August 17, 2026

Machine-generated transcript — may contain errors.

Good evening and welcome to the Planned Commission ARB for August 17th. If you have electronic devices, please silence them at this time. Ryan. Steve Lichtenfeld.

Here. Helen DiFate. Here. Jim Arsenault.

Here. Jeff Morrisey. Here. Chris Brennan.

Here. Susan. Here. We have minutes from the previous meeting on August 3rd.

Are there any changes? Seeing none, do we have a motion? I move to approve as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. This is the time for the open forum.

If anyone has signed up for it, you can address any concern except what is on tonight's agenda. Were there any takers? No. Okay.

We will move on. We'll start with the business matters and go to old business. The first one is 7754 Forsyth. And I think someone is here.

We'll start with the staff report. This application was originally reviewed at the meeting on August 3rd, 2026 and was continued to this meeting. The updated submission adds sheet A5, which shows a stone wall along Forsyth frontage. The sheet contains only renderings and does not write further information regarding the dimensions, materials, location, or method of construction.

Staff are unable to make updates to the report informed by this proposed wall. Staff have the opinion that the pergola is compatible with the subject property and surrounding area due to its appropriate scale and complementary materials. Sheet 85 was provided but lacks information for sufficient review, and staff have the opinion that more information should be provided for ARB's consideration. Staff provide the following recommendations.

One, to approve the pergola as submitted so long as only located on private property and it's not encroached into the public right-of-way. And two, that the review of the proposed wall should be continued to allow the applicant to provide more information on that wall that was proposed on Sheet A5. Okay, thank you. Eric?

Eric? Hello, my name is Derek Lauer. I'm here to address any response to the initial design that we had submitted. Again, as I understand, there was some hesitancy about the screen wall that was installed.

And so we're trying to come up with a solution that is amenable to everybody and was looking for reaction to this approach to see if that's something that would be worth pursuing. Well, this approach is quite a bit different from the one we looked at previously. I have to admit, I find it very interesting because it is for Cafe Napoli and it seems to have the proper feel to it. But I do agree with the staff report that we really need much more information.

I really couldn't tell how high it is, uh, how it's constructed, uh, the greenery that would be put in there, um, how it will, uh, look really we've only looked at it from the street side, but, uh, more people will be looking at it from the dining side also. So, uh, I would, um, agree with the staff. However, on the other part, the pergola, I have no problem with it as long as it's not on the public right of way. It currently is not.

Oh, currently is not. Okay. Okay. So you've heard my comment on the wall.

Let's see what other comments there are. Ellen? OK, the renderings we have don't show the pergola. So is it staying or these are concept illustrations addressing the wall and not addressing the pergola?

Oh, OK. I was looking for what is it going to look like, you know, walking down the street or driving. So, OK, so the pergola is staying. Where is the property line?

Again, it is on the right in line with the edge of the planters. The planters on the survey show the planters on the right-of-way. Right now, yes. Low planters where the Barnapoli entrance is from the sidewalk on Forsyth.

The planting in front there is in front of the property line. That's correct. Their current planters are in front of the line and have been for the existence of the business. That's true.

The planters along Forsyth are on the public right-of-way and always have been. Okay. And when I went to make a site visit, the pergola was online with the planters, which is they're in the public right of way. The pergola is set back from the edge of the wall.

It's not. I didn't see it as in line with the face of the building. And the plan that we have from the previous submission shows it set back from the building. And that plan doesn't show a property line.

It is in line with the building. The property line is coincident with the edge of the wall. The existing planters that have been there are on the public right-of-way, and the new planters align with that. Okay.

Can I ask staff what they saw? Are the planters in the public right-of-way? My observation of the location of the planters is that they are just forward of the building line. Again, I'm not a surveyor.

However, my best guess is that they are on the public right- of-way. Okay. And the pergola aligning with the planters would put the pergola on the public right of way? No, it's inset into the property.

We're going to have a dimension here. But yeah, it's insett from the property by two feet, eight inches or something. Behind the property line? Onto the property of the establishment.

It's on their property. Okay, that isn't what I saw. So my other question is, you mentioned the last time that the pergola drains down the posts that support it. Where does it go when it gets to the bottom of the posts?

There's just at the bottom of the column, there's little rectangular openings that the water flows freely through as designed by the manufacturer. Okay. And so it sits on the base plate, which has expansion anchors, epoxy grouted into the concrete. So you core drill, you set an expansion anchor, put epoxy in it, crank it in.

It's in there. Four of them proposed. Each one has a capacity of 250 pounds. So you have a thousand pounds per leg.

The whole piece is designed so that there's the supporting pieces as a manufacturer design it collects the waters into the channel. And there's a simple column that supports each corner, the waterfalls right through down the column and at the base of opening it just comes out the bottom that's why it's. When snow melt. The recommendation is that the louvers are open during cases of snow yeah.

So the snow falls through it onto the ground. Okay, so the louvers open 100%. Okay. Now my concern is people slipping and of all of the sidewalks in Clayton, people are walking along Forsyth.

Well, again, this is separated by a curb and is onto the property of the patio. So there's no excess water that would be shed off other than what would be otherwise. It's all impervious surface. Whether or not it gets captured by the pergola and channeled out to the bottom or whether it falls on the ground naturally, there's no difference.

Well, if we do a pop-up emitter... on a property, we require it to be 10 feet back from the property line. So hopefully- That's upon a concentration of water load from a roof source. Again, you're talking about having additional square footage that gets concentrated into a gutter and then out onto right away is significantly different than something that already has its identical footprint that just drains an equal amount of water onto an equal spot.

Okay. That's not analogous. Okay, I am still, this wall ties in better with an Italian restaurant. Reminds me of the Roman aqueduct.

And I came up with this right after we left the meeting. We sat there and talked right outside the last time. And we talked about Tuscany. And I said, aqueduct and the idea to have a planter channel on the top that you could put annuals and perennials in Christmas time.

You can put all kinds of decorations in there. I think it still allows visibility and connection through the neighborhood. The stone that's shown is an exact match to the stone that's on the building. There's even a wall that's over by the serving area that has a limestone cap.

It's the exact same language as what I'm showing here, so it matches to the patio. And I think it would be great in all four seasons, nighttime, daytime, allows for air movement, allows for planting. I think it's a reasonable solution. And the idea is then to be able to leave those heavy concrete planters in place, come to an agreement about its position onto the right-of-way.

If that means you get an insurance or a cross-use agreement, whatever, it doesn't matter. And then at that point, we would cut those posts down put in cold form metal framing. We'd use radius track. Radius track is a metal stud used to make curved walls.

But you do that on its end. You cross it with cold form metal framing, then the glass gold sheathing, two-piece masonry ties. And you set those arches. Again, each one of those is nine feet.

So each one of those arches is just four and a half feet. It's not a big span. The whole thing is only five feet tall. But it's just a simple, the idea is to leave what we got there in place and decorate it up by creating these arches and a new planter.

So that was one suggestion as to what to do with what is there without taking steps backwards. Now, if the discussion is just about the height of the screen wall Well, then simplest matter is we can sit there and take out some of those composite panels, reduce the height of it, leave it as it looks, but just make it lower. If the problem is the look of those composite materials, you know, the fact that those panels aren't coherent with the rest of what's in Clayton. Well, we can find a different way of infilling that.

That could be a perforated metal. It could be corten steel. It could be something else to just leave what we have there and just correct the infill. This would take it another step further, reusing what we have but building an entirely additional structure to it.

I have another idea in the back pocket here that I could show you if necessary, but it has to do with an image of some open... Wave-like metal pieces. I could show you that if you're interested. I have another solution.

The question is, what would be, what is the goal? Whether it's adjusting of the height? Is it the material of the thing? Is it the overall appearance?

So before I go into detailing a whole bunch of things, I want to get a feel that we're going on the right track. Okay, fair enough. My feeling is anything above a planter height, you've created a wall and that corner is the wrong place for a wall. So that's my feeling.

Well, again, in today's unfortunate climate of violence and aggression and insane people, I feel better having those concrete planters there. without having some crazy person launch their car into a whole crowd of people. That's more important. Well, you know, the Federal Reserve Building, the arch grounds.

All of them have property protection for good reason. Our own police department, they have planters in front. And those planters are not because they like to plant flowers and they wanted some decoration. Those are embedded deep.

Those are barricades. So something like that. Each one of those pieces weigh 3,800 pounds. I checked it.

Now, I would like to see something low. Jim? I agree with Steve in the fact that if we don't have plans, or I think there's only so much that we can consider. If you're looking for loose feedback, the pergola, assuming it's on private property, I don't have a problem with if we're focusing on just the pergola.

As far as this wall, I think... I agree with Helen in the sense that anything that's kind of above planter height, I start getting allergic to, even if it's a little more, this is obviously a little more open than the less solution. But I think anything above kind of that waist high planter height starts getting being a bit too imposing, I feel for that corner. So no matter kind of like how it's dressed up, if you have this kind of height and, you know, get above, I believe, I believe they said three, three and a half feet or something is what's technically like allowed by the code.

I think that's kind of the area I believe you should be thinking about. If I may, Ryan, we had discussed a little bit about the regulations regarding the height of it. And I had asked about the certain codes that were specific to it. Were you able to find information about what the regulation is?

Yeah. So we looked into the site further and this, this property line is actually set back quite further than that three and a half foot element. Additionally, there were elements that I've been properly referenced that were in the previous Northeast downtown overlay that no longer apply to the site. So the, well, there isn't a specific height component that applies to this is still subject to review by the ARB.

Okay. So there's not a specific seven foot, you know, that we're, Yeah, and I will say overall, it doesn't necessarily matter that, okay, this is... It's not like, oh, well, if it's allowed, then I'm okay with it. My first instinct is kind of with Helen's to be something more at waist height that's more open than this or what's currently there.

Chris? First off, I love that you took kind of the feedback from last time and went back and rethought this. And the more I look at this design, I really like it. I think that there is the parts of the aqueduct that you've brought into there.

I think it's very visually stunning at night in particular. And I find these arches fascinating. Effective in the sense that if I'm walking down, I want to go up there and look through there. And I would love to be able to look through there and see people enjoying dinner, see candlelight.

You know, I think it creates a certain ambience that is could be really appreciated on that corner. So in that sense, I slightly disagree with the idea of having these lower planter boxes because I think that this is architecturally significant in a way that's very different for downtown Clayton. It works with the idea of Cafe Napoli having been here for a long time. It's visually striking, but that's all contingent upon how well it would be finished because the renderings that we saw beforehand, it didn't necessarily bear fruit.

You know, it wasn't the same as built as what was originally conceptualized. And I think that if we were to come up with something that looked like this, with this uplighting, with the lighting that goes around the arches, with the greenery at the top, it would be visually stunning. If you take those elements out, if you take the lighting out, you take the greenery out, then it could look kind of haphazardly built and not nearly as visually stimulating. In that sense, I would not be really a fan of it.

The pergola, I have no issue with whatsoever. So I just, I don't know any way that we'd be able to say, hey, it's got to be built to these specifics. But we would need much more information in regards to the height, the light temperature, the sort of things like that to really, I think, approve it. But I'm all on board for this kind of new design.

I think it's well done. Jeff? Yeah, thanks. I appreciate also that you went back and thought about this further.

But I may have missed something at the very start of this whole conversation. Why does the restaurant feel that the view either out of the terrace area to the street or from the street into the terrace area is a problem? um if you don't mind it's just they've said that they've had some problems with some crazy people waiting for the bus got people out there screaming mad stuff at themselves you know just not all the time but it happens enough that they felt it was a protection for their customers just one of those things okay i guess i haven't i was can we move the bus station I'll stop. That's not my point.

That's not why I'm here, but it's a good question. Okay, because it just feels like you're wanting to shut yourself off from the rest of downtown, which I think is part of the thing that we're worried about here. Well, that's where you get into these whole things about semi-transparent boundaries and things, that it's there. It feels like it's there, but it's still permeable in a way that's attractive.

I think that's what we're trying to get to. And to the earlier points, I think we really need to see an accurate site plan drawn on the survey of all the parts and pieces and where they sit. And if the current planters are within the right-of-way and an encroachment permit doesn't exist, then that has to be discussed, I assume. because I would rather it be on your property, not within the right of way.

And another sort of a detail about this that bothers me, going back to your first renderings, I noticed that the wall was parallel to the street, was straight. This one has a kink in it. And I guess the kink is to deal with vision to the street, and that's probably because of the height of the wall. Is that true?

Well, if you go to page number four, yeah, that one there. Yeah. You're talking about that one. No, that's how it currently is existing, and there is a triangular curve at that point.

But if you go back to the rendered plans that we just had on the previous page, that – doesn't look kinked at the corner is it uh no again it's more it's more about drawing technique illustration okay because it it's it's sort of like the height of the wall is seems to be driving the fact that you're pulling the wall back at an angle so you can see the street when you're sitting at the stoplight but that actually follows the property line of the Well, I think, but I think the property line on the survey is perpendicular. It's not angled, correct? Well, I mean, there's a permanent six-inch curve that formed that regular planter. Okay.

It was a matter of locating it on, let's see here. But, so that's... And so that anchors a line. Sorry, if you can just if you speak in the microphone, there is a mouse up there.

So if you want to use a pointer or anything, there is a mouth on the podium that you can use. I guess it's a remnant of when it was a parking spot. Right, right, right. And if it's not a parking spot any longer, I don't think it needs to be angled like a parking spot.

That's my point. I think it's better. I think the devil is in the details. I'd love to know actually how high the top of the aqueduct feature actually is and where somebody, in fact, if you come back again and you can put some people in the drawings.

I'll have full detailed drawings on all that next time. We see where, as I'm sitting behind it or walking in front of it, where my eye hits. That would be really good to know. And I'm with Chris.

If it's lit well and it's planted well... maybe this has better things than the first plan had. I want to say again, and I think it was said in the report, there should be no storage outboard of this wall. I mean, it's sort of, it's being treated like we're all inside here everything i addressed that with the ownership and gave them yeah i made the request and will again to make sure they comply with that i agree i agree that's not okay even even if somebody has to move some chairs to change a table seating those extra chairs shouldn't be flopped outside of the wall you know so um treat it like a public street so um Those were my main comments.

I think we need to see more detail. I would rather it be a low wall with nice planting. I could see it being something very open, like a trellis work that has planting on it that gives you a little bit of definition of height if you wanted. But I wish it wasn't blocking the restaurant from the street as much as it does.

Thanks. Susan. Yeah, thanks for going back. This is much more creative than it looks good.

I do have concerns, though. Again, I agree that we'll look forward to getting more detail. But I will pick up first on what Helen mentioned with the drainage. Is there any concern as water comes through slats?

I imagine it does fall differently. Is there any concerned with safety with the water runoff onto the sidewalks or? No, I mean, they still would be responsible if there were issues. It happens sometimes with other drainage on buildings.

So if there is an issue where algae or ice or other things are forming on the sidewalk adjacent, this property owner and manager would be responsible for abating that. Okay. Also, a question on the encroachment with the existing planters. It sounds like with the additional planters as well, you intend to keep that encroachment.

I think it would be most convenient if we could come to an agreement that acknowledges the fact that they are over the right-of-way and that there is, again, a cross-use agreement, easement or insurance in place. We can move them. They're heavy, no big deal. A couple of skid steers, pull it back in.

Makes us lose a little square footage of the patio, kind of disrupts what's there now. It's workable. Whatever makes sense is fine. Just time and money.

The encroachment worries me, even if it's been there for a while. And again, I'll defer to people smarter than me because my concern is really with passage, with ADA compliance, with people with more limited mobility and things like that. If there could be no encroachment, I think that is ideal. If staff thinks it's something that can be worked around.

I would suggest that you begin your detailed planning on the assumption that whatever you construct is going to have to be on your property. Okay. Fair enough. Okay.

Great. Then finally it is the height. It's the closing off. You mentioned that, you know, today's world and fear of everybody.

And so you're essentially walling off and that's, That's exactly what we're not trying to do downtown. We're trying to have community and vibrancy. And so the height to me is a concern, the density of the height. If it were something more open, I think it might serve the purposes of the downtown area better.

It is attractive, but it still is a wall with the arches and everything else which are an improvement. But it is concerning the more that we wall ourselves off from each other, especially in such a beautiful, vibrant spot that you've got there. Well, as it is, again, I did do another design solution, which I just finished. I'd be glad to share it with you.

I don't want to muddy the waters or change the direction, but if you're interested in seeing it, I'd be glad show it to you real quick. Is that all right? You have it there. I have prints.

I can show you a print real quick. Well, we can take a look at it. It's not the one we're discussing. No.

That's why I can bring it back at another time or whatnot, just to see if there was a different direction that might be more appealing in terms of pursuing that. I'd rather stay with what has been put in the application. Absolutely. Fair enough.

Derek, I had two comments. I was concerned about the stonework on there until I went over there, I guess it was Saturday, before they opened up. And I did find that there was stone on the building because my recollection was this was sort of a historical replication in front of sort of a streamlined building. But there is some connection there.

So I felt better about that. But then the actual wall coming to the corner looks very weak to me. When you would be on Beamiston, I think it looks weak. Had you considered turning the right corner for a short distance, maybe with one arch to sort of enclose that entire.

Just to give it a little return. Yeah. It was sort of hugging. Right.

That the wall just terminates. Right. As it is. I thought about it when I walked it, but when Jeff brought up the angled curb, I had totally forgotten that they used to pull cars in there until they wanted more seating.

But if that could be gotten rid of, maybe there could be a little stronger corner and a little more enclosure to the terrace. Now, that's all irrespective of what we talk about the height. I'm just talking about a wall. Steve, are you referring to an actual perpendicular corner, like a hard 90 degree?

Are you thinking about something that more would mirror kind of the curve that's on the building, the existing curve that's up top above the main doors? What were you thinking? Well, I haven't really thought it through. But I would think normally we would see a 90 degree angle in stone.

But I could be open to it if we would have to follow that angled curb line. i would think that's expendable the curb again if we stay within the property we don't have to follow that angle that's right this is my point so you know i think that was something very nice about the first rendering that it did have a low element that turned the corner but it was low yeah you know so the not these renderings but the from the first submission um but it wasn't built that way. I'm just wondering, I look at the curved area above the door, and I think that that's significant. And it could be mirrored.

I hadn't thought of the idea of kind of turning the corner on the Bemis in there and enclosing it, but you're right. And maybe something with a soft curve, which would obviously make it much more difficult with the arches. And our job is not to make this more difficult for you. But if you did have something that visually kind of matched with it, that might be something pleasant to the eye too.

I do not recall seeing any aqueducts that actually curve. But there's always a first. I don't know if there's a water feature on the top of this. Maybe there is.

There might be. I thought about it. Any further comments? Yeah, I just have one more.

I think I mirror Susan's comments. I think we need to be really careful with the narratives that we're kind of putting forward. You know, is it, you know, are we worried about a car plowing through? Are we worried about people at the bus station?

You know, as far as, you know, we're talking about cars plowing through, are we not concerned with the people on the Bemiston side? You know, are we only concerned with the Forsyth side? So I'm just saying, it's like, you know, at At the times of occupancy, typically there's cars parked along that edge. I think I would mirror those comments.

I'd be kind of careful how we're referring to some of this stuff. Yes, and think as far as the larger plan of Clayton 2040 and vibrancy and all that and kind of the effects that all this has and the effect on the overall city. Any comments from the audience? Or any hands up?

No hands up. Okay. Anything further, Derek? No.

Just looking for your recommendations so that I can provide the details and information you need to proceed. Okay. You understand the two staff recommendations? Yes.

Which I believe we're all in agreement with? Yes. Okay. Jeff wanted to see the plan.

A true site plan measured with showing where all these elements are, including drainage, et cetera. I think we need a real drawing that shows where things are. Yeah, I would agree. Well, let's add that in, number three.

Okay, then we're not approving the pergola. We're continuing. We would have to do that. Yes, if we have a site.

Okay. Okay, I move to continue this project to allow the applicant to provide more information on both the pergola and the planting, the screening and provide us with an accurate site plan showing property line and location of the improvements. Second. Are you going to continue this to the next meeting then?

Pardon? Is this continued to the next meeting or? Do we need to based on the 60... We need to be making a decision soon.

I would recommend we make a decision soon because they're in court. We have a hearing on Thursday. So by continuing to continue these items, we're essentially giving them continuations of a case that they already are in court for because they haven't done what they were asked to get a permit. Then I would add this will be continued to our next plan commission and ARB meeting Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll see you soon. Okay. Our next item is 122 North Beamiston.

And here again, we will get started with the staff report. Hello. The application was originally reviewed on July 20th and was continued. The following elements were revised.

The artificial turf in the front yard has been revised to grass. The front yard plantings have been specified. The front awning has been revised to have a similar character to the existing side awning. And the proposal for French doors to replace the two front windows has been removed.

The project scope includes new planting areas, revised paving, new front porch, and new grass in the front yard. The front yard facade configurations vary on this block, and most of the project scope is likely to have a minimal visual impact. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal is likely to complement the existing structure and surrounding area. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Hi, welcome back. It's good to be here. My name is Lisa Seligman. I'm an architect with Red Dot Studio and I'm back to give you some revised notes on 122 North Bemiston based upon our last meeting.

So we listened to what you guys had to say and the owners and I sat down and discussed a lot of different ideas and thoughts about how we wanted to move forward with this. And so in that, trying to maintain more of a uniform look to make the only opening that has a different look the central opening. Maintaining our existing windows beginning to replicate some of the existing geometry from the side awning into the front. Adding some a little more detail in landscaping so that you have an idea of what we're thinking about.

You know, in terms of what the looks of those plants would be in the in the layout of them. So if we can jump you said I have a mouse. Oh, excellent. Okay, so I wish I'd known that last time.

But Ryan has beaten me to it. So if we look at landscaping, you know, the notion here is that we're going to have mulched areas in the front with low plants. These would be some kind of flowering plants and then, you know, grasses and smaller plants that provide a filtered view from the street into the yard and vice versa. Then for the porch, we were We are replicating the geometry from the side for this new awning.

It will remain copper, so it will patina out to match what's already there. The door, we're going to go with a wood or a clad wood or a fiberglass door. We're working with different manufacturers to get the right look and the right materials. It's a custom-sized door, even now that we're...

by moving the head of the door down to match the existing windows, it also aligns with the door on the side. But it's still a custom-sized door. It's a little wider than normal. And then picking some very kind of minimal light fixtures that direct the light directly onto the walking surface, which is where we need it.

We don't need a lot of extra light out in the yard. I'm open for questions, comments, whatever information from me. I really like what you did on the horizontal ground surface. I think that will look very nice.

That shows on ARB3. Oh, there it is. And having real grass in there plus the planting beds I think looked good. I also like what you did with the horizontal canopy, making it curved to match the side.

But I'm sorry you didn't go with the French doors. Because what I thought was it added to the asymmetry to have the main door and the two French doors under the canopy. But I can certainly live without it. It was a discussion point that we went back and forth on, but I agree with you.

But the owners felt like perhaps it was in their best interest to maintain the existing windows. So the changes that we see here tonight, I feel comfortable with. I'd like to hear what everyone else feels about the mulched planting beds. I saw the pictures of plant examples.

I've never heard of a plant with that name. But I think conceptually it would look very good I too like what you've done. I think mimicking the side, it really, you see that house mostly from the south and the front elevation. You don't see it from the north as you're walking down the street or driving.

So I think That really ties together that corner. I too wondered about the French doors going, but I can see the unknown expense of cutting down brick and not knowing if you're going to fracture it. You know, it's in the craftsmanship of the trade. And I think that looks good.

I suspect that French doors wouldn't be used if they were from the dining room. You wouldn't be going out that way. Just observing habits in my own home. But I like what you've done.

I think it looks great. The planting, I think, will really be wonderful. And I like the low... the low planting along the curve, along the top of the wall, that edging.

I think that'll look great. So thank you for listening. Jim? Yeah, I really appreciate how you took feedback from the last and incorporated into this.

I literally audibly gasped when I opened up these plans and saw this because I don't think I've ever had such a jump from... one revision to the next and felt as big of a swing as I did. Now, I was not on Team French Door, if you remember from last meeting, so I'm kind of happy to see the French Doors go. But a lot of the things that I mentioned as far as symmetry, I like the door height coming down.

I really like... I think the curve of the overhang matching the side really just... really kind of ties this all together. And I just feel this is a lot stronger, more considerate.

I feel really good about this plan as it stands. So thank you. Chris. I am team French door.

But I really do respect the things that you've added to this, the entry door, the sconces, the copper awning are just awesome details. I mean, it really is going to look great. In the phrase, buy once, cry once kind of comes to mind, though, when it comes to French doors. And you have several people.

with architectural backgrounds, encouraging, imploring you to potentially consider selling to your clients the idea of the French doors again. Sorry, Jim. I just think that it's one of those things where the cost will be greater to put those in, but stylistically down the road, I don't think they'd look back and say it was money ill spent. They might look back and say, well, shoot, we could have done French doors there and we didn't.

I think that the asymmetry of having those would be stronger and The only question that I had is that on the planting that you had, you called out for like a Chase Manhattan ginkgo, which is not native. And I didn't know what emphasis you had wanted for native plantings as such. Part of the reason I have them labeled as example plants is that we are still working with the landscape designer to get kind of the exact species to pull. They love that ginkgo tree, even though it's not native.

It's Chinese, I believe. But, well, it's a hybrid. But anyway. But we're really looking to get kind of that, you know, look of kind of arching plants that have, you know, very not a lot of color but a lot of visual interest.

And so we're working on it. It's a work in progress. But we wanted to say, you know, this is the kinds of things we're looking at. We're not looking at things that look weedy.

We're not looking to make a meadow in the middle of Clayton. Not the right place. And I think that shows, too, in this kind of the restraint that you've shown with this, too. I would encourage you that if you feel strongly as an architect of doing the French doors, that you really make that known to them, too, because it just feels strong in my case.

But you have much more of their ear than any of us do. And if you have any interest, about 25 years ago, I did exactly what we're talking about, which took brick out or actually stucco and tile. I've done it in tons of projects. And we've never regretted it.

We don't use the doors much at all, but the way they connect the room to, in our case, the backyard is wonderful. So it's up to you. I think the... Yeah, I like the architectural changes you've made.

I think they look more... in keeping with the house um uh the front door I'm glad you're still working on it I hope it it blends well with the rest of the fenestration announced um landscape wise I actually I think I said last time I didn't have a problem with the turf but they can go with grass great I don't know what non-creeping lily turf is do you know uh you know I should grab to it's just a Okay, no, I don't. Actually three of this. I was kind of familiar with most of what's on there, but not that.

I should have grabbed a picture of that. My memory is I did look it up to see what it was because I would typically use something like I've got a lot of native strawberry and wild garlic and that kind of stuff in my yard, which stays really short and it looks really good. um but my memory is that that's just a a short small okay not complicated plant and my um i i echo what chris is saying about ginkgos i actually love ginkgos but they're also extremely slow growing i think and um be really careful that you get the right sex of ginkgo because if you don't it will smell awful um so that's a this is a dwarf and and uh the places i've seen this variety sold they they come it doesn't get bigger than six to eight feet okay and so you buy it at this height. But you want one that does not drop.

Yeah, I know. But otherwise, no, I really appreciate the efforts you made to listen to us last time, and I think it's better. Thank you. Thanks for coming back to us with this.

It looks great, and thanks for going with real brass there. I would echo the native plantings sentiment. The city's worked a lot on that, both through the sustainability committee and in collaboration with neighboring cities through the cool cities initiative. We have lists of trees and native trees, which is there's increased sensitivity, of course, since the tornado came through, but the canopies, the health of the trees, the depth of the roots and all those things.

So I grew up with a couple of ginkgo from the yard and they did not smell. They apparently picked the right ones, but, and they are beautiful tree, but just keep that in mind. that native planting benefits to the city and your drainage and everything else that's going on there. So, thank you.

Any comments from the audience? Any hands up? Nope? Okay.

Any further comment, Lisa? Aye. Nothing more? Okay.

We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. I move to approve as submitted. Second. All in favor?

Question. If they approve as submitted and the French doors are headed back in there, does it need to come back for further approval then? Can we do that administratively? Yeah, I mean, you can add it to your motion that you would approve the French doors if you want.

Otherwise, we could evaluate it if they provided that under the building permit. Okay, I move to approve as submitted with the stipulation that if the French doors to the south of the front door are added, that they can be approved by the staff. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Excellent.

Thank you. Thank you all. Okay, we will move on to new business. And item 2, 6369 Clayton Road is the next one.

And we have both architectural review and a conditional use permit. And we'll start with the staff report. The property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Clayton Road and DeMunn Avenue. It is zoned M2 and is in the Clayton Road Urban Design District.

The site is developed with a one-story retail bank, and the applicant is seeking approval for exterior alterations to the subject property. These include removal of one drive-through stall, introduction of stone on the south and east facades, introduction of black coping at the roof parapets, removal of paving leading to a former walk-up teller window, replacement of the drive-through canopy, repair of an existing brick wall along Clayton Road, and improved landscaping. The Architecture Review Board's guidelines require that each facade comprise at least 75% of primary materials, such as brick or stone. The proposal would result in brick comprising approximately 66% of the south and east facades.

Given the presence of similar stone nearby, staff wrap the opinion that the introduction of stone would have a minimal visual impact. Section 410.715 of the Urban Design District requires that parking lots be screened with either landscaping or a combination of wall and landscaping. The section also emphasizes the importance of trees and canopy along Clayton Road. The existing parking lot has a brick wall that is separated from the sidewalk and street by a lawn.

This lawn previously held two medium deciduous trees that were removed under a previous owner. Staff are of the opinion that two medium or large deciduous canopy trees should be planted to comply with this section. Trees should be selected from Clayton's approved tree list. Staff recommend approval with condition that two medium or larger deciduous canopy trees be selected from the city's approved tree list and planted in the lawn between the street and the parking lot.

Okay, welcome. Hello. My name is Matt Mayor with Mayor Design Group. We're part of the design team that's assisted in the interior renovation of this building and some of these alterations that are being considered this evening.

I did bring some samples as Ryan recommended. It'll tapping at the perimeter of the exterior of the existing building and then at the Clayton entrance there's an existing awning, that it would be similar material there. And then again at the existing drive-through would occur at that on those facades. Um The interior permit was approved.

I don't know that that even matters. We did obtain a permit to begin interior renovations. We'll stay on the exterior. Thank you.

Okay. The Clayton Road entrance... Just a little confused about its location. Is that wall full height?

Yeah, that wall is full height currently, correct? The perpendicular wall, the one running north-south. The one in the image here? Yes.

Correct. That runs full height of the building. And are you changing the window, the narrow strip window and making it higher? No.

I think it's just an embellishment of the image that was created. There will be no alteration to the existing window's doors other than the penetration of the existing brick of that wall adjacent to it. When you compare those two pictures, the one on the left, the horizontal band of brick is above the window. But if you were to extend that horizontal band on the picture to the right, it would go through the window.

The brick band will be, I follow what you're saying. The window in the proposed image is an incorrect size in the illustration. So it would... It would remain where it is.

Where it is. I'm sorry, yes. Then my next question, I actually like the stone. At first I was concerned how it would relate to the brick.

But had you considered that horizontal brick line continuing in some form through the stone? Because that line is pretty, when you see the building, that line is quite strong going around the building completely. And I think it brings the height of the building down That continued soldier corps span? Yeah.

I'm not saying it has to be the brick, but something going through the stone. Yeah, maybe where we would get a shadow line there. It seems like the building has a belt and here the belt doesn't go around the building. It has not been considered, but it absolutely, I would agree with what you're saying, that that continuation could enhance the change in material and show continuity.

Now, of course, it doesn't go around the perpendicular wall. Correct. But when you get to the east side of the building, I believe it did, if I remember. Yes.

So, you know, it might be worthwhile considering it going through the brick. Okay. I can't really tell if it's around there. Anyway, that's a comment.

The main thing is we're excited to see this building come back to viable use. It's been vacant and looked pretty sad for quite a while. Very tired and needs some... Yeah, it really does.

architecturally, though, that was my comment. Hello. I do have a question on ARB dash one. Okay.

And it's on the planting at the front entrance. Are you keeping the brick wall? we're around the planting or that would sorry go ahead changing it because some of the renderings proposed look like you've taken out that brick wall and you're putting in planting and then the notation on arb1 says that that brick wall that planting area is staying Yes, it's the intent that the illustration would, the removal of the existing brick planter box would be removed. And it would be a planter bed in lieu of the wall.

No, that looks good. I like that better. My other question is on that wall, the perpendicular wall Again, on view one, it looks shorter in coming south. Has the wall been cut short?

Again, it's the rendering. Correct. Okay. And the wall will still have that opening in it?

It will not. The opening in that wall will be infilled okay so it'll be the same length only infilled correct okay same height same depth yeah um but that infill will be or the opening would be infilled okay no that makes sense to not to shorten it and a lot of expense without much return so those were my only questions jim Yeah, I don't know that I have any questions or concerns. I will say it seems, and not just with this project, it seems to be a proliferation of we're starting to get renderings that don't quite match the buildings and it's making it more difficult. And here, I agree with Helen, like this planter, that's like, I actually think it will look better removed with just the low planting.

But then it's like, it's not necessarily... When she brought that up and looking at the plans, I'm like, oh, I don't know if that's actually the case. So I guess just speaking generally, it's kind of making it harder to review these things. I do agree with Steve.

This is a fairly tired-looking building at this point, and I think this is something that's minimally invasive that kind of keeps the spirit of the building without having to necessarily do too much, and I think will have a lot of impact. Chris? Yeah, I agree. The renderings are making it difficult.

And if you look at view two, so the next slide down, if you look at that picture on the right there, it's just not representative of what it's going to look like because you're not showing that stone extending down that face. I guess that'd be the south face. You're not seeing the stone there. You're not walkway into the building through that planting so i think this one is the one that's really kind of rankling me a bit because um i like what you're doing with the stone and i'm glad that you brought in the samples of how this will look um but again this the rendering as presented here is not shown on the architectural plans and it's just not physically possible.

So I would love to see a more accurate rendering of what it would look like. My assumption is that you're removing on both sides those which I guess were, they were clocks up there, is that right? On that, okay. which is probably a good move to remove those two.

The black capping, seeing the material here, I wasn't crazy about it just because it seems so dark, but I do like it. And then the final thing I'll say is I echo what Steve says about that soldier course. If there's some way of extending that around in stone or some way, I think the new stone is going to give a lot of shadows and in a great way. But just having that architectural element, even if it only continues through to where that window ends, would be fine.

If it goes all the way to that wall coming out, that's fine. But it does call out for kind of a continuation of that belt line, as it were. But thank you. It's good.

Thank you. Jeff? I will echo the thoughts about bringing the building back to life. That's good.

I've got a few detailed questions. The new stone, where does it sit relative to the brick? Is brick being removed and stone being put on? Is stone being put outside of the brick?

Where does that sit? The installation would be over the brick. Okay. So, and it's the thickness that we're seeing there?

Correct. Yeah. I wish it had... It's thin.

Not only in reality is it thin, but it sort of feels thin on the building. I wish it'd had a little more guts to it. And maybe that, you know, what people are talking about, bring the soldier course through it, do something. Because it's a little...

It's a little wallpaper-ish. I wish it was a little heavier. Now, something I don't wish was as heavy, I'm not a big fan of. I wish the coping was not the size that it is.

I can see, I've been by the building, I see the problems with the existing coping. I just wish the new one didn't have to be that tall, that heavy. It really changes everything. changes the building quite a bit.

I'm not sure if it's in a good way or not. So just something to think about. Continuing on with the way the exterior facade looks, will there be any bank signage on the building at all? Or will it be in separate signs?

Or how does that work? Currently, they're putting together a signage package. Okay. It's my understanding that there's, in discussing with Ryan, we had submitted original with some suggestions of where signage could go, but then was asked to remove it, so...

we were just submitting with it because the sign permits have not been applied. I don't know if that answers your question. Well, because I mean, I think if signage somehow relates to where the stone is being placed and it becomes signage that's visible from the street in the right way, it could be a really good thing. I mean, even the fact that the address shows up on the building now, but it doesn't show up on the rendered views of the new construction.

I think details like that become important. If the drawing we're looking at, for instance, if there was a state bank logo on that stone, depending on its size, depending on how it's lit, whatever, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. so i think it'd be good to be good to see that i'm assuming there'll be further staff review with where the signage actually sits and how much is allowed and not allowed so um i'd also be if you can scroll back up to the drawing above or the render sheet above yeah be really careful about where lighting is being placed um like i don't understand the up and down light that sits above the the entrance canopy there it just i don't it doesn't feel right but i think there are multiple things about that rendering that maybe need to be corrected in terms of what they what it really looks like so um In general, though, those are my thoughts. I think some detail of how the stone relates to the brick.

I wish the coping could be a little bit lighter and consider where it's signed eventually. Thank you. Susan? Yeah, thanks for taking on this building.

I hope it works well for you all. I do like the stone, the lighter colors and all that. It gives it more life. And when you're saying that the drawing is not – the windows aren't changing size takes away some of this concern, but especially with the unshielded lighting going up in the windows, St.

Louis – or Clayton is participating as a bird city, and with the county and the city were part of Lights Out Heartland, counting the number of bird deaths due to crashes in the windows, especially with lighting now put on the windows. That's somewhat shielded because you've got the – the wall coming out, but that consideration of both the lighting for dark skies, for night skies, and bird migration and window crashes. There's ways that windows can be treated. There's also ways that the lighting that you use can be compliant to reduce the damage done by individual properties on that.

I understand that this, assuming it doesn't extend too far up, is within our code, so perhaps it's more of a suggestion as long as you continue to follow the code, but... Small steps matter and the same another suggestion, having come from St Louis city put on an extreme heat seminar which in many ways ignorance is blessed and you kind of wish you didn't go to. But that the dark dark parking lots the tops of buildings can raise heat within the building. or in the area by at least 20 degrees, or by 20 degrees.

And so I hope that you consider as you look at those materials, the lighter the color, the less heat island effect we can have in these types of areas, especially where there's not a lot of green space. So I just ask you to take those things into consideration as you work on this property. Thank you. Going back to the stone, which is applied to the existing brick, on view one, the proposed alteration, how do you terminate the edge of the stone at the very left part that's being put on the plane of the brick?

So we wouldn't want to... That's what I'm wondering. Yeah. I know that this product also has corner.

These are all just face samples, but corner where it's a true corner, and then that corner would... Does that answer the question then? It does. Okay.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see a finished corner, not an unfinished corner. I would agree. Very much so. Secondly, is there a walk-up ATM?

There used to be. Well, there is one now. State Bank will not be utilizing it. It is...

So it comes out? Correct. I believe there's a recess... it that shows on view one existing no that's a that's a so that was an old ATM window we believe yeah and then the planter box went in front of it And in actuality, where the storefront is now on Clayton and that same existing conditions view, you can somewhat see it if you go to the floor plan, which is ARB2.

A little alcove space to the left of. Thank you yeah. Though. On.

Accessing the space here this used to be the entrance through here. And. At some point, the storefront was infilled and this turned into interior space for the building. And this new vestibule here was incorporated in at some time.

So that ATM that you, or the walk-up ATM here, and then there was one back here which was more of a deposit Bank or like a drop box Which is being eliminated So they're both being eliminated this one here, we're not doing anything to it. We're gonna leave that as it appears It doesn't show on the proposed alteration on view one correct and So if I go back to, it has been eliminated here. I apologize. If that's what you're referring to.

Well, actually, I was referring to the one on the Clayton Road facade. Okay. But talk about the one on the Dumont Avenue side. Okay.

How are you filling it in? With the matching existing brick. And the one here would be infilled with the new stone. Oh, okay.

So it's in the stone wall. That's correct. Okay. So to the left of this.

Yeah, totally. Okay. Um, The two photo renderings just don't seem to fit together well, but I'm beginning to understand what's going on. Okay, so the planter, the raised planter comes out and it's a low planting bed and the ATM, the former ATM disappears behind the stone.

and the window comes down. So it's the rendering that's really incomplete, or inaccurate rather. Any other questions? Any other comments, Matt?

I don't believe so at this time, no. Any comments from the audience? No hands up. Okay, you understand the staff recommended condition about the two medium or large deciduous canopy trees?

Yes, sir. Okay. And I think we have a couple other items. Yeah.

i move to approve as submitted with the staff recommendation and with the addition additional recommendation to continue the belt or soldier course in the brick to continue that in the stone give it some relief yeah Continue the relief pattern of the brick in the stone. So that it wraps around as a belt. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Okay. Thank you. That's the architectural review.

Now we do have the CUP. Brian? Brian? Not too much chat here.

Just that the CUP involves reoccupancy of an existing bank structure. Staff do not anticipate impact regarding traffic, noise, odor, light or public health, safety and welfare. And staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permits to City Council submitted. Any comments?

So with the my understanding that the third bay is not needed at all. going to assist in access from demand and access around the building better if you're not utilizing the drive-through. State Bank asked if we could remove that end bay, and that's how we were pursuing it. Will there be an ATM in one of the other two bays?

Yes, correct. Just a question based on what you just said. So currently that you can only exit onto Daman. You cannot enter the bank lot from Daman.

Are you asking to change that traffic direction? No, not at all. No, I'm sorry. No.

No, if you go to site plan, the survey kind of shows it a little better. So this would be What's being removed? Which widens this up better? Then there are still two bays, each with a canopy.

That is correct. So the third bay canopy and structure on the north side come out? That is correct. That does, from Ana's concern, how do you get out?

If you drive in from the east and you exit onto DeMond? So you come, you exit onto De Mond from the property. Oh, okay. Okay.

So you can enter the parking lot from the alley or from Clayton Road, and then you can exit onto DeMunn. Okay. Just north of the street parking. Right.

If we go to the site plan, so you can see that along the east end of the property at the northeast corner and the southeast corner, those are two-way access points currently at the northwest sorry northwest corner is where it's an exit only we're not changing any of the traffic circulation at all good did not look at the northwest corner so any other comments Yeah, I have just one. So you're putting in, or there will be an ATM in there. Is this a 24-hour ATM? Is it just during business hours?

And is there any concern in terms of, or restrictions that we have in regards to the sound or traffic queuing or anything with an ATM going in there? You're asking me if I'm concerned about the sound? Well, no, that was... One eye looking this way, one eye looking this way I guess.

More if it is going to be a 24-hour ATM, if that's in the plan, which I would imagine it would be. And then I guess for the staff, what happens if there's complaints about the sound or about vehicle queuing or security concerns? We don't anticipate any issues at this time, however, that we have mechanisms through compliance processes if some kind of nuisance were to arise. I think in this case too, Chris, it was a bank previously.

I lived in this area when this was a bank and it seemed to all function relatively well once you realize you had to go in from the alley and exit out the other way and stuff. It didn't ever seem to necessarily cause a problem. Yeah, quick question about... I agree, actually, with taking off the last bay of the drive-thru.

It will give you a lot more room on that end. Will that, with lopping that off, will the whole fascia all the way around the drive-thrus be redone? Correct. Okay.

You're not going to try to match the end to the existing side. Yeah. Okay. Correct.

It will probably never match. So, okay. Good. That's my only comment.

Any other comments? No. Okay, we have a recommendation to recommend approval to the City Council. Okay.

I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council as submitted. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thanks. And we look forward to this being operational and looking good again.

Thank you. Moving on to the next two items, which are 6349 Ellenwood. And we have both a CUP and architectural review. you know, Starting with the conditional use permit, the property is located on the north side of Ellenwood between Cecil and Widown.

The property is zoned R1. It's developed with a single-family house. The project scope includes the removal of summer yard paving and construction of a pool, pool house paving, and stormwater management system. The pool house would qualify as an accessory dwelling unit and therefore requires a conditional use permit to proceed.

The application is subject to regulations governing both ADUs and general CUP requirements. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing ADUs, provided that the structure is used in accordance with the requirements for ADUs. Staff find it will be adequately screened and buffered for neighboring properties, will therefore have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Section 405.840.A.5 of the CUP regulations addresses stormwater management.

The proposal would include a drainage basin to the east of the pool and two catch basins to the south of the pool. Drainage from the pool house and patio would flow towards the basins. While some runoff might still flow southeast, much of that rear-end runoff is going to be captured by those basins. Drainage from those basins would be piped to a pop-up emitter located in the front yard.

The pop-up would be located 10 feet from the front property line. The piping is designed to allow infiltration as the water moves towards the south and towards the pop-up. Discharge from the pop-up would drain towards the sidewalk and street. The tree lawn in front of the subject property is brick, lessening the opportunity for infiltration.

Staff are of the opinion that the pop-up should be more centrally located in the yard to give water greater opportunity to infiltrate the soil rather than flow towards the sidewalk and Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council with the following conditions. One, that the applicant record a deed restriction pursuant to item three under criteria for review with St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of the required deed restriction to the city prior to issuance of a building permit. And two, that the front yard pop-up be moved to a more central location in the front yard.

Hello? Should I respond to those comments or should I just give an overall? But first, give us your name. Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm Elle Knoll. I'm with Barley Design. So just on the stormwater notes, finally, the engineer did get back to me. Sorry about that.

The concerns about the pop up are that we don't have enough grade to actually locate it centrally on the land because actually the highest portion is to the central and north central part of the front lawn. So that prohibits us from moving the pop up inner further to the central part. So keeping it 10 feet away from the sidewalk is really kind of the best we can do. Okay.

And additionally, the perforated pipe that would lead to the pop-up emitter would allow water to seep in the entire length, which I think is about like 100 feet through a heavily planted area. the ryan the requirement the 10 foot requirement can we change that to allow it where it's shown are you asking if you can change the location of yes the pop-up right and if if this board finds that in approving this conditional use permit there might be some kind of nuisance created by the location of the pop-up you can request that location be moved Well, my feeling is that we should try to get it in a better location if possible. I hear what you say about how the land must be going up where we would want it to be. And also, I understand your comment about the perforated pipe.

However, the perforated pipes do clog up over time. I can attest to that. Let's see what other comments are here. Helen?

No, I understand what you're saying about the pop-up emitter. I don't have another solution to suggest. But the perforated drains, yes, do get clogged pretty quickly. And even with the sleeve, the fabric sleeve that you can put over them, it's still the kind of the particles find a way through and that's the end of the drainage.

Now, I don't have any other questions. Jim, I don't have any questions. I don't think either. I think in an ideal world, the pop up would probably be in a more central area.

That being said, I mean, we are still Reducing the flow overall. And I don't, I don't know of any, you know, long. It's not like this is a part of town where, you know, we see repeated issues or anything. So that combined with the reduction in flow.

I personally don't have too many worries about it. Chris. Are we just referring to the conditional use permit at this point, not the architecture review? Okay.

I have nothing further. Jeff? Just, and again, about only the conditional use, is this being proposed as an ADU, or are we saying it needs to be reviewed as an ADU? And then I have a follow-up.

The structure as proposed meets the qualifications of an ADU. We have not asked the applicant specifically what their intended use is for it. However, we have regulations that govern the use of ADUs. And so that condition of approval that spoke to the deed restriction, that's basically asking the applicant, hey, file a deed restriction on this property that says you're going to govern ADU or you're going to use your ADU in accordance with the requirements of the city.

Okay. And do we have – I just don't know – How many other ADUs are there in Clayton? I mean, they're not on every property. However, they're relatively common.

We probably get, I don't know, a couple requests per year related to ADUs, at least in the time that I've been here. They were just authorized. Well, we updated the – yeah, Ryan updated the regulations three years ago. But the definition is all you have to do is have a place to sleep, to eat, and to bathe.

So a lot of our pool houses, detached garage carriage houses, all those meet – a lot of them meet that definition. So even if they're using it as an office or as a pool house, it would still – technically be the definition of an ADU. Okay, but it can still only be occupied by relatives or an employee of the owner. Is that how this works?

Yeah, that's what Ryan was referencing with the restriction. Otherwise, yeah, I have no other questions and I have no further comments about the pop-up situation. Thanks. Susan?

Nothing. Nothing else? Any further comments? I think possibly the only other solution I could come to is maybe we pull the pop-up emitter further back from the street.

Obviously, it reduces our perforated pipe permeability. But in that case, when the permeability eventually fails to a certain extent, it would at least cause the pop-up meter to emit it closer to the house and closer to those planted areas. So I'm open to that as an option. i think that would be uh probably the best way we could go right now since we can't run it uphill alas um yet the other comment i think i'll just i will make sorry about pop-ups is um helen you've mentioned it on a few projects those those tend to the way they spit out near a sidewalk end up with sometimes ice on the sidewalk because of them you know i know it's what msd wants it's a don't get me started on this requirement but um it's they're kind of inherent problems they also usually take out the grass in front of them it's I wish there was a better way to do this that I don't think there is but I wish there was what about the comment that Al has just said about shortening it where it would be more in the landscape area right yes The lot line itself, to which most of the land slopes, is a heavily planted strip.

It actually provides quite a bit of privacy between the properties. So it wouldn't incur any damage to the neighboring property. And like I said, it would probably be better adept at taking this overflow. Would it be into a mulched area?

Yes, it's a mulched area. Will that work? When it emits water, will it pull the mulch away with it? It shouldn't.

That would be a very, because the point of the infiltration is to slow down the water. And so that's really the cause of the erosion. Again, I'm surprised at the amount of water that comes out of these sometimes. Something to think about from a yard maintenance.

Any other comments? So we are looking to relocate the pop-up further north, correct, into the mulch area, right? Yeah, I think that's appropriate, yes. And that would replace staff recommendation number two.

I move to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council with staff recommendation number one and staff recommendation number two modified to move the front yard pop-up to further north into the mulch area. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to the architectural review now.

So the exterior of the pool house would comprise white board and batten, white doors, white windows. Most of the structure's roof would be asphalt shingles and the patio roof would be metal. The architecture guidelines require that at least 75% of the facade comprise primary materials such as brick. Board and batten is considered a secondary material.

The structure would be located in the northwest corner of the property, shielded to the west by the garage and to the south by the house and landscaping. To the east are existing trees, and then 13 new Arborvitae trees are proposed to the north, and they was reached about six feet tall. To the north is a parking lot in the Washington University Catholic Student Center. Although the structure would be somewhat visible, much of it would be screened from adjacent properties.

Additionally, both the house and garage have a strong brick presence, maintaining the strong character of brick on the property. Therefore, staff are of the opinion that the structure would not impact the character of materials nearby. Staff recommend approval as submitted. Okay.

Comments? So this pool house is for a young family. They have two children. They love being outdoors.

They have a kind of tricky lot. It's long and thin. The house is Georgian style and the front door addresses the parking lot. So it doesn't have a strong street presence beyond the fact that it is heavily planted towards the front.

There's an existing enclosed porch, now enclosed porch on the east hand side. That is wood and painted white that we are trying to reference, as you can see the existing garage was probably built or designed in the 80s or 90s it has a non conforming roof pitch and the. broad face of that gable is facing the street. The purpose of this design is to minimize the impact of that asphalt shingle roof, to also match the existing ridge and eave heights so there is some architectural continuity, but then also bringing in some of the more favorable elements of the Georgian design of the existing house.

Into materials, so for majority, it Oh, I can. Okay. For the majority of the roof, it's asphalt shingles to match the existing one. It's kind of a bluish slate gray.

And then for our portion of very flat at the covered porch, we'd have a metal roof in a similar gray to match the asphalt shingles. We would match the faux eave tails at the garage with the enclosed porch. We would have some clerestory windows up high to provide some additional light and to break up that monolith of a roof. And then also below, we would have lighted doors with transoms and mullions to match the existing house.

The other materials, so as we mentioned, the exterior is board and batten. So we would use the large architectural panels. So we would have not quite the more standard 16- and 24-inch separations. These would actually be more like four-feet separations.

And that would be, like I said, in a white to match the existing house. It would be made of James Hardy architectural panels, so nice and durable. And then for the covered porch, I know it's showing very yellow in this photo, but actually it would be a travertine, warmer than this, lighter than that. And then the pool itself would be a typical blue, sorry, I should have updated this, a typical blue pebble check.

And then along the waterline tile, we have a pretty simple dark blue vertical tile, mostly to just make the pool seem darker, more historically appropriate. And then we would extend the brick pathway to match the existing one, incorporate a bit of a curved design around the existing French door openings onto the living room, and then saw cut back that driveway so we could install a planting strip to help both with water and also to improve the kind of aesthetic value of that parking lot. I really like it. The board and batten material seems to relate to the garage doors very well.

The proportions, I think, are beautiful. I like the clerestory window. The materials look good. It just has a very warm, inviting feeling, the whole thing.

I don't have a problem with it. Maybe someone else does. Ellen? No, I don't have problem either.

I like the way it's set in front of the garage a bit and keeps the ridge line of the garage. And it's almost the same size as the garage. If you had tried to do it in brick, which rules do require it wouldn't work it really looks good the windows yes they duplicate the garage windows I think my only question is where is the pool fence Sorry, we have an auto cover, an auto vault cover. So basically automatically senses when there are no occupants and it will close for safety to be able to open it.

It's from a secure location, which the owner only has control over. It's at a height mounted where children cannot reach. And so you have to hold it while visually having access to the pool. As far as I understand, it has been fully approved by the city of Clayton in lieu of a pool fence.

Okay. it looks great thank you jim overall i agree i think it's i think it's a great looking structure that the only thing i kind of batted around in my head is you know if maybe just on that southern face there was brick i'll take helen and what she says that uh that will work uh it's it's not something i strongly uh considered and i think even No matter what material you use on that southern face, it's almost all windows anyway. So I don't think any material is going to have a really strong impact on that. But yeah, I like how it picked up the details of the garage and everything.

And there's a lot of ways this could have gone wrong. So I like to see how it came together. Thank you. Bruce?

I really like the design as well. I think it's very inviting. I am wondering what procedural basis do we have for approving something like this, since it specifically does not meet the guidelines per staff? Is this something that can be approved in that case?

Yes. Because of its architectural merit or? Yeah, it's the architectural review. We have deviated from the percent requirements before.

We can do it again. That's great. Because it's not a code requirement that the Board of Adjustment Variants is required. The architectural review guidelines are what you as the ARB adopt, and then there's a process for them to come to you to ask for a difference.

And is it accurate that this AccuCover, this automatic cover, does meet the guidelines of Clayton? Because I think it would look very different if there is a fence around this pool. Yes. Our adopted pool code does allow for an automatic cover.

The specifics of the cover that they're going to use will be reviewed by our planes examiner when they actually get their pool permit. But there is a pool cover exception in our code. And my assumption is that this would be a pool that, since it's got that automatic cover, it would remain filled throughout the year so they would not be draining it. There'd be no issues with drainage there.

I see that this is built on plane with the sidewalk here. My concern is that when they're digging up the ground and putting this pool in, that it's actually not going to be on the same horizontal plane, that this is going to be raised. And I see on the side that it looks like this... It almost looks like a wall on the side all the way around.

Is that just the rendering or how is it actually the transition from the top of the pool decking going into the grass? Yeah, so that's something that we'll probably need to feather out. We wouldn't want to create too much of a standing plane and too much of a drop off. So the intention would be to address that with the same material as the patio.

We've actually revised the design so we won't be having the blue tile outside of the interior of the pool. So it'd be a more natural transition from the top down into grass, most likely almost running straight up to the pool. I think it's really nice looking. You've done a good job with it.

Thank you. actually i was i was going to say how much i liked the way it sits and the way it looks in this rendering i've seen other pools like this where that little low wall becomes a seating wall essentially um around the pool for when you've got parties when you have gatherings there i think it's nice um and i just wanted to say i think this is beautiful i wish more projects that we looked at came to us with this level of detail and thought put into them. I mean, it's obvious to me that this picks up on the sunroom side porch, whatever it's called. I think it being white like that porch is white is perfect.

And I'm really glad it's not brick at all. So just nothing but congratulations and tell Susan I said so. Thank you. Susan?

It's beautiful, and my only question was the fence, and I learned something today. It's great. Thanks. Well, there's no one else in the audience.

Are there hands up? No. Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted.

I don't think we have any changes. No. I move to approve as submitted the Second. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much.

For the good detailed drawings and when will they be putting it in? Well, good luck with it. Yeah. Very good.

okay we are down to uh 48 arundel place is the uh i believe i saw them online yeah um Okay, Mr. Hoffman? Yes, can you hear us? Yes, we'll get started with the state report.

Starting with the site plan review. The subject property is located on the south side of Arundel between DeMunn Avenue and University Lane. The property is developed with a two-story single-family home and rear detached garage. The project's scope consists of the demolition of an existing screen porch and construction of a new rear addition.

The proposal meets the height setback and green space requirements for the R2 district. No additional HVAC units are proposed at this time. No change is projected for existing and proposed runoff. Downspouts from the new addition would connect to pop-up emitters located in the rear yard.

Staff have no concerns regarding the stormwater management. The site has one tree with an existing canopy coverage of 1,963 square feet that would be removed. The plan proposes adding three trees totaling 1,500 square feet of canopy coverage. The minimum canopy required for this site is 3,627 square feet.

The proposal would result in a deficit of 2,127 square feet. This deficit would require payment to the City Forestry Fund. Section 405-4090 requires at least 33% of trees to be Missouri natives. None of the trees are proposed to be natives.

Staff are of the opinion that proposal should meet the native minimum requirement. Staff recommend approval with the condition that the landscape plan be revised to meet the native species requirement. Well, the willow is a native. Okay, Mr.

Hoffman, any comments? Well, thank you for having us. In terms of the landscape plan, the one tree that is scheduled to be moved, it's just due to its proximity to the addition, so that structure there. So we've been advised that the root structure would be too close, and then also the overhang of the house.

So that's the rationale for the removal. Otherwise, it's been a great tree. We really do love it. In terms of the future landscape plans, this is something that we are looking to do down the line, but just has not been a priority at the moment.

The priority has just been focusing on the addition. But we plan to come back later and with, I think, a proposal for landscaping if possible to do that at a later date. But also the river birch is a Missouri native and it's 50% of the canopy that's being added. We can barely hear you.

Oh sorry, that's my wife Anne. One of the three trees being added is a river birch which was listed as one of the natives I believed and it's 50 percent of the added canopy that's coming in unless I'm totally mistaken. The native count that staff reviewed was just based on the tree chart that was provided in the landscape review. If we need to go back and check that as soon as we can.

I think it was just an error because the river birch is listed on the list of native trees, and that is what we have added in the backyard. Does that show there? Yeah. Is that the DuraHeat in the back corner by the garage?

The DuraHeat river birch. If that is the case too, then you could still approve with the staff recommendation and that proposal would meet the recommendation. We would just need to check and see if there was an error in the tree chart and if that does meet the native species requirement. Okay.

Yeah, right now it should be 50% of the canopy coverage being added is native. Okay, so we could do that and it would be checked Yeah, so as Ryan is saying, if you approve with the condition right now, we'll make sure to verify with our contracted reviewer, landscape architect who did the review, if the current plan actually should be compliant or not, and we can move on from there. Okay, well, I think that helps understanding it. Okay, so...

As far as the site plan review goes, I think the proposed drainage seemed okay when I read it. It's virtually no change. Is that correct, Mr. Hoffman?

I believe there are pop-up emitters being added for the drainage for the addition structure that should be 10 feet away from the property in the backyard. Right. 10 feet, sorry, yeah, from the property line and from the house. But otherwise, that should be correct.

The existing structure, there's no changes to it. okay um but there's no additional water being directed to any neighbor property correct okay and i'm reading that okay let's go around the members helen no questions jim no questions or comments for site plan chris Just a couple. First off, I'm seeing reference to Ann and Philip Hoffman. And then on some plans, I see Ryan and Ann Hoffman.

What is the correct owner's name? My full name is Philip Ryan Hoffman. My dad is Philip. I'm Ryan.

So yeah, forgive us for the probably legal name versus my daily name. Okay. No, I wasn't challenging it. I didn't think there was any strange things going on.

I just want to clarify that. Yeah, thank you. I'm wondering, there was no call for new HVAC system. So I'm wondering, the existing HVAC system is designed or is going to cover this new addition.

Is that correct? That's correct. I think that's the only... Uh, in regards to the lighting, there was a, there was call out for 75 Watts or less.

And I just wondered, um, if we could get more specific down the road in terms of directional of the lighting, the warmth of the lighting. I mean, 75 Watts seems very broad. Um, it's certainly not a condition not to approve, but I'm just hoping that we can get more specificity in regards to that down the road. That said, I think it looks awesome by the way, but we'll talk about that in architectural review.

oh great thanks and sorry for the lighting specifically are you referring to outdoor lighting uh or was there specific lighting elsewhere just so that we can make note of it no i believe it was the exterior lighting called out for um i saw it on one of the schedules but i have a hastily scribbled note that i then type without referring so um I'll look through here, and if I can find it specifically, I'll readdress it here. Okay. Say again? Where it just says 75%.

Yeah. It's on page three of the report document. Yeah, correct. So lighting all exterior lights will be 75 watts or less.

So that's on the staff on the roof, um, the staff for the staff report. Okay, thank you. Anything else Chris? No, nothing further Jeff.

Thanks. Um. Yeah, maybe this is a site plan comment that ends up becoming an architectural issue. The only thing I would say is that the mass of the addition, given how far I'm trying to figure out which direction is which here, but given the closeness of the facade of the addition to the existing side facades of the building, do make it relatively visible from the street.

I was a little surprised when I went over and looked at it. So I think somewhere in your presentation here, it says you won't see this addition from the street. And I don't think that's true at all. I think you'll see quite a bit of it because of its width in the back.

So that's really just a comment, not a question. And I guess it'll relate more to when we're talking about the architecture of it later on. okay um yeah my concern is um with the loss of tree canopy quite honestly if 3627 uh is required and the proposal is for 1500 that's a loss of square footage and canopy of 2100 square feet i don't know if there's somewhere else you could look at planting some trees to replace that canopy or what you've considered on that To be honest, our current tree is just it's 100 year old sweet gum. It's enormous and it would be almost impossible to really replace it.

Given the size of the lot, we thought what will grow into a medium in the back and two smalls in the front was reasonable. But if I mean, yeah, again, if you want more, we can try to add more. It's just we're never going to be able to reach that canopy coverage from that enormous sweet gum that's coming down. Right.

So something closer that the area is the city's goal for that area is a canopy of 46%, which I don't think we have. And just if there's something 1500 square feet, it's just a lot less than the 3600 that's required. Anything that might get closer, I think would be very helpful. Um, cause I know that, you know, the section far at the front near the street has a, it'll be a full grown maple.

So we've been told we don't have space to add anything up there either. Um, I don't know. Do you have any other places? It's possible there along the, I think it's the Eastern fence, uh, that we share with the neighbor in the backyard by the, uh, Um, river birch or the Dura heat, if it extends up on that Eastern fence.

Um, I could foresee some trees going there too, but again, they would, I would imagine have to be smaller just given the, you know, how far they out in the proximity to the fence and the side of the yard and then the house. When we looked into them, they didn't add much in terms of the square footage because all that we were told by the landscape architect who fit there were the small ones, like 250 square foot max. We're happy to add them. I'm not sure where else we could fit a medium in on the lot.

Yeah, even that would help. I think that that would be great if you could add that. Okay, sure. We could do that.

Mm-hmm. Any other comments on the site plane review? We do have the native species requirement as part of the staff recommendation. We can make sure there's additional trees along the fence are native.

Along the east side? Correct. I think that's the east, right? The eastern side to the top of the drawing there.

Yes. Because you're on the south side of Arundel, correct? That's correct. Yeah, then it would be on the east.

Yeah, we can have those there. i'm comfortable with that any comments no okay we'll see east okay i moved to approve As submitted with the staff recommendation and an additional recommendation that a tree, a native species required tree will be added on the east side. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. That was site plan review.

Now we'll move into the architectural review. Brian. The additions vary in size and materials and are often located in the rear or upper levels of existing structures in the Hillcrest neighborhood. The house subject property is two stories and has a Tudor Revival design.

Materials include the primary use of red brick with white stucco located on the front roof cable. The proposed addition would reach two stories and align with the height of the existing house, and it would comprise of gray board and batten siding and black windows. The massing of the addition is located at the rear of the house and would not extend beyond the existing height or width of the structure. The current rear massing is shallower than that of many of the surrounding properties, so although the addition would increase the mass of the area of the house and introduce siding, it would remain consistent with the massing of additions found throughout the surrounding area.

It also does not project beyond adjacent structures, limiting its overall visual impact. The architecture review guidelines require at least 75% of each facade to comprise of a primary material. The side facades would decrease from almost entirely brick to approximately 60% brick, while the rear facade would become approximately 90% siding. The board and batten siding has a vertical design reflective of elements found on the front facade.

Staff are of the opinion that the masking extensive use of windows under the board and batten design are likely to limit the visual impact of the addition and maintain compatibility with the existing structure and surrounding area. Staff recommend approval is submitted. Okay, any comments? Anne or Ryan?

I think we, I'm not sure if everyone had a chance to look at the, I think I attached an additional PDF just stating the vision for the home. Our vision, our obsession for many years has been what many 19th century London Victorians have done with a traditional facade on the front and then a very modern rear extension on the back to accommodate 21st century living styles. And for our growing family, we have three young kids. We love the concept of an open floor plan on the downstairs with a light filling the room and then just an easy step out to the backyard where the kids are playing.

So we also just love the idea of it being in and out as much as possible, and so want that ease of access. So that's the inspiration, and open to any questions about it. But then, yeah, I think that's it for now. Well, I'll start out by saying I actually like it.

I think it fits well. I do agree with Jeff that I think the sides will be visible from the street. But I'm really not too worried about that. I think it works.

I think the examples you've given us of more contemporary designs working with more historical ones was very effective. I feel comfortable with it in this location. Thank you. It's great.

yeah i would agree um i think i'd like to see it more modern contemporary more glass the first floor at the rear has a lot of glass and above you're going more towards the existing and then when you turn the corner in either direction, you've gone existing traditional. I would like to see more of the plain glass without the muntins in them and just more glass. I do think the head drawing, unfortunately, doesn't do justice to the board and baton design. It shows the baton as a straight line, where if you were doing that by hand, you could kind of get in another line.

So it gave it more character. But my main concern is the switching from the very contemporary glass at the base in the back to very traditional casements above and then on the sides so other than that i like it um I don't think you'd be able to duplicate that brick and the laying of it. I think if you attempted to do the rear, the addition in brick, that it would fail. So I think this is a nice compliment.

Thank you. I actually agree with you. I love adding more modern windows. I wish it was all super modern.

But we were trying to give If either of our neighbors, people who will from their backyard possibly see our upper or the sides of the house and maybe don't like the modern look, this was kind of our compromise. We thought it gave us what we wanted while also keeping with the neighborhood. But I'm with you. If it were just exactly what I wanted, it would be all glass and modern windows.

Yeah, we wrestled with it for a long time. So we completely, I think, relate to connect and agree with your comments. Yes. I think if that's something that's desired from the rest of the panel, we would be open to that.

Okay. Yeah, I think my comments are kind of along those lines. And I'm not normally known as the contemporary architecture guy. But as far as your page, your London Victorias with Modern Extensions, I love all of these examples.

This is a style that I liked a lot. The problem is when it comes to the actual plan, I don't know if I see this inspiration reflected in the plan. I feel like it leans very traditional. And if you look specifically at every single one of the example images, these are all one-story additions off the back that allows for some more variation and roof pitch and stuff like that, where this on the back of this is two stories.

And certainly you get... Certainly you get a lot of glass on the first floor, but it doesn't quite necessarily, it doesn't read as contemporary as the examples that are provided. All that being said, I don't know if I have got this giant problem with how it's presented based on everything um but I also worry a little bit about precedent of additions of basically just a large two-story board and bad and Hardy on the back because I could see something you know if that being allowed uh kind of a lather Ritz repeat that we see in the future and I know with other times we've kind of strayed from material examples where there isn't something like kind of truly novel being presented, then we see copycats of that right away. And I think this is, that's the only thing, that's one of my main worries is that we just see these full hearty extensions that go on to drive the cost down.

If it was more like some of the example images and truly a contemporary addition onto the back, I think I'd feel stronger about supporting it knowing that it doesn't meet the city's material requirements. When you say more contemporary materials, are you thinking like... Like I've seen zinc, black metal. Yeah, if you look, a lot of these are steel or metal.

There's also, like I said, just kind of... Once again, all the example images are also one-story additions that then a lot of them provide some interest in the roof level where this is a fairly standard two-story box on the back of the house. Now, I'm not saying that there's anything particularly offensive of it, but at the same time, it is a two-story box at the back of a property that's made entirely of hardy board when we look at it. And I don't know that the contemporary inspiration skews it enough in a direction that we can say like, oh, this is something different, very different that we're seeing.

Therefore, it needs to be looked at this different way. I think that's fair. Okay, we'll take that note. Chris?

Yeah, yeah. My wife is all Biedermeier furniture and I'm all Brewer. And we tried to combine those two into our living room. I think you've done a much better job with this, with combining two styles than we have with a very modern and one that's very traditional.

So I applaud you for that. I agree that it I'd like to see it even more contemporary than it is just on the basis that in years past, In the future, we could argue that it was truly architecturally significant, and that's why we approved it. I think it is awesome. I really do like the design.

I love that you're doing something contemporary. It's very much kind of business in the front, party in the rear, in a sense. I wonder about extending the windows on that second floor, if that was... if the series of four windows was actually brought more.

So that was continuous all the way across. I don't know if there's a way of doing it, but that would be kind of visually striking. Is this a curtain wall set of windows down below? Do these all open or how is that actually laid out on the first floor?

The quad slider. So the center two will slide out and then the two outer ones are fixed. Okay. So I sent her two there.

And I think that's going to be great for getting some movement with three kids in and out of the house like that. I think you've really thought through that well. I'm going to take a note out of Susan's book, and I'm sure she might bring this up, but I'm thinking about glazing and about whether you've considered any sort of treatment on the window so you're not having birds flying into the window all the time here. That would be something I'd maybe encourage you to consider because this is a large expanse of glass.

So there's nothing in here that would cause me any sort of concern. I really like it. My only suggestions would be looking at some glazing for birds. And then potentially adding some sort of an architectural element, whether it's extending the windows on that second floor or something that even skews more in the contemporary line and pushes the envelope a little bit more.

Neighbors be damned. That's it. I love that. Okay, great.

Yeah, this is Jeff. My earlier comment about site planning was not a negative. You make a comment here in your presentation about don't worry, you won't see it from the street. I want you to see it from the Street and I really think it needs to be gutsier.

The London examples they're shown are beautiful and there are things that said this is new, this is modern. They're metal. They have a lot of glass. Many of them have flat roofs.

Now, I know that may be extremely scary here in terms of an addition. We were nervous about that, yeah. But I think really embracing the newness of this addition would be great. And I completely agree with Helen's comments about fenestration.

I wish the windows were a little larger. I wish they weren't muntined. Um, I don't, I mean, some of your examples of other Clayton additions in the worst way, I don't want it to end up looking like 6309 Alamo or like the top of 8007 Venetian drive. I mean, and I'm afraid it can, if you don't take some strong steps with the architecture, it has the potential to look like that.

So, um, Yeah, don't be bashful about it. If you're going to do it, do it, would be my comments. And I'm not going to tell you exactly how to do that, but I wish it was more modern. I don't know.

You can't. You can't hire David Chipperfield, but the approach that they took there is actually the approach of the art museum is what historic people tell you to do with new additions. They are supposed to be of their time. They're not supposed to try to be Disneyland copies of the building that they're attaching to.

So, so don't be afraid of it and do something really, really beautiful back there and think that way. Think, think beyond wood and modern windows. What can, what can you really do to make it modern? Thanks.

I can't, it sounds like he may be coming back to us with something, something more, but yeah, Chris was right. The, with that amount of glass, it, beautiful and there's a lot it's not always just a film there's especially if you're doing installation there are a lot of different options out there and i hope you can look at that um to prevent the bird collisions and the kids seeing the bird collisions uh as you look at this amount of glass in addition the good news about kids is they leave a lot of fingerprints so they'll be very visible but you know the bird safe glass might help with that too well the definition there fair And actually, the Sustainability Commission did do a lot of research on this and could probably help you get started if you need some of what's out there. Oh, lovely. Thank you.

Also, had you considered all the glass on the back of the house? I believe it faces south. It does. It does indeed.

We have considered that, yes. We love it. When we even were looking in the Clayton area and looking at different properties, when we found this home, it was listed as is and had been kind of neglected for a few years, but we just were in love with where it is in the neighborhood, how it sits on the lot, the fact that it... abuts the rest of the Des Moines kind of business district and the seminary and love the natural light that we'll pour in.

But we are aware of the, I guess, to your question, the potential for direct sunlight at certain times of day or year. um we don't have it on there and maybe it's something we should include it sounds like we should come back to you um with a more bold vision but it's some something of an awning above it just to help shade i'm not sure if that's where you were leading but uh yes it was in fact when i first looked at it i thought it could be very nice if the second floor overhung the first floor, giving it some more definition and some shading. But now, if you're actually looking for more glass on the second floor, then the roof could come out and give some shading also. If that were the case, you might want to consider a low slope roof that doesn't really replicate the existing house roof.

And it could all become very, very different, similar to what we've seen in your examples. Yeah, we're open to that. Ryan would love a low slope roof. She's been fighting for it forever, but there's been concerns about drainage and snowpack, all those things.

We're really not trying to redesign it, but give you some ideas because it sounds like you might be willing to come back. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, y'all are partners in this and we, I think to an extent, maybe we're thankful and we feel like we're maybe seeking permission a little bit to be bold. So thank you for your openness and I think excitement even around all this.

I think we're sitting here a little giddy just hearing your comments. I think the comments that you've heard and Jeff's about don't, Don't hold back from being bold. I mean, yeah, I think just just doing it part way is problematic and it will feel that way. You know, there's there's some other things to think about with bird bird for it, for instance, on glass that can also help with shading on southern glass.

So you can terrible metaphor. kill two birds with one stone. You can get shading in the glass and at the same time make it safer for the birds. There's also a nice line here on the front of the house where at the bottom of the timbering basically from the Tudor house, that lines up almost exactly with where you're putting the head of the windows on the back of the house.

That could be an overhung canopy, or as Steve said, the second floor coming out to that point. So you could pick up a little bit on the massing of the house, but in, again, a really modern way. I like that. I agree.

We should try to redesign it for you. But just try to make something as beautiful as some of the pictures you're showing us. Sure. Okay.

We're trying to loosen up your thought process. Happy to oblige. Okay. Any other comments from the ARB?

No? Any other comments from you online? No. I'm just sorry we couldn't be there in person.

We were out of town on vacation plans, so thank you for having Zoom as an option. I think we're excited about this, and we'd like to see where it's going next. So my recommendation, if you were to agree, is that we continue this to a future meeting. Sounds great.

Can I ask what that typical process looks like? Is it where we just need to reapply once we have the updated plans or submit it to the portal? You don't need to reapply. You can just, whenever you have your revisions, upload them on CitizenServe and we'll automatically get a notification if there's something new to review and we'll check in with you.

Okay, great. Brian, do we have a date issue on that? They'd be subject to the standard 60-day timeline. If they want more time, I'll of course follow up with them tomorrow and we can talk about the waiver options.

If they feel like they're going to come back within 60 days, we can address that there. Okay. Okay. I move to continue to a future date to be determined.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Well, we will look forward to seeing you in the near future. Wonderful. Thank you so much for your time.

You're welcome and good luck. Thank you. Bye-bye. I think that's brought us to the end of the agenda.

Jeff, any further comments? Nope. Nothing. Thank you.

Chris? Nothing. Good to see you. Jim?

Looking forward to the rare three meetings in one month. Helen? Nothing further. Susan?

Nothing except that I'll be missing that last meeting of the month, so we'll be on vacation. Well, we do have three meetings in August, but none in September. We have one in September. I think it might be the 14th.

There goes your vacation policy. Really? September 14th, yeah. Wow.

Yeah, because of the various holidays. That's why we basically shifted those two. So one moved into August and the other one moved into the off week. Well, good.

We won't miss a month. Ryan, anything else? That's all. Anna, welcome back.

Evan. Sure. No comment. Well, that's surprising, but sounds fine.

Good to see you again. Okay, we will see you all on, well, we'll see most of you on the 31st. Okay, we're adjourned.