July 21, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the July 21st PCARB meeting. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this point. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Denlow? Here. Susan Buse?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Bob Dunlop? Here. Susan Buse?

Helen DiFate?

Ellen DeFay?

Kim Persona? Sorry, Kimmy Wollman? Here. All right, give me what you say here.

Here. We have minutes from the meeting on July 7th. Are there any changes to it?

I move to approve 10 minutes. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Let's move on to new business. Item 1, 7701 Clayton Road. The applicant is here, but we'll start with the staff report.

Subject property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of West Fillmore Drive and Clayton Road. The property is zoned C1 and is developed with a single-story office building. The applicant is seeking approval for exterior alterations, including painting the exterior white, installing black windows, removing a cupola, and renovating the front entry. The new entry would be more squared, comprised of stone tiles, and have a new metal canopy. New landscaping would surround the front entry. Existing concrete entry paths would be re-poured to the same dimensions. Staff note that the plans to pick signage above the front entry, signage is not a part of this analysis and requires separate permitting. Nearby commercial properties include similar materials and have paving matching the city standard concrete. Staff recommend approval with the condition that the front entry pavings match the city standard concrete of Meramec sand and gravel.

Okay. The applicant, come on up. Make sure the microphone has the green light on it and tell us who you are and what's up.

My name is Todd Nissenholz. I'm the owner of Kauffman Townsley. We own this building. I was expecting the architect to be here, so I don't have a full presentation for you, but I think you've been submitted the plans, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have about the project if anyone has any questions. But the goal is – actually, I think that's him right there, Madman Design. Hey, I'm there. Okay, maybe you could maybe you can take over from here.

Yeah, so well, in the intro, basically, the vaulted couple has kind of rotted away. And we want to take this opportunity to make some updates. Not anything out in here. but taking advantage of the presence to make it more pronounced and kind of modern. Can

you have him start all over and try to get his mic?

Yeah. Hey, Nick, we're having a tough time hearing you. Do you think you could start over and maybe talk into the mic and maybe a little slower so we can understand what you're saying?

Yeah, sure. Is this any better? It is. Thank you. Yeah. So I was introduced to this project simply because the existing canopy is rotten and needs to be updated. We are taking that opportunity to generally make some exterior updates to the building. The interior was actually updated prior to my involvement, but recently, like within the last two years. So The scope of work here basically includes what's been listed in the introduction. We're going to remove the existing domed entryway and small cupola on the hip roof. repair the roof and then once we remove the entryway canopy, we're going to replace, we're not replaced, but we're going to come back with this newer kind of more updated, more modern looking entryway. At the same time, we will paint the building and replace the existing windows while also including some landscape improvements.

Anything else? I think there will be some repairs to the roof or remove the cupola. There has been some water intrusion issues, so as we remove that, we will address the roof as needed.

Did Dick say all the windows are being replaced?

All the windows are being

It's a simple update of that older building. Glad to see the entry dome going away. It's probably time to be done with that. I think it looks good. That is a glass cover, is it?

You're talking about the front doors?

Yeah, above the front doors.

That is all glass, correct, Nick?

There's a transom window above the door itself, but the canopy, if that's what's in question, the canopy is not glass. No, that would be a flat roof condition.

Are you talking about the thing above the door or the door area entrance way south?

No, I was referring to the canopy itself.

The canopy itself. Nick, what is that material?

Yeah, so we have the gray portion that you see, the bigger, boxier portion, is going to be framed and then clad with a stone, a large format stone look veneer. And then the part portion that kind of juts out from it, making the canopy portion itself, is... going to be a exposed steel and wood structure with a standing seam metal roof

okay how will

you uh drain it yeah Good question. So the standing seam portion will actually have a gutter along the front that will go to some integrated downspouts. Those are not shown, but good catch. They are meant to kind of disappear and will be kept as close to the structure and or columns as possible.

Okay, so they may come down near the two new piers that appear black or dark gray? Correct. Okay. I think it looks really good. Let's see what everyone else says.

Bob? I have no problems with it. Out of curiosity, is the old law firm still occupying it?

No, my law firm purchased this building a couple years ago. It was Raskis, Sherman Raskis. There was like four or five names associated. We purchased this building from them three years ago. Leased it back to them for a year and then it did about a year remodel on the interior. So this is kind of phase two doing the exterior.

And you're not enlarging it? Nothing.

No,

sir.

Same size. You mean the building itself? Right. No, there's nothing about the size of the building that's changing.

And you guys are going to use the lower level as well as the upper level?

They're both being used currently, yes.

Thank you. Helen.

I like it.

Thank you.

Amy.

Yeah, nothing that looks really nice.

much jim i think overall it represents a big improvement i i personally would like it if the brick stayed as opposed to be painted but that's that's a minor quibble um also with these i think we typically like to see materials in person um it would be a benefit if we could like see the stone and see the paint color and everything uh to make this decision i think overall though like everyone else said i think it represents a big David.

I don't have any comments. Looks good.

Thank you. No one else online? Nope. Okay. Jim, are you requesting more materials to come in or just to go to the staff or can we approve it right now?

I think we can approve it right now.

Okay. We do have a staff recommendation. Todd, you understand that? And hopefully Dick will understand that, that the front entry paving should match the city standard concrete.

Understood.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the staff recommendation with a condition that the front entry pavements match the city standard of Merrimack sand and gravel. Yes, sir.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. When do you move in?

We are in. We've been in the building for about a year, and so my understanding is we will continue to be there while this work is being done, and they will make it so it's a safe entrance way as they're doing the work.

Good. Yeah. Well, thanks for reinvesting in Clayton.

Yeah. Thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Okay, we will go on to the discussion session.

All righty. So one of the key results to come out of the comprehensive plan was to observe where there might be opportunities to streamline our plan commission architecture review processes where appropriate. This is not likely to happen as a single action, but sort of piecemealed over time as staff evaluates different sections of the code. So before you discuss today are a couple of sections out of the sign code that might be appropriate for some more administrative processes. And so what I'll do is I'll go over the specific code section, our analysis of it, and then I've got basically my discussion question for you guys. There's two of them. We'll do them each individually. So the first one, section 425-040-A2, blade signs. A ground floor tenant may have one blade sign measuring a maximum of one square foot. Staff compiled the average of approved blade signs between January 2021 and July 2025 and found that the average blade sign was approximately five square feet. Applicants consistently request larger sign areas through Section 425 modifications or via the sign subdistrict process. PCARB is often accommodating to requests for increased blade signage area. Staff suggests that the maximum administratively approvable blade sign area be raised to five square feet to align with the sign code and with past PCARB approvals. And so the question to you guys is, do you prefer to leave the maximum blade sign area as one square foot or would you support an increased area? If you do support an increased area for a blade sign, do you support the staff suggestion or do you have a recommended different maximum area?

Oh, you're quizzing us now. Okay. I would support the larger one, but I think we should have the possibility that if we're going to have many, many blade signs, that we have the opportunity to make them smaller because I could see an awful lot of blade signs going up and the larger they are, I think they'll become sort of overwhelming. Now, I agree. I think we've exceeded the one square foot quite often. But a couple of them do look fairly small, like on the Ceylon building. I don't know what size they are, but they fit the building and the spacing between them. So I think we need to look at the building, the context it's in, the spacing between potential blade signs. But if we can only have A ground floor tenant may have one blade sign unless we have a sign design area, correct? Like a sign sub-district, you mean? Yeah. Then we can have more. So I think I'm more worried about the district than anything else. Gotcha. Other comments?

I think Steve made some good points. I mean, generally speaking, you want it to fit the building. A small building, big building. and you want to avoid the clutter of like a whole series of signs. And if you're at a Walmart or something all of a sudden indoors, I don't know what the formula is. I think everybody agrees one foot square foot doesn't make much sense today. What I really wanna do is ask you guys as you've done your research, what have you observed? Or is that a fair question?

The observation is they really range quite broadly. They tend to be rather rare with the exception of when they come along in science sub districts. I mean, it's very difficult for me to think off the top of my head placements of blade signs that are not in a science subject. We had one not too long ago on Carondelet Plaza, which was like... 20 something square feet. And that's the largest one for sure. The vast majority of them actually kind of fall around four square feet. Ceylon might be around two for it. So it's skewed smaller, but there's, I would say that there's like a bunch that are chunked together right around between like three to four square feet. And then there's a few random ones that kind of jump out larger than that.

I mean, this is such a visual question. I wish we had some pictures we could see about what in hindsight maybe doesn't work so well and those that kind of say, oh, they're okay. I know what the private interests are. You know, the owners want as big of a sign as possible, kind of like going out of business signs always being popped up. But I think, Clayton, you know, we want to always have something that avoids the cluttered look, very statesman-like almost. You know, still fine walking past these signs. They're not invading your space. They're not evading you visually. And yet they do the trick for the private owner. You know, just by saying one square foot is too small, I'm not sure it addresses the formula or Maybe just how do you evaluate such a subjective thing sometimes?

Susan?

Ellen?

I would agree with Steve, Bob and Susan that the context matters. If everybody went to five square feet and a number of them, then it becomes cluttered and you really don't see them. You know, you lose the angle of vision. They're too big, so they block each other and it becomes unwieldy looking. I think the larger size, five square feet in context, you know, if they could do between one and five, but it still has to be approved. That I could live with, but two, I wouldn't want to walk down Central Avenue and see five feet, three feet, one feet, one square foot. You know, there should be a consistency of rhythm to them. That's not, excuse me, that's not solving your problem.

I'm an agreement. I think context does matter. So I'm curious, are you thinking these are like just more for downtown because when I think of the signs for downtown versus like the demon neighborhood, you know, I would think of different sizes for that or would this be like just applied across the entire city.

So the sign code is broken up into commercial properties versus residential properties. You're not going to find a blade sign in the residential section of the sign code. Like on demand, you know, with all those. But it would apply to all commercially zoned properties.

Okay. Yeah, that's my only worry is that things that might be appropriate, you know, in downtown might not be appropriate. You know, that size and scale in like the DeMond neighborhood, for example. So I worry about that. But then also when you say that we were approving these, did we not approve any during that time period of like January 21 through 25? Because they were too large or...

I only took a look at approved blade signs. So I've been here about three years. I started in summer of 2022. I do not recall a circumstance of a blade sign that did not get approved.

Like when they were asking to go up or like not approved that were five feet or just above the one square foot?

Above the one square foot. Okay.

Yeah, I feel like that might just be a big jump. You know, if we're just going from like one to five. And if there is like a nice little happy medium at three or three and a half, I think that might be better. And again, I just am concerned a little bit with like the context of the buildings.

Jim? I actually, as I read this, you know, what we're approving over those four years is an average of five square feet, not necessarily what was proposed to us. So I think it represents what... what we have viewed in the past as acceptable. And if you think about this just from a square foot perspective, if you have a sign that's roughly 18 inches wide, you still only get a little above three feet tall, which is still not a very large sign. I think it sounds large in context when you're talking about jumping from one to five, but I think as we established, none of the blade signs that exist are one square foot or less. And I think we can all agree that that's a pretty small amount. Uh, also with the sign, they don't have to do a blade sign. This is just if a blade sign is done. So I don't think this is different necessarily lead to a proliferate proliferation of blade signs. Um, And I mean, if you think, if you just think of even a smaller building off Daman and, you know, think of that roughly 18 inches by three feet, uh, I don't think that that represents a very big sign. So, um, I do agree. Maybe if we had a couple, uh, pictures of signs that, uh, you know, uh, To go along with context, this to say these to say, OK, this one's four square feet. This one's five square feet or something to register that number versus just numbers on a page. It might be a little easier to go forward, but I think I personally would be fine with the five square feet.

David. No, I'm glad we're talking about this. I think some photographs would probably help everybody just to have some idea of what has been approved in the past because I don't think there's anything out on our streets that is obnoxious or appears obnoxious on any of the buildings. I can't remember any feedback to that effect ever. So I think having some idea of what's out there and what the sizes would be helpful. But all in all, I'm always supportive of things where it's an administrative approval with a reasonable regulation where we don't have to have people come in here, you know, to try to get a, if you wanted a two square foot blade sign, you have to come in before the, the architectural review board. And I feel like that's, probably a little bit much uh for something that's that's two by one that you're really not going to it's not going to have a big impact on the landscape so finding what that reasonable number is and plugging that in i think is important so i'm glad we're talking about it and um yeah i'd be fine all the way up to five but whatever the arb thinks we'll we'll go that

route All right, sounds like context is important. We can come up with some examples, some real examples, take a look at more of the specifics of those recent approvals and we can follow up on that one. So the second one related to ground signs. So right now one ground sign not to exceed 25 square feet in an area may be erected per property. The ground sign shall be designed as compatible and integral part of the landscape area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials shall be approved by the architecture review board. So presently, all ground signs require PCA ARB approval. There are no material requirements identified in the sign code or in the architectural review guidelines. The staff make material recommendations to applicants consistent with other architectural review guidelines. These include recommendations for brick, stone, metal, or wood and discourage the use of vinyl and PVC. Staff note that vinyl is common for sign faces and that the material suggestions apply to the components of signage beyond the sign face. PCARB consistently approves ground signs which exclude vinyl and PVC products apart from the sign faces. Staff suggests that the architecture review guidelines for ground signs be drafted for PCARB approval, and that section 4205040A3 be revised to allow for an administrative review. So the question you guys is, do you prefer to leave this code section as written or do you support the revision to a revision to the above code section to allow for an administrative review in conjunction with architectural review guidelines for ground signage.

Here again, I'd be in favor of administrative review. But I think, again, if I'm reading all the materials and what we have looked at, we always seem to relate it to the context and the materials of the building it's going in front of. So again, I think we have to consider the general context that it's in, not just the materials. It may be different for a high-rise building compared to a two-story building. Bob?

I'm like a philosopher. This comes back to the same issue. The answer to me basically is that it should be administrative review, both issues that we're talking about tonight, and that there should be a right to an agreed property owner to appeal it to the Architectural Review Board. And the reason for this proposal is it is so subjective. And you guys will make the initial decision. I think in the end, the rule will have to state something like, as a general rule, 25 feet will be a starting consideration. But several factors will influence the final decision, context, whatever of the building, the surroundings, that kind of thing. So the owner is going to get a subjective decision, really, I mean, right through it. That's what it sounds like. But if they're not happy with it, it seems they will have the right to go before the architectural review board if they want to try to take another bite of the apple. I suspect they'll be done rarely, but they will have that right. Susan?

Ellen?

Yeah, I would agree with the administrative review. And I think Bob has a good point that if they feel that they want to do something more than, you know, what the administration is allowing, they've got an appeal process. You know, something more creative, neon or, you know, they can take it to others, us, the ARB.

Beyond? Did I hear that?

Yeah, you know. I've seen really some interesting signage in Sydney, Australia. There were a couple of buildings that had something, I think it was neon and it was just, it was well done and it looked great. Now would that be approved all over the place? No, it would lose its uniqueness. But Give them the opportunity. And I don't know, is that something that any decision that is made administratively can be appealed?

So the direction that... I would look at with this is something like a fence. So right now you can put up a wood fence. There's nothing codified that says you have to have a wood fence, but there are architecture review guidelines. However, some folks, they want to put up a vinyl fence. And so that doesn't meet the architecture review guidelines. They could come before this board to get approval. So what we'd be looking at is something that says, here's architecture review guidelines for ground signage, provided it meets all the sign code requirements. It must be constructed of brick, stone, wood, whatever our preferred materials are. And then such as with anything else that is an architecture review guideline, if somebody wants to propose an alternative to that, they can come before this board.

Yeah, just so you guys understand how it's worded. So in the code where it creates the Architecture Review Board, it basically outlines that any exterior modification of property requires the Architecture Review Board's review and approval of that. And then it lists a number of exceptions. And one of those exceptions is signage that conforms with the sign regulations that provides an exception where the city manager or... his designee, which in this case is me, does an administrative review under the permit type. So basically it's outlining an exception that allows us to process something administratively, but it also allows me to review all the context elements with any addition, with a sign, whatever it might be. I can look at what they're proposing and say, oh, I'm not really comfortable even though this addition maybe is stone that's allowed on our architecture review guidelines, but they're attaching this stone addition on a completely different colored brick home. So that doesn't really fit the context for me. So even though it qualifies for an administrative review, I'm gonna send it to the board or to the architecture review ward Similarly, if they're saying, well, we want to build an addition that doesn't meet the guidelines, it doesn't qualify for administrative review so they can choose to bring it to you. So our administrative process isn't a final decision that necessarily has an appeal side of it to you all as a board. It's more of an administrative path that's outlined that we can choose whether or not to use it.

Okay. Sounds good.

Amy?

That sounds great.

I can explain that.

You took some of what I was going to ask because I was going to say from a staff perspective, what would an administrative review look like? So I take this as you guys would basically approve something that you would consider a slam dunk. And if you were possibly even on the fence, you'd be like, okay, this is one that can go to the ARB. But the clear and obvious ones that we just go yes, yes, yes, down the line, we could clear those from the pipeline.

Right. And we have it set up very clearly. So if somebody is coming in to get a fence permit, for example, in that permit route, Ryan or Hobie does the actual zoning review of that fence against our regulations. And then once it passes their review and our building departments look at it, then it comes to me and I have to sign off wearing the hat of the designee of the city manager signing off. on behalf of ARB. So at that point we can send, I could say I'm not comfortable signing off on behalf of ARV and sometimes that's because I've seen or know of similar projects that you all have required modifications to are not approved. So that's kind of where we use the guidelines and what Ryan's done here is kind of looking for patterns. And then we try to keep the guidelines updated based on the patterns of how things are being handled at this level. to provide that administrative review.

Okay, my other question would be from a staff perspective then, would you guys prefer materials to be attached to this? Or by your example, even if, say, a stone sign was proposed, but you're like, oh, the stone sign doesn't really fit with everything, I would still kick it there. So in that case... Basically, would having a list of materials help you or would it be more limiting to the creativity of what might get presented to the board?

Yeah, the material guidelines are helpful. I would say more for our applicants because similar to how I was describing what I do with the review, but the applicants know these are helpful. historically approved or acceptable material combinations. And then we look at it in the context of how they're actually applying them to that specific project. And so it's really helpful for us to know, you know, vinyl is one of those things that historically, no matter how it's being used except for maybe on the lettering of a sign, is not typically approved. So that's a good list that we can tell them right away, don't really build it off of this product. But similarly, the guidelines at the top, they kind of refer to what they are. They're guidelines. These are not hard requirements. So they're aware of it. I think it's helpful for you if there's obvious choices and it could just be that we want to more formally reference for sign guidelines that we want to mirror the same guidelines we use for other materials on the property. So if somebody came to us and they wanted the administrative process and they ask us kind of what would be administratively approved, Ryan would probably say, well, your current building is brick with a stone base. So if you did a monument sign that reflected or built off of that in some manner, then that would be an appropriate one. If you wanted to go more creative or do something else, then we can send you through that process with ARB.

Okay, I'm just thinking of the trade off there in the sense of does someone just come with like a basic brick or stone sign because they're like, oh, this is going to get an easy checkmark where that might stifle their creativity from doing something that we all might find more interesting in the end? Or does it have the opposite effect of if you have no materials on it, then you're getting lower quality work just because someone's trying to, you know, come in just under? Yeah.

Yeah, I don't know about you. I can't recall times where people have come to us with anything really wild in terms of signage. They're already kind of trying to conform. I think it's really the size piece. And in this case, in this section of the sign code, it specifically outlines that this sign type has to go to ARB, whereas all the other sign types, a wall sign, a window sign, all of those are getting administratively signed off on right now. So this one specifically pushes it here, but I don't know.

No, the only times that signs come like ground signs would come to me and I have to reject them or say I don't recommend going forward. This is just because they might be proposing something that's final.

I would recommend the administrative review then and throwing out a couple materials you think is helpful and we suggest materials for other aspects of what we do. I don't see any problem with them.

David? And like the last one, I can't think of really examples in the city of ground signs that don't look good, that really don't largely conform with the regulations that we have in place. And so I think the regulations work. And again, if we can streamline the process and they're within the set parameters, I think staff should be okay to approve it. I think that would speed things up quite a bit.

All righty, so it sounds like we could come back to you guys with some suggestions or starting to draft those architecture review guidelines and get some feedback on that. All righty. The only two items for discussion.

Okay. Well, very good. Tim, any further comments?

Yeah, this is going to sound like I'm just buttering up staff, but I will say that these decisions are made easier by the fact that I think you guys do such high-quality work. And I feel like, oh, something like that's in safe hands and not like we have to look at everything. So I guess that's just me saying I appreciate what you guys do. Amy?

Ditto, but nothing else.

Ellen?

Ditto.

Susan?

Absolutely ditto.

Oh, they always do great work. Come on. It's getting boring. You keep saying this. But I got nothing

else. I agree with what Jim said. David?

Ryan? We might not have a meeting next week. There's a couple projects that are floating out there, a couple of site plan review things, but I haven't heard any whispers, so might get the next one off.

Yeah, Alderman Buttes, you had an event that you thought maybe we

to

Yeah, it's August 28th.

ahead. August 28th, that's the date.

Thank you very much. I just want to ask the staff, because I get asked all the time from my fellow property owners, has anything begun on the replacement of the trees uh where they were destroyed

nothing's begun on the replacement Of the trees just yet so we still are doing an assessment really on our street lighting system we've got things out to bid to replace sidewalks we've also gone through and any trees that need to be removed at this point have been removed in the city which is good There are a lot of stumps around town that are going to need to come out. We typically won't take those out, though, until we get a better feel on our replanting plan, and that's something we're working on right now. So our foresters have been getting together with Department of Conservation staff and also some former director-level folks from Department of Conservation that are also arborists. They're really trying to figure out in game plan how do you go back and put in you know, 700 or 800 trees and have them all grow to a, you know, a healthy canopy. What kind of variety do we want? So we're really trying to be thoughtful about what that replanting looks like. So nothing's been done just yet, but we are having those conversations and putting those plans together. Another thing is that we get asked about a lot is the trees on Y down and when those will be replaced. And so we've got on the board of Alderman agenda tomorrow night, We have a contract for landscape architecture for some conceptual drawings of what white on could look like going forward so hopefully within the next few months here we've got some concepts that we can take to the public and get feedback on. along with some cost estimates for what it might cost to go back in and rebuild Y down, at least from University East.

With regard to the cost estimates, is there any discussion of adopting a forest park plan? You know, you kind of like buy a tree, there's no plaque, but something so that it's not like a one-inch tree that goes in. Well, it will. Yeah,

No, and we'll have a lot of public education that will go with this because that's what we keep hearing from everybody is let's just make sure that whatever we bring in is... larger and we can get this going more quickly which is actually the opposite of how things work these trees need to grow in that spot especially street trees where they've got kind of that narrow window for their root system to go down and grow they need to grow into that that particular area. So you're really looking at trees that probably have a two and a half inch caliper. So I mean, these are going to be smaller trees. It's going to be noticeably different where they're maybe six feet tall or so when they go in, probably not any larger than that. So not saplings, but not Anything close to what we had, but you have to do that in order for those to have a chance to grow to their full extent. And so it's difficult for us when we're here now and we're used to what was out there and we want to see that go back in quickly, but we're really replanting these for the next generation is the way we need to view this. And when you see the conceptual drawings from the landscape architect, I mean, it's basically going to show this is what the Y-down median is going to look like next year. And this is what it's going to look like 30 years from now so that everybody has an understanding of what's going back in. But any arborists you talk to when we met with the conservation folks, everybody was very, very clear. You have to resist the urge to go back and put in large trees. They just won't take.

Maybe we have to install a giant magnifying glass in front of each of these

trees. It's going to be tough, and there's going to be a huge education component because everybody wants this stuff to happen quickly. But what we had didn't happen overnight. That was incremental, and it took 50, 60, 100 years for those trees to grow the way they did. We're just going to have to be very, very, very patient.

Susan, what you were talking about, the sustainability and the pop-ups – Is the intent to work in the individual jurisdictions or to develop a more overall, it's hard to say, region-wide basis?

Thank you.

I could. I do want to bring up what they put up on the screen here because it's pretty amazing what our staff has put together for the tornado. So if you go to their website, you'll see that storm update page. If you go to it now, there's these story maps that are put together. And it's amazing to click through and you can kind of see how this entire thing progressed. But the mapping portion is really kind of the most amazing piece. So we've gone out and assess all of the trees that were damaged. You'll see photographs with a lot of these, but like this map that you see here, this indicates the condition of trees. The red trees are trees that are now gone, unfortunately. Orange trees are those that require work or may be removed in the future after we do some more analysis. And then you have some others that are just being pruned and fixed up. But just looking at this map and the number of trees that were impacted, these are all city trees too. This doesn't count what's on private property and in people's yards. You can see how dramatic this is, especially when you look at Y down from University going east towards the city limits. I mean, it's pretty much all red. We lost 99% of the trees that were in that particular area, but You know, you look at Davis Place and Polo and the trees actually take the form of the streets themselves. You can see the Polo Loop there. You can see that the streets in Davis Place that run east-west just to the west of the Polo Loop. So, you know, Clive Rack, it takes the form of the street. I mean, it was just if you were in the path of this, the street trees really, really took a shot. But where it turns red, that's where we had the heaviest impact. That's where when you drive through, you really see a stark difference right now. But again, we want to be mindful about how we go back in and plant these things and make sure that the canopy comes back to what it was. But I encourage everybody to go and take some time on the website and take a look at what's been put together. And it's pretty remarkable. So thanks for pulling this up. When you see it this way, you realize how it's one thing to see it on the ground. But when you see this overhead view and see the amount of damage that we took, it's significant.

amazing. And we had another meeting with FEMA today. And every time we meet with a FEMA person, they're blown away by the amount of information that we've given them. you know on and her staff have put together these incredible maps public works has gone out and every section of sidewalk that's damaged has basically been put into a map there are photographs to show the condition i mean we documented everything in the city that's that's happened mapped it all taking pictures you know we've got all these coordinates in fema's not actually seen anybody do anything to this extent so we keep hearing that over and over again and As you said, Alderman Buse, our staff is just incredible in this storm response and everything related to it has really kind of highlighted that. And this public document that I hope people find and take a look at really kind of tells the story. It's really remarkable. So thanks, Ana, Ryan. Do

you know if there's going to be any state or federal funding available to us?

Yeah, that's why we've been talking to FEMA. So we anticipate probably 85% or 80% reimbursement for 80 to 85% reimbursement for all of the sidewalks that were damaged all of that debris removal that you saw us do that was over a million dollars to get all the debris taken out with the huge trucks that we brought in and everything else. So we should get reimbursement for that. The street lighting system, that's going to be really, really expensive to go in and almost completely replace in a lot of areas. So we'll get reimbursement for all those things. Unfortunately, they don't give you a reimbursement for tree planting, which is going to be a big expense for us going forward. But there are some other grants that we can take advantage of through the state. We intend to do that. But we do anticipate some really large reimbursements coming for most of our expenses, which is Fantastic. We're also in a position where financially we've got a really good fund balance. We have a lot in our reserves, so we can absorb something like this, and that's why we carry that fund balance. The nice thing is we're going to deplete it to a large extent in the short run, but when that reimbursement comes, we're really going to continue to be in good shape, and if something like this were to occur again, we're ready to deal with it. We're in a really fortunate spot that we could handle this. The

area around Big Ben Boulevard that shows really no trees damaged or removed. Um, This maybe should be shared with the Missouri University of Science and Technology, because they are studying the tornado effects in certain areas.

There were trees lost there, but they weren't city street trees. That's why they're not shown. So you're going to have... Trees that were down, that's Southmore over there, which is actually private neighborhood. So Southmore lost a ton of trees that's on that Big Bend corridor. Forest Ridge took a big shot. Concordia lost a ton of Trees. So if you were actually to show those trees on the private property, which the private property shown in blue on that map, then that map would absolutely light up. But we're just showing public street trees.

Even along Y down west of Big Bend? none of the city trees were affected

right not to the same extent

right there's a huge stretch that goes basically from the world the way to big bend where the canopy is totally intact

because the of the pattern of basic so most of the damage that's west of big bend is likely from the direct wind that actually then later results in the funnel touching the ground So the funnel clouds are developing over Clayton, but a lot of our damage was from those really, really high velocity winds that eventually come into the funnel once it actually drops. So when you see the patterns with our maps and we see on another map on the same page, you'll see a density of property damage map. Um, and I think, I think if you go the other way, Ryan, then, uh, you can see a pattern on a line where it's really running parallel to Y down, but just South of it. And then it ticks and goes North, um, as Y down goes North and then cuts through into the city. So this is a density. So we didn't want to call out every on the public map. We didn't want to have the points over people, specific homes. So we did a heat map version using waiting it based on the type of damage that properties saw. So you can see the heat density of the damage occurred on this map and it follows that same kind of line of how the tree damage was. Yeah.

Great graphic presentation. Tells the story. Yeah.

Spend some time with it. It's really interesting to go through and see it.

Well, thank you for showing that. And we'll look for the invitation. That sounds very interesting. And then Ryan will await your word on the next meeting. Thanks, everyone. We're adjourned. Hello. Hope you feel better.

Yeah, I

know.

I just started up.