June 2, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB meeting for June 2nd, 2025. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Denlow? Here. Helen DeFay?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Denlo? Here. Helen DeFay?

Jim Arsenault?

We have minutes from the previous meeting on May 5th. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion? I move to approve said minutes.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll start off with old business. The first one is 63 Arundel Place and is the applicant here? Okay, we'll start with the staff report.

The project was originally proposed at the May 5th meeting. It was continued to allow the applicant to present material samples. The applicant would like to install cedar shake shingle siding, which is not administratively approvable material. Cedar shake shingles are uncommon, but siding is a common material nearby and does not resemble any prohibited materials. Additionally, the garage would have little to no visibility from the street. Staff are of the opinion that the material would have a minimal visual impact and recommend approval submitted.

Would you like to come up and add anything? No, please come up to the microphone.

of the alley as well to help you all visualize it. I don't know if you're going to see those, but that's our architectural drawing. Okay, so as Ryan said, we would like to use cedar shingles as the main exterior siding material. So our garage is on the alleyway that is between Arundel and Aberdeen, and then it's east of University and west of DeMime. So we have a design for this. We have received approval from the Hillcrest Board of Trustees for it. As Ryan mentioned, the garage is not visible from the street. In terms of the view from the alleyway, I was hoping to show you some of these photos I had sent. The cedar shingles align with the, okay, here's a bunch of photos that I took just walking down the alleyway, with the alley's existing character and aesthetics. So the garages along the alleyway are constructed from a variety of materials, including brick, but at least two of those just on our block of those brick ones have been painted white. There are garages that are made from stucco. There are garges that are made from synthetic siding. So that establishes a precedent for material diversity. The other thing about this block is that it's made up of older homes from the early 20th century. So it's really very well known for its natural landscaping, sort of the canopy of mature trees. Unfortunately, the recent tornado took a lot of those trees out, including on our block. which creates, in our view, a greater need for softening and natural elements. The use of cedar shingles helps kind of enhance this sense of organic warmth, which is in continuity with our block's character. The most common fencing along the alley is wood, and I think the majority of those wood fences are cedar, so I think that further supports the use of this material. Cedar weathers very beautifully. It gradually adopts a silvery tone, which really harmonizes with the natural environment and the built environment. And then just in terms of a few other questions that came up last time, we will be constructing a garage door and a roof using very conservative materials and colors. We sent a photo of our neighbor's door, which we will match. I brought some roofing samples, which are gonna be closely matched to the roof on our house. And there was a little confusion because the cedar shingle itself, which I brought with me is 16 inches long. That actually confused me at first too, but that is standard. The way that cedar shingles are installed is that they use an overlapping method where between five and seven inches are exposed. And that's basically the accepted approach. And it ensures durability and weather resistance. And then also that sort of traditional textured material that's associated with cedar. So I brought one shingle, but I also brought a picture from the supplier that we're going to buy the shingles from where you can see how those longer shingles are layered to get that smaller look that we're all more familiar with.

if you would bring the samples up so you can speak into the microphone and everyone can see it.

So this is an example. It has a little glue on it because we were going to try to make a presentation where you could see how they layer, but that is not my forte. This is an example of one of the shingles. And this is a picture from the supplier where you can in a way that makes them look smaller the way they're used to.

Larissa, is there a front and back to that shingle?

There is, yes. I can pass the shingle along. And again, the glue isn't part of the look. And then I can also pass along The roof, and this is a few different samples. And the one with the sticker is the one that most closely matches and works.

So

the cedar shingle is flat. Right. Not like what we see in the rendering.

which makes it look like smaller.

Well, so what it is, is it's layered so that it will be a little bit less flat. So if you can imagine what you have in your hand, but multiple of them and about five between five and seven inches are exposed. So the part that goes over the next piece is what makes it have that more textured look.

So it's not layered vertically. It's layered horizontally.

I think it's layered vertically, but your hold, I think you would hold it like that. I think that's my understanding. I'm not a builder by any stretch, but that is my understanding. And I think our builder might be on the call and might be able to correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay. So if this is the front, the next it would be installed at the bottom.

Exactly. They start at the bottom. I did look that up.

eye over it like this.

With like five to seven inches exposed, right? Yeah. And then the look, the paper in your hand is from the same people who provided that sample. Exactly. Exactly. And I think that's both for aesthetics, but also it makes it weather better and it makes it durable, which is important because we have

storms. Shed the water a lot better.

Yeah, exactly.

And you propose to leave it natural, no preservative or stain?

That's correct because it will weather just like the cedar fences do. So it'll start out looking very brown and it'll gradually lighten as it weathers.

Well, I've always thought most of the garages were brick until I went down there and looked. Yeah. And I think this will fit in just fine. I like the design of the doors also, but let's see if there's any other comments. Bob?

I guess I had a wrong impression. When somebody says cedar shake, I think of the rough texture material, but you're not doing that. Right. You're just...

It's exactly this. And I didn't really understand how it was made either. I had to look it up. But it's just like Steve says, they start on the bottom, the pieces are longer, and then they layer them like that.

I personally don't have a problem with it. I agree with Steve. The garage, at least in this picture, is pretty attractive. Cedar fences, since we see them all the time, after a few years, I only have one word for them, ugly. You know, they weathered poorly, just dark, and you could take some polyurethane or something And they make them look new again.

Interesting. Yeah.

I would look into that.

Okay.

But, you know, it's the alley. It's the garage. And I give you a little credit for being original.

Thank you. I would add that our current garage is an eyesore. It'll be a big improvement.

Ellen?

Nothing to add.

Jim? Jim? I'll say overall, like, I don't mind the look of a cedar shake, but it is certainly not something that you see in Clayton. I think this is mitigated a lot by the fact that it's in the alley. If it wasn't in the alley and it wasn't blocked, I'd probably have stronger feelings on it, but I... Don't really see like a strong architectural reason for it to be cedar shake other than I I see you providing a lot of reasons why you want it to be cedarshake but Not necessarily a persuasive architectural argument that being said like I said, it's in the alley It's not really visible from the street. So it's not something and I have to cause a big fuss about

Any comments from the audience I Anyone online? Okay. Well, you've heard the staff report. We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve the staff recommendation approving the plan as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. When will we see it? We'll move on to the second and third items. And those are 515 South Central Avenue is the applicant here. Oh, okay. Hold on. We've got the staff report first.

Starting with the site plan review. This application was first considered at the April 7th meeting. It was continued to allow for revisions to the trash storage and the landscape plant. The height setbacks impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R2 single family district. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site. Landscape plan is below the canopy coverage requirement and will require compensation to the city's forestry fund. Staff are of the opinion that the project will meet the criteria for site plan approval, but the conditions identified with the recommendations. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that the applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The report must assess the performance of the proposed drywall based on the anticipated impact of a 15-year, 20-minute storm event. Should the results indicated by the proposed drywall be insufficient to accommodate the stormwater runoff generated by the event, the applicant shall be required to upsize the drywall accordingly to ensure adequate performance and compliance with applicable stormwater management standards. And three, to ensure future maintenance and operation of the drywall, the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the drywall system and shall submit proof of recording prior to issuance of a building permit. And then the applicant shall contribute to the City Forestry Fund compensatory with the requirements of Section 405-4110-C2A. Okay,

thank you. The applicant, and of course we're talking about site plan review right now, if you'd like to come up. Do you identify yourself and give us any additional

information? Good afternoon. My name is Dave Chen. I'm the owner of the property, so I'm not the architect. But what I thought makes sense is maybe what we could do is I'll just recap kind of the six comments that I've heard from you last time and how we address the change in the site plan. So the six comments that we've heard last time, three was from the site plan, three was from architecture review. From a site plan perspective, we've heard that you want us to add a garbage enclosure, which we agree totally makes sense. So what we did on the site plan is we added a five by five garbage enclosure at the end of the driveway. And then the second thing that we've heard last time was about the landscaping plan. To be perfectly honest, I've gone back to our landscape design firm and they've tried to add as many plans to kind of improve the canopy coverage. But the fact that the reason why we're so much deficient was because we had to take out a tree in the backyard area And it's a really big tree right now that we have to take out. Actually, half the tree is gone from the tornado. So we try to replace it. We've put a lot more trees around the front and the side in the updated plan. But unfortunately, we still wouldn't be able to replace the canopy coverage from that tree. And then the third thing that we heard from you last time from a site plan was just that soil percolation test. We have someone identify and they can start work as soon as we're ready. Did you want me to just kind of talk through the three things for the architecture review as well, or should we wait? We'll wait. Okay. So I guess with that, I turn it over to Tony, my architect here, if you have any questions for him. I think there's a few things that he wanted to talk through the change.

We'll probably get into that with Tony on the architectural review next.

Okay.

But we need to go through the site plan review and vote on it first.

Okay.

Anything else? Nope. Okay. I certainly understand and think that all the changes that you've made are rational. The only thing I was wondering, the 5x5 lightproof trash enclosure, can that be right up against the property line?

Yes, we don't have any requirements for setbacks.

Okay. That was the only question I had. Bob?

don't have any problem approving the plan I'm just kind of curious maybe this really goes to the city with regard to landscaping it says his plan exceeds the native species requirement exceeds the native species requirements was seventy one point four percent native proposed is that truly the regulation

The percent. So that's just out of the plants that they're planning. So we don't, our current regulations only require 33% to be a native species. So they're exceeding that.

Okay. But that has no relevancy for approval or non-approval. Yeah.

Well, similar to the canopy coverage, if they were less than native, then Ryan would have... Less percentage than 33%, then Ryan would have included a comment that required them to change out some species to increase their percentage of native.

And as we sit here right now, if we approve the plan, the canopy is still not sufficient, and the city is saying that you should... tender a little under $1,000 for future planting, I guess, somewhere else.

Yeah, I mean,

that's fine. Is that okay?

Yeah. I mean, there's nothing we could do. Like I said, unless we put a similar size tree in the backyard, there's nothing. We can do. And that tree is actually bumping against a power line. So when the landscaping firm talked to, I don't know who he talked to, but someone from the city, they actually recommend not to put a tree that close to the power line.

But I know there's a lot of places in the city that can use trees today.

Right. And I'll just mention the canopy coverage is not at time of planting. So they are choosing to plant ornamental or medium deciduous trees. So over time, those trees won't grow into a canopy. So the... It isn't the number of trees, it's this type of tree that they're choosing to plant. And we do have requirements with the height to accommodate the regulations from Ameren. If you plant directly under an overhead Ameren line, we do restrict the height that that tree would grow to. But they could plant a larger tree somewhere else on the site that wouldn't be underneath their Ameren line. that would be larger, and that's how you see the majority of the plans that come before you that do comply. Or if they can't or choose not to comply, then you all could approve as it's shown right now with the condition that they pay into the city's forestry fund that helps support planting of additional canopy trees elsewhere in the city.

Ellen?

No comments.

Jim? I just want to clarify, you are the owner of 515 South Central, but this is a speculative development, correct? This is what? This is a spec home. This is speculative development. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. No other questions.

Okay. Any comments or questions from the audience on 515 South Central? No. Any hands up? Nope. Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation with three conditions. You're aware of them? Do you agree to them?

Agree.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the staff recommendation to approve the plan together with three conditions, which I understand the owner is familiar with, the percolation test, and if... If for some reason the water runoff is still a little too much, you would have to increase remedies. Okay? Yep. And the deed restriction regarding the dry well and contributing to the city forestry fund. Okay. Yep. Agree. All right.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? okay we will move on to the architectural review Dave do you want to handle it or Tony

um I just wanted to address the three uh comments that I've heard from

last time first we have to go through the state report

okay yeah go ahead okay I'll just stay up here

Ryan Also originally presented the April 7th meeting, it was continued to allow for revisions. And the revisions have included a modification to the height to 24.25 feet and a modification of the primary material to gray brick. As proposed, the design meets the architectural review guideline requirements. Staff are of the opinion that the new home will have some visual impact, but will contribute to the broader character found in the Davis Place neighborhood. Staff recommend approval with the condition that concrete paving matches the city standard pour of Meramec sand and gravel.

Okay, okay. So the three as from last time, you know, one was a 3D rendering. So we've done a 3D rendering to help the board, you know, kind of look at it from a visual perspective, how it would look when complete. And then the second thing, which in hindsight really was a good comment, that the house was too dark. So we went and picked a much lighter brick color that it's really close to the existing structure. So we're tearing down the whole house, but my point is just that the brick color in the current house, it's also pretty light. So it's kind of similar to that.

Well, that existing house was a red brick and then it had a white

wash. It's a very light... I mean, we have a picture in this presentation too for the existing house. It's kind of like... I mean, if it's a red brick to start with, it hasn't been red in a long time, it looks like. Yeah. So we pick a different color, and then we have samples for the house that we could kind of pass around. And then the third thing that you've asked last time was whether we have communicated with the Davis Place trustee. And so I've been in contact with them. They've seen all the rendering and the site plan. I actually have a signed form from them for the building and fence permit.

Did

they

approve it?

Yeah. I have it with me if you want to see it. All three? Mm-hmm.

Okay. Thank you. We appreciate when you address our concerns, and that came across clearly. The house is basically the same house we saw several weeks ago.

Correct.

But the color is startlingly different. I think it will fit in better. I like the use of the black in the recessed entry area. Actually, in a way, it almost looks like two separate buildings on either side of the entry. But I think it hangs together with the roof and everything. It's pretty large. It may be the largest frontage on the street, but it's broken up in different modules. So I feel it's come a long way and I think it'll be fine. Anything could be better than what is there right now.

Actually, the only comment from the Davis Place trustee was it should have been done three years ago, but.

if not longer. We are where we are. Yeah. So I'm comfortable with it. I think the black windows now show up much better. It was, as you know, I called it depressing when we looked at it several weeks ago because it was black on black on black. And now it has a lot more variety to it. So good. Bob?

I like it. I like the fact that it's not perfectly symmetrical in the front. I like the broken lines. I like the roof lines, as you have multiple roof lines there. I think it works pretty well. So I wish you good luck.

Thank you. Nolan?

I have a question about the windows, what material are they other than obviously glass.

I have samples of that you want to see

it. Is it a fiberglass. Is it fiberglass? No, this would be glass. But the frame, it's fiberglass. I don't believe we allow fiberglass. I

believe that's true.

We actually don't. In the architecture review guidelines, it doesn't prohibit fiberglass windows.

Oh, okay. So it will be vinyl but not fiberglass. Yes.

We don't have a prohibition on the window frames within the architecture review guidelines, which cover this area.

Okay.

We have a prohibition. On vinyl siding. Okay. Or fencing material. Yeah.

Okay. No, that I didn't know. So that's why I asked. I like what you've done. Thank you for making the changes. But when I look at your context. It looks so tall next to the two on either side. And looking at your rendering, the distance between the window head and the beginning of the roof, the overhang of the roof is quite deep. Could that be reduced?

Yes, go ahead.

Tony, introduce yourself.

Tony Camacho. I'm the designer of the project.

What was your

concerns?

The above the window head on the elevation, just looking. Grab the

mouse

here. Grab the mouse. Yeah, we're currently trying to find your context drawing, so he's moving it if you want to. If you know what sheet there is, Ryan. Is this? Hold on one second because he's moving it. Oh,

right. Got it.

Okay, I realized the context drawing the center part of the elevation has changed for your latest presentation. But just looking at the height of that relative to 509 and 601. And then you look at the height above the window head. To the underside of the roof line. Could you reduce that?

We could have put a gable on it like every other house and made it very towering. And before I had the roof ridge lower, but nobody liked the lower ridge. So we tried to bring the mast down. That's why we went with the hip roof so we can tuck it in as much as possible.

But can you bring that whole roof down a foot or two?

Well, we wanted the second floor, which is a massive second. I mean, massive. I mean, compared to the first floor, we have a lot going on up there and we wanted to give it a nine foot ceiling.

Yeah. But what height is your window at eight feet inside?

No, seven, six,

seven, six. That's from the top of the window. The operable portion, assuming double hung or casement from the top there to the underside of the roof overhang is quite a distance.

Okay, you mean you're talking about the top of the window to the bottom of the soffit? Well, per code, yeah. I mean, we need a 12-inch heel to get the proper continuous insulated envelope.

Yeah. Could you reduce the slope? You've got a 6 and 12. Could you go to a 4? Well, I showed it

before, and he didn't seem to like the 4 and 12. So I went to 6 and 12, and I gave it more mass. I think the mass, the raised ridge, I agree with him. I think it looks better because maybe the lower mass is larger. That helps balance it out. But, you know, if we walk around the sides, I mean, I really tried to break it up. You know, there's a reason why, if you look, if we walk, around the house, you know, If we look at the renderings, I can show you why, but to lower it, I would have to go to an eight foot ceiling. Maybe we could go scissor vault and maybe, let's see,

Oh, yeah,

it was the old one. But as far as, you know, we can scissor vault and then maybe put a gable end, focus on the window. It would take a lot of work just to bring it down a foot.

Helen, could I jump in a minute?

Yeah.

I know I commented on the four and 12. Yes, sir. And I actually like the six and 12 that you're showing here, mainly because the middle high ridge, if you go back to the front, there we are. It's so far back, it's going to be for sure. Exactly. So I'm not worried about that. Right. But Helen, what you're saying I agree. It's almost as if the second floor windows need to be six inches higher than they are shown.

You

know,

it's just a rendering. I bet you it is a little bit lower than what's shown. And I don't see why we couldn't make it eight feet. You know, the window height, eight feet. And bring it up. I'll just try to see how far I can bring down that heel of the truss and bring up the window because, because I guess what you're thinking, I agree with it. It kind of feels a little top heavy.

Yeah.

Yes. I think that's just not the scale, but I'll make sure I address that. I promise. Yeah. I just can't rattle off exactly the inches. I can give you right now, but I can address

that. I think it's the visual that is

referenced here. And however you do it, it'll show up on the permit drawings. I think that would make quite a difference. It would make the house look lower because it would not be so top heavy. Right. Yeah, I'll

address that. And so you're talking about raising the height? Only of the

top of the window. Right. Make it up six inches. That would make the brickwork between the top of the windows and the underside of the soffit thinner. Helen, that's what you're going toward?

Yeah. Like the

illusion,

right.

Yeah.

Pull down the 786. And then raise the window a bit.

The plate height, eight foot six.

Eight six is a nice size. He

wants to cut every stud. The eight foot six, but no, but I think I can address.

Okay.

I got it. No, but, but I got it. I can find out about raising that up and any other illusion I can throw in there. I just didn't want to break it up too much by, um, scissoring it bringing it down put a dormer we don't want this to be kind of a clean look

yeah we've got to be

too busy

it looks good it's just that makes it visually look so much larger than the adjacent

yeah

it moves large

you raise the window You're saying you have the illusion or the appearance of the house being a little lower.

Yeah.

That's the point.

And if he could pull six inches out, maybe it just brings it down because still the silhouette is much higher than the adjacent and they may be considered teardowns to you. many people, but to the owners, they're not.

Oh, absolutely. But I think what, you know, we're building this house at really just the standards like nine foot first. Okay. It's a nine second. Uh, but I think what's compounding is that we have this, we have an open area where the kitchen breakfast and areas, and we're spanning that with a floor choice. So we're going 18 inches. So that added six, you know, but, uh, I'll try to squeeze it as much as I can, bring it down.

But what you're saying is the height you have right now is nine feet?

Yeah, nine foot second.

And you think that's the appropriate height? Yeah. And if you reduce the height to eight and a half feet, it's not as desirable? Not at

all. It really isn't. I mean, you know how much... I know none of these are preferences or should be driven on... Cost or profit return. Okay, I understand. But these homes, what they sell for, that's the least they would expect.

We are seeing more nine-foot floor to ceiling dimensions, definitely on the first floor. We're seeing more on the second floor also.

If the master bedroom wasn't on the second floor, I might even... be okay with the eight but it's a rather elaborate you know primary suite and

yeah well um if you look at the stair uh portion which i brought

down

you talked as much

as possible and

we have um much less brickwork between the top of the window the tall window and the bottom of the uh soffit Now, that might be too little of a difference on the left and right. But somewhere in between, I think, would work. OK.

I mean, to me, six inches can't mean that much. And if it makes it more marketable.

Oh, a great deal more marketable. I like

myself. But from a market point of view, it's more desirable. I personally could live with it. I know you're concerned about its relationship to the joining.

Yeah, the context.

But let me say, I think that's not drawn exactly correct. I think it can come down further. And I think since I went to a 6-in-12, I think that gutter board can come down. I think it could be a little tighter, and I'll make sure we address that.

Okay. One last question. Curiosity. You've got the black brick on the second floor in the back.

Yeah.

What is that?

Just to give it interest, we're trying to bring that motif around. Just to give it some interest. It could be just all gray brick, but why not have some interest? I think it really brings the bronze anodized color, the soften and gutter down. And it just kind of centers up that window a little bit with the brick on each side of the bedroom window. I don't know. I just think it gives it some interest.

Okay. No,

I

didn't know if it was recessed back.

Oh no.

Because there's no elevation from that other side that really shows. Oh, you can, can

you see it? Can you keep scrolling? Should show it or maybe, maybe they didn't capture it.

Looking from. Can you see it on the other?

Is it showing? Okay, yeah, sorry. Yeah, just it's not recess. It looks with the color because it gives a doubt. And that's another way of breaking up the mass on that second floor.

Yeah, no, that's all.

Jim.

I'm just curious, you know, talking about context, this is a fairly traditional neighborhood, I would say Davis Place more so than a lot of the neighborhoods in Clayton seems more homogenous as far as you see a lot more red brick, a lot more kind of classic design. Clearly this is an improved plan, but still a vast departure from that. And I'm curious from a speculative point of view, like what's the reasoning for that? Do you think you can get $20,000 more by going with a plain gray brick than a red brick? Do you think that you can get more money with a contemporary home versus a traditional home? But I personally am always a little skeptical, especially I'm extra skeptical. I feel like I hold homes that are spec homes to a higher standard for a neighborhood because when all is said and done, you guys are gone at the end of the day and you guys aren't the owners that's there. So, and this home is going to live in this neighborhood, hopefully for a very long time. And at least to me, it doesn't necessarily fit in with the houses around it. So I would just was curious what goes into those decisions.

You know what? I wonder, you know, I traveled been many cities in this country. I go to, All these cities seem to have like a dynamic architecture, meaning that they have contrast. They have variety. They have like individual expression, you know? But in Clayton, it just doesn't seem to shine through. It seemed like this town, you know, it's an affluent city. They've traveled. It has a love of arts, you know, but we want everything just to be washed away, right? And I think the buyer nowadays, we have a 40-something probably buyer. This is their second home. They want something. They're very image-driven, and they're not excited about red brick. I mean, that whole neighborhood's full of some aspects that don't make sense, okay? And it seemed to have been push through but just because like i mean the homes there okay they seem to enjoy their homes but that architecture and that that brick color does not translate well to today's buyer go

ahead can i add something real quick so um I think you are, first of all, assuming that I'm going to sell the house. I'm building it basically as if I was going to live

there. Excuse me, but that's why they're taking a personal interest in that brick from the original brick and this brick because it was their preferences.

Okay. Well, yeah. Well, you know,

yeah. Go ahead.

So, you know, when I first bought this house, quite frankly, I didn't realize how long it's going to take to build a house. My kids are in the new school right now. But by the time we're done, they might actually be done with high school. So there is a chance that I might actually live there. Therefore, my wife and I actually everything we put in the house. including, I think there's a couple more slides that we've actually already started taking some of the interior stuff. Everything that we pay, it's as if we are living in the house. So I just don't want you to think that I'm just an investor, because that's not, I mean, I never built a house. And then I've also driven around the neighborhood since we spoke last time. And you're right, there's a lot of red brick houses in Davis Place everywhere you see. However, I would say that the new build that's in there that's probably, I think it's on Polo, maybe not even half a mile from this house, not red brick. It's similar to that. And the other new build that's maybe three doors down from this address, it's red brick, but the design, you can see that there's a... So I guess my personal view is, yes, you're right. Davis Place does have a lot of tradition, but I also do think that some of the new... Mix a little bit of a newer...

Okay, in that sense, what do you what do you see as the blend of tradition? And, and I guess what, what I guess what drew you to Davis place in the first place then?

Well, we love the neighborhood. I mean, I

Do you love the neighborhood, just not the houses that are in it?

So this is actually, I mean, I don't know how much time we have. Not at all. I just sort of drive around Clayton. I mean, I work in Clayton. So I drive around Clayton a lot. I just so happen to see that property, this property for sale. And it's clearly, so I'm just calling the realtor. at that time the plan it was actually an approved plan for this property to do an extension to it um and i and i said well why don't i just buy it and then i i that's what i did um i i like the neighborhood because of how close it is to my book in downtown cleveland obviously

Yeah, me personally, I do not have a problem with contemporary architecture. And I believe these neighborhoods, the city, we have to evolve with time. And there's other contemporary houses that are even on the docket tonight. I personally always just want to hear something behind it, like architecturally versus just these are just choices. And they just seem like choices in this case. Yeah, and I just... I want there to be a reason behind that brick. I want there to a reason behind these things versus just, here's the brick, here's the roof. It's a contemporary house. And I feel like if it's owner occupied, typically that comes out more and I'm not necessarily getting a whole lot of that from, I guess, either of you in this case.

Well, they selected every color. The color of that garage door, that's their everything. The front door, that's the specific door that they

select. I can assure you that my time examples and everything. Once you, I don't know, two or three times of different, even with a 3D rendering, different brick color to try to find one that we think would work with the neighborhood as well as

Nothing further.

I'll continue what Jim was saying. We are seeing many more contemporary houses go up in Clayton in traditional neighborhoods. In fact, there will be another one coming up in a few minutes later tonight. I think we need to be open to the diversity of this design as long as it has some elements that fit into the neighborhood. Here, you're building with brick. You're not doing any odd roof shapes like we see in some other communities around us where they go up and then they're cut off. So I think even though the house is larger and somewhat different than the rest, I think it does have many of the elements that will help it fit in. So I am fine with it.

Yeah, and the only reason why it's hip is because we wanted to keep the mask down. We were trying to be sensitive.

Yeah. Well, you have two gable ends on the north and the south of the house. You certainly didn't need to match that. So with the added height of the house, I think the hip roof is by far the best. Any further comments or can we move on to the audience? Okay, any comments in the audience? Come on up, introduce yourself. We know who you are, but...

Hi, I'm Nancy Yawitz. I live in the house next door at 601. So I have a couple questions. The first one is it's really hard for me to see the windows with the trees covering them. And my recollection of the first drawing was that It was sort of, I couldn't figure out if they were centered or lined up, but there was sort of, it felt a little choppy to me. Mostly in the front.

You're referring to this?

Yeah. As I compared the

first

to the front row. I can't see them because of the trees, but the first drawing, they didn't seem centered or something and it just made, I don't know, maybe I was looking at it differently. I just had a question about that. I couldn't

What do you mean is or is not centered? Is it the trees?

I can't figure out where the second floor windows are compared to the first floor windows. In some of them, this, I guess, looks like they're more centered. The first drawing that I saw looked really choppy, and I couldn't see it because of the trees this time. Okay.

I can go through the sides and the rear. and informed me that we put in a better alignment, stacking windows

better. On this one?

Just come up

to the microphone, otherwise it

won't be heard

online. Okay, because I just, it stood out to me in the first rendering, so if this is a better rendering, that's helpful.

Nancy, talking about the windows, Referring to the bay where the stairway is, those windows do not line up with either the first or the second floor because the stairway, it's a scissor stair coming up and then back. And the landing is in between the first and second floor.

I don't mean the top of them. I mean, when you're comparing it, the second floor and the first floor. Are they centered? It looked very choppy, the first drawing I saw. Do

you know what I'm talking about? I think it was the sides and the one side that was facing you. No,

it was the front. It wasn't the

sides. All those openings are exactly the same. But the side that faces you, and I think people mentioned they brought up that they wanted the windows to better align. If you look at the rendering, they all perfectly align. Okay. At the sides. And the... Look at this, the sides.

Yeah. I'm on the other side, actually, but...

Okay, okay. Well, yeah, go to the other side. I mean,

not that I don't care about this side, but...

Well, the front is the same. Okay.

All right. I just wanted to bring that up. If the first drawing to me, something really stood out. But as long as they're centered, that's

fine. While we're still on windows, let me address Tony. If you look at this, the first and second floor windows are offset.

Yeah, they are.

See this, if you take the...

That's their rendering. It's just off.

Well, we expect the rendering to represent

what...

It's still off. It's offset

in that drawing too, yes.

Well, it was meant to be sent.

Well, we will want it sent. Okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that. I didn't realize it.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Nancy. That's okay. No, I appreciate you acknowledging what I'm talking about. Okay. The second question I have is there's a lot of concrete in the front and the back, and I don't understand why there's so much concrete, especially in back when there's an issue with not enough tree coverage. What is all this concrete? I've never seen so much.

Don't think that concrete goes straight across. I don't know. I don't think that's...

I mean, I feel like trees should be there if there's

concrete. Yeah, just for the record, we will use the site plan that was approved, the civil site plans. Renderings, because the renderings are often not made by the architect themselves, so they tend to have...

I can't read

that. inconsistencies with the flat

okay well I'm just can I help you yeah but can I just okay tell you where I'm coming from okay so I've been living next door to this house and I've seen almost every tree come down in this property and they used to be it was a gorgeous garden it was gorgeous trees and now Everything's gone. So I'm really protective of the trees because I know at one point I was told, you know, you have to replace the trees with what were there. And I brought this up last time on, when I was on zoom and I said, you know, how are these trees going to be replaced? I mean, there's a lot of trees. So that's why I'm so sensitive to all of this concrete in front and back. I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from. Just as I've watched what's going on with this house.

We do have one other rendering. Okay. Ryan, if you could go, I think it was the back of the house rendering. Oh, well, that one does show. It's like, yeah, there's a lot of concrete. Tony, please hold on.

Okay, I'll just

try that.

There, okay. Okay. That cuts the concrete virtually. Okay,

I mean, I've just never seen so much concrete. That's why it stood out to me. Well,

as Ana indicated, it will be done as the approved site plan. Okay. And the site plan corresponds with this rendering.

Okay. Thank you. And my third question is, has there been any discussion about the fences that will be there? Or is that not something that you discuss in these meetings? Since that, I mean, yeah, and the or the materials or I mean, they had a beautiful fence before it got torn down.

Well, I think we all realize that for several years, that house had lack of maintenance.

But is the fence material something you discuss in this meeting or not? We can ask Tony to describe what your plans are for the fence.

Please come up to

the

microphone.

Nancy, we haven't picked up material for the fences, but we know that we need to obviously have fences around the house.

That has to be

mutually approved, right? Does that need to get

approved here?

Well, we don't see it here. It will have to be approved at one point, yes. And of course, you're on a public walkway on the south side of your property. So having it fenced probably would be to your benefit.

Agreed. Just to clarify though, Steve, fences that conform with our material requirements, so if they're made from wood or composite or aluminum, they would not come back to this board for approval. That's an administrative approval.

Thank you. I think there's also a fence permit that I need to get, right?

So a building permit is required. So if you've determined the fence material at the time of the building permit for your new house, then you could include it at that point. Otherwise, you would have to either do an amendment to that building permit later to include the fence or you would get a separate building permit for a fence.

Okay.

Sure. Come on back up.

Air conditioner is... on which side okay

which is actually further back nancy than where the unit is right now on the house

okay well it's right next to the house now

it is in front of the fence

um

So this location is roughly near the back edge of your driveway as opposed to right next to the side of your house.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the audience? No? No hands up, I would assume. Okay. Any further comments from the commission? No? We do have a staff recommendation for To approve with the condition that concrete paving matches the city standard poor of Merrimack state sand and gravel. Are you in agreement. Okay, I do have one other question. I don't see any architectural seals on any of the drawings. But we assume there will be okay Yeah,

it will be required before the building permit wouldn't be issued without that.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I move that we adopt the staff recommendation approving the plans for the condition that concrete paving matches the city's standard pour of Merrimack sand and gravel.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. Ryan, did you get that? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll go on to new business now. The first item is 7923 Forsyth is the applicant here.

It's anyone online that is here on behalf of this project. Can you raise your hand?

Well, we will go on. We can come back to this later. Let's move on to 7474 Jeffery Yorg Drive is the applicant here. Hello? Yes. Do you hear us, John?

Well, we will go on. We can come back to this later. Let's move on to 7474 York Drive is the applicant here. Hello? Yes. Do you hear us, John?

Yes. Do

We do. We'll get started on 7474 Jeffery Yorg Drive with the staff report. Yes, sir.

We do. We'll get started on 7474 York Drive with the staff report. Yes, sir.

The subject property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Jeffery Yorg and Glen Ridge. Zoned R2 is developed with a two-story single family home. Property's location on the corner results in street frontage on both the north and west sides. The house's primary front yard faces Jeffery Yorg. Per Section 405-1900 , where lots have double frontages, the required front yard setback provisions shall be provided on both streets. The applicant is seeking approval to install a black aluminum fence in the front yard setback along Glen Ridge. The fence is proposed to be four and a half feet, which exceeds the permitted height by six inches. Staff recommend approval with the condition that the fence height be reduced to four feet in height.

The subject property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of York and Glen Ridge. Zoned R2 is developed with a two-story single family home. Property's location on the corner results in street frontage on both the north and west sides. The house's primary front yard faces York. Per Section 405-1900 , where lots have double frontages, the required front yard setback provisions shall be provided on both streets. The applicant is seeking approval to install a black aluminum fence in the front yard setback along Glen Ridge. The fence is proposed to be four and a half feet, which exceeds the permitted height by six inches. Staff recommend approval with the condition that the fence height be reduced to four feet in height.

Okay, thank you. Any comments, John?

Yes, sir. So my understanding too of the situation that it was in proximity to how close the fence was to the sidewalk, which we have set that back four feet from the sidewalk and then to the Homeowner was looking to have the fence stay at that height just for additional security for dogs and for their kids. Also to keep the design uniform throughout. So nothing major, but the fence, although it is on double frontage, was great. over the 20 foot setback from the intersection. So it didn't interfere with any visual from the public or anyone driving up and down. So I wanted to appeal if that six inches would pass for this fence.

Well, as you've probably read in the Criteria for review in the staff report, section 405.1900.A.1.D says up to four feet above the grade level. Not four feet six.

I understand that. And we have... just gotten those materials, which took a little while for the homeowner. So we didn't want additional fees on their behalf, but I understand that is the code now.

Yes. So we will stand by that unless you would want to go for alternative, but I would certainly recommend you go with the four foot. Other comments. Yep. That's it for me. Thank you. Okay.

Bob.

Helen.

I think we need to stay with the four feet.

Jim. Can you just talk me through the path of the fence as coming out from the garage and then going over and then back to the house versus just being basically at the building line that's allowed and going straight from the garage over to the house?

Yeah, the point is more so just maximizing the property for the homeowner to let their kids roam and for their dog. Just because being a corner lot, sometimes those backyards can be a little bit more smaller and squeezed out. So bringing it forward a little bit was... just more advantageous for the homeowner.

Does this 21 foot different distance from the corner of the garage? Is that what is to, you said that this is four feet from the sidewalk. Does that 21 feet go four feet from the sidewalk or is that a previous number to the sidewalk line?

Good question. That's correct. It's four feet. That 21 feet will still be four feet from the

Okay,

thank you. Any comments from the audience? Or any hands up? No hands up, thank you. Walking around the house, John, there's quite a bit of landscaping there, which I think eventually as it grows and more may be added, the fence may actually disappear in people's view. So I have no problem with it. You really haven't heard any problem. And we have a... staff recommendation to reduce the fence height to four feet to comply with the r2 front yard fence height requirements and are you in agreement with that yes I am okay well then we can go on and have a motion

I move that we approve the staff recommendation adopting a plan with the following condition to reduce height to 4 feet to comply with R2 front yard fence height requirements.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. You're on your way. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. Okay, we will now go on to item three, which is 46 Hillvale. And the applicant is here. We will start with the staff report.

The subject property is located on the southeast side of Hillvale between Crestwood and Rodview. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a two-story single-family home. The applicant is seeking to construct an addition on the northeast side of the home. The addition would include an elevator and laundry room. A similar addition was approved in February 2024, with that approval having now expired. proposed addition would be located on the northeast side of the home and complies with the highest setback and coverage requirements of the r2 district brick matching the existing structure is proposed for the first and second floor of the addition new shake siding matching the home's existing shake siding is proposed on the second story the facade the foundation on the the foundation of the side in the rear would be exposed concrete staffer have the opinion that this should have a minimal visual impact and recommend approval is submitted

okay thank you simon Introduce yourself and add anything you would like.

I'm Simon Gelnick. I'm the owner and lived here 40 years. We're trying to put in an elevator. I have a lot of trouble getting a contractor to actually do the job. This is the third contractor we've tried to

hire. Can you speak up

just

a little?

And I'm sorry? Yes. We've had trouble getting contractors, so it took us longer. We submitted. I guess I didn't realize that these expired. But basically, the plan's the same one as we had before and was approved. So I guess I ask that you approve it.

Well, we certainly like seeing people modifying their house so they can live in it longer. I think many of us would like to do that at some point. And we realize that really this is, you're here only for a re-approval at this point, no changes. I have no problem with it. Bob? No problem. Helen?

It looks good. I like the revisions. Jim?

Jim? I like the project. My only qualm as a rule follower, you did not get approval from the Clive Rock Park trustees. which I know you were aware of and you had lots of time to do.

We requested it. We got the approval from the neighbors, filled out the form and so forth, and turned it in to the trustee, but the trustee said that he was retiring as trustee and he was going to give it to the new guy, and they haven't had a meeting since.

Oh, no, that's me who you're talking about. No, you... Okay, so I reached out to the other trustees and they said they had not seen anything. But overall, this is this is just a sticking point. Like I said, I'd like to bring these things up. Overall, I think the project looks good. And I don't think there's any reason to take any more time. So

any comments from the audience? No. And I would assume no other hands up. Okay. Okay. Of course, we have a recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the staff recommendation to adopt the plan as submitted.

Second.

All in

favor?

Aye.

Opposed? No. Okay. Well, good luck with your third contractor.

I hope we make it. Thanks.

We'll move on to 123 North Forsyth. And, of course, we'll start with the site plan staff report.

So for site plan. The subject property is located on the west side of Forsyth where the street intersects with Westmoreland. The property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The site was previously developed with a one-story single-family house. The house was demolished and the applicant has proposed to construct a two-story single- family house. The previous structure was demolished as part of a demolition permit with no associated new construction. The site has not been restored or maintained in compliance with the demolition permit. No new permits will be issued until the property comes into compliance. The project meets the setback height and impervious cover requirements of the R2 Zoning District and Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. HVAC units would be located on the north side of the home and mounted to the wall. Trash should be stored in the basement storage area adjacent to the garage. Trash in Clayton is valeted by sanitation workers, and trash bins would need to be removed from this area on trash days by the homeowner. Coverage would increase from 46.4% to 54.9%. Stormwater runoff is evaluated in cubic feet per second in 15-year, 20-minute storm events. Total runoff would increase from 0.6 to 0.63 cubic feet per second. This increased runoff would be mitigated with the dry well connected to the roof via gutters and downspouts. Public Works noted in their review that the drywall will only function appropriately if the native soils around it can absorb the water quickly enough to keep it from filling up and holding standing water. Percolation test results should be provided at the drywall location to ensure proper soil conditions are present. Staff are of the opinion that the drainage proposal would be sufficient pending these percolation tests. Existing canopy coverage is 7,545 square feet with 7,501 to be removed. The plan proposes adding 6,500 square feet which is 1,852 more than the replacement requirement. The plan exceeds the native species requirement with 66.7% native proposed. The landscape architect noted that the site has been cleared and that tree protection standards were not followed, likely damaging the street trees. Public Works examined the conditions of the trees and determined that vertical mulching around the root structure of these street trees is needed to alleviate any compression or consolidation caused by equipment running through the critical root zone. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall vertical mulch around the roof structure of the street trees to alleviate any compression and consolidation caused by equipment and running through the critical roots zone. Two, that the applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The report must assess the performance of the proposed drywall based on the anticipated impact of a 15-year, 20-minute storm event. Should these results indicate that the proposed drywall is insufficient to accommodate the stormwater runoff generated by this event, the applicant shall be required to upsize the drywall accordingly to ensure the adequate performance and compliance of applicable stormwater management standards. And three, to ensure future maintenance and operation of the drywall, the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the drywall system and shall submit proof of filing prior to the issuance of a building permit. Okay, thank you.

Lauren?

Good evening. Eric Vietmeyer with Vols Engineering. We are the civil engineer record for the project. More than happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

Well, it's a comment. Please go through and tell us between the existing and the proposed drainage, where it's going, how it will affect the homes to the north, the south, and the west, as well as the street in front.

Right. So... I have the same color exhibit that's up on your screen right now. So going to the left, we have an existing runoff of 0.36 going to the left and then 0.40 to the proposed. To the left is to the south. Okay. Correct. Yes. However, the point before zero that is proposed to go to the south is actually all going into the drywall. The roof area is going to the drywall and you brought us coming down the driveway will be intercepted by a trench French drain. John Potter, At the property line and direct that to the drywall is as well, so there's no increase in water going to the end to the neighbor to the south we're actually eliminating the runoff to the neighbor to this out. John Potter, The out towards the street, we had a an existing Roth of point 08 cfs we have a proposed run off of point 07 cfs so we're reducing the amount going to the street. Going to the west, we had a small little area that was incalculable. And we had the same incalculable area going to the west as well. So zero increase going to the individual to the west. And actually I misspoke. We had 0.36 going to the west. The 0.40 that is going to the dry well is going to the drive well. What is going to the west further is 0.10 so is significant reduction from 0.36 to 0.10 to the west. To the north, we had 0.13 CFS runoff proposed will have 0.05 so in every direction, we are reducing the runoff from the existing condition to the proposed.

And I think I heard you say the trench drain is

at the

property line?

Yes, there's a French drain near the property line to the west that is collecting the water coming off of the driveway.

And where does that water go? That

will go into the dry well.

Oh, and the dry well is in the grassy area?

Correct, yes. And the drywall size to accommodate the runoff that is being generated towards the dry well and I believe believe it's even oversized. If we go to this mouse working right or If we go to see

Your mouse might be turned off. Yeah.

on my C1, there was a note that explains, if you can zoom in. Yeah, so it was already oversized by 125% for the volume that was being tributary to the drywall. So whatever the geotechnical engineer deems necessary, I already have a little bit of a buffer built into it for the tributary area. Didn't design the dry well for the differential. I designed it for the triputary volume. We don't always see that. I try to do that most of the times. It's just a little bit more rock. And it's an easy thing to do. yet it makes it possible to have reductions in runoff in just about every direction.

I think I follow it now. I was confused about that French drain. I couldn't see where it was going. Of course, we get very small drawings. Right, right. Okay. On site plan, were you finished? Yeah. Great. Bob?

I've got nothing. But you are saying that the water runoff is being reduced on all four sides?

Yes, as with the math shows. Ellen?

Sounds good. No comment.

Jim? Neither of these are civil engineering questions, so you might not be able to answer, but for the trash enclosure, first of all, is this... Is this house being built for someone specifically? I'd be worried if it was just like a spec home as far as translating the... Okay, great. I figured that looking at the plans, but I wanted to make sure just because with a trash situation where the trash would need to be brought out, I would just want to make sure that someone fully understood the trash rule so there weren't trash cans just always out. The other question that I had is there was talk about damage to street trees and was there any ownership change between when the site was cleared and now or is the current ownership responsible for that damage and not following the tree protection procedures?

I don't know that there was damage. I think the landscape architect was talking about doing some mulch to prevent damage, if I understood correctly.

They noted that there was damage? Okay, all right. The sense that I got from reading the report was that the site was cleared, and when it was cleared, the tree protection guidelines were not followed and there was damage to street trees. So I was just wondering if that was a previous party or if that was the current ownership of everything?

come up to the microphone if you're going to keep speaking otherwise it doesn't go online thank you

As to my knowledge, I did not see any damage. I do know that there's two pear trees on the city side and both of them are rotting. They're soft and they're falling constantly. I would like to remove them and put nicer trees there.

So I guess the answer to Jim's question is we're not sure when the damage took place or occurred? I

am not sure, no.

At least the report is saying at the time that the previous house was demolished, that tree protection guidelines were not followed. So I was just wondering if that was someone else's mistake or if that kind of falls on the same group.

They have the orange fencing around the entire area that contained the trees on the sidewalk side towards the street. So I'm not aware of any damage to the tree.

I don't, you know, if the orange fencing was around there, I don't know what tree protection measures necessarily weren't followed. The, I think my only concern in situations like this would be like, if we, I just think of a hypothetical where someone, you know, staggers a new build from a demolition and doesn't necessarily follow all the rules, but then when coming back, It's like there's, you know, it's an easier to ask forgiveness than permission type of thing. So that's the only thing I was thinking reading it.

I think as in the staff report, it's written no new permits will be issued for the property until it comes into compliance. So whatever was deemed out of compliance will have to be corrected. Is that correct, Donna? Thank you. Any other comments on site plan review?

Steve, I just have one clarifying question for the applicant, if you don't mind. So you mentioned that the trench drain at the end of the driveway is collecting water and then putting it into the dry well. A French drain. A French drain, sorry. So a French drain is collecting, the perforated drain is collecting to go into the dry well, I don't see a overflow pop-up emitter then coming off of the dry well.

Typically, I do have a pop-up outside of the gravel zone of the dry well. But in this particular case, the original submittal, it was right up against the pavement for the turnaround. That was a comment. So the center cap is called out as the outlet on the plants. So the center gap is supposed to be slotted. That will be the overflow discharge point. Okay.

And then the pop-up that is just north of the dry well area is your sump pump overflow.

Correct. Well, that's the sump pump in the underground storage area. So

then the discharge area that's on the plan that was in pink that Ryan had up previously is... Yeah, is is what you're predicting to be the drywall and the roof or the area. Correct.

Correct. Okay. I believe we have a hand up. If you come on up and identify yourself and

question. My name is Andrea LaBarge and I reside in the adjacent property, home in the adjacent property at 111 North Forsyth, which is directly to the south. And my only concern is I had a hard time telling from the site plan exactly where the driveway would be because the driveway from the previous residence was built over our property line. And there had been a survey stake showing the discrepancy, and I can't see that spike any longer. It may be covered with debris or it might be gone due to the demolition. So that's my concern that this situation be corrected with the new structure and the new driveway so that we don't have a property line issue in the future.

Let's go back to the civil engineer and see if he has a comment on that.

The driveway is going to be about three feet off of our south property line. Oh, perfect. So it's getting

further away from you. Okay, great. I just couldn't tell. I tried to look online. There's going to be a

little bit of a berm there, so that's what's preventing all of our water from getting to you. Great. And it's all going towards the rear view.

has piled up asphalt against our fence and caused our fence to bow. So that situation will need to be remedied at some point.

Yeah, so part of the not non compliant conditions of the site today that will need to be completed is that they did not fully complete the demolition permit, which required the removal of asphalt, the regrading, etc. So they'll have to start from a new place, which would include removing that asphalt before they begin the new construction.

And then we can evaluate the damage to the fence. That will be

between the two individual parties. The city won't be involved in that discussion.

I know,

Tony. There

you go. I'm not worried about that. I'm sure it will be remedied. But I just had a hard time telling from the site plan exactly where the driveway was going to be. And I wanted to make sure that our current condition was corrected. Thank you. Thank you.

i don't think i saw any other hands so if there are no further comments uh we do have a staff recommendation to approve with the three following conditions and do we have a motion

i move that we adopt the staff recommendation adopting the plan with the three conditions um number one the applicant shall vertical mulch around the root structure of the street trees to alleviate any compression consolidation caused by equipment running through critical root zone number two the applicant shall provide a percolation test by a qualified geotechnical engineer and it must assess the performance of the proposed dry well according to certain ears and if there's a problem they have to correct it are you aware of that okay and third uh to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well drive 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 butt building from it okay

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We can now move on to 123 North, the architectural review.

New construction is common in Clayton Gardens with existing houses often replaced with larger ones. New entryways are often covered or recessed. Properties often have ornamental features such as brick accents or stone surrounds for the front doors and windows. The house is articulated on all sides with windows and doors. The proposed massing is similar to other new construction nearby. The proposed design utilizes square shapes and gives a minimalist appearance and a contemporary style through the generous use of glazing. Brick accents are proposed at the base of each floor. Staff have the opinion that the proposal is likely to appear more contemporary than its immediate neighbors, but there are examples of contemporary homes in Clayton Gardens. The proposed house would be constructed of light tan brick with similarly colored stone and stucco accent materials. Windows and doors would be black. A glass railing is proposed for the rear terrace, front porch, and front balcony. Exposed aggregate is proposed for the driveway and front entry path. Staff find that the project meets the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District requirements and the architectural review guidelines. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Good

Well, I think it's a beautiful home. I think it'll fit in the neighborhood very well. I especially like the windows. The solid to void ratio is different from what we usually see. We have much more glass, and I think that really accentuates the contemporary look of the house. I notice you have a 4-12 roof pitch, which normally I say I think that's too low. But in this case, given the homes to either side of it, I think it'll be fine. But I do think it may tend to foreshorten as we look at it from the street, because the rendering up on the screen right now, I don't think is from the street. I think our eye level is sort of at the second floor line. So as our eye level comes down, I think the roof will tend to disappear more. But given the circumstance of the large house to the south and the a fairly large house to the north, I'm okay with it.

Bob? I think it's attractive and will fit in your neighborhood.

Thank you. Ellen?

I like it. And thank you for being maybe the first to do a new house that is lower than the adjacent ones. It fits in... I like the way you've manipulated the space. It might not be very obvious in the drawings, but looking at the plans and then the elevations. Well done.

I appreciate a second attempt to talk about contemporary architecture tonight because I think this is a much more elegant solution to a building and I think it fits in better than some other examples that I've seen possibly. I will probably, I guess I'll be the one to quibble with the 412 roof. I think that the roof is too short and I know that there's similar house you designed in clever act park at 31 ridge more that i believe has a similar roof pitch and from the street the roof just completely disappears um i personally would like to see a more pitched roof even if it kind of goes up maybe a little bit above the neighbors that might not be a popular opinion here uh but just to i don't know if the 412 was just to try and get below the neighbors or if there's another reason for it

Well, I appreciate that explanation. I appreciate there being an actual reason behind it, as opposed to just, you know, throwing numbers at a page, which I feel like sometimes we're seeing. So thank you.

Any comments from the audience on architectural review? No hands up. Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Any further comments from the commission? No? Then do we have a motion?

I move we approve the staff recommendations adopting a plan as submitted.

Second.

All

in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Thank you. Now we've come to 8141 Pershing Avenue. I believe the applicant is here. We'll start off with the staff report.

The subject property is located on the north side of Pershing between Forsyth and Brentwood. The property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is developed with a single family home, and the applicant is seeking to construct a residential ditch and detached garage. These surrounding properties contain single-family homes of various sizes. Aspects of heightened impervious coverage are discussed in the coverage section of this staff report and architectural review staff report. The new HVAC unit is proposed on the north side of the addition, and trash should be stored within a fenced enclosure in the rear yard. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40% with incentives for up to 55%, and the applicant has met the criteria for up to 55% impervious coverage. The proposal has an impervious coverage measurement of 58.1%. The applicant is seeking approval of the proposed coverage via alternative compliance, Section 410-285. Staff are of the opinion that the site does not present unusual circumstances, but may adequately manage stormwater and does not impact the green space character intent within the Clayton Gardens and Design District. Although the proposal may meet or exceed the intent of these design standards equally well or better, staff are of the opinion, that the lack of unusual circumstance limits the applicability of alternative compliance. Total runoff would increase from 0.35 to 0.38 cubic feet per second. This increase in runoff would be mitigated with the installation of a drywall. The staff are of the opinion that the stormwater may be effectively managed pending soils percolation test. Subject property presently has no trees, which do not contribute to canopy coverage. The applicant prefers open space and does not want to plant any trees. Per section 405410C2, the city shall be compensated for any tree canopy coverage deficiency through payment to the City Forestry Fund. The applicant would be required to pay $1,656 to the City Forest Fund. Staff recommend the proposal be continued to allow the applicant to consider revisions. Okay, thank you.

And the applicant, come on up and identify yourself and add anything you'd like.

Thank you so much. My name is Nick McCulloch. I am the homeowner of 8141 Pershing Avenue. along with my wife, Neshav, who is a physician here at Barnes University and Wash U. Also here with our two children, Rayan and Zaki, who both attend Clayton School Districts. And we are here to present The addition that we've been working on for the last several months. We absolutely love living in Clayton and our kids adore living, going to school in Clayton School District. And we really hope that you'll listen to our story here today and why we don't agree with some of the recommendations that the city has provided. Now, I understand you have to go through You know procedures that we'd like to also present you know some of our reasons why we believe that you should approve a previous property and previous material exception, so we can you know grant and do our additional what we're proposing is a. You know addition in the basement right, so we can build a. A much larger basement than we have today in the 1940s style home on the first floor our main objective is to really enlarge our kitchen. Right, we have a super small 1940s kitchen that is 10 feet wide right and we really need a butler's pantry and we've gone through nine different iterations. with multiple different architects and civil engineers that we've worked with. And this is the only one we were able to get all the things that we needed to expand our kitchen, enlarge our family room. And with modern conditions today, I work from home 100% of the time. And it's really allowed with like kids and everyone running in and out. We don't have a home office, right? So we are proposing a second floor on top of our garage for a home office. These are some of the additions that we really, really need. We've tried our hardest to do a attached garage and not do impervious conditions because we know how difficult that is, but we were not able to get everything squeezed in because if you take a look at the dimensions of our property, we're only able to extend our Our current garage two feet before we hit the 30 foot setback, but you cannot fit a, you know, three, three row SUV that way you cannot enlarge your kitchen. You can't even get in when you do that. Right. And if you don't mind I can ask these all.

Condition number one, fairness of lot size and unusual circumstances. Our neighbor right across the street has a 6,230 square foot lot. We have a 6,003 square foot lot. That to me justifies an unusual circumstance. If our lot was 50 by 125 like theirs, we wouldn't be here today asking for this exception. That is one main reason. Because of this disadvantage, we're requesting a really, really small exception to restore parity with houses next door. Without alternative compliance, we're uniquely disadvantaged. Number two is we have done everything we could with a civil engineer to make sure that our stormwater drainage is better than it is today. In the back of our house, you will see on page two and three of the reports, you're going to see that we're improving the stormwater condition slightly better than it is even though we are going to 58%. Today, we are 47.2%. If we go to 58.1% and you allow us to enlarge our kitchen, enlarge our family room, and build a home office, We will we will improve our water condition or stormwater condition. substantially number three green space is is preserved know all new imperial impervious areas confined to the rear of the yard, the signature open lawns and landscape front setback of clayton garden remains untouched right. That is condition number three number four know the design quality and neighborhood. compatibility, so detaching the garage puts the bulk behind the house, lowering the appeared mass from the street and is more compatible with adjacent rear garages that you see today, especially in our neighborhood. Keeping the garage detached was the only configuration that allowed a modest expansion of our undersized kitchen and family room plans. With the attached garage, you can only shift it two feet before we hit that 30 foot setback limit, leaving interior rooms functionally unchanged right addition meets every height side side yard and rear yard setbacks and the architectural styles already unfavorable recommendations from the architecture review board members during preliminary review. Meeting plan commission objectives. If you look at the guidelines and the building codes, desirable environment and creating land use, preservation of site and character. We're doing all of that. Better design and aesthetic amenities. We are doing that as well. and our ask again is very minimal and insignificant right we're asking for a 3.1 percent exception which is 186 square feet over the 55 incentive level provides our family-friendly living space and keeps the owner invested in clayton we will stay in clayton that's the main thing we love you You know the city of clayton we really want to be here and we've tried nine different designs, and this is the only one where we're able to hit everything, and we hope that you will allow us to you know get this exception. Now adds property tax basis without burdening city infrastructure runoff neutral no sore extensions at all, and no street work. You know, things that I can offer to incentivize and make things better is I can increase the drywall after the percolation test and oversize it by 25%. I have no problem having our civil engineer do that. We can record maintenance covenants for the dry well. Landscape enhancements, we can add one canopy tree plus additional funds to the forestry department. We have no problem with doing any of that. as well, we will address all of the remaining SWPP comments before we get any building permits. And my closing message to everyone here in front of me today is our goal again is to achieve a kitchen family room and a home office that meets modern family living standards, while remaining fully connected, consistent with Clayton gardens character and the spirit of impervious coverage ordinance. We believe the facts demonstrate that our proposal not only protects but slightly improved stormwater performance leaves the neighborhood streetscape unchanged and remedies of proportional hardship faced by smaller lots. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation. That helps us understand your thought process going into this. We often see people wanting to update their almost 70-year-old home to modern standards, and we certainly commend you for that. However, the site plan, the 50 by 120 plan, foot dimensions really is pretty standard in many of our neighborhoods in the city. Actually, there are some that are actually smaller lots than that. But the issue that I have is going over the 55%. I think that opens up many negatives for our city. One of them is continual precedence for going higher than the 55%. Many people have heard that I think we should be lower than that right now because we have extreme flooding conditions in many of our neighborhoods. Even with dry wells and everything else, nothing is perfect. The other thing that I see in your plan is that the green space left over is not accessible or in view from the house. So I would not even consider that as green space for a family. So I have great issues with how this is laid out, but I do understand that updating the kitchen and the family room is very important. But when we look at it on a site plan basis, I don't think it meets our requirements. But I'll stop there. Bob?

I just want to understand that the green space in the backyard is not accessible?

Yes, it would be accessible through the family room. And it's about 870 square feet would be remaining.

How? It doesn't show.

It's in there. Ryan, do you mind moving to one of the pictures of the 3D renderings in the end? In one of the last pages. There will be a green space in the back of about 800 and some square feet. Can I walk to

the backyard by not going through your house?

So you can reach the backyard. Sorry, I didn't fully hear you.

Can I get to your backyard by going around your house?

Yeah, you could get to the backyard going to the side, but not around the house because there's a fence in the back. And you can get to the backyard through the garage because it's a 10-foot setback between the extension and then where the garage, the detached garage.

The kids would have access to the green space through your house?

Yeah, you can have access right there through the house if you take a

look. I want to make sure I understand what's at issue here. The 3% Is that 137 square feet we're talking about?

Exactly. That's what we're asking.

A small office. It's like an office.

So we've tried to shrink it. Then if we shrink the family room anymore, then we don't have a functional bathroom upstairs, right? We don't have a We've tried that dimension. We tried to touch garage. I can bring all the other drawings if you'd like. We also have approvals from every single neighbor, two horses down, left side, right side, two in front of us. All of them agree with it. And I sat here in front of the board in January when our neighbor, 8140 person, they got a 3% exception for impervious materials. Right. So I'm not saying, you know, I wouldn't have done this. I wouldn't gone this far if I didn't see this happen already before. Right. So that's why I'm really asking for a little bit of lenience because we've invested not only so much time and money, but we have made sure that every drop of water will stay on our property.

So what's at issue here is 137 square feet or whatever. And what it would cost for you not to have it is this additional space you were just talking about on the second floor.

Yeah, it would cut back our second floor. It would cut back our living room, our family room, and we would not be able to have as large of a walk-in closet upstairs, and we would be able to have a large of a bathroom upstairs, a master bathroom. So what we're looking to do on the second floor is a new master bathroom, two new bathrooms, a master bedroom, and a walk-in

And let's say you don't get this. What's on that floor now?

If we don't get this, unfortunately, we probably will move. We have two young kids, and this house is too small for us. And we've tried everything. I can bring in all the other plans that we've tried with an attached garage to stay under the impervious materials. We have tried multiple different drawings. I wouldn't have gone this far. If I didn't see, we didn't see approval before. Like I said, I sat here in January, I saw it. And then we tried every configuration to stay under, but we were not able to. When you do an attached garage, we can only go two feet out. That means we can extend our family room, which right now we can't even fit a couch in there because it's way too small. We can only extend it two feet out, and then we can't even add a butler's pantry or mudroom because you can't get a car to turn around such a tight 90-degree turn. It's impossible. We had a civil engineer do a simulation, and it's not even possible to do that.

I mean, when Steve talks about setting the precedent of what happens if we go over the amount, everybody's always going to have a story.

This is a story I totally

understand. In my head, I hear, well, we're only talking 3% or the size of an office, an associate's office. To me, that doesn't sound like a lot. I'm trying to balance the homeowners' needs against what is it that the city is trying to protect. My initial reaction is 3%. It doesn't seem like a huge step over the boundary line, so to speak. And you also are saying that your plans contain all the water on your property because you have an oversized dry well.

Oversized drywall. If you take a look at the report, even the report from the Architectural Review Board, we are going to improve the water condition. So right now we're at 47.2%. We are actually going to have less water draining if you approve it to 58.1 by having an oversized drywall. We're taking 483 square feet from the addition of the roof and channeling it into a drywall in the backyard.

Nothing really. Ellen?

I have concerns, too, like Steve, about the increase and oversizing a dry well. If we have everybody increasing and oversizing dry wells... we're just putting the water instead of on the surface, we're hoping it will disappear underground. At one point, and I'm not a civil engineer, at what point do you reach saturation? So I think we've set a limit and I think we need to live with it. The thing that I see too with the site plan is for trash collection, the trash person needs to walk down across the front of your garage, down apparently what will be grass to a trash area. How will they know that? It's not the same Group of guys each time. I think that needs to it's a minor item, but I think. The plan that you've got is a start, I think it needs to be pushed and pulled on. The only exit that I see from the back of the house to the garage or the green area is a door from the mudroom. There's a wall shown at the family room, a solid wall. So your elevations don't match your plans. As the homeowner, you want them to match because you want to know what you're getting.

Make that adjustment. I could work with the architect and civil engineer.

Who is the architect?

We worked with... multiple different architects. Initially, we worked with Elizabeth Plank, and she retired. And then we worked with an individual by the name of, I forgot his name.

Oh, that's, I don't need to know the name.

Alexander, and then we worked with a couple others as well, the civil engineer.

Okay, because there's only an engineer seal.

There's only what?

An engineer seal on everything? Yes.

Isaac, sorry, Isaac, can't think of his last name. Is it gooders?

Alexander Adam Alexander is the one you've got what you want. But I think it needs to, it needs work. And going keeping getting rid of that extra 3% to me is very important.

Jim? Yeah, I certainly sympathize with your situation. I'm also a father of two young kids. I know how space can get tight and stuff. That being said, I know 3% might not necessarily sound a lot to you, but to the plans that I think we see on a weekly basis, I think 3% is pretty large. And I looked at, you have to make up 186 square feet, and I look at the plan, and... I just feel like there's a solution here that's not necessarily this specific solution. I did have questions kind of along the lines that Helen was asking. You Build It, who produced these plans, doesn't have a location in Missouri, so...

In Kansas City and here in St. Louis as well.

Okay, on their website they don't list as being in Missouri, and they were only stamped by an engineer. I personally found the plans hard to read, and I could not see doorways into certain areas and everything like that. So that gave me a lot of questions too, as far as like, you know, is this an architect that has walked the site, that has considered all your needs and tried to incorporate them? Is there not a slightly more elegant solution here that can give you all your needs, but not go over that 3%. I think also when we're looking at things that you could possibly do, you talk about the 30-foot setback a lot, but perhaps if it's a couple feet at the setback versus an impervious situation, that's something that might be easier to get a waiver on than water flow, only because Water problems are one of just the biggest problems that we see. So to, and we are going more in the direction of having less impervious coverage, not more. So I think we are in a tough position as far as to be granting a waiver for that, especially when I think there are some ways they can move around and that it doesn't necessarily present an unusual circumstance.

Before we go any further, Ryan, could you pull up sheet 13? That's it. Okay. If you look at the new main floor plan on the left around what is labeled a new family room, there appears to be a wall around it. Is that the existing garage

wall? That's where the civil engineer identified a watershed area. Is that what you said? A water? Can you repeat the question?

Okay, now it's blown up. You can see the new family room with what looks like a fireplace on the north wall and two doors. Those doors we saw on the elevation, but I'm looking at the I'm looking at it from a site plan point of view. What is that wall that is hatched going around the north?

That's the outline of the old wall of the current garage. So if you take a look at the dark shaded, that's where the current garage is. That would be removed. So we're bringing it in a little bit to allow a 10-foot setback from the detached garage. And we're shrinking the size because right now we're not five feet from the property line. The current garage is two and a half feet from the property lines. Right. So that would be taken down and we would actually hit the five foot requirement.

Okay. Then what I said before, I was incorrect. I took that wall as being part of the new condition. Okay. Um,

I was looking too, like at that mudroom and it looks like there is a wall in the mudroom and you can see from the outside, it's like, okay, you can get into the mudroom, but how do you access it other than that exterior door?

Sorry, we can have the architect fix that. But that's the outline of the old... you know, garage, just showing that we're shrinking it two and a half feet, right? So we, cause currently we're two and a half from the property line with our attached garage. Now we're gonna be five feet from the property line and we are going in, so we are further in. And then like I said, the new family won't have two exits It would have two doors and we can exit into the backyard. And we are bringing it in so we have a 10-foot setback from the detached property. So we are shrinking the size to meet all of the setback requirements.

Okay. Back to the site plan now that I think we may understand the floor plan drawing a little bit better. That could have been done clearer. Yeah, I think you've got an extremely confined space courtyard back there to try to turn around a vehicle, especially if it's a three row SUV. Unless you're very good at backing out of the garage and aiming down to your relatively narrow driveway. And I looked at it. And I began worrying about that. That combined with the very small green space, which will have the dry well below it, and exceeding the 55% impervious coverage, I think... I have a lot of problems with it, I really would suggest that because we'd like to see you come up with something that would work and i'm talking about site plan is that you need to have an architect. draw up the drawings a little. More accurately. let's say a lot more accurately. and then have the engineer use those drawings because the communication we're getting from this, we're confused. But that doesn't resolve my issue with the extra three plus percent. I just cannot see doing that. Any other comments from the audience? No hands up, I would imagine.

can i throw this up

sure

um i'm probably more sympathetic to you and i'm concerned if a vote was taken tonight you wouldn't like the results okay is it crazy to knock down the garage thank

you yeah one final comment um Thank you. We really appreciate, you know, I know this is a long day for everyone here and disappointing for us and our family. And I never would have gone through this if I hadn't sat here in January and saw in the board approve a 3% exception for exact same thing across the street.

If the garage was knocked down and you reclaim and you back down to 55%, is that too tough to live with?

No, like if we go without a garage, then we don't have a, because we're proposing a two-floor, two-story garage, and the second floor would be our office. So that's the problem. It's work from home. It's hard to have a quiet space in the home at all.

Well, we are, Nick, we are not taking a vote right now. Okay. And the staff recommendation that I'm sure you've read or heard Staff recommended that the proposal be continued to allow the applicant to consider revisions. And as Bob was indicating, if we were to take a vote, you might get a no vote. So we would recommend that you would agree to us tabling it to a date in the future to allow you to rethink it a little better, maybe get the architect into it a little more and revise a few of the drawings and hopefully come up with a solution that may work.

Okay. So does that mean you want us to reduce below 55% or add 55?

Well, I think you've heard that. We're not going to vote on any particular issues, but we will take a vote whether to vote tonight or to recommend postponing it, allowing you time to come back.

Also, Chairman, for the record, I looked it up. Your neighbor received a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. So this group here was not the same group that approved that for your neighbor, just for the record.

Thank you. Which direction would you like to go?

We'll continue. We'll try to revise the plans.

Do we have comments from the... Commission on whether to continue or not.

I move to continue this to a future meeting. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you very much. I think

Yes, so the future meeting will wait to hear from you with response to comments to set that date.

And I think that would also mean that we should continue the architectural review rather than go through it tonight. Do we vote on that also?

Yes.

Okay.

I move to continue architectural review to a future meeting.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Thank you. And Ryan will follow up with you.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, we've come to the discussion session.

Steve, do we want to check and see if anybody has shown up for Forsyth?

Oh, yes. Thank you. Is anyone here for 7923 Forsyth? Okay.

Well, this is a conditional use permit for a restaurant, so this will require Board of Aldermen approval as well. There was a public hearing advertised for it Are you okay? So you could choose to still consider this request without the applicant being present if you'd like to

or not. Oh, well, we have it on the agenda. I think we should take a look at it.

If we could, one of the reasons for doing so is there is a public hearing scheduled for the board of aldermen already because of the lead time required to advertise for that. So having the benefit of your views for the board of Alderman would be worthwhile. Okay. And we can do it without the applicant. They've been given notice that they're on the agenda for consideration. So yes.

Let's do it. The staff report summary. Yes. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a deli on the subject property located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between Central and Merrimack. The site is currently developed with a one-story commercial building that was previously leased to Kitchen Clayton. The proposal will first operate as a ghost kitchen focusing on catering and takeout orders. The proposal may expand in the future to accommodate a seating area at the front of the restaurant. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses for restaurants. The restaurant is compatible in size and use to buildings in the surrounding area. The proposed hours of operation and methods of delivery are consistent with other businesses in the area. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff are of the opinion the business is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff recommend that this Board recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Okay. It's a little interesting to do it without an applicant here, but I really had no problem with it. It seems like a similar use of the space. I did have some specific questions for the applicant, but we'll leave those alone tonight. So I would be in favor of the CUP. Bob? I would too. Helen?

Me too. It's fitting for the owner of a ghost kitchen not to show up to their hearing, but I have no problems

either

And I'm sure no one is online Okay Well, do we have a motion

I move? to adopt a staff recommendation approving the conditional use permit and on the plans as submitted. Second. All in

favor?

Aye. Okay,

thank you.

Okay, so we have a discussion here before Ryan

gets into it. So this was originally scheduled for the meeting that was postponed to the impacts of the tornado. But we do have an update of a lot of exciting work that Ryan's been doing with our downtown zoning. So just to kind of give a bigger picture of where we are. There are multiple things that have been delayed slightly with the timing of various meetings. The tornado also resulted in the cancellation of the last Board of Aldermen discussion session. So a few items will be pushed a little bit in this, but we have completed the executive summary, the liquor license updates, and work on an incentive policy with the Board of Aldermens. Here tonight, we're going to talk a little bit about the TOD code element that has expanded itself to be all of our really downtown zoning and then also elements of just all three commercial zoning districts. As you're aware, we're very close to being able to start the actual text amendment process for lot coverage and stormwater regulations, and then also beginning on our neighborhood standards. So there's going to be a lot of comprehensive plan implementation meetings that are going to be held here over the course of this summer. So how did we get to where we are? Ryan's going to take us through. If you recall, he went over beginning with our transit-oriented development overlay districts. That was one of the first objectives and key results within the comprehensive plan that wanted us to look at how to utilize the tools of a transit-oriented development district to better regulate higher density zoning and mixed use zoning in proximity to our transit stations. As Ryan outlined for you, we really found in applying those best practices of TODs that we didn't need to call out those specific areas of downtown for a variety of reasons. It allowed us to expand that analysis to all of our overlay districts and our commercial zoning districts. The result of that larger expanded analysis is that the Maryland Gateway Overlay District is doing a good job of supporting the pedestrian-friendly retail corridor and allows us to model some elements that have worked there while maintaining that overlay district. That is an overlay that covers the lower density C2 district. The Northeast Downtown Overlay District, which was adopted just a few years ago, really focuses on promoting ground floor retail and has some architectural, some form-based code style elements to it. However, it hasn't really impacted design. It still led to a lot of planned unit development requests and proposals moving forward. And so the overall direction that we decided to go is spending some time right-sizing our base zoning districts, especially for the commercial areas. And then building off of what Ryan will take you through is then how we'll formalize the next steps for our PUD ordinance moving forward. So I'll let Ryan walk you through what he's been doing.

So we're going to go over changes to all three of our commercial zoning districts. Some of those changes are common between all of them. So there's a lot of areas where we sort of reduced or consolidated language that was repeating either between those districts or between the overlays. So what you would commonly see is, say, there's a specific area that's called out in the Maryland Gateway overlay for something. That would also be found in maybe the base zoning districts or it might be in part of the base zoning districts, but not all of it. And so we just want to make sure that we're not repeating ourselves or we're not inconsistently repeating ourselves and we're being concise with it. We also removed some outdated sections that were block specific. So they might have called out between X Street and Y Street only something is allowed and whatever happened between whenever that was put in place, and now there were some kind of developments that occurred that maybe made that regulation irrelevant. So we wanted to remove that language from there. We also reorganized how height was structured in some of these areas. So there's a height section in all these base zoning districts, but then you also might see height call-outs within the permitted uses tables, because they were often associated with the CUP. Those were reorganized almost similar to like a setback where we have a standard height and then there's encroachments that are permitted. So in the same way that a deck might be able to encroach into a rear yard, something like your stairwell or elevators or some kind of rooftop deck or church spire or something would have a permitted encroachment available. We also modified the residential to allow mixed use with a no minimum unit size. So right now if somebody wants to do something mixed use in any commercial zoning district, they have to have a minimum of 750 square feet and that's a common element that shows up in PUDs. Most mixed use nowadays, I mean you're seeing those studios come in at something like, it can be 500 square feet or less sometimes. We're also wanting to update the names of these areas. Now, we're not married to these names if anybody has any strong opinions, but just kind of seeing what's out there right now. The nomenclature and the descriptions are very commercial specific coming out of the comprehensive plan. The broader goal, especially of downtown, is to incorporate more of those mixed use neighborhood characteristics. So we're looking at instead of neighborhood commercial, neighborhood mixed use. Instead of general commercial, general mixed use and so on. The changes specific to C1 and C2. So right now in C1, we've got a rear setback of 25 feet. That varies actually throughout the C1 area. So we said 10% with a 10 foot minimum was actually pretty on par with C2 and bring a lot more properties into compliance. But there is nothing that would prevent a property from having a greater setback or you know, if something came before this board with something that was out of character for an area for you to request something alternative. Step back, so right now, this is only relevant for PUDs in C1 areas because C1 is limited in height, but if there was a PUD that went above that third floor, we'd be requiring a step back. There is a step back that is required at the moment, but it doesn't really have any teeth because in that section it just says the plan commission can kind of do away with it. But there's a lot of areas where we think a step back is very appropriate, especially for C1. So we want to make sure that that's a requirement that's pretty solid in there. And then surface parking, right now there's no surface parking permitted but there are areas that have existing surface parking or where surface parking would be appropriate so there's additional modifications in there to talk about surface parking specifically on Clayton Road. Getting into C2 step backs, that 15 foot step back above the third floor is it's the same language that's in C1. But we want to make sure that we're kind of we're treating our C1 and C2 the same because a lot of places you have C1 or C2 backing up to the same types of zoning. So if there is a C2 property where somebody wants to build above that third floor, we want to make that they're providing step backs for those properties that have single family zoning. Additionally, we've modified the floor area ratio from 1.5 to 5. We'll get more into floor area ratio in a couple slides to explain why that occurred. So changes to high density commercial, right now it's a 10 foot setback. Well, that actually varies quite a bit throughout downtown. 10 feet may not be appropriate on all the blocks. So we're just saying what's average of the block, which is how it is in C1 and C2. And then multifamily residential uses. So right now multifamily is permitted as part of mixed use, but there are areas where it may be appropriate to just have multifamily without mixed use in downtown. We'll get into that later as well. But we would want to have that with a minimum unit density. So we wouldn't say, oh, you could do multifamily mixed use and somebody shows up with three or four units. We want to make sure that it's appropriate for the size and scale of the properties. And then additionally, the ARB guidelines, there is an ARB guideline section in HDC. We really haven't seen a lot of it because most of the time stuff comes in through PUDs. But that list had a lot of good content, but we've expanded on it. We've also put a lot of things from the Northeast Downtown Overlay So when somebody comes to us with something new in HDC, there's a really good solid list of things for them to pull from, for us or you to reference. And it really gives you guys some teeth to say we don't want the boring glass box that a lot of folks show up with on the first round. So the Northeast downtown overlay has really evolved. There was a lot of good energy and effort that was put into that, a lot of good stuff that has come out of it, particularly with the retail components of it. So the evolution of that has been a retail emphasis area section of high density commercial. you'll see some overlap between where Northeast downtown overlay was and where that retail emphasis area is. And basically we want to co-locate things together. We want to have more teeth to say, okay, if you're going to be on this block of central, there's a certain way that we want you to fit in with the character. So we've pulled stuff from NDO, there's some modifications to floor area ratio to sort of protect those smaller structures or keep things in conformance. But really it focuses on keeping a lot of that language in there. So looking at building height, right now we do not have a maximum height except for in the northeast downtown overlay but we're keeping a portion of that in the area highlighted that you see for that map on the left. We want to keep a lower height that's available but there is an incentive in there if you can go up to seven stories or 90 feet which is on par with C2 if you have a step back available and then we also want a minimum height as well to keep those structures in character.

just to annotate the slide so you know what the red dots there are, that is kind of identifying the depth of what that step back would be. So you can see how it plays out with the depth of the existing lot lines. That was a big piece when we were evaluating the downtown overlay district. We've seen the two parcels that have been developed. Well, one has been developed since that overlay was put in place and that's the Bemiston place there on the top right image and you can see that the existing lot sizes essentially force people into that larger parcel consolidation large development scale because they require these step backs and height restrictions and so what we wanted to do was try to incorporate elements that would Try and incentivize some people for putting more money into that scale that we see on North Central now with the smaller lots so that they can still do something with their parcels to develop them and activate them without having to buy adjacent parcels and put them all together. But if they did put the parcels together, then there would be a kind of a way of mitigating that form to be a little bit larger. So the red depth shows you the depth of what we've proposed for that step back of 20 feet.

represent 20 feet this way

correct yep depth

that would be at the third floor and above if they wanted to increase the height

Getting into floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is a way to regulate the size of building based on the relationship between the size of the lot and the total square footage. So if you had 100 square feet of lot, and you had 100 square foot of building, floor area ratio of one. If you had 200 square feet of building, floor ratio of two. And so what we wanted to do is we were making sure that our floor area ratio was right sized and appropriate for those different zoning districts. Something that comes along regularly in the PUD process is that our floor area ration Definitely in C2 and HDC is too low for the structures that are already there. So I've listed here on this slide examples of some floor area ratios that are around. So we've got three as our max, but something like 212 Clayton being 12.6. We are wanting to right size that to about 13, which would be very appropriate. Floor area ratio is funny in that sometimes it's not what you expect, but a floor area ratio of 13 is not going to allow somebody to build something that's exceeding what's already present. So it's gonna right size it. Any questions about floor area ratio? So in the highlighted areas that you see here, we want to maintain the current floor area ratio of 3 just so that we're keeping We want to we want to make sure that we're sort of protecting a lot of these older structures that have that classic retail feeling. If somebody was to come in and do something else want to make sure it's staying within character or if they if they want to exceed that for a ratio of three, we want to make Sure that there is that high standard of the pod process to protect the character of the area. Correct.

Well, there are pieces of it. Yes, there's little pockets that aren't. So at the intersection of Brentwood in Maryland, for example, there's some smaller buildings there currently. So that's kind of where the gap is. We didn't want to just call out specific parcels. The idea that really lends itself here that Ryan was making the point of is trying to protect the scale of this area and looking back through a lot of the discussions that happened during the Northeast downtown overlay, which was a process that Ryan and I were not involved in. So we had to kind of rely on what we could learn looking back. That combined with the feedback from the comprehensive plan, it was fantastic. it was evident that there are a lot of people that want to kind of protect this area of downtown, almost as our historic downtown, for lack of a better term. Similarly to the protections that we have in place for the north side of Maryland, where the Five Star Burger is and some of those smaller shops. And so the idea here is to really make it pretty clear within our based zoning district. This is an area that is far more restricted so that the property, the people who own that property or wanted to develop it understand that we treat this very differently than we do other elements of the downtown area with the hope that we can keep that scale alive.

So kind of tying it all together is the retail emphasis area ground floor in this area is going to have to the ground floor is going to be 50% restaurant retailer personal care services pulling from the northeast downtown overlay those are our street activating uses. So you could have, you know, some sort of commercial space that doesn't fall into that category. For example, a bank would not fall into that category or ground floor office use would not fall into It just won't contribute to that 50% area. And it's also going to have those specific design guidelines pulled from the northeast downtown overlay. Basically, we wanted to make sure that this area matched up with where things were presently, which you can see on this map here. Something else that's called out on this map, that blue line. This is evolving a little bit, but that blue line's another concentration of retail that might be appropriate for kind of the way that mixed use has functioned now with beauties in that it just needs to have a mixed use component, but it may not necessarily need to be as strict as those retail emphasis areas. Yes, those are those storefront bays or entrances to existing retail.

Yeah, so those are doors. So some of those might be multiple doors into a larger retail space. Some of them are individual spaces. And it doesn't have anything to do with the occupancy either. These are just the form of the building where it has that retail.

So do you have any questions about what we've heard? A

lot of questions.

Yeah. So, I mean, there has to be a text amendment adopted for you to actually approve any of this. But it's really, I think it seems like a lot, but it's really only a few elements. So I don't know that it makes sense to say only get your feedback on height at one point and then only get your feedback for your ratio at another point. So the idea here was to walk you through the thought process that Ryan went through as he evaluated these different elements and then we will return through a public hearing process once the actual regulations are drafted.

Well, I don't think we've seen anything like this before, especially what we're looking at right now

Yeah,

we've shown you this diagram before. Maybe, I don't know, maybe we weren't present at that meeting, but we've kind of talked through some of these. So this is the first time we attached numbers to it for you guys with the floor ratio and the heights. But essentially what we're doing is instead of having a base zoning district and then dividing our small downtown into six different overlay districts, we're right-sizing that base zoning district and only highlighting those specific areas with much more intention. So kind of what Ryan was saying, we want to make a code that has more weight or more teeth on the elements of the regulatory elements that are more important to the actual end result that we desire for that area compared to the other ones. Because right now it's a little bit difficult with our high density commercial district. We treat the property differently. on north central the same at the same starting point as we treat a property on south central even though the context of those areas and the goals for development of those areas are very different and then the only thing that really comes into play to mitigate that is our northeast overlay district which as we've seen hasn't really resulted in reinvestment at the scale of those properties. So that's the biggest goal here. So we did, Ryan did a study, if you want to go back to the Flory ratio, What this allowed us to look at visually is across downtown and then even on Maryland where we introduced the C1 and C2 zoning districts, you can see the spread of our floor area ratios right now. So existing floor area ratio of three means everything that is that lighter orange color or yellow are the only buildings that comply with our current regulations so it does this map kind of shows us two important things one we have a lot of buildings that exceed our maximum flurry ratio right now but two we also have buildings that meet the floor area ratio that have significantly larger buildings on them so for example over by ritz-carlton there um that building is highlighted that's in our one to three so i don't know if i'm ahead which one Where in that range it is, but it's in the three. I

should clarify about some of the floor air ratios. There's going to be a couple errors on this map. Those are going to be lower than the actuals. Talking about that area, why it may look kind of funny is the way we pulled data from the county assessor. sometimes that total square footage doesn't show properly. I've had to go back and actually like try to search through documents to figure out and total up what the floor area ratio is. So looking over there by the Ritz, I guarantee you that property, well, the Ritz might be, but- No, I

think, well, it's also a lot larger of a lot. That's the point there. So they actually, because the Ritz is- is one consolidated tower. So the lot sizes come into play a lot with how development is scaled throughout the downtown. So that's the point that I was trying to make compared to when you look at where our smaller lots are centered there again on North central. So this allowed us to look at the right sizing of it and, and determine where we want to reinforce that smaller scale. So really that intersection of, of, central and Forsyth is where we want to reinforce that smaller scale, but then allow the natural development patterns of some of the higher density that we actually want and need for many reasons. Because as we've talked about for other things, the people getting more people within our downtown is going to help support our goals for vibrancy and retail. So we want them places, but we don't necessarily want this piecemeal spotty development of the high density. So we have redevelopment of parcels that are more along the southern half of downtown with that higher density residential, and we can do that while protecting the smaller scale on the north side.

Can I ask a question regarding that? Yeah. So by raising the floor area ratio from three to 13, how does that specifically protect those smaller buildings? Because in my mind, that would allow those areas to go larger. It seemed like that incentivized knocking them down, but I definitely could be missing something there.

No, it would, except that this is where they were proposing to have that area called out as a separate district. Okay. Essentially, like a sub-district.

Okay, do you have a...

Yes, so here the darker highlighted parcels would be the ones that we would maintain that existing three. So right now, part of what makes it difficult and leads a lot of people to the PUD process is we have some elements of our base zoning that support really high density and no maximum height. but then we have a three floor area ratio. And so what we have is a lot of people go through the PUD process and then we have to try and figure out what our priorities are at this level for you all and for the Board of Aldermen. But what we want to do is give you the tools within that base zoning district to know where different priorities are more important. And so in this area here, where we want to prioritize that retail emphasis area that Ryan was talking about, that's where we have restrictions in place that set a different zoning threshold, different development threshold for that scale. And then in the other areas, we don't. So if something does go through a PUD process, we're able to evaluate the benefits that are being proposed at that PUD based on the context of the area and the zoning.

So will the text amendment be our next step?

Yes, so we'll draft. Ryan's already begun that process of drafting it. Gosh, I feel like I don't even have a great grasp on what month of time it is now after these last couple of weeks. Previously, we did the presentation about the Unified Development Code and that framework of where we're headed. The first step will be, since we're drafting the C1, C2 framework, and high-density commercial, we're going to redraft all that in the package of the Unified Development Code. So the text amendment will come to you, and it will repeal multiple areas of our code that cover commercial zoning and replace that with the sections that would be in the form of the Unified provide you with this overview of generally where the numbers are so that we could get some feedback. Do you agree with the retail emphasis area concepts? Do we agree generally with increasing the floor ratio and the height, the way that we're approaching that so that when you get a text amendment before you in the future, which will likely take multiple iterations for you guys to look at, but you won't be as, you won't be trying to figure out what regulations have changed at the same time as trying to figure out where the regulations are located.

But once we go through the process, we approve the text amendment. Alderman approves it. When we implement it, will we see comparisons between the new and the previous? Or will this just totally disappear?

Right, the previous will no longer be applicable unless there was a project that had already begun the application process before it's adopted. So that's kind of what this presentation is doing. And then when we come to you with the text amendment, Ryan will again kind of highlight the differences in what regulations are changing. But once the Board of Aldermen approves the text amendment for the new zoning, the previous zoning is no longer in effect. So it's still an option, but our goal is to pretend our goal and part of doing this is to make PUDs less common because we want to right size the zoning as Ryan was saying so that people can develop we can easily facilitate development that meets the goals that we want because our code clearly outlines it for them and people can easily understand what they're doing. So we don't need to go through this PUD process of the back and forth and who values what and trying to, you know, decide if the benefits are worth what we're wavering with our zoning regulations. So our overall goal from a staff's perspective is if we change our base zoning district to get less PUDs. However, we recognize that that is still a valuable tool to have at our disposal for some of the unique and special projects. And so it will still be a tool moving forward that we are going to modify on the tail of this process to make some changes to how the PUDs are evaluated based on how we're changing the base zoning district. But we aren't planning to remove the PUD from the tool bucket. Yeah, so I guess my first question for you is in terms of modifying height and floor area ratio and introducing a retail emphasis area, are those concepts things that you generally support or do you have immediate concerns about some element of it that you want us to expand upon further with you? I

think general support. I'm not sure if I... captured everything but i think the uh the general direction of specific areas i really do like the um four area ratio let's understand

Sure, maybe we can do, Ryan can kind of then come back with a little bit more of an explanation of exactly how floor air ratio impacts developments. Because I do think it's something, as you kind of mentioned, that is often misunderstood from designers who deal with it every day to zoning professionals to the general public in terms of what you're trying to do with the floor air ratio regulation and how that actually impacts development. So we can kind of walk through that a little bit more.

I think to me personally, like looking at your area that you have here, specifically on that one slide where you have the light gray and the dark gray, basically what you'd be moving to 13 and keeping down at three. Like my first thought is I want to go along Forsyth and see like exactly what those buildings are. And I guess by the discussion, like certainly someone could still come with a PUD and go higher than that. They wouldn't necessarily be capped at three because I also just think it depends. Like I see maybe more value for something like that along Maryland where you're kind of stepping down to get to a more residential area and while I very much agree with wanting to locate retail along that Forsyth corridor. I also would worry about limiting building size on some of those areas with a building that would probably have ground floor retail anyway. And then on top of it, I think we also just have an issue because we have lots of space that's good for retail but is prohibitively expensive to most retail applications.

Yeah, it's a good point. I think something that we can kind of also to expand on our thought process is walk you through how we've reflected back on developments that have happened over the last five to 10 years. Because a great example is Forsyth Point. There's a lot of benefits to how Forsyth Point has been developed. The office is obviously very successful for us right now. But sitting in the patio at Ivy, you're now in shade almost all the time. So it's a significantly colder area for a pedestrian to sit on because of the shadow impacts of what's happening directly across the street. And so that's kind of one of the elements of me personally focusing on central with the lower height and the more clear step back requirement being maintained there. is because if we got a similar building on the west side of Central, where we have some open property becoming available, that would again then result in all shadow effects on the east side of Central. So that would drastically change that area. So that's the combination of the height difference which is the shadow impact with Flora Ratio, which is more of the square footage density impacts. But I think it will be helpful for us to kind of walk through that together.

Yeah, I think the realistic examples probably help us. Some of this is not safe. Sure.

I think a lot of the thrust behind it is well-intentioned. And I think when you listen to, let's just say, when you listen to a segment of the population complain as if Clayton has lost all its charm and stuff like that, I think what you're targeting here is... you know, aimed at something along those lines that we're basically not just erasing. Because certainly even like Be Missed in Place wiped out a lot of retail. Now it put it back, but it's also in a more homogenous form. So I definitely see the positive intent there. It's also just With a lot of these things, I think all of us are, at least me personally, doing the mental math as far as like, okay, like what does, you know, I know maybe what I see with all this, but what does a developer see when they see this? And like, does that result in something more beneficial than what's there now?

I'm saying, how is this going to increase ? All we're doing is . What we've learned is nothing happens. They're only coming out for dinner, and they go back in. And is still you guys. I mean, you guys . Whatever it is. More attention. Right.

I think anything that will get us density, we need people. And even if they drive into the garage and take the elevator up to their office, it's still more people coming in and there's the need for them to eat. they may not have a restaurant or a deli or something in their office building that puts them out on the street. And I think what you're doing, simplifying the zoning is wonderful for people looking at zoning and trying to sort it out. But then the intent behind it to get the density right, I think is great with the floor area ratio, the whole thing. And you're also acknowledging like the Maryland shops. That is special. There's something that makes that work because parking is horrendous there. But it works. It's crowded. People like it. So I think you've done a phenomenal job. So keep it up.

Yeah, so I guess the next thing that we can do is put together some information that we can share with you in advance of the next discussion. So you can kind of think through it a little bit more now that you've seen the bigger picture of where we're headed. And then we'll walk through some of these items and a little bit more of a guided discussion to help with that feedback element before we come to you with the actual drafted text for the district. That makes

sense. Well, we appreciate the overview tonight.

Yes, we worked a lot of hours. Ryan as well was kind of doing a lot of our behind-the-scenes mapping So that's something that I think was a very successful and important tool for us to get to the recovery that we're in. That I'm, I think is something that other communities in our discussions weren't utilizing the same way we were. And so we're all learning from it, but yes, it was a very unique experience to be a part of, not one that you really want to, but also had a lot of positives that came out of it in terms of how the staff worked together. So Ryan and I worked extremely closely with fire department staff with our public works staff um our parks staff so we were doing all the kind of analysis spatially of where we're targeting debris removal where the damage occurred what level of damage where the hazards are where the infrastructure you know all that sort of stuff and that will continue so it's been very interesting to be a part of uh but yes um Ryan, along with myself and others, were here all weekend. And, you know, that's part of it.

Thank you. Best I've ever seen city government. I have gone for me. Fires, electric wires, the pool. Yeah,

it was interesting. We had the role of leading the FEMA and SEMA discussions, which was another interesting experience that you read about or you take little webinars about from a planner's perspective. That was the first time I've actually worked directly with FEMA. And they... they were kind of in shock at how efficiently and quickly we were able to get back to some sense of normalcy in certain areas. So it was a complete effort. I mean, the Really the people, the implementation of everybody that was on the street in the bucket trucks or guiding the trucks that came in from contractors or other people that that was the big work and they did a great job. But it will be an interesting process for us to reflect back on we're building some. We were able to do a lot to show FEMA that. where we were, which was important because we did such a good job of cleaning up that we wanted to make sure that they knew how much damage had really occurred for everybody. So that was interesting. We're creating some story maps and other elements that we'll be able to share with the public to kind of continue to reflect so that we can look on how to improve and what took place and hopefully continue to get Some interaction with semen fema and hopefully get some some assistance from them as this moves forward. yeah.

yeah.

I know. Now, yeah, it was kind of one of those that you could almost start to sigh relief a little bit this week, except then not really because there are all the things that we didn't do for the last couple weeks.

I'm going to say today was the most normal day I've had, or at least I thought until I was like, oh gosh, there's like 20 items on this agenda and I need to re-review all of them because two weeks just be staring at maps.

But at some point, when we have a lighter agenda, we can kind of show you all the mapping and other things that Ryan's been doing.

Interesting to see that.

I know.

It really won't. But I will plug, since we're on there, there's a form available online, if you guys haven't been made aware of it yet, through the website where people can report damage, private property damage. That's a big one to continue to try and make our case to FEMA for assistance, individual assistance, which would go to homeowners if they qualified through that. Because a big part of what we've been finding over the last few days with our last few weeks, sorry, is that once trees are removed, the more extent of the damage is revealed as people are investigating the rear areas of their property, looking we didn't send inspectors to walk the backs of every home unless there was evidence of a significant damage that we were really concerned about the safety of the structure. So this tool, you can kind of use, you can upload pictures and address a description of the damage, and we're tracking that data and continuing to share it with FEMA, but also it allows us to help know where we might need to send an inspector still to look at things or to get things corrected. So I would encourage you and your neighbors to use that tool moving forward.

Thank you. We're very lucky to have the leadership that you provide as well as all the other departments and how it's worked together during.

It's a pleasure, as always. Come back and listen. Thank

you. I don't know if, were you here for an item, or would you like to address the board for

anything? No, I'm not. I'm a reporter, actually.

Thank you.

Yes, that was going to be on the canceled agenda. We had to re-advertise for the public hearing because that meeting didn't happen. Okay. Thank you, everyone.