October 7, 2019 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2019 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1730.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, Interim City Manager Janet Watson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Ron Reim, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow, and George Hettich answered roll call.

Arrived after Roll Call: Robert Denlow

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AIPC, Planning Director Scott Dedert, Planner

CHAIRMAN REQUESTS

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

Chairman Lichtenfeld also asks that anyone who speaks please spell out their last name.

2 OLD BUSINESS

8100 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW COMMERCIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “On the Plan Commission and/or Architectural Review Board meeting of September 16,2019, the board decided to have the applicant return to the next meeting of October 7, 2019 with the materials to be used within this project. Another request from the board was to have the applicant return with updated elevations with the streetscape, exterior lighting and landscaping shown to reflect what was being asked for during the site plan review at the meeting of September 16, 2019. The applicant has provided the necessary elevation plans to reflect most if not all the changes.

The approximately 27,172 square foot site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The site currently contains a small bank building, drive-through ATM, drive-up teller stations and surface parking.

The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing building and drive-through and the construction of a 4,598 square foot bank building with 18 parking spaces. A full access curb cut is proposed at the north corner of the property along Forsyth Boulevard. An exit only curb cut is proposed at the south corner of the property along Parkside Drive.

The property is a corner lot at the intersection of Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. The east property line parallels Forsyth Boulevard, which arcs to the northwest. There are vacant commercial buildings to the north and northwest along that same arc. There are multifamily townhomes to the south and west; Shaw Park is located across Parkside drive to the south and east.

The property is in the Park View District as identified in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The vision of the Park View District is to create a “neighborhood along the park that takes advantage of the valuable views of Shaw Park and transforms the urban edge of the park into an active street life environment with sports, cultural and entertainment venues.” At the corner of Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive the applicant plans to maintain the grassed landscape circle but the design of the building itself does little to address the corner. The site is located along a prominent view corridor. The design is suburban in layout with a square building ringed with grass and parking. The building form, design and siting does not address the street or the corner in any meaningful way. Additional landscaping may help soften the appearance of the building. See comments in the site plan review staff report.

There will be sidewalks on all sides of the building with City Streetscape standards on both Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. The applicant notes that the intent for the Bank’s design is a “Folder Plane” concept, which uses a distinctive two-story panel element, defining the building’s horizontal and vertical edges. The two-story effect will be broken up by painted metal and steel panels of different shapes and sizes as seen in the elevation plans. Below the roof plane will be glass fenestration, brick masonry with a dark earth tone and wood materials will be used to capture the Parkside Drive residential uses.

The proposed building has three pedestrian access points. One access point will be on the northside of the building fronting Forsyth Boulevard, the second will be the main entrance with a double door entry on the eastside of the building fronting Parkside Drive, and the third will be on the southside of the building.

The Architectural Site Plan (A-0.50) indicates that there is canopy lighting. It is unclear from the plan where that lighting will be located. Additionally, the information on the plan is blurred and it is difficult to identify the fixture used. The applicant needs to explain the proposed lighting, type of fixtures used, location (on building or ground).

3 The applicant proposes five (5) directional signs, which includes “Stop and Do Not Enter” signs. Per the Zoning Ordinance, directional traffic, parking or regulatory ground signs shall not exceeding six (6) square feet. There are three business names and logos are proposed for this development. At this time, it is unknown the size of any signs, and sign permits will be required and can be later attained through Planning and Development Services Department. Banks are allowed one (1) wall sign (15) square feet or five percent (5%) of the front wall area up to a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet shall be permitted.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO FURTHER EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED LIGHTING ON THE SITE AND PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF ITS LOCATION (GROUND OR BUILDING) AND PROVIDE A CLEAR VERSION OF THE FIXTURE INFORMATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THAT THE APPLICATION PERFORMS ALL IMPROVEMENTS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THEIR EXPENSE,

INCLUDING CITY STREETSCAPE, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS STAMPED RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON SEPTEMBER 3,

2019, AND AS DIRECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

2. PARKEONS WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION PLANS. AS A REMINDER, PARKEONS NEED TO BE

INSTALLED AT THE APPLICANT’S EXPENSE.

3. THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN SIGN PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED GROUND SIGN AND WALL SIGNS

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.”

JACK AUSTIN (JA) – Nelson Architects

JA – Bank agrees to the 3 conditions. Shows the Board the materials, as requested, and explains why they were chosen.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

NEW BUSINESS

100 CARONDELET PLAZA – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Carondelet Plaza, between Forest Park Parkway and Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of HDC (High Density Commercia) and is in the Forsyth Station TOD Overlay District. The project consists of renovations to the first-floor to create a restaurant entry, an exterior enclosed stairway, elevator and a second-floor rooftop terrace lounge and banquet area, covered in part with the installation of a terrace arbor.

The applicant is proposing to keep the existing entry canopy (Porte cochere) and columns. The existing canopy is brick and cast stone, and the applicant remarked that this same material will be used for the exterior alterations. A new ground floor outdoor patio is proposed on the south side of the face of the building along with a new front door entry to the restaurant from the patio. The proposed patio area is already surrounded by perimeter walls and pre-cast caps, which will remain. This area is currently planted with landscape shrubs, which will be excavated. There are existing trees and shrubs surrounding the proposed patio, which will remain. Between the new front door and patio, an elevator is proposed to gain access to the second-floor rooftop area. On the north side of the main entry, there is

4 a proposed second access point for the rooftop area, which will be a tri-level stairway enclosed with glass constructed of steel and metal. The metal will have a satin brass look to it, and the railing will be powder coated metal with a dark charcoal finish. The tri-level, glass enclosed staircase is to be constructed on the existing sidewalk and within the curb. Staff is of the opinion that the renovations will result in an inviting, upgraded, and more modern appearance. Establishing two separate outdoor dining spaces will garner more attraction to this plaza and give people the ability to dine outside.

The existing façade of the base structure will remain with the use of the brick and cast stone. The proposed enclosed staircase and restaurant entry made of steel and mesh will change the existing façade to the greatest extent. To help soften the impact of this façade change, the enclosed glass staircase, restaurant entry, and the rooftop terrace arbor will match with the same use of material of steel and glass. The rooftop will have another entry point from the elevator. That doorway will be constructed on the same side as the restaurant for easier access for the staff. On the rooftop, between the staircase and elevator entry, there is a proposed guard rail made of glass. A planter box is proposed to be in front of the glass guard rail and is to be planted with seasonal plantings. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rooftop façade alterations will bring similar modern design elements to the proposed entry alterations, resulting in a cohesive appearance that is compatible with surrounding character.

New lighting is also proposed. The applicant is proposing lighting and accent lighting to illuminate the terrace arbor on the rooftop. Lighting is proposed within the terrace arbor only to highlight and illuminate the dining space. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lighting will bring more attention to the detail of the brick and stone pattern, resulting in a more interesting appearance. The proposed lights will project down and carry outward past the terrace arbor throughout the rooftop with the use of glass. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lighting will not shine toward adjacent property. The lighting is proposed to illuminate dining area elements of the rooftop and not to illuminate signage or other advertising elements. It is unclear if the terrace arbor will be used seasonally or if it will be used all year round.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL MEET ALL CLAYTON LIGHTING STANDARDS.”

KEITH SCHUTZ (KS) – Johnson Studio AMANDA JOINER (AJ) – General Manager for the Ritz

KS – Nothing to add to Staff Report, here to answer questions.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Will it be seasonal or year round use for the arbor? I noticed there is no HVAC unit is that correct?

AJ – We are hoping 9 months, we will use awnings and things to prolong use. There is no HVAC unit.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Is there a second way off the terrace?

KS – Yes, there are several new doorways through that space being created

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Is the elevator for staff or public use.=?

AJ – They will not be serving out of the front of the hotel or through the elevator

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Are the double doors adjacent to the elevator the restaurant entrance?

KS – Yes, that is correct

RICHARD LINTZ – What are you doing with the big grate under, where the patio is going?

KS – That is the electrical vault.

AJ – It is more on the parkway side. It will be removed and relocated and moved to the side of the hotel. Ameren is doing all of that and it will be below ground about ten feet on the south side.

RICHARD LINTZ – The plantings outside the wall are staying?

KS – Yes there are nice plantings and trees we would like to preserve.

PUBLIC COMMENT

LESLIE LEWIS (LL) – 150 Carondelet Plaza – The first thing I looked at was that the application was made by a fictitious name filings this is not owned by DLB Properties. I’m concerned about details.

STEPHANIE KARR – I’m checking it really quick on the secretary of states website. As long as we have the property owner that is filing the applications then it’s fine. And we are ok to move forward.

LL – I was looking at the property owner.

GEORGE HETTICH – Is BLR Properties listed as the property owner on the County’s website?

STEPHANIE KARR – That is what I’m checking.

GEORGE HETTICH – Thank you.

STEPHANIE KARR – BLR Properties Limited Liability Company is listed as the property owner according to the deed that is on file with St. Louis County.

LL – A couple of other points I would like to make. The landscape plan for the front of the building, there is no sidewalk and maybe this would be the time to address it. There is a lovely landscape area with the sign and the base but the pedestrians can no longer walk around they either have to tromp through the landscape or you have to walk into the street or walk all the way up into the Ritz under the portico and around and back out. It’s not shown on this but could this be part of these renovations. I would also like to talk about the brick – to match existing materials. If you look at the Centene garage it does not match existing like it is supposed to so I’m concerned this will be the same kind of issue.

RICHARD LINTZ – There is no brick work happening. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – As far as the sidewalk that is not apart of this current application so we cannot review it but I would hope that the applicant will talk it back to the owner and they consider it. We have a staff recommendation with one condition.

KS – We plan to comply with it – we are unsure what exactly that is but we will.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

JANET WATSON AND CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

6317 CLAYTON ROAD– PLAN COMMISSION – RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 6,080 square foot property is located on the north side of Clayton Road between DeMun Avenue and Skinker Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The property contains a two-story building, which has been used by the owner as an office. The owner is proposing to convert the first and second floors into living space and move the office into the basement level. The proposed living space includes three bedrooms and three bathrooms, totaling 1055 square feet. The proposed office space includes a work area and one bathroom, totaling 192 square feet. The existing parking pad in the rear yard will remain and provides eight parking spaces. No exterior building alterations, site improvements or landscaping are proposed at this time.

Live/work units are permitted in the Clayton Road Urban Design District subject to approval of a conditional use permit as per Article VII of this Chapter and the following criteria. Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics associated with that particular use.

1) The Clayton Road Urban Design District Regulations define a live/work unit as “A structure with a combination of uses where work activities occur, and a dwelling unit is included for the business occupant. Such unit shall have only one (1) kitchen and not more than fifty percent (50%) of the structure shall be dedicated for a business use. The dwelling unit shall be occupied by either the owner, the tenant or the owner or tenant's employee. The residence must be the residence of a person responsible for the work performed on the premises.” >> The proposed live/work unit conforms to the definition above. Only one kitchen is located within the building, the business owner will live on site and the office will account for less than fifty percent of the building area.

2) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood; >> The surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north, multi-family residential to the south, another approved live/work unit to the west, and a single-family residence to the east. The proposed live/work unit is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

3) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The existing structure is comparable in size to adjacent structures. The applicant is not proposing changes to the massing of the existing structure.

7 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood; >> The rear side of the building is where exterior changes are proposed at this time. A new window and door are being proposed to match the existing doors and windows throughout the residence.

5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> At this time, staff does not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise transfer, or heat generation.

6) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> Staff is of the opinion that the live/work unit will be comparable to other uses nearby and that it will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties.

7) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single-purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The proposed use does not involve unusual single-purpose structures or temporary components.

8) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code and good planning practices.

9) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use. >> No site improvements or additional landscaping are proposed at this time.

10) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; >> Existing site access is provided from the rear alley, which is adequate. There are no proposed changes to site access.

11) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking;

>> The Zoning Code requires one-half parking space for each residential unit and two (2) parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of business space. Based on the proposed plans, only two (2) parking spaces would be required on site. The applicant intends to maintain the existing eight (8) parking spaces.

12) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> Staff is of the opinion that it is unlikely that the proposed use will affect transit movements.

8 13) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on Fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff does not anticipate a significant increase in demand for fire and police protection services in association with the proposed use.

14) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood >> Staff does not anticipate any potential impacts related to noise.

15) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the use will generate obnoxious odors.

16) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood; >> Exterior lighting is not proposed at this time.

17) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts. >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the proposed use.

The building size and proposed use is comparable to other buildings nearby. Sufficient off-street parking is provided to meet the expected demand. The exterior building alterations are in the rear of the property and the applicant’s architect has reported the material and color should match the existing. Site improvements or landscaping are not proposed at this time. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project meets the criteria for conditional use permit approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.”

CORI HINTERSER (CH) – Killeen Studio

CH – Addresses Commission but has nothing to add to the staff report.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Will this building be sprinkled?

CH – No

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So Scott, sprinklers are not required in live/work?

SUSAN ISTENES – I’m not 100% certain, that would be a fire code requirement but because it is existing, and it doesn’t look like significant changes are being made with in the building in terms of renovations or remodeling I don’t believe it is the requirement.

CH – The building does have two entrances and exits in terms of helping the load out of the building but only one person is expected to be in the basement office. So we don’t see an issue there and we are under the square footage as well.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Good, other questions or comments? Well, we have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted to the Board of Aldermen.

RON REIM – I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

RON REIM – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

7415 PARKDALE AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – RESIDENTIAL ADDITION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 9,240-square-foot site is located midblock on Parkdale Drive and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The property is located three lots from the intersection of Parkdale Drive and Audubon Drive. The existing two-story home measures 2,186-square-feet (not including the basement/garage) and the proposed project consists of the construction of an 893-square-foot two story addition. The existing garage has a flat roof and a side entry. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the driveway, change the entrance of the garage to the front and add a second story master suite. The driveway will be reconfigured to accommodate the front access to the garage, which will allow vehicles to freely back-in and out of the property. The applicant also proposes minor changes to the front entry.

The existing home has a primary building material of red brick with accent materials of painted wood and limestone. The home features white, double-hung casement windows and black-slate styled roof shingles. The proposed addition will be constructed of materials to match the existing building. The trash enclosure will be located on the side of the house surrounded by a cedar fence.

A five (5) foot wide covered porch exists in the front of the house. The porch is constructed of red brick and it matches the house. New columns are proposed with a Tuscan base painted white to match the existing trim. The porch foundation, concrete stairs, and black steel railing will all remain.

The proposed building addition will include a first-floor garage and above it will be a master suite on the second floor. The addition will be constructed of red brick and features architectural elements at the gable roof ends to match the existing front elevation. Limestone will be used as an accent material under the windows and white double-hung casement windows will be used to match the existing house. The proposed garage doors are Carriage style, colored by an oak stain, surrounded by soldier brick and above the doors will be new exterior lighting. The lighting will be black steel Rutherford sconce lights with 60-watt maximum illumination.

Red brick and accent materials of limestone and wood siding are common in this neighborhood. Together, the accent materials will not exceed 23 percent of any elevation. According to the Architectural Review Guidelines, primary building materials of brick or stone should make up at least 75 percent of any elevation. The proposed use of primary and accent building materials meets the requirements outlined in the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed building materials are compatible with the existing structure and with the neighborhood character.

10 This area of Clayton is not a part of an Urban Design District; therefore, garage placement is not as restrictive as it is in certain design district. From the map below, the subject site is highlighted in the hatch marks. Notice that one (1) existing property on Parkdale Drive maintains a below-grade front entry garage, and there are four (4) that have front entry access to a garage from the street. In staff’s opinion, a front entry garage is acceptable because of the proximity to other front entry garages, and it should not be a detriment to the neighborhood.

The front yard currently consists of 2,375-square feet, and the existing impervious surface coverage is 588 square feet or 25 percent. Because the of the enlarged and reconfigured driveway, there will be an additional 258 square feet of impervious coverage for a total of 846 square feet. Therefore, the total amount of impervious coverage in the front yard will be 35.6 percent, which is below the allowable 45 percent in the R-2 district. No removal of trees is proposed, a tree protection plan to protect the neighbors and street trees and additional landscaping is proposed.

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the addition are compatible with the neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

1. THE APPLICANT SHALL CAPTURE THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF FROM THE INCREASED IMPERVIOUS AREA AND DIRECT IT TO THE PERVIOUS AREAS IN THE FRONT YARD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY AS REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.

CHRIS MARSHAL (CM) – Architect SOLE VAN EDMEN (SVE) – Architect

CM – That was a good report so no but to reiterate: we meet all the design requirements and are below the impervious coverage for R-2. The front facing garage – there are other examples in the neighborhood that match that. Instead of doing one large door we thought breaking it up into two small carriage doors would be

11 more fitting with the neighborhood. We are proposing to do a nice landscaping buffer, ornamental shrubs on the outside of the driveway to kind of hide it from the street. We are just trying to match the existing architectural elements as close as possible so that it blends in.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – The landscaping buffer that you refer to is that what we see in the freehand drawing on A4.0?

CM – Yes you see it there but then there is a landscape plan on sheet A1. The first drawing on the left.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Typically we are not in favor of front entry garages. But that neighborhood does have quite a few. What does bother me is the amount of paving in the front yard. It seems excessive.

SVE – There is an existing thirty-six inch Pin Oak that is – if you look on the landscape plan we were just referring to, we cannot bring the driveway straight back from the doors because there is this beautiful tree right there. That is why we kept the existing curb cut and swept over to preserve that tree.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So because of that twisting turning to get from the street to the garage door, that’s why we need all that paving.

CM – Well it is also a back out driveway so the drive is about twenty-four feet from the doors to allow the car to back and turn and go down the driveway. We felt that it wasn’t that deep of a driveway and it meets all the impervious coverage criteria along with the landscape we are providing and we are not touching any trees, we thought it works with the project and the neighborhood.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Those are all good points. You’ve kept the garage door back from the front façade and I think that helps. As we look at the color rendering on 4.0 I see the shadow there and then the perspective below it really shows how far back the garage is.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Yes, the perspective below also shows the shrubs and kind of how high they are really going to be. My one comment would be as a landscape architect looking at rhodendrums and azalea, boxwood, hosta, and how far apart they are all planted, number one they are all under about six feet and if you look at the grading plan, by the time you get to the garage you are at three feet blocking those doors. My comment would be if you’re going to make it more friendly from the street you should go with something a lot taller than those plants.

CM – We were concerned with the vision of the person backing out and we didn’t want to block the view of the sidewalk.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I am not talking about the turn radius from the sidewalk. I would say closer to the walk, if you drew a straight line down form the garage and did it where the curvy walk is it would make it more pedestrian friendly for the neighbors. Especially if you had the garage doors open.

SVE – So parallel to the sidewalk

CM – Right along the edge of the main sidewalk. Ok.

RON REIM – It’s not as bad as it could be, but I’m not a fan of it. My concern of it, is even in one of your examples the garage door is open and the cars are sitting in it, it is not as nice of a view as if the doors were closed. So the further the garage is from the street the more it screens. I agree with Carolyn’s comment

12 regarding the increase of the size of some of the landscaping. But when we are done with this half of that yard is going to be pavement.

RICHARD LINTZ – I guess I went and looked at it expressly with the concern about the front facing garage and I guess I was struck by how prominent the side facing garage is now. It almost comes out further that house next to it. So with the front facing, set back dark colored doors, I frankly thought it was going to look a lot better. The other comment about, if I’m not mistaken the steps to the front walk are existing and not changing, so you’ve got the garage being pushed back quite a bit which is already not green space and your arch that goes up goes all the way up to that front step so you’re not losing as much of that front yard as it might seem is the way I’m looking at the, It’s still quite a bit if that arch goes all the way up to those front steps. Having sat and looked at that front door I kind of felt it was pretty good. I liked it, it didn’t bother me.

CM – It’s not that much more paving in the front yard.

SVE – Also the condition of the existing garage is not good.

ROBERT DENLOW – Why would you move the garage doors to the front?

CM – Well the garage is from the 20s and it is meant for a Model-T and to get a modern car in at least 21 feet deep side entry we would only have about 11 feet to back out so we didn’t have the space. We looked around the neighborhood and found examples and this uses less coverage. If we went around the back it would be a lot more coverage. This was the most efficient use of paving and architecture for the house.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: NANCY TAYLOR (NT) – 7419 PARKDALE AVENUE 1. Front Facing Garages Concern: front facing garage in the Moorlands is non-standard and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. • Of the 150 houses located on Moorland streets that run parallel to Parkdale (Byron, Buckingham, Oxford, Wellington, York, Cromwell) there are only 5 front facing single car garages. All are single car garages. • This represents 3% of houses of located on the core parallel streets in the Moorlands. • Of these 5 houses: 4 are below grade. As such, they do not fall in the visual line from the street. • For each of these 5 houses, the garage is not the primary design feature of the home. Concern: Parkdale avenue is narrower than the other streets in the Moorlands. This was a critical factor in the restriction of parking to one side of the street. • A 2 car, front facing garage on Parkdale Avenue will be more impactful to the character of the neighborhood than if it appeared on any of the other streets, i.e. Byron, Buckingham, Oxford, Wellington, York, or Cromwell. There are no houses designed like this on these streets. • The new construction houses on Buckingham all have garages in the rear of the home. 2. Placement of Trash Enclosure Concern: The plan calls for trash enclosure to be located on the property line at the side of the building. This violates the minimum setback requirement of 5 feet. It also violates the placement of the refuse int eh rear of the property. This is a 45 square foot enclosure situated outside my kitchen window. They are also running a commercial business out of their home which is illegal in residential districts. 3. Concerned about the presence of Asbestos during demolition period of this project. • Has any of the material been tested?

13 • What is the experience level of the contractor on this issue? • How will the bricks be reused if they are falling apart and how will other bricks match? 4. Concern: What is the correct square footage? There is a discrepancy in the square footage between the proposal and the square footage on record with the county. Is this a 3,300 square foot project or a 2,600 square foot project? • The living space as shown by the county is 2,525 square feet. This does not include the square feet of the garage. In calculating the square feet of the present house and project, the Vallo’s counted the garage as living space. Hence they reduced the living space by the square feet of the garage. That is why there is a discrepancy in the total square feet. The present home square feet according to the county is 2,525. Existing square feet: 2,525 Less tear down: 117 ____________________________

2,408 New addition 893 (does not include garage) (27x33) New total 3,301 square feet

5. Concern: This will be the expansion of the commercial business that is being run out of the home currently. This is an R-2 zoning district and commercial businesses are not allowed. This has been reported to the zoning department and I get they are separate issues but at the same time they are not separate. There is a business being run out of that home with employees coming and going and 45 square feet of garbage suggests that they are planning for an expansion of the business and so I would like that addressed. It is a significant concern and while it is separate from an architectural review, it isn’t because of the related facts and the related things on parking and so forth.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you Mrs. Taylor, I have a couple comments and then I will let the Architect respond. We always appreciate citizen responses and especially if they have done research on them. Let me make a couple comments. This is 1. 80 feet wide lot, most homes are on average 55 lots, which prevent a garage being build on the side of those lots. 2. Commercial business is outside the ARB review and decision. Mr. Marshall would you like to respond?

Janet Watson – We did receive Mrs. Taylors concerns about the commercial business and are investigating it through the Department of Planning and Development.

CM – Four bedrooms and 9 square feet per room plus 4 = 40 which is the minimum requirement and we are adding 5 feet to that for a total of 45 square feet. Audubon is in the Moorlands and should be considered in number of front facing garages. The bricks themselves are ok, the mortar and how it has settled are not ok. It is 1920s brick and will use new brick to match as close as possible, on west elevation. The rest will be new brick.

SVE – Square footage does not include 475 (old demolished garage) which leaves 1,715 to remain + 893 new = 2,608 square feet.

CM – Hazardous Material abatement will be handled professionally if found. Owner has dealt with this the most and with their basement renovation and is prepared to do it again if necessary.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Can you elaborate on the trash, Staff?

14 SUSAN ISTENES – Homes with an alley, trash is required in rear. With no alley, the trash needs to be as close to rear line of building.

Richard Lintz – It seems like a lot of trash enclosure.

LINDA 7414 PARKDALE AVENUE – The thought of looking out at a garage is bothersome, there is nothing like it in the Moorlands. It is a new look and will open the neighborhood up to change. Changes that will change the look and feel of the entire neighborhood.

DEBBI 625 AUDUBON – Test for Asbestos and have it abated to the EPA standards. The business is not in compliance with residential zoning districts.

AUVIE GIOVANNI Parkdale Avenue – Landscape to break the line where it will go. It looks like the side of a home, not the front.

BRUCE BUTTLER 7401 PARKDALE – Most existing garages like this were ‘grandfathered’ in, and not something that is true to the neighborhood. Would like to stress it being tested for asbestos

RON REIM – Asbestos and a potential business being run in the home do not fall under the Architectural Review Boards umbrella, correct?

STEPHANIE KARR – Correct, the County and the Building Department handle asbestos and the potential business if discovered would be a code enforcement issue through the building department.

RICHARD LINTZ – Why not have the garage face the back yard, why the front?

CM – The existing kitchen and the current backyard would be monopolized. It would be a lot of pavement and coverage to make it accessible and create an entrance that would work. This also helps eliminate street parking.

GEORGE HETTICH – Did you consider tandem parking?

CM – It would interfere with the addition and would cause the need for more coverage and a hassle for the owners.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Do you agree to the terms of conditions and that you will address the water runoff

CM – Yes

Chairman Lichtenfeld – I would entertain a motion with the added conditions.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE FOLLOWING TWO NEW CONDITIONS THE AGREED TO TRASH ENCLOSURE LOCATION CHANGE AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT CHANGING THE LANDSCAPING TO INCLUDE LARGER PLANTINGS IN FRONT.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD, JANET WATSON, RICHARD LINTZ, RON REIM, CAROLYN GAIDIS, ROBERT DENLOW – AYE

GEORGE HETTICH - NAY

6450 SAN BONITA AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “According to St. Louis County records this site is 5,400-square-feet. The home was built in 1950, located midblock on San Bonita Avenue and has a zoning designation of R-5 Medium-Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. The project pertains to the front yard only. The applicant is proposing to replace the sidewalk steps, retaining wall, and repair the foundation of the covered porch.

The existing home has an immediate slope from the street to the home, which requires steps and handrails. Currently, there is a landscaping wall surrounding the sidewalk and stairs. It does appear to be in the need of repair. The applicant proposes to use Semco Brookhaven natural stone for the retaining or garden wall that will be two (2) feet in height. The applicant is aware that the wall must be multi-colored and have three different block sizes, which can be seen from the revised elevation plans. Every home along the street of San Bonita Avenue has the same slope and most homes use some sort of landscaping wall or have a landscaping feature between their stairs and the public sidewalk.

The covered porch in the front of the existing house is constructed with a concrete foundation and has light colored veneer stoned columns. The porch foundation is crumbling and has a sizable crack. The applicant proposes to use a similar veneer stone to cover the crack and extend this stone to cover the exposed foundation at the bottom of the home. Three homes from the subject site (close to Seminary Place) have used a similar veneer stone on the bottom of the foundation.

The applicant proposes to replace the sidewalk and steps. The existing walkway and steps colors are the desired colors of city sidewalks in residential neighborhoods which is a 6-sack mix of Meramec sand and gravel. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed building materials are compatible with the existing structure and with the neighborhood character. This area of Clayton is not a part of an Urban Design District; therefore, this requirements for this project are not as restrictive as it is in certain design districts.

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-5 Medium-Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the addition are compatible with the neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE APPLICANT SHALL USE A 6-SACK MIX OF MERAMEC SAND AND GRAVEL FOR THE WALKWAY AND STAIRS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD.

2. THE USE AND SEMCO BROOKHAVEN NATURAL STONE HAS TO HAVE THREE (3) DIFFERENT BLOCK SIZES.”

MARK BALESTRA (MB) – Owner

MB – Addresses the Board but has nothing to add to the staff report but asks if instead of the Meramec sand and gravel if they would be permitted to use exposed aggregate.

SUSAN ISTENES – Confirms that exposed aggregate can be used and is an approved material.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE OPTION TO USE EXPOSED AGGREGATE.

ROBERT DENLOW – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

129 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – SITE PLAN REVIEW – NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 10,200 square foot site is located on the west side of North Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing house and the construction of a 4,770 square foot single-family residence. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

The purpose of the site plan review process is to provide a review of the following criteria listed below:

1. A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. >> The surrounding properties contain single-family homes. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Although the proposed height is one foot less than the 30- foot height regulation, the height of the proposed single-family residence is greater than the existing new single-family residence to the north and the gables on the roof are more than double the size of the gables on the home to the north (135 North Forsyth Boulevard).

2. The location and screening of a project's air-conditioning units and other associated equipment. >> The plans show the HVAC units located along the northern elevation on the rear wall of the home, inset and screened by 3 Hicks Yews and a Red Oakleaf Holly. There is an existing fence located on the neighboring property to the north.

3. The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in an approximately 40 square foot trash enclosure located southwest side of the property at the end of the driveway. The enclosure will be constructed of treated wood posts, a metal frame will support 1X wood slats attached to the frame.

4. Provisions for storm surface drainage shall be in accordance with the City’s design standards. Stormwater drainage shall be connected to a storm sewer whenever one is available as determined by the City. Disposal of storm or natural waters both on and off the site shall be provided in such a manner as not to have a detrimental effect on the property of others or the public right-of-way.

>> 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 55 percent for the inclusion of a rear entry detached garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 37.16 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 53.3 percent.

>> Front yard impervious coverage is limited to 30 percent in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed front yard coverage is 15 percent.

17 >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15-year, 20-minute storm calculation is 0.557 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.627 CFS, which represents a 0.07 CFS increase. The additional runoff will be piped to a 110.25 square foot gravel infiltration trench in the front yard. The stormwater plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable.

5. The applicant is required to submit a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed and trees to be replaced by canopy cover, species and condition. Such plans must reflect City of Clayton preservation standards. >> The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcover. The tree chart indicates that there is 4,750 square feet of proposed canopy coverage. The canopy coverage requirement is 4,692 square feet; therefore, the proposed canopy coverage is in excess of the minimum requirement by 58 square feet. The plan meets the native tree requirement with 46.7 percent native.

6. The site plan must state that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department. >> The site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department.

7. Provision of hookups to public utilities connections shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. All connections shall be shown on the site plan. >> The location of the gas, sewer and water connections from the main to the house are shown underground in the front yard. The electric line connection will run underground from the northwest corner of the rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the utilities plan acceptable.

8. All developments shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on the surrounding area. Light sources shall be shielded and there shall be no spillover onto adjacent properties >> Exterior lighting is proposed at the front entry door and rear above the garage door. All exterior lights shall be 75 watts or less.

In considering and acting upon site plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

1. Creation of a desirable environment. 2. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities. 3. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships. 4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 5. Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City. 6. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment. 7. Inclusion of special features. 8. Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.

The height, setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Stormwater will be adequately

18 managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:

1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECORD THE APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY, AND SUBMIT PROOF OF

RECORDING TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. AND TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER SURROUNDING THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS SHALL BE PLANTED AT A HEIGHT AND WIDTH TO ENSURE THE UNITS ARE COMPLETELY SCREENED, PROVIDING AN OPAQUE BUFFER.”

RODNEY ARNOLD (RA) - STERLING COMPANY (ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR) MATT G (MG) – STERLING COMPANY (ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR)

RA – We have nothing to add – the summary provided in the staff report was excellent.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Any comments from the audience on Site Plan Review?

Public Comments

Carol Schue – 130 Brighton Way – Concern is that drainage from the gutters be taken care of and the excess runoff so it will not run into her yard and create issues.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – We will ask the engineers to explain the downspout and site drainage a little further.

RA – The drainage patter has not changed. The differential and stormwater is captured in the front and everything is going to the rear but the gravel infiltration trench is retaining the excess.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – The new house foot print to the existing, there is less grass in the back and there is a little more pavement in the back. How do you react to that as far as drainage to the west?

RA – What we are doing is taking the water from the front downspouts and directing those to the infiltration trench in the front and previously everything drained to the west. We are able to catch the water in the front and pipe it around to the back but we are taking what the additional area is creating and detaining that so we are not increasing any runoff there from existing.

Richard Lintz – So you haven’t done anything to mitigate the current issue.

MG – Correct, just the increased runoff that is being detained by the gravel trench in the rear yard.

Carolyn Gaidis – Can you show us with your hand the drainage pattern?

RA, MG – Sure.

Carolyn Gaidis – Have you considered French drains or maybe a gravel strip back there to help it infiltrate into the ground.

19 Richard Lintz – I believe Mrs. Schue is on the Northwest corner of the property. The water running off on the property is an issue for surrounding neighbors and although it meets the code, what we are hearing is there’s an issue and this is the time to fix it. I would feel more comfortable seeing the solution to the water problem before voting on it.

Carolyn Gaidis – You are not alone in that.

RICHARD LINTZ – I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION.

RON REIM – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

129 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 10,200 square foot site is located on the west side of North Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing house of 1,965 square foot and the construction of a 4,770 square feet single-family residence. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mid-point height of the roof.

The homes located along the western half of North Forsyth Boulevard are experiencing a transitional period, whereas original construction was mid-20th century with single-story homes, today, construction of two-story homes is prevalent. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, variations in material and wall offsets. The proposed massing is like other newly constructed homes in the area.

The home to the south (123 North Forsyth Boulevard) was constructed in 1951 and is +/- 10 feet 10 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the north (135 North Forsyth Boulevard) was constructed in 2009 and is +/- 4 feet taller than the proposed home. 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. The applicant did not provide an explanation as to how the proposed home meets any of the techniques outlined in the code. The applicant proposes to construct a multi-colored slate roof, and extensive stone work on the chimney and front of the house. Because the gables on the roof are more than double the size of the gables on the house to the north and due to the extensive stone work and prominence of the roof and gables, the front elevation of the home looks heavy and overpowers the homes to the north and south. As a tradeoff, the style of the home, Tudor Revival, replicates a style popular in Clayton in the 1920’s and 30’s and adds a variety of style that seems to be disappearing in Clayton as older homes are torn down and new homes are constructed.

The immediate area of Clayton Gardens surrounding the subject property features a variety of building materials including red brick, painted brick and siding. The proposed house features a primary building material of masonry, stucco and cedar siding. The proposed front elevation will be 50 percent masonry, 34 percent white stucco, and 14 percent cedar siding. Black casements will be used for the windows. The proposed rear elevation will be 73 percent white stucco, 14 percent stone, and the remainder will be cedar siding. The garage is proposed in the rear, below grade surrounded by the stone. Staff believes the building materials are compatible with the neighborhood character.

20 An 8-foot-wide concrete driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a below-grade attached garage in the rear of the property, with double door carriage style garage doors. The applicant is proposing to maintain an existing 14-inch caliper tree at the property line. There is a six-foot-tall wood trash enclosure on the southwest property corner adjacent to the garage. There are two air conditioning units located on the north side of the home which will be screened by three evergreen shrubs.

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed house is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby houses.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION PROVIDED THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 410.385 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE STAFF AND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.”

DICK BUSCH (DB) – ARCHITECT

KV – I think the main issue is the height, we are meeting the height as required by the code, we have followed the guidelines and are only 30 inches higher than the home next door and we aren’t blocky. It’s all in my e-mail.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – I find this house charming and it brings back a lot of historical materials and designs and I think the detailing is way beyond most of the homes we’ve seen recently. I do like it. The roof is high but the roof is going away and when on the street it will not look like the elevation we are looking at. I’m very comfortable with the height.

Carolyn Gaidis –I think it is gorgeous. I can’t even… I looks so much like my own home but its better. This is beautiful.

DB – Explains materials and why they were chosen.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

42 CRESTWOOD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “According to St. Louis County records this site is 12,979-square-feet. The home was built in 1927, located on a corner lot at an oval drive of Crestwood and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project pertains to the exterior of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a walkway, paint the exterior brick to red, enlarge the driveway with exposed aggregate, replace the garage doors with wood, add exterior lighting and change the front door and entry with addition concrete.

The existing home has a turret at the front entry which will remain, but the applicant proposes to upgrade it. From the elevation plans the front door will be made of black metal and glass. The applicants plan to add two black metal sconce exterior lights above the front entryway. The applicants have stated that the home was

21 acquired recently and needed a full renovation. The applicant stated a tree was removed because it was dead; thus, the reason to redesign the driveway and construct walkways.

Currently, the driveway is made of stone, and is approximately 8 feet in width. The applicant is proposing to expand the driveway apron to 25 feet with exposed aggregate concrete. The width of the driveway will be 12 feet and will also be constructed with exposed aggregate. The current driveway does appear to be in the need of repair. On the side and rear of the garage, pavers are proposed on a 4-inch-thick slab of concrete. Staff is of opinion that this slab of concrete is not needed. If pavers are constructed correctly, a patio can look aesthetically pleasing and operate efficiently. The applicant stated the total impervious coverage will be 5,206 square feet; however, after adding the given numbers, there seems to be a discrepancy in the calculations. The applicant’s architect states the given square footage for each are as follows: the house is 1,827, the proposed driveway will be 2,110, the front patio and steps will be 920 and the rear patio and steps will be 633. These numbers total to 5,490 square feet and not 5,206 square feet. Therefore, the total site impervious coverage comes to 42.22 percent and not 40.01 percent. However, 42.22 percent is still less than the maximum allowable 55 percent within the R-2 zoning district.

The current home is made of 100 percent light colored brick, and the applicant proposes to paint the brick red. The home to the north is a white stucco and surrounding these properties are homes with red brick with white accents for windows and doors. The applicant is proposing to have red brick with black accents for the windows and doors, which is compatible with neighboring properties.

According to Architectural Review Guidelines, primary building materials of brick or stone should make up at least 75 percent of any elevation. The proposed use of primary and accent building materials meets the requirements outlined in the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed building materials are compatible with the existing structure and with the neighborhood character. This area of Clayton is not a part of an Urban Design District; therefore, this project is not as restrictive as it is in certain design districts.

A tree survey was conducted, and the proposed construction does not result in the removal of any trees.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. WHERE APPROPRIATE, TREE PROTECTION ZONES SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND

INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.

2. IMPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATIONS IN THE BEFORE AND AFTER CONDITION SHALL BE NOTED ON THE

BUILDING PERMIT PLANS AND THE EXCESS RUNOFF AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.”

HELEN LEE (HL) – ARCHITECT

HL – We are not painting the brick we are tuck-pointing. It’s the existing brick we aren’t painting it.

Richard Lintz – So you aren’t doing anything to the brick?

HL – Correct. The garage door is being stripped and stained as well as the shutters. We are replacing the front door with a single metal door from the existing double steel doors.

Ron Reim – So the driveway and runoff and concrete is the real issue.

HL – We are adding about 300 square feet to the driveway.

Public Comment

Tom 51 Crestwood – Concerned about new front door and the significant increase in driveway. You’ve got a lot of challenges in the corner lot. And I’m just confused about the walk way that leads out to Crestwood and you have this driveway do you really need the sidewalk to Crestwood when no one is able to park on Crestwood. Ours and other in the neighborhood curve out and join up with the driveway so I think that would be better than a line to the street. But those are my concerns the driveway and walkway.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 08:20(20:20).

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

October 7, 2019 — Meeting Minutes