lines, also noting the method of connection to the gas line across Stratford Drive.

9 Acting Chairman Reim asked for confirmation that the considerable drop-off in grade will be eliminated.

Ms. Mullins confirmed.

Joanne Boulton noted that a letter had been received from the property owner directly to the north of this property.

Acting Chairman Reim stated that there is concern about run-off from this lot (51) and asked the applicants if they would consider mitigation methods for this lot as well.

Ms. Mullins agreed and reminded the members that once the project is complete, the lot will contain 30% less coverage/concrete.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that he suggests a volume storage system on this lot as well and noted that one downspout discharges directly onto the ground.

Joanne Boulton stated that the applicant just agreed to incorporate an infiltration system on this lot.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that an infiltration system is not enough; volume storage is needed. He again stated that the property will be more marketable if there are no pop-ups and that he does not believe a volume storage system costs more. He then stated that he believes there is a discrepancy in the run-off calculations.

Acting Chairman Reim asked the applicant to comment, as the City’s civil engineer is not here this evening.

Mr. Kotets stated that the documents/calculations have been reviewed by the City’s civil engineer and that they agree to add a trench on this lot as well.

Ms. Mullins added that the proposal was designed by their civil engineer and reviewed by the City’s civil engineer.

Scott Wilson commented that he assumes these engineers have done their jobs.

Joanne Boulton stated that she is concerned that the calculations are wrong.

Scott Wilson stated that the experts can re-review.

Susan Istenes reiterated that the City can still only require mitigation on the differential.

Scott Wilson stated that the experts can re-review. Susan Istenes reiterated that the City can still only require mitigation on the differential.

10 Mr. Kest stated that he does not want any more water problems; he’s had to deal with water and sewer problems since he moved in; he wants assurance that these project won’t negatively impact his property.

Joanne Boulton asked what the cost difference is between a trench and storage.

Ms. Mullins stated that she does not know.

Acting Chairman Reim commented that different engineers have different methods.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve per staff recommendations, that a trench drain be added to the project and that the calculations be re- checked for accuracy. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved b y the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,860-square- foot single-family residence with a 420-square-foot attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 6.8 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The homes located east of Forsyth Boulevard in Clayton Gardens are predominately two-stories in height, making the integration of new development somewhat easier. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, and variations in material. The existing home to the west (8155 Stratford Drive) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 14.1 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid- point of each roof). The proposed home to the east (8147 Stratford Drive) is +/- 0.5 feet taller than proposed home on this lot. As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, to avoid tall, blocky building forms, new structures shall incorporate a transition in height and scale through one of six possible techniques. According to the applicant, the following permitted technique is used: “Increasing the side yard setback one foot for every five feet the height of the structure exceeds the height of the adjacent structure at the side yard.” The required side yard setbacks are 5 feet and a minimum 7.8 foot setback on the west side would be needed to meet mitigation technique described above. The proposed setbacks are 10 feet on the west side and 5 feet on the east side. Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is red brick with the secondary building material being off-white limestone. The limestone will make up no more than 25 percent of the front façade and 10 percent of each side façade. The proposed roof is clad in asphalt shingles, slate grey in color. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9.5-foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the west side of the home that leads to a side-entry, at-grade attached garage with a black paneled garage door. A 6-foot tall wood-sight proof fence is proposed along the north property line. Anna stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.