July 6, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for July 6th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Helen DiFate.

Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. Ellen DeFate.

Jim Arsenault. Here. Chris Brennan. Here. Jeff Morrisey.

Jim Arsenault. Here. Chris Brennan. Here. Jeff Morsey.

Susan Buse.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on June 15th. Are there any changes?

I have one. It showed that ending time of the meeting is 525. I think that was supposed to be 625. Oh,

okay. Well noted. Do we have a motion to that?

Move to approve as submitted with the correction of 525 p.m. to 625 p.m..

Second. Okay. At this time, it's the open forum. All in

favor? All in favor? Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay, now we have the time for the open forum. If anyone has a comment or question on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Seeing no hands and no sign up. Okay, we'll move on. We'll go into New business. The first one is 6362 Alamo is the applicant here. We'll start with the

staff report. Subject properties on the south side of Alamo between DeMunn and Buena Vista. The site is zoned R2 and is developed with a single family house. The project scope includes a rear addition comprising of a combination of bricks, stucco, and batten. As proposed, the addition would not meet the secondary material ratio requirements set in the architecture review guidelines. Therefore, review is required by the architecture review board. Secondary materials would increase on the east side and rear facades. The first floor would use brick matching the existing first floor. The second floor would use stucco and board and batten matching the existing gable stormers and pre-existing addition. Staff are of the opinion that design is inconsistent with the existing house and would not impact material character of the surrounding area. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay, thank you. Welcome. Please tell us who you are and... Do you have anything to add? Well, as far as the materials go, we would like to see them, but we can go through this and then if you could come back after the next one. I went around. There's an alley there, so it was easy to see the backside. And I thought it's a simple, direct passage. small addition, and I really had no problem with it from what was shown here on the drawings. So I felt comfortable with it. We'll move on. Ellen?

I would agree that it really makes sense to use the stucco and the boards. If you put looking at sheet seven, which is right in front of us and on the screen, if you did that triangular space that you're adding, if you did it in brick, it would look strange. Right, the weight of it. Yeah. So to me, it makes complete sense to do the stucco with the boards.

Jim? I don't really have anything else to add. I agree. I think the materials and replacement make the most sense. Chris?

Nothing further.

Jeff? I think it's a very nice project. I did the same, Steve. I went and took a look. It's a great little house and a perfectly appropriate little addition. Susan?

I agree. I have nothing to

add. Will we have a recommendation to approve as submitted?

I move to approve as submitted.

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

Thank you. I'll bring back the

materials. Good luck with it

and it

looks good.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we'll move to 8108 Halifax Drive. I assume the... Okay, we will start again with the staff report.

Subject property is located on the south side of Halifax between Sudbury and Francis. The property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayshire Urban Design District, developed with a one-story single-family house. The applicant is seeking approval for materials on a proposed accessory structure. The applicant proposes the construction of a new deck, screen porch, and one-story frame shed in the rear yard. The deck and screen porch would comply with all zoning and material requirements. The shed would total 320 square feet and would comprise of vinyl lap siding with wood grain and forest green color. Vinyl is not a permitted secondary material in Clayshire, and Clayshire requires that secondary materials not exceed 25% of a facade. Vinyl is common on roof gables, dormers, and some additions, but it's not common as a primary material on primary or accessory structures nearby. The green color and location in the rear yard is likely to lessen the visual impact of the materials. Given the location, staff are of the opinion that full compliance with the material ratio requirement is not necessary to maintain the material character of Clayshire. Additionally, staff are of opinion that the use of vinyl alone does not meet the criteria for alternative compliance, but that a combination of brick and the chosen vinyl would meet these criteria. Staff recommend approval with the condition that brick comprise at least 25% of each facade.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Austin with Shrogan Co-Architects and we're the architecture firm doing this renovation. Yeah, the original plan is to do vinyl siding on the shed in the back. It's sort of in the back of the property. and i know green doesn't match the color of the existing house entirely but um i guess if you do look at the brick up close it's got some green in it even though the main color is a little red and yeah just trying to match the existing color of the house as best as we can and i have some samples of vinyl and hardy if you guys need to see any

Well, as the staff wrote, we do have a brick requirement in there. And I think the use of hardy board in there would be better than a vinyl siding. Dave Kuntz, that's basically my comment I know the green when I looked and tried to see it in there with trees and everything could be good, but we would like to keep it as close to our requirements as possible let's other comments Ellen.

You've obviously read the report from the staff and the 25% brick on each facade. Could you comply with that?

I believe that we can if necessary. I know that the existing house does have an aluminum white vinyl or aluminum white siding at the gables, so that was our first choice of trying to match that. Yeah, I believe that we could add brick if we need to.

Where would you put the brick? Just, you know, an idea of where you would put it on each facade.

Just, I guess, enough to meet the 25% requirement. And we can always build the slab out farther so that we can rest the brick on it.

Would you do it at the base or a column? I

would assume at the base, yeah. A little wainscot around the entire sides of it.

Okay. Have you... look to see if a compatible brick is available

i'll have to check with the builder um i don't know exactly if he's checked to find an exact match but i can check with him

yeah it's far enough away that if the texture is slightly different or the color is slightly different it's going to it will not be noticeable

okay

okay those are my questions

I think if you're amenable to 25% brick and hardy board, that's certainly, I think, the direction I would like to see things go. Now, as far as like the actual brick and then the color of the Hardy and stuff like that, we could get into that to figure out. But I mean, this building is 16 by 20. So it's you know, it's pretty much the size of like a one car garage. I know technically it's a shed, but it's it's you know it's a pretty large shed. So I wouldn't want to get away from the material requirements of the neighborhood too far and set a precedent that especially with the other garages and accessory buildings in the area that are following that. So yeah. I think if you are in agreement to the 25% brick and hardy, I think that would satisfy the requirement.

Chris? I am not comfortable with vinyl as a material. I don't see a reason why we could do alternative compliance in this case to do vinyl at all. I don't know necessarily that 25% brick on each facade would kind of meet the requirement in a sense. I'd be I think it'd be better, but I'd be much happier with a woodlap siding that was even that green, but something that was not the vinyl. So, I mean, if we want to lean towards doing the brick and hardy board or woodlap, that's fine. But as it stands right now, I would not approve it as vinyl.

Jeff? A couple of different thoughts, picking up on the comments that have already been made. Yeah, I definitely would appreciate hardy board instead of vinyl. I think we should require that. I don't know if we might consider 25% of the facade in general being brick as opposed to on each facade. Is there a way that they could look at this architecturally and put, for instance, more brick on the front and a little less on the side or back? Now, that may be contrary to the way our codes are written, but I I think it might have more of an impact. Just one thought. The second thought is that in the Hardy, do you have a sample of the Hardy and the color that you're talking about? that one okay is there that's kind of what i thought it was is there anything in the area that is that color are you are you attempting to match anything i i i drove around the neighborhood i see a lot of outbuildings um many of them actually in white and or brick um Is there a way to pick up on another material either on this house or in the area as opposed to a new color?

So I guess it is in the back of the property, so that's part of the reason. I did have some photos from the builder, and he has party samples. Okay.

Okay, you think it Yeah, you think it? Well, yeah, I see. I see what you're saying. There's a little green tint to it. But it's still a red brick primarily. Yeah. Well, I'd like some combination of brick and Hardy and I just wish the Hardy board could could pick up and more closely match something either on your site or in the area as opposed to just introducing a new color.

Susan.

I think moving to Brick and Hardy, the 25%, whether it be, I don't have the expertise to tell you whether it's better on each facade or overall, but if you can make that move, I think that would be great.

It's 25% of the entire building or each facade. It's

recommendation is each facade, right?

Okay. Each facade. We're not trying to make it more difficult. So I think if you did 25% on each facade, it just might be easier to make the hardy board siding fit a little better. As far as the color of the brick, you could probably get pretty close to what is on the house. As far as i think something that would blend in with the trees that we saw behind it as opposed to white which we do as jeff said said in the neighborhood i think the building should be as recessive as possible and not stand out i agree other comments um I think it would be good for you to show the brick, and I think we could do that administratively rather than having you come back here. It would speed up the process and have the hardy board color that you're recommending with the brick at the same time. Okay. Any questions, comments? Well, we do have a recommendation, but I think we've modified it slightly.

I move to approve as submitted with 25% brick on each facade and hardy board above with the brick selection and Brick selection and hardy board selection to be approved by staff.

At least 25% brick,

right? 25%. On each facade. Yeah.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay. Now we're coming to 48 South Bemisken, and we have four different agenda items. We'll start with the minor subdivision plant. And we'll start with

So we would start with the site plan review. Okay. That's fine. We'll still start with the staff report.

This project consists of three parcels totaling 39,000 square feet located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bemis and Crandelet. The properties are zoned M3 high-density mixed-use and are developed with three office structures. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing structures, consolidation of the lots, and construction of a 24,485 square foot mixed-use building, parking, and plaza space. The new structure would include 1,700 square feet of retail and a bank on the ground floor. Offices on the second and third levels and flexible space on the fourth floor intended for meetings, banquets or similar uses. The building would reach four stories and have a maximum height of 67 feet. The gated 50 space parking lot is proposed with access via corondelet or the rear alley. A loading area and trash storage are proposed adjacent to the alley. Plaza space is proposed on the south side of the property. The site meets the dimensional requirements of the M3 district. Stormwater management, landscape design, and parking are deemed sufficient. Sustainability guidelines have not yet been addressed. The proposal would have a relatively low density for the M3 district, which is juxtaposed to the goals of the comprehensive plan. A notable portion of the site would be dedicated to parking. The applicant is requesting approval of alternative compliance in place of the consumer emphasis area requirement. The proposal includes a retail space accounting for 32% of the building frontage, a minimum of 50% of the building furniture is required to be designed for CEA uses. The proposed alternative includes both exterior plaza space and interior event space, which were reliant on programming for activation. Details of how these spaces would be programmed are unclear. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed alternative has not met yet the criteria for alternative compliance. Given that sustainability goals remained unaddressed and that the proposal does not yet meet the criteria for alternative complaints, staff are of the opinion the proposal has not met the criteria for site plan review. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission continue the application to allow for consideration of the following. One, provide specification for bird-friendly window glazing. And then two, either revise the design to meet the CEA requirements or provide additional information clarifying the intended programming and activation for the plaza and event space.

Okay.

Welcome. Ms. Keith Crane with ACM Olin Architects, principal in charge.

Do you have anything to add?

Not at this time, so... No, I'd like to open up to your comments.

Well, we're reviewing the site plan review right now. And the first thing is we've been looking at and hoping that this property would be developed for a long time. So we're glad you're here. We'll certainly have a lot of comments that we can talk back and forth about. But I think there are many things in here that I'm sure you've read all the staff reports that our staff have put together that really outlines where we are right now with our comprehensive master plan, with the consumer emphasis areas, and how alternative compliance is done. my concerns really relate to all of those, that it's a very, very low-density project. In fact, lower than, in a FAR ratio, much lower than the existing building that is already there. And of course, the high density mixed use area is what we're attempting to do. When we look at the site plan here, it's a four story building that covers roughly 70% of the site plus or minus. And it's surrounded by higher rise buildings, not 50 stories, but there are 12 stories up to about 20. And it, looks very underdeveloped. And when you look at that, knowing that all the HVAC equipment is on the roof, it would be not a very nice building to look at from the others surrounding it. So when we look at it with the comprehensive plan, we wanted to maximize the lot coverage and minimize the surface parking and have shared parking in there. And reducing the density actually seems to go against what we are trying to do in our major plan. When we get to the consumer emphasis area, we know that we're asking for 50% of the window space of the retail to be facing the street. And what we are seeing is about 32%. That could certainly be changed with a little reworking of your plan. So I could see how that could be overcome fairly easily. But the alternative compliance... The one retail bay doesn't really bother me, but I think the orientation to the street does. I think you could come up with a solution that would have more retail frontage, but no more square footage. In other words, in lieu of going east and west, if we were to go north and south, you would change the percentage immediately. The public plaza, I think, looks very nice, but I think it'll be very passive. I'm not sure in that area because it's not a high pedestrian zone and we are looking for greater pedestrian activity. I think it'll very sedentary at this point. And then when we look at the fourth floor with the proposed event space, I don't see that as really having a public participation in it. And this has come up in other projects in the city. And when it's not visible and accessible, it really doesn't meet that public accessibility. It's nice to have it in the building, but I'm concerned that those items really don't come up with satisfying the alternative compliance. So I've got a lot of other things, but let's go on. I don't need to argue. Helen?

Okay. I missed having dimensions. I know there's a scale referenced, but I have no idea whether or not these, what we have, that I can scale it a 16th of an inch equals a foot, which then I really, I'm relying upon people and trees to give me an idea of scale. And the class that was a classmate who did the wrong scale for project and then planted giant sequoia trees. to bring it to the scale that was supposed to be. So lack of dimensions concerns me. I think there's a missed opportunity for your retail and your plaza area. You know, What type of retail are you going to have there? We've got a lot of restaurants in Clayton, and they all want to move out to the sidewalk. And Louie's Wine Dive that is next door, they have a front area. You don't have that possibility. You have a plaza that really is... four sitting areas and yes I could walk from one to the other walk down the steps on two and two but if you've got a child in a stroller or if you're handicapped you can't really access all of them You're kind of walking in and out if you do it at all. In all of the years I've been in Clayton, I have never seen the plaza area that you have used. So I don't have any confidence that this will be used. If you could turn things around, get that plaza to South Bemiston.

You're saying that you, first two folks that have spoken, would rather see this be a restaurant with a retail bank and the restaurant, which is TBD, unrented space at this point, focusing on the plaza space versus the major... being the forefront of the project. Is that correct?

Yeah, I think you could have the plaza so it touches the retail space. So retail could, if it's a restaurant, could expand and you could also do programming and things like that. The way you have the plaza now, I don't think you could do much in the way of community, large community programming. So I see having those two elements at opposite ends as a real negative. When Bringing them together gives you activity of retail, whatever it is, spilling out onto a plaza. Let's see. Yeah, I think... Relying upon programming for the activity, that doesn't happen. We all get caught up and yeah, I'll see you in the street and say we need to have coffee. Well, don't hold your breath because you and I both will have forgotten that. So I see that as happening with programming and we've had it happen. So I think what we're looking for is a space that on its own can become active. So that's...

Jim? Yeah, I largely agree with the comments before. And I don't want to necessarily just rehash all those, but maybe kind of put some of a different way. I think your point of saying, well, you know, shouldn't the focus of this plaza be more on the tenant than the restaurant? And I don't think that that's necessarily a problem for the focus to be on the tenant. I think in this case, the plaza is being used as alternative compliance for the consumer emphasis area. And I agree that the plaza as it is does not meet alternative compliance because I think it relies on way too many other factors for it to work for alternative compliance. I think also you're a little up against it here because this is literally the very first project that's been proposed in the consumer emphasis area. So for something that I believe we've put a lot of thought into to immediately reduce the impact of that in the very first project, that comes kind of defangs the entire thing. And then if you allowed to reduce, reduce, reduce that consumer emphasis area in all these projects, all of a sudden you don't necessarily have these corridors. So it kind of takes some of the power out of the corridors. So while I wouldn't say your retail area has to interact with this plaza so much, I think you can do it any way you want, but I don't think it necessarily rises to alternative compliance without a rethinking of how the plaza is going to be programmed, how all that's going to work. I can also just say it's like just from a use perspective, when I look at any project, I look at what's there now and then I look at what replacing that. And although the lots aren't necessarily that big, currently there's, I believe, 78,000 square feet of office and 62,000 square feet parking. So we're going to demolish 62,000 square foot of current parking for 50 spots.

Well,

it's still the fact as far as if you're looking at vibrancy and looking at the fact that This district is high density commercial. And, you know, unfortunately, this is the opposite of high density. So it's going to be very hard in any iteration, no matter how beautiful of a park fronts it, screens it, anything, to demolish over 120,000 square feet of space for a surface parking lot in the middle of a in the middle of a busy downtown. I think that's unfortunately just like a really hard lift and a hard thing to wrap my mind around and get behind. So I think the project overall would benefit from like a real rethinking as far as the zoning in the area, the consumer emphasis area, and kind of trying to retool around those ideas. Chris?

I think the three of you have done wonderful rehash and I won't rehash it. I mean, I would love to see the restaurant on the other side too. I'd love to see a rooftop restaurant, you know, anything from that lower building would be nice, but you know, people in hot places want ice water. So I appreciate that you're trying to make this spot work. And that is the first one that we've seen in, in, in years and, The only thing I would add are a couple of questions that I have is mainly has to do with just the flow of traffic in terms of like the parking here. If this is gated parking, is that open for both the retail and for the bank usage or would retail parking, would those using retail be expected to park on the street?

It would be open for both. Okay. A approval process similar to any other parking lot that you go to. So there is a remote teller there, which again could be validated. As you go through or buzzed out as you go through, whether it's servicing the retail or the retail portion of the bank could also be invalidated.

And is queuing for this remote teller, would that be along the alley side? Would this be along like the Crandall at the curb cut area here?

There was a lot of discussion about whether or not we would need a exterior teller to begin with at all. This was the compromise to allow for that to happen, but we don't actually expect it to happen very much. We expect the majority of the banking to be done inside the facility or along Bemiston at an exterior ATM?

Mr. Nothing further. Thank you.

And I'll repeat what my colleagues said here about not repeating everything that's been said. But I agree a lot, Steve, with your comments, especially with the many things that I was going to say here. I think it's really hard to see it as appropriate to take down three buildings, to build one small building, a surface parking lot, and a landscaped area. It feels like a suburban project, not an urban project. And I believe this site needs an urban project. It needs more building. It needs more program. That's not my place to... You all have to figure it out. Exactly. And I know this has been through previous iterations that had more building on the site. i wasn't around for those reviews but um yeah i just think this is this is hard i'm glad we moved the site plan review first before the consolidation because i really don't see if you're going to consolidate three lots of this size you need to be putting a much larger piece of construction on it in my mind so um otherwise it is to agree with what uh what folks have said and i i don't think the uh commenting too much on the details of the project makes sense i think we need to see a a different better site plan so well sorry go ahead

go ahead

yeah yeah i don't want to repeat repeat repeat see it's That's a challenge. We're so happy to see you here and look at developing this site that's exciting and needed, but it's that challenge of the consumer emphasis area, the programming that might be in those spaces, whether they actually take hold or not. I don't think we're getting a feel for what that might be. So, yeah, so I think that the points have been stated well, and we'll see where we go from there.

As the architect, I can't necessarily speak to the development side of this, only to the programmatic requirements that have been asked of me. But I have Mr. Bob Hagen here with me from DCM.

I'm Bob Hagen with DCM Group. I've been working on this project with staff for quite some time now, and I understand your concerns about the density and ideally what you're trying to achieve at this site. But I think what's What the desire is and what's practical, they're clashing, quite frankly. Prior to us engaging with Sterling Bank on this development deal, this property was for sale for quite some time. It's been vacant for, I should know the facts, but I don't. It's been vacant for a long time. So we tried to market it. We marketed to several other larger developers in town, Coleman, all these other guys, and they all took a pass on it. It was not feasible. That's when we tried to broker to outside other developers. There was no interest at all. Then our next step was to meet with Sterling Bank and say, okay, what can we do here? That's where we started going on this path of let's do a corporate headquarters here. get it out of the ground, make it viable. Someone mentioned about there's no activity there with that courtyard currently as it sits. Well, it sits in a hole. We're not doing that here. I think that's where the trouble is here. I mean, our choices are to try to work with our client to try to get something that everyone can accept in the room or we can just let it sit there for a while and see when the next developer comes around because our client's not going to go vertical. And I showed Keith earlier the original Green Street proposal, and then our company actually did a proposal at one time for this site going vertical. And that's just not in CARD. So I think ultimately, I think your wishes, we hear them, we understand them, but that's kind of where we are right now with this project. Around town, there's just not a lot of vertical construction going on. The Coleman project, the Commerce project, you know, they still got vacancies in the first floor there. And those construction costs that put those buildings up quite some time ago, they have gone up exponentially. So here we got something that is shovel ready, ready to go. It's not ideal from a zoning perspective. Try to accommodate with staff's input. They were really good to work with in terms of how about this, how about that? But that's kind of where we are now. And I don't know how we get past this impasse, quite frankly. Client will not, you know, they're not going to build spec until office space. They're not. Not going to get a 400,000 square foot building up there like Green Street presented to you guys several, what, 10 years ago maybe? It's just not going to happen. That's kind of where we are.

Well, we appreciate a little bit of the history there. A couple other comments. From going around our downtown area, we have many banks. And to have Sterling Bank's headquarters, we're really looking forward to that. But what I notice about all the banks, they have very prominent corner locations. If they're not right on the building line at the corner, they are close enough that on both streets you sense them being there. I would suggest you take that back to Mr. Poteet and Sterling because this really doesn't give the bank much presence. And as you're driving west or walking on Carondelet, it's the only site that does not come out to the building line with a structure. Now, you can say the same thing on Beamiston, but it's much closer on Beamiston. So I don't think we would prohibit a solution that does not meet all the requirements of our comprehensive plan or anything else. But I think if you look at alternative compliances, there might be things that could be changed that might get things moving a little more.

Well, one other thing, Mr. Boutique's not involved with Sterling Banks for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. He's M1, which is down the street, and I think he's already had that deal. My

apologies.

No, no. I'm

trying to find a solution to your comment. Comments are all received, thought on. I don't necessarily disagree with you. other than overall square footage of

it. I do think it'd be interesting to hear, I don't know what it would be, the type of programming, you know, what's going to draw people there? What's going to activate it? What type of programming is being envisioned?

Well, a couple of your comments and last one, if we slip out to OSA left side of the plaza as is. Plaza to the north where it's not door space, they could start to pull the activity far north of there down into the street.

Well, look, can I throw another thought in? Steve, I'm glad you said what you said. It feels like the plaza is a remnant of the plaza that's already there, as opposed to something for a new project. You said you didn't want to go vertical, but by that, would you not mean you couldn't slip a couple levels of parking underneath the building or push the building up a bit, take up the whole street front on Bemison. I almost think I could accommodate your program that you've got right now in only the bank site or close to it. Maybe you'd need a little bit of the central site. I just think a lot of this feels like it's being done to create a surface parking lot. And I think that's the last thing we need in the middle of a zone like this.

We actually had a garage up there originally. Right. And then we took away the garage because we wanted to reduce parking to activate that corner under staff's recommendation. And to shrink that down to get people to move around. But yeah, our original plan called for a two-story garage.

Yeah, we were going to completely park our requirements on our site and not doing that. We're parking roughly half of it.

I was trying to literally pull all the program you've got to the western edge of the site, essentially, and fill that up with a more, as I said earlier, urban building of some sort. I worry... i mean even when i look at the one of the later drawings if you can pull up sd 511 it shows really well how this gap that's being created now sort of opens up a gap to the site to the north which is essentially just another parking lot and dumpsters you know it's it's creating a hole where i don't think there's the there you go that one it's creating a whole where where i don't think we'd want a hole you know so and and i'm not you know i'm not the person that has to try to to rent or use the existing buildings in some way but i wish we could and or you could build more office space etc that would take up the site it just it uh doesn't feel like there's enough there yet

yeah Yeah, and from a developer perspective, we'd love that also, obviously, for financial gains and reasons. But it's just not there. And that's the challenge. That's the challenge when you're trying to broker this to other people. Who can afford $60 rents these days? All our A-class tenants really got taken care of, thank goodness, over at Emerson and what have you. You may get one tenant, land one tenant, but we're talking multiple tenants here.

I have a question. I'm curious because I feel like you're describing something different than what Jeff was just describing. I think at least, Jeff, and you can tell me, what I thought the essence of your comment was is if you need to build a lower density, if that's what makes sense for the bank, why not just do it just on the Sterling Bank site as it is versus demolish two buildings for a surface parking lot? Couldn't you keep the two other buildings as it is and just do the programming on just the Sterling Bank site? What's keeping you from just developing that site if you want a lower density building where currently a lower density building sits and you don't have to necessarily destroy the other density?

I think... if you look at the what i'll call the natalie gail building the melman building there uh i think by today's standards is pretty obsolete and just to renovate that to get it into a rentable shape be pretty cost prohibitive

yeah

um anything to add

on that no it really is a sort of a how much does it cost to renovate And I don't, again, I don't disagree with the concept of it. Parking would be a little bit stressed. We would have to offload more parking to the vacant lots there.

But that's challenging from a developer's perspective to offload parking in adjacent spots when you're trying to get an office tenant that wants to, if you look at the two most recent development deals, look at the parking situation there. It's pretty convenient. And going back to your question, I think it's a very good point that you made using that existing, I'll call it the Melman building. I think it's good point, but once again, it won't have the modern amenities, and I think it would just cause the cost to go through the roof. Well, the

Melman building was occupied when the bank bought

it. That is correct.

So, I mean, there were tenants that were there who were using the building, who were happy to use the building, who are asked to vacate the building. And

I'm terrible with dates, but when was that roughly?

Uh, you know, I don't know. Now,

if you, if you look at it around Clayton, unfortunately we're, it's unfortunate, but we have a lot of C buildings in Clayton right now. I can rattle them off. You got the Michelson building, you got equitable buildings. You've got a lot of C building that you're dealing with. And so how do you take that C building that has been vacant for all these years and systems are in rough shape and you're basically retrofitting and trying to make it a new building and The cost and lack of amenities, I think it'd be a challenge along with the parking. I think, you know, just shooting from the hip, I think that's what we're up against on that idea. It's a good idea. Has

residential been considered for this site? Mid-rise residential? I mean, somehow the other guys that are building things around here are making it work from a financial standpoint. I mean, I see residential projects happening. Would the bank ever consider being a lower-level tenant with residential above that could fill up the site more? I don't know. I think it goes back to that Green Street development.

I certainly appreciate that it's probably difficult to develop. At the same time, I don't believe anyone forced the bank to buy those two properties, so...

If we were to only develop the one site, fit our entire program on one site, and leave the other two buildings as is?

Let me jump in there. If that were the case, then we have a potential mid-block dead zone. I would be very much against that.

And that's the intent of this is to not do that. There were something that we could do that would allow for future development, but not necessarily at the expense of getting something new and something built on the corner.

I think that the definition of a mid-block dead zone is a parking lot, right? I mean, in a sense. So I think that that is what's being created. I love how you were starting to think or following along with this idea of possibly shifting the building to the corner. And I think that you had brought that up and we had dismissed it. I think that the plaza it is right now does look like an afterthought. It does look like... no one would notice this building would come up and they'd say, well, that plaza has always been there. I think if the building was shifted to the corner, to Steve's point, so you did have visibility on both Beamiston and Carondelet for the bank, and you did offer, if there was some sort of a new space on the side of retail so that it was a wonderful place for Louis' patrons or for this restaurant's patrons to go there, I would be much more amiable to thinking about that because it just shows a more creative use of the space as opposed to just fitting this in as it is. So I like how you're thinking on that, and it's more of creative use of that site

plan. So just for reference, Sterling Bank's other facilities are urban, or sorry, suburb, and all have plaza spaces out front of them. So they associate the plaza space with their brand Brandon, the one that's there is sunken and unused. Don't disagree. So this was an attempt to more activate it. But if we can come back with another option that potentially holds the corner, moves the potential plaza space to the north. Talk to the client about that. I'm more concerned with the overall. I think the individual architectural things probably solve. overall density, I think is I'm trying, I'm still trying to find a solution that allows this project or a slight variation of this project along that side to move ahead while still allowing for future development.

Would you move the building towards the corner and leave some for a plaza that would maintain the brand identity but then take some of the parking and put it under the building which would raise it and use one lot as a pocket park

currently have parking underneath the structure right now

you know the two lots looking at SD 1.0, using the two lots would be too large to have a pocket park. But if you used one of those or part so that you have a narrow pocket park, That could be a real amenity where you can have seating and water interest or, you know, tables, chess or something like that. Kind of something that the office buildings would use.

We have that all along.

Yeah, but in the front, it's we've still got that parking lot. Get rid of some of the parking lot, maybe 50% of it. Put it under the building, another level of parking. And then take and make a one-level pocket park where people can actually use it. And it's not segmented. The way it's shown now, it's mostly plantings. which means you get one or two people and it's disconnected. If you made something that could be used for an event of the banks or, you know, a public event. Yeah. Then

that's all on the fourth floor.

I mean, we have remembrance park now on Maryland and make it larger than that, that's not very deep. But, and then if you have, you know, suddenly everybody wants to build, well, you've got a lot that you can just take, get rid of the park and build. Now, just a thought.

Other comments? Any hands up? No hands up. Well, I think the staff recommendation is the one that I would like to see go forward, mainly to continue the application to allow more thought to be put into it. Do you have any comment on that? Bob or?

No, I don't think it's this time now.

Any comments on that?

I move to continue to a future date to be determined. Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

you. Before you leave, Anna or Ryan, we have three other items. Shall we table them?

My feeling is the other items really hinge on the site plan.

Yes, sir. They all go together. So if we table the first one, the other two should be tabled as well.

Then can we do those re-separate?

I think we can knock them out individually real quick if you want to give it a shot, Helen. Wait, do we have

to do one or three?

We have to do all three, but I think they're discussing is there a way to lump them all together? And I think in the time, we can probably just table the three of them.

Yes. Okay.

Okay, I move to continue to a future date. The architectural review, the conditional use permit, and the what was the

fourth

subdivision subdivision plot.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Keith and Bob. We hope to see you back. We've come to the end. So, Jeff, any further comments? Oh, yes. Hold on. L, if you'd like to come on back. Anyone have comments or questions?

Thanks for getting those.

We appreciate seeing it. We've already approved the project, so thank you for sticking around. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Now we've come to the end. I wasn't around for earlier versions of the Beamiston review. Has the site been considered without the bank involved? Like to a developer taking it with not as a bank tenant, but as a new project? Bob

Hagan indicated several years ago there was a 24-story Green Street project.

I guess I'm asking, would it make it more marketable? Again, not my business to decide this, but as somebody taking on the site without having to deal with a bank. you know would that could because I said residential was being built as a residential developer just doing residential then considered on this site they could take it up to a mid-rise Heights something like that

well Bob Hagen indicated that it might go back on the market which who knows what would be

developed right right I mean and I I get that It's been sitting that way for a long time. I appreciated Jim's comments, though. They've kind of let the two buildings fall into somewhat disrepair, assuming they were going to take them down. Like

I said, the eight-story, I can't speak to the three-story building. The eight-story building was full, and they all had their leases terminated and were asked to leave the building on pretty short notice, too. So my sympathy is limited.

Otherwise, that's it. Chris

went to city council to see the PUD process reconsidered. And I want to thank Anna because I think maybe at the first meeting that started to slightly go off the rails. And I think Anna did a very masterful job kind of bringing that discussion back to where it needed to be. So I just got to sit there and be a nice little observer instead of having to make a comment. So I think We see how great the staff is and how much they help us out with these things, but it's like when you have specific things, it always helps to remember that. And then Helen, welcome back for another term.

Happy to be back.

Well, you really didn't leave. We

weren't going to let that happen.

So we're happy you're continuing.

Always appreciation to staff for keeping us aware of what's happening and moving in the right direction.

Brian? Nothing further. Lana?

Oh, yes, we'll make it tonight. Mr. O'Keefe? Okay. Well, thank you for coming.

Glad to be here.

We'll see everyone in two weeks on the 20th, and we're adjourned.