September 14, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for September 14th. If you have any electronic devices, please silence them at this time.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate?

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DeFate?

Here.

Jim Arsenault? Here. Claire Queskin?

Here.

Jeff Morrisey? Here. Susan Buse?

Jeff Morsey? Here. Susan Buse?

Here.

We have minutes from the previous meeting on October 31st. Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? OK. This is the time for the open forum. If anyone has signed up outside, it's the time to address any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Seeing no hands, we will move on. We'll start business matters, and the first item is old business at 7754 Forsyth Boulevard. See the applicant is here. And as usual, we'll start with the staff report.

all righty so this is one that the planning commission's gotten a little bit familiar with so i'll just kind of do a summary of the the changes and staff recommendations so the applicant has provided a letter withdrawing all previous plan documents and has formally submitted a new proposal for review which includes the following retainer use retains the use of the planters aluminum posts integrates conduits throughout the aluminum posts above the planters proposes uplighting in the planters to illuminate the conduits, and proposes all improvements on private property. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal retains the open character of the corner and use materials compatible with the surrounding area and applicable guidelines. Staff are of opinion that no outdoor dining furniture or other structures should encroach into the right-of-way. This meeting is the final meeting within the 60-day review window. The PCRB must take final action regarding this proposal. Fair to take action within the 60-way window constitutes approval of the application. Staff recommend approval with the condition that no furniture, screening planters, storage, or other outdoor dining equipment shall encroach into the public right-of-way.

Okay, thank you. Derek?

Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. And really the status is at this point that we've gone ahead and complied with the request of the municipality by removing, first of all, the pergola in its entirety. And the planters have been moved off of the right-of-way onto the property. And so at that point, we've made the – and the screen wall planks have also been removed. So with that portion sort of resolved, we'd like to respectfully request approval of this design. We're able to utilize the existing planters and modify them in a way that we would cut down the steel posts, still have a cap on it. We would integrate U-bolts and such to mount the metal. And we would have spoken today with... Harold Bradshaw, he's with Foreman Fabricators and Hubsco Metalsmiths. And he's a person I've partnered with for over 15 years on different projects. And he would be the metallurgist to help ensure that we get a smooth, uniform quality installation. The metal itself, we've looked at two different types of metals. One initially was a galvanized conduit, but we found a metal that's a little more workable and will retain the finish better. With any of the metals, we'll have to go through a process of cleaning it with a solvent, abrasing it, putting on a primer coat. And then a final antiquing that will happen to get the finish that we're looking for. The planters themselves will have conduit that's concealed to get to the uplights. We didn't want to get into the whole thing about having actual plants and maintaining that. So we would have seasonal plants. and rotating artificial plants for which we would have sleeves embedded into the planters to make it look nice all the time without having to worry about watering and irrigation and all these types of things. And then way it is that we would locate all of them onto the property line, but still allowing for circulation at either end. And you'll see that there's three planters that are nine foot nine in width and then the The longer one, which is currently on a diagonal and the way currently they had sit where there was a planter in between each one of those. And so by consolidating the space and have them just adjacent to each other. It fits along that line perfectly. So we're very happy with that. But that's about it for the design that we were looking to just get an approval to beautify this corner of the city and make it something that is in line with the master planning that's been done. And we feel that's something that will have some longevity. It's not going to have much decay or degradation over time, so it will maintain its look throughout. that it provides a couple of other features. One, it provides sort of a semi-transparent barrier between without it being a wall or something that's uninviting. And secondly, it really does provide those concrete barriers as a level of protection for the patrons and folks that are there. So I was there on the other night and you know they had 100 motorcycles ride past doing wheelies and stuff you know just if that sort of thing does happen so i think having those planters in place is a benefit for for everybody and in that case then we ought to do it as beautiful and as cool as we can and so um i hope you approve of this proposal and uh we request for your approval to proceed with it thank

you thank you um This is our fourth meeting. Yes, it is. And as Ryan indicated, really the last one that we have to make a decision on. But what I would like to say is this is a very refreshing, creative solution to this issue. It gives some transparency, but it also gives privacy. Also, it's relating to our consumer emphasis area in how to treat major corners. And of course, we have a premier restaurant on this corner that we really want to work with and make it even better. So with that, I do have a couple questions about the conduits. You've mentioned it. I think I understand the color process that you will have to go through. But how rigid will those be?

Oh, no, there is firmly affixed because once the metal is bent, it's not easy to bend yourself by hand. It takes a reasonable amount of force to... It's not malleable. And then we're using these U-bolts, which again, basically... and then bolted from their side. And it's not going anywhere. They're torqued down. And again, the similar technique was used on our installation at Grand Center on the KDHX building. It was interesting because when we were looking at it, they had no idea whether to treat that as signage or what it was. And it turned out that the heaviest load was going to be ice. What it was, you know, cause we had this, this thing was 30 feet by 40 feet tall. So we don't, you know, so we had designed that system to withhold up to 150 pounds of ice on each piece of pipe. And so at this case, we don't have that situation anyway, but we're using the same technique. So I'm confident that we will have a sturdy, strong, it's not going to move. It's not going to bend. It's going to be there.

So then when you say it's not going to move or bend, if one of the diners adjacent to it were to grab a hold of it?

It'll act just like a handrail. It'll resist the same amount of overturn as a 150-pound load as required from a guardrail system.

Okay. And then you were talking about the color of the conduits. What about the galvanized sheet steel? And I wasn't really able to tell on your A5 sheet. Will we see the galvanized

material? That will be treated with the same thing. Again, you get all the oils off of it with a solvent and then you get the mill scale. You sand it to roughen up to receive the primer. And then we'll have the finish coat will be sort of the artistic. So it'll blend with all of it. We're going to treat those bent channels in the same manner. And if you'll see that on the left, there's a verbal description of the finishing process. It's a little hard to follow, but it's there. Yeah.

Well, I think we get the idea. The posts that are there currently, are those the same posts that will remain?

Those will remain and that will be the primary vertical structure.

And the precast planters? they will remain?

Yes. At this point, if there's no damage to the finish, we'd like to leave it as is. We're certainly open to changing the color of it. And again, if it gets damaged or dinged or whatever, then we'll at the very least paint. But they're pre-finished in a manner right now that would be best to leave them as is unpainted to avoid spalling of the paint down the road. I would prefer to leave them in there. It's a baked enamel. It's a

You've mentioned the planting. I'm not really sure that artificial planting really enhances this design.

Well, again, the idea of having organic planting is very doable as well. If that's a preference or to not have it at all, I mean, again, that's certainly, it was just a way of softening up and having a manner of the organic with the inorganic and just to follow the flow of the lines. I felt that that was a cheaper, easier, better, more consistent way of handling it because sometimes with plantings and such that it, you know, depending on water conditions. We would provide irrigation for it. But at that point, I don't know with the way the concrete planters are that we would have enough depth to have proper soil and drains and all that. Then we'd have to abandon those planters altogether and start over. I didn't want to get into that situation. And if you recall, when we had the aqueduct version, I had details of that drawn up where we had the steel and then a perfect trench box set up for the planting, which then had the irrigation and the drainage and flashing and counter flashing and all that you would need to have a properly drainage planting area that you know, that works year round. I think that in this case, that even in the wintertime, there's a chance to put Christmas plant, you know, things and themed things throughout the year that can be rotated as again, and kept up maintained.

Well, I think having planting in there certainly softens it up. I would think organic planting would add to the quality of the entire aesthetics of the area.

The other thing I really toyed with, I got my way through college as a landscaper, so I know a little something about plants. And one of the things I was really looking at was the vinca vine and the creeping jenny. Now that stuff doesn't need much soil at all. And we could sit there, take out all that decorative rock, all that loose ballast that's out there. There's about two, three inches of that. And we can put down the liner, set up soil, and have beautiful flowing variegated white and green vinca vine and creeping jenny. That'll look good all year round. That retains its greenness. That could be a way to handle it.

Okay. Well, let's see what everyone else has to say. They may totally disagree with me. Okay. Ellen?

No, I agree with the planting. I go by Cafe Napoli at least twice a day, if not more, just out and about. And then within Clayton and looking at all of the planters that Clayton has and none of them are bare. They all have flowers. So I would definitely opt for what you're proposing. That was one of my questions. You know, can't you add plants?

And

I think when I'm out and about the majority of the time is during the day. And All of the lighting that you're proposing during the day is not going to do anything. Even if you have it on, it's lost. The planting will make it appealing during the day. So it gives it a 24-hour appeal. not quite 24, you'll shut off the lights, I'm sure. One or two in the morning, whatever. But I think the planting is really critical.

Easy enough. Fair

enough. And if you can get something that's low maintenance, I'm all for that. If you want to put in some artificial, that has come a long way since the ugly planting. So definitely planting. With that, I do have a few questions. A1 shows five rectangles about a foot by two and a half or two feet, three along Forsyth and then two along South Bemiston. What are they?

That was from the previous survey. Again, that survey was done prior to this project. Those objects are no longer there.

Okay. Now, I just wanted to establish the ones along Forsyth are not your planters.

They are

not. They exist. Okay.

Nothing is there right now.

Okay. You show up lights, about one per box. But then on sheet A3, there's three lines looking at the elevation, the drawn elevation. One is about four inches from the top. They're horizontal. They go from end to end. One is six inches below that, and then one is two foot ten up. Those dimensions are given on sheet A4. What are they for? Pardon? on a5 you show possibly three holes for led strips

yeah that's possible yes

okay are those lines that i just asked about are they the led strips where they exist on sheet A4 doesn't correspond with the detail on A5. So I'm not sure I'm

following you.

Okay, go back to A4. And if you look on the left-hand side with the dimensions, four inches down from the top of the post, is a dashed horizontal line. Then there's a straight horizontal six inches below that.

Yeah. Those are guidelines. They're not part of the structure. Those are guidelines determining the general height of the... Okay,

so they're guidelines. They're guidelines. Then on... A5, are those three circles? One of them is identified as verifying the hole size and location with LED lighting strips. Are you planning three LED strips?

It doesn't have to be.

Well, what is your plan? What are you

thinking? If we do the up lights, I probably wouldn't do the LED strips. If we don't do the up lights then the LED strips would be an alternate method of illuminating the thing. It depends on your preference. What would you like to see?

Okay, so it would be one or the other?

Sure, you tell me.

Okay. I think I would prefer the up lights.

Yeah, and again, this is a technique that we had used on the art installation over in Grand Center. And we end up using a silicone and we had to have a separate transformer for the generation of electricity for that. And we had a remote control and even an app that was able to control while you're sitting there at the place, you can even load up the app and change the colors yourself if you wish. But at this point, based on the discussions we had, I felt that just a simple uplight was more appropriate to what we've been discussing.

Okay, so you will be deleting the LED strips. Yes. It's

on A5. There's three circles down A5 and it says for LED strips.

Yeah, I think they're better deleted because they are at dining height and the temptation to play is

Oh, yeah, I agree.

Or curiosity could not work out well.

I

agree. Okay. Oh, you're hoping to put the existing planters together. So there's a paper joint, paper space.

Yes, that was the intent.

What is happening with that drainage pipe that comes out of them?

It will be cut and sealed. It's not necessary at this point. We can eliminate them as needed. They were provided as weeps. We'll still make sure that water drains out of them, but there's not a lot of water that's being collected in the first place.

Okay. So they have dealt with that.

And in order for us to put them close together as intended, we're going to need to remove those pieces that protrude on the end.

Yeah. Okay, now my last note was please do the plantings.

Absolutely. I think

it would add immensely daytime. Twilight, nighttime.

The correct answer may be a combination that we get some low level vines that drape over it and soften that edge. And then the plantings that can be switched seasonally, you know, this time of year, get the chrysanthemums and that type of thing, you know.

Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Jim? I don't want to try and double up too many comments, but I also had concerns about the artificial planting, especially if there was going to be artificial planting, knowing what it would be, the height, all that kind of stuff. Along with these, we typically, if there's planting, we get some sort of landscape plan as to what's in there, so it's a little concerning to be making a decision without that information. I also had a concern with the LED channel that was marked that wasn't shown at all, just... I think it adds some questions as far as what's actually going to be built versus what's there. I know I was curious of a few things. It shows, let's see, if we look at A1, it shows that three planters make up a nine-foot, nine-inch segment. And then there's the 16-foot section that shows four planters make up that 16-foot segment. Then if you go to A3, it shows two planters make up A nine foot nine inch segment.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. This is accurate as to how it is.

Okay. So you're saying A1 is incorrect with? Do

they match? They match for sure. The nine foot nine dimensions match.

They do not. It shows three planters in each nine foot nine section and then shows four planters in the 16 foot section. Then when you go to the next, it shows two planters as a nine foot nine section.

It's two planters per nine foot nine section as per. Okay, so

A1 is the one that's incorrect in that case.

The dimension is correct. The nine foot nine dimension is correct.

Okay, but the number of planters that are shown on A1 is incorrect, correct?

Yes.

Okay. We talked about the LED strip. There's also just a number of inconsistencies in the renderings. I don't know if it, You're shaking your head. No, I'm sorry. What are you? I'm

just listening.

There's a number of inconsistencies with the renderings in some cases where it shows multiple uplights per planter. Some show one uplight per planter. Or some show different plantings. Some show cross members going across that are in here. And I guess just as an overall statement, I'm not quite sure what to make of the renderings or if I should be disregarding them.

Well, again, I've been an illustrator for 35 years and also an architect as well. And in my career, the details are legally binding. An illustration is an artist's representation of what it would look like. Again, as I mentioned last time, I've been a pioneer in technology my entire life. If you look at the elevation page, You'll see there where I took the effort to go back to old school drafting techniques, Boolean operations, solid model objects rendered in the Lumion in order to get an exact representation of the exact curves that I plan to do. Now, to get AI to do that in rendering is almost impossible. I have reached the outer limits of AI. I'm smarter than it. This is how you go about it. Now, if I were to bend these pieces of metal in real world, this is how I'll do it. I will do an actual old school vector-based drawing where every curve is lined out based on its radius. And we will bend these pieces of medal specifically to the vector-based drawings that I produce, not to the renderings.

Was there ever a point that you considered maybe using a different rendering that could more accurately depict what's there, especially since we haven't been presented with? I don't think I have any further questions. Thank you.

Chris?

Yeah, I think first and foremost, thank you for your willingness to keep going through this. I mean, I commend you on bringing this to you, to us. Commend the Pietoso family for coming up with something that has been different iterations that are, I think, in my opinion, progressively better. I liked when the arches were brought up. I thought that was a cool idea and more befitting what is there now. I think this idea is pretty cool. And If it is executed the way that you're showing in this, I think it's going to be dynamite. It's appropriate. I think it addresses the site corner issues that we had concerns about not being able to see around the corner. I agree with Jim in the sense that the renderings don't do it justice, but you're right, that it's the details that are legally binding and the rendering is just the artist's representation.

Yes, that's

correct. I struggle with AI recreating things accurately as well. We're not there yet. So I had to look, you know, kind of take those with a grain of salt that conceptually this is what you're trying to do. And I think that if we come up with something that looks remotely like this, then it's definitely a win. When we're looking at the actual details, when I see something that's just one detail, artificial planter, just kind of one little cup, I'd say right in the section there. It causes me pause only because in the renderings, one thing that is effective is kind of this breadth of planting, whether it's artificial, whether it's real. I like the idea of it being spread out. I kind of cringe at the idea that it could be just one plant placed in there.

I've intended several sleeves throughout that. There was just a, again...

Okay. So again, I think that's something that we'd want to see necessarily representing in the kind of legally binding sort of the details of that, if that were the case. I don't know if that's something that you have to have for it to be legally binding, but in terms of the upletting as well, I think that would... be much preferable to any sort of LED strip. I'm not as crazy about the ivy that you mentioned, only because I see that as flowing over the side and then dogs seeing that as a great place to relieve themselves along the sidewalk and as a maintenance sort of issue. I don't have a problem with artificial planting. This is a prominent corner, and I love the idea that it really could be something very special. It is something very special, but the fact that it's architecturally significant with this, it's very cool. The sculptural aspect of it is neat. There's kind of, it's reminiscent of the arch a bit too. So you've got some St. Louis connections. I noticed that there was no mention of this like welcome to Clayton sign that was in the prior one there. So we pulled back from that. Is that

The way I had shown it was actually off of our property line. If you go back to the A1 or whatever that is, you'll see that that corner is primarily not on the property line. So then... I would, I would submit that it would be a great opportunity and a partnership with the city to do something there in the future. And I'd like to bookmark that for something to be revisited. And I, you know, again, if that's something that's done in, you know, by, by, you know, Napoli or in partnership with the city, I think would be a great idea to sit there and take that little triangular piece and dress that up and put some better plantings there. That's the cool thing to do. And, you know, Again, you know how NAP leads, pretty girls everywhere, all this sort of stuff. You get a great welcome to Clayton sign and everybody's doing their selfies in front of that. That's great promotion for the city. It's beautiful.

Yeah. And I'm glad that you removed it only because I think it would have been one thing just to, I love the idea too, but it would have been more stumbling block perhaps. So I think the concept again, it's great that you had brought that up, gives us time to think about that, but I'm glad that kind of withdrew it from this one.

In the future, there was been discussions about wanting to do that pergola properly. And I'd love to see that built sturdy wood, beautiful lit. you know, ventilated the whole thing.

Yeah.

So I'd love to come back and kind of revisit all that at some point too. You

know, from a sense of dialing it back to a point to where it's acceptable and meets the guidelines, I think the first step that actually moving those planter boxes back, removing the horizontal boards that were there, taking the pergola down, I think that's been a long process, but it's gone the right way at this point. So I don't have any concerns other than there perhaps not being enough specificity in the drawings that is legally binding then for what would actually be built

i would i would think that we would still need a process of going through the building permit is that correct i

would assume

yeah so i believe that that's the opportunity to provide those details remove the notes about the led lights get the planning species and genus down to you show the exact location and spacing all that i think would be part of the submittal to the building permit

that'd be great thank you later

hi there welcome back thank you um i second my colleagues opinions on all of those things i was also concerned about some of the details in the renderings um I am not necessarily opposed to artificial plantings. I would like to understand better what those are. I think in our climate, it's hard for somebody to put faux flowers out there and then leave them out there in the winter. That looks... That doesn't look good. So making sure that that's being maintained. I think that we're, this is, it's real. So yes, questions about that. And again, specifics on how many, I also want to see more than one as it's being shown and additional uplighting. I was not clear on A5 about the 12 gauge steel. I know Steve had mentioned it, The post, is that wrapping the

posts? They'll be sandwiched around. Yeah, they'll be wrapping the post and then finished. So

changing from what's there now.

Anchored to it. Yeah, what's there now is aluminum. We'll basically be sandwiching around it. Yeah.

That will match the finish?

Or is it going to be

black?

No, it'll be matched to finish the rest of the railing. That will go through the same process of priming and painting and all that so it doesn't look galvanized or nothing

like

that. No bare metal, nothing like that.

And just to confirm what Jim was saying earlier, so there are no horizontal rails or wires running from post

to post? No, on

A2, actually. All of those renders show horizontals. So just end on A3. So I just wanted to clarify, there are no... That's correct. Okay. Okay, I think everybody else addressed my specific concerns, so I don't need to repeat.

Jeff?

Yeah, thank you. Again, thanks for working with us and going through multiple iterations. I like this one tremendously better than the earlier versions. I do have some detailed questions, but in general, I think the idea of a more solid bottom and a very transparent top, I like the way in the renderings you can see through and see people behind the the metal work. So that leads me to something you said to start with, you said you were thinking of conduit, but you'd come back to a different material. Is it still a tube or is it? It's

a tube. And if you look on page A5, there's a description of the diameter of it and the, yeah. the bottom left corner but a little bit up there's a description of the metal but yeah it's a steel steel

it's still a pipe okay all right and and finish carefully with a reddish rust is part of a finish eventually yeah um and i'm gonna take a slightly different take maybe than some of my colleagues i mean i like what the renderings looked like i would like the final product to look like that, including that little bit of a highlight on the tubes. The fact that it kind of shows being evenly lit, which would be nice and maybe that goes back to the comment of maybe more than one up light per planter so that you get even lighting as opposed to just a streak of light up the middle. And the other thing on A2, Split back to that on the lower right rendering, well, both of the lower renderings during the daytime, as Helen brought up. Explain to me the finish on the outside of the precast boxes. What is that? Is it as consistent and will it be? Is it consistent and clean as it's shown there?

Yeah, and that's currently what it appears to be. Okay. You know, then we would make sure it's cleaned and all that. But if it gets scuffed or any of that type of thing damaged during reutilizing them, then we will have to...

And it's dark. Right.

Yeah, right. It's sort of a dark greenish black. It's not exactly black.

Okay, okay. Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at the finish out there. But, I mean, I like this almost... appears metal-like. I mean, it would be lovely if it was metal, but just something nice, smooth, simple, not a... I'd rather not see that it's a precast box. I'd rather see... What

about the idea of a screed and a plaster and a... Something. It's nice that it's in

sections, but I like its modernness, I guess. You know, kind of this nice modern box. That's good. My first blush was I'd love to have real plants there. I certainly understand how much more complicated it is to put real plants in if they were artificial plants I like the idea that you could change them per seasons and they'd have to be really good quality

artificial.

They'd have to get dusted.

Lobby stuff or whatnot. Right,

right. So something that, again, something that gives the looks like what the renderings are looking like in terms of a planted area down there. would be great. The rendering is kind of clean with all the posts are the same. Your drawings and reality show double posts. I don't think that matters too much in a couple of the areas. On A3, though, help me in that section. What are the dark... the really dark lines in between at the third point, sort of in this.

You're just seeing the planter against the planter.

Okay, so there's nothing, okay.

Probably more line weight and stuff like that.

Okay, great, great. I had the same question about the horizontal lines. You explained that well. Yeah, I think the, I guess the beauty of this, I think is going to come down to it's fabricators how good they are at it how on top of them you are of getting them to do it to look like this because it can it can come out looking beautiful or if somebody's not too skilled that's

probably what approach the fabricator or metalsmith that i've worked with before rather than just saying i'm gonna get a great after the deal is no okay i got a pro metal guy doing this

Okay, good. So if you can get it to come out looking like this. Anyway, I think it's a solution that does what I think we wanted it to do and hopefully what you want it to do also. Where do you, the things that you need to keep out there, the extra chairs, the extra storage, where is that stuff going to go?

Scott, would you mind to answer that? They've moved some of the storage pieces. Oh, they're nice.

Yes, sure, sure.

Hello again, everyone. I'm Scott Sontag, head of maintenance at Napoli. We have a storage unit that's underneath the building down in the back. We can put everything back there.

Okay. Okay. So nothing will be out in this zone at all then? Out of sight. Because there's stuff still sitting out there now, but I assume that stuff will get moved. Yeah. Okay. Okay, very good. All right. Thanks, Hank. That's all I've got. Thanks for your work. Thank you. Susan.

First, I think as we all know, it's been said, thanks for being part of our community. It's obviously a very valuable business and builder of what we have. And I think that's also why you've heard so much about concern with the screening. And looking at our comprehensive plan and everything else is a very important corner. These drawings... They've got character, you know, and they do open it up. They are taller than we're used to. And I share the concern with artificial plantings, especially because we don't know or have any control over what we might put, what might go in there. Native plantings or natural plantings give more breathability. They give a little more softness no matter how good our artificial plastics become. they still don't have the same feel as natural plantings and maybe more from the outside than when you're sitting in the patio there. So I think earlier you said you were open to some...

Yeah, I'll be glad to look at a variety of different plant species that would work well with that situation. I think I've got a couple of things in mind to suggest if that ends up being... Again, as we go through the permitting process, I think there's an opportunity to revisit that as needed.

And I don't know how that works. If we approve this today as is, should we have a percentage that would be? artificial and not artificial, or how would we not

have any control over that? Again, my concern about having real plantings there is, again, that just in the cases where there's seasonally and then with water and that there could be more opportunities for it to not look its best as where with some of the artificial plantings, again, as long as they're being paid attention to and rotated correctly, at least they always kind of look sharp. you know that's sort of i agree with you about plantings and i could natural did and in there i agree if we can

i don't know how we have um any city control over that again because we're looking from the outside in on the heights on the materials and things like that is there anything that we should be asking um in this particular you

can make conditions of approval if there's a specific direction you would like them to go um or you could even have them return with plantings and proceed with this design without the plantings. If you wanted to see them again, it's really up to you. That wouldn't hit up against

the need for approval tonight.

No, I think if you could at least clarify if the plantings should be as in the renderings where they're below the conduit element, that would be the only... If all of a sudden they planted a bunch of evergreens that went over the conduits, I don't think staff would provide that approval at the permit level because that would change the design pretty substantially. But other than that, if there's something specific that you would like staff to be reviewing under the building permit, then I would include that in a condition of approval.

Okay, so if we did something... like the height that we'd want them to be and the percentage that you said, you could put some natural plantings in with that and whatever percentage we might want that to be. I don't know what is reasonable if it's, you know, 60%.

Could it be based on just staff

discretion?

Yeah. Wondering.

Yeah. I'd be okay with that. Um, That'd be great. Again, I think that if you're screening with plants, you're again above the typical height and you've spaced, you said you're concerned, you've shared your concerns. And again, I think there's a lot of character in what you're proposing there, but it is important that we keep it having that feeling of community that we want on that corner. So with those conditions, that does address some of the concerns I have with the planting. Another concern, this goes against, I think some of the other comments said, the city has worked very hard to be night sky compliant, increasingly night sky compliant with what we're spending on our lights in our parks and neighborhoods and other areas that publications are putting out to neighborhoods. Uplighting tends to go against that. There are ways to shield it. There are five principles of night sky lighting it's the colors chosen that the lighting is targeted to the need and where you want it to hit its control to be the right level and I think the other one anyway they're very simple I think that you can meet them but I think it is important especially at a neighbor there and you are a model in our community people look what's happening with you all and we might as well it would be nice if you're in line with what the city is doing elsewhere and everything we're trying to do so I would ask that you have a commitment to meet the principles of the night sky.

Absolutely. I agree with that. It's a pet peeve of mine, too. Light pollution is not a great thing.

Right. Okay. So that would be my other request for a condition that night sky principles be respected.

I agree.

And I am not an architect or a builder or anything else like that. And when I hear things like galvanized steel, I picture something that probably is not at all what you're that you intend. i'm sorry that and i understand why you don't have materials to show us today because you haven't contracted to do it um but um and the same thing with the boxes they they look great in the renderings and i assume that staff can also control the quality of that when it's presented to staff is that right yeah okay um i'm also pleased to see that the public right away is going to be open and respected um And yeah, those are my concerns. I think this is this looks great. I think it meets your needs. I think it keeps the space feeling more open and flowing and part of the downtown area. So that's all I've got.

Thank you. Are there any comments from the audience? Or anyone online? No. Okay.

Steve, I had one other thing, just maybe for the record. I think I know the answer, but I want to make sure at no point there will not be any signage as part of this, nothing on the planters eventually. Okay, good. Just wanted to make sure of that. Thank you.

Well, seeing no other hands up, I have been going to Cafe Napoli since you were in the lower level of an office building that no longer exists. And we have seen it grow and become really an iconic location in our city of Clayton. And I think what we see coming up here will only enhance our the entire atmosphere and the enjoyability of it. And, of course, we have a few items that are not finished, but that can be done and reviewed through the staff review process. If it has to come back, we'll be here. But I think we've come to a point where I think we should go ahead with a motion.

I move to approve as submitted with 4 conditions, the led strips lighting strips to be removed. The planters will be butted together. There will be planting instead of loose rock and the planting will be submitted to the staff for approval and last applauding will comply with night sky guidelines.

Can I make a comment to that? And I don't know the correct verbiage, but I actually, I personally like the loose rock and I think that the rock should stay, but that we should be planting into that. So, you know, I think similar to how you are showing it, I do actually think that the rock is important to that top aesthetic. Some

plants like phlox that love that type of environment.

Oh, sure. I'm just saying that, you know, we should not have that loose rock statement.

And a mixture of organic and artificial subject to staff approval.

Okay. Kevin, can I modify item number three? Okay. There will be planting with the loose rock. And the planting will be a predominantly natural with artificial allowed to be mixed in all will be submitted to the staff for approval.

Wasn't that number 3.

That was number three. Number four was the lighting will comply with night sky guidelines.

Lighting will comply with dark sky principles. Yeah.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Derek. Appreciate you for working with us. We will now move on to new business and items one and two are both 17 Brentmoor Park. The applicant is here and we'll start with the staff report.

Starting with site plan review, the subject property is located in the Brentmore subdivision is zoned R1. The project scope includes the demolition of the existing house, retention of the existing detached garage and pool, and construction of a new single family house. The house would reach two and a half stories and meets the dimensional standards for the R1 district. It would use geothermal climate control systems. Trash storage would be located on the west side of the driveway. Green space would decrease by about 1% to 73.6%. Runoff would increase by 0.03 cubic feet per second would be directed to an MSD inlet in the rear yard. Drywall is proposed in the rear yard with the primary function of slowing water with a controlled release towards that inlet. Canopy coverage would exceed the required minimum by just over 50,000 square feet of canopy coverage. Staff recommend approval of cycling review with one condition that the applicant record a deed restriction with St louis county recorder of deeds meeting location maintenance requirements of the drywall and so shall submit proof of filing prior to issuance of a building permit.

All. Good evening, thank you very much. I just wanted to give you a little background on why we're here. So I've known this client for, gosh, a long time, about 20, 25 years, and I've worked on the house for a long time. There have always been ongoing problems. issues with water infiltration, ongoing health issues with the family and the kids. My client moved out about a year and a half ago now, and they did a very extensive environmental study. And the study came back and they found excessive amounts of mold There were a number of older additions and renovations that were done that used spray foam insulation, and the spray foam insulation has been degrading and letting off the gas. A lot of the issues have to do with the materials of the house and some of the design of the house was detailed. The stone on the house is a very porous stone. There's no overhang. It's a very steep roof. A lot of the flashing details were not done well. It had old steel windows and the flashing details over the windows and everything was just not done correctly. We did get a number of bids for the remediation work, and the remediation work alone came back in the multiple millions of dollars. It was very, very extensive. They were gonna completely gut the entire house. We needed to completely dig up around the entire perimeter and waterproof the foundation. I mean, it was very extensive. And the issue came back is that there was no 100% guarantee that they could resolve the issue. And so at the end of the day, this was not a decision that came lightly to the owner, owners. The husband, this was a family home. His father and uncles lived in this house. So it was a very difficult decision for him, but one that at the end of day made the most sense was to tear the house down and to obviously build a new house is what we're, that's why we're here today. I will say in terms of landscaping, we have no artificial plants. You'll be happy to know that. Plus the footprint of the new house is very similar to the footprint that's there now. The location of the house is very similar. The increase in impervious coverage is really quite minor. and very little grading changes. We did get a variance last month for the front yard setback because the house that's there is built on the plat at front yard setback, as opposed to the zoning ordinance front yard setback. And the house is pretty much going back in the same location. So we did get approval for that variance. So I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, well, thank you for that introduction. I think that helps in what we understand. I was going to bring up the front yard setback, but it's already gone through and it's been approved, so that's really okay. Also, having the new house essentially where the old house was, I think is where it belongs in that neighborhood.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, the neighborhood, you know, this is a very unique neighborhood, as you're all well aware. I mean, beautiful homes. I mean, there's a historic fabric to the neighborhood and I think it was important to my client for sure and to myself and the trustees as well that we went back and kind of honored the house that was there. I think this house will be more beautiful than what was there and it's a spectacular house now so um and again in terms of the massing the height the roof pitch everything like that it's very similar to what is there

well right now we're looking at the site plane yes

yes i understand

and uh i think the um really the only other thing was i looked at all the impervious coverage we certainly are not getting anywhere near the maximum. But I really, because either I can't see the tiny print or what, but could you explain the water runoff, where it'll go, how it's contained on the site so that it does not intrude upon any neighbor?

Yeah, so Vols Engineering is the civil engineer and they're probably one of the best in terms of these residential projects. And so they have completed it isn't it's in for MSD approval right now. There are some flow wells that are behind the house and there's some pop up drains kind of at the bottom of that hill. uh i also did get just so you know this was from eric viedmeyer um he said furthermore it would come up and no increase in runoff would be to adjoining properties as there is an area inlet in the rear yard which most of the site is tributary so um everything is will be retained on site and there is a it's sort of towards the back of the property there's an inlet Um, so, uh, and again, the fact that the impervious new impervious coverage is, it is just a very minor increase. I should go back and just state, I didn't say before we are keeping the existing garage and carriage house. There's a pool house that was done, uh, about 10 years ago behind that. And we're keeping the pool as well. Um, so we're really minimizing the change in grading. The new grading plan is, is there's minor changes to the grading plan.

As far as the landscape plan, you realize we all have to have a signed and sealed

landscape. Yes, we do have that now. I'm sorry that wasn't submitted, but I do have the signed, the stamped plan. Yes. The landscape architect I've worked with on a number of very large homes. She's really outstanding. We're keeping most of the vegetation back, most of the trees on the perimeter. There are a couple that are just in bad shape that are coming out. There are a So as we shifted to the east, she wants to kind of focus the front of the house and that front door. And so a couple of those trees are being removed. One of them's not in great shape. And then she is, you can see there's kind of a clump of new landscaping and trees on the kind of the west side of the front yard. We're keeping the same driveway, sort of same configuration, but we are doing a parking courtyard in front that sort of centers on the front door.

on the site line review that was all i had ellen

no questions

i don't have any problems with the sighting of the house and i think largely i think the situation just overall is unfortunate and i you know i do want to speak to that a little bit because one of one of The items that were called to is the preservation of buildings that are architecturally or historically significant and contribute to the character of the city. And this being a very prominent Merrittson Young home, and here we're sitting roughly half a mile from the Merrittson Young archive that I've gone and studied in and held the plan, the hand-drawn plans in my hand. And as someone who grew up with very basic like sixties and seventies track homes. When I came out here to Clayton in the St. Louis area, uh, I was inspired by all this design and architecture and it's what inspired me to eventually go get an interior design degree. And it's what inspired to be here. So I do just lament the loss of that house. And there's only so many merits and young houses out there. And you know, once they're torn down, there's no going back in the other direction. Um, So I don't know if there's anything or they're probably pretty clear. There's nothing that can be done to save this house, but

You know, look at this is not a situation that the client certainly wanted to be in. I mean, this was never anything that they dreamt would happen. But again, I will say the remediation work alone was just insanely extensive. And at the end of the day, no one could guarantee that this would resolve all the problems. And so at some point, it seems, you know, it's I'm going to say silly, but it's a little bit crazy to spend that kind of money and not have a guarantee it's going to work. And I understand. Look at my company. We did historic preservation work for a long time. We did a lot of historic tax credits for years. I had two people just doing historic tax credit work. So I'm certainly aware of that. Yeah, this is not an easy solution. All I can say, I think the nice thing about it is that we are replacing it with a house that will be quite spectacular. I mean, the detailing in this house and I, you know, look at, I'm very fortunate to be, I've been around a long time and we've done some really nice homes and the detailing on this house is as nice as anything that we've done. So I think it's, it will be a beautiful addition to Brentmore. Yeah. So, but I listen, I agree with what you said.

And I don't disagree with a single one of those statements. And I think this is kind of a unique situation. Uh, I more just, I think want to speak overall that, you know, with I think roughly 75% of the wide end corridor here's on the national register. Uh, there's a lot of very prominent architecture and that's something that at least I know I personally don't take lightly. And, uh, hope that others don't take lightly as well. Yep,

I agree. I agree.

That's all I have.

Chris?

I will speak to that just briefly since we're just doing site plan now. But first, I think this is Pendleton. This one was not a Meritzen-Young. I think there's like 14 Meritzen- in that hole in Brentwood Park, but I believe this was a Pendleton design one here, but is nearly a century old. I had the same sort of considerations with this. I hate seeing an older building being taken down. I think the fact though that the family, that this was originally built for a Danforth and that this is a Danforth that is living in there too, expresses this sense of stewardship over a generation that you don't necessarily see And I can't imagine that this was easy for the current family to make this decision. So I take that into consideration. I think, okay, if there's anyone that has to make that decision, it probably is best that it is the grandson or great-grandson of the original father. owners of the house. Um, I love the idea of the geothermal that's going in here too. Um, and if there's anyone that's going to tackle a project like this and do it right, I think that, that Paul Fendler is going to do it. So, um, just as we're saying that it's a shame that merits and young that we're might lose one under that design or a Pendleton. I would hope 100 years from now people would have the same argument and say we're losing a Paul Fendler sort of design.

I appreciate

that.

I won't be here to hear it. You

know, a lot of good things going on with health these days, you know. I have no concerns with the site planning of this one and commend you on a job well done with this.

Later.

Nothing further from me. Thank you.

Jeff? I almost wasn't ready. Thanks. Thanks for the explanation. That was obviously going to be my first question. What's wrong with the old house? So you're, you're explaining it. Yeah. You've explained it pretty well. I do agree with Jim. I hate to see beautiful old structures taken down, but I, I understand the conditions you're dealing with. I guess, well, this will be an architecture comment, so I'll wait about that one. It was about materials of the new building compared to the existing buildings that are being kept. We'll talk about that later. In terms of the positioning of it, you don't seem to have a drawing that shows its relationship to its neighbors. I assume, and just from being out there on the street, all the front facades of the neighboring houses align pretty much? Well, I mean, just to the east and the west.

No, they don't. Brentmore is unique in that a number of the homes are sitting on the plat at front yard setback, but a number aren't. I mean, some are closer to the street, but no, there's really no consistency across all the homes. Again, I will go back. This house is sited basically where the new house is sited, basically where the existing house is.

So the house to the west has a deeper setback than this one?

I think it's a little bit of a deeper setback. They're on the curve on the corner, and so it's fairly close to the west side of the street, but it does sit back. I think it sits back a little bit further on the north side.

Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. And the other, I think this is a site plan issue. I see an asphalt drive shown, I guess a cobble-lined asphalt drive. And Going out there, I do see a variety of asphalt drives in the neighborhood. Although to be honest, many of them are not in great shape. And that's sort of what worries me about asphalt drives in general. You do have a neighbor to the east with a concrete drive. You have the next one over around the corner with a beautiful paved drive. And I just wonder with a house of of this quality, was there any consideration to making the driveway material better than what you proposed?

So we are doing it. We'll have a cobblestone border all the way around. Then we are looking at a paver at the courtyard. But no, I think we'd like to do concrete doesn't look good. That's my opinion. It's too, you know, it's just the column doesn't work. So I think that's our direction at this point is to do the asphalt with the cobblestone border and the cobblestone boarder looks great and we will probably end up honestly doing a cobblestone apron. A lot of times he'll come off the street, you know, we'll do 10 feet. Yeah, that was my,

I noticed on the architectural drawings, you talk about a, I think a 10 foot cobblestone apron of some, some sort of an apron, but I don't see that on the site plan. Honestly,

we almost always do it. So I'm

okay. Okay.

It's a nice look to come off the street.

Okay. So I understand concrete. You, did you consider papers at all or no?

No, we did not.

Okay. All right. I think from the site plan standpoint, that's all up yet. Thank you. Susan?

I don't really have anything. Thank you for sharing what's a very difficult story. And it looks like it's being handled quite responsibly.

Thank

you

very much. I appreciate

it. Are there any comments from the audience? Hands up. Okay. Well, on the site plan review, Paul, you've seen the staff recommendation, which is pretty standard about the recording of the deed restriction? Yes. Yeah, okay. Yes, I'm sorry. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve as submitted with the staff recommendation.

second all in favor aye okay let's move on to the architectural review ryan

all right So on the architecture for you. So the house would reach two and a half stories and would incorporate a range of gabled roof peaks and gutter lines. The style and materials echo the existing house with a Tudor influence, primary use of stone and secondary use of plaster and timbering. Two stone walls would be constructed adjacent to the driveway. One would be in the form of a decorative screening wall in front of the home reaching three feet eight inches. And the other would be a retaining wall on the south side of the driveway which would not exceed 18 inches. A semicircular asphalt driveway with two entrances and an auto court is proposed in the front yard. The ARB guidelines for new driveways prohibit the use of asphalt. Given that asphalt is present on the existing property and has come nearby, staff are of the opinion that the proposed driveway would have a minimal visual impact. The design incorporates materials and characteristics found on the subject property and in the Brentmore neighborhood. Staff are of the opinion the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding area and architecture review guidelines for new homes. Staff recommend approval is submitted.

Okay. Well, I do have a couple of physical samples, but I do have some photos of because we've done a mock up on. A little too big to bring in. So

we do

all the timber will be it will be real timber it's not going to be one by material, so it will be. So you're aware of that the plaster. It will be a plaster finish. And we're doing what's called a Santa Barbara finish, so it has a slight texture to it. And that's approximately what the color will be. Again, we'll... contractor always does a mock-up on site and it'll be the stone the stucco we actually put a window in there and everything so we can kind of adjust some of these colors but that's primarily what what it will be the stone you can see the stone mock-up it's comprised of about four different stones and then the the roof uh you can see the roof mock-up that we're proposing uh the copper the gutters will all be copper their leader heads will be copper and the downspouts um Windows will all be wood metal clad window, black. So answer any questions?

Well, the quality of the materials is

high. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah. No, absolutely. And if you see the elevations, it's all the way around. I mean, it's on every elevation. There's a lot of detail on the timber that if you really look closely at some of the elevations, there's a lot of details in the corner of the timber where they're kind of chamfered and there's some decorative elements in the timber. and there's a lot of detail on some of the window surrounds i mean it's it's extensively detailed i will tell you that in all sides of the house

when you talk about the timber do we have the craftsman to do that with

yeah yeah so i mean the the contractor um I've worked with them on half a dozen homes, custom homes and some very large homes that they're outstanding. They also do all the best pros in the country and all the Cabela's. And so they have their own woodworking shop and they do have the capability of doing all of this detail. Yes, absolutely.

Because when you showed us a sample of it, I was surprised to see that it is that massive.

It will be a real timber that this is not sort of a one-by material. So yes, and they do have the capability to do all the detailing that we need.

So really what you're designing, replacing an old house with all the high-quality materials, but with better potential long-term maintenance?

Well, of course. I mean, it's going to be a poured-in-place concrete foundation that's going to be correctly waterproof. All the flashing details will be done correctly. There's more of an overhang on here now, so... This stone is a great stone. It's not a porous stone. So yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think we're trying to maintain the same craftsmanship, the same level of detailing. It has more detailing than what's on the current house. But it's also, it's a modern house. I mean, it'll be here for a long time, right? And yeah, so I concur with what you're saying.

Well, I find the house beautiful. Thank you. I think it will fit into the neighborhood very well. I think it may set a level for other old homes to be maintained properly. Keep up the quality of the neighborhood. I really have no questions. I like the materials and all the details in it. Thank you very much. Ellen?

Ditto those remarks. It is beautiful, and I'm jealous that you can find the craftsman to do it. That's usually... what tempers a lot of design. So I think it looks great, and I wouldn't be surprised if some, not immediate neighbors, but others in Clayton that go by think it's the original house.

Yeah, I mean, I hope so. I mean, that's the goal is it doesn't look like a new house, right? And, you know, all of this starts with a client who is... you know, willing to spend the money to put up a house that is worthy of this neighborhood. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. And from day one, when they decided they needed to, you know, it made sense to tear the house down, their goal was to put back a house that was better than what they're taking down. And that's very, very important to them.

It looks great.

Thank you.

I think the house looks wonderful. And I also want to commend you on your renderings. And not just in comparison, maybe to today or any other specific meeting. But I can't tell you the number of times where it's like, well, you know, this is actually going to really look like this or this over to this all the way to the point. I mean, even the chamfer that you're describing all the way on the east corner on the second floor. If you look in, I mean, these are painstaking details. And. But it's important to have accuracy and it's important to be able to show, you know, even if this isn't necessarily hyper-realistic and we can't see each blade of grass, we know what this house is going to look like and we don't have to use our imagination. And that's not something that's always extended to this board. So I really appreciate that. Very much. I appreciate it.

Chris?

I think the existing house is beautiful. This house is gorgeous. I think you've done a great job with it. I'm curious to know your rationale other than price for using a synthetic slate as opposed to a natural.

Yeah, you know, we've done... That's a good question. So I would say the last five or six years, we really don't use real slate anymore. I've had a couple of... homes with additions where we use, on new homes, we just don't anymore. I mean, it's for a number of reasons. One, the cost is ridiculous. I mean, the savings on, look at, it looks great. It looks like real slate. The savings and costs is a staggering amount of money. It's hard to find the slate right now that there's so many delays in getting slate. There are only a few people that install it anymore. I mean, it's just we see it more and more. And like I said, in the last five or six years, this is really all we've used. It's a great product. The life expectancy is good. The other thing that we're running into a lot that you're probably well aware of is insurance costs are becoming a big issue. St. Louis is a big problem with insurance because of our storms. Hail damage on slate is significant. So, you know, there are a number of reasons why we've chosen this product. The coloring on this is outstanding. We compared it to what was there, which they like sort of the colors there. It's almost spot on. I mean, it really is good. And So, yeah, and I know I believe there's quite a bit of it that you guys have probably seen and approved in the past so it's, it's, I think it's probably that everything is going that direction.

I mean, in my estimation, this is very, very nice. This is the nicest looking slate, synthetic slate that I've seen in a long time. I remember a quarter century ago, synthetic slate did not look anything like this. And in your experience, this has a life expectancy of 50 years, 100 years? Yes. Okay. So it's comparable to a natural slate.

50 years. Yeah. I think the warranty on these is 50 years.

That's all I have. Thank

you. We've done, I think we used it the first time. It's been quite some time and, you know, it still looks great today. It's not, it hasn't, it's aged very well. So yeah, I have no qualms in using it. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Later.

hi um I think it looks great, I was pleased by the elevations pleased by the details and yeah I was I really, really like it, I think that the materials that you're showing here are really great. Interesting on the slate I think that's great I mean curiously I was surprised there was no elevator.

They didn't want one. I know, I know, I

mean,

we do have a location and we're framing it for a future elevator, but they're quite young. So it's not a concern to them.

Yeah.

Yeah. But anyway. Yep.

Anyways, that's all for me. I liked it.

Jeff. Yeah, thanks. I was going to go to material questions also. So have you, the new stone next to the existing stone on the garage and pool house that'll stay?

Yeah, it's very compatible with the garage. And the garage and poolhouse, does that match the house? So this stone actually matches the garage and pool House better. The stone that's on the house is quite yellow. So this is actually a little grayer buff, more buff color. And it actually matches a little better.

Okay. Cause I was looking at, I was trying to look at sight lines from the street and whether you'd still see it or not. But even if you don't, as they see it from the backyard, will they, I'm hoping you can build that mock up near the existing buildings so that we kind of see what you're going to get. Now that being said, you may think I'm nuts. Um, The existing slate on the house and on the pool house that I assume is staying has a tremendous amount of character to it in terms of shape, And and coloration. Was there any consideration if you really want to go with not natural slate? And I understand we

looked at we looked at making the wait, I was gonna I'm so sorry. Is

there is there any possibility of a re slating the pool house and garage to match the existing to match the new slate you're going to put on the house?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, speaking ahead of... Yeah, I think that is the intent. I'm not going to commit to that today, but that is, I believe, the intent that they are...

Okay, because I think... The

direction they are going.

Yeah, because I think they're going to look... pretty different at the end of the day. So I think that would be a recommendation. I can't tell you what to do necessarily.

Yeah. And again, like I said, I don't necessarily want to commit that to the owners tonight, but I will say that has come up in conversations and I would be, I would pretty much say at the end of

I think architecturally I'm not, it's a, it's a detailed house. There's no doubt. Um, uh, In my own head, I wondered if it's too detailed. Because there's literally a lot of things going on there. Is there a sample or will you be showing us a sample eventually of the brick that's being used? There's some brick on the upper portions of the...

The chimneys. Yeah, I guess we can. Is

that a... Will that be

matching the stone? It'll be, no, I believe on the, gosh, I don't have photos. I believe on the house it kind of matches the chimneys that are there. So it's a redstone, but we'll, yes, we will provide that. I'm sorry.

Okay. I didn't know if you were, if it was, you know, a different color, same color, something. Yep. We will show that to you. Okay. Cause I think it'd be, it'd be good to know that. What do you think it should colorationalize? What should it be?

It is typical on these where you'd see kind of a red stone. I mean, excuse me, a red brick up there. Okay. Yes, that was common.

And does that only show up on rear elevations, I think? I think it's on the chimneys. Yeah, but on the chimneys on the rear.

There's one that front. You can see there's one chimney on the front elevation that shows it on the rear by the left side.

Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think that could be an interesting detail. I just didn't see it on your photo of the materials. So, okay. Great. Thank you. Susan?

It's really impressive work. And that's my only comment. Thanks.

Thank you very much. I appreciate

it. Any comments from the audience? Oh, that means it is impressive. It's good to see you come back with your work. Thank you. We do have just a recommendation to approve as submitted. Helen?

I move to approve as submitted

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Thank you very, very much. When will they start? You know what? We are applying for a permit tomorrow. Oh, great. So when we started this, they said they wanted to start construction October. So that was, we are applying for a demolition permit, the building permit tomorrow. So we are ready to go. And what is the duration? Realistically, it's 16 months, 15 to 18 months by the time it's done.

Good

luck. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you all.

Be interested in seeing the final product.

Thank

you. We do have a public hearing coming up and we will open that hearing and start with the Staff report.

Right.

Second, guys just grabbing some notes real quick. All right. So with this, I'm basically just going to kind of walk you through how we got here and walk you through the different sections of this. So what we're taking a look at tonight is the first draft that you're looking at of the Residential Unified Development Code. That is the evolution, the next evolution of what residential zoning would look like. We got here through the process of the comprehensive plan. One of the outcomes of the comprehensive plan was that Residents gave a lot of feedback about their neighborhoods. They love the character of their neighborhoods. They like seeing structures maintained, preserved. They want to make sure that the zoning code matches what their neighborhoods actually look like. And they want to make sure whenever new construction comes along that it is context sensitive to the neighborhood. And so that gave us two key results out of the housing and neighborhood section of the comprehensive plan. Key result 2.2, that we're establishing appropriate infill development standards for building forms of materials and 2.5, modifying lot size and setback regulations to better align with the historic neighborhood patterns where applicable. So whenever we were gonna take on this task, staff began by analyzing a variety of elements of those zoning districts lot characteristics, development patterns, what resident feedback was like. Following analysis, staff identified what the existing regulations were, whether those were successful, elements that were not successful or having no impact, and what are some improvements that could be made as we go forward. And so through this process, staff made a variety of presentations to the City Council and the Planning Commission as some different options for elements that like different solutions that we could look at things that maybe are working or not working sort of refined those solutions as we went along. And that's how we got to this point. So this is sort of the culmination of all of that research and conversation that has gone back and forth. The change in format is going to go from sort of what I'm describing as paragraph form to a unified development code. In paragraph form, we're literally reading verbatim the maximum height of a building in this district is x, whereas in a unified development code, it is going to be a lot more concise. We're using a lot of charts, tables, and things to consolidate information that would sort of regularly be repeated throughout the code. I'm trying to remember, I did a calculation before based on the character count and it was like the original code of all of our zoning districts would take something like six hours to read through this. I think based on that same sort of reading speed is like 20 to 30 minutes to process the same or more amount of information. So hopefully it's a lot easier for folks to digest both on the staff end with the plan commission and for folks building in Clayton in the future. But let's take a walk through the different sections of this code and what it would look like. So the first thing that you're gonna see here are elements of the definition section that are being added, modified, maintained. There's a few definitions that we're adding here that we did not have before such as bay windows, finished first floor, finished first floor height, half stories. These are elements that are gonna come in later as we talk about our dimensional standards, our infill elements such as that. largely clarifications on elements that were maybe a little bit ambiguous before. Jumping down to the first section in this Unified Development Code is our purpose statements. I incorrectly noted in the staff report that there were going to be no changes to the names of those zoning districts. We kind of have a pending possible change. That's because of whether or not the R7 district stays. We'll get back to that, but it's as simple as... Right now for our districts of R4, 5, and 6, right now it's like the low-medium density, the medium-high density. Whereas if R7 doesn't stay, then it would just be low, medium, and high density. But we'll come back and we'll talk about R7 later. The only changes to – sorry, you had a question?

In the R6 under paragraph F, what is the difference between mid-level and medium density?

That's probably a carryover from that name change point that I was just talking about there. We can take a look at that and see if that's some appropriate language that should or should not stay. A similar sort of element, the only one proposed to change right now is the description for the R1 district. It had some of that language in there before that was... maybe a little bit flowery or colorful that wasn't concise in explaining what the district was for. So we're just proposing to clarify that the R1 district is intended to allow the low density single family residential use like we just saw in the previous element in Brentmore, that's an R1 district use. Moving down to applicability, that's just establishing that the following sections that we discuss are applicable to the residential districts that we're taking a look at here. Getting into the dimensional regulations, this is where we really see the form factors start to change. We've got our table set up here, we've got our dimensions, setback standards, height. We'll go down and take a look at that. There's not a ton of change here. Whenever we did our analysis of the zoning districts, we didn't want to go in a direction that was going to make too much of a change because residents said, hey, we want to focus on things that maintain the way our districts look right now. So a couple of those elements to sort of better align the zoning with what those zoning districts look like. In the R5 district, we're proposing revision of the lot width from 50 feet to 40 feet. Most of those lots are 40 feet wide and changing that from 50 feet to forty feet is not going to impact whether or not those lots can be subdivided. So we saw that as kind of a low impact element there. In the R3 district, there's presently a dwelling unit ratio. It is equivalent to the minimum lot area. So we found that to be redundant. You know, it doesn't really serve a purpose. It's just extra language in there for, you know, not really add much. So we'll just go ahead and pull that out of there. We're also clarifying some language around fencing and front yard setbacks. Oh, if I can go down and I can find where that is, unless I pass it up already. Oh, it's under height. Thank you. So right now our language around front yard fencing is not the clearest. If say somebody has a secondary front yard, they're on a corner, the zoning code is unclear as to what their process would be. And so we're just proposing modifying the zoning code to better align with the process that we're already using. The proposal that we're thinking about adding here is adding a little bit more of an administrative process so we've listed several streets here and that you know if you have a secondary front yard on one of these streets here you can go through an administrative process to get a taller fence approved something up to six feet if somebody wants to propose a fence that is not on one of these street spots a secondary front yard they can then come back before the architecture review board to get approved for that

i'm sorry ryan maybe help me i might have missed something primary front yard compared to a secondary front yard? What's the two definitions of that?

So that's actually one of the definitions that we are proposing to clarify. So Right now, there's two kind of definitions that hang out out there. There's yard definitions and there's setback definitions. If you spend some time with them, they're a little bit easier to understand. However, they are not the clearest. So we want to make sure that we are defining our yards in congruence with those setback definitions. Your primary front yard, that's the direction that your front door faces. On most lots, you only have one front yard. That's your primary front yard. If you're on a corner lot where you have two street frontages, you have a front yard setback that is observed there. Right now in the zoning code, it doesn't clearly define that as a front yard, but it has a front yard set back. So we're clarifying that that is a secondary front yard just to clean up that language a little bit. And

it's only

on corner lots and... Well, I mean, there's a few examples of lots out there that are like they're through lots. Like there's some examples in Polo where they're not on the corner, but both the front and back property line are up against the street. And so that's another example of a secondary front yard. All right. Thanks.

All right.

Let's jump down to, that was all of the elements of the dimensional standards that I wanted to call your attention to. Let's jump down our use regulations. So previously, or I should say in the current code, every single zoning district has its own table. We're just consolidating that right here. Some elements to pay attention to. So right now, architectural elements like spires, belfries, monuments, things that you'll probably see more on like institutional uses or churches in residential districts, those are presently regulated in the use table. We've taken them out of the use table and moved them into the height section. Presently in the R4 district, offices are permitted. There are presently no offices in the R4 District. They're all residential uses, so we're pulling that out of there. There is presently permission for restaurants in the R6 district. That's all the Morelands area. However, there are no restaurants on any properties zoned R6. So we're proposing to remove that other as well. We've also reorganized where institutional uses are called out. That's your education uses, your places of religious worship. And since those have a lot of similar regulation, we've just kind of reorganized how those are called out in the use table. So we have this section that you can see here where we call our institutional uses. And then we have consolidated under our use specific standards. special call out for those institutional uses so you can easily just kind of plot down and understand what regulations might be applying to those properties

and if there's not an R or I mean a P or a C in that table what does that signify

if it doesn't call out it doesn't call the use is either permitted or conditional then it is not permitted in that zoning just

not permitted in that one okay

So anything you've taken out, like I think you said restaurants in R6. What if there's an opportunity to have a restaurant in R6?

So R6, that district is limited to the Morelands area. If you think about that corner of Wydown and Hanley, all of those restaurants or other uses over there are zoned for neighborhood mixed use. If somebody was proposing a restaurant in an R6 property, If it wasn't a property that was immediately adjacent to those commercial uses, that would probably run into a lot of friction with the neighborhood because then you'd be looking at something that's in the Moorlands or further down, way down. All of those properties are currently developed for residential uses. So if somebody was looking at a restaurant in those properties, you're probably looking at significant renovation. I don't really foresee a circumstance where somebody would be proposing a restaurant use in a property that is currently zoned and developed for our six residential uses.

So then where there is a current restaurant on Y down and Westwood, it was previously a gas station. That similar to what we're talking about or not.

Any property right now that has a non-residential use in that area does not have a residential zoning associated with it.

Yeah, the short answer is there aren't any, and then we don't feel it's an appropriate use to put in a residential district, so it's not allowed. Yeah.

Would it be a benefit in the table to have something that indicates that it's not allowed? No. I mean, just for the public in the sense that if we're looking at this and saying, you know, I live in an R1 district and I want to do a accessory unit or something that's not allowed there that I see that it's not permitted. It's not conditional use permit. That would clearly state or am I dismissing that?

So the format of our use tables is that they are prescriptive. If it's not mentioned, it's not allowed. While you could, there are some formats where folks do call out something as not permitted. I would say that is the minority format in the broader world of planning and zoning.

Yeah, I would say it's not the best format. Prescriptive is really nice because we've identified what we do believe to be compatible and appropriate for the different zoning districts, and we're starting from there. If you deviate from that format, then you accidentally create loopholes because you might not have listed something that you never intended to be in that district, but because you listed a bunch of other things and specifically said they're not allowed. then somebody could make an argument that there's a gray area there for the things that are not listed. So the prescriptive zoning style of the use tables is the best way to protect yourself.

Yeah, and I think at the end of the day too, like you all live this on a day-by-day basis. So I think that anything that you're giving in terms of recommendations, when I'm asking, it's more just of a clarification for that. So thank you for explaining that.

All right. So the use table is sort of the last section in what I'll call like our our standard zoning districts, let's jump down to residential infill guidelines. So this is where we're going to see a lot of newer elements introduced across our residential districts. Now, not all these elements are completely new to Clayton. Many of them are inspired by successful elements of our urban design districts, but have been maybe tailored more appropriately to the variety of housing typologies and styles that we'll see across Clayton. So the first section, purpose statement, that's just saying that we want quality infill design across our residential districts. Applicability, applying these to the R1, R2, R3, and R5 districts. Those are called out specifically because those are the districts that do not have their buildable area maximized. If we look at our R4 or R6 districts, they're pretty much maxed out. Infill in those areas is a very different kind of you know, review process than it would be for a district that is not already maximized. We have also added the alternative compliance section. That's something you guys would be familiar with from the urban design districts. If somebody wants to propose something that's more creative or doesn't fit in sort of a more nuanced way to these regulations, then that provides them a pathway to come make their case before you guys. So building height scale and massing this section is directly inspired by the urban design districts, but I would say it has been. refined to remove elements that we found were unsuccessful in the urban design districts and has been clarified and consolidated so whenever somebody is proposing infill development in the residential districts they're going to have to choose from one of these three items. They're either stepping down, utilizing partial stories on the upper levels. And then number three here, increasing the side setback one foot for every additional one foot of height. That is a modified version of something in the urban design districts right now. The ratio is like one to five feet, which is pretty generous. That one to one foot is going to make it a much more direct translation for infill. finished floor height, that is a new element that we've brought in. One of the challenges that we've observed as homes have come before this board is that you might have neighboring houses where the front door is a foot off grade but on the new house it could be five feet off grade and those proposals are having trouble fitting into the context of their surroundings. And so what this is proposing is that infill design sort of the finished floor height fit into the average by one foot of those adjacent properties.

And how does that deal with sloping streets? It's measured to grade, so where is grade indicated at? Is it a medium point around the house? Is it a front grade? What's...

Yeah, so that is one of the, if I recall, it is one of the definitions that might be in here somewhere. I

mean, because I agree with the concept of keeping first floors similar height, but when you're working with the sloping street, how is that

defined? So the vertical distance between the finished grade and the finished floor measured at the horizontal center of the front foundation wall.

may want to see what somebody did draw me with the horizontal center of the front foundation wall is

not sure i get that basement exposure limits that's another new one that we're introducing here uh every neighborhood looks different and so this is sort of gonna uh it's gonna be interesting to see how this one's navigated across different neighborhoods whether elements fit in an appropriate line but generally uh Basements and particularly basement garages are not a significant feature in a lot of neighborhoods. However, where you have larger exposed basements largely due to garages going in on that lower level, that can change the perceived height of a structure. Somebody might propose a house that is right now under the current code technically two stories, but if you have 70% of that basement level shown because they're maybe putting in a garage there, It presents itself more as three stories, so a common tool used in other communities is a basement exposure limit is pretty straightforward if more than half of that facade is shown facing the street, then that counts as a story in terms of your overall height.

house that we reviewed in I think it's why down forest several meetings ago would it comply with what's laid out here.

No, if I recall, more than half of the basement facade, the street-facing basement facade on that property was exposed. And so that would technically be counted as a story in terms of their total height. So it wouldn't comply with what we've got, or would it? I'm sorry. It would not comply with this budget. It would be counted as a history under the proposed requirement. I wish we would have had this in place then. Sorry, that's an editorial comment. Dormers, another new element that we're proposing to add. So right now, we don't have any sort of clear guidelines or regulations around what constitutes a dormer. So basically, we're just saying the dormers here cannot exceed 50% of the width of the facade on which they reside. To prevent some examples of, say, putting a dormer on a half story that is equivalent to the length of the facade that's below it. So projections, this consolidates elements like your bay windows, your cantilevered rooms or similar projections which often become a topic of discussion on some of these newer homes. Projections are really common on both older and newer structures but they kind of take a different format between the older and newer structures so these are intended to sort of bring back those characteristics of projections on older homes. So projections, as described in the section can't exceed the combined total length of a facade more than 30%. They have to be spaced out a minimum of five feet. They should incorporate glazing at least 40%. That's sort of to bring back the character of there's a lot of projections on older homes. have window elements to them. They are either bay windows or on two-editor designs, they might have small window elements, but there's consistently windows, whereas on newer projections, I've noticed that there's almost no window elements incorporated in there, so bringing back that window character. And then if those projections are going out more than 18 inches, they need to incorporate brackets, corbels, or similar features that are common on older projections in Clayton. Garage width and location, this is very much inspired by the urban design districts. In the urban design districts, they have a relationship to lot coverage and green space. They don't have that here because a lot of neighborhoods, once we start getting beyond those urban design districts, neighborhood character really starts to vary and that relationship with green space isn't necessarily appropriate. But what this is gonna do is reinforce the consistent character of detached rear or rear loading garages in Clayton. Then architectural design. This is a section that tries to articulate some elements that this board has discussed before, but maybe we didn't have the best language to latch on to. So making sure that when a new design comes forward, it is matching I would say smaller characteristic elements. Does the roof pitch and form sort of mimic the environment around it? Does the solid to void ratio, the size of windows and doors on a facade compared to the size facade? Is there facade relief? Are the materials and colors compatible with the neighborhood? And what this is going to allow is some really clean language for folks to lean into if they want to propose a design that maybe isn't a completely traditional form. You know, there's a lot of examples of people say, I want to lean into something that's more modern. Well, how can I make that fit into the neighborhood? This is going to be something they can really lean into in this architectural section to sort of refine their design and show how it fits into a neighborhood.

So no surprise, I've got something to say here. Adjacent structures, tell me what you mean by adjacent structures. The Are you referring to a point that's called out? Like two or three places in this section, it says adjacent structures. Is that neighbors? Is that the block? Is that 75% of the block? What is that?

Generally, that's just supposed to refer to homes that are nearby. If we want to get very literal, adjacent could be the immediately adjacent structures. But whenever we're looking at architectural design elements in a staff review process, we're generally looking at homes that you know, are on the surrounding streets, sometimes in the broader neighborhood, if there's, you know, some applicability.

I'd prefer if it was, if it said more of what you just said, as opposed to just being adjacent, because I could read that as the two houses, the two houses on each side. And then this is kind of to the whole group. I, I I wonder if this section is too prescriptive. If it says, I'm all for new houses being contextual with the neighborhood. this almost reads a little more than that it reads that style should match style and that the established character of the neighborhood so are we are we truly and maybe we are are we prescribing that a new house has to look a lot like the old houses or not and I would I would i wonder if this goes a little too far just in in my reading of it but you may all you all may disagree

it may be definition of the word compatible i mean if it's compatible mean it has to be the same type of architectural character or does it just mean it has to complement or fit in i don't know that's the word yeah

it does seem like We could envision a house that may replicate height, width, setbacks of older homes, but maybe in a more contemporary form. There's a lot of gray in that.

I like that. I worry that this seems to say more than that, though.

But it's more than stricter than what I just said.

Exactly. I think... I don't necessarily worry quite as much about the language maybe sounding strict because I think history would dictate that a boundary and the edge is going to be pushed no matter what. So language that might center it more than maybe some of what we've seen that's pushing an already very general definition, I think this might serve more to just bring things more in line with overall form that we're trying to see uh versus i i don't i don't see this as limiting where someone's seeing this and being like okay i'm not going to try and do this or that or anything because i don't i didn't see the current language we have is being particularly limiting to the projects that we get

yeah when it says things like predominant styles I want a building to be proportional with the buildings around it and to be contextual with the buildings around. But I don't think it needs to be necessarily in the exact style of the building around. And I mean, the house we just reviewed, I've got very mixed feelings about building a new house. He clearly had directions from that owner to build it to look like the old house. And we seem to be kind of dictating that a little bit here. And I would like designers to have a little more freedom than that, to be contextual but not be Disneyland-ish.

These are guidelines. They're not absolute regulations.

Okay. I

think what we've seen in some of the... A neighborhood design guidelines is there's a little bit of judgment that we have to deal with every time. And I think that gives a little bit of leeway. So I'm not so concerned if we are feeling like we're tightening it up right now, because the ARB can loosen it a little bit as we go forward.

think of that one i'm sorry i think of the one that came recently um they were putting on the addition that was very very modern against the house and that would be would would you have felt that was compatible and met these criteria have been able to put these criteria and still told those homeowners to go back and be even more expressive in what they did and and I think there is room for that to say, yeah, it looks great in this neighborhood. It actually complements what we have. But if we feel it's too prescriptive and would discourage that type of work, that'd be careful. Yeah.

I definitely understand Jeff's concerns. And I, I don't think anyone here wants the Disneyfication of, of any of these neighborhoods or to go too far in a direction or feel like, you know, we're just kind of like stamping them out. Um, Yeah, I guess I just don't, I'm not as worried about, I see wherever we set the line, that line is going to be tested and pushed up against. And I think that creates a lot of interesting questions for us. And that's where we can talk a lot of the stuff out where I do think in situations where if it is overly prescriptive, then you get a very tight set where I still think this is I think there's enough room to operate in here.

I would say, I don't think it's limiting. I mean, I have pushed the limits many times and it's interpretation. And I see these, what has been presented tonight as addressing some of the issues that we've had where buildings, the projections are becoming all over the place. And bays used to be windows are required. A certain percentage is glass. I think this is addressing some of the things that we've struggled with looking at and going, we can't require this. I don't see it as limiting at all. I mean, I think it really answers questions that we've had and I think it's good guidelines.

I think most of what I was going to say has now been said. But, I mean, I think I came in here sort of thinking similar to what Jeff was saying. But after this discussion, I do agree sort of, Jim, to your point and to your point about the house that we just saw in that, you know, you get a client that does want a modern or a very contemporary house, that they're still going to push for that and they're still going come and we can sort of, you know, push back if we feel it doesn't fit. So I do think, you know, there's a lot of wiggle room. I think that was a good discussion, but in that somebody wants that, they're going to still push for that. And I think that that's fair as they should.

And I'm just trying to guard against future committees, not us, whatever, 10 years from now, this language being used against a proposal to say, no, look, you didn't match the materials and color of the established character of the neighborhood. Well, I think we would be okay with them not necessarily doing that. So I guess I'm questioning a little bit the point of needing to give people these sorts of directions when we we know what they're gonna do um it just it just seemed i don't it felt like a little bit of an overreach but on the other hand there are definitely things in here that i like in terms of proportions and being contextual and and fenestration openings as opposed to solids exactly they're saying the right things but i want to make sure somebody doesn't pick this up and read, I have to make a copy of the rest of the neighborhood.

I think some people will read it that way. But if we remember that it's guidelines and it's not absolutes that we're putting in there, that there should be a way for us to judgmentally look at it. Does it fit? Are the materials correct? But this, to me, is a starting point where I'm not sure if we really had a starting point before except in certain design districts. But this is throughout the city, right? So I think that it's going in the right direction. I

think another important thing to mention is I think when someone's looking through, a designer's looking through these and saying, usually their first call is to the planning department. And this is where having a great planning department, having them typically kind of lay the foundation to say like, hey, you know, certainly, you know, in this wider context, but it doesn't have to be the super prescriptive thing. Like, I think... The way I have heard Ryan and Ana phrase things to people, I think leaves a lot of openness, even if they say like, hey, you know, I think maybe the chances of this are slim, but if this is something that you feel important, I would go forward with it. I think that being kind of the first line of defense on that, along with the language, you know, hopefully together steers things in general, more positive direction without having an overcorrection.

And this was echoed by Connor McCartney, the one email I think we had gotten, one of the two that was shared with us where he had... Someone from the public had emailed in indicating the same sort of concern. So I think that this is not novel that you're expressing it to. I see it kind of as a hold my beer sort of thing where like this is the minimum and then as an architect, I'm going to try to take it a step further. So I think if we have something that's very specific, if you build it exactly to these specifications, we'd be okay with it. But if you really want to wow us, take us another step like the contemporary one we were looking at a couple of meetings ago. So I hear your concern with it, but I think it allows a lot more latitude for the architecture review board, which could be a bunch of fuddy-duddies in 10 years or 20 years. But at least if it's the minimum of this, we'd be okay with it.

I'm imagining how Seaside has written their charters going a whole lot further than this most likely. but they very much had a prescriptive, your house shall look like this. And I just want to be careful. We're not trying to do that, so I don't want anything to indicate that we're trying to do that. I think the variety of design within Clayton is one of its strengths, actually. So... But I thought that being said out of the other side of my mouth. I like things to be contextual, and then this does talk about things being contextual which is nice it just, I worry about hey, I don't, I don't care that the material is exactly the material. That's my only point. Thanks for your thought.

I'll just add to that too, because I think listening to this conversation is very helpful for the two of us. We had a very similar conversation just between us when we were writing it. So I think what we might do is look at adding a little bit of an intro statement just to this specific section, because the goal here was really, we looked back at Holmes over the years and some very modern homes that were approved, some very traditional homes that were approved. Different ways that architects have been able to interact with you has also been a big piece. And what we want to do is try and give architects a heads up at the minimum design elements. So they might be going and taking a departure from a very traditional style in a neighborhood, but we want them to be intentionally designing that in a way where it's actually good architecture, good design, and not just I've slapped this building together and it technically meets. So I do think that we can do some tinkering probably to update this section to get that point across as well so that everybody knows that there is room for good design that departs from an identical character, but there's also room for maybe the less intentional design to always be elevated to meet something. I

appreciate that. We are going to allow some more tinkering because we're going to continue this into the next meeting. Right,

exactly. Another important one, too, that Ryan was very intentional with as he drafted all of these regulations is the difference between uses of shall, should, may, must, and how those are looked at by staff in a very specific way. So that's also something to kind of keep an eye out as you read the different regulations across this.

Another item of tinkering. When I first read it, I am thankful for all these tables because previously, and I was always looking on a screen, finding all that information was horrendous. You had to keep flipping back and forth, but now it's all consolidated. But when I got to the infill design guidelines, and I began reading it, I began wondering, maybe there should be some small hand drawn examples of them to make it really clear. And that's making it more parallel to all the graphs that we have also. So maybe that's another tinkering. It is. But then I fear that may become too prescriptive.

Yeah.

Exactly, yeah. So I came in thinking we need a little graphics but after the discussion I'm worried that it may become too stiff.

I

We'll tinker on that.

To that point, though, I do think that's interesting because, Ryan, when you had presented this a few meetings ago or whatever, you did have some sketches that I think are... I do think it is a helpful starting point or referral point as long as you're... very clear in a statement that, you know, this is just a thought starter, you know, that it's not meant to be a prescription to what you have to do. I mean, interestingly, this, you know, architectural section makes me think of when you're driving through Clayton Gardens right now, like south of Forsyth, and you see old houses, sitting next to a new house. And while I think the new houses are blending together, then you stumble upon this small one story that just doesn't make any sense. And so I think that this will do a good job in new buildings to say, we do still want you to fit within, be relatable and cohesive, but you don't have to be the same. So- I'm sort of coming around to this too, so I like it.

A quick chart, a quick graphic about that first floor finished height on a flat street or on a sloping street would be, I think, would be helpful. So people like me that I'm not very smart knows how that actually works when the street slopes. So, yeah.

Good.

Oh, that was it.

Any comments from the audience? Please come on up, tell us who you are and say whatever you'd like.

If you did not fill out a

speaker card, if you can just do that after and turn

it into us.

I'm LeEllen Griffiths. I live in the Moorlands. I've lived in Clayton for 23 years, and I have to say this. I'm happy to hear, and I like all the details that are going on. I think they are prescription. I grew up in Connecticut, in the oldest town in Connecticut, and people moved to Clayton for the charm. I know they moved there for the school district. That's why I was there, but it's beautiful, and there's charm, and I have in the architectural committee, I live on Parkdale. And I don't know, 15 years ago, maybe longer, I've lost track of time. There was actually an architect that went around and would survey the neighbors and say, are you okay with what's going on? And we're like, of course. And so it's kind of swung from really overreaching a little bit to they're just throwing up blocks, like a block building. And I think the prescription for, and I'm not familiar with lots of the terms, but there are a few homes that have been thrown up. They're a brick block. And I think if there were even, if I'm using the correct term, lintels, it's just the small details that would make it fit in a little bit more. Some of the buildings... that have been allowed are just like a municipal building and it's lost the charm. And I think when you move to Clayton, you move there for the charm and you want it to fit in. So I agree with this is where you should start and then go from there. There's a house on Buckingham. Sorry if anyone belongs to it, but it's a block. And even if you put lintels, because I've driven around and thought, what is going on here? How is this being allowed that the charm of these buildings are just add a little bit of architectural detail so that it blends in with the neighborhood? So that those are my two cents and I'm happy to hear that there are go from there. Maybe someone's suggesting a modern or contemporary house. That's fine, but have some architectural details that it could fit right in that could make it more pleasing and charming for to go with the beauty of the neighborhoods. So I think that's all. And could we have some lights on Parkdale, please? I mean, really, that's really why we came. We're like, come on. It's been, it'll be the second October, second Halloween with no lights. Can we just get some lights on Parkvale? It's black. Okay. The three streets. That's what I have to say. Susan, please do something. No Halloween in pitch black again. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Where's the card? Is there a card out there? Okay.

Okay. Hey, everyone. My name is Terrence Coomer. I live on Linden Avenue in Clayton. I agree with everything that was just said. I don't know what's going on in Parkdale, but other than that, I agree with those comments wholeheartedly. My comment for the committee is aligned with that. I read over the proposed revisions and the comment I have, I emailed Ryan about this, thank you for responding, but I think it's probably best targeted at Jim actually based on what I'm hearing is it relates to my old house, which is from 1910 on Linden Avenue. And I think I'm understanding correctly that if something were to happen to my house, it's nonconforming now and it couldn't be rebuilt the way it currently exists. And I guess what I would ask that you consider maybe at this moment of a revision in the zoning regulations is to allow a house like mine perhaps with the approval of the Architectural Review Board, to be put back the way it was should something happen to it, should there be a fire or some other calamity. And the owner wants to restore that house to its historic envelope, that that not be so prescriptively disallowed. As I read it, it looks like if the cost of rebuilding is something like 60% of the value of the home, then that can't be done. It has to now conform to current zoning regulations. But the house is three stories. I don't believe I could build it like that now. So that's really all I came here to say.

I mean, my response just off the cusp would be that, um, I think it would depend on what that non on what that, you know, how it was nonconforming in that, uh, if it's, um, wait, where was I going with this? Um, that, yeah, I mean, I think it depends, but I think that that's what we are here as a community, as a, as a board to say, Bring it to our attention. I mean, and that's sort of how I'm also reading this and that, you know, again, we want this to be a starting point and not a definitive hard line. That non-confirmation, non-conforming, I think, you know, sits differently, but I also think it depends.

Well, at the same time, I think a good example would be maybe one of the areas that we are rewriting this where typically with setback lines, there's a lot of detached garages that would not meet setback lines, but something happens to that garage or just that garage becomes structurally compromised. And throughout the years, we have allowed someone to rebuild that garage in its place. So many times to the point where now we're codifying that in language as to changing that rear setback for structures like that um i you know i i don't think it necessarily reads maybe the way you're reading and and i you're doing the exact same thing i do when i say i'm like okay if this applied to my house like where could this go wrong yeah that's my first read through any of these things exactly um and we came up against a situation like this there was a house that was uh destroyed by a roof of their house. Basically they had to replace the entire roof. And, uh, I don't think necessarily it would fit exactly in with, with the regulations, but at the same time, it's a homeowner who was there before, who is there now, you know, making subtle tweaks to largely, you know, keep the same home that they had. And I think that's something that I think that's we're all very sensitive to. Um, it, it, it makes up a very, very small percentage of what we see. Uh, So I can definitely understand the concern that you would have. I think that... In those situations, I think we're very sensitive to the needs of homeowners, especially if something's happened and they're rebuilding and trying to maintain the current character of their home. Usually what we're up against is a new owner trying to alter that and those guardrails kind of have to be put more on where those alterations take place versus someone saying, I just want to maintain the character of my home.

Yeah, thank you for that. And that's why it felt so discordant because... what I would be doing in a situation like that seems so well aligned with what you're all trying to accomplish here. And yet the regulations seem to prevent me from doing it, but now I feel better about it. Thank you.

I think it's important to that. It's possible that it should be something that's codified because this board is very sympathetic to it, but it is possible that in 10 years there could be a board that says, you know what your house burned down and it was a really ugly house. And I don't know your house at all, but, and then could say, no, we're not going to allow that to be rebuilt because we as a board don't like that. So I think that you have a very valid point that if you have loved this house and the house was destroyed for some reason or became structurally compromised, we said we have to rebuild it. And you wanted it to have it be rebuilt exactly the way it was, which I think is what you're saying. Then I think that that could be something that potentially could be codified later. regardless of whether the current board liked the design or not. If it was there and then some force of nature meant that it had to be rebuilt and the owner said, I want it to be exactly the way it was, there shouldn't necessarily be anything standing in the way, particularly not just the goodwill of an architectural board that says we sympathize with that.

Okay, I may be hearing wrong. I think I'm hearing two different things. One, could you rebuild your home in the envelope you currently have? Right. Versus would you historically... recreate the home that was built in 1910. And what is the, if this home was destroyed, would there be discretion, the way this is written right now, for him to come to the board and ask to rebuild another three-story home within that same envelope?

Well, not exactly. So the non-conforming protections that are established with our code are in a different section that is not being modified by the regulations that are proposed tonight. That's very standard establishment across the state because it has to do with case law that is established. your non-conforming protective rights, insurance, other things. Now, we did not review that section against those best practices in any case law. We absolutely can put that on the list to look against it before we come back to you. But then separately, the dimensional standard section, those are setbacks, height, those sorts of things are established. And the only way to... get any sort of variance from that is through the Board of Adjustment. The infill design regulations, those are design elements that have been established here with an alternative compliance because those are something that's better evaluated by this committee with your expertise and background for aesthetics and other elements that are established within those guidelines more directly related to the Architecture Review Board hat that you wear. So if your house was over a setback line and was destroyed by the tornado and no longer met the protections under the nonconforming clause, they would need to go to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance for that. And then the aesthetics would come to this board in the normal review process.

I was going to say, if it wildly varied from setbacks and yards that this proposes, and Then I not his house necessarily but any house, then I'm not sure that I would want it rebuilt in the same place, you know, and even though he made. Oh, we always we always had that room out there within 10 feet of the back of a sidewalk. Well, sorry, but The rest of the neighborhood doesn't have that. And this shows you that it's not a great idea from a planning standpoint to have that. You should pull it back to where it's supposed to be. So I could see saying that. I get a little worried about letting somebody rebuild something that is blatantly, let's just say, different than the standards that are set up here.

we are like hypothetically talking edge cases though. Like if you look at tonight, there was a home that technically would not meet current setback. But the argument before the board of adjustment, not this board, but the board of adjustment was we're largely putting a home right back where it sits now. And, and they saw the validity in that and they pass that. Hence the, setbacks that we had here so uh i yes i think it's tough to talk about every single case but i i don't think that you can necessarily i don't think you should look at the infill requirements and say like oh if something was to happen to my house like my house that's been there for you know 100 years wouldn't be able to be built back the way it was uh just based on these guidelines do you think that assessment

would extend to a third story

Um, so we would have to look at the, so the definition for height that's been a step or half story, sorry, that's being established in these proposed regulations. So I don't know your house and if it would meet that definition or not, but that wouldn't be, if it did not, that would not be something this board could, um, could consider it. It would require a variance from the board of adjustment. So the reason when we established the height setback, all those other characteristics, the dimensional standards for your zoning districts, We're doing so because this council under the city of Missouri has that authority and expertise to make a recommendation to the city council that these are the standards that this zoning district minimum should hit to do things like protect against other neighborhood characters, uses, all of these sorts of things. So when you're establishing those, if third stories are something that you – would support continuing on, then that should be allowed for within the zoning code. But if they're not, then... when structures become damaged by storm by more than 60% of their value or over time they're not maintained and they are no longer structurally viable and need to be rebuilt, that is then when you get the structures to come into compliance with what they should be in that zoning district. So just blatantly allowing something to continuously be reconstructed or maintained that does not meet the zoning code is essentially limiting us from ever bringing the properties into compliance with the regulations that we have set for that district. And a lot of the regulations, like the detached garage one that was brought up, a lot of those regulations originated with Safety life, but you know light air fire separation requirements, many of which can now be solved through other elements of our building codes and materials that we are using. And so that allows us to no longer have to address the separation of detached garages which can because of their the nature of what they're being used for with storage of vehicles. you can, can represent quite a danger and fires jump very easily from one to another. So we can set, we can solve for that issue throughout through other areas like zoning code, but we, without that pattern of us seeing that we can consistently solve for those in another manner and that we consistently want to support that pattern being reestablished, we wouldn't want to just put that within our zoning code.

I don't want to, I don't want them. complicate this even further. But also I know you're talking stories as far as your house is three stories, three stories in your house and in an older house is also very different than three stories that we typically see now. Like there was a house not too long ago that we saw that had a, I believe a 10 foot basement poor. Then the first floor was 12 foot. And then the second floor was 10 foot on top of that. Yeah. It came within literally one inch of the maximum height. So, you know, in your case, you might have three stories that is still a good five, six feet under the maximum height. Right. So those are all things to consider too as far as, you know, not necessarily the number of stories of your houses, but like how is the height? How is it, you know, compared to what's right? And all those are things that come up. It's not necessarily just number of stories like this one works, this one doesn't. You know, all those come into play.

I see.

Okay. Feel a little better.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? No.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Nick Allen and I am a new or newish resident of Devon High Point. I'm here to support the zoning changes and to encourage a few more in the R5 section. So my reading of the comprehensive plan is that it picks Daman as the main Clayton neighborhood that should grow. And I agree. It calls for a human scale with dense development, a variety of residential options in the neighborhood, and retaining the area's historic character, end quote. The R5 dimensional changes point this way, so I support them. I'd be thrilled to have a code that says I should live on the lot that I have chosen to live on. But I also ran some dimensional tests this afternoon. And if my GIS abilities serve, the most restrictive R5 rule is the 1500 square foot unit density floor, which is unchanged in these regulations. Rebuilding the neighborhood to that density spec would mean removing at least 125 existing homes, mostly from four to six unit buildings. And my controversial opinion for this body is that the zoning shouldn't ban the buildings that residents already like. So to that end, I want to contribute three further ways to keep the character of the neighborhood. The first would be to give the existing R5 buildings a rebuild proviso, like the staff have already proposed for R2 duplexes. Neighbors are generally happy to keep what exists. Second would be to lower the unit density threshold towards the 1,000 square feet, which is closer to the existing parcel densities that are there. In February, council worried that a lower threshold would invite teardowns. But as staff has measured, the market in our neighborhood is primed for redevelopment and unfortunately you still can't ban depreciation. The current rule just tells builders that the city wants them to replace six smaller 200,000 square foot units with $200,000 units with three bigger million dollar units. In other words, the rule is just an instruction to build less attainable housing than the market might prefer to build otherwise. And third, I would say to a current question before the city, please avoid more historic overlays on the district. Demand is a bouquet of housing types and price points, and an overlay makes that organic character harder to sustain. So that brings me to this sort of historical question that I've been looking at. Why is Demun full of attainable, beautiful housing? Well, when Henry Wright planned Demun in 1917, builders got broad permission to use 40-foot lots very well. And that's what the zoning code now allows again. The walk-ups and duplexes we celebrate are the fruits of that permissiveness, but the evidence is that many of them are reaching end of life. Valuing the neighborhood means making it easy to maintain and rebuild what exists. The new homes in Demun fulfill this original idea as much as the old. They have beautiful exteriors, contextual massing, plus 100 years of progress in insulation and wiring. Fulfilling the 2040 plan means allowing more of these. Stricter historic rules could have knocked them down in advance. Conversely, a smaller unit minimum might have meant even more families. So for their sake and for the aging energy inefficient units like the one I live in, I encourage us to open the envelope a little further. Thanks.

We have that on recording, right? Okay. I'd like to listen to it again. Mr. Great. I'll send you my

comments too. Thank you. Mr. Thank you.

I have a quick question for staff. I know in PUDs we've discussed unit minimum and waiving that insert. Is there, I don't remember specifically reading a unit minimum here,

that's something i just as in the unit minimum associated with the r5 district

yeah uh so through the share uh my reading of the regulations is that there was a dis or and the discussion about this is that there's a 1500 foot unit density minimum per lot meaning you need a certain amount of lot per unit And that's reflected in that third line of table one.

I see how you're reading that. I don't know if that necessarily equates out to each unit would have to be a minimum of 1,500 square feet.

It's the it's not quite that it's actually means that the lot area required to build an additional unit is an additional 1500 square feet of land. So, for instance, if you have a six unit building on a 5000 square foot lot at least three of those units are illegal. or non conforming excuse me.

I see what you're saying.

I'm just appreciative of the fact that you sat here for like three hours to express your opinion. And I mean that seriously, this is a longer meeting than normal. And anyone that stays through this for the public one, thank you for that.

Yeah. I think I'm with Steve on this too. I think I want to sit down and crunch those numbers and look to see what that looks like. Because yeah, I could understand your concerns or something like that. And I don't think that that's necessarily the intent of any specific rule.

Yes. Understood. Yeah. Oftentimes these rules emerge and change. But there's a lot of

layers to this, as

you

can see.

Thank you for the in-depth evaluation. Your insight was very helpful.

Well, I think we certainly have some items that we'll be talking about next meeting.

Yep, I think so. And we'll send out too because Ryan did an analysis of the zoning district densities earlier in the process. So it's been quite some time since we did that one. One of the elements that we are evaluating that I think will be good to bring back up since we're here at this point is the We want to encourage densities that are there, but we don't want to create a code that turns a neighborhood into the next teardown. So that's something that Ryan was evaluating is what is the current pattern of density? So looking at all of the units, how many units they have now compared to their floor area. or their lot area. And so right now there is about, from this analysis, 34% of the lots zoned R4, or sorry, R5 would be non-conforming. So we'll bring that back up and kind of walk you through that analysis. And the R5 specifically, we leaned on the side of Well, if the building has more units now than allowed on the existing zoning, perhaps that would create more value in that structure than otherwise would be there because somebody who tore it down wouldn't be able to build that many units. But I also understand the residents' concern that was voiced tonight. So we'll bring that analysis back to you all at the next meeting.

Can I say something that I think is somewhat related? I also noticed in here, as we've talked about in the R3, R4 districts where you've got duplexes, some have been made single family and some are still duplexes and the code's advanced so that you can now restore your duplexes and invest in them. But if something's being converted to single family this would stop it from being taken back to a duplex. And what was the analysis in that restriction?

Yes, that was, so that was a little bit of a different analysis. So earlier in the comprehensive plan, we looked at our neighborhoods that are currently zoned single family that do have duplexes and, you know, brought up the concept of zoning those to allow duplexes and were met with significant resident feedback against that proposal. So we did not propose, other than the protections that are there for existing duplexes, we did not propose anything else from that. And then the element within, so the R5 and R3 districts and R6, I think we have some mixture of lower density of maybe single family or duplexes that are in a multifamily zone district. So the protection, it's not the same because somebody could convert those If they'd taken a duplex made it single family in the multifamily zoning district, they could go back up. They can convert. Yeah, they can go back up. It's just in those single family zoning districts that we don't have that. And then obviously on Ryan's list still for phase two of this is understanding how to put in some more protections against going and making lower density in some of our higher density areas.

Out of curiosity, is Davis Place the only area that is single family with duplexes? The reverse is like the Morelands or something like that. But are there other areas that exist that are single family residence areas that have duplexes in them? Old

Town.

Yeah.

There's parts, but parts of the Old Town are zoned R3.

Right. Yeah,

I would have to bring that back up. But when we broached that subject, it was very controversial.

Including this last week when there was concern. Yeah,

even just these signs going back up provoked a lot of those same residents to come with their concerns. So just so anybody listens back, we did not propose duplexes going back into the R2 zoning district.

I may have forgotten. I know we talked a lot about the accessory building setbacks, the side yards and rear yards. And did we agree at the end of the day that one foot made sense as it's shown in the draft here?

Yeah, so whenever I was... Running through here, I apologize because that's one I forgot to touch on, is that for accessory structures, we are proposing reduced setback. Before when we talked about them, we were just talking about the height of the structure. We've since reduced that, and so we're looking at just accessory structures that are below 12 feet and that are below 700 square feet. Those can be one foot from a property line so long as they are at least 10 feet from another structure and that would solve an issue that we see a lot of times with detached garages throughout clayton those structures have to be 10 feet apart so that 10 foot distance is from structures both on the subject property and on the immediately adjacent properties

One guy does it, the second guy

can't. What about a fence? If someone puts up a garage within a foot of the property line and then the neighbors say, oh, well, I'm putting up a fence just on my side of the property line, then I've got a foot to access and maintain the

Yeah, that's what the foot is. I mean, I think we were both in. Yeah. I mean, a working

space, you know, you're kind of sliding through at best hangers for closets. You know, we do closets two feet to get, you know, hang our clothes so you can't walk anywhere. to paint or tuck point brick?

I think that's when you borrow your neighbor's backyard. But if you do that work, but no, I totally agree. I mean, I mean, so does that one foot when it was saying that it had to be the 10 feet distance from other dwellings? I mean, I think that was a similar issue I was bringing to you in my personal backyard because I have an attached garage. So we have a backyard and our neighbors have a detached, which is now just a few feet from my house. From my home. So does, is it clear on that distance then from the next dwelling?

Yeah. So it's 10 feet from any structure, regardless of the type of structure that it is. I can also mention too that, so this, I know that one foot seems pretty close and I'm sympathetic to that because on my own property, I have a place in South city with like a 30 foot wide lot. My own garage is a foot off the property line. I'm very sympathetic to that. Whenever we've seen variance requests come before the Board of Adjustment for these garages, we're seeing that they're generally like they're somewhere between a foot and two feet off of their neighbor's property line. And the Board of Adjustments has regularly approved those variances. And maintenance of those spaces really hasn't come up in that discussion.

I just, I guess I'd go on record that one foot feels too close to your point. Yeah,

I mean, maintenance... I've painted the back of my garage. And it's scary because, and I've got about two and a half feet. And it's not a fun job.

Is this a dimension from the body of the building or from a roof overhang line or

what? This is generally measured to the edge of the foundation. Oh, so that,

yeah, so I just feel, I wish it wasn't one foot. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, I mean, we can evaluate that. The only, a big piece of what that was is looking at the neighborhoods that have these existing ones. And typically it's a garage is really close on one side and then their neighbor is close on that same, you know, so you get that alternating of setback. We can present some more information on it, but since the board of adjustment has said, consistently been granting the variances to rebuild the garages where they are, which are consistently one to two feet from the property lines. I don't know if you all setting that at greater than one foot is going to change the pattern of us continuing to rebuild the garges in those same spots, which then doesn't solve what we were trying to solve for of variances And then administrative process, but we can

present more information. You put a different dimension in here though. It gives them some ammunition to say, look, you shouldn't. And you really, I mean, you're right. Cars are inside those garages that could burn. And I don't think those are three hour walls. Well,

it doesn't, that's what we can present more on because this does not change any requirements of the building code for any of the fire code requirements.

So. But the potential for that car fire to jump to the next garage is over as a car fire, you know, turns into a big problem. Yeah. But

it has to be 10 feet is what they're saying. I mean, I agree. I also don't think the one foot is okay, but can it be clear also that maybe in like a district or neighborhood? Cause I feel like previously when we were talking about, we were talking about like in the Hillcrest area, like in areas where there are a lot of, you know, alley access to your garages, which I think is, is a bit different. I think that's just a different circumstance.

I mean, they're not only limited to Hillcrest. It's definitely scattered a little bit throughout. I would say that they're less common in areas like Clayton Gardens or Clayshire. But there's, I mean, there's examples found throughout. I mean, the closest one I can think of to this building is there's one over on Linden from last year, a couple years ago, that they got a variance for their rear setback on the garage.

But to your example, if the garage is built there, you're the guy next door and you want to put a fence on your property line, you can.

Yes, you can. A fence is not considered a structure in

our... Oh, okay. I thought it... You

can put it, but then I can't maintain...

Oh, I know.

Tuck pointing whatever material it happens to be. Getting a body through...

I mean, GLP-1s are very popular right now. So I think everyone's getting thinner. So I think that maybe that's going to be less of an issue. I don't know. We're all getting very, very skinny.

Or the stilts that the drywallers use. Yeah.

I'd just rather it not being built around things that are already there that people want to rebuild. I'd rather it being formatted around the way we'd like things to be done in the future. And the Board of Adjustment, we can have that conversation later, but if they see, oh, it can be within a foot, well then no problem, we're gonna grant those all day long. If anybody is agreeing with me that it shouldn't be within a foot of the property line, then I think we oughta say it.

I second that, but I had seconded that previously too.

Is there a distance that this board feels would be comfortable? Do you prefer the current setback, which is five feet from side and rear property lines? Or would you find that a reduced setback for those smaller structures would be appropriate if not one foot something else?

Yeah, I would say two and a half feet. Then you can walk through and generally the angle of the ladder is when you're standing your fingertips should touch the wall so you know given the average person i think two and a half feet gives you more breathing room

if this is coming back next meeting i think this would I think usually in these situations, I think we can discuss it a lot. And then you guys come back with some visual evidence of like a handful of them and it generally clears a lot of this up. So I think this is probably a situation where that would be helpful for us to maybe discuss real world scenarios versus hypotheticals.

Yeah, I'd agree two and a half or three feet seems like a more manageable, reasonable dimension.

I've always wanted to support the five foot. However, we have some lots that are really pretty tight that the five foot may be negative to the rest of the property. So I'm open, but I'd like to see.

Yeah, I think we should show we'll provide more information. I mean, it's because we do also really hear from people that the five feet creates more of a weed zone that is then not usable for their property in any way. And but as you know, so I do think that we have there there is a lot of reason that we've proposed this as a reduced setback and haven't proposed reduced setbacks anywhere else, reviewing a lot of variances. So we'll go back to the more holistic presentation of how we got to that number again.

So to that point, can we maybe, I mean, that point makes sense. And so maybe that just applies to the rear. versus the sides where, and I get that that can be, you know, varied based on what's next to you. But I would, I understand that on the rear side of it and maybe not as much on the side setback going to the one foot as it being a waste of weeds or whatever.

Well, you could have the same situation side or rear.

So what I'm saying is I think that it applies more to the rear as a whole and that if everybody, if, you know, you're going in front of the, you know, the adjustment board anyway, you know, if you're going in the adjustment board, then maybe that's the discussion based on your circumstance. It also applies to the side or it only applies to the side in that condition.

I look forward to hearing you all presented again, but some being able to walk back there, I think is a very good point. And also I think that to the backyard neighbor, not having it right up to the property line, you know, three feet seem maybe it sounds right now like a good compromise.

Three feet, three feet, two.

In that range. Whatever, however wide Helen is.

Maybe some of us need a little bit. And where's your...

But she can step on the fence next to her. Any

other comments? Well, yeah, we've seen a lot of effort put in and hopefully we're not asking for anything that'll be wrong, but we'll see in a couple weeks.

lots of great feedback one more thing since we kind of we jumped right into the discussion one last thing i want to touch on before we go i mentioned at the beginning the r7 district and we'll talk about this more next time but when we are doing these analyses of all the different zoning districts the r7 district it currently comprises four lots a total of three buildings on south brentwood between bonham and forest park parkway there's a variety of non-conformities that come along with that zoning district um we don't currently include r7 in this table because at this point we're saying you know it's probably best just to rezone that to m3 which is what the adjacent zoning is it's probably better for the longevity of those properties We've put the feelers out to the folks that live in those properties. We've started to hear back a little bit, but want to give them a little bit more time to think about these proposed changes. If the feedback comes back really consistent that folks are opposed to that, then R7 would be added to this, and we want to assess those modifications. But just want to have that on your radar to think about over these next couple weeks until we come back and discuss the next version of this.

Those properties don't seem to be – ripe

for redevelopment? Generally, no. I mean, two of the three buildings are condos with a high number of units. So those are generally going to be less likely to be redeveloped, whereas Bethesda is probably the only one that has, of the three properties, that one would probably be the most likely if it was going to be.

Yeah, you were reading my mind, Steve. Are any of those four properties have aged structures on them? Or when were the buildings built? Because at some point, they'll probably get redeveloped if they're old enough.

Bethesda is probably the oldest. I don't remember the construction date of that one. It's in the 60s or 70s for that building. And that property is interesting, too, because it's just the building. Their parking lot is under separate ownership and is a separate parcel. So unique characteristics over there.

It's all in that district?

Yes. It's always scary for me to think that the 70s was over 50 years ago. So, you know...

At some point. We'll hear more about R7 going forward when you get more information back. Okay, well, we do have a recommendation to continue to the next meeting. Do we have to make a motion for that?

Yes, because it's a public hearing. Please continue it. We are going to re-advertise and everything else, but if you would make a motion.

Do we need to close the public hearing?

No, I would keep it open if you intend to hear more public feedback at the following meeting.

I move to continue the public hearing to the October 5th meeting.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Then I think we've come to the end of the evening. We'll see everyone back on October 5th. Okay, so we are adjourned. Thank you.