Mr. Schmelzer asked the size of the trench drain.

4

Ms. Mullins indicated that it is 24-inches wide by 18-inches deep.

Acting Chairman Reim asked where the water goes from there (the drain).

Ms. Mullins stated that it discharges to the left pop-up emitter.

Scott Wilson commented that the proposed temporary water retention system should be an improvement as there’s no retention system on the site now.

Susan Istenes reiterated that there is no increase in discharge.

Scott Wilson suggested speaking with the civil engineer.

Ms. Mullins commented that their civil engineer was not here this evening.

Joanne Boulton asked for an explanation of the system.

Susan Istenes indicated that the trench drain will capture and hold/detain water until it flows to the pop-up emitters at which time it percolates onto the ground.

Joanne Boulton asked if the system includes gravel.

Susan Istenes stated that it could.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that an 18 X 24 trench is not very big and again suggested volume storage.

Susan Istenes said that either way, the requirement remains the same; she noted that there are pros and cons to all retention systems and they all need to be maintained to function properly.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that a result of volume storage is a better yard as they are not tripping hazards and that the property is more marketable with a (buried) volume storage system.

Acting Chairman Reim asked about the run-off calculations.

Susan Istenes informed the members that the City’s Public Works Department (City’s Civil Engineer) checked the calculations and to be sure the proposal met code.

Acting Chairman Reim noted that he saw a large concrete pad on the property and it seems all the water flows to the northwest corner which is not the case with the plan.

Susan Istenes informed the members that the City’s Public Works Department (City’s Civil Engineer) checked the calculations and to be sure the proposal met code. Acting Chairman Reim noted that he saw a large concrete pad on the property and it seems all the water flows to the northwest corner which is not the case with the plan.

5 Daren Kest, owner of 8155 Stratford, informed the members that he has spent over $50,000 fixing water problems on his property and wants assurances that these projects won’t result in more problems.

Acting Chairman Reim asked where the trench drain is located.

Mr. Kest stated that it is next to the driveway almost along the fence-line.

Acting Chairman Reim informed Mr. Kest that this Commission/Board does not act as a mediator between neighbor disputes.

Scott Wilson commented that common sense dictates that the proposed plan will be an improvement over the current drainage/run-off situation.

Susan Istenes asked Mr. Kest if he is adjacent to the 8151 property; again noting that the review is currently for the 8147 site.

Mr. Kest replied “yes”.

Susan Istenes noted that the coverage for this lot is being reduced, which is typically not the case with new development projects.

Acting Chairman Reim reminded everyone that the project currently being considered is 8147; 8151 will be considered afterwards.

Joanna Boulton asked if the end result with regard to run-off will be no worse than it is today.

Susan Istenes replied “essentially, yes”, adding that the code only requires mitigation for additional run-off.

Joanne Boulton asked what is or can be done about existing run-off problems.

Susan Istenes indicated that there is not provision in the code that requires mitigation for existing issues.

Joanne Boulton asked the applicants to comment.

Mr. Kotets commented that most of the drainage will flow away from Mr. Kest’s property.

Joanne Boulton asked about the 8147 project.

Ms. Mullins stated that the trench drain is 15-feet in length.

The proposed fence does not extend into the front yard. Director Istenes stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and that staff’s recommendation is to approve as submitted.

7 Ms. Mullins presented samples of the proposed brick and limestone; color swatches of the proposed colors for the roof and windows were also shown. A color rendering of the proposed home (front elevation) was distributed for review by the members.

Joanne Boulton asked if this is a spec home.

Ms. Mullins replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton asked what color the mortar will be.

Ms. Mullins indicated that the mortar color will be similar to the brick color.

Scott Wilson noted that sometimes, applicants bring in actual window samples and roofing samples; he asked if what they brought for presentation is acceptable.

Susan Istenes stated that whatever the Board is comfortable with is acceptable.

While the color rendering was being passed among the members, Ms. Mullins noted that they are trying to retain the neighborhood’s color scheme.

Joanne Boulton commented that it seems a bit “bland”.

William Lieberman asked if the windows will be aluminum clad; wood interior.

Ms. Mullins replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

Acting Chairman Reim asked when they plan to start construction.

Ms. Mullins replied “as soon as possible”.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8151 STRATFOR DRIVE

Joanne Boulton asked when the current house was built.

Ms. Mullins indicated that she believed it was built in 1927.

Anna Krane explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,590-square- foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence with an attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 6.8 inches as measured from the average existing

Anna Krane explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,590-square- foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence with an attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 6.8 inches as measured from the average existing

8 grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located just behind the house under the rear deck with the trash enclosure fence providing screening to the west. Landscaping is proposed underneath and around the deck however, it is not dense enough or tall enough to screen the location of the A/C units. See Landscaping for recommendations. Trash will be stored in a 45- square-foot trash enclosure located behind the northwest corner of the house with access provided from the driveway. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 50 percent for the inclusion of an attached, at-grade, side- loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 54 percent; however the existing structure is to be demolished. The new plans decrease the impervious coverage to 50 percent, which is the maximum allowed. The rear deck area was not included as impervious coverage in the calculations due to the height above grade. In order to insure the deck does not act as an impervious surface, it is the recommendation of the City’s Department of Public Works that the deck be constructed with slats/openings to allow water to flow directly down to grade and reach the pervious ground cover below. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 20 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.38 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.38 CFS, which represents no change. All downspouts and the sump-pump discharge will be piped to the proposed pop-up emitter in either the front yard or rear yard. The Public Works Department recommends considering an infiltration trench in the rear yard of 8151 (or relocating the proposed infiltration trench from the front yard of 8147) to connect the sump pump discharge and downspouts. The proposed landscape design features appropriate front façade planting and rear yard screening. There is 6,039 square feet of existing canopy. The landscape plan proposes 3,500 square feet of canopy coverage on site (740 square feet surplus) and meets the native tree requirement with 41.7 percent native trees. One existing street tree is dead and will need to be removed. The City will be replacing this tree. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The proposed landscaping underneath and around the rear deck does not provide sufficient screening of A/C equipment. It is the recommendation of the City’s contracted landscape architect that the area underneath the deck be covered with decorative gravel and that tall, narrow evergreen shrubs (such as Juniper or Arbovitae) are planted along the north and east side of the deck to provide dense screening of A/C units. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. Anna noted that staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit: