October 6, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for October 6th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them. Before we start, I'd like to welcome Darren Van Tolf as our newest appointee to the Plain

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DeFate?

Here.

Susan Buse?

Here.

Jim Arsenault?

Here.

Christopher Brennan? Here. Darren Vantoff? Here. David Gipson? Here.

Christopher Brennan? Here. Darren Vantoff? Here. David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on September 15th. Are there any changes?

Yes. Item 5, in each paragraph it notes our commitment yeah that there is a second susan seconded the motion but it doesn't say who made the motion according to my notes i made the motion to approve the extensions with previous conditions and that was for each of the items

for both items four and five correct

right yeah i'm sorry

i believe in point three it says helen made a motion to approve does that carry down on there or is that separate on point three it says Helen made a motion to improve uh that's on sorry that one's for the other one

items four and five can be updated to reflect the proper motions

Any other changes?

I have a spelling one. Yeah, Max Bemberg's name is misspelled just on the back page on item. This is item number two, sub point three. It says Max Bemberg and it should be Max Bemberg, B-E-M-B-E-R-G.

Okay. Those will be duly noted. Any other changes? No? Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as amended. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll move on to new business tonight. The first item, number one, is 7931 Forsyth Boulevard. And that's about the short-term rental. We'll start with the staff report.

The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Forsyth and Merrimack. Property is zoned high-density commercial and is developed with a two-story commercial structure. Both floors presently contain commercial office space, and the second floor is intended to be converted to four residential units. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for short-term rentals on the subject property. Nearby uses contain a combination of residential, hotel, office, retail, and restaurant uses. No changes are proposed for the building's mass footprint or exterior. Staff do not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise, odors, or similar nuisances. The applicant is requesting a parking waiver from the Board of Aldermen. Short-term rentals require one space per unit, and the applicant is converting an existing structure that has no on-site parking. Neither reoccupancy for office uses nor conversion to standard residential occupancy would require additional new parking. Additionally, both are higher demand uses. Staff have the opinion that short-term rental use will not add additional parking burden to the surrounding area and that any parking needs can be met by nearby public garages. Staff have the opinion the proposal meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses and short-term rentals. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CEP to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Will the applicant come up, give us your name, address, and add anything you'd like?

My name is David Schlapp, lady. I can add to the staff report unless you all have some questions for me.

Well, as you know, we've reviewed it at length and so is the Board of Aldermen. And I think we're at the point this may be the final item that we'll talk about and then send back to the Board of Aldermen. So actually, it's a conditional use permit. We've gone through all the regulations. We've approved it. And I have no problem with the CUP. Let's see what everyone else says. Ellen?

No

problem.

Susan?

First, I want to thank you for pushing us as a city to look at Thank you so far buildings in your building and everything else and to teach the place where we can try to make it a positive for the entire city as well as for you. Looking at this, you know I thought the downtown parking in general, there'll be times for waiver I am concerned if this is occupancy up to 16 people. with the four units, I am concerned with no parking being provided. I don't know what the solution is to that, whether it's reserving places in a garage or something, but given the number of people, the bed and breakfasts, which I'm familiar just anecdotally, often are people coming to meet from other places. I wish we all used public transportation and things like that. I don't that we're at that reality yet. So at least as this starts out, I think that we should consider requiring some of the parking?

Well, let me address the parking. I think parking is part and parcel to why the office component of this has failed in the last year and a half. I've owned this building since 1994. I've gone through two major gut rehabs of this building, and I've kept it 100% leased every year since then. But the last year and a half, I haven't received a single letter of intent for any space upstairs or downstairs. What changed? Market did in general. Office, its relevance outside of the A space, the B space is becoming less relevant post-COVID. But secondly, the parking circumstances changed in this particular area of Clayton. We used to have surface lots across the street where they have now 480,000 square foot buildings. with a 1500 car garage. Unfortunately, we are unable to get spaces in that 1500 car garage, but I did get spaces in the 8,000 Maryland building. I have sufficient parking there and I have a committed contract to it. So maybe that should satisfy because it satisfies me that, you know, I know I can provide the parking in the 8,00 Maryland building. Yes.

You would advise your tenants, clients, whatever they are to Airbnb. how to get to there and where they could park their cars.

Yeah, I'm going to commit to those spaces so that I know that I have it, that I have that parking. for the tenants or for them, for the residents. Also for any commercial use that might come forward on the first floor, I also need that parking. So I've been working really hard on that. It's taken me quite a while to get it. Maybe this is more detailed than you want on parking, but it's definitely been an issue. in this corner since the, that area has changed. Carrollton building bank building has a terrific parking garage. I think it's underserved. I can't get in. They've locked it out. I don't know if you, it's just, it's everything's gotten a little bit tighter. So.

Yeah. And I think, you know, parking and our reliance on cars is a problem with all downtowns. It is people there. If, if there's secured parking spaces for this, at least for now until we see how there is out, that's something that I could, I could support it then.

The other follow-up, which is too far, is the St. Joseph Parish has parking, but that's a little further afield. I'd like to get in the 1500 car garage. Okay.

Tim?

I have no issues with the CUP. Just a kind of point of curiosity. I know this is kind of modeled off, I believe, a property that you guys have in Illinois. Yes. And the talk was, from what I had read, that you were interested in putting a restaurant down below. I don't know if you can give any information on that. I'd love to

know. Because I'm kind of inspired. I was out in Kansas City a week ago visiting my daughter who just got a job there as a freshly new lawyer. And we visited crossroads between Plaza and downtown. I'm not that familiar with Kansas City, but became familiar. And that's a semi-gritty urban area, maybe kind of like Midtown or Grand Center to me. I don't know. And we visited a couple of these lounges and your recent ordinance change would permit that. And they were absolutely inspiring. They had jazz music and a lot of sofas and chandeliers, sophisticated, beautiful art on the I mean, really beautiful art on the walls. And the places were packed. And that is what I came back and thinking we could do that on the first floor. And it's much more approachable because the full structured kitchen has been an impediment to getting, inducing a quality restaurant to the building. So the fact that that is not required for us at this point after the recent changes you have made makes this possible. And I'm pretty excited. I mean, I think we can do this. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Does that? Yeah.

Chris?

I think it's a great idea. I think with the arts fair and, you know, I think of opportunities, WashU, Parents Weekend, opportunities for where someone from out of town would be looking. It certainly would be cool to have people staying within the downtown area. And it kind of goes along with Mayor McAndrew's kind of really impetus or push for bringing people to the area.

So no concerns. I mean, Ed, I don't want to take too much of your time on this, but I really intend to do some high design on these interiors with really good art because everybody's led me to believe that the more beautiful they are, I mean, the much more robustly used by really great people from visitors to Clayton. Yeah.

Darren? No questions. Good luck.

Okay.

David, I don't have any questions.

Any comments from the audience or anyone online? No. Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation. I recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen.

I move that we recommend approval to the Board of aldermen. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. When will you be operational?

When it's possible. I'm ready.

Not here.

Eventually.

Okay, we will move on to items 2 and 3, 500 South Hanley Road. We have both a lot consideration and an architectural review. We'll do those separately. But we'll start with the staff report.

So beginning with the consolidation plat, the two subject parcels are located on the southeast corner of the intersection of South Hanley Road and Malinka Terrace. The proposed plat includes the consolidation of two adjacent lots. The proposed lot would total 16,157 square feet. The plat request is in conjunction with a commercial addition of two existing structures. Staff are of the opinion that the lot is consistent with lots in the surrounding area with regard to size, frontage, and arrangement. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plat to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. One, that the applicant shall provide a mylar with surveyor's signature and the property owner's signature for approval with the City of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermens approval. And that the applicant shall file the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office prior to application for construction or demolition permits for the property.

Okay, thank you. Who will speak?

Hey, Bowen. Hi, I'm Gordon Spring. Thanks for hearing us out here tonight. So my wife and I, Sarah Spring, and I are the owners of Hanley Realty, which is the applicant on there, and my wife is the owner of Y-Down Dental Group, which is the tenant on property at 510 and 512 South Hanley. Having acquired that property and the practice in 2018. And this application that you see here is the result of, I think, good support from the community and a need for additional support for dental care for the community, a desire to ease you know, patient demand by accommodating effectively a growth and doubling of our space. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but this is a further investment by my wife and our family and the community and appreciate your consideration.

Okay. Well, We're only looking at the lot consolidation.

Yeah, fair. It's all one big project to me, so keep me on task. I appreciate that.

We'll get to the other part. I really saw no problem with it. Of course, I've gone through all the drawings and everything. Will you have sufficient parking space?

We will. I am foggy on the exact count. I think it's 17-ish, 18? No, more? 20. Okay, 20. I'm corrected. We'll have 20 parking spots. We currently utilize a tandem lot in the rear of our property, and we also are a renter of alley space in... The Y-down lot, I think is the way I refer to it. And we will continue to probably utilize some of those spots while making available most of the surface spots on the 500 South Hanley property to patients.

Were some of those spots on 500 Hanley leased out to other businesses? Yes.

Yes, including us and others. And we have notified some of them that we will make that available for a transitional period. But that would end. The third party utilization of those spots would end. There may be an exception for after hours given the operations of our dental practice are obviously not directly conflicting with some neighborhood restaurants and the like. So there could be an opportunity to continually utilize that just to make it available as a convenience to nearby businesses, but primarily we would expect that to discontinue.

Yeah, the other evening businesses would probably appreciate it. Because over time, we've seen many people park there going to the restaurants.

Yeah, yeah. And we are also cognizant that that may well continue irrespective of a formal leasing arrangement. So yes, yes. Okay.

Well, I really have no problem with that. But we'll move to Helen.

No, I don't have any problem with it. I think consolidating it allows you to do the addition and really pulls that block together. Because right now it was looking at it closely. I didn't grow up here, but looking at the building, it appears that it was a service station.

That's correct.

And it just seems to stand alone. Consolidating it allows it to be tied in. So now I have no objection.

Susan.

I think it looks great and very much appreciate your commitment and investment in the community. Thank

you. Jim? No issues with the light consolidation.

Chris? No issues. Aaron? No, but it did answer my question as to what happened to my dry

cleaner.

Good luck. Yes. If you have clothes, I have the phone number for you.

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

I would assume there's no one online, right? Okay. Well, we do have the staff recommendation. Do you understand the two issues in there? Okay. So you agree with them? Yes. Okay. Do we have a motion?

Okay. I move to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with staff conditions number one and two. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Sounds good. We'll move on. Sounds good.

The applicant is seeking to construct an addition to unite the two commercial structures and expand an existing business, Whitehound Dental Group. Additions are not common in the Whitehound Business District. An addition is likely to have some visual impact, but the character of the addition retains the form, massing, and materials of other commercial structures nearby. The selected materials both tie into features of the two existing structures and unite them with consistent facade updates. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal is compatible in terms of character and materials with the surrounding area. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Any comment? I'm not sure I have much more to add. As Helen noted, it was our intent and the objective of the design to unify as much as possible. And so we agree that the current building is somewhat disjointed. And so we sought to unify that aesthetically throughout, including on our existing space. And so you'll see that reflected in the design as well.

Well, the new entrance really pulls the two buildings together. And I really do like the use of the different materials on there because it connects the building, the new addition to both of the existing buildings. It no longer will look like a service station. which I think will be nice. For those of us that remember when it was a service station, this is a vast improvement. Otherwise, I'm really comfortable with it. But I do have a question. You have, is it 16 bays? That's correct. In there? Including our existing space. That's correct. Right. All together. Okay. And... How many dentists or technicians do you have? I'm only curious

about that. So currently we have some less than full-time, but if you were to do full-time equivalents, it would be two and a half roughly currently, which would likely increase to somewhere around

four. I'm comfortable with it and we'll move it on to Helen.

i like what you've done i do have a question about the gable and the existing on the wilinka terrace side and the alley side are horizontal siding why didn't you change that to the vertical siding

i'm not sure that i have a uh strong view there. I think, if I'm remembering correctly, that there is currently horizontal siding. Is that right? I'm going to need some help from our advisor. FSA is responsible for the great work here, so I might ask for some assistance from Zoe to come up and address the specifics. Okay.

So the idea is basically the existing building above the eaves, the gutter, we kind of leave that alone. So right now it's just the existing horizontal siding. So we didn't really want to... mess with it kind of like uh because we if we want to replace that we could if you feel strong about that um but it just we probably will require some more like a roof work in terms of like how the trust um was there so we we just from like a cost effective point we didn't really touch anything kind of above the yeah the gutter yeah

Okay. It was more curiosity. Um, the other question, the other thing that I really liked is the existing doors on the Wellington terrace side. You took those down and utilize the holes instead of trying to fill them in. Yeah. Yeah. That looks really good. Very good thinking. Um, Curiosity, have you figured out the roof plan? Everything coming.

Yes, that is actually the hardest part to figure out, like how the things lined up and where, because the water need to be properly drained. You can't really create any like a valley point so the water can collect. So I think it's currently... um working out pretty well um so the whole thing was supposedly to be um basically the center line it's almost like a just run with the uh how the building joined together so the the ridge is going to have a turn in the middle of the addition so the addition almost like a um if i guess if i position myself north up the is looking like a really um kind of like looking like this that this is the front of that window right there yeah, so it will looking at the Ridge will look like this that joined with the existing to both that kind of in like a 90 degree way so. The only yes so that point will actually just overhang will tie back into the vertical phase of that. existing kind of big gable area. So there will be some counter flashing and but it is actually sloping positively to the little gutter running back right there. Yeah,

no, it looks great. It was I could see the challenge that you've got. Now, I have no other questions. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Well, first, I walked up with you lugging a lot of materials. Is there anything that you would like to show us for the building?

Put in the hard work to bring it.

Yeah, you did all the hard work. We found the elevator and all that. So let's take a peek.

That's the top portion. And we actually also going to that is almost like a almost like a metal thing that you see the dark bronze thing that running. That is because we were considering you the feedback from the manufacturer. They said you're probably better off with flashing system and also are the detail that you have to paint touch. Think in that one is back that the building addition on top and this one on the bottom, I think

Yeah, right there.

Yes. And the

only other thing, and my timing may be wrong in asking this, but is there any concern with additional runoff into the neighborhood with stormwater or anything back behind you with the project?

Point of view is right now all hard and ground.

No change?

Yeah, so.

OK.

Thank you.

Jim?

I'm supportive of this project overall and I look at these renderings and I like it and I like the work that has been done to tie these together, although it appears at least to me that first the materials were changed after submitting And in between these drawings, and it looks like they've changed again from what you're presenting to what's in these drawings. So as these drawings show, it's full brick veneer in the back. And it looks like instead you're changing over to a different colored brick and a panelized system. I already had concerns about the panelized system in the front. I believe it's P4 that's listed in here. Um, for this brick that ties together the two sections, is there any way that that can be just a brick veneer masonry system? My concerns are, I went to the manufacturer website. I looked at the material. I mean, the very first example that they use of this is on a seven 11. Um, and it's not a very, in my opinion, a very high quality looking product, um, with so much real brick on the building, uh, and real brick on the back, uh, I'm worried that the artificial brick look is going to stand out that much more when right next to real brick. And there are four, at least as presented in this plan, there's four separate bricks. four separate types of brick to tie together. It's a difficult balance to do that. Like I said, looking at the renderings, I like the renderings, but I want to make sure that the materials being presented are what's going to go onto the building and in what group. At least in this drawing here, to either side of that door, that wouldn't be real brick. That would be the panel that you presented.

I think that's right. Yeah. And you're pointing out the challenge that we had as we were going through materials, which is we do have different colors of bricks from different buildings that were done at different times. And so we thought the contrast for a different material would be helpful. And then taking that across to our existing, as she noted on the bottom beneath the windows of the 510 and 512 is currently just a Of concrete finish yeah rough cement so so adding some we think a little more aesthetically pleasing material just across to tie it together was was the goal, but yes being cognizant of the very point you're making. Which is there are a lot of different actual brick materials with different colors associated with

so two things. I would consider. First of all, for the amount, at least in the front, that you're considering using this panelized system, I understand that using a masonry product of Fulbert veneer is going to add cost, but we're not talking a very large area. I personally would like to see actual brick used in those areas. Second, you didn't bring an example of if you look to kind of the left of that panelized system, this kind of beige stack here which is meant to mimic uh i believe the south building those stacks going up uh so i would like to see that material too to see because as far as what's called out here it's a a misty gray it says misty gray or match exterior existing beige color so on that i'd like to know like okay and i feel like that probably i've In an ideal world, I'd like to see that right next to that just because I do think that marrying these two buildings, which are both of red brick but slightly different red brick, like I said, I know that that's a challenge. But just the design work is there to marry that look. I just want to make sure material-wise it does that. But as far as would you consider swapping out that panel in the front to real brick? And then I guess in the back, which currently is proposed, at least on our drawings to approve as real brick that now you're saying a panel, could we move away from the panel system?

Yeah, I mean, I defer to everyone's thoughts. The rear... Honestly, I struggle a little more with just because we already have several different types of materials back there, including from when we did a remodel back in 2018. that filled in some windows and exterior doorways so there's different materials back there and I'd love to avoid the issue where we end up with mismatch and frankly it stands out more to me and it bothers me every time I park in the back of the building so that was part of the goal was to go with a different material and it's just a parking like a surface alley facing parking in the rear there the front of the building I want to make sure that I'm tracking you on and then can, I guess, defer to the group. But is your idea to use in lieu of this, which is that column, to use a single actual brick for both the column and continuing to the side or to preserve this?

Two separate thoughts. So I'm sorry, and I probably confused that a little bit. I wanted to make sure, first of all, that that column... My goal, at least my personal goal would be for that column to match the south building for that design integrity to come through because I believe that's the design intent. Looking at the material and getting to see that, I believe that that fits. As far as for the panel, I don't mind necessarily that being a fourth color, introducing a new color into it. What I would like is for that to be an actual masonry product versus the panelized system. I have concerns seeing... It's one thing kind of seeing the small sample, but seeing several real-world examples. And like I said, it's... A lot of the examples that are presented of this material, it's an O'Reilly auto parts store. It's a 7-Eleven. They're fast food applications. They're not necessarily, you know, considered these very like high elevated examples and it's kind of presented more as a cost saving measure. So I have concerns about introducing a material to that way. when we have an opportunity here that's not necessarily a very large swath to just continue with more real brick and kind of overall bring the look of the building up. Because I think design-wise, I think what's been done to unite these two buildings is very successful. I just want to make sure that the materiality kind of follows through behind that and really drives that home.

As I stand here, I'm frankly not aware of what the cost differential even is. My understanding loosely was that the material cost might actually be more expensive than brick, but that the labor for install would then would be less expensive on this, such that it was fairly close or maybe there was a marginal savings. I'm not knowledgeable about that one way or the other. So we can take that back. I don't know if you have other thoughts.

I'm Steven Feeler with FSA. And I think your comment is well taken. But I think the consideration here that we use the veneer material was We struggled with every square inch on this site to get parking, to get the functionality of the spaces. And the real masonry, as you know, will be a much thicker material. And believe me, you know, to get the sidewalk in, the turning radius of the cars, inches mattered on this site. So But if you feel strongly about it, we can look at that and see again. But that was the thinking around our original design because of dimensions that we didn't have on this site because, again, everything was so very tight combining these two buildings.

Yeah. I personally would like to see real brick there. And then two, if real brick is not being used on the back, and I could be incorrect, but only there's a separate panelized system, which I believe you presented. I think that's what's over there to your right. That's what's down here below, I believe P16, architectural wall panel sandstone. So that is called out down below. don't even necessarily have a problem with that, but I don't believe a panelized system is called out above that. I believe it's brick and even it calls for the brick to be saved and reused in the Shire building, but I didn't see necessarily where that would be reused. So like I said, I believe from, if you read through these materials, there were materials that were presented because where that P4 panel is called out in here, it originally in the application is listed as light brown brick And it also on the north facade, it says cedar trim is proposed where that is what's changed over to the sheet metal banding that you're talking about. The banding I don't necessarily have a problem with. The panel being swapped out for actual brick, I would like to see that be brick. And I'd like if... If the back is not going to be actual brick, I'd like the drawings to call out what it's actually going to be. So there's just not quite a... Once again, this is... I hope to communicate that looking at this plan, I believe in this plan. I just want to make sure that the details and the look that we're seeing on the screen are what's actually delivered on the project. And I'm worried if the materials have changed a couple times that what is proposed isn't necessarily called out in these drawings.

Fair. I mean, yeah, obviously we're aligned on wanting the drawings to match up with the actual material. So yeah, no issue there. I don't want to be going to a contractor saying that they didn't fulfill as expected when they point to a document that might be different than what we thought. So yeah, we're aligned in that regard. Again, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts as it relates to the brick versus masonry or versus the panel, just so that we can be cognizant on welcome thoughts. We are not aiming for a cheap-looking material, so I understand the use case of the 711 in the model. We thought we were elevating the overall look, including with the use of the panel, but can take that back if that's a broad concern.

You know, where I've actually seen it not work is on the, it's kind of on the corners when you have a, when it's just flat. In my experience, it can look really good and you might not even know. But when you actually have to turn a corner or have it face into a joint, that's when you can really see that it's a, that it's a panel. Yep. Okay. Yeah.

To follow up on what Darren and Jim were saying, I have concern about the panel P4 around the existing entrance on 510. Okay. Because I think you would have... either 90 degree or 45 degree angles meeting there. And I think that would be a problem visually, but also I think it could be a problem putting real brick there because you may not have the width to actually put the brick there. So I like the idea of the brick, but I'm not sure that it will actually fit around that major door entrance.

I'm picturing that correctly. I believe that's currently wood. And the reason that Zoe was noting the maintenance-free was because that was part of our directive. Because the wood has deteriorated. We've done repairs over time, and it has looked rough. And so we were taking it both as an advantage to Unify and to ease on the maintenance. But yeah, I believe that is wood currently. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah? We've had multiple times where carpenter bees were like attacking this wood and patients would come in, they're like, oh, you know the bees. So we were trying to opt for something that would not give the carpenter bees.

Don't give EpiPens, just dental treatment. So yeah, we have had that issue, yes.

Well, I think where it's going is you see what architecturally we would like, but it also has to be able to fit into the very tight areas.

Yeah, I take it. So we weren't enamored with the idea of like a composite wood to like a decking material. That is an alternative that I think is of comparable thickness in that at least for around the door area, We didn't love the look of that, but just to get thoughts on direction. If it can't accommodate the brick, which I think is a fair point, I'll let others more knowledgeable validate or not. Then, I mean, what, I guess, what is the request? Would it just be natural wood?

Well, let's go through everyone before we actually get into it. Jim, would you finish? I'm finished, yes. Chris, any thoughts?

Yeah, thank you, Jim. You brought up some concerns that I had in regards to some of the cladding and then some new ones there. I think the building looks beautiful as far as the design of it. I like how you've tied it together. And I think it really does unify that whole section right there. I've gotten to the point where I drive down Hanley and I don't even notice the cleaners anymore. Sorry, I didn't pick up your dry cleaning or anything. But I think this is nice. This kind of catches your eye. The only concerns I had were really two. One, I see that you've called out the overhang where it says Y-down dental group. I see that you called that out P9 in terms of steel frame, pre-finished metal clad flat canopy system. I didn't see what the material was for the actual signage up there. I think that's pretty dynamic and I'd like to see that maintain rather than suddenly having the signage go onto those glass, like with an applique or something like that. To clarify,

signage is not a part of something that the architecture review board would review in this instance. Any review of signage materials would come later as part of a sign permit. Perfect. That solves

that right there. And then the other one I know is not related.

I mean, it's important for us to, for there to ultimately be signage there. There's currently signage above the bay of windows on five 10, um, which would be duplicative. And so it was getting removed. Yeah, exactly where that cursor is. Um, so we, we seek to be visually pleasing there

to be continued down the road then for that. Uh, the only other concern I have is not with, um, the architectural layout. And again, this might not be addressed here is I think about people turning left off of, um, out of that lot, um, onto Hanley there. And, um, I just don't know. I'm sure you have issues now with people parking there. I don't know how bad of an issue is or if it's something that down the road, it's a right turn only sort of thing, but that's beyond the scope of these plans here. So I have no further things.

Darren. Nope. You got my comments. David. I don't think you have any questions

to address the left turn. on to Hanley Road, having gone to that cleaners for years. It can be done, but you have to be careful. During rush hour, I'll be honest, I've gone right and gone around the block to come back. So I think you just have to be very careful. Any other comments? Okay, then let's go back to the brick discussion. And Jim, did you have any further comment on that? Because I'm afraid full brick may not fit in certain areas. I think that was P4. Yeah, around the existing door on 510.

Or is that 512? It's 512, yeah. 512.

Yes, I'm not sure about around the door on 512. I would believe at least underneath the window, all that's probably being pulled out and that could be accommodated there. So I don't... Maybe there's a option C that we can see. I just know my main concern was around the new entrance, how we have these two kind of like large expanses of this brick. And I think if it was limited, let's just say to what's under the window here on 512, maybe in that just very small instance you wouldn't necessarily pick up on it. In the pictures that I saw of the large expanses of the panel, I had concerns with the look of the panel. So if we're here talking about as far as the materials that are presented and what our opinion of those materials are, I had, I took issue with that and I worried, like I said, especially next to three different types of real brick, having a fake brick is going to stand out all the more and draw attention to that element of it. So those were just my concerns with it.

Is the Nichiha brick, how wide are those panels?

They, I don't know.

So then there would be vertical joints? Only at the corner?

We can go back and check with the manufacturer again. But in that dimension, in the past projects that we've done, we've had panels go all the way across That entire dimension. So you don't have any verticals.

Multiple panels,

a budding.

Well,

I can say too, secondarily, if this, if this panelized brick is to go on the back of the building, that's not what the plans say. in front of us. So I, you know, I don't want to necessarily push this off, but as far as like, Oh, will it work around the doorway or something like that? That might be moved to the point that we'd be approving plans that they're saying aren't correct as it is. So it would probably be helpful if all, you know, if maybe both these issues could be sorted out where we have, you know, our, our finished set lines up with what is going to go on the building. And then maybe that gives us, an extra week or two to investigate maybe what can be done around these entrances?

I would suggest if the applicant was willing to postpone this for two weeks, we can still take the lot consolidation plan to the board of Alderman next week. That's already got the recommendation here and then take up the architectural review two weeks from now and allow you to research some of this and come back with answers. And if I was the applicant, I probably wouldn't want to commit tonight to anything, not knowing what the cost implications and everything else would be. So just to give yourself a little time there, but you're not losing any time at the board of Aldermen on the plat. So that would just be a suggestion.

Yeah, that's helpful. I think we do take advantage of that. Do you think you

have enough feedback at this point?

Yeah. Can I ask one more question just to inform that follow-up? If that large section was not a Nichiha of a brick but was a different material, so it wasn't a real brick compared to a composite material, and it was a – I mean, I guess we have other types of – like that paneling system, for example. And that's a bad example because we wouldn't use that same one. But if it were a completely different material that wasn't optically a fake version of the real thing right next to it, would you have a different view? It would be

hard for me to very confidently weigh in without seeing that. I can say overall, when I look at this plan, I see a very well thought out, well-designed plan. So I have faith that... that something will be able to be brought before us that kind of executes on the vision, but without seeing something in person, I can't really weigh in on that.

Procedurally, are we able to submit option A and B if we were to come back just to streamline? We are sensitive, obviously, to the overall timing. It's a very large project for us, and there's a number of constraints that would prompt us to need to move quickly. So would that be something that's possible?

Yeah. A, B, C, whatever you'd like. Okay. Okay.

Other questions to inform our next steps before we lose this opportunity?

Right now, the plan is we're using

You're talking about what's existing there right now. Correct. Yeah.

Well, we'll leave the design decisions up to you and we'll take a look at it when you return. And it sounds like you're comfortable with what David was suggesting agreed.

Yeah,

yeah. So we'll go with your

pencil here and come back.

Okay.

I move that we postpone we table. The architectural review. To a date to be determined. Second. That allows you to, if you need extra time, you can have it, or if you want to come back in two weeks, you know.

See you in two weeks.

That's quick work. Okay. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We'll see you in two weeks, okay? Thank you. Okay, we've come to the end of our agenda. Uh, Darren, you're the new guy. Any comments?

No. Um, just thanks for having me. It was a pleasure to meet some of you and individually, uh, uh, in the process, but look forward to seeing more of this. It's great.

Chris.

Jim. Welcome Darren. It's nice to have a full seven for the first time, uh, in, in a little bit. So I.

Welcome. And, uh, I appreciate learning something every time.

Hello. Welcome, Darren. It's good to see you back, Chris and the others. That side too.

David. Nothing died. Toby. Brian.

Something to have on your radar for the next meeting is we're going to introduce you the draft of the commercial zoning revisions. It is already on the pending applications page. If you would like to take a look at the draft or have any sort of questions, we're not expecting any kind of decision to come out of that meeting. It's going to be the first introduction. But I know it's been a while since we've talked about it. We've got some new folks. So if that comes across your radar, you want to spend any time with it, you want to reach out with any questions, feel free to do so.

Thank you. Before we end, I wanted to bring up one more item. For those of you who were here at the last meeting, three of the four new Mayor's Youth Advisory Council members were here. and following that, Susan, you and I were talking, and you suggested that on the Sustainability Committee, you have the MYAC people actually doing a little volunteer work, I guess you would call it. So from that, I spoke with Ryan, and we thought that that might be a good way to do it. So two things. I've already sent that potential request out to the four members to get their comments. And I made it very clear that we do not want to take time away from their studies, that they would have to volunteer for it. But what I'm posing here is for anyone here, and Susan, you may have the best information of what type items we could entice them to participate and learn with.

I don't know that I do, but I can tell you with sustainability, it was done very well. The students did, they got projects important to the entire city, but also that it really impacted them. Things like the no idling and the fact that children breathe in in carpool lines or wherever else so much more than the rest of us do. And they have the most susceptible lungs to issues with that. And the students would take that on and then They'd put things in the globe and run with it. It was a project that spoke to them that they understood that it was, and also tangible enough. It was finite. They didn't have to spend, yeah, it wasn't what's ongoing, you know, whatever. And it's been really positive because they feel part of it. They actually are engaging in city government versus sitting in a back row watching us and trying to stay awake. I know we're very interesting, but so, you know, what project it might be, I don't know, but things that would impact, you know, that they would have some connection to, that this really does, that they would say, yeah, this really does matter. So whatever that means.

Well, hopefully our collective thought processes may come up with something. I would also hope that one or more of the four might have an idea also. Could be interesting to get something from a student. We'll leave it at that. If you have any comments, let me know. Otherwise, we will see you in two weeks and meeting adjourned.