March 2, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the March 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board. Please turn off cell phones and any electronic devices. Toby, please do the roll call.

Hello, Linda Fitt. Here. Here. Jim arsenault here. Chris Brennan here. Blair question

here.

Jeff Morrisey here. Susan Buse

Jeff Morrissey here. Susan Buse

here. Thank you. We have minutes from our meeting of February 17th. Are there any changes to the minutes? If not, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve the minutes as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next we have the open forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any items that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone who would like to speak? okay hearing none and seeing none we will move on to new business if you wish to speak on an item in this part please wait until i ask for public comments when there is an item you wish to speak click to raise your hand if you're online and you will be given permission to speak If you are in person, please come to the podium. Make sure the green light is on the microphone and give your name and address. If you have comments that are the same as someone else's, please just state name and address and then say you agree with those comments.

Helen, you might want to move your microphone just a little bit towards you and a little bit up.

okay first on the agenda is 6325 clayton road is the applicant here okay first we will have hobie would you please do the staff report

The two subject parcels are located on the north side of Clayton Road between DeMunn Avenue and Skinker Boulevard. The properties are zoned M2 and are in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The applicant proposes a boundary adjustment between the subject properties. Both properties are rectangular with access to Clayton Road and the rear alley. The western property, 6337 Clayton Road, includes St. Mark's Church. The property to the east, 6325 Clayton Road, including a house and a rear parking lot. The boundary adjustment would adjust the property line to incorporate most of the rear parking lot into 6337. A portion of the parking lot would remain with 6325. The boundary adjustment includes an easement on the east side of 6337. This easement covers a driveway between the church and house and would ensure that 6325 retains access to the rear parking lot via Clayton Road. As proposed, the boundary adjustment would not create any new nonconformities and both lots would meet the requirements of the M2 District and Urban Design District. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. that the applicant provides a mile are with the survey or signature and the property owner signature for the appropriate city of Clayton signatures per the subdivision ordinance requirements and that the applicant filed the plan and easement with the Saint Louis County recorder of deeds office within 30 days of approval of the boundary adjustment by the plan commission.

Thank you would you either of you like to add anything.

I'm Trish Winchell. I'm president of St. Mark's congregation. And just, I would say the reason behind this is that we want to sell the property at 6325. Like a lot of churches, our revenues and memberships have declined. We still have a strong core, but we really feel it's better for both buildings if we can sell the property at 6325, which we no longer really have any use for at this point. So

I'm Joshua Stockstill with Narrative Real Estate. I've been working alongside the church just to prepare the property for sale. So the changes we've made have still been very desirable to other buyers on the market, even pre-market with very little sharing. We have three buyers who are interested in the neighboring property, which we feel is a good sign for the change.

Okay. I think it's a well thought out idea that Planned it well. In looking at the documents and the plot, my only question is where is the property line between the two parcels? Where in the driveway?

So that is a very good question. The original plot, you can kind of see that it's laid out into four different lots. So the three lots would maintain the church and the property line would be right there in the division of lot three and four. So it is more close to the actual residential property. Most of the driveway would be the responsibility of the church.

Okay, so looking at the scale and this reproduction. It was hard to tell exactly where that line is or will be and the shared driveway agreement mentioned that the line, that there was driveway on each side. So thank you for the clarification. Sounds good to me. Jim?

I didn't really have any questions or concerns. I agree with you. I think it's a win-win for everyone and I can understand why the property would be desirable.

Chris?

No comments.

Blair. Also no comment. Jeff.

Same. No comments. Thank you.

Okay. I need a motion. Oh, I have no

concerns.

I'm sorry. And also the public. Is there anybody here who has a concern or would like to speak to it? and no one online has their hand raised so okay now i need a motion

i move to approve with staff conditions one two and three

second

all in favor

aye aye

post i assume you have read the staff recommendations and you're agreeable to them yes okay thank you look forward to it next excuse me next on the agenda is 141 north brentwood boulevard and it's the architectural review for fencing Is there a representative from the owner? Okay, before you introduce yourself, Hobie.

The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Brentwood and Westmoreland. The property is zoned R2, is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and is developed with a single-family house. The applicant is seeking approval for exterior alterations, including the addition of a new fence located in a front yard. There's an existing patio with a surrounding wall located on the east side of the house in the front yard along Brentwood. The paving would be removed and replaced with grass. The surrounding wall would remain. There's existing paving on the north side of the house connecting the driveway to a doorway. This paving would be moved and replaced. A six foot tall wood fence is proposed to enclose the yard on the north side of the house. This fence would project into the property's front yard along North Brentwood Boulevard, necessitating review by the ARB. Screening is common for properties on the west side of the street and includes a variety of materials and configurations. Unlike other screening along North Brentwood, which generally consists of shorter walls closer to the sidewalk or taller walls set further back with landscaping, this fence would be solid and relatively close to the property line. However, its relatively short length parallel to the sidewalk and overall variety of screening in the area suggests that it will not have a significant impact on the street's character. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed scope of front yard fencing will be compatible with the surrounding area, will not contradict the character of Clayton Gardens, and will be compatible with architectural review guidelines. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Thank you. Now please

speak. My name is Mark Critchfield. I'm representing Danny Lovsky, who couldn't make it this evening, but I'm with Mainline Group Architecture. And the white heads are our clients. One thing that we wanted to make sure we emphasized was there's a huge amount of context along North Carolina. Brentwood along the west side in particular, right next to this house is a fence that's almost identical to our design. And we use that as a reference. So we wanted to be very contextual and everything. We also picked up on some of the masonry patterns just to make it look a little less utilitarian and a little bit more refined. Beyond that, I mean, this is really more or less just a dog run with a nice fence around it. So that's it in a nutshell.

Okay, thank you. I like your attention to details. The setback appears to be identical to the masonry wall that exists And the foot and a half, you've maintained that off of the easement, which you can build right up to an easement. You can build on it, but you risk having to remove it if the easement is claimed. That and picking up the vocabulary of the neighbor's fence with the brick piers and the wood, I really like that. Will you be able to match the brick of the house?

We're going to try our very best. We don't have any samples yet, but we're going to try. Certainly it's our goal.

Okay. Yeah, it is away from it. It's not right next to it. Right. So you have a little bit of latitude. I mean,

it's sort of a pinkish brick. Let's just say it's atypical, but we're

Okay. Jim?

Yeah, I echo Helen's comments and the staff and comments are in the staff report. I think it's the part that's facing the streets minimal. And I think it's well done. So I don't have any problems with it. Bruce?

So I'm familiar with this. I live in Clayton Gardens, and I'm very familiar with this lot and the work that the owners have done since moving in fairly recently, which is very nice. I couldn't quite visualize. They've done some very nice plantings along Brentwood, and it seems like there's the patio area there. What I can't visualize is why they're replacing that section, which seems to come out almost all the way to the sidewalk, right?

We had to be very, very careful with our impervious surface area here. And the owners hired a civil engineer who was very methodical and very careful about his calculations. And we had to sort of make some sacrifices along the way. And that was one of the sacrifices. So even the dimensions of the piers and the top of the fence itself You know, we would have liked something even a little bit more robust, like the neighbor to the north. Their fence is a little bit more substantial. But at the end of the day, everything here is really sort of modified to meet, you know, the impervious surface threshold.

Yeah. I really don't have any concerns with it. I think that they've shown to be good neighbors in a way, in the sense that they built up the landscaping. So I don't... I tend to not really like when you're closing off more with the fences and in a walkable sort of neighborhood like Clayton Gardens. But in this case, I think that there has been a lot of attention paid to the design of it. And I can understand how it would be used as a glorified dog run as such. So I don't have any further really any concerns about it.

I think there's also, I think the owners are planning on doing a fairly nice planting screen in front of the fence. Something that's compatible with what they have over at their little entry patio. Okay, so. Well, yeah.

Um, so I would second that. I also live in Clayton gardens and they've done a beautiful job with the new landscaping. Um, but maybe I'm missing something. Cause what are you taking down? You're just doing the, you're just screening in the part that's open. Correct.

Right. I think, I think the reference was to the pavement inside that little patio in the front.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. No, I'm, I don't have any other questions. I, I would, I would do that too. If I was, yeah. Pass it every

day. I appreciate the comment about being contextual and picking up on the neighbor's fence and on the masonry detailing of the house on the pillars is nice. I do have a bit of a worry. Do you know anywhere else along the strip of Brentwood that Has anybody brought a six foot or six foot two at the pillars fence this close to the right of way? I couldn't see one. And it seems, it seems a little more intrusive than I would like. I wish this portion of the fence could be set back the same depth that the neighbor's fences, which is about, you probably know that I mentioned about six or eight feet or so.

I can't answer that. The neighbor's fence is not along their front. I guess they have two front yards, too. It's along the Brentwood side of their front yard, whereas this is sort of the primary front yard for the Whiteheads.

But you know the section. I do. I understand

your point.

Yes. So the middle, whoever's controlling the screen. Right. That would be my only comment, was that I wish we weren't building that tall a fence that close to the right-of-way. Yeah, if you scroll down a little more, I think there's a photo of the neighbor's fence. There. No, the one with the pillars on it. To the north, the neighborhood to the north.

It's on sheet A 2.1. It's the third exhibit.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, I think...

Drawing three on A2.1?

I think that we're trying to be consistent with that. I mean, there is a power pole that is just in the wrong place. Right. And we've, you know, we wanted to enclose a lot more area than we're applying for here. The power pole really does limit a lot, right? And we wanted to avoid building in the easement and... You know, Ameren could come along at any point, which they probably will and want to do some work on it. But I think that our fence is probably somewhat compatible in terms of the frontage, our proposed new fence, that is.

Yeah, just so everybody's clear, what I'm talking about is could – is there – The fence is so similar, it would feel nice as a pair if they were set back the same distance as opposed to, I think in this plan, it'll come out to within, would you say a foot and a half of the property line? Right. So out between the power, well, a little bit between the power pole and the sidewalk. That's my own, it's not a deal breaker, but I wish it was set back a bit.

I was kind of understanding it. Is it is correct me if I'm wrong, but based on C2, it seemed that it was going to be almost even with the existing patio

to the south, right? Yeah.

Okay. Yes, it is.

The existing patio. But it is

in front. Yeah, it is close.

It's a six

foot fence.

It is close. That's exactly right. Yeah. Okay.

Susan?

would agree with uh jeff's comments it it it's it's it's a tall fence and it's very close to the sidewalk and having just driven by there i don't live in the area but i spend time over there with friends and um you know homecoming parades and things like that milling around uh the more walkable our cities can be with the sidewalks and six feet that close to the sidewalk did concern me um is the reason so the reason is because working around the the uh

The power pole is a big encumbrance here. So we also, you know, the front patio wall is literally right up against the sidewalk, okay? So, you know, we saw that as like, okay, you know, maybe this is an opportunity for us to get a little bit more enclosed area because of that wall and its placement.

Right, and the other way to look at that is because that's so close, it would be nice to get a little more distance on the other side of that drive area. And that is my concern, that if you could move it a little bit back, I think it would help keeping the openness area and the pedestrian-friendly feel that is around there. One of the things that makes it so nice over there. The other comment I had is noticing putting up the gas lanterns. And I was familiar with that because we had some community concerns about it, and the Sustainability Commission had looked into it on behalf of the City Council. And looking at it as I was going over your plan today, I understand that they have become more sustainable than they used to be, and they can be dark sky compliant and all that. And for a lot of the gas appliances, the companies have an electric equivalent that can provide the same type of lighting. And I don't know if you've considered anything like that.

We did not consider anything but a gas lantern to match what's on the house.

So matching what's already there.

Right. Exactly. Yep.

Okay, then back to the setback. Would you all consider setting it back a little more from the sidewalk?

I would consider that, yes.

Okay, and the height, I imagine, is matching other heights, so that would not be, or is that something that you would consider too? It's one or the other, it's just that it's dense and it's right there.

We would consider pushing it back, okay? We'd like to keep it the same height as the next-door neighbors. So we would consider that, absolutely. Yeah.

Okay. That's all I got.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this?

Sure.

Hello, my name is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Beamiston Avenue and two and a half years ago, I made a presentation to this body about my concern with gas lamps. The city code has a purpose. under their outdoor lighting standards to promote efficient, operationally cost-effective lighting and to conserve energy. So gas lamps basically fulfill none of these purposes under our outdoor lighting standards, and I asked the board to consider not allowing them anymore. So obviously, the board did not agree with me, but I would like for the board to consider again discouraging their use. So I do not agree with the staff report. I think the staff report should say that the gas lamps should be replaced with electric lamps in this case. I'm hoping that I might get a little more traction with some new members on the board, but I can also share some information regarding the energy required to run these gas lamps. They're ridiculously energy intensive and they run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and they are all over and they're really trendy and everyone's putting them in. So that's what I would like to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. No one online has their hand up.

Are there alternatives to the gas lamp that provide the same aesthetic qualities at this point? Just wondering what your...

The only thing I saw looking at it very briefly for this, and a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but was that a lot of the companies that make them now give aid. Some of them do, not all of them. give an alternative that has the same type of effect and that's the depth of my knowledge on it and they've also become more efficient over the years too but it does the best running is on all the time and it is a fossil fuel

and i may not have looked close enough are these the what's proposed the flickering variety we know Yeah, the lamp that's proposed in your plans.

We're merely just matching what's on the house, and the ones that are on the house have a real gas flame. So it's on 24-7, 365. I mean, the gas lamps that we're proposing are purely decorative. They don't really do very much beyond look nice. You know, I mean, you know, it's... We have a lot of them. We could dispense with quite a few of these, if that would help. But we're trying, again, to be as contextual as possible in everything we're trying to do here. So we're trying to match the ones that are flanking the front door. And they are everywhere in Clayton, that's for sure.

So the existing ones that you're matching are only at the front door?

I believe so, yeah. I think there's one over by the garage too. I don't think it's visible in... Please.

There are three of them because I went by the house today because I want to talk to the owner. So there's two by the front door and then there's one by the garage.

Okay. What I was getting at is, are they, you know, that you can see here and here, that if they're far enough away, you could use the electric version, possibly, and the eye would not pick it up unless you were looking for it. You had come to do a detailed study of the facades.

I don't think that the gas lantern should be a deal killer here. So I think we could probably figure out something else to provide necessary illumination. It's really, to me, I think it would be more important to have light that provided safety at the pavement rather than atmospheric light from a gas lantern. So just leave it at that.

if I might, Helen. I would say it would be a deal breaker if you don't include the, the gas lanterns or something comparable for me. Okay. Only because I believe that is something that's repetitive within Clayton gardens. It does add to the character of the nature. And the last thing I want to see is just something that's put up there just to show light illumination. So I have, I have no problem if it is. And I believe that there are adequate replacements that are not gas necessarily that could accomplish the same thing. But I think that, The gas lamps were chosen perhaps for an aesthetic reason.

They were chosen to be contextual and to match the house, as everything else in the design was intended. They're part of the design to match the house.

And I think that should remain. Okay. I don't know what we can do in terms of saying that other things should be, you know, if there's better options from either an economical or a ecological standpoint, by all means, I think those should be investigated. But I would not like to see a fence go up there that doesn't have those kind of design elements to it because then you really just have a wooden fence with some brick pillars, if that makes sense. Yeah.

So no lights here have been specified. All we've done is note that they're to match what's on the house. That's it. So in terms of construction documents, I mean, these are construction documents for building the fence. All right. But there's nothing that's been specified. There's no particular brand that's been specified yet. The BTUs haven't been specified, none of those things. So maybe we could dig a little bit more and find something that could accommodate. But again, the point was to be contextual here. And there are a lot of these lanterns in Old Town.

Sarah Silver, Being new to this committee i'm not really sure what our authorization is, but I do know as somebody who specifies a lot of lighting that they do have comparable one so I don't know you know how that goes, but I think we could probably wrap that up and just say. Sarah Silver, A better ecological suggestion. environmental suggestion excuse me okay

any other comments Susan not in the lights but I I appreciate the consideration of a little bit further back I don't know what the neighboring properties are what would you want to consider or what would be consistent with the neighborhood do you know how far back how much further back from the sidewalk you'd be willing to consider or um I don't know how we proceed with that without

giving... Well, something to consider while I was kind of thinking through this of like what a motion would look like. And I'm curious because you had said too that in an ideal world, you'd kind of like to beef up these columns a little bit. If you are pushing back, wouldn't that be less material too? So that would possibly... Possibly,

yeah. But we're not talking materially enough, I don't think. I mean, I think it would be... We're not going to, if we push it back enough and we're not using as many materials, I don't think we're going to be able to proportionately increase what we have left over to make it more like the next door neighbor. So it's not going to be material enough to warrant it.

Okay. Ana, would it make more sense to... continue or to is or could perhaps you guys craft a motion to allow for staff approval of the fence going back so to allow them to not have to come back here.

We can, but I would prefer that you know how far back you want him to push it. So there's, I think, estimating the one directly to the north is six to seven feet from the sidewalk. If you go further up North Brentwood, there are some taller fences that are more, my estimate would be around three to four feet back from the sidewalk. So it's up to you if you want more precise measurements to be made taken um and for the applicant to propose exactly what they want or if there's a number that you all are comfortable with then we can assist with a motion for that

one thing i would suggest we do is not push it back to the point where we lose that gate okay there's a gate on the driveway um i think if we push it back to where that peer is the outer peer, that may be an adequate compromise.

Yeah, I think at this point it's kind of just for emotion as far as whether we approve with changes or continue to a future meeting.

Okay.

I feel like it could possibly be benefit you to, if we continue to a future meeting just so you can check the measurements and everything and we don't put a measurement in or something like that, but then you go back and you do lose something that we don't. I think largely everyone's kind of on the same page, but that just, since we don't have an exact measurement, that might be the, just to preserve the design. That sounds good. Why don't we do that? Okay.

Okay. May I have a motion?

I move to continue this to a future meeting agreed upon by the city and the applicant. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. We will see you When it works for you.

When is the next ARB?

Yeah, so we actually have a form there. We actually have a form. If you would sign this, so continuing to waiving the 60-day requirement for the Planning Commission to hear this item. So the next ARB meeting is two weeks from today. Okay.

So what does that mean?

The board has made a motion to continue your item based upon when you reapply the new information. There's a code section right now, provision section 400.190.C, which requires the Architecture Review Board to make a decision within 60 days of when they first hear your application. This item was continued to allow you to come back with revised plans. So we would prefer that if you do not have a specific meeting and date, such as the next one, that you sign this form waiving that 60 days as a requirement for the ARB to make their decision.

Okay, well, we'll be back. We'd like to come back to the next one. So do I still need to sign that? What do you want?

There may be things, though, that are out of your control where you might not submit it back. And who knows? When you go back to the property owners, they might say, well, if we're going to do this, let's make some more changes. Then it might drag it out. So what I would like is you to go ahead and just sign this to say that we're agreeable with the continuance. And it really depends on then when you bring back your plans. Okay. That 60-day clock will again run when you bring back the new plans. Okay,

that's

a great explanation.

Okay, sure.

And then we'll follow up with you tomorrow with a deadline for eligibility for the next meeting.

So just to clarify, this is to look at alternatives to the gas lighting and to get a little more setback from the sidewalk to be compatible and more consistent with the neighborhood.

You'll send an email or some sort of a letter detailing all of that?

Tomorrow we'll follow up with a summary of what happened tonight and then also provide you with a deadline if you want to try and make it to that next meeting when we would need the revised plans by.

Anna, since we have nothing, I believe, that says that gas lanterns are not allowed, would it be a recommendation that they investigate things? It's not a...

Tonight you have only continued the item to allow him to investigate, so we don't need to decide exactly that wording at this point. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you on March 16th or the following right after that two weeks later. Next on the agenda is 224 North Beamiston Avenue and it is site plan review for an accessory structure. Is there a representative for the project present?

The subject property is on the east side of Bemiston between Pershing and Kingsbury. It's zoned R3 and is developed with a house, duplex, and two detached garages. The property formerly consisted of two parcels that were approved for consolidation on December 1st with the condition that the applicant apply to demolish the duplex within six months of council approval. The project consists of the demolition of the duplex and northern garage and the construction of a residential addition and exterior alterations. The addition would include a garage and sports court connected to the house via a breezeway. A new pool and patio would be located in the rear yard. Surrounding properties include single and multifamily structures. The project would result in a lower density than most R3 lots, but meets the requirements of the district. The lot coverage would be reduced from 56.1 to 51%. Stormwater calculations are provided for a 15-year, 20-minute event. Runoff is measured in cubic feet per second. Runoff is predicted to reduce from 1.02 CFS to 0.98 CFS. Two pop-ups connected to the garage roof and driveway drain are proposed in the front yard. Staff agree that the overall site is likely to see a reduction in runoff, but that the scope of changes could impact drainage area conditions. Staff are of the opinion that drainage area calculations should be provided. Existing canopy coverage is 3,618 square feet with 1,104 to be removed. The plan proposes adding 7,000 square feet, which is 3,676 more than the requirement. 33% of trees are required to be native. The plan notes that 32.1% are native. Staff are of the opinion that the plan should be revised to meet the native species requirement. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. that the applicant shall include drainage area calculation as part of the building permit submission. These calculations shall identify existing and proposed drainage areas and include pre- and post-construction calculations for a 15-year, 20-minute storm event. Should the calculations find any increase in runoff, the applicant shall be required to revise the plans to mitigate the potential increase in runoff and submit the revision to the Plan Commission for approval. And then two, a revised landscape plan meeting the native species requirements shall be submitted as part of the building permit application.

Thank you. Is there anything you would like to add?

Yes. Hi, I'm Susan Bauer. I'm an architect and we have an office in Maplewood. we are seeking to build an underground sport court therefore by placing that underground we are reducing the overall massing that a structure like that would require adding a three-car garage with the link between to make a nice parking court is part of the strategy we have our civil engineer online uh who's joining us via zoom if anyone has questions about that in terms of meeting the right equation for the planting of native species our landscape architect ted spade with swt has suggested if we just remove one european hornbeam from the count then that puts us at 34 native species so that puts us over the line with a very minor correction there which can be caught up with the building application

Okay. I like what you are proposing, but not seeing the drainage areas, that concerns me. Could you explain the site drainage or will Mr. Wagoner do it?

I will leave that to Mr. Wagoners. Thank you.

Looking at the plan on C 1.0. I see four pop up emitters and two at the front two at the rear. And I'm also wondering if there are any dry wells that will be with those pop ups. Mr. Wagner.

Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, good evening. I guess I'll start with talking about the existing drainage patterns on the property. So the property is, I have worked on some drainage area maps and they're not being presented tonight, but The property does roughly split. About half of it goes to the rear yard, and the other half is draining to the front. So the existing drainage patterns don't show runoff running to the sides of the properties toward the neighboring house foundations. Regarding the structure that we're taking down, I understand that the – The downspouts are going underground and that there were no outlets daylighting on the property. It's my suspicion that those roof drain pipes are routing out to the sanitary line, which was common practice before. 80, 100 years ago. And MSD has indicated that those sanitary main is surcharging. So it's my suspicion that those downspout drains are going out to the sanitary main. And as part of our proposed design, we are routing the new roof downspouts. As you stated, there are two that are going to be routed to the rear yard and two that are routed to the front yard. So we're roughly splitting the roof area between the rear yard and front yard in an effort to maintain those drainage patterns to roughly split the property 50-50. we're also picking up driveway drainage, surface drainage in a channel drain and routing that out to the front yard, which is the same direction as the existing pavement does in that area. So from our efforts, we're trying to follow the same patterns to route water to the rear yard and to the into the street as it does today. And with using the pop-up emitters, we're allowing for more infiltration than what exists today with the roof drains likely being connected to the sanitary main. And regarding when water routes out to the street, to the north along North Bemiston is a curb inlet at the corner. So any street drainage eventually ends up in that curb inlet and then into the storm main. Any questions?

No. So you're not proposing any dry wells there?

Since we are reducing the overall flow rate for the property, we have an overall reduction in flow rate of approximately 0.03 CFS. We're not currently proposing stormwater mitigation. No, we're not right now.

Okay. Thank you. Jim? Sure.

I'll agree. I'm kind of troubled by the lack of the drainage calculations, and it's a pretty tough one to me because it's usually something that we have to consider. I was also wondering with the depth of this foundation, is there a sump pump or something that's connected to this? And I know on projects that go way less deep than this, there's talks of like some pumps continually running or anything or stuff like that. So I didn't know with going to a depth of roughly like 23 feet, how water at that level is mitigated and how that flows through this plan.

there will be a sump in the lower level of the sport court, at the sport court level. I don't know what the groundwater is. We won't know until we open up the earth to see that. And Wilson, can you respond to that question?

I'm also not aware of the exact groundwater depth. And so I'm able to respond to that specifically.

Can you walk me through where the sump pump connects to and how that directs out?

Susan, where's the location of the sump pump?

Thumb pump is in the northwest corner approximately where the cursor will be inside the support court, inside that area well.

Does the plan show where that then pipes out to outside the house?

No, it does not.

Okay. Well, that's something I would like to see in the future too along with the drainage patterns and calculations. I think all that would Just a little more robust data would help us, aid us in making a decision.

We have an engineer who has raised her hand whenever that's appropriate.

Hey.

Sorry? Laura, you already have permission to speak, right? Yeah, you can

talk. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Hello? Yes. Yes. Hi board, it's Laura Hedrick from Altia. How are you guys this evening? So I just wanted to kind of make a point. I know we've been in several planning and zoning meetings about this already, but there currently was like a full house here. It's demoed, it's getting torn down and the long-term plan here as we know is just to put in a garage. So I know you guys are worried about the stormwater on this. I mean, and we can definitely discuss putting in a dry well if you feel like that's necessary. But keep in mind, there was less grass. Now there's going to be more grass and more area for this rainwater to soak into. So after the civil engineer ran the calculations, There was no need for us to put in a dry well because we have actually removed, you know, more concrete and more space. So there's going to be a lot more green space for us to be able to have the water absorb into. So, I mean, at this point where we are and where the calculations that we've ran, we don't feel like it's necessary to put in a drive well. However, if you guys are really pushing that or something that you're really wanting us to do, I mean, we can design the plans and have that done. I just don't want to waste anyone's money or anyone's time on it, especially when we're adding more grass, right?

Yeah, I can certainly understand that we did that. There may not be the need for a dry well. I think that's part where the calculations come in. I can say that on a typical project that we consider here, we have exact calculations as far as what's added, what's reduced and everything. And those BMPs are then considered alongside that data. So this is a bit different from us to not have that data in front of us. And then especially with, with, With other considerations, such as what I've brought up with the sump pump, it's not necessarily, I fully understand and agree that there's probably more grass here than there was before. The problem is a whole duplex is gone in this place, a new structure in its place, and that very likely changes at least where that water can go. And sometimes it's a bit of a surprise where that water goes. I know in the past situations have, you know, everything can kind of work out on paper or something, but then there's a continuous stream of water going across the sidewalk or something along those lines. So I think that's more, I don't think we're saying there has to be a dry well or anything like that, but looking at the calculations helps us to understand what the civil engineering implications of this are.

Okay. All right. And I mean, I know Wilson submitted the drainage area maps, but you guys, he wasn't, I don't know. I think Ryan wasn't able to add those to tonight's meeting, but we did submit those. But I mean, just kind of looking at like what's on the screen right now, I mean, looking at your backyard and where your water's flowing, I mean, you have ample square footage back there for this to be draining. And it's nowhere even near the rear property line of the owners behind them. So I'm really just, you know, trying to figure out what you guys want from us because, you know, after the civil engineer runs the calculations, we're like, okay, are we just installing this because the city of Clayton wants it? You know, I mean, because as far as we're concerned, doesn't need to be anything added here

yeah i certainly understand that i can tell you at least from and i can't speak for the entire board but at least for myself uh water and where water goes is consistently One of the main considerations as far as what that neighbors are coming to us for, they're concerned about. So it's something that we look at very closely and strongly consider, and it's a very important part of our site plan. So I can't say necessarily. Oh, like, you know, there. Based off what we have, I don't think any of us, you know, we're not civil engineers by trade. We can't necessarily say, oh, there needs to be this or there needs to be that. I know just compared to plans that we are used to seeing, we're used to seeing drainage area calculations. We are used to seeing I would say a lower number of pop-up emitters and we're used to seen some sort of best management practice along with those pop-up emiters. So that's not to say that the size of this lot and everything requires those, just compared to what we might typically see. Now, the point can definitely be made that this is a larger lot. There's more grass. It's spread out. It's not necessary. And I'm not saying that that's right or wrong. I'm just trying to give context for maybe my comments and some of the other comments.

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Laura, do you have anything else to add? I'm just really here to answer any questions that the board has any questions for me. Okay. Chris?

I have concerns about this property, only in the sense that we have a vacant lot to the south, and we're taking down a duplex. to ostensibly just create a three-car garage, but it's really not. We're creating an estate here in the sense that we're taking down a duplex, we're losing the density from that case. I don't know what the ownership status is of the lot immediately to the south, but if that also is owned by this owner, then suddenly we have an entire block that is owned by one family here. I have grave concerns about that because this is not the idea of Clayton. That being said... I kind of find it repugnant a bit that the comments came back that the limestone accents were not being considered on the garage and that the main house was going to have those accents and let it stay. That seems like a cost-saving measure where a cost-savings measure should not be put in place. I don't see the design I don't see how you can argue that from a design standpoint when the main house and the existing garage that's being demolished had those limestone accents, to then build another garage and just have brick across it without that limestone accent and argue that you want to let the main house stand as it is. So I have numerous concerns about the project in general. But I think at the very least, these limestone elements should continue onto the garage if it proceeds. So that maintains some modicum of being similar to the main house and not just a standalone building here. That's the comments that I have about this.

Blair, do you have any comments on the plan review that we're in?

My comments were similar just in terms of the limestone, limestone continuation onto the face. Making those two a little bit more relatable in that regards.

Otherwise, anything on the plan review?

Yeah, thanks. I would echo Chris's comments regarding the change in density involved here. I had some discussions with staff. I understand this complies with the existing zoning. So I don't know that we can really say anything about that, but I think it's a bit of an unfortunate precedent to set for this block. And I have concerns about what might come in the future. I've always wondered what will happen to the open space to the south of the house from a plan standpoint. But if they're within what they are supposed to do from a zoning standpoint, I'm not sure we can, I'm allowed to make that comment. So I do think with the program you've been given Susan, I'd like the solution. I just have concerns about what we're doing to the building massing on the block in terms of plan review. Is it appropriate to make comments about the lower level or should i wait for architectural oh

yeah

okay um will this eventually go through um fire department review and i'll tell you why i'm asking this um i assume the area well in the south west corner is that right um is an egress well um so i understand this is a paddle ball pickleball court whatever it is if it's used for a different purpose at any point like a gathering space for a party it seems like there could be it's a it's i think i calculated about a nearly 2300 square foot space um How are folks, how do you egress out of that if there was a problem on the upper direction? I'm not sure what it is. If there's a problem where the stair is, how do you egress out that egress well? Are you laddered out?

Yes, it's a ladder.

And is there a ladder provided, or does the fire department come in and provide that ladder?

Oh, no. The ladder is built in.

Okay.

It's steel embedded in concrete.

So when this goes through final review for permitting, is the fire department and others permitted?

Yes. So all of the egress and interior codes for all of our building codes, that's all reviewed under the building permit. So our building official or if it triggers anything with our fire department, that's all handled by them at the permitting stage.

And I don't think we would ever do this on a residential property, but is there any need to limit, quote unquote, the occupancy of that space to a certain number?

It would be up to the discretion of the building official in applying the codes. So this body doesn't have the authority to do that.

Okay. But my main plan comment was just the... I think it's a beautiful solution. I think it's an solution that is not common to the neighborhood at all. And I wonder what that means in terms of a precedent for future projects. Back to the pop-up emitter situation also, is the landscaping plan coordinated with that? I've seen a lot of these situations where that water coming out X feet from the sidewalk ends up surface draining down grass and then directly onto the sidewalk. So does the plant materials help with that situation or not?

This is Wilson. We have, we're releasing the water from the pop-up emitters at least 10 feet back from the sidewalk. So there is a grass area to serve as a buffer. I'm showing a 12 and a half feet from the nearest pop-up to the sidewalk.

And will that then, that then is enough grass to keep water from ending up on the front sidewalk?

Water will run off, not just from pop-up emitters, but grass areas also have runoff. So it's impossible to completely stop water unless you have a berm or some sort of barrier to catch water before it goes across the sidewalk. So just from the yard in general, there's going to be some surface drainage from the entire front yard that goes across the sidewalks.

It's just I've seen numerous occasions where these are used and we end up with, in weather like today, you could end up with ice on the sidewalk.

We are trying to avoid concentrated flow going to the sidewalk. But like I said, it's not possible unless you have some sort of barrier at the property line.

which is why I brought up landscape materials. I don't know if there's anything that can be done there with something other than lawn that will help keep the water where it's supposed to be, and I'm not a landscape architect, so somebody else will have to answer that, but it'd be nice if we could. And I think that's all I had from a plan standpoint.

Okay. Susan?

Yeah, my concerns. really similar, they've been voiced already tonight, is really the compatibility with the environment. Sitting on the city council, we've just gone through pretty extensive comprehensive planning and our community pushed a lot on diversity in housing stock as far as multifamily and single family and the vibrancy and the density of neighborhoods. This is a beautiful project, but that's where I struggle with this. It has been combined into one lot. So I don't quite know where our authority is on that. And the project is a beautiful project. But that's the tension that I feel. Can I

interrupt for a minute? Okay. So real quick, where we are about tearing this down. We've already been through planning and zoning. and been through several meetings regarding this subject already. So before we even entered planning and zoning to consolidate this lot, we told them our intention was to tear down this house and to build this garage. And we had submitted all this to the planning and zoning board, and we had gone through everything before we have gotten to this point. I know that they kind of addressed their concerns before in the planning and zoning commission meeting. And to my knowledge, I know they were talking about the lot to the south. It's a vacant lot. There are a lot of like duplexes around us in this general area. And the owner does not own the lot to the South. He only owns the two lots that we have consolidated. but we have already been through pretty intense planning and zoning meetings, being very upfront with our plans that we're tearing this down, that we're building a garage. We brought in photos, we brought in pictures of what we were planning on doing. So at this point, I feel like we have done everything we can from a planning and zoning aspect.

And I understand that, which is why I said I'm giving you a general concern I have with the entire project. What the authority of this board is with that or commission, I'm not really sure because you all have done that. The lot's been consolidated. But the concern sitting on city council and having gone through the comprehensive planning, perhaps this is also to the commission, that this is something that our community has told us they want. They want the density and the vibrancy in our neighborhoods. And that's where I struggle with this project. but I hear what you're saying. I understand that processes have gone through that got us to this point. I'm just sharing my concern.

I can definitely understand that and see that, but I mean, I also think it's going to raise the property value in the subdivision, you know, so it's going to be a pretty nice addition to, to the neighborhood here. So

okay thank you i think another thing that has just come to light is when you mention the sump pump we've been concerned about with the sump pump and with the depth that you're going with the sports court where what is the water table and maybe on the surface there's less runoff but will the ground absorb it with that much of the below grade claimed for a sports court? And yes, some pump will work, but is that going to be a constant flow of water to the sidewalk across the sidewalk and into the street? There have been instances on North Beamiston where there has been black ice from a sump pump. It's been corrected, but it existed for a number of years. So I think that's something else that needs to be looked at when you're looking at the drainage and I think we're going to want to know more about that. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak to this? Okay.

Hi, thank you all. My name is Randy Lipton and I currently live at 108 North Beamiston and I'm the owner of 224 North Beamiston. With respect to the concerns of runoff, I think Wilson is the one who needs to address those. And I understand that staff has made the recommendation. As I understand it, the recommendation is to approve with the condition of meeting the percentage of trees that are native and also some additional work by Wilson for the runoff. So when that's completed, it's my understanding that that would all be submitted with a package along with the construction documents at the time we submit for building permits. As I think Laura just stated, I do not own the property to the south that's been owned by a family in my, it's my understanding they've owned it for 15 years. What they plan on doing with it, I don't think anybody knows. I, you know, with respect to taking the two-family down, it wasn't my first choice. I had hoped to be able to acquire a sliver of land to accomplish what we want to accomplish with a house at 224. From the south and we did approach those folks to see if we could buy a sliver and they would not sell it So, you know my I have an interest in historic structures and buildings as well and I've done a lot of historic renovation. I purchased the house at 108 North Beamston, where I currently live, three years ago, which is, I don't know if you all are familiar with that house. It's one of the original small frame houses and painstakingly refurbished it and hope it stays forever. On this block of Beamston, there's not one original structure. single-family home that exists. Even on the block of Bimsten that I'm on, I would venture to say that 30% or 70% of the original homes in Old Town are now probably 1970s and later. Are there any other questions or anything I didn't address that you would like to know?

any other thoughts comments

yeah i can say um i understand where you're coming with a staff recommendation of saying okay if as long as as long as the runoff is less that staff can approve it but i believe we have concerns above that as far as it's not 100 clear where the sump pump is going to discharge to um it's not 100 percent clear what those drainage numbers are So those are all just things that I think a lot of us would rather have that data in front of us before we're making a decision, even if the runoff is decreased overall. Just because with one structure coming down and a new structure going up, that is going to change the drainage patterns in some way, shape, or form. And having that data and being able to make a decision with that data, you know, whether that involves, you know, that might not involve any additional BMPs as far as, you know, any sort of extra mitigation, but just having a full and complete set of plans for us to make a decision off of, I think is what it sounds like people are overall looking for.

Okay. And I understand the concern. Trust me, I do. It's my understanding from the drawings that Wilson has put together, there are directional arrows showing the drainage and it's not changed from the original. And as far as the pop-up emitters in the front lawn, I know it's by code because I ran into this at 108. We wanted to take, originally, we wanted to take two sump pumps at 108 that drain and there's an emitter in the front yard that pops up. Originally, we had wanted to go underground under the sidewalk into a pipe that would go directly into the street, which is what... Maybe 70% of the homes have not pop-up emitters, but code currently requires pop-up emiters and you cannot go under the sidewalk. So there's nothing we can do if there's a rain event. It's not just the emitters, as was stated. It's also just water sheeting down driveways and washing through lawns that's going to go across the sidewalks. And again, we're not opposed to having language and having a requirement to get to submitting the plans for construction to say that we will do the studies that you all are asking for from the engineers. And I think one of your concerns is that you don't know, we don't know what we're gonna run into at 18 to 20 feet. water-wise, and if there is excessive water, then in the building plans or the review and the permitting process, you all, I assume, can require us to put it in a dry well. If that amount of water that could come from that depth, which we won't know until we get there, you all can put that requirement in that we have a dry wall to take care of that issue.

Anna, that would come with the permit?

Yeah, I think I'll just, from a staff perspective, address a couple of things. I know a version of the drainage area maps were provided to Ryan, our planner for review, and he provided some responses back to those Wednesday afternoon at some point before leaving town. So any revisions to that may have, if you did respond back to those comments from Wednesday, may have gone directly to him. And so Hopi and I wouldn't be aware of those. Or before he left on Wednesday, it wasn't at a point where he was comfortable providing that on to you all for review based on their condition. So the drainage area maps are something that we do require our standard. They're outlined in our site plan review. regulations. So that's a requirement that there were our new lot coverage provisions and our stormwater management provisions. Those went into effect on February 12th, which was after your site plan was submitted to us. However, some of those requirements modified some property maintenance and other nuisance requirements. elements related to outflow from sump pumps. So there are a few things about how you design a sump pump that would still be applicable to you when you actually apply for your construction permits moving forward related to the sump pump, and then some that wouldn't necessarily be applicable at this point. So if you had applied for this same project after the 12th, you would have had to provide some soil testing and other additional information because of the depth that you are excavating. related to those. So we will move forward with that. I think at this point, it's really up to this commission if they feel comfortable with the information that has been provided to them tonight for that to move forward. The way that Ryan wrote his staff report is that essentially if you provide the additional calculations and it reaffirms what has been described by the engineer that the drainage areas are not changing, so the quantity, not just the direction of flow, but the quantity of water that's flowing in those directions is the same, then that would just be supported and continue on through staff review. If those additional calculations completed by your engineer found that the quantity of water was increasing in one of the directions when you look at that drainage area map, then changes to mitigate that would have to come back to the plan commission for review. So I think at this point, it's up to the Planning Commission as to whether or not you want to review those additional calculations for confirmation yourself before moving the project forward, or if you're comfortable with staff confirming those at a later date.

Any other discussion from the audience? No one else online? Okay.

I'm comfortable with staff reviewing.

Okay, I need a motion.

I move to approve with staff recommendations 1 and 2.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

No.

The motion carries. It is approved with the staff recommendations. And you are familiar with those?

Yes, I am.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to the architectural review of 324, or 224, North Bemisden.

So as noted before, the property is in the Bemiston subdivision, an area colloquially referred to as Old Town. This area consists of single-family, duplex, and multifamily structures. Most structures in the R3 district of Old Town sit on narrow lots with a higher density of dwelling units than what is proposed on this subject property. The duplex to be demolished is two stories and provides a natural transition between the single family house and the apartments to the north. Although the natural transition provided by the duplex would be lost, the placement and massing of the addition would contribute some effort to maintaining the massing character of the R3 district in Old Town. The addition would consist of brick and board and batten. The roof of the addition would be asphalt shingled, and the breezeway would have a metal roof. A wall west of the garage is proposed to be brick and would screen a parking space. An additional exposed aggregate drive would be added adjacent to the garage doors to connect to the existing driveway. The architectural review guidelines require that facades are comprised of at least 75% of primary material, such as brick. The new front-facing facade would be about 60% brick. The secondary material, board and batten, would be located on the recessed breezeway. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed material ratio would have a minimal visual impact. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Thank you. Would you like to add anything?

We have material samples for your review.

Okay, can you hold them up so that we can see them or just tilt them? Okay.

Bye.

okay i think you've as others have said you've handled a challenge of a sports court and a garage very well um and i like that you've made use of the existing garage the one that is immediately behind the existing house the roof on the garage seems There's a lot of roof. Seems really high and my first instinct would be to bring it down, but then looking at it with the existing house, it needs to be that. If it were anything else, it would look I think mundane like a backyard garage. So I think You've met the challenge as well. My only question is, what is the height of the brick wall that is going to hide the open parking space at the front? It's three feet. Three feet.

Yes. Yes,

ma'am. Okay. That concerns me. Three feet... will not hide many cars. Is the intention to park a car there routinely, or is it for someone to pull in, a friend visiting? It's

a friend parking space. It's assumed that the garage will be used most often, or perhaps parking on the street is easier. It's a turnaround delivery space as well. Okay.

Now, that was the only thing You know, I could see someone pulling in a really nice truck, an F-250 or something, and that is going to loom large.

They do no matter what.

While it's an expensive investment, it just will not look good. And generally, parking in almost the front yard, you are behind the building line, just I think will destroy everything that you've done and you've taken great pains to do. So as long as it's for a friend visiting, I can handle that. Jim?

Yeah, I also I commend you because there's there's a lot to try and take on to this plan. But I'll, I'll be honest, I struggle a lot with the design. I'm worried that it just comes across as like this compound. And then on top of that, just even things like as I worry about even the space for cars, like it looks like there's not quite 24 feet between the house and the garage door. Am I correct there? And to make like a comfortable, like single point turn, there would need to be like 28 to 30 feet or more for an SUV or a truck or something. So I worry about, you know, having to even, you know, go back and forth to even get in there. And then I think, well, first of all, the board and batten doesn't meet the requirement as far as the facade is. And I feel like having a different material there, a different material on the roof with that link, I think it draws attention to that space. And I'm also concerned with the fenestration as far as the size of that glass door, the size of the windows. I feel all that kind of draws attention away from the main house to the center. of the project, and I worry like when I look at that it starts to look more like a strip mall than a single family home. So those are my concerns with that overall.

Chris?

I spoke heatedly before when we were on plan commission about the architectural review. So I won't repeat that, but I just, you know, I keep coming back to, to the architectural review board consideration number six, that to ensure residential design that is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood. And I do not find this in compatible with what is in the neighborhood and I think that we could say, well, sure, this area for a car parking next to it is designed for guest parking or occasional parking. But unless we have something that codifies that, then we have no way of saying that. And same thing goes, the lot to the south is vacant now. And I agree. But at some point in the future, that lot could be purchased by the owner. And then we have a very, very large lot. I think a common misunderstanding, and Laura had brought this up online, is that, well, property values will go up in the area. And that's not our concern. Property values going up in the area means that we are pricing people out. And we are not Ledoux, we are not Huntley or Frontenac where we have these multiple acre lots. So therefore, I think that we are setting a precedent that if you have... the means to do so, buying several lots and consolidating them and building a big estate is possible. That is completely within the right of buying two lots and putting them together. As we've said, that has already been approved. But I think that this is setting a precedent that might change the overall character of Old Town and in Clayton in general if it is allowed to continue with an underground sport court, with a three-car garage, with an additional one. It is a very large, I think Jim used a good word of compound. From an architectural standpoint, it's very beautifully designed. I credit you for that. I just don't feel that it's necessary to have something with this massing right within the center of Old Town Clayton.

Laird?

And I think that because it's being blocked by the partial wall in front of it, that's sort of where I'm losing that connection between the house. I actually loved the modern breezeway between. So props to you. I think that was designed beautifully. The I see how the roof line matches the existing house, however, I think proportionally to. The structure of the garage I think we're seeing too much roof there aesthetically I think looking at the architectural shingles. is too much relative to the beauty of the brick and the limestone that could be there. And I, as it was noted earlier, I also was concerned about having an egress in the basement. So I realized that now, and based on the usage that it is specified for, does potentially meet code. I am concerned that it was a large space and I was feeling like where's the where's the staircase down there that it probably would be better if it had a staircase, but I really I mean I do realize that's a large cost, but that was my concern and those were my concerns. Yes, thank you. yeah.

I want to echo what Chris said about substantial change in the neighborhood again if it's a allowed change. I understand that. And if that's what we've agreed to allow to be built on this site, then that's the answer. Architecturally, I agree. I like the way this was done very much. I like the breezeway connection. I actually like the scale of the garage and the scale of its roof because My concern about building a garage slash play building that comes out to the street is that if it doesn't have enough of a roof on it, it's not going to keep the scale up as that needs to, the scale that needs to occur given the rest of the buildings, houses in the neighborhood. So I would worry about reducing that. If A little bit of stone could be added somewhere. I wouldn't necessarily say it should be added the way the house was designed or even the way the other small garage was designed. But if just a little bit of limestone as a base or something could be added to the garage, that might help. blended in to everything else. I wish the, this is just sort of a detail and I'm kind of back to this egress way. Maybe that can only be X inches off of grade, but the whole front wall, the egress way and the trash enclosure seem to be a bunch of different pieces that are kind of attached to each other. I wish they could just be simpler with one simple uh brick wall around the whole bunch you know and again maybe with just a teeny bit of um of stone to tie it back into the house again not as corner coining or anything like that I don't think it needs to look postmodern it shouldn't look postmodern I like that it I like that it's a modern design um but that could be helpful it's not a not again not a requirement but just a comment um

The landscape plan does show limestone edging around all the planting beds. Right,

right,

right.

It's up to you. Jim made the comment about Is there enough room to get out of the garage and move your car in and out of it? That's sort of your issue and the owner's issue, as long as you believe it will work. It does seem a little tight. But I like, I think the architectural solution to the program that you've been given is a really nice one, actually. So I wish it was on four acres in Frontenac. honestly you know i hate to put it that way but that's sort of kind of what it feels like so um i think that's all i've got

okay susan

i have no concerns with the architecture and but i'm learning from my architecturally minded colleagues all the time um i think it looks it looks great you know my concerns but it was a lot that's been consolidated and this is uh what you're proposing to build and i have no architectural concerns thanks

okay anybody in the audience okay and there's nobody online um anything more from the bus okay with that i need a motion

i move to approve as submitted second

all in favor

aye

opposed

no

the motion is approved and um you'll hear from you will get with Anna and Hobi, and you will hear from them. Yeah,

I have one note. And Hobi and I have been in communication. Do you know that ARB applicants are being scammed? I received an email. The

IT department's aware. There's nothing from our system, so they're checking with the permit system. But yeah,

we heard from you

and one other

applicant. And it's right at the moment where we've done so much to get here. You want more money? Sure. Because it's a bill to wire money.

Yeah, and that's actually happening in other cities that I work with. It's the same thing. They take the information off of planning and zoning applications and then send out those fake emails. So it's happening in other cities as well.

Yeah, it's happened to me also in some of the other municipalities my clients have been in.

Well, thank you for being on

ITV. It's happening in Webster, Ellisville, Kirkwood. I mean, unfortunately it's, it's a scam and it's really sad, but you know, the cities, you know, can't really control, control it because they have to post this stuff legally online. So

Okay, thank you. And good luck with the project. And I look forward to seeing it.

Thank you board. We

appreciate it. Okay. Jeff, do you have any words of wisdom before we adjourn? Just in general, anything you would like to add? Okay, Blair. Chris.

Nothing further.

Tim.

Congratulations, Helen, on chairing your first meeting. You performed admirably.

Susan. Nice job. Toby. Nothing. Anna. And Stephanie. Nothing further tonight. Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you all.