March 3, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for March 3rd, 2025. We'll start with the roll call. Steve Lichtenfeld. Here.

Bridget McAndrew.

Here.

Helen DiFate.

Helen DeFayette.

Here.

Jamie Wallman.

Here.

Jim Marston. Here.

David Gipson. Here. Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on February 18th. Are there any changes to it? Do we have a motion?

David Gibson. Here. Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on February 18th. Are there any changes to it? Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of February 18th, 2025. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you. We'll go to new business. Item number one has been requested by the applicant to move it to a future date. So I think we need to have a motion to that effect.

I'll make a motion to move 8182 Maryland Avenue architectural review signage to a date uncertain. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll move on to 30 Southmore, which is actually items two and three. And I know the applicants here, so you know what will happen.

The subject property is located on the north side of the southern intersection of Southmore Drive and Big Bend Boulevard. The property is zoned R1 and is developed with a single-family home, rear yard pool, concrete and brick parking area, and storage shed. The applicant would like to construct an accessory dwelling unit consisting of a garage and pool house. Accessory structures are common in Southmoor, often reflect the materials and character of primary structures. This structure will contain a one-car garage, a kitchen and great room, two bathrooms, a bedroom, living space, and screened porch. The lot coverage would increase from 39.4 to 48.4%. The calculated runoff in a 15-year, 20-minute storm event is presently 1.25 cubic feet per second and would increase to 1.34 cubic feet per second. A dry well would capture runoff from the roof via gutters and downspouts. The proposal meets the requirements of the R1 district, and materials have been selected to match the existing structures and paving on site. The existing fencing and landscape will largely screen the AU from view. Staff are of the opinion that the use and materials are compatible with the existing structure and surrounding area and recommend approval as submitted.

Okay, thank

you. Welcome back.

evening i'm lauren strutman and i'm here with my homeowner marilyn edison and uh we've been planning this for quite a while it's a all brick pool house uh the brick will match the house we have black architectural windows to match the house and you'll see in the pictures the house has kind of a unique screen porch on the main house with some black metal fretwork on the porch and we are matching that with this very small screen porch on the side of the pool house It's basically kind of a recreation area with a guest bedroom and a one-car garage. I realize we're not here for site plan review, but Eric Vietmeyer happens to be here anyway if someone had a question. The staff did not make us do a site plan review because of the small size and the land disturbance here. But we did do a tree study was requested and we're in compliance on that tree study. So I'm here to answer any questions or Marilyn can answer any questions that you have on the project. Thank you.

We read that it fits into all of the envelope requirements and it is an accessory dwelling unit. And of course, I'm sure you understand the requirements and restrictions on that. I don't know if you had any questions about that or... Okay, that's good. It does... really do not, it doesn't do much for the land disturbance at all, but it is really quite large. I went over and I peeked in the back, but I noticed that the house directly to your north has a very large unit also. So it really seems to fit in to that area quite well. As usual, Lauren, it's well-designed. I really don't have any problems with it, but I do have a question. We have photographs of the color samples here, which we've been seeing more and more recently. And of course, I think we usually request actual materials. Isn't that the case?

Yeah, we recommend it. But since this one was matching, they're just matching the existing house, we told her that we didn't think it was necessary for her to bring in samples.

Okay. I agree with that in this case. But I think on new construction and construction where it may differ, I think we should always uphold that we see the real materials.

I agree. Yeah. I actually asked Ryan at 11 o'clock in another meeting if I needed to bring the samples, and they said no, but we would always bring them for a new house or something different.

Thank you. Those were my only comments. Bridget?

I just had a question maybe for staff or Lauren. Maybe it says that there's a new, what is a neoplast drywall? I'm just curious, because as we kind of like go into new ways to manage stormwater, I'm just curious. Eric Diemeyer,

Bowles Engineering. The Nyloplast drywall is what I've used on every other project. It's a two-foot diameter standpipe that's fabric-wrapped, perforated, surrounded by rock. It's fabric-wrap prevents silt from migrating in and out. And it's maintainable. There's a cap on the top and the center. You can pull it off, get a shop vac hose or a vac truck to come out and suck out anything that happens to get in there. It's maintainable. That's the whole point.

I guess, does it always say Nyloplast? Maybe I'm... Yes.

On my plans, it's always Nyloplast. Okay. Maybe it's just

a usual... There's

a cheaper version called the NDS Flow Well that you can actually get off the shelf at Home Depot. But the only way to make it structurally sound is to add a standpipe in the middle, whereas this is already structural. You can park a loaded dump truck on top of this.

And then in terms of... And maybe this is where my question would be for you. We're starting to require people to do that soil sample with drywall, but that's not really indicated here. Just how do I, what is the difference?

If I may? Oh, yeah. Because site plan review is not specifically required for this project, this is purely a volunteer item. Got it. Ms. Edison wanted to include this just as a neighborly gesture. It's sized to accommodate the roof area of... the accessory unit, which is far in excess of the base increase. And we're not changing the direction of any flows. So this one, this is a special case. I believe I had it noted on the plans that, you know, this was a volunteer item. So hopefully that heads up. And I

should have realized, yes, because we're looking at architecture and it's not site plan, but usually yeah. With the drywall, we don't, I mean, that's very much appreciated on behalf of the homeowner to do that. So yeah, I guess that's it, Lauren. Yeah, I do think everything looks nice. So thank you. Thank you.

Ellen?

No questions. It looks good. Thank you.

Amy?

No questions for me, but yeah, it looks good. I really like the connection you made with the main residence.

Jim? No questions for me.

David? No questions. Okay. Of course, that was architectural review. We do have conditional use permit also. But architectural review, we have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

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

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Let's do conditional use. Moby?

The proposed ADU meets the size, the use and size requirements of the R1 district. The structure would not be permanently occupied, accommodates additional parking, and will be adequately screened by existing trees and fencing. Provided the structure is used in accordance with the requirements for ADU, staff are of the opinion that the structure will have minimal impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommend that this board approve the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. All conditions of Chapter 405, Article 2, Section 405.330 shall be adhered to. The applicant shall record a deed restriction pursuant to Item 3 under criteria for review and submit proof of the required deed restriction to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Okay. Any comment? No. It's pretty straightforward. I see no problem with it. It matches all the requirements. Are there any other comments? No. David?

I do have just a question, and I don't know if this would be for Ana or Bridget, but just from the CUP process on an ADU, I think in this case it's probably very clear this looks just like a guest bedroom type of thing. But especially since we're considering two of these today, in the situations of like Airbnbs, this number three on here, this keeps this structure from being... rented out separate than the actual house, right? Because it says an ADU may not be rented, sold, transferred, or assigned separately from the principal residence.

Right. That's correct. And Airbnbs are not allowed in Clayton either.

Got it. I just know there is a similar situation like this in the neighborhood and there were a lot of questions that came up and I just wanted to try and clarify that before going on. But like I said, especially in this case, I think it's pretty clear.

Any comments from the audience? Did we have anyone online? Megan? But no hand up. Okay. We do have the two conditions for approval to send the CUP to the Board of Aldermen. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of that all conditions of Chapter 405, Article 2, Section 405.330 shall be adhered to, and secondly, that the applicant shall record a deed restriction pursuant to Item 3 under the criteria for review and submit proof of the required deed restriction to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Will this be on the next Board of Aldermen meeting?

No, it's on the 2nd or March 20th. We'll send you an email tomorrow with our normal.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to items 4, 5, and 6, and that's 30 Southmore Drive. Oh, you're here again, Eric.

Yes. Good evening. Eric Vietmeyer, Vols Engineering. We're the engineers of record for the civil portion of this project.

Hold on. We're going

to start with this. Sorry. Getting ahead of myself.

We'll start with the site plan review.

Subject property is located on the south side of Westmoreland Avenue, just east of the street's intersection with Hanley Road. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a single-family home. The applicant is seeking to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single-family home with a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit. The project meets the setback height and impervious coverage requirements of the R2 zoning district. HVAC units are proposed in the rear yard with landscaping of screening. The trash enclosure is proposed adjacent to the east side of the garage. Coverage would increase from 48.7% to 52.1%. The total existing stormwater runoff according to an MSD 15-year 20-minute storm calculation is 0.46 cubic feet per second. The proposed runoff is 0.51 cubic feet per second, which represents a 0.05 increase. Now I'm going to pause in the middle of my normal notes that I read through to show you guys the runoff page and explain that, and then I'll continue on with my notes as I normally do. So I'd like to include these color-coded runoff pages to sort of better explain how the runoff is changing between the proposed conditions, or so the existing and the proposed conditions. The runoff areas are basically the colors that they're associated with. So this one on the south of the property, this red one, it's the only one that is proposed to increase, and that goes back towards the rear alley in both conditions. The yellow portion here decreasing going to the west property and that water actually tends to kind of flow kind of in a diagonal towards the street. And then the blue kind of is broken up into several different pieces. There's a drain in a portion of the rear yard that is piped to a pop-up in the front. And then there are gutters and downspouts from the rear garage that are also piped to that pop-up in front yard. And then there is a new drainage area that is created from the roof, and that goes to a drywall located in the front yard that has the pop-up emitter also located in the frontyard. And that is likely that water that's discharged from that pop-up would likely sort of cross in a diagonal over the neighboring front yard towards the street. Continuing on with the notes. Staff are of the opinion that upon verification of the effectiveness of the dry well by a soils percolation test, that the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient. The view chart does not properly reflect the landscape plan as it retains a neighboring tree and does not reflect the total canopy coverage of the landscape plan. Staff calculate a 1,430 square foot canopy coverage deficiency, which would require an $858 contribution to the city's forestry fund. The city's contracted landscape architect has concern that this concentration of activity in the rear yard is likely to fail in preserving the neighbor's landmark tree. Additionally, the proposal crowds trees throughout the site, limiting their longevity and reducing the utility of the rear yard space. Staff are of the opinion that modifications to the site and landscape plan could result in a more practical space and tree longevity. Additionally, staff would note that although a reduction in trees on-site would increase the forestry fund fee, it would likely result in a more usable rear yard space. Staff are of the opinion that the application for site plan review be continued to a later unspecified meeting date to allow the applicant to consider the following landscape revisions. One, to revise the tree chart to only reflect on-site trees. And two, to revise the Tree and Landscape Plan to reduce tree crowding and remove impacts to neighboring trees.

Okay. Eric Vietmeyer, Volves Engineering, the engineers for the project. I first want to point out that one of the ways that we already reduced the impact to the neighboring tree was we mirrored the house. Originally where there is just a patio, there was foundation going in there. So we did flip the house to help protect the neighbor's tree. But if part of the concern is the landscaping that's going on in there, that is beyond my purview, I'm not qualified to speak on that behalf. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, one of the first one, I defer to Bridget.

Yeah, Eric, I live on Westmoreland. And I think actually the homeowner who owns the tree is online and has raised her hand. Okay. They already have concerns about the tree because it goes over their home. So they would like to work with the property owner to try to remove the tree. So I'll let Megan's raised her hand. So maybe I'll let her speak to that.

Sure. Hello. Yep. We hear you. Hi. Um, yeah, so we have talked to a, um, arborist about that tree and he said that it would be very difficult even under the best circumstances to keep the tree from dying because of, um, just like the construction going on back there. And, um, Once the house is built next to us, the tree will be very impossible to move just due to the size of it. And so we would like to work with the builder to remove the tree so that it doesn't become a problem and die and then become very difficult to remove.

I can definitely pass that along to the developer, my client. It may make it easier for them during construction if that tree is already gone. So I, for one, think that's worth exploring, but it's not my checkbook.

Megan, can you just state your name and address for the record?

Yeah. My name is Megan Burks and I live at 7634 Westmoreland Avenue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, would removal of that tree help alleviate some of the other questions on behalf of the city's landscaper?

The landscape architect had general concerns with the crowding of trees on site. And so my interpretation of what the landscape architect was trying to say was that, you know, the trees on site, they'd be likely to live longer if maybe the number of trees was reduced. Obviously that's up to the applicant because that's a higher fee paid to the forestry fund. If it results in more usable rear yard space and longevity of those trees, I'm in support of them reducing the number of trees on site. So I leave that up to the applicant, but that does resolve the concerns with the neighboring tree.

I will present all this to the applicant.

Eric, can you make sure that they reach out to the homeowner? I can only tell them. No, I mean, can you just pass on that information? Yes. As

soon as I sit down, I'm going to make some notes, and I will let them know in the morning. Okay.

Okay. Going beyond the tree, I have a couple questions on the proposed drainage area map. Mm-hmm. All of the downspouts from the accessory dwelling unit in the back will be coming to the front

of the house. Yes, out to the front street, correct. That was to help reduce the amount of water going to the alley. We already have an increase going to the alley, but instead of having a large increase, since we had a reduction going out to Westmoreland, pipe the accessory structure out to Westmoreland. And we still have a reduction in runoff going there.

Okay. That makes sense. It's just a long route.

It is. Yeah, there's a lot of pipe in there. Just the way everything was laid out when I first started looking at the drainage, I wanted to hit my head on my desk. But I sharpened my pencil and came up with what I thought was the most advantageous design to effectively manage the water while being cognizant and respective of the neighbor's properties.

So there are two pop-ups in the front, correct? One in the blue and one in the

yellow. Well, the one in the yellow is from the roof, from the drywall. So the yellow itself is just sheet flow that is going to Megan's property and then out towards the street as crossing her property. The drywall just happened to be in a spot where it's discharged is in that yellow area.

That's all the questions I had, I believe. We already did the trees.

Eric, which is the sump pump connected to?

Sump pump is going to the downspout piping so it goes to the dry well.

Richard, any further questions?

Um, no, just, I mean, Eric, just a reminder. So does the dry well, um, again, we'll like percolate the water once. Is that, I mean, just so correct.

Uh, I mean, This set of plans actually predates one of the last times I was here when we were talking about this and coming up with that new solution. So I don't have any notes on the plans about that. Those notes can be added as part of the permit process. But again, yes, once they're getting ready to start construction on that, that's when they could do a percolation test to see if the soils are suitable for this specific volume or if a geotechnical engineer says, let's put some more space here.

so the dry, so then a lot of the water then gets pumped out. There's two, the dry well in the front and I'm sorry, I'm repeating, but just, you know, I'm just like, it's almost right across the street from me. So, um, so we've got water coming out the front. Is it still, um, slope down pretty much in the front? I mean, like the neighboring properties all sloped down. So will it be very similar? Okay.

Correct. It's going to be very similar to what it is right now. Okay. One thing I want to point out, our differential is 0.05 CFS. Our roof is 0.14 CFS. and it is sized to handle that whole volume. So whether or not there's additional volume because of soils, it's sized to handle more runoff than what our differential is, assuming that it's dry.

Okay. And then the other, then there's a pop-up in the back, it looks like, right? Is that the one on the right that goes into the blue, like the right side? Is that... Right, that circle right there. So is that another pop-up then? Is that that circle?

Oh, that's an inlet so that the backyard can drain.

The

backyard was just going to be so flat. I had to add an inlet and that pipes around to the front with the downspouts from the accessory structure.

So an inlet, so that's actually a drain and then that goes...

That goes out to the front yard. The

front again. Okay. And then the other two go either side of the garage and go out to the alley, and that's where the increase is? Correct.

Thank you. My pleasure. Ellen?

No questions. All of mine have been asked and answered. So thank

you.

Amy?

No questions either.

Jim? I have a question regarding trees, which I know you can't answer, but I don't know if anyone can answer it. But in the report, one of the things, one of the mentions is that a tree on here is a 19-inch street tree that would be removed. And I guess I didn't understand how a private development here can go in and remove a street tree that's, I guess, wouldn't technically be on the property or why it would need to be removed in this case. But I...

Street trees are removed all the time under permits, but I had the same question. Why does this tree need to be removed? It was something from the arborist. The arborist was the one that said we need to take this tree down, so I plan on just to be removed. Otherwise, I don't have a full answer for you, Jim. Sorry.

I didn't expect you to, but it's mentioned just because as far as – the landscape plan that Clayton generated, that this is one of the trees that they mentioned, you know, oh, maybe there's something that should be done to save this tree. So clearly, you know, someone else has said it needs to be removed, but we don't necessarily have an understanding of why that would need to be removed or if it needed to be removed.

I think the arborist may have been concerned about degrading on-site, outside of the right-of-way. Not a whole lot of grade change is happening around that street tree, but once you get on the other side of the property line, there's some grade change, and perhaps they were concerned about the survivability and longevity of the tree. Normally, if I'm saying a street tree needs to come down, it's because that's where we're putting the new driveway, and they're going to plant a new street tree. I'm not sure that you really saw right. I didn't study the new landscape plan, so I don't know what's going on with any new street trees.

Did that answer your question, Jim? Not particularly, but

I didn't expect Eric to be able to answer the question either. But it was more just kind of throwing out to ether is something that it's something that piqued my interest. And it definitely seems like the city in his report has called out problems with the landscape plan. And then we don't have necessary. I, you know. I don't have any issues necessarily with the drainage plan, and that's what...

Mine's trying to figure out which tree it is on the tree schedule. It's number three. Number three? Very conditioned, but doesn't say why it needs to come down.

Yeah, that's the comments on the right-hand side. So they're saying that there was minor deadwood and bark issues. So our... When we look at these, Clayton has its own arborist that also marks our street tree health and replacement and determines new ones. Public Works didn't trigger any sort of alert to this plan for this one. We can go back and make sure that they noticed that the street tree was being removed and confirm that they're okay with that before we move forward though.

And then tree protection would go around it, Anna, if they decide to

If they decided that we wanted to save it, then yes, tree protection requirements would be added. They are also on the site plan. Looks like there isn't significant grading. They're removing a couple of trees that are located in what would be probably the protected zone. So we'll make sure that our city arborist has also taken a look at this before and can provide an update when the item comes back.

So shall those comments be included in the staff recommendation?

Sure, you

can include it. Will this come back though regardless because of the landscape changes?

It will come if you make a motion to that effect then yes.

David, did you have any comments? I do not. Okay, well going back we do have a recommendation to continue to a later date to allow the applicant to consider the following issues that we've already read into the record. Anyone have a problem with that at this point? No? Or anyone in the audience? Come on up. Yeah. So

my only thought was just for not having to have the civil engineer back, if we're OK with the drainage, I guess we had some feeling on that and it sounded like it was just a tree issue as far as come back you just need a landscape architect really to show up and explain what they're doing or make changes that kind of

thing. I'm comfortable with that that we reduce it only to the tree issues that are already in here. Okay, saves me an evening. We have a motion.

I'll make a motion to continue the site plan review for a later date to allow the applicant to revise the tree chart to only reflect on-site trees and then revise the tree and landscape plan to reduce the tree crowding.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Eric. All right. Thank you. Always like getting the drainage approved. We'll go on to the architectural review next.

Homes on Westmoreland vary in style and massing with homes ranging from one and a half to two and a half stories. New construction in the surrounding area is less common than some other neighborhoods of Clayton, but it's still present. The home features a unique design compared to its immediate neighbors, but retains neighborhood characteristics such as a half-story, the use of dormers and gables, grill windows and stone surrounding windows and doors. The home has a half-story above the second floor, which is present on this block of Westmoreland. The half-story is minimally visible from the front and would likely have a minimal visual impact on the massing of the structure. A roof terrace is proposed at the rear of the structure, utilizing rooftops for gathering spaces and effective and creative way to use space in dense neighborhoods. The terrace blends to the rear of the home, limiting its visibility and taking advantage of use of downtown Clayton. The new home would comprise of white brick with stucco on the side and rear dormers and gables, sorry, and box space. Stone accents would surround the front door and front windows. Copper gutters and downspouts are proposed. The rear garage would mirror this material configuration. Exposed aggregate is proposed for the front entry path, rear pad go, and rear driveway. A composite material is proposed for the trash enclosure. Composite materials vary and the applicant has not specified which material has been chosen. Staff are of the opinion that the composite should reflect a wood texture in order to comply with the architectural review guidelines. Staff are of opinion that the design and materials, with the exception of the trash enclosure, are compatible with the architectural review guidance and surrounding area. Staff recommend approval with the condition that the composite trash enclosure shall have a wood texture. Okay, thank you.

Mike Thompson. I'm in the Thompson Design Group. I'm the architect for the project. As you can see the rendering and what we're trying to do with it, is there any questions?

Well, the first thing, the rendering, I think, is reversed from what you're proposing. Is that true?

Yes. It was probably done before... before the house was flipped in order to save, in order to save the large tree that's not going to be there. But yes, yes it is.

Okay. Well, as far as architectural review goes, it looks pretty good. I think it will fit into the neighborhood quite well. There's a lot of diversity on that side of the street. But when we look at the context drawing on A4, even though the house appears larger, I think it'll fit in fine, especially with all the landscaping that is in the neighbors and, of course, in the coming house um the materials let's see did we have pictures of the materials on this

uh i'm not other other than just a rendering i don't have anything yeah so it's just a white brick and and the stones around

is that a painted brick no natural white

natural yeah

I really have no problem with it on the architectural review. I think it looks good. Bridget?

Yeah, I think it looks nice. It reminds me of a – did you design a house on University recently that looks similar to this, like with the white? Yeah.

Yeah, and University one has a little swoop to it.

Yeah, a little bit more

of a curve. Not the little doghouse in the front, but yeah. Right, right.

Yeah, I like it. I mean, as Steve mentioned, there's a very diverse housing stock on the street. It is a little taller than the other houses. The house to the west has a lot of trees on the left side, so I don't feel like you notice the roof line as much. And then the house to the east feels very tall. So it is kind of surprising to me that this house will be even taller than that. But I know it's only by a couple of feet, but yeah. um yeah i mean i i believe i like the materials a lot um i think it looks very attractive from the front so thank you

ellen

i agree i think it'll look good my only question is could the right elevation be simplified a bit It's got three bays going on. It just seems very busy compared with the left elevation.

I was trying to think of which one we would eliminate. On the one hand, we do have to have a window out of the bedroom, so we can't do the front one. And the middle one, of course, is the stairway getting up there to that top floor. And, of course, the back one is the shower area and the master bath. Yeah. Not sure which one we would eliminate, put it this way. So just off the top of my head.

What about the one for the fireplace on the first floor? Oh,

as far as, I mean, we wouldn't have to. I mean, we stick that fireplace usually out of 12 inches or we've done that on some other plans. It wouldn't have to stick out necessarily. Yes, it could push into the house and you would have brick and

The two elevations, look, you'll never see them together.

Right.

But walking down the street, you see one after the other, you know, one and then the front and then the other one. And the simpler one just looks so good. And the other one just looks chaotic.

Oh, okay. I mean, the fire, yeah, that would be a simple thing we could do is push the fireplace in.

Yeah, I think that would help. You don't show a roof plan. I trust that you've worked that out. This is a complex roof.

Yes, that's why I'm smiling as you said that. Yes, I have worked it out. It is a complex roof, yeah.

Now, other than that, I think it looks fine.

Kami?

I just had, well, completely disagree. I like the interest that you have on the right side. A lot of these newer builds, we just get kind of straight shot back cube. So I do like the interest that the right elevation has. I made you agree with maybe eliminating the chimney, but I like that you actually paid some detail to the right and left facade. I did have a question for staff real quick about how height you know, limitations are put on these houses. Can you remind me how that's figured?

Yes, it's from average existing grade to the mean slope of the roof. So with the roof slope here, they're able to have a half story underneath.

Is that just based on like all the houses?

No, it's based on the mean of the main slope of this proposed roof.

But like, how do you, you know, for example, you know, it's six foot different than the one on the left and what? Just under three on the right. But if they were shorter homes, like you would have had to bring this one down? No.

No. In the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, we do have height mitigation strategies and deploying one of those is part of the requirement of that urban design district. But outside of that, we don't have any requirement of height that's based on the height of any neighboring structures. Okay.

And we had just... We have seven-foot side yards on this house. Just going into it, we usually do end up taller than our neighbors. It's kind of a normal thing that happens. No,

and I hear you. I'm just... Well, just because the one to the right is a new build, right? So I'm just like, can these houses just keep getting bigger and bigger and

bigger? As long as the maximum height meets our R2 requirements, they can go up to that. So that's what this one... So the... I'm trying to read what they were saying. Yeah, so they're at 30 feet based on their overall slope. So the... So they've like maxed

out the height. Right. Okay. So it doesn't really depend on the neighbors of that street. Okay. Yeah, I mean, because I mean, clearly you thought that, you know, fit in the requirements. It's just interesting that the house to the right is a new build. You know, usually if it's an older home, like you give grace a little bit because it's a smaller, you know... shorter home, but I guess you fit in that requirement. So, but that was really just kind of my concern, but I think it looks pretty, I think your material and the architecture looks good.

Thank you. Jim? I wouldn't say overall, I think the house looks good. So I don't have any major problems looks wise where my concerns are more is just the The rendering not matching the drawings. And then there's a third image that then has existed online since mid-January that they're marketing the house with, which actually your description of Alexander earlier, I have a feeling they just put that rendering up. So there's another drawing out there than what it could possibly be. And I guess my concern is just when we were here discussing another house just a couple months ago, there was a lot of discussion as far as the rendering matching, the rendering and the materials matching the actual house and giving us materials and stuff to look at. And then here tonight, we don't necessarily have materials to look at. We have a rendering that doesn't match the plans. And I guess just on some level, I ask myself, it's like, how far do we get? how far do we feel comfortable getting away from what we have in front of us, not matching before we say like, okay, this is still good to go by, but this is a degree too far. Um, I don't know. It just doesn't, I think, I think it's just very reasonable to ask to have an accurate rendering, to be able to make this decision and to have, especially in a new construction, to have the materials here to make that decision.

Oh, you're finished? Okay. David?

I would agree with that, but I don't have any additional comments.

I would also agree with Jim's comments. However, this one, of course, is pretty black and white that we're looking at. It's really

just a flip, yeah. There would be no other changes other than just flip it

over. But I do think, as we've discussed earlier, and several people are in agreement, that we should see the materials as we proceed through it. You will be coming back, so I would suggest that we take a look at those materials at the date in the future.

Steve, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask, and I feel like I should, when I read the staff report, I guess three and a half feet is different to me than I guess then the context drawing says seven feet taller than the house to the east.

So on their context drawing, they marked the midpoints and the peaks of the roof. So that's where, but the slope of the roof, you get some differences depending on what type of roof is on when you look at comparing the tops, the peaks of the roofs than just the mean slopes. So I think that's a piece that we've talked about recently in a lot of other elements and with our overlay discussions about how we define height and something that we'll be looking at potentially changing in the future. But that's where the staff report called out a number that was based on the difference between the midpoint or the mean for the roofs.

Part of what you don't also get in a 2D version is, as our roof is quite a bit bigger than the one to the left, Therefore, the peak is quite a bit further back from the street. So there's that happening too, which I think is why the city goes to the mean height because that is more in line.

Right. And maybe this too goes... like kind of goes with Jim. Cause on this, again, I know that we're the rendering and again, this is not my professional background, but so we're talking about seven feet. What key? I understand that this part of the roof is further back. So then what is seven feet? Like where are we measuring? So back here is seven feet taller than the neighboring

property of the six foot nine inches. I mean, yes, yes. It would be the actual peak. of the house to the left, which that peak is closer to the street to our peak back there. In other words, if you're walking past the house, it'd be very difficult to see that because you're looking up at an angle and the peaks don't line up. But yes, if you look at it in 2D, if you were standing 30 feet in the air, yes, you would see that difference

there. And this focal point is actually on this side now, right? Is that Which image is correct again? This one or this one?

The one on the plans is correct. This was done before the...

Yeah, that's the one that's correct.

We originally had the house this way and because of the large tree there, the city asked us to flip it over so that's why it got flipped and I apologize. The rendering, I guess, did not get flipped.

So the peak from, I guess, above that window, like the half story, that's really the one that's going to be... Like I, that is one that's going to feel not quite as tall, I guess, because it's closer to the street. I mean, right.

Well, actually, the peaked. They will not change, but the top ridge of the roof that is further back right will appear foreshortened right so it will look lower in fact uh on the rendering it looks lower

right it does because um

that's it's not a 3d but it's not a 2d as on the context strong right so i think we'll see the peaks standing up more prominently than the gables, rather than the actual height of the roof.

It fades away from him.

And we've seen that before. We've had comments that sometimes a very low slope roof disappears because it's foreshortened when you're looking at it from the street. But here we have a pretty high roof 12 by

12. 12, 12 is the pitch going away from you. And the gables are actually 18 and 12. So very

steep.

What is the height of that gable?

That's above 30 feet.

It is. Well, it's a couple of feet short. If I remember, it's about two feet shorter than the peak of the roof. So it's to the peak of the gable. is probably about 32 feet, something like that.

So does that not matter? Because that's the complete front facade of the building. Not the

way that we measure and define height right now.

Okay.

And if the interesting thing about that just expand upon that if you if you did the median height of the gable or probably only 28 feet tall. that's why it's the median height of. The actual bigger roof is what we did so.

I know, but when you I mean roof, you know slants back and everything but like that is like your front facade that you will see that you know completely when comparing to the other one.

That will be in line with the other houses.

So just so I understand that the mid height of the roof is like where it's the it starts

is that If you look at the side elevation, it's probably the easiest. So the majority of the roof, and I might recommend bringing your roof plan or providing your roof plan for the next meeting for them to look at in advance. So the main roof, majority of the roof not any projections or dormers or anything is what the height is measured based on. So if you look at the elevation where Ryan has his mouse on the screen right now that slope area we find the mid of that slope And then from that point, you come out and measure the distance from that midpoint down to the average existing grade. So you can see on this elevation there, he does have a couple of other roof lines that have slightly different slopes for the projections or for the dormer area for that half story. But we measure the height based off of the main roof portion.

Got it. So that I mean, so this is a really a full three story home. Right?

Well, yeah. So there is a third story over most of it. Yes.

Are there any other three story homes on that street?

There are other homes that have third stories. The other, the other element in our code right now that we don't restrict that some communities do. So with us, the half stories, because the majority of that roof is, or the majority of that third floor is under a sloped roof. Some communities go so far as to actually define the percentage of livable space based on the interior floor to ceiling height. That would constitute a half story if you're below 50% or whatever percentage that they have defined to be under a sloped roof. We don't go that far. We just say here's the maximum height and half stories are permitted in certain districts.

Yeah, I just think it's visually with that front facade being over that 30 feet with that. I don't know. I just think it does stand out.

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I mean, I think, you know, I do think it's an attractive house, but I am worried because I think, as Kim, you mentioned, you've got two new homes on either side, you know, that are already, you know, because again, normally we're looking at older homes where, you know, the ceiling heights are different. And I think it's an home, but yeah, I would certainly love to see it just be a two-story home, but I'm understanding of what we're kind of limited by so because I just hope as an architect you're mindful of you know surrounding areas and making sure this house isn't kind of looming over the other ones so.

Well, what I was trying to do, as you can see, mostly had to do with the house on the left there. Our gutter lines, actually, I think the gutter line of our house is actually slightly lower than that house, maybe six inches or so, not a whole lot. I see that, yeah. But kind of felt like, you know, that kind of would make it feel like that house. Yes, as you get far away, the peak gets up there pretty high, but... And another and a couple of gables, which the other house doesn't have, yes. We're kind of matching as far as window heights and gutter line and that type of thing.

Yeah, and I'm just always, I mean, it's not a big lot. So I'm always amazed at how these houses squeeze onto

these. Yeah, I think that's worth mentioning in this whole discussion. And like I said, I don't have a problem architecturally, largely overall, but this lot is 8,001 square feet that comes to 0.184 acres. And The plan shows six bedrooms, multiple game rooms. We're talking multi-story garage. We're talking about party deck on the roof and everything like that. And at some point is, you know, I understand, like, I guess this is where David would say like, oh, if it's in our two, it's in our too. But, you know, at some point it does, you know, start to see, it feels like a little much. I

agree. Well, and I think the house to the right of it, probably, you know, they did step down the home to, you know, take into consideration the existing home. Right. And I just don't think this one does that at all. Like with respect to the homes on either side.

You have a, does anyone have a problem going forward with this architectural design? you know, we've talked about the appearance, the materials, the massing of it, which apparently fits within the envelope that it can.

Yeah, I mean, that's where I struggle. I mean, I just, I understand that it fits in the code. I just, this is where I just, I just want there to be some appreciation for, again, the massing. You know, I'm I know we're going to consider this in our master planning and we're considering it now, but I just, this is a large home on a not very big lot so. I wish it was smaller, so I wish it appeared smaller I wish it was mass less but we're somewhat you know our hands are tied so.

I do think from a precedent standpoint, since we're already going to be coming back on the other thing, I think it'd be worth continuing it to see materials. I would just hate to go two months in the future or something like that and have another new home in a different part of the city and have us tell them like, we have to send this away because we don't have materials. And they're like, well, that one back in March didn't have any materials and you said it was okay. At some point, I think packet lays out very clearly the things that are asked of applicants and you know one of those things is bringing materials and especially for new construction i i just think that since we're already continuing the other part it's not necessarily putting anyone out to have to come back to see that in the future i

think we're getting into the context of this particular home within the neighborhood itself uh Apparently, I think we feel the materials and the style fit into the neighborhood. But maybe we're having a little problem with the massing of it, that it may be too big in the context of the other homes in the neighborhood. Now, the homes on the south side of the street appear to have narrower property widths than on the north side of the street. And that's from walking and driving along the street where we do have some larger homes on the north side, but not on the south side. So I, Jim, I think your suggestion is correct. Since we are going to revisit certain items that we give it a little more thought and come back. And I would recommend that we continue this item, the architectural review also to the next point.

I'll make

i was looking for a

comment um i i appreciate that i think it would be nice to give it a little bit more thought so

okay any other comments of course we do have in there about the wood texture on the trash enclosure but we can deal with that uh the next time but i think we should um continue it to a future date also.

I will make a motion to continue the architectural review portion to a future date. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. We do have one other item, and that is the conditional use permit And before we go through with that, I would think that we should postpone it to the future also so that we look at the entire package.

Okay.

I will make a motion to continue the conditional use permit portion to a future date. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll look forward to seeing you in the near future.

Okay. Sounds

good. Thank you. Thanks. Ryan, should we hold on to all the drawings? Okay. Everyone hear that? We'll save a little paper.

Great.

Okay. Jim, any further comments?

Yeah, I just have one quick question. And with this ADU in this case, and this just might be language, but you know, we would have been considering a conditional use permit. Can Can we, is there like a way to do that for a speculative development? Because we have absolutely no idea how this building is going to be used. And like I said, I don't know if I'm just getting tripped up on verbiage there or just because it's an outbuilding, it has to go through the CUP process and I haven't been here for us to do that type of thing, like that that's considered normal or, you know, are we approving, you know, let's just say a future use for something that we have absolutely no

Well, the regulations limit the use of that ADU. I think that goes with the property and not with the individual purchaser in the future. So the way I see it is we're pretty well protected now.

Yeah, so part of how it triggers a requirement for an accessory dwelling unit, they are creating the definition of one by providing all those different living elements. So the conditional use permit will be issued in N&D. When they sell the house, they'll have to transfer the conditional use permit to the new ownership. And part of that, I believe, still is the requirement of the deed recording. So there will be a deed recording that just reiterates all of the restrictions that already apply. So I understand what you're saying about we don't really know the intent of the use, but the way our process is set up right now, it doesn't really matter how they intend to use it. They have to have these conditions met.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the use the approved uses are tight enough that it's not necessarily worrisome what it's going to be used for because the allowable uses are small enough that we feel well insulated from that.

Right, and with the CUP and the deed recording, that's how we try to ensure that any future owners who might not have been involved in the original approval process become aware of the restrictions on this. moving

forward. And were there any architectural drawings of this garage? Because I didn't see them in my... Yes. Okay, I might have just missed them because I was looking through for them and I didn't necessarily see them and I was like... I figured there had to be something that I was missing too because I was like, I don't know how you can consider something that you don't necessarily see. Well, you'll have another

chance.

I'll have at least a couple weeks to

seek that out. A rendering of that would be helpful too. If they could provide that for the next meeting.

Yeah, and also if you don't want to hold your packets for these items, you can give them back to us and we'll just put them back in your packet again for the next one. But I do appreciate that, Jim, because I know Ryan has been trying very hard to get certain information out of some of our applicants who repeatedly fail to provide that to him. And so we get to a certain point where then we need you to also kind of lay the hammer down on what those requirements are. So just thank you for that.

Yeah, and I think it is unusual, Jim, though, to have an ADU with a new house because a lot of times new houses have attached garages. So it's a little bit more unusual.

Yeah, well, and on some level, I understand. It's like we're not here necessarily. New development isn't necessarily a bad thing. But in this case, once again, when they have six listed bedrooms, two game rooms, all kinds of stuff, and they're listing this house for $2.8 million, you know how much white space do we give a developer to up their profits type of thing and just you know tacking an adu on top of it it's like you know well i don't know what else we gotta throw in it's like it's at some point there's clearly going to be a tipping point i don't know if and obviously the case in this because overall it does look like a fairly attractive home you know it it it doesn't necessarily cross that line but clearly it just inches us closer to that line of a future time where we're like oh you know okay so it's you know i just there are things to consider now while we have this one in front of us but nothing further thank you hey camy

nothing further

ellen

nothing further

richard

nothing further

david Well, we have a quorum on the 17th.

Oh, I won't be here. Spring

break, so I don't know how many people are out.

I will be out. I won't either. I'll

be in Kentucky and I can zoom in if I need to, but I didn't know how many were out with spring break.

I mean, I'll be in Mexico. Yeah, I'll be there. I'll be there in Mexico, so I don' t know.

Okay. Spring break's a tough week. We have other things that are expected or advertised?

We do. There's a couple items on that agenda. There's two, if I recall right now.

Yeah, well, it looks like we don't know Bob's status. We'll have to follow up with him to determine if we have a quorum. If I

need to jump on Zoom, I can.

Yeah, we'll follow up.

I will be here, so I can't take it on myself.

Okay.

Okay, so if Bob is here, you would have a quorum.

Yeah, are you here, Kimmy? No, you're gone. No, really, if Bob is here and David jumps on, so probably not. We'll follow up tomorrow and see what the agenda items were, but likely that will need to change.

Ryan, any further comments? Nothing else.

Toby. Yes. So wanted to just put a few dates on your radar and I'll follow up with an email for both of these. But we do have on Friday, March 21st is the Board of Aldermen's discussion session, which I realize some of you also might be gone for the same reason. But on that, we had an update scheduled for residential lot coverage. I've been speaking with Tim from Intuition and Logic, who does our SWIP reviews and is one of our on-call contractors for engineering services. And he's helping us with our stormwater and lot coverage updates. And he is likely going to come to that meeting and provide a little bit of stormwater 101, which I know we've discussed doing with this board, and do some kind of answer kind of a top five questions of what he's helping us with and a little question answer. So I wanted to invite you all to also join that, that meeting is a virtual as well and will be recorded. So if you aren't able to attend, you could watch it back, but that will be three on March 21st. And then also on Tuesday, March 25th at the regular Board of Aldermen meeting, we have the annual report that Ryan took you through at the last meeting that will be updated for the Board of Aldermens. Again, you're not required to be there, but you're welcome to attend if you would like.

Okay, thank you. Stephanie? No words of wisdom? No. Okay. Well, some of you will be here in two weeks. Otherwise, we'll see the rest of you next month. So thank you. We're adjourned.