically, at least when I see this detail in more classic architecture, it's a very dark brown instead of this very light brown. So I think it presents us a little off. The other problem I have, and these are minor quibbles, I want to say. I think overall it's a very well-designed home. I'll be the one contrarian on the board. I do not like standing seam metal roofs on dormers. And I think the standing seam metal with the light wood, the problem for that, for me together, is it's leaning a bit too modern farmhouse, which we're kind of coming down off the trend that can really date this home in a number of years. So Are those concerns enough to stand in the way? No, they're not. But I personally think it would be more attractive if that lintel was a darker color. I think that the composite is really going to stand out in that lighter color.

Sure. Come back up to the microphone.

There are darker shades. I went to all kinds of effort to, my wife, by the way. So, but there are darker shades just, you know, so it's been tossed around. That's a good point. I

have to ask you, are we have to be engaged in marital counseling from this point on?

Just as well. Anything else, Jim?

No. And like I said, these are more, I would say, these are more personal preferences of my own that more I'm just putting the comments out there. I don't think either one of those are enough to stand in the way of the project as it's presented.

David? No questions or comments.

Any other comments from the audience on the architectural? I assume there are no hands up. Don?

As far as the vinyl on the deck, that was an oversight on my part, and we can do composite on that.

Okay, so and that's number one condition. You're in agreement with that? Okay. And number two, is the siding on the rear of the home shall be specified as part of the building permit submission?

That was done for pricing purposes for a picture of someone. I've decided that I'm pleading for the LP smart side. That's what I'm going to put down on the permit. It's a superior warranty than or product, easier to work with. So I'm leaning that way. are presented there.

So that'll be in the building permit

submission. That'll be in a building permit. We'll take care of that.

OK. We have a staff recommendation to approve with those conditions.

With regard to the architectural review, I move that we adopt a staff recommendation with the following conditions as we had discussed, one being the vinyl deck being replaced and the second being that the siding on the rear of the home shall be specified as part of the building permit submission.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, you're on the way. Thank you. When do you get started? Soon, I hope. Okay. Okay, we have two more to go, but they are both at 121 Topton Way. I assume the applicant is here. So we will get started. Brian, I think it's you again. Yes.

The subject property is located on the west side of Topton between Maryland and Kingsbury. The property is owned to R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is currently developed with a one-story single family home, and the applicant is seeking to demolish the existing home to construct a two-story single family with an attached garage. HVAC units are proposed to be under a rear deck and screened with a wood composite. Trash would be stored in a six-foot wood composite enclosure between the garage and the deck stairs. Coverage is proposed to increase from 42.7% to 44.5%. Existing runoff is estimated to be 0.51 cubic feet per second during a 15-year, 20-minute storm event and would increase to 0. Sorry, there must have been an error in there. Downspouts would connect to a dry well and pop up meter in the rear yarn. All existing canopy coverage is proposed to be removed the plan proposes adding 4250 square feet of canopy coverage, which is 165 square feet more than the replacement requirement 53.5% of trees are proposed to be native. Section 405.4090A requires a minimum of 33% of new trees to be native and strongly encourages the use of native plantings for landscape but does not specify a percentage. The landscape reviewer noted that four of the 13 shrubs and perennial species were native. With the new construction, the site and landscape is starting fresh and therefore a higher percentage of native planting should be achieved. Staff are of the opinion that the percent of native species for shrubs and perennials should be increased to a minimum. of 33%. Staff are of the opinion that with the landscape plan revisions, the proposal meets the criteria for site plan review. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions and that to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well, the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the dry well system and shall submit proof of recording prior to issuance of a building permit and that the applicant shall revise the landscape plan so that 33% of shrubs and perennial species are Missouri native.

Okay. Come on up and identify yourself and add anything you would like.

Mike Thompson, Architect Thompson Design Group. As far as the site plan, essentially there's no additional runoff to any of the neighbors with the drywall. We don't have a problem with the conditions that they've put on it. So if there's any questions.

I'm looking at drawing C4. And what you just said is the drainage will not change. Is that correct? Okay. That's essentially how I'm looking. There's some minor things due to the shape of the house. Right. Well, that's very nice. We rarely have a condition like that. You can see everyone can see it on the screen also. You'll see it's essentially no change.

It all slopes, of course, from the street to the backyard falls a whole story. So we wanted to be sure that we weren't so obviously the water gets going there that we weren't putting any water on anybody else that wasn't there before.

um I really saw no problem with the site plan but Jim do you have any comments on that

um assuming that you know you were okay with the native planting what the city said with along with that as far as the species that are proposed um I'm not a civil engineer but I did I did know I found it a little difficult that down to the hundredth that the stormwater is exactly the way of the current building um that I'll be honest that just doesn't 100 pass the smell test for me uh so that did cause me to kind of look at things a little sideways um but no no overall problems

okay

Amy

no issues with the site plan

Ellen

No

problems.

I was just curious because it you know, it's just and this is I mean, it's I guess it is site plan in the sense that you you're moving the driveway to the other side of the house.

Correct.

And just because I feel like when you walk down the street, it's like driveway house driveway house driveway house like what? What made you decide to switch?

I think the grading worked out better. It was a civil engineer who essentially made this decision. I think it's grading-wise and the slopes, it worked better to go on that side.

Okay. So how will it... As

you see the grade in the back, on the right-hand side of the property, the same grade is really close to the rear line. So we'd have been digging out more dirt there and probably had to do retaining walls, that type of thing, for the driveway to be on the right- hand side.

I just feel like aesthetically. So then how are you going to build a fence? Or I just can't... How does it on the side then when it's like driveway, driveway, how are you...

They think there's landscaping along the driveway to separate the two driveways. Ours is a little bit lower than the single-family house, the existing one on the left-hand side. So it'll be landscaping between them and a little bit of a berm.

It looks like in the back, just like Jim's comment, I always get a little concerned when I see numbers like that given our water problems. So, and it looks like in the back, at least from like Google pictures, the water kind of there is a retaining wall in the home like directly behind, you know, so it looks like, well, you know, in terms of, it looks like they'll be something I guess the water won't. There's no way necessarily for the water to continue passing through your yard to the people behind just because again there's a grade that goes down to the backyard.

Well, we are holding water so we're not dumping any more water onto the neighbors that were already there. It's, of course, sloped that way now, and so there is water going from this property behind it to the neighbors right now. And so it's not like we're retaining all the water on our property, no. Right.

Also too, just so you're aware, you know, Topton has a pretty significant water issue now that was hopefully going to be rectified by MSD. But the water comes down Topton and sits like, you know, in front of your property and in front of homes across the street. So, you know, if this were to get approved, it just, it complicates construction in the sense that you have to be more mindful of your neighbors because as water flows mud flows and it just kind of sits there so i just msd is actually going to build a new inlet not for several years but it is an approved project so it's just something to consider as you're building i would just make sure that you're in good communication with msd and understanding kind of what they plan okay

so bob i don't have any comment but Are you aware that the staff proposes that your landscape have a minimum of 33% of the Missouri native species? Yes.

We don't have

a problem with that.

David?

That

plan looks good. Anyone else in the audience? No other comment? Well, we do have the staff recommendation to approve with the two conditions. And Mike, you agree with those two conditions? Yes. Okay.

I hereby move that we adopt the staff recommendation with the two recommendations that Steve referred to.

All in favor. Aye. Okay, we can move on to the architectural

New construction is common in Clayton Gardens, with existing houses often replaced with larger ones. The new home is proposed to be 30 feet tall, and the house to the north is similar in height. It is two stories tall. The house to the south is 15 feet shorter than the proposed home. The proposed structure features a greater side yard setback from this property to incorporate a transition in height and scale, as called for by Section 410-385-2. The proposed structural feature a stone front facade with the sides being mainly great break with stucco accents. Clayton gardens urban design district requires brick as a primary material and limits accent materials to a maximum of 25% of any facade the applicant proposes a front facade of 90% stone, which would require alternative compliance. Prior to adoption of the Urban Design District, Clayton Gardens was dominated by brick homes with some other masonry accents. The purpose of the material requirement is to protect established character. Per Section 410.380A, materials and colors utilized for significant renovations for new homes should be compatible with those found in the neighborhood. Although the new house would make much greater use of stone on the front facade, several other new houses on this block of Topton Way feature stone accents. Many of the homes along Topton Way that do not feature stone accents on the front facade do feature colored brick or painted brick similar to colors of the proposed limestone. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed limestone facade will result in a unique facade that will differentiate the proposed building from others with similar features without compromising the intent of the building material requirements. Staffer of the opinion that the proposed use of stone aligns with the goals for the use of masonry and high quality materials and that the proposal would not have a major visual impact. The roof will be clad with light gray architectural asphalt shingles. A wood deck with composite railing is proposed at the rear of the home. The existing asphalt driveway would be removed and replaced with an exposed aggregate driveway. Staffer of opinion that the proposal is compatible with the existing site surrounding area and recommend approval as submitted.

Okay.

More

comments? I think you have the rendering. We do. So no, if anybody has any questions.

Well, we'll find out.

Jim? Sure, I actually have a number of questions. The limestone that you're proposing, what's the size of that block?

Oh, it kind of varies, but in general, up to a maximum of about, well, I guess a maximum of two foot by four foot.

So this limestone detailing on the front porch and each of these bays is that supposed to function kind of as like just a limestone block facade as it is at maybe the bottom of your context elevation here? Or is it meant to more resemble like a limestone coin?

A limestone facade, really. So the bays are clad in limestone and of course as the slopes go, you know, the limestone would go down so we wouldn't have exposed concrete wall.

So is the portion of those limestone blocks just so small compared to the window that it's going to be stacked like that, in essence, kind of looking like an oversized limestone coin?

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. But it's really just limestone blocks that are stacked is what the appearance will be.

because I see it as what is supposed to be kind of a stacked limestone, but I believe the effect, kind of what it looks like to me, is there's so little wall to work with on those bays that it looks more like a very oversized stone coin, at least to me personally. Now, it doesn't sound like that's your intent. That's at least how it's reading to me, but...

Oh,

okay. I also just stylistically... wanted to hear from you kind of how design-wise you feel that these elements marry together. I see this very deep, almost prairie style low roof with this corbeling with then these very French balconies, then this limestone detailing. These seem like very disparate elements to me, but I was hoping you could kind of link them together stylistically or kind of walk me through your design intent.

I don't know if I have a... I don't follow a particular style, that type of thing. I'm mostly looking at what looks nice put together. Yes, you could say the French balcony is a little bit different, although you see that quite often as a limestone block. i guess i look at different things and put them together and whatever looks good i'm i'm okay with i don't in other words i i don't i'm okay that if i can't put this house into a particular style uh that i'm i'm fine with that

okay and the other concern that i have is on either side of this front porch you have kind of these two alleys, if you will, that are 20 inches wide and then go 36 inches deep. I feel that creates a very awkward space across the front of the facade of the house. Do you disagree with that?

Yes, basically what I've done as you come out of the house, essentially you have two columns in front of the house. So it gives you more of a, I'm visualizing more of a space to put, I would put potted plants, that type of thing there versus if it actually went all the way back to the house, creates a very dark, very penned in area.

Well, what you have on paper here is a very dark pendant area. It's only 20 inches wide and then extends 36 inches deep on either side of that porch. That porch is not open on the sides for your rendering and your drawings.

Well, it... Well, it's got a roof over it. You can see the walls. There's space in between them. The roof is actually very high also. So as far as there will be a great deal of light going in there.

Okay. Stylistically, I just have a number of concerns on this house. Also, just the way I feel like it's designed, I feel like these bays... and the way the front porch functions, it looks as if it's designed to push the house as far forward as it possibly can and fit as much square footage as you can. And you're hit just with this kind of tremendous verticality in a fairly squat amount of space. And then it seems like trying to get as tall as possible and then shrink the roof down as much as possible to get that height, the proportions and everything to me are just very off. And I feel, unfortunately, the rendering especially is not helping things because I feel like we could use a much higher quality rendering.

Amy?

I have similar concern that I think the thing, the railing does kind of throw me immediately when I was looking at the rendering just because everything is so linear and then you just have this kind of curve just it doesn't relate to anything. And then on the side of the rendering you show another railing but I don't see that on any of the elevations or just kind of how that would like or where that is on any of your other elevations. Do you see that on the rendering on the right?

On the right-hand side?

Yeah, well, on our screens you can see it.

Maybe

that's a mistake.

There's something darker on the right-hand. No, there's not a railing over there.

Okay. The rendering has another balcony off the side of the house that's not in the drawings.

But okay, if it's not supposed to be there, it's not. Which

is, yes, I didn't do the rendering.

Oh, no worries. Okay. And so I think to Jim's point, like the front porch area, I think you're probably intending for those to be columns. Is that right? Based on your floor plan. So they wouldn't, you would have it open to those sides. Is that accurate? Correct. Okay. Yes. The rendering is kind of throwing up a little bit.

yeah on the first floor plan it shows you know the their columns yeah

um i do also you know when i look at this it's just it looks just like a giant cube you know i think you're like horizontal dimension i think it was like 36 and then your height is just like 32 so just a giant square and i think like the stone facade's not helping it's just it's very heavy um it's just a lot of heaviness i think on the front i don't know if you take away like the top or the second story stone and kind of, there's just something that's just not, um, feels good about, about the front facade. And then, um, I think your side facades look great. I like the interest. I like the details on the windows and everything. Um, the front one is just, it's really material choices are, are off. Um, but yeah.

Ellen?

Okay. The first thing, in essence, the rendering is not what is on the drawing. It's close, but the details for the front entrance, you have two risers going from the walk into the house. On the drawing, you have four risers Right. Great. Or three. Okay. You have handrails on your drawing, which is what you're proposing? Is it the elevation on your drawing a four or five or okay. So I should scratch the rendering. Um, is the grade are you sloping the grade that much in front of the house

yes uh and especially uh well i guess it does on both sides but yeah to get down to the driveway going down to the basement garage

that exposes or gives us so much more of the limestone it It just doesn't look right. And looking at the context drawing and discounting the one story, comparing you with the adjacent two-story or a story and a half, there seems to be so much going on compared to the other the adjacent house, not that that's perfect. I don't know if and when it was reviewed, you know, obviously it was reviewed, but I don't know when, um,

And if I could interject, the houses across the street have a lot more detailing and stone on them, I think, as they pointed out kind of thing. The particular house just to the right, yes, has very little stone detailing on it.

Okay. Are you going to have a lot of shrubs in front of the house, foundation planting that will soften that amount of foundation that we're

They've got shrubs basically encircling, if you look on the landscape plan, all three sides, of course not under the deck, but all three exposed sides are totally encircled. And then there's accent trees and also along the front. So it will, to say again, it will not be nearly as stark as what the rendering makes it look like. The landscape plan has a lot more landscaping.

OK, that addresses that concern of mine. I think if you could tone down maybe the balconies, there's just something that doesn't appear right. I have no objection to the limestone and the side elevations. I especially like the way you've wrapped the limestone around the corner. I mean, I think that's, I love those details. It's, I think probably the balcony, a balcony that was straight.

Yeah.

I think it would tone it down because the curve, your eye is drawn to that immediately. Now, other than that, the other elevations, I think you did a great job.

Bridget?

Yeah, I mean, I certainly agree about the balconies. And I do find, it's like I look at the, I don't know, the... Yeah, that page. You look at that page and it just looks very like, I don't know, like Lego-y. Like it could be a house you could build out of Legos. It's just lots of squares. And I would certainly change the balconies as Helen mentioned. And I just find, I think maybe because it is so boxy, I just find the way that the roof lines kind of encroach just kind of adds to the height of it, which I think... hurts the surrounding properties um and i i don't i certainly don't mind the limestone and the brick i like the mix of the um different uh parts of the house i just feel like i just would appreciate it softened up a little bit

bob um it does look a bit like uh When Jim was giving us a history lesson in architectural styles, I was very impressed, first of all. And it does look like we have disparate elements trying to fit into one building. I do agree with, I think there's probably a consensus that the balconies maybe are an issue in terms of blending in. With me, I am a little concerned about the, I do like the roof lines. They're kind of interesting looking. I do like that. But when we get to the limestone, you know, I think of limestone like this for a really big facade building. That's how you generally would see limestone in really big buildings. And here it just looks, to me, just a little odd. limestone look and i'm looking at the houses next door not that they have to look like the houses next door but i i just don't see the complementary nature of it and plus if i was in the test i always use is if i walk by it how do i feel and as i walk by this i'm just scratching my head what to make of the limestone look of it but this is my own personal view uh of it. There are features I like, and there are some features that concern me.

David? I think a lot's been said, and I don't need to repeat a lot of it. I struggle with the design on the front facade on this one. It's just a lot of different design elements put together. It is really boxy and almost, you know, if you took the 121 topped and down. It almost looks like a bank sort of from the front with how boxy it is. So yeah, I struggle with it a little bit. Is this a spec home or is there a customer in mind that's designed this?

No, this is a spec

home. Yeah, I would prefer to see some adjustments to the front facade.

I have a few more comments. I think the house looks like it's growing out of the site. When I look at the first floor level and I'm looking at A5 of five, it looks like the first floor level is roughly at the middle of the first floor, both on at 123 and even higher in relation to 115. And when I look at the rendering, it looks, the house looks much lower on the site than it does in the context. And I really think the house needs to be brought down so that the entrance and the first floor level is more in keeping with the adjacent houses around on that west side of the street. In following that up, I have a problem with the roof because this rendering makes it look like I'm standing on the street looking at the house, which I think is realistic. But the roof above the second floor, I don't see any slope to it. To me, it's flat. And maybe that's because it's a...

It is a very low pitch. Two and

12. It's a very, very low pitch. We've seen that before in the city. And those that we've approved, they look like flat roofs because you really perceive the house from street level, either walking by. So you've got an eye level of five to five and a half feet or in a car where you're even lower. And these very low roofs, besides not draining water very well at times, they don't look like they have any pitch at all. So the combination of, for me, the house is way too high sited there. It looks like as you go from 115 to 123, the land is going to go up and then come down because of the first floor height. level. So to me that's a major problem. I think the house will look like it's just sticking out of the ground compared to the adjacent homes. Now what I do understand is the driveway on the south side, because if the driveway had been on the north side the bulk of this house would absolutely tower over 115. we don't know what's going to happen with 115 in the future but this is all we can look at today so I'm concerned about how the house sits on the site to me it's too high and the roof pitch is too low uh but now let's look at the facade um The materials are very nice, but I think the facade is just over-detailed. The scale of the stone, as it's been said, seems to be too large. And I think there's a problem with the solid to void on the two bays. The way it looks like when I'm reading, the darkness is primarily the void the windows i know there's a little stone work in here but uh to me it needs a little more solidity on the two bays but then in the middle i think there's too much stone and i'd like to see less stone so that the bays really read as stone of some sort even though i think the The proportions of the individual stone pieces are really too large for residential. The other facades of the house, I have no problem. But the front, I feel, is over-detailed. In one place in the middle, too much stone. And I think it detracts from the two bays. And the two bays... to me, probably have too much void, too much window. I'm not going to suggest how to do it. That's your job. These are just comments that I'm making. You know, the materials could be beautifully done. What I really need to see is that the house be brought down where the front door first floor level is in keeping with the others on the street because this looks like you're probably going to be a good six feet above either of the adjacent houses, first floor to first floor. All of that will combine to make the house look much, much taller and much, much thinner and... The material on the front, I think, is accentuating

that. I mean, we are above, yes, 123. I think we're about three feet above 123 for the finished floor. So it isn't six feet, but it is, yes, we are above

it. Yeah. I mean, the other homes, very few of them in the 100 block Do you go up very high? Now, when you go up the hill further to the north, some of those houses, you do have to climb up more. But that's the lay of the land. But where you are, it's, I don't want to call it flat, but it is relatively flatter than the 200 block. Yes. So I think it should definitely come down.

Okay.

Any

response? I wouldn't have a problem bringing it down. You're saying, so bring it down so it's roughly even with 123, the house on the right?

I think it would read better as being compatible with everything else on the street. Right now, it looks like there's a big mound that you crawl up and then you go into the house. But the others don't.

So we would be roughly level across that. We're going to go down for the driveway side, but yes.

Right. You can't help that. You have a basement garage. Also, I believe... 115 is lower than, the grading is lower than 121, which is lower than 123. It's just a very slight slope going up. It's not as

steep as further up the street. Right. Yes, you are. The 200 block really goes up. Still

going that way, yeah. Yeah.

OK.

So the visual concern, I think it's too high. I have issues with the flat, the flat appearance of the roof and the detailing of the facade. I have no problem with the stone and the brick. I just think it could be handled a little more simply. All

right. Sarah Silver, Chairman, if I have one comment sorry to interrupt but looking at these plans apologize we didn't catch it earlier the balconies actually need to be removed your your permitted encroachment is already taken up by the bays themselves. Sarah Silver, So then you can't further encroach with with your balcony at second story.

Oh, I see okay I mean they're they're not an actual balcony that's. Sarah Silver, Well, they if you look

at the side profile here, they do extend right they do

extent yes. And if we did the square, then they wouldn't extend yes.

Any other comments? We do have a staff recommendation, but I'm going to suggest that we continue this and hopefully look for some changes based on our conversation tonight.

OK.

With your agreement, I'll ask for a motion.

I move with regard to the architectural review that we continue it to a future date.

Second.

All

in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Thank you. We'll look forward to seeing you again. All right. Thanks. okay that brings us to the end of our agenda Jim any further comments

I'll say first I guess it's nice to have a full house here for the first time um and I mean I guess if I may just one thing that just has kind of struck me through this process is you know one thing that's mentioned in the Clayton 2040 plan is that you know It's important to keep in mind the affordability of housing in Clayton. And these more affordable structures are being demolished for larger, more expensive homes. So especially on a speculative build such as this, I feel there's a higher bar that has to be met and a higher design bar. And I feel like some sort of real intent has to be brought before us versus just I bought this house, and I deserve to be able to put whatever in its place. And I just think that's something that we should keep with us.

Thank you. Amy?

Nothing further.

Helen?

Nothing further.

Richard?

Nothing further. Jim, thank you for your comments. Tom?

It's always a pleasure to be

here. David? Nothing tonight. Brian? No comments.

No, what's coming up in September?

Do we know for the next agenda? I expected to have fewer items. The length of time that we spend is dependent on how much you guys want to spend on it.

Okay. Well, uh, We will see you the day after Labor Day, whatever that date is. So enjoy the beginning of school, and we'll see you in September. Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned.

And.