December 2, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plan Commission ARB for December 2nd. Of course, if anyone has electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. We'll start with the roll call. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bridget McAndrew?

Kami Waldman?

Amy Waldman?

Jim Arsenault? Here. David Gipson? Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on November 18th. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll start off with old business and item number one is 917 Concordia Lane. And we'll start with the staff report.

The property is located on the west side of Concordia Lane between the Alamo and San Bonino. The property is owned to R5 and is developed with a single-story, four-unit structure and it's attached for a garage. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing structures and construct a new three-unit, three-story structure. This project was previously proposed at the November 18th meeting in conjunction with an application for site plan review. The site plan review application was approved and the ARB application was continued to allow for revisions pertaining to the height of the proposed structure. The proposed structure is roughly one story taller than the adjacent structures. Story height difference is common in the adjacent blocks with structures on Alamo, St. Rita and San Bonita presenting story height differences between neighbors. The structure was previously proposed at 41.2 feet and has been reduced to 38.5 feet. Proposal meets the requirements of the R5 district and the architecture review guidelines. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal is compatible with the existing property and surrounding area. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, if you come up, identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

I'm Dr. Fawcett. I'm a guy in the federal cabinet. David Ryan.

OK.

They

approve the connection. They just need some little details, minor details as far as some technical details, but we also already resubmitted to them. So it's all good.

Okay, so the MSD approval was really for the site plan. Site plan, correct. It was approved last time.

Yeah, but based on that data, it allow us to even sunk the building down additional six inches just because of the drainage. So how we taking the water from the driveway to the main stormwater system.

And the overall decrease in height Was that taken out from the floor-to-floor heights?

No, we actually reduced the roof height, the structure of the roof. We directed the roof to the right side instead to the back. So on the previous proposal, the roof height was 4.2 inches, and we decreased it to 1.9 inches. So we took two foot eight inches from the roof and six inches by lowering the foundation lower. So total brings three foot two inches building become lower to the previous plan.

Okay.

I see that now. Yeah, and you, I don't know, like you didn't see maybe previous proposal, but you can see that roof, it's become significant smaller to the previous proposal.

Okay. Well, I think you've responded to the comments from the last meeting. So let me move it on. Richard?

Thank

Yeah, I really appreciate you, um, listening and taking whatever you could even a few inches here and there really, I think made a difference and just shows that you're really trying to work with us. And it still looks great.

Yeah, and I agree with Helen. Maybe that roof, I like it now better than previous because that roof was a little bit maybe bigger than...

Jim? I have to say, I think this highlights what I personally like about this whole process is I feel through this process and kind of the back and forth in the comments, I feel like ultimately come out with a stronger product. Um, I mean, I was saying last time that I didn't think it was necessarily too tall, but then also seeing this, I, I think the building overall looks better. Um, so I, I think it's an improvement. Uh, I think it strengthens the building and, um, I'm happy with how you were able to take that.

Thank you. David? I don't have any questions or comments. Thank you.

Do we have anyone online? No. Okay, thank you. Arthur, I think as Jim was saying, the process works. And when I looked at, even though I wasn't here the last meeting, I looked at the drawings and it seems like what you've done no longer makes the building look top heavy. So I think it'll fit in the neighborhood pretty well. And of course we have a staff recommendation to recommend approval as submitted tonight. Thank you. Oh, one other thing. Any comments from the audience? No?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Good luck. When will you begin?

hopefully next month. I don't know.

Yeah. And thank you for what you handed out. I was unaware of all the other projects you had been involved in.

Yeah, I've been here.

Yeah, yeah. Well, I did some other ones too. I didn't put it there. But can I make like some comment in general? Maybe it's so, you know, like, That area of the Mon, I've been, you know, look, I own that building for five and a half years now. And I've been kind of dreaming this project. And initially my dream was put there for a family building. It's like just two story for a family building and my ratio was too short to put that project together because of the ratio per dwelling unit. I was short a hundred something square feet. So I went to the board of adjustments to allow me to put that building. Anyway, they found out there is no hardship, you know, to approve it. But in reality, I mean, what kind of hardship we have, you know, we have here. I mean, just don't, I mean, it's not, but my logic behind this that area, so there is bunch of like older four families buildings in a neighborhood that are not in a great shape. And when developer buy that land today, he's paying price per unit. You know, like you basically pay for that piece parcel based on amount of units. But I'm buying that for family, I cannot build anymore for family. So it's kind of Oh, it's basically the only reason I can put this project together, whatever I'm going to do is probably maybe 15 20% of the work, I'm gonna do it myself. So I'm like a developer, I'm a builder, I'm investor, I mean, it's all in one person. But for Average investor to put this project together, it's impossible. Just numbers does not work. So my thing is, I think city need to see how to ease off if you buy like six family building, older one and building in bad shape. just to allow it to replace with the six family new one because i did a bunch of projects like 18 family 24 family six family buildings in moorlands and the amount of work that takes to this for those projects to complete is much easier to build new ones but people not building new ones because you need to have two spaces per unit parking well there is different things, why people don't do that. But I think in that area, if you have four family, six family and person wanna buy it and replace with identical one, it's only gonna be better. I mean, it's gonna be have new electric suppression system, but some things it's gonna be reasonable to ease off from those guidelines. So I don't know like who I need to talk. Well, if it's going to go to somewhere, but I hope it is. And if you can, you know, put this, you know, to the next step and maybe we're going to see some East guidelines for those buildings because

yeah. No, the hardship. I mean, right now what Arthur's referring to is our essentially the density, the number of dwelling units that you're allowed to build on a lot is based on the size, the square footage of your lot overall. And so there are in Jomon area, there are a number of existing properties that have more dwelling units on them today than you could build under our code. But those are some of the items that we're going to look at. So in the comprehensive plan it called out, there's a lot of similarities. Hillcrest is an example where you You see patterns of detached garages that don't meet the code today. So there's a few neighborhoods that have some existing patterns that the neighborhoods would like to maintain in the future moving forward, but can't under current zoning restrictions. So those are all on our list to evaluate as we kind of address zoning code issues over the next couple of years. So what he's speaking about will be one of the things we'll look at with our multifamily dwelling districts.

And also, Bridget, I'm all for remodelings because I did quite a bit of them. And if it's building built like in 1920s, 1930s, they used to be built nice buildings. The building that built in 50s, 60s on the clay soil without any treatment to the soil. And we have quite a bit of those buildings. The tack pointing, the old baby. I don't think it's a reason to save those structures. I mean, good structure, yes. But the building that built without good bonds.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Arthur, for your comments and also for both renovation and new construction, reinvesting in the city. We'll move on to items 2 and 3, 121 Topton Way. And Ryan?

Subject property is located on the west side of Topton between Maryland and Kingsbury. The property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Property is currently developed with a one-story single family home. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing home to construct a two-story single family. The application was originally considered at the August 19th meeting in conjunction with an architectural review application. The site plan review application was approved while the architectural review application was continued for revisions. The site plan has since been modified and would need approval again. HVAC units and trash are proposed to be under the rear deck. Coverage is proposed to increase from 42.7 to 49.6%. Existing runoff is estimated to be 0.51 cubic feet per second during a 15-year, 20-minute storm event and would increase to be 0.53 CFS. Downspouts would connect to a drywall and pop-up emitter in the rear yard. All existing canopy coverage is proposed to be removed. The plan proposes adding 4,250 square feet of canopy coverage, which is 165 square feet more than the replacement requirement. 53.5% of the trees proposed would be native. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal meets the criteria for site plan review and recommend approval with the following condition. 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 the recording prior to issuance of a building permit.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, Mike Thompson, Thompson Design Group. Been a while working on this one. Finally talked them into the big changes where we are dropping the house down to make the finished floor is actually in between the two houses, lower than 123 and higher than the little one-story house to our left. But that created, you see we have a little retaining wall, very short retaining wall back there. We will have to pump. uh, some rainwater drywall system, that type of thing. Um, also along with that, we, uh, we widened the, uh, the front of the house, uh, which I think, uh, gives a lot better, uh, scale with a lot. Um, and also hides, uh, hide some of the garage, uh, you know, around, around the back. So, um, there's any, any questions?

Well, I do have a question about the, uh, on C1, the retaining wall. I don't think, I may have missed a section through it. How high is it above the adjacent ground?

I believe at the maximum, I don't think it ever gets four feet tall. It might get three and a half feet tall, I think, at the rear left corner. But for most of it, it's somewhere, well, of course, it starts from nothing at the street and would go to somewhere in the neighborhood of two to three feet tall.

OK, and it's?

The driveway is actually stepping down as it's going back. And of course, the driveway is shooting down in order to get down to the garage level.

OK. Well, I see the top of wall and the bottom of wall They used a magnifier to read this.

Yes, there you go. Unfortunately, I didn't print it any bigger.

Now it seems clearer. They couldn't see where any of the breaks were on there, where it stepped down.

Yeah, in several places they have dimensions and the dimensions change. Once he shaded it in, he got rid of the breaks. On the wall is 560. So yeah, that back corner, it's three and a half feet tall at the back corner. Actually, oh, I guess the maximum right here is where the driveway turns into the pad. The wall actually is about four and a half feet there. So I guess that's the tallest point of it. And that has to do with how

the... 59.5 to 603. Is that the corner?

Back here in the corner, it's... Yeah, 563 has got top of wall. Yeah. 559.5 is bottom of wall. So that's three and a half feet. Three and a half feet, yeah. And it really... What causes that is the driveway from the property to the left of us as it slopes down. I guess actually as you come forward, that gives you the highest point there is a four and a half foot wall. Right where you see our driveway winds out a couple feet to form the pad would actually be the maximum heights right there.

Okay, I think I understand it better now. Could you go through the water? Let's see. I think that was C3 or C4, I think. Sorry. You could explain that. It looks pretty even from the existing to the new. But then there's the roof area. The roof tributary. And that all goes to the dry well?

I believe most of it goes to the drywell, yes. That will be under the driveway.

Okay. Okay. Sorry, the drywall is on the rear yard, not under the driveway, just for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, yes. Oh, I see. The drywall is in the rear yard, and not under the driveway.

There's a pipe from the center drain of the pad there. Yes, go into the drywall.

And yeah, the drywall, is on the northwest corner. Yes, correct. And the pop-up is on the south side, right behind the driveway,

correct? Yes. A pop-up, yes, for the driveway drain. And it's only draining the

driveway, the pop-up?

Yes.

Okay. So the only thing going into the dry well is the... The roof tributary, which was that a flat portion of the roof or not?

No, it's all, the entire roof is sloped. So it would just all be the

downspouts. That rough quarter of the roof goes to the dry well. I guess I'm just concerned where all the water is going. I

mean, he's got a pipe all the way up to the downspout at the front right corner of the house that runs to the drywall. So at least, based on that, I would say at least half of the roof goes to the drywall Oh, okay. That would be the right half of the house. It's the dashed line.

The drywall is only collecting... Sorry, I just want to make sure that the record has it right. The drywall roof tributary to dry well that's the dry well the rest of the roof is being captured by downspouts which are just going to pop up emitters they're not connected to a dry well then there's also pop-up emitter that's connected to the sump pump from the driveway but there's only one dry well and it's only collecting a portion of the roof

um well there's there's the one in the in the rear yard just right behind the region where the pad ends, the retaining wall. Now he runs, actually he's running both downspouts on the front of the house There's a there's a pipe that that's shown going to dotted dash line going across the front there runs all the way down the side to a pop up right beside the the drywall. So there's that pop up that's that's kind of right to the right hand rear side of the of the drywall.

No, there's just downspouts shown there and they're collecting them all.

Correct. Correct. All I see is really there's these, unless I'm missing one. Oh, there's four of them actually. No, there's five. So one, two, three, four. Well, then one come from the drywall. Yes. They're all in the rear yard.

Well, this drawing that we see on the screen is much clearer because they're blanked out spaces on our printed portion.

Oh.

Yeah.

Let's see. Those are the five right there. Yes.

Yeah. So I'm curious about the two pop-ups that are essentially adjacent to the dry well. Are they connected to it or? It seems like the one to the left of the dry well is connected to the dry well.

Yes. And the one to the right of the dry well, is actually that pipe that's coming all the way. In fact, it comes all the way around to the left front corner of the house and collects the downspout there and takes it all the way back there to that corner. Well, it collects the right-hand side corner, front corner also as it's going along and takes it all back there.

So then the number four pop-up counting from the left, what will make the pop-up work? Will it be the dry well?

Yes. If the dry well becomes overfilled, then you have water coming out to pop up.

Sure seemed to be a lot of pop-ups in the backyard. And Bridget, you were asking why not in the front yard?

Well, and actually we are, along with our project, in order to not bury this so far in the ground, we're actually flattening that or our portion of the site, we're flattening that out right there. So it won't be a big hill for ours. Right now it slopes pretty well. As it goes on to the next property, then yeah, we can't control that.

So you're flattening it out. Right. As it goes down, it will then flatten out?

It just will, it'll still be going towards the rear, but it's not as steep as it does now.

So that will prevent water from flowing to the property behind it? No. Or slow it down?

It'll slow it down. Slow it down. Yes, it will, yeah, water will still flow. Exactly. It's always flowing, yes. Okay. Yeah, over the years. Will

it tend to hold more water on the backyard of this property?

I don't think he's got it graded to actually hold water, no. Really, the only thing that holds water is the drywall. We're just not letting more water or very little of any more water than what was existing go off the site. So essentially, it'll be the same as it is now.

Um, Bridget, did you have more concerns about that?

Right. I would just say two things that one. Yeah. It's kind of the water is always going to end up down there, whether you released it in the front yard, it's going to go that way. So there's really nothing about that. Now, I see your point. I think the way the engineer looked at it was he was just trying to comply with the ordinance and so do as small a dry well as possible. to comply with it. As you can see the really the drywall he just he has two downspouts going to the drywall and that's it and it that meets the ordinance now obviously that drywall could for not a whole lot of more cost to be made a little larger and more of the downspouts I guess could run to it also if we wanted to reduce the you know what runoff there is there existing but

Yeah, that was, I'm sorry. That was going to be my question. Is there a way to, I know that you're just meeting it, but to go to make it so that we're not adding to it? You know, is it, you know, adding, making the drywall larger or is it, and I know what you're talking about. Is it, was it a, it was a rain, Ana, do you remember what that was along the back? We extended it all along. That was a,

like they called on the drawings, they marked it as a mini rain garden, but essentially it was just a drywall. It was a gravel pit that could hold the water and slow it as it leached. to the other side

okay and that was just one remedy that they came up with that kind of went along the the back perimeter of the property to kind of help the back neighbor from getting an increase um and i'm just i guess my concern is that i i would like to see it not be increased especially with all the the water issues um that are happening

Well, and that's why I suggested the simpler and of course we've with all these draw all these pop ups here we we actually have the piping on site. We just we just aren't running it to the drywall and, of course, if you run into the drywall you just make the drywall little bigger which you know would not be a would not be a big thing to do.

And. I was gonna ask, I know when we saw this in August, we were basically like right butted up against the setback lines. And you had mentioned that the house is now wider. kind of talked about that these plans that we were given are pretty small so it's tough to see i i tried to get through but i had trouble telling like where the setback lines if you could kind of highlight maybe i assume since staff reviewed it and said through this within the setbacks but it's hard to see as kind of how the house sets within those setbacks

Front to back, we are, well, with the bay windows, we are pretty much line to line. Now side to side with the driveway on the left-hand side, we aren't over there. And I think we still, well, no, I'm sorry. We do have the, just we're right at the line on the right-hand side. So really the only place we are not to the setback line is on the driveway side.

Okay, so on the other, I guess, three faces, you're right up against the setback line?

Yes, or very close to it, yes.

And then, I don't remember, is this a speculative development, or are you building this specifically for a family?

I think it's still, yeah, it's still speculative. Okay,

well.

I know it is for sale, but yeah.

I do echo some of the water issues that other people have brought up. And I believe, I personally believe, especially with a speculative development where you're tearing down an existing home, especially with water, something that is a persistent problem in Clayton, that rather than just try and squeak over that line, like I think we really kind of push for it to be hit out of the park a little bit to bring that a little more in and give everyone a good feeling that it's not going to contribute to the water problems of the neighborhood.

David.

So as I look at these plans, it doesn't look like if the drywall system is working properly, there shouldn't be an increase in any direction. Looks like this discharge to the Lancaster side is dropping and it's negligible 0.31 CFS down to 0.30. And then on the 100-year storm, 0.42 down to 0.40. And then the tributary going towards Topton, which is in this other box, you're going from 0.21 to 0.18 and 0.28 to 0.24 on the front side. So I know that the condition on there has to deal with maintenance of the dry well and proper operation of it. So long as that is maintained and it's holding that water back, we shouldn't see an increase in either direction. The way I'm reading

but... I will say too, I can bring that up that it's, it all hinges on the drywall working properly. And it's,

Well, also, and correct me if I'm wrong, I hear you kind of up here saying that with relatively little effort and expense, like this could definitely be fortified without a whole lot.

Right. By making the drywall bigger, which is basically truckloads of rock, essentially, kind of thing. Like I said, the piping is kind of there. You just run the pipe to the drywall instead of running it to a pop-up. Now the drywall, of course, is always going to have a pop-up for the 500-year rain that happens kind of thing. But yeah, then you don't have water coming out of the pop-ups or Or almost never, I think.

Did we have anyone online with a handout? Go ahead. Oh, there's

one.

Catherine?

Yes. I'm the homeowner at 115 Topton Way. And I'm very concerned about any water runoffs. Already my back area is wet and the house in back of me has like blocked off some of the water that they receive so it filters in slower onto the Lancaster property. I haven't done anything as you can. I'm in the, the, the little ranch that's at 115 and, uh, our water problem in that back area, uh, even on my property, when it rains heavily, my, the water backs up at the fence line in the back of my property already. And, uh, I would not want any more runoff onto my property from this new construction. Because it's just problematic already.

Anything else, Catherine?

Well, I'm actually concerned about this retaining wall. I don't quite know. You know, I have a very narrow driveway as it is and Is there any relief there? Is this going to be right on the property line? I'm concerned about getting in and out of my rear entry garage, being able to go up and down my driveway.

It's three feet, essentially, from the property line to the... Oh, is it? Okay. I couldn't really tell. Yeah.

Yeah. As long as there's some room there. No, it's not sitting right on the property line. Okay, good. That's very comforting to hear. And that was really my main concern. I'm sorry, I just got in town from being... I was just out of town and saw that this meeting was happening or I would have attended. But...

But I'm happy to hear that there's some relief there along the driveway. That was my main concern. But I just want to stress the water issue is not only on Lancaster, it's on the contiguous properties too.

Okay. Thank you for your comments.

Okay. Well, thank you. But I'm sure the development will be wonderful. I'm not opposed to that at all.

Okay. That's the only hand up. Okay. Other comments? I don't like to delay the project, but I think it would be beneficial to us to have the engineer here at a future meeting to help us understand correctly what everything is. From David's explanation, I do follow the numbers, which I couldn't always read. But I think it would be good to have him here because he did prepare the drawings to help us understand better and be a little more confident about the water on the site plan. So I would recommend that as we go forward. But are there any other comments on site plan review? No? Do we have a, well, we do have the staff recommendation, but I think we should add something else to it about the engineer.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. If I could ask, are you looking for a certain amount to reduce water by a certain amount?

Okay.

We'll let him more or less do the site plan engineering. Okay. We're just, we need a little more confidence in it. Okay. Yep. i think we can go on to the architectural if you're comfortable with that that works for me it's okay

ryan new construction is common in clayton gardens with existing houses often replaced with larger ones the new home is proposed to be 27.2 feet tall the house to the north is similar in height and is two stories the house to the south is 12.5 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 410385.2. The structure would primarily comprise of gray brick with stone accents. The roof would be clad in light gray architectural asphalt shingles. A wood deck with a composite railing is proposed at the rear of the home. The existing asphalt driveway would be removed and replaced with an exposed aggregate driveway. The proposal meets the requirements of the R2 District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Staff requirement approval is submitted.

Okay, thank you. comments?

Yes. Once again, we basically, I think what will be the probably the biggest, well, two things really the largest improvement from the front yard view is dropping the house down so that we're, we're in between the two houses next door to us as far as height wise. And of course widening as we tried to wind out the front of the house and both to screen the backyard a little bit, and I think it looks more proportional on the site. But as far as comments you had made before, we did take a lot of the stone off that we had on the house. So it's mostly brick right now with some stone accents. I know in the... context elevation, the two houses that we're showing there don't have very much of any stone on them. Actually, I think on my phone, I have pictures of the houses across the street do have a fair amount of stone on them. So we just happen to be right next to the two that don't. But we will certainly not have more stone and we'll have less stone actually than the houses across the streets. We raised the roof. By dropping the house, we were able to raise the roof, the roof pitch, which I know was a comment made also.

I think it looks a lot better than when we saw it in August, I think it was. And thank you for raising the roof pitch. So we'll see a roof from the street level. Yes. Before, I thought it may actually look like a flat roof. The other thing, I like it with less stone, but also the changes seem to accentuate more corners on the building. There are lots of corners going around it. I think that may tend to make the facade look a little smaller than it would be if it were flat all the way around. Otherwise, I think it's pretty good looking. It's a large house. I certainly commend you for lowering the floor. We've had that problem in many other houses where you go up and then down. So it seems to work better. So I am okay with it material-wise and everything else. Bridgette?

I guess I like the dark roof better. Now, as I was telling Linda, if he hadn't have set it in a forest, and I know the landscape plan, yes, we are putting quite a number of trees behind there, but it'll be 30 years or 40 years until it looks like that kind of thing. So if he'd have shown the dark roof with a blue sky behind it, I think it would look great. Yeah.

Thanks.

Amy?

Yeah, I think it's definitely an improvement since last time. I really do appreciate the attention to the side elevations. We get a lot of just boxes that are flat across the sides. And so I do like the variations across the elevations, getting some depth in there. And I actually kind of like, I don't like a black roof, but I do like it a little bit darker so you can see like a contrast. It was my two cents, but I didn't know what, I didn't hear what you were planning to do for the roof.

I think we're going to go with a darker roof. To me, that just kind of looks kind of washed out. When I saw that rendering, I said, it kind of all washes together. We'll get some contrast

going. You can't really see the roof versus the brick. I really appreciate the attention paid to all the elevations and not just the front.

Jim? I was going to ask you... With this zigzag kind of at the corners, you know, where we kind of, we go in like 2.8 feet, then go two feet, then are like three feet in this direction or something like that. Can you kind of walk me through the thinking behind that or like architecturally what you were going for?

Essentially, the house has a lot of bays on it, just two-foot deep bays. And they go around the side. They meet at the corner 32 inches from each corner. And so it has just a lot of bay windows to it. And they continue on the right hand, even on the rear on the right-hand side too. So you just – it's a house of bays to it.

Okay, because I personally – thought it looked a little odd and then if we can go back up to the rendering where the roof meets especially in those corners um you see we almost have this like triple corner that kind of happens here and it just kind of creates a very awkward intersection um that i i personally don't find the most attractive i know this isn't necessarily all aesthetics but um I wish there was a way that that could be resolved a little bit. I do appreciate the house being sunken and not feeling as tall. I think the brick over the stone was a vast improvement. I know last time we had discussed the ratio of solids to voids, these doors and these windows do still seem a little tall to me and taking up a lot of space.

Part of that is, I guess what I was trying to express, the house is eight feet wider than before. So that really helped to give a little more solid to the winds that we had there.

I'm also not sure. I know last time, because this building was pressed all the way up against the front setback line, before there were these ballooning French balconies, and I know it was mentioned that those would extend beyond the setback line, not be allowed. These Juliet balconies, I don't know if, I mean, that's still a projection off the front. So I don't know. If that fits in where that would be allowed or if that's a problem too, with the building being all the way up against the front and rear setback. So that I'm not sure. I would also say, I guess it's, I mean, it's most likely this will come back obviously with site plan have yet to be reviewed. This picture that we have up on the screen is a lot more higher resolution and stuff that what we're getting so when we're looking. Before a meeting to kind of go through all this stuff like if if there's any way to get maybe a better rendering or if any of these plans, maybe slightly larger or anything I know for me personally it'd be helpful.

David. I don't have any questions or comments.

um. It looks like we have a hand up. Ryan, do you hear us?

Yeah, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yes,

we do. Hey, this is Ryan Holtzman, neighbor at 114 Topton Way. I just had a question regarding the pop-ups and runoff onto Topton. The ARB might remember I had brought this up when 118 was being built. So it looked, you know, I can see the elevations and obviously there's a, I guess on the south side, there's a valley to the north. southern neighbor um and i was just curious you know what it i couldn't see in the plans that were modified today put online where are those the pop-ups located and what's the i guess projected runoff onto topton some of the group might be aware of the current issues on topton with the water issues that msd is engaged in um So just trying to get a feel for what that's going to look like with another new property on the street or existing water issues into the street.

Well, Ryan, we did take a look at the site plan earlier. I don't know if you were in that discussion, but we've recommended that the engineer be here at a future meeting to answer all of those questions.

Perfect. And we'll get notified about that one.

Oh, yes. It'll be publicly notified.

Perfect. We'll save the questions for that meeting then. Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Jim, you brought up a comment about this rendering. When I compare it to what's on the screen, it's extended or stretched left and right. And it just doesn't seem to be I think we all like the rendering on the screen better than the printed one. And I would be careful with that in the future.

Okay. Well, it's a different rendering too. The shadows are applied differently. So, I mean, it's difficult when we come to these meetings and the materials that we've been given to consider our project, and then they're different when we get to the actual meeting.

It... Did you bring material samples previously? I don't recall. No, I didn't. Okay. So then the actual coloring of the brick and the roof, since you are coming back, I think we would like to see the actual samples of the brick. Is it natural or man-made stone and the roof?

You had asked that last time. Yes, it is a natural stone.

Okay. But if you could do that when the engineers are coming back, I doubt that we'll have a problem with it, but we're seeing two different renderings here. Correct. And by then you may find a medium gray shingle also that may bridge the difference between the black and the very light color.

I know that is a newer rendering because that one was based on when we had the house still up on the hump and you could see all the steps going up to it. And I remember commenting that, well, that'll get turned down if we come with that many steps. Yeah.

Well, I think it's come a long, long way. And here again, I know we have a staff recommendation to approve is submitted. But I think we still have some aesthetic concerns. We'd like to look at the coloring of the materials. So since you are coming back, I would suggest that we postpone this also. Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed? Okay. We'll look forward to seeing you in the very near future

and

get the site plan settled, and I don't think we'll have a problem with the architectural, but we'll look at the materials.

All right, sounds

good. Thanks very much.

up the video guy. Okay,

thank you. Jim, any further comments? No. Amy?

Richard?

David? Anna? Anna?

So the next meeting we have the sustainability intern from WashU is going to give a presentation on the research that she's been doing as part of our internship. So that will be in the next meeting. Good. Ryan?

Nothing else.

Nothing else.

Okay. Thanks, everyone. We are adjourned.