January 5, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for January 5th. If you have any electronics, please silence them at this time. Since we have a quorum now, we'll proceed. Ryan? Steve

Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFayette?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Christopher Brennan? Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on December 15th. Are there any changes? I have a motion.

Move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. At this time, we have the open forum. Anyone that would like to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda, if you've signed up with the forum outside the door, please come up at this time. No? Okay. Thank you. Then we will go on to new business. The first item is 6464 Ellen Wood is the applicant here. Yes, I'm here on Zoom. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get started.

Subject parcels are located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Allenwood and University and are zoned R2. The applicant proposes a boundary adjustment between the subject properties. The rearmost point of the boundary line would not change. The frontmost point of the Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that the applicant provides a mylar for the appropriate city plate and signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements. And two, that the applicant files a plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office within 30 days of approval of the boundary adjustment by the Planning Commission.

Okay, Michael, do you have any comments? No comments.

Thank you very much.

Okay. I do have a question. When I went over there to look, your driveway on the west side of your house, is that affected in any way? The driveway per se and the little gravel area to the west of it?

That little gravel area to west of it is the area that we're looking to move the boundary line to include. Right. And so the intention would be, after we get this hopefully approved, to widen the driveway. Okay. Good.

That's all for me. Helen?

No questions.

Jim? No questions and concerns. Chris? Not at

all.

Okay.

Any comments from the audience on 6464 Ellenwood? Any other hands? No. Okay. We have a recommendation with two conditions. Have you read them, Michael? I

have not read them. I just heard what you said. But I have not read .

They're quite standard for a boundary adjustment. Okay. I don't have a problem. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. You're on the way. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. We'll move on to the second item in new business, 241 Linden Avenue. And the applicant is here.

Okay.

No, we'll start with the staff report and then we'll call you up.

The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Kingsbury and Linden. Property zoned R-Tune is developed with a single family house. The applicant is seeking approval for alterations and renovations to the secondary front yard along Kingsbury. The scope of changes include new patios, pergola, retaining walls, trash storage, planting a shed, and removal of some trees located on the south side of the house. Subject property resides on a corner which results in front yard setbacks along two sides of the property. Your property's primary front yard and primary front entrance are located along Linden, and then the secondary front yard along Kingsbury. Section 405-1900A1D limits the height of some front yard features to three and a half feet within 20 feet of the intersection. The revisions would remove an existing fence and add plantings up to six feet tall. While a limit on features within 20 feet of intersection may not be necessary, staff are of the opinion that some increase in visibility should be provided. The vinyl pergola and shed are proposed. The architecture review guidelines prohibit the use of vinyl. Both the shed and pergola are proposed away from the street in the rear yard. Additionally, they're likely to be partially screened and surrounded by plantings. Given that the total use of vinyl is limited and that the vinyl structures would be set back and partially screened, staff are of the opinion that the use of vinyl will have a minimal impact on the character of building materials nearby. Staff recommend approval with the condition that revisions be made to increase visibility at the intersection with the alley.

Okay. Would you like to come up and give us any other information?

Hi, everybody. My name is Charles Deutsch. I'm the resident. My wife and I reside at 241 Linden. Maybe it would just be better just to answer any questions that the commission may have it's a there's a lot of elements to the landscaping plan and um the own my only concern is the staff recommendation about increasing the visibility from the alley going out onto kingsbury the um Kingsbury at that point curves 45 degrees, and you can go right out there and look straight up, and there's no visibility problem. There's only one house that uses the alley, plus that's the Schnuck family and then the trash people. use the alley to pull their trash truck in. But right on the end, there's an eight-foot wood fence. And it's been like that for almost 20 years. We've lived in the house for eight years. We've never seen any accidents. And what it would do, it would By increasing the visibility, it would screw up the symmetry of the planting in that corner. The small two-, three-foot retaining wall connects... The one along the alley connects with the one along Kingsbury, and then... six-foot trees go along the retaining wall. And it's really a beautiful plan. So I don't think there's a need to put more space in the alley and less planting space in our backyard. You can see right there how the retaining wall, how the cemetery works. And right on the corner, there's a planting bed. Nothing's ever happened. The other thing is the vinyl pergola. The reason we selected vinyl is because we're going to have a lot of wisteria growing all over the pergola, and it would be very difficult to maintain if it wasn't vinyl. So does anybody have any questions?

Of course. The first one about the fence in the alley. I did go over, I walked around the site and then I drove into the alley, turned around and came out. I agree with you. I think the 45 degree angle plus or minus really removes a dangerous sight line to the east. That would be to the right. So I really have no problem with leaving the fencing in place the way it is without removing it or pulling it back. On your second item, the vinyl pergola with vinyl wrapped Oh, it's vinyl-wrapped?

Right.

Oh, it's not solid vinyl?

No, it's vinyl wrapped.

Okay. It still looks like vinyl. But I agree, the way it's cited, and if I read both the drawings and the existing conditions correctly... I don't think it'll be very visible at all from the street. And if wisteria is going to be on it, it'll be even less so. So in this case, I don't want to set a precedent of allowing vinyl pergolas or anything else. But I think in this case, it would be okay with me. But let's go around and see other comments. Okay. Helen?

I have a concern about the vinyl pergola, the material, and the shed being vinyl. You've got two structures that will appear vinyl.

Nobody can see it. They're in the back. Right. It's a putty color vinyl also. It's not white. It's putty color, so it blends right into the environment. I think the staff's bringing up the shed and...

What is the height of the shed?

Probably eight feet.

So that will be... Higher than the fence.

No, because there's a retaining wall and the schnooks property is above us.

Okay. So the retaining wall is about how high

retaining walls, but four foot high

or feet, which is probably about here. And then you've got six foot trees.

Well, we're not disturbing that area. There is already a fence up and it's totally covered with foliage.

Okay. Is the fence solid or?

It's a solid cedar fence.

Okay. Is this the grade on the other side of the retaining wall, the same height as the retaining wall?

No, I think it's higher.

Okay. What I'm getting at is the shed. The pergola will be more difficult to see because it's lacy and you're going to have the wisteria on it. But the shed will be solid, right?

Well, we can make it a woodshed if you want. I mean, I think that dark colored vinyl would just hold up better and it's tucked way in the corner. Nobody can see it from the street. Maybe it would help to show the site plan and you can see where the shed is on the site plan. Yeah, that one would do it.

Okay.

The shed is that little rectangular box juxtaposed to the outdoor kitchen in the house.

How close to that?

It's a portable shed. It's not going to be Well, maybe it will be mounted in the ground, but it may not be.

That's something that the building department will deal with? The building commissioner? How close is the shed to the property line?

Um... Probably three feet.

I believe it may need to be further away. If you did, since you're planning vinyl on the pergola and the shed, why are you doing the trash enclosure in wood?

Because the pergola, there's a reason for the vinyl because it's going to be covered with wisteria. And that's one of the company's specialties that you get this from. And it's a dark putty color so it's not going to stand out like a shiny white vinyl would. The trash enclosure is something you build on site and It's just something you build out of wood naturally. The shed is probably five feet wide, and it lends itself to being fabricated. It's not like it's a shed with a big room inside. You go in, there's a walkway and there's shelves. As a matter of fact, there's a picture of the shed in the plans. That one right there looks like it's made out of wood. I mean, I'll build it out of wood. I don't really care. It's just as good one way or the other. It's just less maintenance to get a pre-made vinyl shed.

Okay. What about the synthetic turf that's noted?

Well, it's hard to get a lawnmower in there, and it's a... small area. We thought it would just be better with synthetic turf rather than something like bluegrass or zoysiagrass or something like that. You have to bring a lawn, it's a very small area that's turf and you have to bring it all the way, a lawnmower all the way around the south side of the house to get into the backyard.

What about a ground cover instead of lawn?

Well, I have a bunch of little grandkids and we want to get out there and pitch a little ball or a little frisbee on the synthetic turf. Synthetic turf isn't what it used to be. It's really beautiful. I just built the dog park with synthetic turf, and it looks like real grass.

Okay. How are you handling the stormwater in the paved areas? Do you have drains?

Yeah. There's a drainage plan that shows the slopes, and there's two what I call mini catch basins. on the plan right in the um uh the northwest corner of the lot there's who are noted

point four

where do they go to um

they probably go into the um gutter Probably the underground pipes for the gutter probably just connect. So there's no splash blocks. It's all underground, the entire runoff of the roof. I think that would be the most logical thing just to connect it to the pipe that carries the water out from the gutter.

Okay. Nothing further. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I

think I have an issue with the vinyl on the pergola and on the shed as well. There's Also, I think just probably a bunch of small things that need to be cleared up. Like at some points in the plan, it says the shed is four by 10. Then the picture you have says it's five by 10. Um, the plans say it's a putty color, but then the example is black, uh, which, you know, might proceed into the background a little bit more. I assume you don't have any material samples of any of this.

No, the, no, I don't. The, um, pictures were just put in as images to help you understand the what we're doing the the plan what's written on the plan is what it would be okay well i'm saying like my architect may have made a mistake and mislabeled something and we can make that a condition to straighten out any concerns you have about labeling

well i think overall I think there's a lot of questions, and I don't think these are necessarily major questions or major things that need to be cleared up. But much like Helen was talking about, like, okay, where are drains? Well, okay, draining to where and stuff.

The drains are marked on the plant. There's two drains.

Yes, it shows where the drains are, but not necessarily where they're draining to and how the water is being carried away. Just a little more specificity, I think. would help me personally. And then, like I said, I, I personally would like to see material other than vinyl. I know the pergola, I mean, it's quite large at 12 by 14. And I know the plan is to have wisteria, but certainly that's probably going to take like a couple of years to get going.

Just a couple, maybe one. It's really fast growing. It's got beautiful flowers over it, and it just covers the whole thing.

Well, I'd be worried in the short term that you have a very large vinyl pergola that would be bare, and then this lands... They would see it.

I definitely understand. You've got six-foot-tall pine trees surrounding the border.

And certainly those will grow more with time, but I

think... They're planted six feet. And then there's a little retaining wall along the alley that's another two feet tall, so it'd be eight feet.

Perhaps I could be mistaken, but much like Steve, I walked the site and I... I think you can see kind of very clearly back there, and this pergola is going to sit pretty high and be pretty large. And I think it's going to take a while for a material to grow over it. So I would be concerned with something that size in vinyl. As far as for the shed... It's putty

color. It's not highly reflective. It fits in color-wise to the overall scheme.

I understand that it's putty color... The shed

I'll build out of wood. If that's an issue, I'll build the shed out of wood. It's no big deal. But the pergola, I just can't see how one could maintain it very well if it's got wisteria growing over the top of it.

Nothing

further? Chris? Mr. Deutsch, you've been in the house for eight years, right? Yes, sir. And what's your intent? Why do you want to do this now, this landscape plan?

Because my wife and I are getting a little older, and we just want to be able to enjoy the outdoors a little bit more. And nice patio for entertaining. I've got about, I lose count, about 16 grandkids, I think, so far. So it's nice for the family when they come over to have a patio and an outdoor kitchen.

I think that comes through. It struck me when you said the synthetic turf was for your grandkids to go out there and play ball. And I think that's a, with respect to the board, I look at the objectives of to enhance the beauty, livability, and prosperity of the community. And livability, I think in this case, is what you're striving for, is some greater livability with this. and to encourage originality, creativity, and diversity in design. I really, I don't have any problems with the color of the shed or the material of the, of the shed because I really don't think anybody will see it. And it seems like it's a standard sort of structure, um, whether it's four foot 10 or five foot 10, I really don't have an issue with it if it's tucked back behind. Um, It's something that no matter what it's made out of, it's going to eventually rot. You're going to get water in it, whether it's in wood. I don't know if the cost of doing it in wood is worthwhile. So I don't have a problem with the vinyl. I don't personally know how synthetic turf works with impermeance, with any sort of water flow. Does it Does water flow through the synthetic turf as well, better, not as well as it does? So I can't comment on that. I agree with you that the synthetic turf now looks very different than synthetic turf of 10 years ago. It's kind of hard to tell the difference between that and real grass. My only concern would be if it does really affect the water flow. But I also don't have a problem with the color or the material of the pergola. I understand that it's vinyl. I think in this case with the wisteria, it makes sense that you're doing it in vinyl. If that's what the manufacturer of this says, it should be built out of in order to prevent the wisteria from growing into the vinyl or from corrupting it in some way. I also don't think it's going to have a strong visual impact since it's really just these four columns and then the top of this. So with respect to Nancy and to Jim, I don't have concerns with the material in this case here. The only concern I really have is is with the possible impermeability of the synthetic turf. I also drove by, so if you saw a lot of people driving by down there and turning around, it was us all driving by, I guess, and agree with Steve that I don't see an issue with the visibility as well, with that 45 degree. Nothing further.

Well, I could certainly get some... Explanation stands for your questions to the staff on the permeability. And we could improve it subject to the staff feeling comfortable about the permeability.

Charlie, looking at the drawing, there's a 2% slope on the turf I've always thought turf was basically not going to allow water to go through. Does staff have any comment on that?

So historically, there have been a handful of people who have installed synthetic turf, especially in our smaller lots and rear yards around this neighborhood. Usually we've placed a condition where they provide a section of that synthetic turf that shows the underdrain layers to either determine if it's impervious or pervious. So this project is part of their installation. We would need to get that to determine for sure whether it was calculated or not.

I'd be happy to provide that.

Sure. I think that would satisfy the comments that we're hearing on it. Also, one other thing. I believe the entire landscape area with the paving and the turf is above the sidewalk level. Is that correct? Yes. The way I'm reading it, it's... About two feet. Two feet above. A minimum of two feet above it.

There's the existing iron fence. Then there's setback from that about four feet is a little short retaining wall. And then in the space in between are where the trees go.

Right.

The line of evergreens.

So that's why I thought we would really not see the pergola or the shed, I don't very much. And then we did have a question about the trash enclosure being made out of wood. And, of course, that's essentially in your front yard adjacent to the garage. Right. So it would be seen actually from both streets, Linden and Kingsbury. So making that in wood, I think, is absolutely correct. No vinyl out there. Correct. Are there other comments before we go to the audience?

Would you agree to do the shed in wood?

Sure, if that's what you want.

Okay. Personally, I think it would be much better. I understand maintenance and longevity, but I think a vinyl shed... has a cheap look to it. And what you're doing is definitely not on the cheap scale. It'll look beautiful when it's done. So I would support it if you agree to a woodshed.

Yeah, fine. I'm happy to do a woodshed

Other comments, Helen? No. Jim or Chris, any other? No. Any comments from the audience? Okay. Well, we do have a recommendation. Actually, the first one is to revise...

Should I sit down? If you'd like, sure. I just didn't know what protocol

was. It's up to you. We do have a proposal in our staff report about increasing the visibility at the intersection. I think we've all or most of us gotten rid of that. Is that correct? Jim, did you have a problem? I don't have a problem. And then we were talking about the wood shed. Did we have any? Oh, the drainage. We need to have information.

I move to approve as submitted with the stipulation that the shed will be wood construction and that a sample of the synthetic turf and information about its permeability will be presented for staff review and approval.

Second. All in favor? I closed. Okay. Thank you. Good luck with it. We'll move on to old business At this time, item one is 7811 Clayton Road. Is the applicant here? Okay, just hold on. We'll start with the staff report.

Subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Clayton and South Central. It is developed with a one-story retail structure and surrounding parking lot. The applicant is seeking approval for sign modification to retain a window sign that was installed without a permit. Window signs are considered accessory signs and are not permitted to exceed 10% of a window area. Staff review of the sign application determined that the sign area measured 39.5 square feet and that the applicable window area measured 288 square feet. Plans were originally submitted and reviewed as part of a sign permit application. The sign application and plan stated that the applicable window area was 416.7 square feet. Per the staff measurements, the window sign does not comply with the 10% maximum. On December 2nd, an application was submitted for sign modification. The justification for the modification request was provided via email as follows. If the angled end of our storefront is accountable square feet, then our sign would be within the acceptable 10%. This is the modification we are asking to be allowed. The measurements are included in the drawings. To approve sign modification, the architecture review board must determine that there are practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determinations. If the application is a claim that staff have made an error in the determination of the applicable window area, then this would be a matter for review by the Board of Adjustment. Request for sign modification would acknowledge that staff have correctly applied the regulations, but that the applicant believes the conditions of this specific property warrant a modification of the regulation. The building features an angled facade housing the main entry. which staff determined was not parallel to the street and thus excluded from the standard sign area calculations per Section 425040A4D. However, staff acknowledge that this is a logical place for signage. Additionally, the building design does not provide a location for the installation of a wall sign, which is the primary sign type for retail businesses. Window signs are considered accessory and permitted in addition to wall signs. Staff are of the opinion that a slightly larger window sign that allowed in lieu of multiple signs would result in a minimal visual impact. Staff recommend approval with the condition that no other permanent signage be installed.

Okay. The applicant, come on up. Identify yourself and give us any more information.

My name's Ed Davenport, and I'm the project manager. I take care of the projects and the signs. And... I guess the differences we have is on the door section, which is the angled part of the glass. Has anybody went by and seen it?

Yeah.

So, you know, the door and everything is the main entrance. The address, everything is on that section of the glass. If we was able to include that, our sign would be within the limits, of course. And... I don't think it looks like it's overly huge or anything for the amount of glass we have on the front of the store. So we're hoping to get this incorporated in, which it is, you know, looking at the pictures, it does look like it's frontage glass. Would you like to see it? Oh, no, we... So... I think we've all been buying. We do have a copy of it. Okay. So there is a side glass, so there is glass all the way around. So while there is side glass, it's obviously not part of the frontage of Clayton Road. When you stand in the road, this is all – it does look to me like frontage. So that's our position with it. And it's been acceptable for the government to have our mailbox on it and our address on it and used in every other way for the frontage.

Any other comments?

With that being incorporated, we would be at – so the sign is 39.5 square feet. That would give us over 41 square feet. Or so it would be within our 10%. Yeah, that's all I have.

Well, I go by there daily. And I've always thought that the angled section with the 7811 address on it was really part of the front. And until this came up, I didn't see a problem. I do think that the signage is large, but I don't think it's overly large for that flat and 45 degree. But what I'm concerned more with is the staff recommendation that no other permanent signage shall be installed on the property for this business. There has been another sign there that says open. I took that down about two weeks ago, a week ago, two weeks ago. Yeah, it's no longer on the window, but it's visible now. from the exterior.

Well, that was another thing that we was unsure of. So exactly how far back into the building does not count as part of the window frontage.

So as we've explained, so this board doesn't have any oversight on how the code is applied. So if you have an argument that staff has applied it, that's a different board. So this board cannot determine that

for you. We're just trying to get clarification because we've got different opinions on that. So all we'd like to do here tonight is just, you know, either get it approved, get clarification or find out what we need to do to get this behind us.

Well, going back to the original sign and if it's permissible to count the 45 degree angle.

Sorry, Steve, I just wanted for the record, you also cannot decide whether or not it's permissible no that if that that would be an interpretation decision by the board of adjustment this board what you're deciding tonight is a sign modification so if you believe that this there are you know unusual elements of this building facade or difficulties that would warrant a modification to allow a larger window sign than permitted by code

i do The distinction being that an applicant who wishes to dispute the staff interpretation and application of the ordinance, their relief is in the Board of Adjustment. But there is a provision allowing this body to allow waiver of strict compliance with the sign code, right? And if you believe there are circumstances which suggest that it would be preferable to waive as opposed to deciding whether or not the computation is correct. in order for you to waive, you have to begin from the assumption that it is not in compliance and that an alternative approach is warranted. That

make sense? I hope so. We'll give it a try. Thank you. I would feel, and we'll see what all the other members feel, that we should allow it I'm not sure how to state it exactly, but that the two planes should be allowed for the sign.

So it has nothing to do. So the sign, the way that the staff report calculates the maximum sign area by the window is how it's defined to calculate window and wall area per the code. so that is the sign modification process is assuming that staff has correctly calculated the maximum window sign allowed for this property what is before you is a sign modification request to allow a larger window sign than allowed by the code rather than to change the calculation of the code to make this window sign compliant

we'll go basically with that i would allow the larger sign in this case ellen

i have no problems with it

yeah um i also like steve drive by daily and i will say it struck me how large the sign is and i think it definitely jumps out um i'm assuming based on the specs that we have on the page here that this was a sign that you had made for another location you brought over here

We have several of those signs, and they've never been a problem before. And we've had them in smaller areas than that one. So we was really kind of surprised that with the amount of frontage that we have there, the window size we have, that it was a problem. But we do have several of those sides made for further stores to be open.

So I completely understand having a sign that's already made and wanting to use that and put that in and have that be very easy. But it is oversized based on the sign regulation. I know as far as it was talked about with the way the building is, it can be difficult for signage, this building. This unit has had a number of different businesses that have been able to put up signage before they've maintained that. If you go back through, I think before there was, if you go a couple of tenants back, there was a appliance retailer that had installed just like a Maytag sign up there on the eyebrow. That was much more diminutive, still stood out from the road and everything like that. So yeah, I would have to go with kind of the strict interpretation of the sign code that this is oversized for the sign code.

Chris? I don't see any reason for an exemption to the sign code either. But I do wonder what would prevent the applicant from installing a whole bunch of these within the glass. And I know that's not within our purview, but What does prevent? I mean, since it is glass right there, I think he has a good point of how far back does it have to go. I mean, if we say you can't have this large of a sign, is there any reason why he couldn't remove the sign entirely and have an even larger sign one foot inside of the glass so that everyone could see? And I'm not giving you ideas.

We're not trying to do anything like that. We just thought maybe, you know, because at first there was a, well, if it was in the room further, that it would be an interior sign. Well, so then when we put it behind the glass wall, now it's a window sign. So I can't seem to get an answer of how far back they want the sign. We have no problem moving the sign back. We're not trying I go over there every day. I have pictures of it. I mean, everybody thinks the sign looks great. I think that your 10% is kind of really got everybody squeezed down on their fringes. And there's a lot of fringes there. And the sign doesn't, like you said, I don't think it looks big there. We have other stores that it looks huge in. This one, it actually looks aesthetically correct.

Yeah, I don't see a reason for an exemption in this case, but- See your point with it, and I think that it brings up some other further issues to be talked about not by this board That's it

any comments from the audience Okay What's his name? Oh, David Eichhorn. Do you have comments?

Yeah. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yeah. I live pretty much directly across from that location and can see that. And it's wildly obnoxious, but that's not an issue, I guess, is what's legal or not legal. I guess hearing, and I'm sorry, I wasn't able to attend tonight, but hearing The one individual, she described the rule. To say this is unusual, to somehow count the angle as unusual when a lot of frontages have that seemed very strange. This seems like an open and shut case, that it's over the 10%. An angled front, that happens quite often on buildings. So that's, to me, a modification of the rule, frankly. So this seems very straightforward and shouldn't be allowed.

Sir, please state your name and address for the record.

Sure. My name is David Eichhorn. I live at 8 Lake Forest Drive. Thank you. And maybe I know the individual looking for the exemption mentioned other areas. I just kind of remind everyone this isn't other areas. This is Clayton, and there's really strict rules, and I think we should be happy that you guys keep those strict rules in force.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions up here? No? Okay. We do have a staff recommendation for approval.

I move to approve as submitted with the staff recommendation.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? No. It's tie, so it does not pass.

Thank you.

Okay, we will move on to items two and three on old business. And that's 8145 University Drive. And we have both site plan review and architectural review. The applicants are here. So we'll start with the site plan review.

This project was presented at the meeting on November 17th and December 15th, and was continued at both meetings. The project includes the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new single family house. The following site plan revisions have been provided since the previous meetings. One, that the revised conditions result in three drainage areas. Two of the drainage areas drain to flow well systems in the front rear yards and additional flow wells connected to a sump pump. Soils testing would be required to determine if the wells would function as predicted. And two, the landscape plan has been revised such that canopy coverage falls below the minimum requirements and would result in a fee of $482.52. Additionally, two sergeant cherry trees have been replaced with emerald green arborvitae, which are evergreen trees that are more tolerant of clay soils than the previous treats. Revisions address outstanding elements of stormwater and landscape design. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal has met the criteria for site plan review. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The report must assess the performance of the proposed dry wells based on the anticipated impact of 15- or 20-minute storm events. Should these results indicate that the proposed well system is insufficient to accommodate the stormwater runoff generated by this event, the applicant shall require... be required to upsize the drywall accordingly to ensure adequate performance and compliance with the applicable stormwater management standards. And two, to ensure the future maintenance and operation of these various well systems, the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the well systems and shall submit proof of recording prior to issuance of a building permit. And three, the applicant shall contribute to the City Forestry Fund compensatory with the requirements of Section 405.4110 .

Okay, thank you. The applicant, come on up.

Hi, I'm Linda Clark. I represent the builder. We're trying to get this house through. We've made the recommended changes and I have my civil engineer here to explain what he did with the drywall. If you have any questions.

Okay, I think it would be good if the engineer came up. I'm not sure if I fully understand it at this point. It seems extremely complex. I'll

let him tell

you. Let him explain it.

Hi, my name is Henry Nguyen. And I revised my site plan and then I added the system to mitigate the stormwater on this project right here.

Well, we see the areas A, B, and C. And if you could slowly take us through how the water would be taken away.

So for the A, so all the dashboard from the A will go to the P, the driveway on the back one. And then they collect all the water from that, hold the water there. And then if you have a lot too much water on there, it will overflow to the front. So then that's water will straight to the streets right there. All this water is just for that.

So if area A in the backyard overflows, it would then go to the front yard.

But

the front yard is already taking area B, I think, or C, or both.

No, C, just the sea flow from the driveway and the grass area. And then A will be to go back to the dry well on the back. And then B, go to dry well on the front. And then they have the sump pump separator.

And that's the green one?

Yes, the green one will be for the sump pump. And then the blue one will be the B or roof area of B go to the driveway or flow well on the front. And then C, just the grass area and the driveway should flow to the street like used to be do.

So it looks like any overflow from A or B ends up on the front yard.

Correct. Because the front yard is a lower area, so all the water can go to them.

It just seems like an awful lot of water because we don't have enough pervious material on the site. Let me stop there and let's go around. Helen, comments?

Yeah. I counted in the front yard you have eight dry wells, this flow well system. And each of them has a drain, a four-inch drain inlet. So in the front yard, I'll see... four-inch, eight four-inch drains. And there'll be four pop-up emitters. The rear yard has six dry wells in the flow well system. And each of those has a drain inlet.

So the drain inlet's only, it's not drain water, that's for the emergency overflow. because if they had too much water there, they had to wait for the water to get out. That's why I put the drains on the front, and then it's recommended by the manufacturer also.

Okay, but in the front yard, I'm going to see eight of these inlets and then four pop-up emitters.

There were four pop-up.

Oh, sorry. Helen, are you talking about the circles within the blue rectangle? Is that the eight you're counting?

Yeah.

Okay, those are below grade.

Yeah, but according to the section of them, they will have a four-inch grain at grade.

Maybe you can describe the section.

That's what she said.

So that's just for the, you know, that's something just for the, as I say, just for the only emergency water, like if we had too much water on that dry well, so we have to know a way to water to get out. So it's not really, it's very small. There's only four inches drain, so it doesn't drain a lot of water on both the well. And then that will be the something that for the owner can take a look inside and see how much water in there also. some kind of observation well, you know.

It'll also allow water to come in, run off?

Yeah. What

about the... But

it's only for the grass area there, you know. This doesn't collect the water. A lot of water there. Right now, it's under the grass area. All the water is supposed to be sea flow there.

My concern is that you've got these series of drains and then pop-up emitters all in the front yard. And I guess my next question is,

will all

of this do to the critical root system of the existing tree?

Yeah, that's because we have very limited space. That's all we can provide right now. Nothing I can change. I can change that. I can remove the gray inlets on the top, put the cap on the top so the water normally flows through them. So now the water can hold from the roof area, can hold on that dry well instead of, you know, collect more water on the grass area above them.

But putting that in the critical root area can kill the tree.

That's correct. But I say they have been leaving space for me to put the dry well there.

Did the landscape architect review and provide any notes on this installation within that root zone?

on the location of the drywall she thought with the tree that's existing there it would not affect its root system

I personally am skeptical about that

i can definitely verify that once i find her email because she does know that we were putting one in the front and she was concerned about losing that front tree but i think with the location of this one we were okay with it but i can verify that for you okay i have nothing further

jim I know last time when we discussed this, the first plan, there were no best management practices that were used as far as to kind of slow down the water. And then on the 17th, what we had discussed that seemed to be really well received by everyone was a rain garden. And you said you were going to go back and do a rain garden. drywall, and I believe it was Susan who even said, well, are we doing a drywall or are we doing a rain garden? And you confirmed we're doing a rain garden. We're going to calculate a rain garden. But this is just a drywall system that went in. Can you, I guess, walk us through the thinking of why you backed off of the rain garden idea and went to a drywall? Especially, I know staff has noted that drywalls are not the best system, especially with our... We had discussed

a rain garden and you had said that you were going to drop plans for a rain garden and I

Honestly, when I first saw this, at first I thought, oh, that these are plantings in here and that this is all, you know, the roots that are going to soak. And

for the rain garden, I don't think we had any room for me to put the rain gardens over here because it collects a lot of water there too, you know, because I had no room to put the rain garden on this area. So I tried, but, you know, they have all the water line, gas line, everything on that area there, and then they have trees there also. I really had small room to put the rain guarding on that area.

I just know that that's what we had discussed last time. So, and this is a different plan than we had before. So, you know, we have to consider what's in front of us, but... All

right, Mike made it. I propose we table this for today and let me regroup with them. That's possible. How are you

related to the project? I'm the builder. Oh, you're the builder. Yeah. Well, let us go through our comments. We've already started. Okay. We need to do that. That's always an option. I just don't

want you guys going through the extra exercise and all that. Well,

I think we have valid concerns that need to be brought up. Okay. Super. Thank you. nothing

further from me bruce

i have the same concerns uh i won't speak further on those but i do want to bring up um the 0.5 under landscaping where it proposes adding 500 square feet of canopy which results in 804 square feet less than the replacement requirement and a forestry fund fee of $482.52. I don't find that fee to be a disincentive for removing that. I just feel that $482 is a drop in the bucket for losing 804 square feet of canopy. So I don't, again, this is something probably that It's for discussion away from this particular project. But I don't know how that's determined, the amount. It just feels like such a small amount. If I may provide some clarification

on that point. So that's actually codified in our landscape regulations, the amount that they would have to pay. Additionally, in previous conversations that I've had with the developer on this project, it was my recommendation that rather than based on the current configuration of the site, they crowd it with trees in order to meet that requirement, that they propose trees in a configuration that are going to best serve that are going to be the best for the longevity of those trees. They had previous proposals with more trees. It was the observation of our contracted landscape reviewer that trying to meet that canopy coverage requirement might mean that those trees don't

survive. Thank you, Ryan. I mean, our house, I know, is crowded with trees and they're not the best trees for the lot. And I think that probably it does provide some clarity. because I wish that they would have done fewer and better trees than what they did. So I think in that case, I think there should be a reexamination perhaps of the fee that's charged for that case. But in this case, I think that that does provide the clarity that I needed. And I don't have anything further to add in addition to the dry well.

Are there any other comments from the audience? Come on up. Well, no, we need your recording.

I'm Michael Goldwasser. We're at 8144 Pershing. So we are the neighbor to the rear of the house. I apologize. I think as one of the speakers last time, I don't know how to distinguish between what's planning and what is ARB. So I might be crossing both of those. I appreciate everything that both of the committees are doing here in the council's role. I think what has been said in several of the past meetings that I've listened to is I think at the end of the day, There was an attempt to put the largest possible house on a one-seventh acre lot. And this is what is doing the height mitigations, the water mitigations, the cantilever. All of this comes down to what is the largest. And I realize the developers have every right to buy the property and to do it on spec. do need the approval of this and they need to fit within the community and clayton standards so i would just ask that the council continue to hold out to know that there are no extenuating circumstances here there was not some geological issue that turned up that has thrown everything off there's not a resident who has some mobility or accessibility issues that need some different plan, it is how do we get the largest house possible on this? And so I do appreciate actually the developers in the most recent plans have tried to improve the water if I'm understanding correctly are now at 75% brick on the back which I realize is for the next discussion not this one. You know, I appreciate those things. I still feel like there's sort of a worn down of, well, if it's a little bit better than the previous plan, but I don't think any of this changes the fact that there is trying to put an exceptionally large house on a lot that it doesn't seem to fit with. And so I'd like to just have everybody keep in mind that there don't seem to be extenuating circumstances. Certainly from our point of view of the back, I, you know, I know your concerns of the water in the front. Of course, I don't want all the water to end up in our yard either. Obviously, the cantilevers and other stuff are just bringing everything closer to our house. Certainly, I see no exception for changing the materials from what is standard. There are reasons for that. So I don't have any other particular ask, but just wanted to voice just that I don't see extenuating circumstances here, and I'd like to see a house that fits well with the surroundings. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Mike Thompson. I'm the architect for the project. I'm not a civil engineer, so I'm not defending the system as it's designed currently. What myself and the builder are trying to do here, it's not a small thing. We're certainly not looking for extenuating circumstances. Well, we left it after the last meeting. I said all the roof water has to be held on the site. Now, I'm not a civil engineer. I don't know how you do that. We've been able to do it on every other job that we've done in Clayton Gardens with a simple drywall. We've taken all the roof water and we've held it on the site. Doing that on this particular site, the roof of this site is about 32% of the site. So that means you'll have 32% less water running out into the street. I think that seriously solves the drainage problem. And so this particular design to do that, yeah, I'm not a civil engineer, so I can't defend it. But that's our intent of where we're going with this.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Any further comments from the commission? I'll just make one last one. Since we began looking at this property at 8145 University, I think several of us thought it was too much building on that site, that it did not fit in the character of of the neighborhood, that it was oversized. And now what we're seeing going through the water, it seems like a very, very complicated drainage system to try to control it. And with that, and with the comment From the person in the back. I'm sorry. I did not get your name I think we should table it at this point let you rethink it. You've had three Times in front of us with quite a few comments and I'm not sure that we're there yet and to avoid voting no I would rather give you another chance to come back. Comments on that? Make a motion.

I move to table the plan review to a later date to be determined. Second.

All in favor? Could I suggest that if you may, would be willing for an emotion that table it at the request of the

applicant? Tabled at the request of applicant.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We do have one other item on here and that's architectural review. Do you feel comfortable going ahead with it? Okay, come on back. Okay, Ryan.

Following architectural revisions have been provided. The cantilever for the primary bathroom has been reduced by approximately one foot. The cantilevers on the east elevation have been removed and the roof and drive has been removed. As revised, the materials meet the requirements of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Staff recommended approval is submitted.

Okay, thank you. Okay, come on up.

What else are coming up here?

Mike Thompson, architect for Thompson Design Group. Yes, we've made modifications in order to get rid of the ribbon drive. I think 152 square feet came off the house. We also put brick on the rear cantilever. I agree, Pelham, yes, it does look better in brick. There's no doubt. So, yeah. Just to give you a little bit of context of this house, this front elevation, in fact, I did square footage of it today. I told you last time it's shorter, two foot shorter than any other house we've done in Clayton Gardens. It is narrower also. It's 150 square feet less, the front elevation, than the house across the street or kitty corner across the street to 8136. to give you context there. It's considerably smaller as far as the front elevation. So closest to the smallest house we've, or as far as the frontal elevation looks that we've done in Clayton Gardens. As far as the square footage, it's about six square feet smaller than the house across Kitty Corner, across the street from it. It's about 250 square feet smaller than 8120 Kingsbury. So not nearly, it's slightly larger than the original, the first house that we did at 8140 Kingsbury However, if I remember right, we're 60 square feet larger than that house. However, the lot is 125 square feet larger, so a larger lot, so therefore a slightly larger house. Otherwise, other than that first house, it'll be the smallest house we've done in Clayton Gardens. Any questions?

You say it's the smallest house that you've done.

It's smaller than across the street now by six square feet, and both of those have the similar size lots. They're 6,250 square feet. The ones on Kingsbury have 6,000 square foot lots, so they're a little bit smaller. Like I said, the second house we did on Kingsbury, 8120, that is by far the largest house we've done. It has It's 300 square feet larger than this house.

I think when it comes down to it, however you compare it to the other houses, this just seems to be massive on the north side of University Drive. And maybe it's because the house that would be coming down is very small on a very tight lot. I appreciate the changes you've made. I think you listened to us. But overall, I'm still concerned that it changes the character of that side of the street greatly. And I did not feel the same with the house directly across the street, I think at 8144, or the two other houses on Pershing or Kingsbury. Kingsbury, yeah. Maybe it's because Kingsbury is a much flatter street. I still have concerns with it, with the house itself. Ellen?

I think my concern is, I agree with Steve, but if we approve it, then you are locked into a footprint of to deal with the stormwater you know

my if i might my only comment on that is we've we've dealt with this we've had a dry well in in every house we've done actually not just in clayton gardens but every house we've gone um the one across the street has a dry well that takes all the roof water to it It's not an enormous structure that you saw today. Um, so I'm not sure the difference there was done designed by different company by voles. Um, so, I don't know if that's the difference. I, I'm not sure what the differences. It's got a simple dry well in the backyard. Again, it takes about roughly about 30% of all the water that hits the roof goes to that dry well and stays on site. So we reduce the water going, in that case, to the neighbors. It wants to flow out the back by 30%. So all I can tell you is we will get that done. We've done it on every other house. It hasn't been a problem in any of our house, so we will get that accomplished.

Okay.

Jim? I will say I do definitely think that you've taken our comments into consideration. So I know I specifically have been very against the ribbon drive. I was happy to see that out. The cantilevers have been reduced. The rear facade, I think, looks... tremendously better, and it's in compliance with the material standards. So I think all those things are great things. I do think I agree with Helen in the sense that if we're continuing for site plan, that we continue for architecture too. I appreciate your confidence that site plan is going to be figured out, but I would say it I would say at this stage, the site plan is pretty far away. So, uh, I wouldn't want to lock into a specific, uh, a specific footprint, like Helen said, and not be able to get there on the water. I, I think, I think, you know, if there would have maybe been something more extensive, like the rain garden that was discussed or something, you know, maybe all of this would have ended up even being approved today, but, uh, I. That worries me that we're not going to be able to get their site plan wise and I want to provide the flexibility on the architecture front, but what I am seeing as far as what my concerns were before have largely been met as far as the materials and certain things being removed.

Thank you um. And I might say my confidence is we've had five houses that we've done in Clayton. We've been able to figure out the water on all of them and not with a really... Now, I would say it's partly me that probably added to the complication. I initially said, okay, we've got to retain all the water on site that hits the roofs. And I said, we can't put it all in the front yard because we were going to kill that tree. And I said, if we kill that tree, I don't think we get approval. So I said, I know it costs a little bit extra to pipe into the backyard. We're going the wrong way of what our ground wants to slope. That always costs a little bit more. But I said, yeah, it's got to go in the backyard. The other houses we've done, it just so happened the backyard was a low area. And so it was very easy to put it in the backyard. This one's going to be a little more complicated. but we'll five times uh we've gotten it done so i'm pretty sure we're gonna get it done the sixth time

i'll just i'll just say that all the the the i think a lot of the comments that are coming from the planning commission are not necessarily just because of this proposal that's here today i think it's because we've been talking a lot about stormwater there's new stormwater regulations that are uh up for consideration by the council at their meeting this month so A lot of the results of your projects and everybody else who's done houses in Clayton, the results long-term of those stormwater mitigation efforts on adjacent properties is what has resulted in this commission asking a lot more questions than they used to ask about stormwater. So it's not really this project and this engineer compared to the engineer that looked at something across the street. It's the timing of this project happening following all of those conversations about the nuisances and ongoing maintenance issues that have been happening throughout the city.

Yeah, and Ana, to add on that, I know specifically if you read through those proposed stormwater, which it's very extensive, but it specifically says, I mean, in no uncertain language, that dry wells are not the preferred method to deal with this. And it lists several other BMPs that would be considered better, which is why the last time we were – I think that's why we were discussing a rain garden, because we were saying that would be a better option from our perspective than the drywall. And I'll be honest, like I said, when I first look at these plans, I thought this was a rain garden. I thought these were plants. It wasn't until I went to the landscaping plan that I realized that these aren't plants that are in here. And in fact, plants were in the last one and then they were removed for this. So that's... just to give you an idea of kind of like where we are with that. Yes. And I want to say with as far as complaints that we get from projects, uh, water is definitely one of the top and especially water flowing out over the sidewalks into the streets and stuff. So when you see, okay, well, if this float fills up, then it's going to come out this pop-up that pop-ups in the front and that pop-up is going to then. So I think that's why we were pushing more towards the rain garden in the last, uh, in the last session to, to really kind of hit that out of the park and, and deal with that.

I think it's jarring still, and again, I go back to the size of it compared to the ones next to it. I don't know if the white color, if the white exterior adds to that, if that's perhaps, and I'm not against white. My home is white brick, so I understand the appeal of it. But I'm also of opinion that it should be tabled until the site plan is worked out. so that we allow you some flexibility to think about these ideas too. I respect the fact that you are taking the recommendations into consideration, but I hear from neighbors saying that it seems like it's too big. The council is saying that it seems it's too big and it's just when something is changed by a matter of six inches, it just doesn't seem like it really is hearing fully, I guess, the concerns of the neighborhood. That's all I have.

I believe we have another person who would like to speak.

Yeah, I appreciate everybody's comments and I agree. I think we probably should table it for today and let's go back and regroup and we'll look at, we listened to everybody, we'll look at the stormwater and make sure we get all that squared away.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Anything further or can we go on to a motion?

I move that we table the architectural review to a later date to be determined and that the tabling is at the applicant's request.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

We are

acknowledging this inventory request. What are the time limits? From what?

so no no no no i mean we're hoping to come back for the next meeting sure okay

Okay, then we will see you in the near future. Thank you. Hey, we are coming to the items four and five. And that's 436 Oakley Drive. And we'll get started with the site plan review.

Project was originally presented at the November 3rd, 2025 meeting. The project consists of demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house. Following site plan revisions were provided from the previous meeting. One, the front yard lot coverage has been revised to meet the requirements. Two, stormwater drainage areas have been revised to now include two dry wells. And then three, two stone columns of the front elevation removed but not reflected in the landscape plan. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan reflecting the updated building footprint. The applicant shall provide a percolation test report conducted by a geotechnical engineer. The report must assess the performance of the proposed drywall based on an 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 adequate performance and compliance with the applicable stormwater management standards. And then three, to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the drywall, the applicant shall record a deed restriction noting the location and maintenance requirements of the drywall system and shall submit proof of the recording prior to issuance of a building permit.

Okay, the applicant.

Hi, I'm Tom Lucas from 8010 Pershing. I don't really have anything else to add to that. You requested some revisions, which we made and submitted. The only one thing I might add is that I think it just, you know, get crossed in, I won't even say email and workflow. I got the new landscape plan to you a little bit before your memo came out with the recommendations, and I don't know if that's been reviewed yet or not. I suspect not. But you do have the new landscape plan, so.

Would you like to quickly run through the grading plan and the stormwater?

Okay, the grade really hasn't changed at all other than the it's not even really the grade. There was some pedestals to each side of the front door that were only like 12 square feet each. Those were removed, which changed the amount of the impervious area of the front yard. That really didn't change the drainage substantially there though. But what did change was the, there were, there's been several kinds of plans, in dealing with the city employees. The original plan that was talked about was to bring that one drain out to the right-hand side of the driveway, and that was nixed because it was within 10 feet of the lot boundary. That's also the area where I personally spoke with the engineer from Metropolitan Sewer District, and that's where they recommended to do it also. But I understand that's not for, you know, whatever. So then there was a plan to bring that out underneath the driveway into the front yard. But that, the... was decided in the plan commission that that would be bringing too much water out, even though it met all the requirements of code, that it might still be too much water coming over the front sidewalk. That could be algae producing and ice producing. So the request was to put a second block dry well in to the right-hand side of the driveway, but that then if it, if that did overflow, that it would go to the left-hand side of driveway and that has now been done. And that's what they most recently reviewed.

Okay. So that's the explanation. I see the two dry wells now.

Right.

And the one pop up, I believe it is further to the left.

The one further to the left is for the drywall on the left. Yes. The one to the right is for the drywell on the other side of the driveway. Which hopefully won't... Anything won't ever come out of those, but we, you know... We would hope that would be the case. Okay. And I have no problem with the... the recommendations of geotechnical engineer doing the studies to make sure that the water will go down into the ground. As a matter of fact, just related to that, there'll be, I think I mentioned last time, there'll be substantially more geotechnical engineering evaluations, especially since the southwest corner of the house, the right front of the house sunk down a few inches. I'm spending some extra money to make sure that this footing is going to be done properly so the geotechnical engineer is going to be out there a fair amount during the next couple weeks. So

you haven't determined yet why it's sinking?

Most likely, what I've been told by other contractors is that, which I was going to get into in a few minutes, but I'll tell it to you now. The downspout for the gutter for that side of the house was missing, and all of that water was going right next to the house, right there. The opening for the downspout was there and just pouring down on the ground. And I believe that was missing for years. My guess would be for decades. And that's why that right front corner of the house is sinking, but I don't know for sure.

Well, it's severely eroded away. Right. Helen?

No questions.

Jim? Nothing additional for site plan.

Chris?

Nothing additional.

Any comments from the audience? Okay. Are you comfortable with the three staff recommendations for the conditions? Okay. we have a motion to approve with the conditions

i move to approve as submitted with the conditions with the staff recommendations

second all in favor aye opposed okay Okay, we'll move on to the architectural review.

The house has been revised to feature brick on the main and second levels and stone at the basement level. Front and south side facades would not meet the Airbnb requirements for 75% of facade comprising the primary material. Houses in Whiteown Forest comprise a variety of materials with secondary materials most common on roof cables, dormers, and foundations. examples of facades not meeting the guideline threshold for primary materials are present nearby the secondary material location at the basement level of the proposed house is consistent with houses nearby staff are of the opinion that the proposed material composition is compatible with the surrounding area staff recommend approval is submitted thank you

I'm back again. And with me, I have Stephen Kling, attorney. I don't think he's going to probably do anything. He's here to listen mostly, but just so you know, he's here and he's got a card filled out. Let me see how this thing works. You might be able to tell there's a lot of slides here. Don't be afraid because they'll be gone through in like a second each. Some of them are multiple, multiple. I've got multiple examples of, you know, I've been asked to bring in examples from the neighborhood, so I've got several of them. But first off, I kind of want to start with I think what's maybe the elephant in the room. I'm not a good speaker, so I'm going to be reading a little bit here. I apologize. I suspect there's a desire by many of us, including me, to not have Whiteown Forest become a substantial percent teardown neighborhood as has happened in Clayton Gardens. I do not see this house being torn down and the new one being built as the beginning of that. And the reason being is that this house, I believe, is uniquely, very uniquely unique was allowed to deteriorate to the point that it was structurally damaged. And that's why the first few pictures are going to be to show you that. It's not just like, oh yeah, this was a house in Winamparse, it's a little rundown or something. And it was condemned by the city as well. Um, so, um, you'll see some pictures about that. There's a pretty large hole in the roof. Uh, you know, that settling that I mentioned was over a period of over an, over a run of probably less than 20 feet so that that slope was in the same ballpark range of what we have to do with concrete to get water to drain for the actual interior of that house. Um, It's a pretty large hole in the roof that wasn't repaired for a long time. At least one rodent got in, and it was chewing on the woodwork around multiple windows, I believe, in attempts to get out before it got out, I guess. which that could have been repaired. That's not an issue. But the water damage coming in through the roof was much more damaging. It caused large areas of ceiling and wall damage. I was told by a subcontractor that all the interior walls would probably have to be taken down to the studs, and the exterior walls would need extensive plaster repair or have to be furred out. And... Despite all this, and from the pictures you see, I did get general carpentry, electrical, painting, plastering. I don't know what other, you know, structural issues, HVAC. I got bids to get all this stuff, and I looked at it, and it just wasn't economically feasible to fix this house. So it is going to be torn down, whether it's by me or somebody else in a new one. But I don't think it's the start of White & Gardens, you know. And frankly, you know, if I didn't like White & Gardens as much as I do, Probably would have spent a little bit more money and bought a house in Clayton Gardens and torn it down. Certainly, it would be a lot more objectively as far as resale goes. You know what you're going to get over there. Who knows what this will go for when I go to sell it one day or my kids when I can't live there or die. I may buffer that opinion a little bit having heard the case before us here. But let me go and I'll show you the damage and what's... Okay, this isn't doing anything. So this is the dining room on the first floor. So the water damage went down to the first floor even. You can see the hole up in the corner there, that's that hole coming down there. This is another wall in the dining room. This is the family room. Up in there, there was a tongue and groove ceiling up in there that's been damaged that they covered up with a lowered ceiling. This is on the landing going from the first to the second floor of the staircase right around there. And by the way, I didn't do any demo before taking these pictures. There was a lot of stuff in there, but I moved it out. But this is like the plaster fell off the walls because of water damage here underneath the wallpaper there. This is the ceiling up at the top of the foyer, the two-story foyer. And then that fell down even more after these pictures were taken somewhat. This is in the primary bedroom looking up in the corner, which you'll see another picture of this. That's sunlight you're seeing coming in there through the bedroom ceiling. There you see that same hole. You can see the light coming onto the wall that's coming in through the roof. This is another bedroom. The hole to the right is sort of adjacent to that other one. that other hole, and then this is the third bedroom. You can't see it too well there, but the dark spot on that wall there is where all of the plaster fell off the wall, and that is brick. I didn't bring any pictures of the basement. The toilet down there looked like it was a God of a Great Bee horror show or something. You wouldn't have even believed it. You would have thought that I made it up, but anyway. So anyway, that's sort of a story of why this is going on at all. The other examples I bring here are there's been some discussion about the two-car wide driveways. As we've discussed, Oakley is a very narrow street with parking on only one side of the street, the opposite side of the street so that the two-car driveway here, two-car wide driveway isn't taking up parking space along the street because there's no parking on that side. The small garages there often aren't used, so there's therefore not that much street parking per household with these relatively narrow lots or quite narrow lots. I just think parking is difficult and people really appreciate any off-street parking that you can get. And five of these examples that I have here actually are on Oakley, which as you know is a pretty short street. This is a shared driveway between two houses. Here's another shared driveway between two house on Oakley. It's a shared driveway even though there's a forward facing two car garage there behind it. This is the house that I rehabbed three doors down. That driveway does look better in person than it looks there. That's an exposed aggregate driveway there. I think it does look nicer than that. But there are

always

two cars on that driveway. There's always two cars on the driveway. This is one of probably the most beautiful driveway I've seen just about anywhere. That's a real granite cobblestone driveway that somebody put in, again, two car with a one-car garage similar to what I did five doors down from that one. And here's a two-car driveway with this carport over on Edgewood. This is on Carswell. Actually, the house on Carswell, this is like around the corner. It's actually on Edgewood, a two-car front-facing. This is from the multifamily. It's on Shirley, about 100 feet from Hanley, but a two-car. And then this is on Carswell. This is actually on Shirley. It's like the corner of Shirley and Carswell. Again, a one-car garage with a two-car just to get some cars off the street. People put these in, obviously, since these homes have been built because parking is a real issue there. And then this is a two-car tuck under on edge wood that is actually on the side of the house that is on Oakley. This is like five doors down from the house we're talking about. This is also a good example. There was another one earlier of the stone on the lower level of the houses. Let me just go back real fast. Okay. See, there's another example of stone on the side of the house on the lower levels. Then here's the two-car garage tuck under on Shirley and Carswell. There's also been some discussion about the last time of the long stairs. And here's some examples of some long stairs kind of all throughout White Island Forest. I think largely because it's maybe probably a little bit hillier than most people recognize it is. And then on those homes where you're setting up, you've got to get up to the house. And here's another example of the stone on the lower level of the... house long. This is on Edgewood and a large house there. Only got a few of these, probably to show you quite a few long and some of them with two or three flight, you know, two or three sections of the stairs turned out of stairs. And with the tuck under garage, with the steps turning, kind of similar to what we're talking about here at 436. Same thing here. These are down on Carswell. There's two or three of them down on Carswell just down the hill from where 436 Oakley is. If you just kind of follow that hill down, they'll do the same with the tuck under the garage. And then they have the one set of stairs and then take a turn and go up the stairs. Another one. I suspect that it's not a majority, but probably the most common front facade in White Island Forest is a two-story brick home with a rectangular or square front facade with a small amount of adornment to it, I would say. I think sometimes we think of the Tudor homes like the one next door here, but I'm going to run through these quite fast just to show you how many brick two-story homes, and I excluded ones that had even much more than a little bit on the front. These are pretty, there's like 38 of these that are pretty rectangular as this house here is. painted brick. Some of these have hip roofs and I'd say maybe a fourth of them have hip roofs or maybe a third, I don't know. A lot of them have cable roofs. By saying they're plain rectangles, I'm not speaking ill of them. I love many of these homes. Here we start some of the rectangular homes that have tuck undergarages. Oh, that's not unique at 436 in this proposed. I think this house looks a lot newer than 1928, especially since it's tuck pointed, I suppose. The other thing that I've done is mentioned or have talked about in the past, a bay window. This obviously has a bay window since it's not supported underneath perhaps an Oreo window. And here's some examples of bay windows. You can see it in the artistic rendering in the house to the north. Actually those windows I think stick out a little bit, not very far though. Oh, no, no, no. Let me back up. Let me show you some of the larger homes in there first. The question, obviously that's sort of the other elephant in the room is how big it is. There are probably six or seven other large homes in White Island Forest. They don't, sometimes people don't pay as much attention to them. But they're there. They're all two stories and somewhat longer. But the architect did spend a fair amount of time. She was like counting how many rows of bricks high these houses were and then going on St. Louis County records and looking at the exterior dimensions of them. she did it with only the four that had the relatively flat front facade so you could really compare them the ones that are at the corners of particularly at edgewood and oakley and at the corner of shirley and carswold they kind of wrap around the corner more and you can't really say well this front facade you know, compares, but they're really big looking houses. So she took only the ones, the four that have relatively front facades and figured out the areas. And the area of brick on this house, not including the foundation portion, is an average of about 91% of the size of what the brick is on those four houses. And here we have those four. Again, with this lower, a little bit of stone on the bottom here. This is on edgewood. Oh, well, you don't notice these big houses in there as much sometimes, but they're there.

Have you noticed that all four of those have step downs that bring that height down? So that's part of why you don't necessarily perceive such of how large it is. And it's not as much of a block form. If we're looking at commonalities through these projects, I think that's an important one to mention. Right.

And they're wider lots to do that on. They come down on the ends.

Considerably wider.

Another detail is most of those homes have a little more stone detailing, either above or below the windows. I know you have like a keystone above the windows with some brick soldiers that look like. So maybe there's an opportunity to just add a little more detail in it.

I would probably love that. I intentionally, which I'll get into in a minute, but I intentionally, the architect and I, I act like I did any of this work. The architect took out sort of as a lot of the, quote, fanciness and detail out of it to scale it back, to make it a little more rustic, to fit in more with the existing neighborhood. There is an alternative. I know that you don't like just seeing alternatives. You're like, oh, do you like this one or this one? Or you've got to look at one of them. There's one that I particularly like a lot that I went as far as having artistic renderings done on and decided not to present here. That had the same stone detailing as the It had the same stone detailing around the, it didn't have this stone right here that the whole section of the house is made out of, the flat stone. And it didn't have the pedestals. But it had this stone here and it had the stone around the windows and around all the windows. I like that quite a bit. It didn't have the bay on it then, and it didn't have this stone here, kind of a wider section of flat stone, but it had just stone around the windows. I particularly like that, but I chose to present a more, I'd say plain, maybe a little more rustic, that I think may well fit the neighborhood better. Maybe not as much as the big homes, but the majority of the homes around there. So on to the other area that I, before we get into my main thrust of things, is the bay. There are bays in here. Again, with some stone underneath on the lower level. There's more bays and bow windows than you might recognize in here. Past, again, some stone on the lower level. This is the current 436 Oakley with that siding put on there vertically. This is the next door neighbor at 432. And this is 444 Oakley. So anyway, you can see that after talking to you and submitting this one, people don't realize it who know me well, but I do listen. I think the changes from that Allstone version to this one incorporate a lot of the suggestions that were discussed earlier. here earlier to make it fit in better, stand out less, and generally be more conforming with the neighborhood. I think changing it from very light stone to the darker brick, oh by the way, that's from the, I've got the brick samples here along with some roofing samples, and the stone is here somewhere as well, I'm not sure where it got put. This is from the manufacturer that says this is what this looks like. I assume that's with a neutral color mortar, which I would be planning. It kind of runs from the red to brown kind of look.

Did you say the mortar would be the same color as that, the white mortar, or you'd be going with the darker mortar?

I'd be going with a natural color mortar, both in the brick and to hopefully blend a little bit, I would be using the same natural mortar with the stone lower level foundation area. They obviously contrast, but I think to kind of blend them a little bit. But I think going from the very light stone to the darker brick is just a major change in the feeling of the mass. And then by not using all that smooth stone on that whole section there... and not having the detailed, the stone that I said that I deleted for this version, removing the pedestals, I think just make it a whole lot less structured, formal, rigid than it was before. There's a slightly lower appearance of that foundation, how it dips down right under the front door. I think it helps bring the front door down just a touch. I know it's not a lot, but it an attempt to do something with that. And I think it just gives it some architectural interest too, instead of having a flat line all the way across the things. But the use of multiple materials, textures and colors, especially the darker brick, lighter stone, the wood tone garage door and the bay window breaks up the mass, making it much less monolithic looking than it was before. I think it gives more interest, variety, character. And the arched front entrance and the bay windows both bring in some of that architectural interest and character in

it. I certainly agree with you. Substituting the brick for the stone on the facade, I think, makes it fit into the character of the neighborhood a lot better, even though it's still a very large house. But it doesn't look as large as it did before. Right.

This breaks it up. And it's darker. Yeah.

Yeah. still concerned about that garage door.

Yeah, we looked at trying to do two of them there, and it didn't. But there is an example of the two-car tuck under garage door. I was sure to bring that in to show you. Any more questions? That's it. That's all I have.

Other comments? No one?

Your garage door is 18 feet wide. Could it be 16? I'm

not positive. Is that a standard?

Yeah, I believe it is. I mean, I haven't checked recently, but it is... It's a two-car.

Right.

Yeah. 18 is more wiggle room, but a foot on each side would help kind of reduce, visually reduce the size. I

suppose it could be as long as that's like an acceptable, you know, standard acceptable two-car garage.

Yeah, no, I wouldn't recommend custom. Don't blow the budget on the garage door. But that would help. Can the driveway be tilted downward, kind of lowering the house a bit?

Well, then we get into, you mean downward towards the house?

Yeah. Okay.

problem with that is multiple fold one is even even in the well one is I think that then you just get into the bring and you're bringing water into the house

yeah it's some

and then you're also getting you're also getting some retaining walls on the sides you know the And actually, I think it's generally seen as less desirable. In the overlay districts for Clayshire and Clayton Gardens, they strongly, strongly discourage driveways that go down. This driveway isn't going up, but only on just the amount that you need to get the slope down. to get the water to drain. Maybe it's a few percent, but basically it's quarter of an inch of foot, I believe is what it's dropping or plus or minus. But I think in general, it just causes a whole lot more problems when you're running water towards the house.

Yeah, no,

opens up the whole can

of wine. Disagreeing with you. The other thing is, To give it more detail and maybe try to give it more horizontal. Brick patterning, soldier course, herringbone pattern.

We've got a little herringbone right in that one section there. able to put it on the board but i can show it to you walk around and show it to you all um the rendering that i can show you here i'm hopeful i'm looking Here's the one I was telling you about.

Yeah, I personally like the arch. I like what you've done at the entry. I would not change that. I think that picks up A number of the doorways, albeit smaller, narrow. I

think it's from the neighborhood. Yeah, I like

that brick. That's at the entry. I think that's wonderful. What is the material of the bay above the entry?

That's not 100% worked out. It's a problem. Doing that with brick veneer and stuff, you know, it's a full-depth brick veneer. It's a three-inch brick veneer, a full-bed brick veneer it's not. But many of the, all the other bays you've seen on there except for maybe one at 405 Carswell, and that bay goes all the way down to the ground. The When you're dealing with full masonry that's over a foot thick, it's a lot different to support those things. So what she's working on to try to do is to support either a thin man-made stone but whatever it's made out of, or if it's going to be made out of a wood or a wood composite product or whatever else, to have a... I don't know what they call it, but they plaster over it to make it look like stone.

Yeah, Portland cement.

Yeah, they put some kind of cement over it and then paint it to make it Look like the...

Have

you... The other option that the... Artists who did the artistic rendering she originally assumed that that was going to be black. Again, I don't bring too many options like I know i'm supposed to be presenting one thing.

No where I was going was if you did that day. Out of wood. Picking up the tone of the garage door and the front door, tying those three elements in.

I just worry about the maintenance of that and getting it, you know.

A stain, dark stain.

Right. I think that could look really cool. I mean, I definitely hear where you're coming from, but I just worry about that. Front doors are bad enough. But a bay, you know, not there to do it.

I think it would pick up a lot of the character of the neighborhood where you see the wood bays.

Right.

And then the color that you have for the doors is very typical of that area. So just a thought.

Material-wise, I think this is a big improvement over last time and I think fits into the neighborhood really well. I definitely think with what you have, especially with the arch, fits in a lot better than the rendering you show. I think you're going, I think, in the right direction here versus that. And I think... fits in. I'm not concerned with the stone lower as far as not having 75% on one facade, because I think that fits in with the neighborhood. I think he did a great job showing all the bays, all the materials, all that it fits in. Where my concern is, this is a very, very large house. And I think we just went through a whole presentation where people... are sitting here talking that they're worried that it's too big of a house. And you have a much larger house than 8145 University, about a thousand square foot bigger now. It's not quite apples to apples because of the tuck under garage, but there's a 30 foot max in R2 zoning. You've put this house at 29 foot 11 inches. Then on top of that, because so much of the basement level is exposed, and you're going up.

Well, that's not from the top of the foundation. That's from what the current existing grade is, the 2911. It doesn't go down to where the bottom of where the garage floor is. I understand, but I'm saying that makes it even bigger. No, no, I mean it's not. It's not to the top of the stone. That's not where the 29 1⁄2 feet starts from. 29 and a half feet starts from somewhere down lower it's about existing grade okay maybe i'm not raised higher there right now so i'm saying it's about maybe halfway up that door if that's not maybe half or two-thirds of the door

okay so if the tip of the roof is let's just say point a and we were going down where would 29 foot 11 inch hit

Again, I didn't understand.

So if we're measuring height, because you're saying that the height is not properly being...

Ryan's going to pull up the elevation for you. It's on sheet four.

Yeah, I'm saying that it's about probably 29 and a half feet from maybe right here, I think. Whenever you move that mouse, it moves my mouse too. Oh, okay. Sorry.

Okay.

While you're doing that, one of the things when they did the code, they did an overlay for Clayton Gardens and Clay Shire. And spelled out a lot of these things, the setbacks that you can do, the step-downs if you're so close to other houses and all that. And they chose not to do that in all the other neighborhoods, including White Island Forest. And I think I may be wrong. I wasn't on those. You may have been involved with that even. I don't know. But I think they may have wanted more flexibility in these neighborhoods than they wanted in Clayton Gardens and Clayshark.

Well, I think in Clinton Gardens and Clayshire, you also see a lot more teardowns. So I think and I wasn't there. But if I was to assume it would say to kind of get in front of those plans that are coming. So obviously in situations I did

not they didn't do it for the whole city, though. They could have just said this is for the whole city.

Well, no, it was done by individual neighborhoods. And the western portion of Clayton Gardens and Clayshire, they have much wider lots. So it was much easier to have step-down procedures.

So yeah, I mean, if you look... We're at 29 foot 11 inch. So you came in one inch below what the absolute maximum is, and that's not even taking in the full height of what this is going to be.

What do you mean?

It's... I'm saying because, obviously, because where you're standing, the grade goes lower and the roof goes higher. I'm not saying... Right, right, right. But for the way it was written. I'm not, I'm not saying by any means that what is designed is not within what the maximum that is set, but I'm saying is, it is one inch below. And just for context, the house that we just discussed, which many people were saying is too big, was 26 foot eight. So this is a full... more three foot, three inch taller than that home. I'll tell you what really started for me is kind of going to when I read that this was going to be taller than the house that it's up the hill from. So then when I walked the site, I was like, you know, these drawings, it's like, you know. The materials, it looks like it fits in the neighborhood from this angle and if it doesn't necessarily look that bad when you're standing there, it's like wow, it's like it's going to be fantastic. four foot taller than the house to the left, which is, I believe, if it's not the tallest point on Oakley, it's definitely the second tallest point. It's pretty close. And this is going to be four feet above that. Then when we get into even further, your first floor of this house ceiling height is 11 foot one and one eighth inch. And then the second floor is 10 foot one and one eight inch. I know in other projects we've had, I would say a back and forth with developers. And I think we've kind of begrudgingly understood that in development terms, kind of a 10 foot first floor, which we've even argued with a 10 foot floor, maybe being a bit too high, but 10 foot being kind of the standard that we're seeing in a nine foot second. And this is over a foot taller on both of those by simply even just going to a 10 foot main floor and a nine foot second floor, uh, you would reduce the height by 26 inches and be much closer to the house to the left. Um, I'm worried right now that, like I said, material-wise, I think it fits in. I'm worried about it just absolutely towering over the houses around it and just worried about the whole size of everything. Like I said, when we're discussing another house being too large, and not to mention, I believe this... I'm not

worried about that other house, to tell you the truth.

I'm just not. Not to mention this lot is also smaller than that lot. I believe this lot's less than 6,000 square feet.

I'm not worried about the other house. It's not approved. That's not even approved. That's something theoretical.

I was more just throwing it out there as it is a house that lots of people have worried about being too large and putting that against these measurements. I I worry that especially over an 11-foot first floor.

But a finish would be 11, I assume.

It's 11 foot 1 and 1 eighth is what the architects spec'd out.

Right, but then there's a finish floor that goes over that. That's not spec'd out there. That's spec'd out before the finish floor is put down. OK, but that's- I thought the architects think that's what you would do. You've got to put a finish floor over that, right?

Usually you measure

from the finished floor. No, the dimensions on the architectural drawings. I think don't include finished floors, but I may be. It's not only an inch or inch factor. That's a moot point anyway. But I think that those aren't finished floors.

It just says ceiling heights.

No, no, it doesn't. Yeah, I think those aren't finished floor.

Well, we're talking inches. That's what I say. That's a moot point. Even a fraction of an inch. But what Jim is saying is that we do see a lot of 9- and 10-foot first floors and a foot less on the second floor. Here we have an 11-foot nominal and a 10-foot nominal. If it could be a 10 and a 9... We do bring the house down by 24 plus or minus inches. Is that correct, Jim?

That's yes.

That's what we see.

And I think even by gaining that two feet or reducing by that two feet, it would help a lot added to the material changes that we're seeing. It would add a lot to making this fit in the neighborhood and

Another thing that it would do is it would reduce the amount of brick in the front. It would bring down the height, not changing the width. Now, that might mean reconfiguring the arched entrance opening and the bay window above it slightly. Page

all the windows.

It might. I'm not sure about that.

I think it most likely would, but...

Well, those windows may be predicated on the 11-foot height first floor and the 10-foot height second floor. Those are tall. They might come down.

Yeah. I just worry it's like, you know, here, I guess we spent 30 minutes looking at examples of the neighborhood and stuff like that. And we're not talking about the number one thing or what would make it not fit in the neighborhood. It's just the sheer massive height of it and how we can bring that down and along with the material changes to fit better in its environment.

I think it's interesting that you mentioned that you're not thinking about the other home that we're talking about because I think what you've done particularly well with this one is really differentiate, whereas the other homes architect hadn't necessarily done that and i applaud you for that um i i find it to be your use of the stone and the brick does visually reduce the front facade effectively um i had not considered i did not walk this site i hadn't considered um the fact that bringing down the interior height to 10 foot and nine foot might be a workable sort of solution um but I, I admire your restraint and not adding all the stone. I too really love the arch that you've included and would not go with adding additional stone. Um, I see what Helen's mentioning about doing some sort of a running, um, some sort of a pattern to break up that, but, but to be honest, I don't know if that would actually just detract from it or add in too much ornamentation. I think that the addition of, it gets a little busy. I'm

just not a big fan. Yeah. I'm not a big fan of horizontal patterns and bricks. Just, Yeah, it'd be interesting to

see from a rendering sort of standpoint what it would look like, but I would agree. I'm not necessarily a fan of a lot of that kind of ornamentation and such. The garage door, I kind of feel that the addition of that material, adding the wood to it actually benefits the design as opposed to detracting from it. I don't know what the standard width of a two-car garage is, whether it's 16 feet or 18 feet. If it is both of those, if it could be both of those, I would err on the side of going 18 feet if it encourages the homeowner to park a car inside. I think you get to a certain trade-off where if it's just that little bit on the sides where they say, well, I can't get...

But you might not get the second one regularly.

Yeah. And, you know, visually adding that foot onto each side would I think be a benefit adding the stone. But if it's, if it's to the point where the homeowner is struggling to get both cars into the garage and leaves one out, then I'd say make the garage two feet bigger for that reason. I wonder in terms of the bay, I like the idea of using wood in, I think that does pay respect to the other homes in the neighborhood as opposed to the stone. I also wonder if something like copper could be used, um, as a, as an architectural element. I think there's other examples of copper use. Uh, and I even think that using copper, for example, for the gutters and the downspout could add that horizontal, um, kind of architectural element that, that might break it up in a nice way and also pays respect to, to other things in the neighborhood. Um, Had you considered using any other roofing material apart from shingles?

I have, but cost is a big factor with the other materials. And more than that is apparently some people don't, for resale at some point, slate roofs are some people really not liking them because the maintenance and the cost of insurance on them is just going crazy lately. And many of those are being replaced with asbestos roofs.

And I think that a lot of that is the cost for doing it. I'd love to see a slate roof on something like this, because I think that a really nice in this neighborhood have that slate and tile roofs. And I know the one you're replacing has a nice clay tile roof on it. But I have a preference for clay tile and slate. So I admit that's my personal preference on that. I think the home fits in well. I agree that it is massive and I will take time to go and walk the site and drive around to see how it looks from the other, from other angles. But I do think it's apples and oranges compared to that other home that we were discussing simply because you've taken the time to break it up into these kinds of visually arresting features like the arch, like the herringbone pattern that you've included in the, in the surround. So I, I, I really don't have a whole lot of concerns with it, but I do like the idea of investigating potentially bringing down the first floor and second floor ceilings, if that's something you'd consider.

Follow up, Chris, on your comment about the roof. This is a relatively low slope roof. And I think from the ground, you're not even going to see the shingles.

Right. That's the other point that the architect brought up. She said, you're probably not going to see it much. And actually, one of the roofers that I spoke to said, I put a chief roof on there because you're going to see it if you look. But it's like you're not going to be it's not going to be sticking out.

I think if we bring down the house, you know, a couple of those 26 inches or whatever, then it might be more of a concern. I'd be interested to see. I mean, if that is one, you know, maybe we're adding a problem by saying, well, now you can see the roof more. But there's something that is... I guess appealing in the sense that it tends to pay some respect to the neighborhood as well. That, okay, it is a new home, but to pay respect to the other homes in the neighborhood, we're keeping some of these elements that were originally included when the home was designed in 1931. You have almost a century-old house. Maybe we can include some more elements that would have been included a century ago. That's just a suggestion. But I understand the cost prohibitions of doing something like this.

We're not really here to redesign your house, but yeah, we are. But to follow up on Jim's idea of the height, if you were to lower it somewhat on the basic house, but not the entry door and the bay window above it. I think that would also pick up some things that are occurring in the neighborhood where we don't have this flat line going across. Now, you've already done it where the stone base meets the brick. You've lowered... It's very subtle, but I think it... very effective because you don't have that single horizontal line. So what I was saying is if you were to lower the first and the second floor, floor-to-ceiling heights but not above the entry door where that was a little taller and you showed some houses in there that did have... There's a second floor above the entry. Right. Yeah, you would have to keep that second floor, but it could have a higher ceiling in there. Only in that one room. I don't remember what it was. I'm only looking at the exterior of the house. I think pulling the house down would help it fit better in the neighborhood. I think it would also change the proportion. I really like the proportion where the arch and the bay is above it. The proportion on the right side over the garage is, it reads square

to me. That's why I showed you so many square and rectangular ones. There's a lot of square ones in there too.

Anyway, those are just thoughts. I think one of the main ones, as you've heard, is it's a big house. And if it can be made to look a little more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, I'd like to see that. Other comments?

If I understand correctly, so you're proposing that the front entryway and that bay window would remain at the same height, but yet the area over to the right would be dropped down so that your roof line as you're going along steps down. So it gives it a little bit more architectural detail there, but preserves the symmetry of the front and all that. I like that idea too.

If you're dropping down... the right portion of the house, you may have to modify the left. But as you see the stone drop down in the entry tower, let's call it, you could also have that entry tower be a little bit higher than the rest of the house. I think it would give a little more character But talk to your architect. Think about it.

I think maybe Can I talk to him for a minute?

Sure, come on up. Oh, of course. Yeah.

Hey, good evening. For the record, my name is Stephen L. Klang Jr. I'm an attorney with Jenkins and Klang PC at offices 150 North Merrimack Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105. And I'm here representing Tom Lucas with respect to his application. And I've got three points I would like to make. One is that I think the pictures you saw demonstrated that this is currently something that I would normally expect to see on zombie house flipping. This house needs to be torn down. A new house needs to be built there. My second point is when I look through the goals, and you have a set of six goals in your code that you're supposed to utilize in terms of making a decision with respect to an application. The only one that I think that's even questionable here is compatibility with the neighborhood. And I really question whether or not bringing down the house by 24, 26 inches makes it, changes it from not being compatible to being compatible because I think it already is compatible with it. I think Mr. Lucas has done a good job giving you all sorts of examples of things in the neighborhood I'd ask you to take that into consideration. And I guess my third point is, in talking to my client, and this goes directly to your attorney's comment about the plan being approved. When I go back and look at this and talking to my client, and I wasn't here before, it's been over 60 days since the first plan was submitted. And I don't believe talking to my client that there's been a waiver by my client of the first plan. Now we'd much rather do this plan because we want to make everybody happy if we can, but We want to get some closure to this. And if not, you know, we may have to argue that the first plan has been approved pursuant to your code, which has a 60 day provision. Any questions? I guess the question is, where are we? What are we going to do here tonight? I think we're happy to table it, but I don't know that I'm prepared on behalf of my client to waive his rights with respect to the first plan if indeed it's already been approved.

I think I would defer to our attorney to give us a little guidance.

We can certainly discuss that in any forum that might be appropriate, and I'm not sure this public forum would necessarily be that. I frankly would leave it to Mr. Kling to decide what he wants to do, and we'll deal with that.

My suggestion would be let's table it, but we won't waive, and hopefully between now and then we can get this all worked out and talk to the architect. I mean,

if you're saying that you want to ask the commission... to table it, but may turn around and say, ha-ha, too late, you've lost control. Is that what you're saying?

We've already suggested that might be a possibility here, that the first plan has already been approved. I don't want to give that

up. I think you're going to have to choose which way you want to go, Mr. Kling.

I don't think you can have one foot in both sides. Well... I'm not sure I agree with that. If I don't...

It's your choice how you wish to proceed. I

understand, but if I literally do nothing and let you decide what you're going to do, I preserve my rights to that, and we can do that. Up to you. Choices are... either let them decide, and they may well turn down your plan, this revised plan, or agree to table it so we can work out the details on the revised plan, but you give up any rights to contest whether or not the first plan was approved. Is

that all stoked?

Well, then let them decide on the new plan? Yeah. Okay. That's what he wants to do. We're not going to waive and we'll let you decide on what's in front of you tonight.

Well, I would just point out that whether your client is advised or not, this was placed on a previous agenda and that his request was postponed, just so you're aware of that. Is that correct or not?

I guess the question is that the code says it has to be in writing. I don't see the writing. Mr. Kling, as

I said, you can proceed any way you wish. And just so the commission

has a

full appreciation of what your approach is on behalf of your client.

So I'd like you to consider it and have your vote. Thank you.

okay so we will go ahead with the review tonight on this plan

can you clarify if we are to turn down this plan tonight is there an opportunity for them to come back with another plan then how does that all work out time-wise and or bring me up to speed in terms of what was approved at the first one in november and and ramifications are if we were to approve?

I don't think we approved it. I think we sent it away for revisions.

If I may, I believe that the commission indicated substantial skepticism about approving the plan as submitted in November and asked the applicant if he would like the commission to proceed to a vote or would like to postpone it and come back with a revised plan. It was then set for another, a previous meeting and withdrawn from that agenda and postponed till now.

And Chris, just to further that and Anna or Kevin, maybe you guys can expound on this. My understanding is if we vote and they receive a no vote, then The applicant has to wait either a year or present a substantially changed plan. Is that correct?

That's correct. There's also an appeals process that they could follow to the city council. Okay.

Any other comments? Okay, we do have... Sure.

PB, Jorge Boone & Joe Kefner may shoot this one down to but i'll say it for what it's worth. If there's an opportunity for you to approve the plan that's before you with the reduced ceilings at least would give us the opportunity to try to resolve this without it going getting more complicated.

I can't speak for anyone else on the commission, but I could say that's a pretty substantial change. We would have to see architecturally the plans, what something like at least me personally would have to see what the plans, how that would bear out. Um, it's not as simple as, you know, moving a bush two feet to the right or anything like that. So, um,

It would,

um, I personally would love to see this tabled to a future meeting where we can maybe see some of these slight changes in height addressed, but obviously it's up to the applicant.

Yeah. I feel we're not trying to redesign it, but to bring it more into the character of the neighborhood. Jim, I think you're right. I would like it to be simple and come back rather than putting conditions on that might be more difficult to deal with in the future. How does that fit with you? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm

not sure I heard the call-in.

to table it tonight to allow you to come back with changes, as opposed to making those changes as a condition of approval tonight.

Mr.

Chairman, if I

may, I would caution the commission in that regard. The applicant has made it clear that when faced with the potential negative response to his previous plan, he asked for an opportunity to delay that action and prepare a revised plan. At his request, that submission was postponed, and now he purports to take advantage of that and foreclose the commission's ability to have any say with respect to the plan. A unilateral decision to table, and I would have to count the days, and I have not done that. But a unilateral action by the commission may put your ability to rule at all in jeopardy.

Well, I would like not to lose our control over the ruling.

You've been asked to address the plan as submitted. I would suggest you are free to make the assessment of the plan before you.

Go ahead with

it.

Okay. I'm wondering, with an applicant who seems like he's willing to make some concessions and to work within listening to the advice that we've given, and has now considered potentially lowering the height, is there a way that we can legally go about it so that it seems more collaborative as opposed to saying no? And which in my belief is most likely to actually would happen. Steve Klang again

for the record. We're happy to entertain that. I don't think the city wants to give up any rights. We don't wanna give up any rights, I think if we could agree that no one's waiving any rights and we're not getting any advantage by a continued additional days, we would be willing to agree with that, correct? We come up to the podium.

I think rather than cut down on the height of the, by a couple feet, I think you may end up dealing with a professional builder. People have told me they know a couple people who are probably interested in buying this from me as it is right now. And or build the stone one if that ends up being that that was effectively it. legally approved, even though I know it wasn't approved by the committee, but essentially approved because of the time limit stuff. If I don't build that, I'd rather have you probably vote on the way it is now. And then I can appeal it if I want to or come back with something substantially different. Apparently, the committee thinks that a Cutting the ceiling height down is substantially different. Sounds like to me. So that means I could resubmit the plan. Mr.

Lucas, I don't want you to misperceive or misunderstand the statements. A member of the commission indicated that changing the height of the floors was and reducing the building height by two feet is not something he is comfortable pre-approving without seeing exactly what that does to them. Oh, no, I understand that. It is not, I'm sorry, but it is not a statement that changing the height is a substantial difference to the...

Well, if it's not a substantial difference, why do they want it?

I just don't want you to mischaracterize. Mr. Lucas, I'm not going to argue with you. I am making sure that you do not misunderstand

the statement. No, I understand his statement didn't mean, his statement didn't say that it was substantial. I'm saying that multiple people seem to be saying that that's a substantial difference. They may approve it with a lower ceiling and they wouldn't approve it with a taller ceiling. That's a substantial change then, unless you're making decisions over unsubstantial changes, whether a house is approved or not, which I don't think you would. You know, I think you'd only make them over substantially important things. You know, that's fair. We're

actually looking at the front facade. Right. Not the rest of the house. and feeling that it should be lower. Right. The method of lowering it, maybe there are other methods.

My point is that I'm saying that you're thinking that 24 to 26 inches is a substantial change in the front facade.

Mr. Lucas, I don't want you to try to put words in the commission's mouth to foreclose their assessment of whether a different plan submitted is substantially similar or substantially different. And I believe that's what you're trying to do. And I'm suggesting to you that you are mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what has been said. I can

characterize it any way I want, but I'm not making him say the words. I mean, it's like, that's just my impression.

But their silence is not agreeing with you either.

That's fine.

Thank you.

I understand.

I think we should go ahead, and we have a recommendation to approve as submitted.

I move to approve as submitted

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

No.

And the record reflective votes are one aye and three nay. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll be back to get these.

okay we do have another uh item uh our landscape regulation discussion

folks want to take a brief break it doesn't bother me i've been sitting back there and you all been sitting here agonizing. So if you'd like to take a minute to stretch your legs, this is just, it's always a good idea. We

will do that. Thank you for the opportunity.

This must have brought back many scary memories.

Yeah, it did.

OK, now we'll move on to the discussion session on landscape regulations. Who takes the lead?

I'm happy to take the lead. I don't know how much the commission's been informed about what my role has been and what I have done for the city at this point. Do you want me to give you a little bit of that background? Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay, so I am the world's oldest intern. I just finished the horticulture program at Merrimack. One of the requirements for that program in order to graduate was that the student perform a certain program, certain in or into either work experience or design landscape plans, which I did. Or work with, in my case, I want to work with the city government and review their tree preservation ordinance and see, you know, What the current state of the ordinance was, make recommendations if they're appropriate and see if there could be improvements made to the ordinance. The reason I was interested in that is because in my prior life, I was an attorney and still an attorney, but I'm not practicing, unlike Kevin here. And I used to appear in front of city councils frequently on zoning matters and that kind of thing. So this is kind of in my background. to review city and municipal ordinance and that sort of thing. And so marrying that with my horticulture degree is something I was just really interested in doing. So that's what brought me to Clayton, and I knew the chair of your sustainability commission. I know your city manager very well. We've worked together in other cities. So they said they would offer me this chance to do this review. So that is how I appeared before you.

Well, thank you for that introduction. I assume you're Brad Goss? I am Brad

Goss. This is true. I left that out. Yes. And so I'm not here in any kind of official capacity. I'm simply here as an intern trying to offer the city my observations regarding the tree preservation ordinance that the city has. So with that said, maybe do I have control of this or do you? Awesome. So if I just click. Perfect. All right, then. So the city tree preservation ordinances are currently located in four places. They're in Chapter 405, which is the zoning regulations, and that's where the meat of your tree preservation ordinances is located as it relates to private property. Then there's Chapter 410, which is overlay and urban design section. What that really does, it creates specialized districts, as you know, in the city, but it refers back to 405 as far as tree requirements. So even though there is a tree preservation requirement in 410, it's referring you back to 405. So it's For our purposes of discussion, it's not terribly important. Then there's Chapter 415, which is a subdivision ordinance. And what that does is it sets out requirements for street trees and the standards for planting those street trees. But it doesn't get into the specifics of what kind of trees you can plant or not plant. That's in Chapter 515, which is entitled Tree, Shrubbery, and Other Plants. And so that ordinance... relates to the planning of trees and maintenance of trees in public areas. So you got 405, which is private property, 515, which is public property. 515 has a separate tree list that's different than chapter 405. So you've got two competing tree lists depending on what kind of property you're on. So we all, does that make sense? Everybody with me on that? Okay. So what I was doing was evaluating this collection of ordinances, and what I am evaluating them against is, first of all, I looked at, I wanted to look at benchmarks. And so the first thing I did, and it's not the first thing my little slide here, but I looked at comparable cities. And so I thought, well, what are comparable cities to Clayton? And what I selected were Creve Coeur and Kirkwood. And I'll get into that in more detail as to why I chose them as opposed to some other city. And then the other benchmark was the Morton Arboretum. The Morton Arboretum internationally known Arboretum. It's state-of-the-art. It's been around since about 1922. It's located in Lyle, Illinois. It's about 1,100 acres. The folks who founded the Morton Arboretum are the same family that created Arbor Day, the Mortons. And so the family motto is something like let there be trees or something like that. They, they really believed in trees. So, so the, the, the Morton Arboretum, uh, is really cutting edge. Uh, they are dedicated to the preservation, uh, uh, and maintenance of trees around the world. They have a staff of 30 scientists on site. Uh, they've got large grounds where they conduct various kinds of, uh, trials, and the public is welcome to all of those. And they're just very engaged. And so as one of their initiatives, they've created model ordinances for cities to adopt with respect to tree preservation. And there are two types of, there's the basic ordinance, I'm sorry, basic ordinance, which is divided into a bronze, silver and gold standard. The bronze being if you don't have a tree preservation ordinance at all, here's a good place to start. look at this ordinance and you can use this and they've got different, it's kind of a menu pick. You can plug in the sections that you want. If you already have a tree preservation ordinance but you'd like to improve it some, you can look at the silver classifications that they have. And if you really want to kind of have the best tree preservation ordinance in the Morton Arboretum's opinion, then you would go for the gold standard and you'd be aspirational in their terms. Now, the other thing that Morton did was after creating that set of model ordinances, they then looked at development and they said, you know, our tree preservation ordinance doesn't address some development issues as well as it should. And so they went back and they created what they called the 21st century ordinance for builder, builder, 24th century ordinance, 21st century ordinance, for tree preservation and development. which is an advanced component. So if there are certain components that you wanted to add on to your existing tree preservation ordinance, they're more in the development category, which happened in connection with subdivisions, for example, or site plans, for example, then you'd look at that ordinance and add those components. So Morton was a standard that I was looking at just because it's an objective recognized standard, you know, around the country. And I thought, you know, let's look at what our best practices in St. Louis with a couple of cities. Let's look what Morton's doing. Then I also looked briefly at your forest management plan just to see if you're following your forest management plan or not. And for the most part, you are. There are certain things you're not doing in all candor that your forest management plan calls for. And you folks had Davy Tree do that in 2021, 2022. And there are updates that are supposed to be made to that. recommendations in it that you haven't fully followed. So why Kirkwood and Creepore? What was my thinking behind that? When I look at those cities, they're substantially developed. They have stable populations. They have comparable median income. They've got a diverse set of land uses. And the pressure on their tree canopy isn't from single family residential homes and large developments like say O'Fallon, Missouri or St. Charles, Missouri. Rather, it's single family residential homes like you had tonight where people are coming in and building a home at a time, a home at a and your tree canopy is being substantially affected as a result of that. And that's exactly what's true in Kirkwood and Creve Coeur as well. So I did look at population area and density, and I said, okay, well, what if we use those? Well, if you're comparing population of Clayton to the city's closest in population, then your comparables would be Ferguson, Spanish Lake, LeMay, and St. Ann. I don't personally believe those are comparable populations. To Clayton, as I envision Clayton. I think they have a different set of issues that are different than what Clayton has. Similarly, if you look at area, the size of the city, because you would say, well, Creepcore and Kirkwood, they're bigger just in terms of area than Clayton, which is true. But if you wanted to get cities that are closest to you in area, you would be looking at LeMay, Manchester, St. Anne, and all of that. Again, I don't think those cities are as comparable to to Clayton as I envision Clayton and what you folks are about here as Creve Coeur and Kirkwood, similarly with respect to density. If I were looking at density, Norwood Court, Velda Village Hills, Lakeshire, and University City have densities of population that are closest to Clayton. Again, those simply are not cities that I believe are comparable. uh, to Clayton. So I used Kirkwood and Creve Coeur as my comparable cities. You can make a case that, uh, Webster Groves could be comparable, I suppose. Um, and, and that certainly would be a good comparable. However, Kirkwood and Creave Coeur, I know have really good tree ordinances. It's something they've really invested time in. And so that was another reason I thought, well, these would be good communities to look at. So looking at those communities and your, um, your tree preservation ordinance, the first thing I looked at was the scope of the tree preservation ordinance. Yours is limited. The tree preservation only kicks in in site plan reviews, special development districts, and planned unit developments. With respect to Kirkwood, it's very broad. With respect to Crevecoeur, it's very wide. So any commercial residential project that's involving a building permit or demolition permit, you're triggering tree preservation ordinance issues, and the tree preservation ordinance is going to apply. I think that's really significant. And it certainly is one of the recommendations that I think the city should seriously consider changing the ordinance to include these broader categories because I think that's where your real pressure lies. The canopy coverage requirements, In Clayton, you have a sliding scale that varies by district. So the minimum tree canopy coverage in the R1 district is 62%. It goes down in the R4 district to 26%. So depending upon the type of zoning classification you're in, you change the tree canopy that you're preserving. That is not true in Kirkwood. It's not true in Creve Coeur. And it's generally not true in the other cities that I've reviewed their ordinances. They just have a We're going to preserve this much of the tree canopy, 35% in the case of Kirkwood, 50% in the case Creve Coeur. As I recall, I think Morton's standard is 60%. But it's one standard for tree canopy preservation. The replacement tree coverage requirement varies in each of these cities. In Clayton, you're planting replacement trees based on a formula. You determine what the total canopy is that you're losing. Then you put in replacement trees based on those kinds of numbers. If you put in a large deciduous tree, you're given a 750 square foot canopy credit. And you add those up and you see whether you've met the requirements. the amount of canopy that's been removed. Kirkwood is somewhat similar. They've got different numbers. There are large trees, 1,000 square feet, medium trees, 700, and small trees, 350 square feet. So they adjust the numbers a little bit. Creve Coeur, it's not that way. If you remove more than 50% of the tree canopy on that site, then you're going to replace trees in a one-for-one basis. And, you know, they move away from these formulas. And if the trees are larger than 20 inches DBH diameter breast height, then you're going to replace them on a two to one ratio. The idea being those are significant trees and we want to make sure that you're putting in more trees because of that. In your code, you don't really involve horticulturalists or arborists. You have a heavy reliance upon landscape architects in terms of the involvement in the tree preservation plan and the supervision and installation that is different than what happens in Kirkwood, and it's different than what happens Creed Corps. And I would suggest to you that it's appropriate that Kirkwood and Crevecoeur do what they do. Landscape architects are great. They're really good at landscape design, but they aren't the people who are going out every day, spending their time with trees, spending their time at the nurseries, spending their time within installers and figuring out what's really going on with trees in our community. And they're not as hands-on with respect to that installation. So while they have training in that and they're really skilled, I would suggest that their skill is more heavier in the design element than in the other element that arborists or horticulturists are more specialized in. So I think that's why Kirkwood and Precourt do that. I think it's a good idea. With respect to stock quality, you have a standard, ANSI and ISA have standards for that. your standard is out of date, uh, and it's also limited to only private property. Uh, Kirkwood has a standard it's referred to in the Kirkwood tree manual. They refer to the current standard of ANSI and ISA. Creek core doesn't have an express reference. I'm recommending that what you do is you, uh, have that apply to both public and private, uh, property. Uh, what that stock standard is doing is it's setting out, this is the standard by which, uh, the, um, tree stock that we're buying or is being installed will be considered acceptable. It's a very objective standard, and it's one that's been adopted around the country. The latest standard was adopted in 2025. Your standard refers to one, I think, from 2004. So if nothing else, even if you don't make it apply to both sections, I do suggest that you update it. With respect to invasive species, your ordinance refers to the Missouri Invasive Plant Council. That is your definition of invasive species. So if you go to that website, you can see what are invasive species in the city of Clayton. Similarly, the Missouri Department of Conservation has a list of invasive species and they adopted in section 410.320 of Missouri statutes, they've adopted the Missouri Invasive Plant Council's list. So Krivkor and Clayton have the same list of invasive species. Kirkwood has its own definition. I don't recommend doing that. I think you're better off having an objective definition that people have adopted in many communities and it's recognized nationally. If for no other reason, it If you ever did have a legal problem, it's an objective standard as opposed to something that you made up that you're going to have some experts in court debating over whether that's really an appropriate standard or not. And that costs a lot of money, as Kevin can tell you. So with respect to invasive species on your tree list for private property, you do have some invasive species in your property list. The Olmos parvifolia, Chinese elm, the Zelkova serrata, Japanese alcova and the Acer platinoides in Norway maple and the Castanea mollissima, the Chinese chestnut, those are invasive. In your city, in your tree list, you're saying those are okay to plant. And yet the other part of your ordinance is saying, no, you're not supposed to be doing that. Those are invasive. So I think you need to get that cleaned up and recommend you get those species removed because you've taking the uh you've adopted the policy that these are invasive species and then you listed them as approved trees which is obviously consistent similarly in your public um ordinance 515 for public right-of-way you have four invasive species uh listed you have the emmer maple uh the golden rain tree the zalkova and the norway maple so once again and i've used the terms um In that case, they're listed in 515. I didn't use the Latin naming because that's what you use in your ordinance. But those, again, are inconsistent with what you've said is invasive. So I do believe you should remove those. You shouldn't feel. terribly bad about it. Kirkwood's done the same thing, and so has Creve Coeur. So this is one of those things I think you have to kind of keep up with. But at any rate, that's a recommendation I have. With respect to Morton, just to kind of quickly walk through, and I'll try and speed this up a little bit because I know it's late. The Morton Arboretum recommends that tree ordinances allow for conservation and preservation areas, and the communities establish those. with rules for limiting impacts such as sodding, grading, excavation, or filling. So if you have certain sensitive areas in the city, you'd want to set those aside. Typically, you see these around creeks. I've seen that frequently in other cities' ordinances where they create conservation and preservation areas. You could also do that if you're trying to provide different kinds of credits. you create a different kind of standard for conservation and preservation area, and then you give the certain credits to incentivize them to do that. Morton does recommend that there be a tree credit system created. Basically, the idea is that if you, the tree's replacement value and there is an objective standard to tell you what it is that's recognized around the country, that that can offset other fees. So if they achieve tree preservation over and above a certain amount, that may be an incentive to cause them to do that. like lying some kind of credit against other fees they might otherwise, or the other way you could do it is to give them some kind of benefit with respect to a standard that would otherwise apply. And I think you folks are probably familiar with that sort of thing. With respect to legacy trees, Clayton's standard is 19 inches diameter at breast height or greater. Norton has a standard of 24 inches diameter at breast tight or greater with a varying value depending on the species. That makes sense to me. You're not going to see a redbud tree that is 19, 24 inches DBH He's not. And so you could have a really old redbud tree that you really would like to preserve. So you might want to think about that as something like, okay, is it really, if we have a legacy tree, is it really appropriate not to adjust that by species? So that's just something I would mention to you. With respect to diversity, I think we're all familiar with the elm tree that used to grace all of our streets in America. And then the elm Dutch elm disease came along and wiped them all out, and cities were denuded of their tree cover. Similarly with the emerald ash borer, it's devastating. All four species of ash that we have in Missouri, it'll eat all of them, and it's going to then migrate over to the French tree if you have any of those, so just to throw that out to you when they get tired of Ashes, they're going to go to that. So you want to have a diverse mix of trees so that you don't have that happen. What Norton recommends is that you not have 15% of any one family of trees on your site, 10% of any one genus, or 5% of any one species. Now that's a stricter standard than what I've seen in other places. What I've seen is 30% of one family, 20% of any one and 10% of any one species. In fact, Davey recommended that in their forest plan for you folks. You have not adopted that. Instead, what you've said is I think you have a 33% standard with respect to genus on a site, which clearly is not in line with either Davey's recommendation or this, nor is it achieving the diversity that you really want to achieve. So I recommend you take a look at that and would modify it. With respect to canopy preservation, as I mentioned earlier, what Morton suggests is that in a residential area, it should be at least 60% of the existing tree canopy, just a blanket standard. They don't vary it by zoning. With respect to the comprehensive plan, Morton recommends that your tree preservation goals be incorporated into your comprehensive plan. You have done that. That's something that Clayton has done in their comprehensive plan, which is good. Again, it helps support your tree preservation efforts. With respect to cash bonds, you don't require these. I think you require these in connection with subdivision development, with escrows, that sort of thing. Is that correct, Kevin? Yeah. What Morton's recommending is that you also do that with respect to the value of removed trees, plus their protection and replanting that's going to happen. Because what can happen, and unfortunately I've I've been involved, seen this too often, where a builder will come in and, you know, will just violate the preservation requirements under the plan. And if you don't have that bond, and Kirkwood does, you've got skin in the game, you've got teeth to make that builder work. not do that, hopefully. But if they do do it, you've got some way to remedy that and to require the replanting and reforestation in compliance with the plan and then some because he's got money up. And so I would recommend that you take a look at that as well. Education, Morton recommends that communities create programs for community engagement. One of the interesting things that Creep Corps has done is they've created a commission or committee, which is the Horticulture, Environmental and Beautification Committee. And so what their task is, is to make recommendations to the city, somewhat like your sustainability committee, or that make recommendations to the In their case, they developed a set of a website linking the various trees that are allowed in their community back to MOBOT. So you click on that tree, it'll take you to the Missouri Botanical Garden and boom, you're gonna be able to read about the cultural requirements of that tree. And that's one of the deficiencies in your ordinance is that I see a tree name and if I'm not a tree geek, like I am now, you're not gonna know what that tree really needs in terms of its environment. Whether it should be in a dry area, wet area, what kind of sunlight it's gonna need. You go to that link in the Missouri Botanical Gardens website, it's gonna have all that for you. And it'll tell you what you need to know. So I recommend you do that. I recommend that kind of education happen. And if you have folks who are interested in Clayton who are dedicated to this kind of thing, to consider creating that kind of committee as Kreeve Core has done. Morton also recommends conservation design so that when you're looking at a site plan, and I think you folks are kind of already doing this because I was obviously listening to the discussion tonight, that There'll be a serious examination of existing drainage patterns, fitting the project design to the topography to minimize land disturbance. So when you see something where the existing topography is in a certain way and instead they're regrading this site and they're putting in, they're basically tricking up the site to make it work. If you have a conservation design requirement, that's not something that they're going to be able to do and there'll be a little less debate that you're having. So I'd recommend that be something that you consider as well. Again, arborist inspection or horticulturalist inspection, I do think that would be useful as these projects are ongoing when the tree preservation protection material is being put in. Have an arborist or a horticulturalist look at, is it right? Have they done the right thing? and then having follow-up inspections by that kind of party. And I do believe you now have a city horticulturalist. At least I saw an ad for it. I was really interested in that, but it's closed as of August. And you may have already hired somebody. Yeah. You were advertising for another one. I saw it. Yeah. Right. At any rate, so that's something that you obviously recognize the value of horticulturalists, and I would recommend that you – accentuate their involvement in these kinds of projects as they're ongoing. I think it will help. With respect to Canopy, did I go the wrong way? I think I did. Let's see. I did. Sorry. Oh boy. Can you save me? Okay, let's see. Okay, I got it. Okay, thank you. I got it. Apologize. Okay, the last thing I wanted to talk about in terms of Morton Arboretum, and then I'll discuss recommendations more broadly, is the idea of what's the purpose of a tree preservation ordinance. In your tree preservation ordinance, you list what your goals are. One of your goals is to preserve and enhance the environment. I'm paraphrasing that, but you have that ecological goal. in your tree preservation ordinance, you're not achieving it. Your ordinance is aesthetic. It is preserving tree canopy and Green is good, but it's not necessarily helping the environment. And I'll give you an example, and I'll talk about why you want to preserve insects as part of this. If you go to the city of Portland, and I think most people would say, hey, Portland, that's a really green city. If you go the city of Portland and you go downtown, you're going to see all kinds of trees. You aren't going to see any birds except for maybe one or two species. Because the trees that they planted in Portland are all exotic species. They're not native to the area. And so the birds that depend upon those trees to support the larvae that they need to eat in order to sustain their young and grow and have more birds, it's not there. And so they left. So you have this green sterile environment. in downtown Portland. And don't take my word for it, Doug Tallamy is the one who wrote about it in his latest book. So I'm citing you to him. But the point is that there's been over the millennia a relationship that has developed between larval life and trees and birds, and it's a tight relationship. And if you don't have the right tree species or genera in your environment for the bird life that you're trying to sustain and your larger ecological food web, it's not going to work. And at the basis, at the base of that food web are insects. And you've got to, we collectively need to sustain insect life. And why do we need to do that? Because insects pollinate 87.5%. of all plants and 90% of all flowering plants. And without insects, most plants would die. Plants take the energy as we all know from the sun and they turn that into food. That food is then eaten by the insects which is then eaten by larger animals and circulated through the food web. If you don't have the insects converting that the sugars into food for other animal life like us, we can't survive. Humans will last only a few months on this planet if insects were to disappear. You can't. I'm sorry. I wish we could. There's some other ones I'd put on the list, but no, that's not a good idea. And actually, if you got rid of us, It'd take the planet about 10,000 years to heal itself. But it would heal itself. If you get rid of insects, that's not true. We depend upon them for survival. So in this age of existential moments, this is an existential moment. And I'm really not joking about that. Three North American species of bumblebees, they're now extinct. Flying insects in Germany have declined 79% since 1989 and somewhere declines are happening around the world. Since 1974, the number of insects has been reduced 45% globally. So we're facing a serious, serious problem. And in America, we've destroyed their habitat. We've converted it to farms. We've, you know, converted it to cities. And That's not coming back, it's not a practical idea that we're gonna suddenly get rid of our farm ground and create forests. We're just not gonna do it. If we're going to bring back this insect life and regenerate this population and thus regenerate our bird population and help the rest of our environment, it has to take place in our suburbs. That's Tallamy's contention, I believe he's right. And so in order to save insects and ourselves, there are some practical ways to do that. As I've mentioned before, trees aren't all equal. Some trees support insect life, some don't. Some trees support more than one kind of insect life and are super practical. they're trees that are called keystone species or keystone genera, because they support a disproportionate number of insects. So for example, oaks, it's the top of the keystone species. 545 species of insects are supported by oaks. Best thing you can do for the environment, plant an oak. I mean, they support incredible number of insects. The next You jump down from that to willows, I think it's around 270-something, birch, somewhere around 250-something. Big jump. But those are also very good species. Cottonwoods are actually a good species. In terms of keystone species, just because of the disproportionate impact that they have on the abundance and diversity of other species in the ecosystem. So plant candy preference. Preservation isn't enough. Preserving working plant canopy with keystone species is what is critical. And I can give you an example of that. You could have 95% native plants on your site, 95% native plants. You'd say, well, I've got a great site. If you don't have keystone species on that site, it's going to support 70% to 75% fewer caterpillar species. That's how important keystone species are. So it's not enough simply to say, hey, we're going to go native. We want to go native with keystone species. We want to place some emphasis on that if we're going to achieve this kind of environmental ecological goal. So Morton is walking the walk. What they're doing, they're leading the Chicago Region Trees Initiative, Oak Ecosystem Recovery Plan, and Since they're a keystone species, they're working throughout the Chicagoland area to replant oaks throughout the Chicago area and to restore insect larva life. Keystone species are local. The keystone species in Arizona, Phoenix, it's not the same keystone species as here, not surprisingly. You could have a keystone species tree in Phoenix and wouldn't even grow here because the environment isn't right for it. So you need to know what the local keystone species is. That is incredibly easy to find out. You go to the National Wildlife Federation website or the Audubon Plant Finder website, either one, plug in your zip code 63105 and boom, up will come all the keystone species your community and they do that by genera so uh if you want to know what those are you know i printed up the list here um very easy to find out and so you know that's one of the things you think boy that's gonna be hard to figure out it's not so you can take your tree list and recalibrate it And then the report, the formal report that I submitted as part of this project to the city, I listed the keystone species which you just don't have as one of your options. And one of my recommendations is go ahead and include those in addition to kind of cleaning up the invasives. Also include those other keystone genera so that you're doing something that is more sustainable. I think your community is uniquely diverse oriented to doing this kind of project. Your strategic plan talks about Clayton being a sustainable community. Clayton's sustainability programs and initiatives are many. You have waste and recycling. You have green spaces. Sustainable landscape practices are referenced on the city website. You've had tree preservation ordinances for the last decade. You've got a very highly decorated forestry department. You've got three horticulturalists on staff. You got a right-of-way planning program. You do things in the transportation area that are sustainable, and you've got a sustainability advisory committee. So when I look at this kind of recommendation, I see it as consonant with what I've, at least from outside looking at your... your city, I think it's consistent with the goals of your city as you've enunciated them. So I got a list of very specific kind of recommendations. I have been talking almost for an hour. I can go through these with you or just hit a couple of the, they kind of reiterate things that I've already gone through, conservation areas, tree credit system, education, legacy trees, arborist inspection, The things I've already covered. I've listed those here at the end of the presentation, and then I've also put that in my report to the city so that you would have those. I do think one thing I didn't talk about, I may have mentioned very early on, I would get rid of the two lists. I know why you did it, because you've got Chapter 515 deals with public property and 405 is private. in your tree section, my recommendation is get rid of the list in 515. Just refer back to the list in 405, and then you can notate the list in 406 with respect to what you want to do with right of way. It's confusing when people are flipping back and forth and saying, am I looking at that one or am I looking at this one? And you're going to have some projects that have public right-of-way and private property as well, particularly if you adopt this, my recommendation with respect to hitting these single-family homes. So if you do that, they're going to be flipping back and forth. That's kind of cumbersome. You can accomplish it all in one list. I'd recommend you do that. I think I've talked long enough. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I'm obviously very passionate about this. I think it's important. And that's why I was thrilled to be able to be engaged for this by the city. I appreciate the opportunity.

Well, thank you for... bringing all this up to us. I must say, I was unaware of where we really stand until I see all the things we are doing and all the more things we are not doing. And I think it sets up potentially a lot of work for our staff and review processes going forward. Will this be on our website or...

i don't know if we're going to put it on the website yet but i i do would ask that would you send an additional copy of that complete report to on a crane please i

think it has it yeah but but but i'll send it to you i mean it's not from all

i figured that deb probably

does but i'll send one to you as well uh and i'll send the do you you have the powerpoint right or not because i can send that too it's easy

Yeah, it's no problem. I figured we'll follow up

with

David. I'm happy to

do that. Because

Ryan and I weren't part of his internship program that was with Sustainability Advisory Committee. So this is the first presentation we've had as well.

Well, it seems very comprehensive.

Thank

you.

What you've given us. Of course, I know nothing about it. So it is. I guess I never realized 405 versus 515. When we require street trees to be replaced by a developer, that must come under 515.

Right. So through the site point of view, we basically just condition it under their building permit. They have to get a right-of-way permit in most instances with other things. And so it's a condition under that that our city forester actually chooses the species that they plant in the right of way.

But he needs to be looking at that at 515. And the developer, if you're not integrating those two, you run the, again, you may not meet your diversity goal. He picks certain things for the right of way, and if somebody's not coordinating it with what you do on the private property, you fell through the cracks because people are busy. And so that's why putting it on one list, and so he's looking at it and saying, okay, we've met our 10%, 20%, 30% on this site. We're not violating that because I chopped off and did the right-of-way over here and treated that as one thing and treated my private property as another thing. That's one of the things that can happen when you're splitting the lists.

Well, it seems like simplifying it, pulling it all together in one place would probably help everyone.

Yeah, I mean, I think first of all, this was wonderful information and it's a great start because we had already put in our fiscal budget to update the tree landscape. So now we're kind of like starting off a couple steps ahead of the initial evaluation. So I really appreciate that. I think going through this and one of the questions I was going to kind of ask you, having looked at best practices in other communities, one of the issues that I feel like we've had within our code is our... In 405, that tree and landscape requirement, that was written by a consultant who has hired a landscape architecture and arborist who were hired specifically to address issues on private property. Separately from that, we have a whole forestry team that really does a great job managing our private trees, our public trees. Our public forestry department though is not involved in the back and forth review. So there's some issues in that. I mean, bringing one list together, I think is a great, you know, obviously I'm all for streamlining. The element of who actually then becomes part of the review process of all of our private development is another thing that I see as a hurdle. So I was just wondering when you're looking at all these other communities and other cities, were there any kind of you know, like red flags or things that we can learn as we dive in because we're hopefully this month passing more strict stormwater requirements. We're going to fall, you know, and that impacts lot coverage is reduced. We're following that up with potentially modifying height requirements, other things you've heard about tonight. So I can just see the development community saying you're You're really compounding expenses over the course of everything you're doing the next few months. Give us your pitch as a person who...

I don't think this is... Look, I represent builders for a long time. Kevin knows this. And if I thought this was the end of the development industry, I'd tell you. Nothing I'm recommending here is going to cause somebody not to be able to build a home. Quite candidly, I think that when, as part of the building permit requirements, you should require people to, after the home is completed, not simply saw the yard, but put compost back on it. Because when you dig below the thin layer of sod, you have clay. Because what happens is they take whatever topsoil they had, they scraped off and they dig down the basement. They plop it over in the site. Then they spread it all out. If you go and negotiate an easement with a farmer, which I've done, what they will tell you is you're not going to do that. You're filling that hole back up with topsoil because they know you can't take the crud soil from the basement area. I mean, we're good at clay in St. Louis. I didn't put that recommendation here because it wasn't part of tree preservation, but I truly believe that's something you should be doing because it all fits together as a piece. It ultimately, the health of your trees and your plants is really dependent upon your soil. And if you don't have good soil, A whole lot of other problems happen. So that is a recommendation I would make. I think the enforcement mechanism and catching it early, that's a red flag that I saw. And cities that are successful are catching this stuff early in the process. And that's why trying it to demolition permit or building permit, which I looked at your ordinance and it's pretty easy to do. You have to, there's, I started tinker with it and put language and say, okay, if I did here to here, you could tie it in real quickly. And, you know, that's one thing I think is really important among, if there's anything that's important, it's that.

Yeah, that one definitely has a direct tie to all of the stormwater stuff, kind of what Jim was alluding to earlier with rain gardens versus dry wells.

Yeah, and again, I think that with rain gardens and those kinds of bioswales, horticulturists should be very good at that. That's something they're trained in. And You know, so I was listening to a lot of interest in this discussion about the rain garden the guy had proposed. I mean, most people will tell you, oh, we want to put the rain garden in the lowest spot on the site. No, you don't. You want to put the ring garden up about halfway because if all the water, unless the water when it gets down to the bottom does drain out, but if the water sits there, that rain garden is going to fail. Yeah. That's right. And so, you know, there's more to rain gardens than simply digging a hole, as you obviously know. So, again, a horticulturist would know that. I guess a landscape architect would know that, but I don't know that they're into the design of those as much. I think they probably just depend upon the MSD templates more when they're doing what they're doing. And MSD has some good literature. They're a good resource. have a lot of grants i'm on the rate commission from sd so i know project clear pretty well they've got all kinds of grant initiatives for people trying to improve the condition of their property and their with stormwater and with plants specifically so a lot of resources like that and that again is something that from an educational standpoint uh the city could lift up because the more that we're lifting those kinds of things up, I think the more likely they'll, they'll be implemented. So happy to help you in any way I can. I'm passionate about this. So however I can, can help. I'm happy to do that, but I will send you the

information.

And my belief is that you guys are the big dog in this I hope I'm not being quoted on that. But if you guys adopt this, I think other cities will too. And I think that will be good for our region. And so it's my hope that you folks will pursue this and then other cities will because I just think it will be helpful for our whole community. So any other questions for me? Thank

you. Yeah.

No, you don't want to do that. That's a great question. Look over at MICDS and you can walk the grounds there and you've got all these pin oaks because back in the 60s, 70s, pin oaks and sweet gums were the rage. And so everybody was planting these things. If you plant too many of those, then you will end up with problems. You'll have diseases. And so you don't want to do that. The diversity requirement needs to be met. But you'll be able to meet that with these Keystone genera because they're doing it at the genera level, not just down at the species level. So when you look at one Quercus, there's a ton of species that are native that fit into that category. And so you're gonna be able to, and there's a lot of different genera. What I recommended was that you require projects I tell you, I have 75% of their replacement trees be Keystone species. And the reason I did 75% as opposed to 100% was because anytime you tell somebody it's 100%, they want to kill you. They think their freedom's being restricted. And so, okay, 25%, you want to plant something that doesn't help your kids? That's okay. It's on you. But there's a lot of different trees. within these keystone genera that you'll have a lot of diversity. I don't see that as an issue at all. And if it was, Tallamy wouldn't be recommending it. He's preeminent in this field. He's a professor out of the University of Delaware. He's been horticulturalist since probably the last 35, 40 years. Really, really well known. His books are fabulous. Very readable, which is nice. So, yeah.

Thank you, Brad.

Yeah, thank you. Again, I appreciate the opportunity. Take care. Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, just a point of personal privilege. I have known Mr. Goss for a very long time. And he, in his inimitable manner... really didn't do his past career justice, where for a very long time he was a preeminent land use and zoning lawyer in the region of the highest repute and a colleague not always on the same side, but professional, thorough, and exceedingly competent and with a very successful career. practice representing primarily developers and builders now he's making up for it I

guess

but a mark of how clever I noticed the name of your LLC on the front of your this is his second career and the name of his LLC is Second Nature Design LLC so Very clever. But Mr. Goss is a person to be reckoned with and considered in the highest regard. So thank you.

Well, I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. Yes. So Chris, any comments? Nothing. Thank you.

Tim. A couple of things. I'll try to make it quick. First, Mr. O'Keefe, can you kind of walk us through this 60 days thing that came up a couple of different times? Because it's not something I've really been familiar with.

Thank you. I'm going to finesse the question anyway, Brad. Thank you. Good night, Brad. I'd like to take a look at the ordinance and I provide you a fuller briefing and maybe send you a memorandum with some information.

I think that would be great. And then further, just one more quick thing. I think we saw earlier today event, a house that had fallen into disrepair and it's like, oh, this has to be taken down and stuff like that. I would just say, keep an eye on the properties around you because a lot of times, some of the times they've been falling apart for a while or something like that. I actually just submitted a code compliance check this morning for Ambruster Chapel, which has sat empty for a while now and a very large section of guttering has just fallen down. Uh, I see what happens like at Crungin Martin, you know, where property has been empty for a long time and then, you know, something catastrophic happens and there's not necessarily coming back from it. I hate to see something like that from Clayton. So I'm a bit annoying with some of this stuff, I'm sure. Uh, but, uh, I know everyone here appreciates building as much as I do, and we'd hate to lose some of our historic fabric due to neglect. So that's all.

Not annoying then. Ellen?

Nothing to add.

Ryan? Nothing further. Well, Anna and Kevin, I'd like to thank you for getting us back on track a couple times tonight. I appreciate it. Hopefully everyone else does, but we appreciate all your effort and guidance, and I'm sure it'll occur again and again and again.

Yeah, I expect it will. But I just want to be worried that Helen doesn't take me to the woodshed.

Between the two of you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, everyone, and we're adjourned.