November 17, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plan Commission ARB for November 17th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFay?

Susan Buse?

Jim Marcineau? Here. Christopher Brennan? Here. Jeremy Huff?

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on November 3rd. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. At this point, we will have an open forum for anyone in the audience that would like to speak on something pertaining to the Plain Commission ARB, but not pertaining to anything on the agenda tonight. So if you'd like to, please fill out a card, which I think is on the podium. and hand it to either Ana or Ryan. Also, any speaker will be limited to three minutes.

Okay,

I don't see anyone coming up, so we'll move on. We have no old business. We'll move into new business. The first item is 8029 Roslyn Drive. Is the applicant here? Okay, just hold on. We'll start with the staff report.

Okay. Subject property is located on the north side of Roslyn between South Merrimack and South Brentwood. The property is known to R2 and is in the Davis Place subdivision. The property is developed with a two-story single-family house. The project includes the construction of a second story above an existing addition, which would comprise of siding. The architecture review guidelines consider citing a secondary material and limit it to no more than 25% of a facade. The increased use of citing would exceed the permitted limit. Applicant is seeking approval for the use of citing on the residential addition. Citing is common on additions nearby and would match the existing citing on the house. Staff are of the opinion that the expanded use of citing would have a minimal visual impact and recommend approval is submitted.

Okay, would you like to add anything? And first, identify yourself, name and address.

Good evening. My name is Steve Hollander. I am the architect on the project 519 First Capitol Drive in St. Charles, Missouri.

Anything to add?

No, I think the staff report is pretty complete. The owner is wishing to expand above an existing one-story addition and add a second floor bedroom and infill some of the windows on the lower level to add more privacy to the first floor. That's the essence of the project. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. I live in the neighborhood, so I've seen that house and all the changes it's gone through. I certainly agree with the staff report. I don't see any problem with it, even with going with the siding material. So I'm okay. But Helen?

I do have a question. Are you demolishing the existing sunroom?

No, the existing sunroom will be remaining for a while. it's covered. The existing addition that was there, which was the enclosure of the sunroom, is remaining and we're just decreasing the size of the windows that are in that first floor for added privacy.

Okay. No, then I have no problems. Susan?

Jim? I can say I'm usually the very anti-vinyl siding person. I will say I didn't quite notice at first that the windows are all going to be replaced, so all the siding that's on there right now is going to have to be replaced anyway, correct?

The siding would have to be replaced, yes. Well, for the most part. We're in filling and they'll have to patch it in, but yes. Okay.

I would much prefer hardy or another material. In this case, I can understand overall and I think I can live with it. I would prefer another material other than vinyl siding if possible, though. Chris? Yes.

My preference would be for something like hardy siding or hardy plank as well, but with cost considerations. I didn't find it necessarily objectionable. I do wonder if it's a bit of a slippery slope because it is a 53% for the siding. I do see that. And so it is a greater variance than I think we've seen before. Were there considerations given to something like a hardy plank?

No, they were planning on infilling. From my understanding, the owner had requested that they be infilled with the same material.

I would personally would prefer it, but I also know that you live in the neighborhood. And if you don't find that it's objectionable and you live there, then I would give deference to the chairman in this case.

Darren? Okay. Any comments from the audience? We do? Okay. Okay. Karen Murphy, do you hear us? Unmute. Karen, do you hear If you do, oh, the hand is gone. Okay. First to respond to what you said, we don't have much siding in the neighborhood. But this house has always had the siding on that little one-story addition. And in reading it, if they were going to reuse most of it, I really had no problem with it. And also looking at it from the street, the bulk of the house is brick. And it's just that the brick is now matching the color of the siding. So I think it'll be okay. Any further comments?

In regards to like a hardy board or something like that? Yeah, the hardy board is easily double the cost of the vinyl siding.

Okay, no other hand? Didn't come back. No. Okay, we do have a staff recommendation to recommend approval as submitted. Oh, she did.

Okay.

Karen, do you hear us?

Yes. Can you hear me?

We can now. Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that the existing siding is Hardy Board and that is what is proposed to be used.

Would you like to answer that?

I'll disagree, but if they want to go with the Hardy Board, I'm happy to do that. That's fine.

That's what was proposed in our bid from the general contractor.

Okay. That's news to me, but okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Do we need to make an amendment to our, because it's, it calls out vinyl on the, on the plans. Yeah.

Yes. We need to make an agreement that the siding will be all Hardy board.

No problem.

And do we have a motion?

I move to approve with the amendment that the siding will be Hardy Board. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item number two. And that's 7401 Maryland Avenue is the applicant here or online.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Meg Blaze. I'm the designer with Dana King. I am representing the applicant Paul Bassett, our project manager.

Okay, and that's for 7401 Maryland, correct?

That's correct.

Okay, we'll get started with the staff report.

Subject property is on the north side of Maryland, east of the street's intersection with North Jackson. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a two-story single family house. Project consists of renovations to the rear facade of the house, which replaces a series of doors and windows with a combination of new doors, windows, and siding. Per the architectural review guidelines, siding is a secondary material and may comprise no more than 25% of a facade. The existing rear facade comprises approximately 25% siding, and the proposal would increase the siding to approximately 53%. The applicant is seeking approval for the increased use of siding on the rear facade. The siding would replace windows and doors and would not result in a lesser quantity of the primary material brick. Additionally, the rear yard is largely screened by greenery. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed use of siding will have a minimal visual impact.

Okay, Meg, do you have anything to add?

I think that that's an accurate representation of the application. I do want to just note that on these plans, we do have the covered deck shown here, which is still to be determined if they're going to complete at this time. So it would be the plan that is proposed and shown in Elevation 2 on page A9 that would be the correct elevation. The rendering at the top left of that page shows with the covered deck, which we may still do, but we're just not doing right at this moment.

Okay. So I think everyone can see the Elevation 2 in the lower right corner up on the screen, and it's removing the deck in the upper left corner. That's

correct.

Okay. Meg, while you're at it, could you go over any of the new materials? It looks like you're doing windows and other things.

Yeah, we have all Pella Lifestyle Series aluminum-clad wood windows and doors. And the siding material is going to be an LP SmartSide prefinished lap siding. What she has on the garage, which she completed about two years ago, the converted garage on the right there, that is a hardy board, but we prefer the LP SmartSide. But it's very similar looking to the siding that's on the garage.

Okay. It'll all be white. Is that correct?

Yes, and that's the siding that's existing on the right side of the converted garage is all white as well as the gable at the top of the two-story addition that's existing is also white siding.

And what you're proposing with the LP material? will also be pre finished white. Yes, sir. That's accurate. Doesn't match the Hardy board.

Yes, sir, it does.

Okay, I think it would be good if we approve this that you submit of the LP siding and hopefully a piece of the Hardy board to see that it does match.

Would a photograph of the two next to each other suffice?

No, we'd rather have it submitted to the staff.

Okay, so you would prefer that we remove a piece of the siding from the rec room, from the converted garage? Is that what you're asking?

No, not necessarily. I'm sure you can access a small sample of the hardy board

The project was completed a few years ago, and I don't believe the client has any spare materials. So we would just need to buy new so that would be similar. We wouldn't be able to confirm that it's the exact same.

Well, we don't expect it to be the exact same. In your design practice, you can probably get a small sample very easily without having to pay for it.

You're just talking about like a color chip.

That's all.

Oh, I understand. I thought you were meaning a large sample of

that.

Okay. Gotcha. So you're just concerned about the color being the same as the white on the garage. Is that right?

Correct.

Okay. Yes, we can we can make sure to submit a sample of that.

Karen Hollweg, I do have a question on sheet a for the exterior elevation East.

Yes, we have a small amount of siding that will be infilling below. It's currently a full height window. That is a small gangway between her house and her neighbor's house where there's you really can't see it because she has a if you see off to the bottom left of E1, you can see there's a covered deck over there. So it's not visible from the street. And paying a mason to infill that small portion would be easily triple if not quadruple the cost of just infilling with a small amount of siding below the new window.

Have you considered doing a full height window and then for privacy on the inside, drapes, blinds, shades,

shutters? It doesn't work as well in the... in the layout of the furniture to have a full height window there.

Okay. Excuse me, that was my only concern. The rest of it looks fine. It's just that elevation, that infill looks, it takes away from everything else you've done.

Do you think if we picked a siding that was closer to the color of the brick, it would be less offensive? No.

It stands out like an afterthought. And obviously you're putting money, you know, the owner is putting money into this. So that's my only comment. Yes, the

owner is putting a significant amount of money into this home to make the layout work for the best of what this house can do for the neighborhood. So this was a small concession to getting some other more favorable outcomes on the interior.

Susan?

yeah. Yeah, there was no greenery that was impacted by the cover deck. The cover deck would actually be replacing where they previously had a wood deck. The wood deck was falling apart and they removed it about two years ago when they did their garage conversion and so we were essentially just putting a slightly larger deck where there already was a deck so no we wouldn't be affecting any of the um the greenery that's surrounding the property

There's no regulation that would require them to maintain the greener there unless the scope of work that they did in the future triggered site plan review.

Jim? First, I just want to say it's my understanding that LP SmartSide is a paintable material, and that's the main difference between LP SmartSide and Hardy. So matching it to the current building shouldn't be a problem as far as they should be able to color match it without having to go with something stock. Also, as far as the plant goes, this is a case where I think it actually makes sense to go above the 75% primary material because white... LP smart side or white siding is what exists already on this house for the most part. And basically as staff saying, this isn't an addition where they could use any material. They're taking out windows and doors and infilling material in there. And honestly coming up with, I think a much more pleasant plan in its place. So I'm overall good with it on this one.

Chris. My only concern would be the lifespan of the LP siding versus that of Hardy. I know that the lifespan is not as long and does require more maintenance. I think there's a big difference between the rendering that does show that covered porch, which is pretty cool looking, and then the rendering where it doesn't. It's obviously much more evident that it is a large expanse of siding. But as staff has called out, it really doesn't affect the overall placement of the bricks due to the expansion. I think it ties in nicely with the garage. My only concern would be the longevity of the LP siding. But I'm not extremely familiar with the material either.

Darren? Okay. Any comments from the audience? Or any hands up? Well, we've gone through it. We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Are there any other comments before we go ahead?

No, I am wondering. The greenery that we talked about, is it evergreen? I did not try to buy the house, so I don't know what it looks like in the back there.

I did go by, it's a mixture of evergreen and deciduous. But if I remember correctly, more deciduous.

A landscaping expert, so I'm sorry, I can't really speak too much.

Ellen, I would add for, I would agree with Steve that I'd like to see staff review the materials before final approval. Yes. Okay.

May I be able to ask a question at this point? I'm sorry, did you say something?

No. Do you have anything else to say?

I had just had a question if you were considering waiting on the approval to see the sample we were hoping to begin DEMO tomorrow, would we be able to at least get a DEMO permit to make sure that our project can move forward as scheduled.

Do you have your... So we don't issue separate demolition permits for this scope of work. Demolition should be covered under your building permit. That will also show how you're reconstructing the openings.

So are you saying that we'll need to delay the start of construction until we can get a sample of the material?

It's not... The construction... They could make a motion and still approve this and provide for staff to review the sample before you get your building permit. You will need a building permit to actually construct this project.

Correct. Yes. Yeah. To do any of the inspections, we understand. Yes.

Right. So you need your building permit before you start work. We don't do separate demolition permits for this scope. Those are only for when you're taking down the entire structure.

Okay. We should be able to get a sample within the next couple of days.

Yeah, so just to be clear, you shouldn't start work until you have your building permit.

Understood.

Anything else, Meg?

That's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted with the submission of materials to the staff for their approval. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. Thank you, Meg.

All right. Thank you for your time.

Okay. We'll move on to items three, four, and five. And they are 304 North Central Avenue. And we'll be doing a minor subdivision plant first. followed by the site plan review, and then the architectural review. So with that, we'll hand it over to Ryan.

Subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Central and Kingsbury. The property is owned R3 and is developed with a one-and-a-half-story single-family house. The project includes the demolition of the existing house, subdivision of the lot into two lots, and the construction of a new single-family house on the southern lot, also known as Lot B. A minor subdivision plot must meet the zoning requirements for which the subject property is zoned and must not result in any nonconformities. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed lots are in conformance with the ARTHI requirements and are consistent with lots in the surrounding area. Staff recommend that this board recommend approval to the City Council with the following conditions. One, that the signature block be revised to reflect the current mayor. Two, that the applicant provides a mylar with surveyor signatures and the property owner's signatures for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements of the City Council approval. Three, that the applicant files the plot with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office prior to approval for a building permit. And that four, the applicant shall apply for a demolition permit of the primary structure on the subject property within six months of approval of the subdivision by the City Council.

Thank you. Who's going to speak?

Good evening. Eric Vietmeyer with Vols Incorporated. We are the surveyors of record for this proposed subdivision plat. I really don't have anything to add to what Ryan has gone through his staff report, but more than happy to answer any questions.

Well, on the staff report, both lots A and B are over the minimum size. Correct. And basically, that's all we... really are looking at for the minor subdivision of this.

Yes, we're trying to avoid any need for any rezoning at

all. Good. Okay, that was my only comment. Ellen?

No, the 50-foot width is typical of the neighborhood, so sounds good.

Susan? Susan? Jim? No issues or comments. Chris?

No issues.

Aaron? Nope. Any comments from the audience? Kathleen, come on up.

Subdivision?

This is the, yes, the minor subdivision plant dividing the one property into two.

Hello, my name is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Bemiston and I have a concern which seems kind of weird because I'm like six houses up on a street that's next to it. So I would just like the Planning Commission Board to realize that what I'm concerned about is stormwater and this is at the top of the hill and the way the water runs, it runs kind of like back towards the back of the property and then it goes... between Central and Bemiston. And it kind of goes from the east side of Central down the back of the west side of Bemiston. So I'm at the bottom of the hill. And when you're looking at the site plan, it starts out with about 15,000 square feet with the two lots. And there's about 33% impervious area currently. So when you're looking The plans for 304 Nancy and Michael who are great neighbors and I love the house all that other kind of stuff. They're pretty far underneath what they could do on the southern facing lot, but I just want you to consider the fact that the reason they're asking for the subdivision is so that the northern piece will be developed as well. So assuming the northern piece will because it's smaller, will be out to as much as they can get, we're looking at probably an increase of about 2000 square feet of additional impervious area. So we're going from about 5000 impervious when you're looking at the two lots together to probably about over 7000 impervious when you looking at their site plan and what will probably go in Laupy. So I just wanted to kind of like, please think about that. So I've lived at 329 North Beavis for 16 years. And every single time another house goes up on the east side of Central, the river that comes down our backyard just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Now we're very lucky because it doesn't affect our house. So I feel a little weird complaining about it, but like we've, we can't put mulch in the back of our backyard. It has to be stones because everything just runs down the hill. So the river is just getting bigger and bigger for every infill house that goes on the east side of central. Thank you.

Thank you,

Frank.

My name is Frank Hackman. My wife and I live at 314 North Central. With regard to the subdivision, we have no objection.

Thank you. Any other comments? Any online? Okay, right now we're just talking about the minor subdivision plant taking the roughly 15,000 square foot lot and dividing it into two separate lots. And let's see, Eric or Lauren, you're aware of all these staff recommendations?

Yes.

Okay. Any other comment?

No. If everything is approved, I plan on taking the staff recommendation letter to my surveyors in the morning and have them make the minor little revisions. We'll get them to Mike and Nancy and get that back to city staff as soon as we can.

Okay. Well, then let's see if we can pull together a motion to the city council.

Okay, I move to recommend approval to the City Council with the four staff recommendations. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. We will move on to item for which is still 304 north central but here's where we'll be talking about the site plan review and Kathleen, we will address the water at this point. Ryan.

So full analysis of cycling review can be found the staff report i'm going to go over some of those key points. Trash storage and HVAC and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R3 district. Stormwater will be managed adequately on site. The landscape plan meets the canopy coverage requirements and street tree EX04 could be retained if the scope of a proposed berm was reduced. A third curb cut is proposed to connect to a new garage. This would result in three curb cuts on Kingsbury, one of which would not be used. Staff are of the opinion that the unused curb cut should be restored to Trelawn. Staff are of opinion that the project will meet the criteria for site plan approval with the conditions identified in the recommendation section. The conditions are the following. One, that the applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer. This 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 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 in compliance with applicable stormwater management standards. Then 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 systems and shall submit proof of the recording prior to issuance of a building permit. The scope of the berm shall be reduced and street tree EXO4 should be retained. And then last, the unused curb cut would be removed and restored as part of the tree lawn.

Okay. Eric?

No. Again, Eric Vietman of Volz Engineering. We are the engineers of record for the improvement project. Everything Ryan has stated is accurate. One thing I would like to point out, given that it's already been brought up, the roof area that goes to the drywall, anything that would overflow that drywall will go out to Central rather than down through the backyards between Central and Bemis. So all that roof area, if for some reason that dry well fails, is going out towards north central rather than down the backyards of everybody.

Could you show us so everyone will see it where the dry well is and the direction of water flow?

The dry well is right here. And any flow that has to bypass the capacity will go out to north central. So the entire roof area is essentially directed to north central rather than down the backyards.

And what about the flow at grade in the other colors?

The other colors, we're kind of reducing the runoff. The amount of impervious coverage for this lot does result in a minor increase in runoff, but the roof more than covers that increase. So everything else, there's a reduction in runoff going towards the north.

Okay. So then on the south side, the beige color would all go- Going out to Kingsbury. Toward the street. Correct. Okay. Of course, the northern property, which I think is site A. Yes, lot A is. We're not doing anything.

Correct.

Right now.

Correct. So that is generating just a complete reduction in runoff for that particular lot.

Will it be graded?

Yeah, it's going to be graded as needed to accommodate for the basement that is going to be removed. It's going to be backfilled and will be left in a buildable condition, but still not looking like post-demolition, but it's going to look like a yard.

So it'll look like an unimproved yard. Correct. With grass?

Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Until such time as the lot is sold and new buyer wishes to break ground. But then they'll have to go through this process on their own.

Okay. Well, in reading the staff report and your responses on site B, it seems like the water will be fairly well controlled. So Um, let's move on. Ellen.

Could you explain the six inch berm?

That is it's kind of needed so that we could leave a little bit of that existing driveway in place. If we shorten up the berm, we might have a little bit more water coming, coming around from this area coming around and onto that existing driveway that then goes off to the north. That was the whole intent of that berm and the reason why tree number four had to come out. But if staff and the board would like to leave tree number four, the tree itself will help divert some water out to the street. It's not going to be a complete change in the watershed. But I don't believe it would be a significant flow of water that would then be diverted to the north. And actually, you know, there is some of it that berm is diverting up to the north. It's just preventing from going directly to the neighbor to the east. So trying to mitigate any increase to that adjacent property.

Are there other options?

I mean, I can't, I don't didn't study the landscape plan. But yeah, I think there was some new plantings planned for that area. And

no, they could reduce the berm or eliminate it and save the tree.

We could, but then we had there's a chance for an increase in runoff to the neighbor directly to the east is all part of that management to make sure we're not increasing to one property or the other. That was the intent.

Okay. Why would you be leaving an unused curb cut?

That was just an original idea. We have no problem with staff recommendation of taking out the one where we're getting rid of the truck.

Okay.

Nancy Georgian, my husband Mike and I are the owners on 304 North Central. That curb cut has been there as a second access. There was originally an accessory building there that was taken out some time ago. There's no parking along that side of Kingsbury, so our driveway, the little one that we want to keep, that's what you're talking about, right? No, I'm

talking about April 1 when it's coming.

No, she's asking about the one we want to keep, I believe.

You have one that is going to a paved area that's existing. Right, and we want to keep that

one, yes.

Then you have another one that goes

out. That's coming out. Okay. And that will come out, and the staff recommendation is that in addition to taking out the existing main driveway, that the curb cut be restored to tree lawns. which it will be, and we're fine with that recommendation. I thought it was a great recommendation. We will then have a new curb cut to the new garage.

No, that's fine. I didn't want us to be looking at three curb

cuts. No, there will be two curb cuts. One will be essentially a parking pad since there's no street parking, and it's an existing one, and also the tree will, you know, there's a tree there that it would disrupt, but... they'll just, the current driveway will be replaced with a new one.

I have nothing further.

Susan?

If I'm following, lot A has significantly more impervious coverage than lot B with the existing house. So when the existing house comes down, lot A becomes 100% green space. And then lot A is being developed with a little bit more impervious coverage and what would be there assuming the new property line. So moving forward, lot A will have to account for their own increase in runoff. And I guess it will be up to staff or the board at that point whether we get credit for the previous coverage that is there now or if we had to account for just coming from an undeveloped lot to new improvements. I think that's a question for when lot A is being

not the landscape architect, so I can't speak to that design. I just, I believe Ryan has stated that the canopy coverage meets the current code.

So canopy coverage for a lot is based on the square footage of the site. There's a certain percentage of a site that needs to be covered with that square footage. So they might have well in excess of what is currently required for a lot. They may be removing some, but they don't have to replace to the same quantity that they had before. They just need to replace to the required percentage that this requires.

So as proposed, they exceed the minimum canopy coverage required for the lot regardless of what may be existing. What is proposed will exceed the minimum canopy coverage requirement. Okay.

Yeah. All our council, council woman views. I'm going to get used to that. Just to be clear, the, the, this proposed lot B development is not getting any sort of credit related to the lot A that's being created.

And the proposed impervious surface that we're for lot B is significantly lower than the allowed maximum. We're allowed, I think, 50%. Is that right, Ryan? 55%, and we're proposing less than 39%. Okay.

Thanks. I think I have the idea, especially from what Ana said and from what you've said, just to clarify it, to kind of bring it all in. You know, we have lot A here, which is going to be remain untouched. And then lot B is all we're talking about. You're only covering 38% of lot B and that does not give you any credit again for lot A. So anything that was, so that's 38% of the new lot B.

Correct. Lot A will be 100% pervious and credit for the existing structure that's there now on lot A will be something that

they're treated like two separate lots, as if they were always two separate lots. So it's not that it's 38% of the larger combined lot. When

I measured the existing impervious coverage, I laid out that new property line and everything south of that property line is the existing impervious

I appreciate you clarifying that. I think Susan, I definitely share your concerns overall when it comes to impervious coverage. I think we can all agree 38% is definitely much lower than what we typically see for new construction. So we can get to that a little more in architectural. We'll focus here on civil for now. Also, just how the water is treated and everything. I don't really have any concerns as far as the direction it will move. And I think it's more than adequate. You've addressed the curb cut, so I don't think we have to worry about that. I will say it's like I definitely understand what you're saying with the berm. I wrestle a little bit with removing a street tree isn't exactly... It's

behind the sidewalk, so it's not a street tree. It actually is in the public right of way. Oh, it is? Okay. I thought street trees had to be between the sidewalk and the curb. This is an abnormal street because the

overhead electric line is in the tree lawn, so that's why you see the smaller street trees in the tree lawn and the larger street trees.

I love learning. Given that it's a street tree and I think... I think that's probably a minor change overall that I feel you guys would be able to tackle without significant disruption to the plan, it sounds like.

So

yes, as long as the staff recommendations go forth, I don't have any problem with anything.

Chris? I have a couple thoughts. And thank you for clarifying that it is two, and I want to reiterate, it is two lots that we're talking about. And really lot one, we can just put off to the side because we're not discussing that. So everything that we're referring to in terms of coverage just refers to this lot B. And all the calculations have been done on that. I have concerns with the existing tree, like this EXO4, because it looks like a large tree. And I do worry that during the process of construction that some of these large trees are going to be lost anyway, just through the construction process. It seems like that's been the case with a lot of construction in that general area. And then when we were talking about the curb cut, there was the mention that that tree would have to go too. I don't know if that was... brought into this as well. But I just want to make sure that this canopy cover is, that everything is being done to maintain as much of that canopy cover.

If EX4 right there is to remain and we have this portion, this existing curb cut right here, that the sidewalk would more than likely have to come out, as well as the apron curb will be backfilled. So there'll be a little bit of disturbance under the drip line if we're saving that, but we'll have to have the landscape architect and his staff on site while work is being done just to help ensure we can have some longevity out of that tree once construction is completed.

The other concern I have is more that if we're hearing from a neighbor down the street that despite our best planning, that there still is increased runoff that is affecting not the residents but the yard. And I know that we're using the MSD 15-year storm event sort of numbers. I think I'm just wondering more if this is an accurate sort of representation. If we're trying our best to limit stormwater, but yet we have reports of neighbors that it's not necessarily working, I don't know how we go about addressing that.

Well, as I said before, the entire roof area for the proposed house is going to the dry well. So anything beyond the design capacity will discharge out to central rather than going down the backyards of everybody in between central and Beniston. Outside of that roof area, there's reduction in surface runoff going to all the adjacent property owners. So any larger storms from the roof will be directed out to north central, while everything else is a reduction for that same event going down everybody's backyards.

And the drywall. Looking at the drywall, where is the pop-up emitter located? That was, if that drywall were to reach capacity there. Right here. Oh, gotcha.

Yeah, right there. And then it's all going to come out towards, out to the street.

Okay. So then following up on what Chris

was saying, we're not increasing runoff in any direction. Correct.

According to our numbers, that is correct. Be

reducing?

Yes. Yes, there's a reduction going in every direction because we size the dry well to take the entire tributary watershed of the roof. And it's even oversized pending the soils test for infiltration. And then pending that soils test, if it needs to get a little bit bigger, there's room for it to get a little big bigger.

And that is irrespective of Lot A or the first lot there?

Correct. It has nothing to do with Lot A.

Thank you. I have one just little question. So on the, the landscaping of the site plan, the existing concrete drive and apron at the top of the, the plan that's all staying. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. That is staying because there's minimal parking on Kingsbury.

I see. So that'll be used as off street parking for the house, for the

residents. For guests and you know, whomever else. You

were saying there was a garage there or there was a building that Are you okay. I was just curious. Nope, it's okay. I was Just curious. It seemed odd.

It's a great way to, you know, further help protect this large tree is right at the end of it. If we're not removing any right any improvements under there. Yeah, then we're not, you know, we're keeping the disturbance under that drip line to a minimum.

site plan any comments from the audience frank

yes my name is frank hackman my wife susan and i have lived in clayton since 1971 and at 314 north central since 1974 we have always supported new construction in old town In fact, I was one of the first people to publicly support loose hours condo development at North central and Kingsbury across from Taylor park. I want to stress tonight that my wife and I do not oppose the plan demolition of three or four North central, although we are sad to see it go, nor do we oppose a plan to subdivide the lot. as I said earlier, and build a new home at the corner of Kingsbury and North Central. We are, however, concerned about stormwater flow from the property to our property, both during construction and thereafter, and also the removal of the existing tie wall and security fence on the property at 304 North Central. The property at 304 South Central is considerably higher than our property. This is particularly true in the last one-third or so of our shared property line as it moves away from North Central Avenue. From the time we moved into our house in 1974, the backyard of 304 North Central had both a tie wall ranging in height from about 40 inches to about 24 inches as it moved from the back of the property to North Central, and on top of the tie wall was a high-security fence designed in part to prevent people from falling off the tie wall. Both the fence and the tie wall remain in place today. Ever since we heard that 304 North Central had been purchased, we have been in contact with Mr. Ryan Helle regarding the property and the plans for future development. He has been very responsive in answering all of our questions. This afternoon, we met with him and he showed us the plan package for this property. So far as we can tell, the plan calls for the removal of the tie wall and the security fence bordering our shared property line with no plan to replace them. We were surprised to see this design element. And currently there is no stormwater runoff problem that comes up on our property, but the potential is there both during construction and afterwards and particularly the concern for the steep drop-off on our shared property line, we believe are both issues that should be addressed before the project is approved. Thank you.

yes my name is frank hackman my wife susan and i have lived in clayton since 1971 and at 314 north central since 1974 we have always supported new construction in old town In fact, I was one of the first people to publicly support loose hours condo development at North central and Kingsbury across from Taylor park. I want to stress tonight that my wife and I do not oppose the plan demolition of three or four North central, although we are sad to see it go, nor do we oppose a plan to subdivide the lot. as I said earlier, and build a new home at the corner of Kingsbury and North Central. We are, however, concerned about stormwater flow from the property to our property, both during construction and thereafter, and also the removal of the existing tie wall and security fence on the property at 304 North Central. The property at 304 South Central is considerably higher than our property. This is particularly true in the last one-third or so of our shared property line as it moves away from North Central Avenue. From the time we moved into our house in 1974, the backyard of 304 North Central had both a tie wall ranging in height from about 40 inches to about 24 inches as it moved from the back of the property to North Central, and on top of the tie wall was a high-security fence designed in part to prevent people from falling off the tie wall. Both the fence and the tie wall remain in place today. Ever since we heard that 304 North Central had been purchased, we have been in contact with Mr. Ryan Helley regarding the property and the plans for future development. He has been very responsive in answering all of our questions. This afternoon, we met with him and he showed us the plan package for this property. So far as we can tell, the plan calls for the removal of the tie wall and the security fence bordering our shared property line with no plan to replace them. We were surprised to see this design element. And currently there is no stormwater runoff problem that comes up on our property, but the potential is there both during construction and afterwards and particularly the concern for the steep drop-off on our shared property line, we believe are both issues that should be addressed before the project is approved. Thank you.

Any other comments? Kathleen?

Hi, my name is Kathleen and I'm sorry to muddy the waters. I wasn't trying to say that what Nancy and Mike were doing was wrong. I was just saying, can you look at this more holistically? I think that their plan is great. I love the fact that they're doing geothermal. I love the act that they're putting in a lot of native plantings. I love the that they're saving most of the trees. And I understand that they could make their house bigger. I understand all of that. I'm asking the board, to maybe stop looking at these things like i i know that their site plan fits everything but i feel like we need to stop looking at these info developments as just here's the box and it fits all the requirements and i know you guys are doing work as far as that is concerned so that was why i spoke to the site plan i know i can't do anything to like stop the subdivision But I would like to say one thing about the actual site plan. And that's, I'm concerned about the remainder of the concrete pad because it's not allowed. So I'm wondering, is it just because it's grandfathered in? Like there's street parking on the other side of the street and the NC is probably closed. looking at the back of my head being really mad at me, but I'm kind of like, like there could be even more impervious surface if you pulled up the pad there. So I know our regulations do not allow for more than one curb cut and you guys are allowing two curb cuts in this property. So maybe think about that a little bit because it is weird to have for people to just like have a parking pad next to their house. So that's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Come on

up. So there currently are two curb cuts, and they've been there. And on Bemiston, you'll notice several other houses where the houses were taken down and developed. There are two curb cuts in front of several of my neighbors on Bemiston where we live now. And so we are asking to retain that one curb cut and replace the main driveway with a new driveway so we are not changing it so whether it's grandfather or whatever the world would be for that we do think it's a safety issue because there is no parking on that side of kingsbury we also think we'll lose that tree which is a beautiful tree at the end of it if we take that curb cut up because it's going to completely change the root system and um you know i don't think this tree is going to survive you know yeah i mean if you really want that curb you know that taken out We can make accommodations for it, but I think it's very reasonable to request that.

Okay?

Thank you.

Other comments from the commission?

I do have a question. Could, looking at that berm and the tree, I understand the reason for the berm. Could it be moved west so that it wouldn't impact the tree?

It would actually probably be better than shortening up the berm, move it a little west, help direct some of that water that could otherwise go to that east property and have it go out to Kingsbury where more of that western frontage is going.

Yeah,

definitely look at that.

Okay, if you're agreeable to that. And I realize there's no guarantee that a tree will live. You can do everything right and the tree just says, I'm out of here. So this is just an effort to keep the best of both.

Yeah, that's fair.

Okay. Okay.

Other comments? Chairman, do you want to see if they'll address the comment from the first public comment about the removal of the wall and fence? Sure.

We can... Yeah.

My name is Jeffrey Bernstein. I'm with Jeffrey Homes. I actually live at 321 North Central, so I'll be building Nancy Georgian and Michael Georgian's home, and I'll also be purchasing a when it does become available. I haven't spoken to Frank about this, but I'm happy to tear out that railroad-type wall and replace it with a modular brick retaining wall. So we'll still keep the retaining wall, but just update it to a more aesthetically pleasing wall in today's times. And then, of course, you'll still have to have a fence on top of it.

So then by doing that, it would maintain the exact same site and the water retention.

Exactly. The grade will be consistent with what it is right now. And of course, the new home isn't quite designed yet, but we'll still be able to maintain that height of the existing wall with the new modular brick wall or new modular retaining wall.

And so for now, we would take the... leave that wall in place until such time as lot A.

Correct. So I know we're not necessarily talking about lot A, but we can make it a condition that when we do talk about lot A, whenever that time will be, that we'll replace the existing wall with a new wall at the exact same height.

Sorry, I would recommend, because we don't want to tie those future decisions here. didn't mean to use the word tie to the tie wall, but if instead, if you don't plan on demoing, we would just modify your demo plan here so that it doesn't say TBR for the wall and fence. And then

it stays the way it is. And since I live across the street from Frank, he'll make sure that I am good with my word. Thank you.

Okay. Any other items? Okay. We do have four conditions.

Yes.

Oh, right. Sorry, five.

Yeah, I was going to say maybe a fifth. Yeah.

The berm relocation.

It should clarify that the... Oh, that would be six then. The berm item is noted in the conditions. The scope of the berm should be reduced and street tree X4 should be retained. That is already noted in the conditions?

Number five would be using in place that existing wall. Right. Okay.

Okay, do we have a motion?

Yes. Okay. I move to approve as submitted with the with staff recommendations number one and number two and number five to retain the existing tie wall and fence. Noting that recommendation number three, the berm will be moved west to preserve street tree EX04 and staff recommendation number four has been agreed to that the curb cut will be removed and restored as part of the tree lawn.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, now we'll move on to the architectural review board in Ryan.

The applicant proposes construction of a single family house on lobby comprising primarily of siding the use and scale of the house are consistent with surrounding properties signing is not recommended as a primary material. However, it is common nearby and staff have the opinion that it will complement the surrounding area equally as well as brick staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay.

Good evening i'm lauren strutman i'm the architect and. we've got some 3D renderings up on the screen that show kind of the shape and form of this House my printer kind of printed the colors a little differently than the colors were actually going to use or I think a lighter nicer looking set of colors for this House. be doing a window, and it will not be. won't be white like my sample. It will be actually this off-white, linen white. And the siding will be a light gray, not that they don't bring any siding on the print that you have. And I think these colors will actually look really nice. It's going to be a very nice quality architectural shingle in a weathered wood color. And we're going to be using a very real stone natural lime stone colors stone and. what's a little unique about this house is we're using a James hardy fiber cement siding but there's a very upgraded version called artisan which is a thicker James hardy siding that has a little more revealed to it, and because it's thicker. The corners of the house can be installed with mitered corners instead of vertical trim boards. So what you're seeing in these renderings are mitered corners, which a lot of the older homes in the area have on their older siding and We also have the stone not only on the fireplace, but on the front porch and the base of the front porch. There is a little bit of shingle siding up in the gables as an accent, and all the colors on the outside will be these pewter gray and linen colors. not the greenish look that's on these color renderings. And the garage door color will match the siding color. And I'm here to answer any questions. It's kind of a uniquely shaped lot, but I think we've designed a home that fits very well in the neighborhood. We tried to put kind of a little bit of variety to the roof lines along the Kingsbury side so it wasn't just one straight wall of house. And I'm happy to answer any questions

Well, Lauren, as usual, you come up with a unique design that fits the site. And I really like the mitered corners. I think that makes quite a bit of difference. Also, this will be one of the larger windows. frame houses in the neighborhood, but we do have substantial siding in the neighborhood also. But the way you've broken it up, especially on the Kingsbury side, I think breaks it down into smaller pieces and it's much more pleasing to my eye. And now I understand the color of the roof shingle going to the lighter gray colors as opposed to what we see in print. That was my main color problem in what we had.

Actually, Nancy gave me pictures of a lot of her favorite older homes in the area. And I said they all have mitered corners on the siding, and there is a James Hardy product that's not used very often, but we can match that on this new house, and that's why we did that. There's actually kind of a nice detail on the porch columns of the home that's going to be demolished, and we're going to match that on the columns on this new house as well.

In the

artisan material, Are the colors, same as on the

standard James hardy actually we normally never use a pre finished James hardy because. Of all the touch up paint and touch up paint on the pre finished tends to fade differently so in 10 years you'll have kind of a weird appearance on the House if you use the pre finished so pretty much all the custom homes, we do have a job site finished paint it or not pre finished so it'll be a custom color and that's the color that's been selected. Looks

very good to me. I think we've gone over the site. I think the house fits both in the context of the neighborhood and for the site itself. Helen.

I like it, except for the siding. The amount of siding, I mean it's almost 100%. That bothers me. I know it's an upgraded siding and all of that, but that still concerns me.

Susan?

I agree. We've had a lot of sighting conversation today and I think actually most of our sighting conversation has turned out better than, uh, than what we typically see. Um, I will say in this case, um, On an island, I would agree with you very much, Susan, that this is a lot of siding. If we're talking Clayton House looking, lots of siding. But here is, I think where context really matters. And I think we've kind of talked about the context over the last couple weeks of various neighborhoods. And I think staff noting that siding is much more predominant in this part of Old Town. This is a house that's responding to its context, which is Very refreshing for me to see. It's very refreshing to have an architect come in, respond to the site around them. Migrated corners, obviously, after a designer's heart. And these details and these details you speak of it because that's what makes the homes in Clayton, these details, these thoughts, the way this home fits the site. It doesn't try and dominate the site and take up every possible square inch. I also appreciate seeing the materials in person. I was, yes, I was a little worried looking at the renderings of that greenish color. It presents obviously much nicer in person. So most, if not all of my concerns have been allayed by the presentation. So thank you.

Chris? I can't get past the siding. I'm having difficulty with that just because of the size of the build. And looking at the Lusauer house next door, dark, I think that the color, having a very light siding on this, it really stands out. I think the design of the house is beautiful. I think you've done a wonderful job with that. I just cannot... get past the feeling that once this one is built, any further ones that would be built in the area too, they would refer back to this one and say, well, if this one, which is really a bigger house, if this one was allowed to do siding, then how come we can't do siding as well? So that is my concern with it. I don't have an easy solution. I would love it if this house was all brick, but that is a massive difference in price, and I understand that.

And it's not to save costs. There are quite a few older-sided homes in the neighborhood, and Nancy and Mike Georgian really wanted to have it look... There's an older-sided farmhouse kind of on the lot now, and they very much wanted it to be in that style. It was not done to do something cheaper or save money. We're actually using a window called the Westchester by Sierra Pacific that's a historically correct window, not just a regular window. You can see we put the little... slightly arched heads on the window trim, again, to match older homes in the neighborhood. And it was a very conscious effort to blend in. And there have been, on Central, three sited homes built. One was done by Michael Lauren and one was done by Dick Bush and one was done Lauren Strutman. And they're all newer ones, but they all have masonry accents like this. So they're not meant to be just cheap sided houses. They're meant to be very very high-quality homes that blend in with that community.

And there was no disrespect by me saying that by any means. And I think that Jim said it right, that it is the details. And speaking of choosing those windows does make a difference. I still have issues, and I think maybe just because it's a light-colored siding. And also, of course, when you get something like this thick or this artisan design, then of course the mitered corners is going to come down to the quality of the construction of it because um i my hope is that these mitered corners would look as wonderful as they do on the rendering

it should look very good

yeah um that's that's my only concern is that i'm i walk by there every day um i live right around the corner um And I love the charming little farmhouse. And I think maybe there's a little bit of that that I'm struggling with as well, because that is a smaller scale with a lot of grass. And I agree with Jim that this is not overflowing the lot, which is fantastic. But in my mind's eye, it's taking a little hard to remedy, you know, to rectify what is there now and what will be there and how it plays out for future homes around there as those ones get older.

Aaron? Yeah, I think getting it right will be really important. A couple questions. What's the material in the dormer? Is that a cement shingle? It's

a James Horty, it's called a straight edge fiber cement shingle. It's very subtle. It's an even edge to it and it's just a little accent in the gables there.

They'll have the same color. And that area between the first and second floor what's the that material is that just a flat

there's a band board trim that kind of lines up all the way around the house at the at the joint between the first and 2nd floor and I will also say most homes we do almost always have 10 foot ceilings And this house has nine and nine foot ceilings. And in Old Town, R3 zoning, you are allowed a 35-foot height to the midpoint of the roof. And this house is like at 28 feet to the midpoint the roof. This is not even a real tall house. The Georgians didn't want 10-foot ceilings. We have nine-foot and nine-foot ceilins, which is pretty unusual for a new home.

Thanks.

Any comments from the audience? Nancy, come on up.

Obviously, Nancy Georgian. So we did put a lot of thought into designing this house. I grew up on Central. Our house was one of the first teardowns. So I really get your comments. And I've seen the neighborhood change. There's a lot of nondescript brick houses and townhomes in the neighborhood. And we really feel this is I mean, it's the corner entrance to that area of Old Town. We just feel very strongly this is what should be there. It's not going to be a massive house. It's bigger than what's there. But the house that's there now has a very large footprint. It's very wide. There are multiple original houses down Kingsbury, the whole neighborhood. I mean, I grew up in a white frame house. And so I really, I understand and I understand what the Clayton staff has to deal with on some of the requirements. But I greatly appreciate your concern on siting. I just truly believe as Mike does that this really fits and this is the house that should be there. Thank you.

Any other comments? Any further comments from the Commission? Well, it's a beautiful house. I think it will fit in the neighborhood well. And we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move to approve as submitted Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. When do you start?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, we'd like to continue. Okay, we'd like to continue with items six and seven. That's 8145 University Drive. And we'll be doing the site plan review first.

The subject property is located on the north side of university just east of the streets intersection with North Forsyth. Property is owned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Property is developed with a two story single family house and the project includes the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new single family house. A full analysis of site plan review can be found in the staff report, and I'll go over some of the key points. Trash storage, HVAC, and impervious coverage is proposed in conformance with the requirements of the R2 District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. A significant increase in stormwater is proposed to impact the front yard. All roof runoff is proposed to go to a pop-up meter in the front yard, which will concentrate a significant amount of runoff to a single location without any intervening BMPs. Utility lines shown in the front yard are proposed to conflict with two trees. Additionally, a quarter of the neighbor's tree is in a critical root zone and will be impacted by the proposal. This tree is noted as being in poor condition and having structural issues. The impact of the critical root zone is likely to negatively impact the tree. Staff are of the opinion that these outstanding issues should be addressed and that the proposal has not yet met the criteria for site plan review. Staff recommend that the proposal be continued to allow for the following revisions. One, implement stormwater BMPs to mitigate the impact of water runoff in the front yard. Two, revise the tree plantings to remove the utility conflicts. And three, address the challenges regarding the two neighboring trees.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Henry Nguyen from the Stirling Company, what, 8445 UIC City. Did

you give us

your name? What's that? The first name is Henry, last name Nguyen.

Did you get that, Brian? Okay. Okay. We're talking about site plan review. So any comments?

So I just took a look at the site today. I think my, the overall map here is not correctly because I saw they have some kind of squareness curve on this side here. So it's been my overall base here will be transferred to the streetway there. It's no longer go to this side over here. So it was my post and existing one should be the same. We were the same at before.

So maybe I'm not following. What difference will that make?

Because if we have, if they have some kind of the, you know, the curve already, so my overall kind of error, but now we'll be quite strict. It's no longer go to this side anyway.

So are you saying that presently all runoff goes to the street? Yes, they have a photo here.

Go ahead and take a look. Because I do this, it's not my survey. I just used somebody's survey.

Yeah, so there's an existing curb along the western side of the property line that's directing all of the existing water. So the existing EXA area identified in red on the left-hand side, it's really all blue. All blue. Okay. Blue.

Because I only use the general area based on the contour there, the surface, you know. And then the service showed me it's go straight to this way. It's go straight to from here. You see head contour right there? So it's go straight this way. But because I'm not the surveyor, so I don't have any kind. I need to go to the side and see it. So what's different there? So I just come to the side today. And they had a curve over here. That's why all the water now is straight towards the street anyway.

So it would all go south? Yes.

So we're not changing any direction of the water right now. It still goes south.

And now on the right side drawing, there all the water would also go south. Is that correct? Yes. What about the area A, that very small pink area at the upper left corner?

This corner right here?

Yes.

So it still must be has the wall. It should be the same at the one over here too. So my air mass should be from here, start from this point here to the wall and then come to this way. This area should go to this. We're not changing any kind of direction of the water now. So we should always choose the south one.

So even on the right side, the improvement, all the water would still go south. Is that correct? Yes. Nothing to the residents to the west? No. Or the north? No.

Because they had the fence there, and the fence had higher points there. So the water will never switch straight to there. It's always straight to the south. So whenever the water hits the fence here, it's automatically just drained out this way.

Okay.

And then on our page number two, we decrease and run up also. It was over here. Yeah. So we decrease and run off, so we're not increasing anything. It's right there. This area right here.

What sheet is

that? I have a bigger one. Do you want to use it? This is good for your eyes. I don't have a food sign here.

Well, I think we can probably see it on the screen. We each have a screen. Okay, so I think I'm following it. hopefully everyone else's, that all the water is going south and nowhere else. Can you address the... Well, I hear what you're saying, but I really have a hard time reading all the plans to be directing all the water to the south.

Yeah, so if we zoom in on the garage, this is where I'm trying. I understand the existing rolled curb. You have a rolled curb noted on the new driveway. There is a downspout on the southwest corner of the garage that's outside of the rolled curb. So how will that downspout go south? That's now

how we'll be piping all together. So all the dust bowl on the wall and the house, that's why we had to see this. That's right over here. That's the piping. So we all pipe them together.

So you're down, you're piping the downspouts from the garage to the front. Yes.

Also, yes. Where do we see that?

So all the dust line over here, small dust line, that's the audit piping for dust bowl.

Well, I see the dash line going around the house to the front, but I don't see it coming from the garage.

Right here.

Oh, right there.

This dashboard here, go to here, go to this dashboard and come in now.

So the garage downspouts will go under the

driveway and

meet up with the downspouts coming down from the house.

Then all will come to the front.

Okay, to the front pop-up. Yes. Ryan, could you scroll it up a bit? Okay, so the pop-up

there

Well, Ryan, you did put in the staff report that the proposal should be revised to better mitigate the stormwater runoff. Any further comment on that from what we're talking about?

So the plans identify two separate stormwater drainage areas, two tributaries. If all of that water from the rear yard is coming to the front, then I think that we need to see plans that demonstrate that. because the staff report was written in a way that interprets the plans as they're presented to us. If you as the board find that this is sufficient and you want to proceed, you're welcome to do so. As I interpret these plans, they're separate drainage areas, and one of them is increasing.

And then I do have a calculation for my window also on this page number two.

So to clarify, something that in my opinion I think we need to see is we have the existing and proposed drainage areas here with these calculations at the bottom. We have an A and we have a B, and there's differences in numbers here. If part of A should actually be counted in B because it all goes to the same place, this calculation is incorrect.

That's correct. So I need to update the overall air map for this one. It's based on my field visits today. I saw they have a curve on the west side.

So are we hearing that these calculations are incorrect?

It's not updated yet. So this one, based on the view, is what we submit to the

city. I'll be honest. I think I'm getting lost.

Yeah, I mean, I think for this board to make any sort of real evaluation, we need to start with providing the correct numbers to you. My recommendation to you as an engineer when you do this, I don't think that change in the drainage area... pre and post um changes ryan's comments though in the staff report you still have all of the water and the sump pump coming out of a pop-up emitter so the sump pump pop-up emitters about one foot away from all of your other rooftop drainage area and there's no mitigation of the water outflow from that pop-up emiter and we have uh issues in this area of continuous pop-up emitters that then create nuisances along the public way, street, sidewalk, drive. So that's really the heart of the concern is that there is no mitigation of the outflow. So

we, I can go by some kind of the small train chain, you know, like one by one foot side to wrap down the energy for the water from there. Now it can see flow over top and coming out like this. It's not, you know, go straight to the right way.

Yeah, I think we can react when you provide however you're deciding to mitigate it. But just right now, there isn't anything. So it will, especially from the sump pump in this area, the sump pumps continuously run. So that's a lot of water that will just flow directly into the public right way. I can

provide some stuff there to slow down the water levels and water temperature.

right so when you're adjusting the number change yeah also includes something to that effect yep thank

you well um we do have in the staff recommendations there are three areas uh there's the storm water uh revising tree plantings to avoid utility conflicts and uh the two adjacent neighboring trees But let's see if there are any other comments. I would recommend that we postpone this so we get further information that we can work on. But Helen?

Susan.

Jim. Yeah, I take the comments if everything is actually coming blue, coming by the way of blue, we already have a pretty big gain on blue than current. So that would actually exacerbate that and make it way worse. So that's actually pretty alarming to see this amount of water with just a pop-up with absolutely no kind of mitigation, it's pretty tough. So I think significant changes are going to need to be made. I don't know if this would fall into site plan or fall into architectural review. I would like to see the ribbon drive gone too, which is also going to affect those calculations. But I don't think that there's any need for a ribbon drive in In this case, other than to try and eke out every last possible square foot on the site. So I would like to see that removed in a future plan.

Chris? I have a hard time with these plans. There's an awful lot of detail on each of these renderings that makes it difficult, I think, to understand. So I look forward to seeing the revised ones and some mitigation efforts called out as well.

Darren? A lot of the same comments that others had.

Well, I think as far as site plan review goes, we've come to the point where we'll postpone it for a future date. Do we have a motion?

I move to continue site plan review to a future undetermined date to resolve the stormwater and tree issues as noted in the three staff recommendations. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Now, we can go on with the architectural review.

Before I leave, can I ask one more question? So because my overall button-up is decreasing, so do I have to be mitigates all this? Or do I button-up from this side? Because on my parallelism one, by number two, we decreasing and button-up. So I had the parallelism over here. So right now we only have like 40, 50, four, 69% and we're less than before.

And so we don't require onsite detention when you're not increasing the overall amount of runoff, but we do require that you can show that you're mitigating all potential nuisances. So that's the concern that staff has is that we aren't requiring necessarily a detention, underground attention of any manner because you're not increasing the quantity of runoff produced, but we do have concerns that you would be creating additional nuisances or new nuisances within the public right-of-way based on that plan.

Okay. We will go on with the

architectural review. New construction is common in Clayton Gardens, with existing homes often replaced with larger ones. The new home maintains common architectural features with the use of a gabled roof, partial dormers on the front facade, the stone frame around the front entry. The applicant is proposing the construction of a ribbon driveway, which is not a permitted style in the architecture review guidelines, and of which there are limited examples nearby. The ribbon drive does not extend into the front setback, which is likely to result in minimal visual impact. The house will be primarily brick with stucco and stone as secondary materials. The project meets the Clayton Gardens requirements for at least 75% brick on the front and side facades. The rear facade contains about 60% brick, with the remainder being stucco board. The applicant is seeking approval via alternative compliance. Because the stucco use is limited and consistently applied to box bays, the rear facade has minimal street visibility and the brick still comprises the majority of the elevation. Staff believe that the proposal satisfies the criteria for alternative compliance. Staff are of the opinion that the architecture of the new house will result in minimal visual impact. Staff recommends approval as submitted.

Okay. Mike Thompson, Thompson Design Group. Yes, this is Poulsen. If I could comment just a little bit on the site plan, although I'm technically not involved in the site plan. As far as the ribbon driveway, actually, this is Kitty Corner from 8136 University, which Mike Bandlin is finishing up right now, and it has a ribbon driveway to it. So I know for sure that that's a house in the neighborhood with one. So as far as I think less concrete is better, I guess, less runoff, that type of thing. On this house, we've also provided not only a ribbon driveway, but a 12-inch buffer from the driveway to the house there for plantings and flowers and ivy possibly to grow up on the brick type of thing. Which, again, mitigates some of the water runoff, certainly when it rains and wind blows through. water against the house, not having the concrete go all the way up to the house certainly lessened some of the water impact on it. Otherwise, as far as getting back to the architecture, as you can see there, going with kind of a standard, or you've seen it quite a bit, white and black type look. The stone limestone around the The door and the windows, the trim will be real stone. It is a white brick, not just painted. So as far as I know it was called out, the rear elevation is not quite to 75% brick due to the cantilevers, that type of thing. The entire house together is certainly more than the 75%. And of course, the rear is much less visible. It is still mostly or predominantly brick. I guess other than that, if you have any questions, I can answer.

Well, you know, it's a very good appearing house. I think it will fit into the neighborhood. I do have some concerns, though. Even though the context drawing on sheet two of four... Here we are. I know the roof slope will be foreshortened as soon in a 3D appearance, not like what we see here. But the house just feels very big all around. And there are several things. In looking at the site plan, which has now been continued, And looking at things like the driveway, I don't think there's a turnaround back there. It's, I think, going to be very difficult to back up or get your car in and out. But the house itself with the brick and the window and the stone trim looks good. I am not bothered by the rear elevation with the stucco or stucco board on it. I think that is a cantilevered area, and to do it in brick would be extremely difficult. But I'm not sure about the stucco that goes around the corner unless I'm misreading it.

It does on the, what we've done is as you look at the first floor plan here, we've created, and it's not a turnaround area, but certainly an area that you can easily or much more easily get your car into the garage. And basically what's happening is the master bedroom is cantilevering over that area. So we pulled the kitchen, like where the kitchen sink is right there, so we can get basically 20 feet to get your car into the garage. And then the master bedroom is, well, it's cantilevered about six feet over that area.

Oh, okay. I missed that. Well, that's why you see that going around that corner.

Yes, going around the corner right there, yes. But once we get past the cantilever, then it's all brick.

Brick again. Okay. So the stucco is really only where we have a cantilever.

Yes. Yes. Absolutely. On the entire house.

Including on the right elevation, which is the east side.

Correct. Just we cantilevered out the two fireplaces and there's a little bit for the stairway is right there.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, it's a and I should have mentioned this when I started. It's much below what is allowed by the ordinance, but it's less than 27 foot tall house. But it becomes difficult in these neighborhoods where, you know, the, the older houses have eight foot first floor and second floor. And of course what sells is a 10 foot first floor and, and a nine foot second floor. So you kind of, you kind of start out a little bit above to start. We've, we've broken up the roofs as far as it's not one big roof over the entire building as far to keep that down. And that's, what's got us down less than 27 feet tall. But yeah, and helps make it look less imposing in the neighborhood.

Okay. I think we'll move on. Helen?

No, I like all of the brick. And I definitely understand the bathroom cantilevers about three and a half feet out

Yes.

So, and then the master bedroom does even further.

Right. Yeah,

definitely need the stucco board. Now, the fireplace in the office is that outside or inside the wall?

It can't leave a foot out, is what we've done. So it sticks, as far as on the inside, it sticks some inside, but it will stick out a foot from you.

Plan shows it as inside, and the elevation shows it as extending out. Plan on A1.

I'm sorry, you don't have the current plan. We will get that sent over. But no, both fireplaces, I'm sorry, both fireplaces are the same in the great room and in the study. They were both cantilevered exactly the same and look exactly the same.

Okay. And then, excuse me, on the second floor, adjacent to the stairwell, those windows, is a closet?

Correct. It does cantilever, yes. Yeah. They all cantilever 12 inches, yeah.

Okay, now I think it looks good.

I'm sorry. I should have also mentioned, in order to mitigate the height difference between the house, we are six feet off the line. We've moved the house over a foot away from the house to the right. The ordinance says for every five feet, you need to move over a foot. So we have done that.

Yeah. And you've marked that one, A2. Yes, correct.

And the windows in the garage on the attic space, those are fake.

Yeah, the one window up there that kind of sort of meant to look like a door, but we can't go to the heights in order to get a door. Normally, we've done an actual window there. There's just some backdrop put to it. So obviously, you're not looking at the people's stuff that they've put up there.

Susan?

Jim?

Okay, I guess to start, this is a speculative build, correct? You don't have a homeowner?

Correct. Sure. Okay. Do we have a homeowner on this? Not yet. Okay.

Well, I think that's very important for us to consider too because I think, once again, and I've said it several times, I think to tear down a house in Clayton and to speculative build a house, I think we need to hold that house to a very high bar. Otherwise, I think we're setting a bad example as a board. I will say overall, the point of the height mitigation is to avoid tall blocky building forms and that's what the code says. If you look especially at this context example, I have a hard time not viewing this as a tall blocky building form. Transition in height and scale is offered through five separate techniques. One of those techniques is to reduce the side setback by one foot for five foot of difference to the height. I personally, I think if you look at this context drawing, I think that those ratios are off. This is just kind of a note for staff when This is reconsidered. I see that this is, we have five separate ways. And I think we have four pretty good ones and one really easy cop-out. And everyone understandably takes the cop-out. So I don't blame you for taking that route, but I don't think that moving in that one foot on that side mitigates the height or makes this not a tall blocky building form. I think I would agree with Helen when you, as far as for these cantilevers, it wouldn't make sense for brick because these are cantilevered so far out. But also we don't have to necessarily say, oh, we, need to approve a secondary material over 75%. We also could reduce the cantilevers. The whole point, I believe, of these cantilevers is to squeeze as much building as possible onto this site. And I think it's very hard not to look at this plan where we're basically at 54 point something on impervious coverage. You know, here we have a talk several times that we have several neighbors who were worried about a 38% impervious coverage in here. We're at 54.7, I believe the absolute limit. Uh, that's why we have a ribbon drive here. That's why we have these large cantilevers out, uh, to fit basically a 4,800 square foot house almost onto a very small lot. And I think that should concern everyone here. Um, and I think we need to look at as far as, especially for a speculative development, what we're willing to compromise on to squeeze as much possible house onto this lot. Um, This house has been on the market for 129 days and it's the second most expensive offered home, single family home in Clayton right now. So if we are compromising on a lot of what the city allows, we are doing that basically so we can just up what as far as the developer could ask for. And I want that to be considered in all of this. I don't know if you find any of that unfair. You're welcome to give me your opinion on that, but...

Really not unfair to me at all. I think the developer, of course, walks in and what they're willing to pay the person for their home that they're going to tear down, they, of course... got to work out a balance sheet at that point of, okay, can I make money on this job? And so certainly it's the city can decide whatever impervious surface that they want or that. You definitely get to set the rules. Obviously, that will also affect how much money that home is worth, you know, the teardown is worth. So it all is connected together. Nothing further?

Chris. And I love sitting next to you, Jim, because you teach me a lot. I like ribbon drives. I had never thought of them really as a way of gaining more or offsetting impervious substance. So I'm glad you talked about that. And I share similar concerns in terms of the scale. I am wondering, Jim, you mentioned that there's five ways kind of offsetting that and then this would be one that is the kind of the easy way out. What are the other ones for my own edification, really?

I'm going to do a couple off the top of my head and Ana can hopefully chime in. I know one is a step down that you see in several areas. So part of this could be step down, have more of an asymmetrical facade. One would be for the roof line to extend down. So the second floor is more of like a dormer space. In this case, you have basically dormers that are up on what would be a third story. Ana, can you help me with the other two?

I didn't mean to put you on the spot there.

One is to push the mass to the back of the lot as opposed to the sides. But in this case, it's pretty tough to do that because We only have a 50-foot wide lot. And then what's my last

one that I'm missing? Yep, there's actually two more. So there's dormers that you did say, but then there's also utilizing a roof pitch, and it specifically has a diagram of the roof pitch, and the no is this roof pitch. So to utilize a roof pitch and overhang, then your roof – Lion would have to come down to the base of the first floor rather than his gym. So those two are kind of similar. And then the last one is installing canopy trees 20 feet on center along the side yard. So that specifically calls out canopy trees versus tall evergreens.

So something that just is diminishing the view of it within when you're looking at putting it all in scale. Is that correct? It really is what we're trying to do.

You can look at it a different way. I mean, in one sense, you could say, well, the easy way is to move it over a foot. But to understand, to move it over foot, you've basically cut a foot out of your house or basically you've lost 100 square feet of houses. And to a developer, they would say, no, that's not the easy way to go. In this particular case, we're actually two feet narrower because I kind of planned it that way because I like... I guess I don't like when they run the driveways right into the house. The concrete up against the house, I think, looks bad. I think it's bad for the water. Having a planting strip there, I think, is a nice thing to the extent of, yeah, if it was up to me, I would do a smaller center island in the driveway and actually make that planting strip larger or maybe move the house over another foot. and do that type of thing.

Can I ask one question as a follow-up to that then? The point of the height mitigation is to avoid tall blocky building forms. Would you say this is a tall blocky building form or not?

I think looking straight on, like both the rendering and the elevations do, yeah, you could say it's somewhat blocky. It is not When you look at, if you were walking on the street, you would not say that. This front roof, well, two things. One, as you can see, the dormers actually are normal second floor dormers. The roof that's slid down there, that's come down to a seven foot height there. So we have started from a lower height to go up. It also, that front roof only extends back about 18 feet. And then you turn into another roof. So they're actually, what you're not seeing from the front is, yeah, it breaks up into multiple roofs. You'll see, like, for instance, the right elevation or the left elevation there. That's really what you'll see walking down the street. You're going to see two different roofs, multiple roofs, that type of thing. Much more than just, yeah, if you take a straight on look to it.

But, Mike, if you would take that roof, the long north-south roof, and have it meet the front roof similar to the way it meets on the north side, then you would have a roof that would be much less massive up there from the street

view. Yes, take the two corners down. Okay. And we've done that. Most all the other houses that we've done, it just, do we want, I guess the view was, do we want every house to look like that? And that's why we liked this with the gable. We thought it was a nice look. We kept the gable low in order to not make it oppressive. But yeah, I mean, I don't know that we want all of the houses to look like that same.

Well, you're not lining your house up next to each other. But I'm just looking for how the massiveness could be reduced.

Yes, yes. You would cut down the corners of that roof?

Could you, looking at it straight on, you've got a 90-degree angle. the bottom line of the roof, and then the sides.

Yes, okay.

Could you take those sides and make them 60 degrees?

Right, and that's, yes.

You know, just sketching it here, I think it looks more elegant.

And that's what we did at Westmoreland. Yes, it was just approved a few months ago. Yes, and so... And

I think it... brings it down a bit. It's less just a straight line.

Okay, gotcha. Now looking at the context drawing, of course that roof is going to slope back. Correct. But right now it just appears to be too heavy or too large a hat on top of the house. Okay.

Do wonder if it was if a change of material, rather than architectural shingle if it was if we'd have the same sort of concerns if it was something like a clay tile or a slate. If it was something that was. And that, of course, has cost considerations, but if it was something that is highlighting and using that as a design feature of the area I would i'd find no objection whatsoever if this was a. A slate roof. or if this was, and not an imitation slate roof, but a real slate roof, or an architectural clay tile roof that would give it a little bit more of a shadow line. But that's personal preference too. I do see what you're saying, Helen, with the bringing in the sides.

Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't go the route of slate having had a slate roof on my house. Okay. or the tile. They're beautiful, but the workmanship, the craftsmen don't exist. And the cost is because you've got a lot of weight on the roof. So everything else has to be beefed up and you've got cantilevers which even wood frame and an asphalt shingle roof, you've got weight to deal with. And they're not two-foot cantilevers. So it would look beautiful and add a different character, but I would opt for the built-in.

following up on what Helen was just saying, coming in 60 degrees or whatever it is, would also change the east and west elevation views as you're walking or driving down the street. You wouldn't have that large gable end sticking up. So it would, I think from three views, from south, from the east, and from the west, it could make the entire mass look lower.

Also, if you could update when you do the calculation for the context for the house 200 there on the left, that should actually go to the midpoint of the roof rather than the dormer.

Oh, down to the other roof. Okay. I guess I did it that way because you understand that dormer. Right, but you also know when we

calculate the height of garages, that's how you – I think you guys have done a few of those where it's calculated to the midpoint of the roof, not to the dormer.

Oh, okay. No, I'm just saying that the dormer is maybe 90% of that side. Other than two or four feet, that's the lower roof.

We're going to calculate it consistently as we do, not based on the measurement of the –

Other comments?

I mean, the one thing, I mean, I agree with a lot of what they said. This elevation, it doesn't help looking at it straight on because you mostly would look at it from the sidewalk or the street where you would see. But it's a big, it's a lot of roof. So I kind of agree with everyone else's comments.

Well, we would also like to take a look at all the materials. Have you brought them in?

So I know they've seen the

rendering.

Yeah, there it is.

Is that stone surrounding the windows? Yeah. Oh, real limestone.

And around the front door.

And... The rendering shows just two steps up. Is that correct? I don't

know why. We will have to, as you can see in the context elevation, the driveway. Because of the fence being there, pretty much has to stay at the same elevation as it is now. And so the house sits quite a bit up. So the sidewalk will slope up and probably need to have a couple three steps as you get up there. But yes, we were just going to do the two steps up into the house to keep the grade up. So it's similar to what the house that's there now, the look.

Then could the house be lowered on the site?

Anything's possible. I think the reason the civil engineer did it this high is, of course, everything wants to slope towards the front. The rear yard is higher than the back, and so essentially what he did was put the back of the house down where it's eight inches above the grade, as low as it can be. And then it works out to where the front of it is. Now, if you started digging dirt out and making walls in the back, anything's possible, I guess. Yeah,

no.

just to clarify you do have multiple steps shown on the deck so the driveway in the back is marked at elevation 601 and the finish floor is marked at or yeah elevation in the back is 601.75 and the finished floor of your home is 603.95 so there is a couple feet there difference

Yeah, I guess as you look at the plan, the upper right-hand corner of the house is the tall spot. Everything wants to drain both towards the house to the left and towards the street. But yes, we can take a look at that and certainly get the house as low as we can.

We've had quite a few comments about it. I would say I think the materials look very nice. I think we've seen them before, but I think it would be good to... Continue this also so that we look at the site plan and any revisions to the house. All this one package in lieu of going ahead and approving the architectural at this point. I don't know, are there other comments? Well, there was. Michael?

Yeah. Hi, are you able to hear me? Yes. Thank you so much for taking the time. So it's Michael Goldwasser. We live at 8144 Pershing. So we are the house immediately to the north. So I'm not speaking necessarily in favor or against at this point in time. I will note for the rear elevation where there was a lot of discussion about the stucco and the cantilevers, we are the ones who will mostly be seeing that as we go forward. So I just wanted to say I appreciate, I think, the one board member who just pointed out that you should hold things to the highest standards on something that doesn't even have an owner or a spec house at this point in time. And so I just wanted to state my appreciation for that. And again, when you were talking about the view a moment ago from the South, the East and the West, again, we're going to be the view from the North. And so I would like to still just make sure the board considers that part as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

I have an additional question just in terms of the brick. So it looks like if I didn't see it spec'd out specifically, it looks like there's two different sizes of the Winter Haven, this color that you're using for the brick, a wide one and a narrow one. And then also just having briefly looked at the material online, it says that this is not typically going to be a monotone white, that it's going to have some some spalling that might appear, or some tooling. So it might turn out to be a mix of a white and a brick color. And that's not necessarily shown on the rendering. So I'm wondering if it'd be possible to get an accurate representation of what it might look like, simply because I'm not familiar with this white painted brick. Sorry, this white fired brick.

OK.

I actually had a question about the mortar. Because it's showing is monochromatic but white mortar can be a little bit tricky in terms of dying it so i'm curious your thoughts on that. Okay,

actually has the same. couple spots that are a little bit red but. There is a couple of different white mortars.

Yeah. I'll look at the one across the street. Yeah. Great.

Any other comments? Do we have a motion?

I move that we continue this to a future date to be determined. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. We've come to the public hearing, and I believe it's a continuation of what we did last week. So we will continue the hearing at this point on the text amendments.

All righty so staff have provided some revisions based on the previous discussion of commercial zoning regulations. And some of the visions that are before you one is the first is a mailing notice has been added to the alternative compliance section, but we do send out courtesy mailings one of the concerns was. Some of the consequences of alternative compliance and the ability to notify folks of what that may be so we went ahead and added that to the language so that way. If there's ever a point where the folks sitting in the seat decide that they don't want to do courtesy mailings, then there's still a regulation in there that requires that somebody be mailed if there's an alternative compliance section to an application in the commercial zoning districts. The second revision is related to the downtown character area. So the height and floor area ratios now differ between the north and south sides of Forsyth. Both sides have a base height, and the FAR will increase with a step back incentive at the third floor. The revisions change the south side of Forsyth to have a base height of eight stories and a floor area ratio of six. And if a 20 foot step back is provided at that third floor, the building would increase to a height of 20 stories and a floor ratio of 13.

and where were we last time with those numbers

last time it matched to the north side of forsyth they were the same right

well that does substantially change the south side as as we were talking at the last meeting um but we are still looking at eight stories maximum building height on the south side in the floor area ratio of 13.

So the base height that would be permitted would be that eight stories, but if they provided the step back at the third floor, then they could increase that height to up to 20 stories.

And its step back is just one step back.

Correct.

From floor 3 up to 20 could be a sheer fall. Correct. I think that's what Joel Montgomery was more or less looking for when he was here. I think we're going in the right direction now. Other comments on that, on the downtown character area?

No comments. I like the changes.

Brian, I assume with that base being eight stories, with the step backs up to 20 stories, presumably this could still they could still file for a PUD and there could be changes to that. So let's just say, for whatever reason, they wanted 22 stories and were able to come up with a plan for that. The PUD process would allow for that, correct? Mr. Correct. Mr. Okay. I'm great with everything then. Mr.

Nothing further.

Mr. Were there other changes? I think I had something on the consumer emphasis area. Did we make any change there?

Yes, so the only change there was we extended the secondary consumer emphasis area that follows a portion of Carondelet and connects back up to Forsyth there between the Ritz-Carlton and the Crescent. Okay.

I'm comfortable with that change also. That was all the things I marked up on it. I think we haven't changed any of the permitted and conditional uses.

Is that correct? There were some revisions that were proposed last time. There were a couple items that were changed, but there have been no revisions in this round that's been sent to you.

Okay. And the Maryland Gateway, I think we were okay

with. Yeah, you might think the so the Maryland gateway we just the only change was actually putting that into a table to mirror what was in the foresight or in the downtown character area, but the actual recommended provisions for the Maryland character area did not change.

i'm comfortable with it. The other concerns at this point. Hands up. Mr. Mertens, come on

up. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, city staff. My name is Christopher Mertens, ACI Ball and Architects, 17107 Chesapeake Airport Road, 63005. I'm a registered architect, including in the state of Missouri. I'm here tonight regarding the new proposed consumer emphasis area, actually. Section 405.2870, item D. And again, pardon my ignorance as this has already been talked about or addressed. I met with Ryan Friday on a potential project here in downtown Clayton and we had this conversation. So my curiosity is, was any thought given to the 50% minimum requirement for what I will call the restaurant retail portion, the consumer emphasis area spaces on a ground level for smaller developments where this 50% requirement could, in fact, kill a project, unfortunately, along the primary consumer emphasis area streets. So my thought would be, is there any thought or any thought about making this requirement applicable once the ground level reaches over a certain square footage threshold for the development? I will say thank you for your time and your service to the City of Clayton. Thank you.

Chris, before you leave, can you define a little better how you would see that?

So we have a project right now or a proposed project that we could potentially be doing in the city of Clayton. It sits at what I would call the outskirts of the primary street. In an intersection, right now the current ground floor floor plate is 6,000 square feet. If we were required to provide 3,000 square feet of some sort of retail restaurant, you know, the CEA space, that would only leave our client with only 3,000 square not enough space for what they you know to do or the business that they run and that would kill the project and either move somewhere else or as Ryan and I just talked about submitting it prior to approval of the pending revisions so something to think about just want to make sure that the board had or had not thought about it or had any concerns or Anything of that sort.

Ryan,

can I ask a question?

If that building, if that bottom floor plates 6,000 square feet, would the requirement be for 3,000 square feet or would it be just the frontage? Would it be half of the frontage of the building, which is what I thought the requirement was?

The regulation specifically speaks to the frontage, not the square footage.

Okay. So in this case, what is the frontage of your building? We are two front yards. What about the face that you're specifically concerned about? Both.

Both front yards. So the front yard sits probably about 100 feet or so, 100 feet of one frontage and probably 60 feet of the other frontage. So if I'm to say that I am now 150 feet of frontage on one facade and 30 feet on the other facade, effectively I'm carving out that corner space. for some other use. And that's taking away square footages that's available or could be available for the tenant. Okay, but it wouldn't have to be 3,000 square feet.

That could be creatively done to free up more space there and have more of a public-facing frontage on that building? It is possible, yes. I will

clarify. For the property that we discussed, only one of the frontages is affected. However, you have described there are other properties in downtown that do have that meet at an intersection of emphasis streets. Correct.

Excuse me. The facade that Ryan talks about is the facade that's 100 feet long. So it would be the main facade of that building that we would need to allocate for the retail restaurant CEA spaces.

In this hypothetical scenario, in your ideal world, how would you lay out that building as far as hypothetically? In what sense?

I'm

sorry. If you don't have half of that frontage being more consumer-facing use, what percentage would you say would be a consumer-facing use and what would the other percentage be and what would that possibly be used for? Architecturally, how would that

factor in? So what we're looking at right now would have two front doors, a front door off of And again, Clayton is very walkable and that's the promotion and that's 100% of what most of the business would be for this project. You'd have a walking up front door off the street that is along the CEA primary and we have a walk-in door off the southern one and honestly for the use that that project is it actually is foot traffic driven and there's a lot of foot traffic that comes in and out of that space did come in and out of space um and it was more retail i mean we had a more retail component than most i would say

Retail wouldn't be limiting in this case? Would you describe

it as sounding like it would cater to retail? It is, except for the use that we're trying to do is not considered an approved retail use. Care to share a hypothetical reason? A financial institution. So we are looking to redevelop the corner of South Beamston and Carondelet. So anyway, I just wanted to bring it up. If there was any thought about that in the goings on with the revised amendment zoning ordinances, things of that sort, just to think about you say 50% or 50% of frontage, what that could or potentially could do to small developments.

Yeah, I think I mean, I'll just add some response to that. Absolutely have a good bandwidth. I think it's a good point. Obviously, we don't want to deter development. However, this requirement being on that property has there has resulted in you thinking about the uses that it's generated and how you might design the property and how you as an architect might design the property to still get the city what we want, which is the active visitor uses. So in some ways, I feel like this is maybe doing exactly what we want it to do. And it provides pathways for you to present a design to this commission and show them how, yes, the letter of that use is not what we anticipated, but you have overcome that with other alternatives of a design. So I would hesitate to say that this one hypothetical scenario should result in modifying the design. I think maybe it's creating the exact design process that we would want

again i'm not asking i'm not asking for i think i'm asking the question of yes has it been thought about that's that's that's the way it came about

I think we can also think of multiple important corners in Clayton where a financial institution exists and kind of how certainly those could be high foot traffic, but in reality, like have they turned out to be high foot traffic? Is that serving a pedestrian base? Is that drawing people in? Is that bringing people into the city? So maybe a creative use of space that where both these things can coexist.

Yeah.

I think a short answer to your question is that, I mean, I hadn't considered what you're saying. And I think it's worth bringing up. I love your answer to this. I think this is creating that kind of forcing the hand of architects to think creatively, which is what we want. But I certainly appreciate you bringing that up. I mean, it's a real world example of this is something that have you considered.

That's all my request was or my only question was.

Well, thanks, Chris, for bringing it up and sitting through everything else. To make your point. But also, thank you, Ana. I think it pretty well clarified where we are in our planning.

And I think it will be something that will probably be a good thing because this has to go to the Board of Aldermen as well. So we can definitely run different scenarios to see response to that on various areas so that everybody can continue to make informed decisions. Absolutely. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you all.

Now, we're at the point, of course, we've been discussing the draft. Do we need to make more recommendations? Have you heard anything? I think we've more or less validated everything tonight.

I think Ryan has done a good job of addressing. We didn't hear any additional comments other than the one expressed tonight from the previous meeting.

I would be okay to recommend approval of the revisions as they are through the City Council, not the Board of Aldermen. Any comments on that? Do we need to do it again? I mean, have it come back again or not? and

okay i move to recommend this to the city council second

all in favor aye aye opposed okay thank you and thank you ryan and anna for your work i think we're making great strides and improving and updating everything Okay, well, we have then closed the public here, finally. And Darren, any comments? No, thank you. Chris?

Nothing, thank you. Tim? I hate to keep everyone here a little bit longer, but this is more a question for city staff, and I don't know. Mainland Development has proposed four houses in the last two years. They have been before this board more than 10 times. Uh, today the site plan they said wasn't the correct site plan. Wasn't the most current site plan. They said the blueprints weren't the most current blueprints. This is systematic every single time. And that doesn't count the multiple times that I know through revisions that they've had to go to you to city staff. Is there anything that we can do to keep, uh, certain developers from just coming back and back and back to, especially to not being prepared to speak to this board?

I wish I had a perfect answer. I do know that a lot of times, like tonight, they fail to address comments that Ryan has sent to them multiple times. And so then it becomes, well, I'll put you on an agenda, but I'm not going to recommend approval. And they proceed in that avenue.

Yeah, and at this point, my concern is it's also systematic because this is not the first property. This isn't the second property. It's actually the fourth property in just two years. And I don't know. That's as far as I went back through. we see the same pattern over and over again. At least they're bringing materials to the meetings at this point, but at one point they weren't even doing that. I just don't know if we have any recourse other than, you know, to kind of sit here and throw our hands up and continue it to another meeting because here we are at 8.02 p.m., you know, where we possibly could have gotten out 30 minutes earlier if they were either A, prepared for their meeting or B, prepared to speak to any of this or it was just continued to a future agenda. And I just don't I don't know, we might not have any recourse and it's just up to us to be prepared and to come with a list of points to point out every single shortcoming that's here and then hope it gets continued to another meeting. But I don't know if there's any way to head it off before then that we are able to do.

Yeah, I don't know that I have the specific answer for you tonight, but I'll make sure to consult our city attorney for all of our tools.

We have talked about the situation already Ana and I had tried to explore some things, not so much in terms of processing these applications as in some other concerns with permittees and permit holders. It's almost impossible. It is very difficult to establish a disciplined process. So I do not have a silver bullet for someone who wishes to put themselves through repeated processes and is not responsive. I don't have a good

answer for you. Well, something I would at least like to point out to this board is I think we have a couple different examples in the past two, three meetings and stuff like that where we've pushed back on something. And they've said, oh, well, it's worth a try, right? So we know these people. I think there's a very fine line between what we need to do to ensure development goes through in the city. And I think we all agree that development is important in the city. I think we have to very much remain vigilant that we don't have to necessarily give every single inch of this uh for development to be viable and the reason a lot of these developments are coming forward is because clayton is a desirable place to build um a desirable home can be built at under 2.8 million dollars uh the if you look at the teardown costs of what some of these properties are being acquired for and what is being proposed on them i just think it's very important to consider all this uh because otherwise then we have neighborhoods where it's a slippery slope and then all of a sudden everything is of a certain level. And in this case here, you know, we've given up multiple cantilevers, we've given it on materials and everything like that. And I believe developers have a right to make a profit, but at the same time, we need to be considerate of what we're offering, uh, to allow that profit. And if that's a hundred percent necessary. So sorry for taking up everyone's time. And, uh, I, uh, I wish David the best. I wish he was here to his meeting. I appreciate his input on previous things and hopefully we still see him from time to time.

If I may, without wishing to prolong this even further, one of the problems is that it is not the prerogative of staff to make your decisions. And so we're not in a position to say, You can't proceed with this in this condition. If they have ticked the boxes, they have a due process right to have their petition move forward. It may not be successful and we may estimate that it won't be successful, but staff does not have the authority on the merits of an application as you

do. That's very fair. And I will say if the staff reports weren't as well written as they were some of this stuff might fall through the cracks. But the thoroughness of the staff reports, Ryan, that you provide draw attention to a lot of this stuff and I think allow for this process. So thank you for that.

Susan.

Helen.

Happy Thanksgiving. Hi. Very good.

Jim, you had mentioned earlier in the evening holding the high standards that we like. And I think one high standard that we see every week are the staff reports that we get completely. They are consistently on target. And thank you, Mr. O'Keefe for your comment. I think we do realize that the final decision has to be made here on the commission. But we have a great amount of information that we receive from Ryan and Anna. And I think hopefully we appreciate it at all times, although at times I think we don't. But that's the way it goes. So I second your happy Thanksgiving. Ryan, any comment?

So we tend to have conversations with applicants reasonably well ahead of time as to what meetings they might be applicable to or applicable for. And in the past couple years, it's been sort of hit and miss as to whether or not we have a second December meeting because folks are traveling out of town, visiting family and such for the holidays. As we look to December, is there anybody that knows they will not be here on December 15th? If folks will be here, we'll go ahead and track projects for that meeting. But if we hear otherwise, we can always alter things as needed.

If I ask the right question, are they going to be here or do they want to be?

Which question do you want to answer?

Well, that won't stop us here.

Anna?

Yeah, just let Ryan know about that meeting just so we can track it.

I mean, if there's an agenda, I mean, people, I'm sure if I were an applicant, regardless of the quality, I'd want to know that the meetings are going to happen. Right. But I would second, though, the quality of your work on these is really impressive. I'm new to this, but it's good work.

And I'll also give a nod to Chris's comments about stormwater things earlier, as well as our residents. So we do have a public hearing at the first December meeting to show you all our draft changes to our lot coverage moving to the green space ratio and all of our stormwater. Yeah, so it's headed your way.

Well, hopefully we'll have a large audience that night. Yeah? Well, thank you, Mr. O'Keefe. And visit any time. OK. Thanks, everyone. We'll see you, what is it, December 1st? OK. See you then. We're adjourned.