May 18, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for May 18th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time.

Ryan? Steve Lichtenfelden? Here. Helen DiFate?

Ryan? Steve Lichtenfelden? Here. Ellen DeFate?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Clark Weston?

Here.

Jeff Morrisey? Here. Susan Buse?

Jeff Morrissey? Here. Susan Buse?

Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on May 4th. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. This is the time for the open forum. If anyone has any comments or questions about anything not on tonight's agenda, please come forward. No hands up. Okay. We'll move on to new business, and the first one is 950 Francis Place. Is the applicant here? Or is he online? Mr. Greeley? Can you hear me? We can. Are you here for 950 Francis Place? Yes, sir, I am. Okay, we'll get started with

the staff report. This application is for a modification request to allow a wall sign on the northwest facade of a building located at 950 Francis Place, which does not comply with the frontage and ground floor placement requirements for wall signs. The request has two components, the facade to which the sign may be applied and whether the signage may be placed above the ground floor. To allow signage on the requested facade, the ARB must determine that one, there are practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of permitted sign area, or if there are practical difficulties, or unusual circumstances regarding locations of the permitted signs. And then to allow signage above the ground floor, the ARB must determine that the selected facade is permitted sign location, the location is obstructed from view or is not designed to support signage, and that the alternative location is compatible with the surrounding character and would support public health and welfare. Staff have determined the following in their analysis. There are no practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of frontage, which staff have determined to be the facade along Francis. The presence of an awning creates some practical difficulty in applying signage directly above the bedding entrance, but this does not impact the entire Francis facade and does not compel signage located on an alternative facade. The requested northwest facade is not a permitted location, which invalidates the request for signage above the ground floor. However, should the ARB determine that the requested facade is a permitted sign area, then the staff analysis of the signs, the facade would largely be obstructed from those on South Brentwood. The signage would be compatible with the surrounding area and the signage would not impact public health, safety, and welfare. Staff are of the opinion that the structure poses some unique signage considerations, but that the proposed location has not met the criteria for sign modification. Staff recommend that the application be continued to allow the applicant to consider an alternative sign location.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Greeley, do you have any further comments?

Well, I think the comments probably are most well stated in the letter accompanying the request for the modification. We think that the proposed sign location is a very suitable position placement for the sign. It allows for really good visibility by the folks that are using that parking garage, that parking structure that is adjacent there so that they can see that's the location of the business location. Uh, additionally, um, you know, we do feel like this particular lot, um, while the primary frontage is long Francis place, um, there is some frontage on that side of the building to Brentwood as, uh, as Brentwood kind of comes around that way. And, um, I think the other benefit here is our client, Dental Anesthesia Center, feels like this is the best placement for the sign. It does not seem to have any impact or clutter, negativity affecting adjacent properties, this kind of thing. Our client would very much like for the sign to be permitted in this location.

Okay, thank you. Well, we have all received and read the letter from Horizon Sign and seen all the submitted drawings as well as read the staff report. I think the staff report hit on virtually everything that all of us have probably seen. My feeling is that sign is in a great location as an advertisement, but I don't think it really comes up to the needs that we look for signage in our city. I've gone round and round looking at it from Brentwood, from Francis Place, and from the highway. You see it from the highway, but you can't get to the building easily from the highway. I do feel that the staff recommendation to continue the request would be appropriate at this time. But let's go around and see what other opinions are. Ellen?

Mr. Greenlee, you mentioned the sign will tell those on the parking side. That would be on the upper deck of the parking lot?

Correct. Yes.

I would suspect that once I've gotten that far, I already know that that building has that center. So I really don't need it. There's only one door that you can enter from the upper deck, the same on the lower deck. Was there any other purpose to putting it on that really far corner?

Sure. I mean, certainly the visibility from the highway has a significant impact on the desired sign location, no doubt. And we felt like, again, without creating any... elements of inappropriate uh signage inappropriately located signage and that kind of thing uh that the uh that the city would be amenable to you know a sign in that location um as i suggested earlier there's certainly a significant you know, advertising value there. Um, and, uh, and so for those reasons, we'd, we'd love to see, you know, the sign, uh, to see the city of Clayton, uh, graciously, um, you know, um, uh, approve the sign in that location.

Okay. How did you look at any possibilities on Francis place?

We did discuss those with the Dental Anesthesia Center, and their strong preference is to put it in this location.

Okay. It really bothers me that its only purpose is really being a billboard as opposed to wayfinding. Okay. uh, you know, if it could combine both, that would be great. But in this case, I think it's really, it's a billboard in my mind.

Jim. Yeah, I would have to agree on most of those points. Um, I could understand where at least the front of Francis, um, not face that much traffic but at least coming in one direction you have to pass it anyway uh if it was if it was for the purpose of wayfinding and and you wanted to sign on that brentwood side something maybe to the side of the door or something like that there's a very large spot that you know could direct people into the building then would be possible but As far as I think the main purpose of the sign in the location that you have it would be for advertising and especially because you have the website on there, too, as opposed to just the name of the company. So we've had a handful already. We've seen a couple of these recently that, you know, haven't passed kind of for the same reason. So just trying to maintain the sign code and everything like that. I think the proposed location and the proposed sign wouldn't quite fit the sign code. Layer. Layer.

Yes, I believe that placing a sign on Francis Place is better suited in order to enter that garage. In order to park there, you have to come from Francis Place. So from a waystanding standpoint, I don't believe this is even the best location. So I would decline.

Jeff? Yeah, I agree with my colleagues here. This is clearly to me an advertising sign, especially as Jim mentioned with the website included. So since it does not fit our signage code, I think you should relocate it to a better wayfinding location. Thanks. Susan?

I don't have much to add to that. With wayfinding, seeing the signs is not going to help you get to the building. Given the regulations that we have, I would agree with the staff recommendation.

Mr. Greeley, I have one other comment. When you're on Francis Place, of course, there is an address on the building. But I believe there are two other tenant signs, one on the lower level at the far south end of the building. Honestly, I don't remember what it is, but it's on a window. And also adjacent to the front door, the optical shop, I believe, also has a sign that's visible from the street. Those really do add, and they're not just advertisements, but they do show where the tenant is located, whether you enter directly from the street as you do to the lower level or you have to go into the building proper to enter the optical shop. So I think what we're seeing is signage is obviously very valid on Francis Place as opposed to other locations. So we do have a staff recommendation, but do you have any further comments?

I don't at this point. I do appreciate everybody's consideration here, and I'll pass along these thoughts to my client.

Okay. Are there any comments from either the audience here in council chambers or online? Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation.

Steve, if I may, you can follow the recommendation continue, but if they comply with the sign code, it doesn't need to come back to this board that can just be approved under a sign permit. So you also have the alternative of just taking action on what is proposed and that doesn't prevent them from then submitting a sign permit application with a compliant sign that would then be processed administratively. I

think that would be the proper way to go. Thank you.

I move to approve the sign as submitted.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

No. Sorry. Okay.

Okay,

thank you, Mr. Greeley.

So Mr. Mark, you can just if you revise the sign, just go ahead and submit those revised plans through the citizen serve portal under a sign permit application.

Okay, I appreciate that. I was confused there. It seemed like I heard a motion to approve the sign as presented. Did I misunderstand something there?

You heard correctly, but the motion did not pass.

Okay.

The

motion

is always stated in the affirmative.

I see. All right. Well, I appreciate everybody's time and attention to this matter, and I'll pass this information along. Will we receive a written response or a written outcome of the decision here?

Yes, you'll receive an email that summarizes this decision.

Okay. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Bye now.

We'll move on to item two, which is 221 Brighton Way is the applicant here. Okay, we'll get started with the staff report.

This application is a request to allow the use of vinyl on a residential addition. Okay. The subject property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. In March, an inspection found construction of an addition without a permit. Shortly thereafter, a building permit was submitted which found the addition did not meet the setback requirement of the R2 district and did not meet the Clayton Gardens material requirements. The addition has since been revised to meet the setback requirements apart from a roof overhang. Clayton Gardens does not allow the use of vinyl. Additionally, Clayton Gardens requires that no secondary materials exceed 25% of a facade. Apart from the request to use vinyl, the remainder of the project can be reviewed administratively. The applicant is requesting approval via Section 410-285, Alternative Compliance. To approve, the ARB must find that an alternative approach accomplishes the intent of the design standards equally well or better than an approach which complies. The proposal expands on an existing addition which already comprises of vinyl. The proposed vinyl would match the existing vinyl and would not affect the material ratio on the front and rear facades. The side facades would increase the secondary material ratio from 40 to 50%. Given that this project is an expansion of an existing addition, staff are of the opinion that the use of vinyl matching the existing vinyl would be more cohesive than compelling the use of brick, which is the structure's primary material. Therefore, staff are of opinion that the proposal has met the criteria for alternative compliance. Staff recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that the deck materials shall not consist of vinyl, and two, that the rear roof overhang shall be revised to comply with the maximum permitted encroachment of three feet.

Hey, thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate your time. I don't really have any more to add from what Ryan mentioned. I guess I'm here to field questions and just again, thank you all for your time.

If you could give us your name and we assume the address is 221 Brighton.

Absolutely. My name is Zachary Roth, the homeowner for 221 Brighton Way here in Clayton. And we're here to talk about our addition, which, as Ryan mentioned, we have redesigned to make sure it's all basically administrative other than this small section of vinyl siding added to. Again, there's an existing addition on the back of the house. I'm not sure how long ago that occurred prior to us. And again, that addition is all vinyl already. You cannot see it from the street or any of the streets surrounding. And so we're requesting the small section, the addition is about six and a half feet on either side. And so we are just requesting the use of or continuing the use of the existing vinyl siding.

Okay. Thank you for indicating that the original edition was not under your ownership. Correct. It was not. In looking at the drawings, I see what it is. Is there no... New siding going on the backside is that there was

existing siding there. On the whole back side of the House and obviously that wall is. I'm looking I apologize i'm looking at the projector screen. But the backside of the house, we plan, once approved, that becomes an interior room. And so the backside of the House now is the new wall, the bay windows, which would be vinyl siding. So that would replace the existing vinyl siding.

Would you be reusing the vinyl that's taken down?

No, it's not salvageable. They have it at Menards. It's commonly available. Got it here.

I certainly understand and respect the staff report's comments. I have a little trouble adding more and more vinyl. It's not more. Sir, well there is slightly more there's

about six and a half feet on either side but the backside would be a one for one or even less replacement of the existing rear wall. So yes, you are correct there is six and a half foot on. I don't know which direction but the left side and the right side on each side. That's, that's it.

Steve, just so that you're clear, this addition that he's doing didn't previously exist. So if you look at the elevation, it goes brick, vinyl, addition.

Correct.

So the vinyl in the middle is existing.

It was an existing addition prior to us. That is correct.

Well, I made my comment. We'll go on. Ellen?

I have a curiosity question. How do you get to your deck?

How do you get my deck? Well, currently through the back door, which was the house through the back door there's you enter the deck or in the outside of the house you can go up to the deck but with this new addition there will be just a very small deck more like a planter shelf if you will

okay so there is no access from the inside

no

okay now i was curious i kept looking and seeing window seats and a bank of windows on each side and Just wondering if I missed something. The 30-foot rear setback, is the deck encroaching into that?

The current deck is, but it is, again, I've verified it does meet code

currently. Helen, I can clarify too that uncovered decks are allowed to encroach up to 12 feet into rear setbacks.

Okay. Yeah, just wanted to clarify that. Another comment. If you're looking to validate the fact that you are 30 feet back, have the survey done by a professional land surveyor registered in Missouri. What we have is sealed by an engineer, which

Yeah, there's a, no, it was a professional land survey. That's separate from the engineered plans. So I, and you're right. Okay. This one was from the engineer where we'll submit the whole, sorry, submitted the whole package, but we do have, when we purchased the house about a year ago, we do have a survey as well from a registered civil engineer in the state of Missouri.

okay if you're changing that back area i would have a surveyor validated

yeah we can we can get another survey

okay that's

okay yeah no that's great

those were my questions absolutely

thank you

jim you said that the vinyl that was on the back of the house wasn't salvageable is the vinyl on the side of the house from the previous edition salvageable

Not really. I don't know when the addition was done. It's pretty old. I mean, I cut a piece off to come here. It's kind of fragile. Okay.

So you're not going to match new vinyl to old vinyl. You would like to pull the entire thing off and then re-vinyl a larger portion than was vinyled before?

That was not the request. I was going to match the existing.

You were going to match the

No, it will be on the sides.

Area between.

Yeah.

It's existing between.

Correct. Yeah. It is

staying in place with vinyl.

Okay, but that's what I said. You said the vinyl on the back of the house wasn't salvageable, but I said the vinyl on Am I mistaken? You said you're going to be taking that off

the, on the back of the house.

No, I'm just speaking about the vinyl

on the side. Oh no, no, we were not planning to take that off. No, because it's, this is, that's existing that that was, we were planning to keep that. And then just the new addition is there's an existing subterranean, I guess, garage, if you will, um, where the deck was, the deck is on top balcony on top and that's for the house. It's hard to explain this, but I could show you guys, I printed pictures, um, But the existing side of the house is, it's hard to show you.

It's also on sheet S2.1, elevation five, right in the middle.

Yeah, it's looking like, so is the old siding and the new siding going to butt right up to each other?

They are, yes.

And how is that seam going to be handled between the old siding

Right now there's a, like a, it's like a finish joint, like an end piece, I guess, if you will. Like a trim piece. I don't know how to, I apologize, I'm not architecturally savvy, but it's a trim piece right now.

Okay, there'll be a trim piece that goes in between. Did you look into any higher quality materials like a Hardy or LP SmartSide or more of like a composite siding that since technically vinyl is not allowed in the code of Clayton?

I mean, we did not. But if that's something that we're talking about, I would be happy to.

So that's something you would consider?

If we're approving it, yes, I would absolutely consider it. We moved into the neighborhood. We have a couple small children. You see them. Look, we're just trying to better the neighborhood, our house, a little bit. So we're happy to make it nice and nicer. It's a pretty ugly house.

Yeah, and I totally... I totally feel for you with that. I think a lot of us here have small kids and are trying to build a better house for our kids and everything like that. Vinyl typically is not on the allowed list of materials. Now, in some places over the course, as you see, at some point in time, this edition allowed to have it. You see it from time to time in certain places. Certainly when those properties are rehabbed, it's ideal if they can be brought up with a more robust material that's going to last longer. So if that's something that you'd be amenable to, I think that would, first of all, it would bring the structure kind of into compliance. I wouldn't be, at least on a material standpoint, I wouldn't have a problem as far as side being 50 percent uh non-brick or stone if if it was a hardier no pun intended uh siding

yeah i mean we're we're happy to we want a nicer place so we're happy to you know look at another material that's that's not a problem okay that's all my questions like a siding material not a brick or anything like that i want to be clear about that

yeah yes i'm speaking of just more of a robust siding like i said like like a hardy board versus a vinyl side okay

yeah absolutely

later

hi um i'm your neighbor welcome to the neighborhood i live on the other side of foresight Um, I, um, I'm thrilled to have you guys. Um, I would, I'm actually against bringing additional vinyl, um, in any capacity. I, um, appreciate that you guys are making, you know, extending the house and making it, um, nicer. Um, I was curious to know which, you know, I not even sure that, you know, but that that addition got approved in the first place, um, I don't know, but here we are. I would appreciate a different material, whether it's brick or a different siding. I would want to see that elevation to understand how that the percentage that you would be using of the siding and making sure that is in compliance, similar to when we do an addition or do modifications on an existing home and we have to bring it up to electrical code and other things that are current. I think that that should apply as well. So I'm not necessarily saying you should redo the vinyl that's existing, that's not coming down, but I definitely am against putting up additional vinyl.

Okay.

Jeff. Thank you.

And maybe I'm looking at the drawings quite a bit here. I'm trying to comprehend this. Currently, before you started building an addition, if I look at drawing three on S2.0, is that the footprint of the now drawing three up in the corner? Is that the existing footprint that you started with before the addition was planned?

So three on S 2.0, the hatch marks show bathroom. And then there's a darker gray line, basically, I guess where the cursor is on the screen. If you took that up the bigger line and went left right there, that is interior of the house that is existing. The deck is above or beyond that to the top.

So it's a, it's an 11 foot six inch deck at the moment, or it was before you started construction of the addition.

It's, it is the same dimension. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. And help me with it. Cause I was looking at the elevations and I couldn't really see it. The, at that same drawing three of S 2.0, the two sides of the house to the West and the East are Are both vinyl siding, is that correct? That is correct. And you were showing your addition to be flush with those, and maybe I'm asking the same question Jim was asking. How was anyone planning on meeting up old material with new material?

Yeah, no, great question. Again, I'm not an architect. Trim piece, you know, I would, you know, if you guys, I guess I've already said, hey, I'd be willing to look at a different siding type material. I'd be... If we had to change it out and do something new, rip off the old siding and put on new siding or something similar, then we would be amenable to that.

Well, that is actually interesting.

But I would say, though, that is not the request here. The request here was for the additional in yellow.

Yeah, because I think the difficulty we're all having is that you're attaching onto in a flush way an old material that's not a great material in our eyes. So if you could somehow replan this so that you did take a new material around the whole new piece and that east and west elevation that I pointed out that goes back to the body of the house, I think that's going to look much nicer at the end of the day.

Yeah, I mean, listen, I would completely agree. If that's the direction everyone here is asking for, I would ask for an approval with a new material and for it to be administratively approved.

And in terms of maybe others on our commission can answer, in terms of something like party board or whatever that Jim brought up, Would that be a quote-unquote acceptable material within our parlance here? Okay.

I mean, it would look better. I know you guys are right. Yeah.

Well, changing it to a material with greater longevity, better aesthetics, and enhancing the value of the house, I don't see a negative in it. But we're not finished. Susan? Sorry, I broke

in. That's okay. You addressed the concerns if you're willing to look at a different material because even when something like this isn't visible from the street, the Clayton Gardens has their standards and our lots in Clayton are not that large. And side neighbors and back neighbors and everyone else can see what's happening with the house and the quality of the house itself, of course, is important. So with your willingness to look at a different material, I think that's great. And just for clarification, the deck is staying where it already is. That's not going any further back or it is?

The deck has not moved.

Okay, and so this is just you expanding into the deck space with an actual room?

Yeah, and it's not the entire deck, but yes.

And the setbacks will be all be, that's not before us right now, but that will all be reflected?

Yeah, I've worked with Ryan very closely to ensure that we are within compliance, so there's no planning or zoning challenges there.

I think it'd be great if you would look at a different material, and I can support that.

Thank you. In your suggestion to look at different material, would you then be removing all the existing vinyl and replacing it with a single material?

Yes, sir. I believe that was the request that I heard today.

Yeah,

I just wanted to hear it. Yes, sir. Claire?

I just have a clarification. What is the percentage, and I remember seeing it somewhere, that the siding would be per elevation If it was all redone, if that was all rewrapped, what would that percentage be then? Does that question make sense?

That's on page two.

Page two.

Side elevations would increase from approximately 40 to 50%.

which is over current regulation. Yeah, okay. So then are we saying, I'm just asking for clarification, are we then saying that at the 50%, we're saying that is approved?

We have the ability to do that. So it just, um, the, the starting place has to be 75% brick or stone, 25% of a secondary material. Yes. So we can go above that in here, um, depending on the house, the situation, the material, so on and so forth. So especially in a case like this, where as it stands right now, even if they don't do any work, it's not in compliance. Um, So that all gets weighed into it.

Yeah, and in terms of how we go forward, I guess I'd ask that any motion we make or any decision we make brings this design is redesigned back to the board again. Can it do that? I don't

think it's necessary. Mr. Roth actually suggested if he were to go that way, that it be administratively handled, which would be okay with us, I think. Is that okay with you, Ryan?

Fine with me? Okay. I would just ask that you clarify. So are you clarifying, like, you're just saying no vinyl so hardy is okay or cement fiber is okay? Well, Hardy is cement fiber.

And I guess, Steve, since I'm not okay with that, I'd like to see it redone and come back to this board. But that's just my opinion. I would second that. Okay.

But that include wine to see what the deck says deck material should not consist of vinyl. Is there a concern with what that might be as well? I

believe there's a note that shows that the deck material is like a TPO type material, like a roofing type material, because again, it's not a, it's not really a usable deck because of the depth. So again, we were going to put like planter pots and stuff like that on it.

So it's really

only for waterproofing. Yes, that's correct.

Well, I think we would keep that condition in there as well as the roof overhang. Yes. Yes, sir. Other comments? Any other comments?

Yeah, I guess my last comment is thank you all for your time. I really appreciate it. You know, I guess lastly, I would just say, you know, I've come up here kind of hat in hand saying, you know, hearing the comments from the commission here saying, yes, I'm willing to do the hardy or cement fiber siding or something like that. You know, highly preferred administrative approval just because, again, the time and, you know, love to go that path as long as it's administrative. And again, we are completely amenable to doing the hardy and removing all the vinyl. I agree with you all. It would be a lot nicer.

I would feel it should be administratively approved at this point, but let's see where we go.

Okay, I move to approve as submitted with the staff recommendations and a third requirement that what is now shown as final on new and existing will be cement fiber siding administratively approved by staff

yeah And I only brought up my comment, Steve, just because he may be able to work with his architect, engineer, others to use that material, to use a different material that we could approve that is not vinyl siding. And I think just for clarity's sake, that's why I asked, could we all just see it again? We could see it again in two weeks, I assume, if they could get it done that fast. I think just to end up with a true understanding of what we're approving, that's the reason I want to do it.

If it's a similar design, except it's replacing the whole thing, why would we need to see

that drawn? I can speak personally. I when you said basically we have two flush walls and there was going to basically be a trim piece and we were going to go vinyl and then vinyl into that and stuff like that, that does raise a lot of concerns. And the fact that this started as unpermitted work and everything, I think also unfortunately raises like a bit of a red flag. So I would have concerns as far as if it, I would want to see to kind of what the result of this is as far as what material is being used. exactly where it's being treated, so on and so forth. I think I'd feel more comfortable with that as well. And I don't know if that would be a continuation to a future meeting or... Okay. And I think if it's as simple as, okay, all the siting goes and we're replacing it with Hardy, I would imagine that's something that could be pretty quickly whipped up and possibly be back here even in two weeks to continue on.

May I ask this question? rather than go through this, can we simply just change the note on the plan?

Well, I think what Jim is saying goes a little further than changing the note because I think what he and many of us would like to see is the continuation of the new material as opposed to seeing the existing material and the new material abutted to each other. So it's a cohesive... you wouldn't really see the second edition applied to the first edition absolutely a single edition

yes sir I absolutely agree I I'm simply asking because on page s 2.1 uh on the elevations right we have the existing house and then the new addition Okay. On our elevation or number five and number six here, my simple question is, can we simply just change the note and say, or add a note even and say replace with hardy siding or cement fiber siding or equal on the existing house and the addition and then keep the same design? I'm working to address, and I apologize. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to address everything here so we can continue forward and be as expeditious as possible.

Well, we'd like to make it as simple as possible with as little extra work and extra cost for you. Thank you. So if there's some way you can communicate it to us where all the the vinyl would disappear and be replaced by cement fiber whether it's hardy or a competitive unit um where we don't see that absolutely is that what you were looking for jim

yes but i would i would like it to come back before the board and see it in plans and and see it communicated even if it's two weeks from now uh and i i feel like if it was if it's a pretty easy swap like that, I think I can't imagine that we're going to lose that much time over being administratively approved.

I would change your elevations five and six on S2.1 because right now you're just showing the part that you're changing. In construction, The fact that you're changing more can get lost. A contractor bidding it and during construction, if I looked at the drawing, I'd say, okay, it's to the left or to the right of that dividing line. If you show the elevation as all of it, then you will get that in your final project.

I agree. And that was, that is my intent. Yeah. And I, yeah, maybe again, I'm not an architect or engineer by any means. So I was looking at the elevations and again, in my simple mind thinking it's shows the existing on both elevations, the new and the existing. And if we can, simply change the notes and say, replace all the siding. Remove all existing siding and replace with, I guess, hardy cement fiber or similar.

I

would... I can update the drawing to your point.

Show

the

boards, the lines going into the existing notes.

Mm-hmm.

Some of your tradespeople wear glasses, but not in the field. And they don't see it. And it's really easy to say, you know, hey, your drawing doesn't show it. So for us and for yourself, it's worth the little bit of extra effort.

Absolutely. Claire?

Yes, thank you. I appreciate your flexibility. I appreciate that this is also a fairly difficult process in that I think that as a community, and I realize I'm new to this space, but as a community, we uphold other people that are building and doing work in our community to standards to come present materials and show us what their elevations and such look like. And that's why I sort of second the opinion of bringing those back so that we understand and know what they will be.

Thank you. Jeff? We've talked a lot about siding, but we haven't talked much about the roof. Is the existing roof relatively new? The one that you're...

It is.

I've been butting up to. And is your contractor or engineer confident that they can find a new shingle that will match, quote unquote, that roof? They are, yes, sir. Okay, I get it, because that's something to you. Again, because they're flush materials, you have to be careful about that. So we'd ask that... As to that occur that the roof matches

Other comments Anything further should we try a motion it was a bit I

Okay, I move to table to a date to be determined to allow the applicant to make suggested revisions.

Thank you. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Just before you leave, since it's tabled to a date uncertain, would you be willing to sign a form that waives the 60 days?

I don't understand what that is.

So because they didn't provide a date that we moved this to, the provision is that the architecture review board makes a decision within 60 days of the application. Them re-reviewing your project is contingent upon you providing the additional materials for them to review. So I'm asking if you're willing to waive this form because it's based on when you provide that. And so instead of a 60 day timeline based on when you first applied your next meeting will be based on when you submit the additional information that they requested i

would need to review the form before i sign anything thank you

okay

okay thank you very much thank you all appreciate your time we look forward to uh your returns Okay. We'll move on to items 3 and 4, 1, 2, 3, North Forsyth. And I believe the applicants are here. And we will start with the staff report.

Second close. zoom out of the way there we go so the staff report that was presented you guys for this item addresses um requests for an extension for both the site plan review and the architecture review i should know in the first paragraph of that report the architecture viewpoint was omitted but it does apply to both um this is a request for an extension related to a proposed single family house located at 123 north forsyth These applications were originally approved on June 2, 2025 and would expire on June 2 of this year. An application for a building permit was submitted on May 1 of this year and is under review. A building permit must be issued prior to the expiration of both of those applications. Given the statements provided by the applicant that the project has no changes proposed, And the staff opinions remain the same. Staff recommending a three-month extension of both the architecture review and the site plan review with conditions in the site plan review related to the deed restriction for drywall and soils testing for that drywall.

I'm Toni Coffer, and this is the co-owner, Sandy Schoenwald. I did provide a letter from Vols Engineering and a letter from Lawrence Strutman stating that the plan has not changed. The engineering has not changed. I provided a letter to the building department explaining my concerns. uh problem with not starting the project uh in a timely manner and i'm asking that i get a reprieve for a period of time so that i can submit to the building department the additional mechanicals and other things that need to be completed as well as the new percolator test that needs to be completed

I really have no problem with a three-month extension. Do you have a problem with that?

No, sir.

And have you read and do you agree with the two conditions?

I have read them and I have no problem with them.

Okay. Let's go around. Helen?

I'm wondering why you contacted the staff 50 days ahead of the deadline for filing for an extension. Why did it come in 30 days before the deadline?

I misunderstood the requirement as far as what I needed to submit by that date. Okay.

nothing further

jim i don't have anything player

i also don't i'm fine with both requests

jeff yeah i have no other comments i agree and extensions reasonable susan

no comments i'm fine with extension

um okay we do have uh the recommendation in two conditions Or a motion.

To clarify that there would be a motion for each item, one for the architecture review, one for the site plan review. Right.

Okay.

I move to approve a three-month extension of the site plan review approval with the staff recommendations, the two staff recommendations.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay.

Thank you for your time. We

have one. I move to approve a three-month extension of the architectural review approval as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. You're approved. Thank you all. Thank you. Hope to see you in three months. Okay. Having gone through all the business, I do have a question on this last one. Because the approval, and it has no bearing on what we just voted, this was approved under our previous code requirements, correct? But now we have new code requirements. Is there anything that would stop us from any project coming forward that the code requirements have changed to updating the requirements for something that's already been applied for.

You mean stop you from not granting the extension? Yes. No, that's up to you. So that's where it references in both of the sections for time extension that it's the burden of the applicant to provide cause for the delay, proof the project remains the same, and proof that no circumstances bearing on the suitability of the project have changed. That's where you're evaluating any changes of circumstance around your original approval compared to today and what bearing that might have. An attorney could probably word that more effectively.

Well, I think if there has been a regulatory change in the regulatory environment that may support the. board's conclusion that there has been a change in circumstance since the original approval. But ordinarily, when a permit is approved, that permit applicant gets a vested right with respect. They obtain a right with respect to pursuing that permit within the rules. Now, if they fail to do it within the time, that's why the burden is on them to come back and say, it is the same project and in the same environment. so that we should be allowed to proceed. So the burden is on the applicant to prove that they are entitled to continue. If the regulations have changed in such a manner that the approval now becomes suspect that the circumstances no longer pertain, I think the board may be in a position to conclude that extension would be inappropriate. It's not automatic either way, but ordinarily the expectation would be that the vested right would continue in the face of sort of routine regulatory evolution during that time. Does that make any sense to you, Steve?

Yes, it does.

All right, I'll try again then. Until I can make it more obscure.

In that case, we could extend with additional criteria or something like that. We don't have to necessarily fail it, but we could take some of that into account in what we're asking for. If

there are intermediate steps that would ameliorate the disjunction between criteria the plan as extended and the new regulations, you might be able to impose something reasonable with respect to that.

And at least me personally, that's something I took into consideration, that this specific house wasn't like an edge case that we felt was really close to the line or something like that, where in that case... I would have been more favorable to kind of reconsider some of that, but I don't think this one came particularly close or super close to. No.

And my question was really looking forward in the future because I didn't, I agree with you, I didn't see anything that would cause us to do that tonight.

it's akin to the whole concept of pre-existing nonconformity with a modification of zoning rules. Someone that's in there doing something, the zoning changes, it's no longer allowed. They're allowed to continue. They can sell it to the next person to continue to do that, absent its voluntary cessation or destruction of the facility and that sort of thing. And the same is true to a somewhat lesser extent with respect to a right to pursue a permit. But again, if the circumstances have changed in a meaningful way, then the extension of the permit becomes more problematic. The fact that you failed to exercise the rights doesn't mean you lose them, but they do become subject to saying, well, had you acted, that's one thing, but you can't sit on your rights forever.

Well, I'm glad we're recording it tonight. I will go back and review the answers and hopefully remember them in the future.

Yeah, well, I mean, I think it's part of what we look at in staff because this approval came when we were well in underway of reviewing the stormwater changes that we've had. So many of the conditions that were already placed on this project or analyses that were done during staff review are the things that are now just already outlined in the code rather than being captured. So that's also part of, from a staff's perspective, why... we felt that the extension wasn't going to create some sort of significant issue compared to what we've learned through that process.

Well, we appreciate the discussion and the explanation. Hopefully, we'll remember everything in the future. If not, I'm sure you'll remind us. Jeff, any further comments?

Dave Kuntz, This is going to seem tainted but i'm going to say it anyway, that the brighton way project I noticed and I don't know that we can tell an applicant. Dave Kuntz , To use a designer, it seems like it was only drawn by a structural engineer, and I think a lot of our questions are were around. architectural detailing or architectural considerations, how materials meet each other, et cetera. I guess there's nothing wrong with someone doing an addition of this sort and only using a structural engineer. Is that correct?

Yeah. So for that, we really defer to our adopted building codes and what the building official would require from those signed and sealed plans. Because we don't have... For that scope, we don't have a requirement that they're signed and sealed by an architect. Because that scope, aside from the material use, would be something that could just go through our building permit process and not come before this board.

Is there a square footage involved of something over X square feet needs to be? To send it to you? Yeah, exactly. To send it to require an architectural entity on the project.

No, so this is not my area because I'm on a building code, but I believe it's the use type and it's dictated by the state of Missouri. I don't know if you can tell.

It's once you hit – I can't remember if it's four units or more or four units or less, but that's the difference between whether or not an architect is required. Once you get greater than that amount, you have to have a licensed architect on the

project. You said four units?

Four units. So a single-family duplex, three units, four units –

But to put an addition on, why are we saying that you don't need it to be signed and sealed?

No, no, you do. I think we're confusing other work. Because this is a

single family residence.

Yeah. That's with being signed and sealed for plumbing or kitchens or those sorts of things is when the number of units comes into play.

Because in the state of

Missouri, it can be an architect or it can be a structural engineer. Under that code and our adopted building codes with reference back to what the state requires, we don't have an exception to that that says it has to be an architect. Got

it. In part because state law dictates what licensure is entitled to pursue what certifications and so forth.

And there's no minimum percentage of an addition compared to an original structure that requires a different type of design professional. I'm just making sure.

Because if the structural engineer says they can put the drawings together, they can sign and sell just the same. Right. And

I think respectfully, I think we see the results of it only being a structural engineered drawing.

I didn't know that, what you're saying. I mean, I didn't realize that those... could be weighed equally, and I do this all the time. So I had no idea. I totally agree with you.

We do not have a minimum size project in which good taste is required.

It isn't just good taste. It's even the technical matters of how new materials meet old materials.

I once again let my facetious nature interfere with my good judgment.

Strike that from the record. There's... whether or not who draws it or does what, if there are elements of things that are beyond the minimum what our code requires as far as the information that they supply to you all to make decisions, those are things that you can let us know. And then during those reviews, Ryan can add to that. So in our elements right now, it's just the elevation. So what he provided is kind of what we ask for. But if you want... details about material connections because it impacts the material, we can do that. Now, we aren't going to go so far as to get into the other elements that are reviewed under our building codes because you have a your kind of purview is the exterior appearance and material choices so we're not going to go into the the construction elements of the beams and you know all of those other framing what type of nail or screw or whatever else you're doing because that's that's not under this purview but if you want additional information as far as how joints are created or other things with material relapse we can absolutely start asking for those from applicants

And that's why I asked for it to be redrawn and re-shown to us because I didn't have the warm and fuzzies that it was going to come back necessarily exactly in the way we were

thinking. And I think you're spot on, and that's why I agreed with you because it's like when you're asking questions and getting ambiguous answers or getting scary answers, that combined – and I think it does matter in the fact that this work started unpermitted – And part of it even has to be removed because of that. You know, that right there says, OK, like I can't necessarily like just trust judgment of, OK, this is all going to be all this material is going to go off and it's going to go on and we're not going to have a problem. So

in Helen's comment was spot on, too. There's a little bit of a balcony that you can't access except from the backyard, I guess.

We've seen it. we've seen other plans and it's it's clear uh because i've even i've even like followed the stamp back and it's basically like you know kind of rent an architect type of thing where it's just someone you know stamping what a homeowner drew and yes it makes uh it makes zero sense and it's hard to kind of like follow like how you even move from room to room or how the plans are and stuff like that and i think I agree with you that we should be questioning that. That's our job to question more in that situation and to make sure that we feel comfortable with what's going on there.

Yeah, as long as it's exterior because your point is, you know, so I talked to the building official about all this all the time. Sometimes plans come to him and they don't necessarily make the most logical sense. Is this how an office sweller is really going to navigate the space? But it's completely code compliant. So he can't say I don't like or agree with the logic of your design, so it's denied. So in some of these elements, you guys are given a little bit more leeway to really evaluate the exterior design of a property as it relates to the character because it's all tied back through all of our adopted codes. But also, even though you don't agree with the logic I can't access my deck unless I walk through the yard, the deck's in the rear yard. So there are, yes, question it, but there is a little bit too of... We have limits.

I would not be surprised if the applicant doesn't want to change one of the windows into a door.

It may be too narrow.

It could be,

yeah. But a narrow door would be better than no

door. Yes, all this has, yes, yes.

Claire? No,

no, I'm good, thank you.

No additional comments, thank you. Ellen?

Nothing more to add. Susan? Nothing.

Brian? Nothing else. Anna? No. Kevin? No, sir. Thank you for coming tonight. I think yours and Anna's comments have really helped us out going forward, and we enjoy the humor. We'll see everyone on June 1st, and we are adjourned.