October 15, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1730 (05:30 PM).

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager Craig Owens, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, William Liebermann, Brian Maguire, Carolyn Gaidis, answered roll call.

Absent: Ron Reim – arrived at 1745

William Liebermann – left 1811

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner

CHAIRMAN REQUESTS

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 04, 2018, June 18, 2018, and October 01, 2018 were presented for approval.

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN (WL) - MOTION TO APPROVE

BRIAN MAGUIRE (BM) - MOTION SECONDED

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD (MINUS RON REIM)

OLD BUSINESS

1 TUSCANY PARK – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The applicant originally presented a request for a 6 foot tall wood privacy fence along the west and north property lines to the Architectural Review Board on September 17, 2018. The Architectural Review Board voted to continue the request to a future meeting date to allow the applicant time to revise the request and work with the subdivision trustees. The Architectural Review Board expressed a preference for stone to break up the wood fence and a preference for not installing a new fence alongside the existing wrought iron fence.

On September 19, 2018, the applicant submitted revised plans for the front yard fence, which consisted of removing the existing wrought iron fence and installing a stone-like privacy fence using the EcoStone by SimTek product. The revised submission did not include any review from subdivision trustees.

On September 25, 2018, the applicant submitted another revised plan. The subdivision trustees did not approve the previous stone-like wall and again requested that the existing wrought iron fence remain. The most recent plan includes repairing and repainting the existing wrought iron fence and installing a 6 foot tall cedar fence along the inside of the existing fence. The plans also include a 6 foot tall metal fence along the end of the driveway from the new fence to the side of the house. The recent plans are essentially the same as the original plan, except that the applicant has specified a premium pre-stained cedar fence and the original plans were for builder grade cedar fencing.

Staff recognizes that opinions of the Architectural Review Board and the subdivision trustees do not align with respect to the applicant’s request. Therefore, staff has allowed the request to be placed on a meeting agenda, despite the minimal change from the original plan. Staff has notified the applicant that subdivision trustee representation should be present at the meeting. The following staff report is the same as the previous report because the request is the same and staff’s review of the request remains the same.

The approximately 16,601 square foot site is located at the northwest corner of the Tuscany Park Subdivision along Big Bend Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Construction of a new house is nearing completion on the subject property. The Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved the new house and site plan on March 6, 2017. In the approved plan, the existing wrought iron fence along Big Bend Boulevard was marked to remain and additional evergreen landscaping was proposed to provide screening. The owner has since revised the site plan and landscape plan to include a solid fence.

The proposed project consists of the construction of a 6-foot high wood privacy fence along the western property line. The proposed fence will be just inside of the existing iron fence along Big Bend Boulevard. There is also a section of metal east-west fence proposed at the north end of the driveway.

Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.

“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”

Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For instance, 6 foot tall ornamental or decorative fences (not solid wood, chain link or vinyl) have been approved on secondary front yards of corner lots when a sufficient landscape buffer is provided along the street and the fence style and location is consistent with neighborhood character.

The proposed design and materials of the fence are not consistent with the Architectural Review Board’s preference for ornamental or decorative fencing in front yards. The proposed front yard fence style and location is also not consistent with neighborhood character. The majority of frontages along Big Bend Boulevard feature a combination of stone knee walls, metal fences and dense vegetation. The proposed solid wood fence would also not leave room for any setback and landscape buffer along the sidewalk. Staff believes that restoring the existing wrought iron fence would be more consistent with the neighborhood character. The applicant could install landscaping inside of the fence for privacy, similar to the lot on the south side of Tuscany Park.

The Tuscany Park Architectural Control Committee has reviewed the proposed plans and provided conditional approval. The Committee has requested that the existing metal fence is restored and left in place, with the new fence installed east of the existing fence. They have also requested that the east-west portion of fence proposed at the end of the driveway is wrought iron, not wood, to be consistent with neighborhood materials. Staff has concerns about how the two fences installed next to each other will appear. Maintenance between fences can also be difficult and the homeowner will still be responsible for the vegetation around the metal fence.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1) The existing wrought iron fence along Big Bend shall be restored or replaced with a similar material and design fence.

4 CHEN LUO (CL) – 1 TUSCANY PARK – OWNER

BRONCO MARUSIC (BM) – 2 TUSCANY PARK – ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE - MEMBER

CL – Talks about reasons for needing the fence for the safety of her young children. A person walking along the sidewalk on Big Bend reached through her fence (wrought iron) and shook her hand which is very unsettling for her as a parent of young children. Anyone could walk by and easily engage with her child. There is a 24 Schnucks and Walgreens which are were people get their cigarettes and alcohol after 10pm because it’s the only place open. Safety is main concern and a solid 6’ fall wood fence would aid in that. Trash and headlighs at night are also an issue.

BM - Explains number 1 and 12 face Big Bend and that their wrought iron fences were put in a long time ago and that times and circumstances have changed. Understands need for privacy, especially for number 1 because of their young children. Agreed to wooded cedar fence and that there would not be an issue with maintaining between the fences as there is easy access from the wrought iron side. They would like to keep the wrought iron to keep the symmetry for the two entrances on Tuscany Park because the fence on number 12 is still there. Understands that things on Big Bend have changed since the wrought iron fences have been put in. Explains spraying the in-betweens will be very simple and easy to maintain.

William Liebermann (WL) – I think this is a fair compromise given the circumstances. To have the original fence maintained, enhanced in some way and to have a high quality wood material cedar or better.

Richard Lintz (RL) – Did you confirm that the homeowner owns the fence and the stone pillars. Who owns the wall in the common area?

BM – Yes. Yes. That is common property that is owned by the 12 residences of Tuscany Park

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM MR. LIEBERMANN ABOUT IT BEING A COMPROMISE, I DO THINK IT’S ALMOST AN UNFORTUNATE WAY THAT THE COUNTY HAS WIDENED THAT ROADWAY SO MUCH AND TAKEN DOWN TREES IN THE MEANTIME, BUT WE’LL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXISTING WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG BIG BEND SHALL BE RESTORED OR REPLACES WITH A SIMILAR MATERIAL AND DESIGN FENCE.

(WL) – I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

CRAIG OWENS (CO) – SECOND

SUSAN ISTENES – SO THAT WOULD NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – YOU MADE A RECOMMENDATION BEFORE, BUT THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

WL – I APOLOGIZE, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH A WOOD FENCE ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT WROUGHT IRON FENCE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND RESTORE IT

CO – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

NEW BUSINESS

146 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 8,000 square foot site is located on the east side of North Central Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Pershing Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District. The owner has recently purchased the subject property and plans to demolish the existing house, detached garage and pavement and install a sport court in the rear yard. The owner is also the owner and resident of the adjacent house to the south of the subject lot (142 North Central Avenue). The owner does not plan to consolidate the two lots at this time.

The proposed court measures 50 feet by 30 feet. The court area will include a basketball hoop and two 10 foot tall mesh rebounder nets. A 17 foot tall pole light is also proposed. The owner also intends to install a fence extending across the front of the lot to enclose the rear yard.

The subject property is located in a dense area of single family houses and two family houses. Many of the adjacent lots are also only 50 feet wide, so there is not a lot of unused area to provide a buffer between houses. The proposed court is in the rear yard and would be similar to a basketball hoop located on a driveway, except that the lot will not have a house between the court and the street. There are existing trees located in the rear yard and a wood privacy fence that should remain to provide screening. Staff is of the opinion that the placement of the court is compatible with neighborhood character. Staff recommends locating the court 5 feet from the north and east property lines.

The owner has provided plans for a fence along the front of the subject property. The fence will attach to the northwest corner of the existing fence on the adjacent property to the south and extend north along the building line of the subject property to the wood fence on the adjacent property.

6 The design and materials of the proposed fence will match the existing brick and metal fence on the adjacent property to the south (142 North Central Avenue). The aluminum fence will be broken up by 5 foot tall brick pillars. The owner plans to install landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence. The proposed fence will not feature a gate, so access to the subject property will only be provided through the adjacent property under common ownership (142 North Central Avenue).

The existing structures and pavement on the site will be removed and the proposed court will be the only impervious coverage on the lot. The proposed impervious coverage is 18.75 percent of the total lot, which is below the maximum 55 percent allowed.

The 17 foot tall light pole will be taller than light fixtures found in most residential areas. The single light is focused down on the court, but due to the height, the light will be visible from adjacent properties. The LED light will also likely be brighter than most residential lights. Due to the proximity of the light pole to residential structures, staff recommends that the light is replaced with an LED equivalent to the 75 watt lights historically allowed in residential areas and that a shield is provided to limit light trespassing onto adjacent properties. Additional evergreen trees along the east and north property lines would also provide screening of the proposed light from adjacent properties.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. The existing fence and trees along the north and east property lines shall remain. 2. The sport court shall be located in the rear yard of the property and a minimum of 5 feet from the north and east property lines. 3. The LED light shall be an equivalent to 75 watts and shielded from adjacent properties. 4. Additional evergreen trees shall be planted along the north and east property lines to provide screening.

TOM CHELEW – OWNER AUSTIN HELFERS – SPORT COURT AH – Gives board photometric and explains they only request the court be 46’ not 50’and the 15- degree tilt with 125 watts. The light will be facing the house behind.

ANNA KRANE (AK) – This is not an accessary structure, so it does not require a 5’ setback. Staff is recommending the 5’ setback to allow for existing trees to be maintained and increase the buffer and allow for additional trees to be planted. We didn’t request they buffer their own property only the adjacent properties under different ownership.

SUSAN ISTENES (SI) – Because it’s not a structure and just pavement it’s fine if they go into their lot with it. If it was a structure, we would have them combined the lots.

*discussion about drainage*

CAROLYN GAIDIS (CG) – What is the surface of the court? I couldn’t find it on here.

AH – High impact polymer. It’s a free-floating surface. It’s safer for kids to play on.

CG – What is the need for such a dramatic light, I know you’re saying the foot candle is not that high but I’m just wondering what the need is for such a tall light pole.

AH – Basically as you shrink your pole the lights ability to reach the outer edges shrinks and then you have to tilt it. This is to minimize tilting the light.

*Discusses light spillage*

PATTI CHAPIN (PC) – 148 N. CENTRAL – very curious about how the court will be oriented, how the light is going to be and what landscaping is going to be provided because of the drainage situation on those lots. Believes the drainage runs south to north then connects with a PVC pipe on their property then goes east to west and spills onto Bemiston. Concerned about the drop off and drainage.

RON REIM (RR) – So are you in agreement with the four staff recommendations

AH – We would ask that we be allowed the 125-watt light.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS EXCEPT FOR THE 75-WATT? THERE WILL BE A ROTATION AND MINIMUM 10’ SETBACKS ON THE EAST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINES

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH MODIFIED STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THE EXISTING FENCE AND TREES ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES SHALL REMAIN 2. THE COURT WILL BE ORIENTED EAST WEST WITH A MINIMUM 10’ SETBACK ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES 3. THE BRIGHTNESS WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO THE 125 WATT AND SHIELDED AS NEEDED THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BASED OFF OF A NEW PHOTOMETRIC TO BE SUBMITTED. 4. ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN TREES TO BE PLANTED ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES TO ADD SCREENING

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

8 7 CARRSWOLD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 35,468 square foot site is located in the northeast corner of the Carrswold Subdivision. The property has a zoning designation of R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project includes new landscaping throughout the lot and retaining walls. One retaining wall is proposed on the north side of the driveway. A garden wall is proposed along the front of the house, on both sides of the front walk. The circle drive shown on the proposed plan is not existing. The applicant has stated that the driveway work will be designed and completed by others and is only shown for reference. The circle drive will be considered in the future when the design is finalized.

Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.

The retaining wall along the north side of the driveway is proposed as versa-lok mosaic and will measure 40 inches at the tallest point. The garden wall along the front of the house is proposed as a Brisa multi-piece system and measures 18 inches at the tallest point. Both wall materials conform to the Architectural Review Board’s Guidelines for retaining walls with at least three different size blocks, a varying color pallet and tumbled edges. The walls are also setback from the street with a landscape buffer.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed wall materials, location and design are consistent with neighborhood character. Subdivision trustee approval has also been provided for the proposed design.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

ROBERT GRAELER (RG) – ARCHITECT

RG – Gives background on project and why it’s being proposed

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

9 RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

428 EDGEWOOD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report:” The approximately 6,097.5 square foot site is located on the east side of Edgewood Drive between Shirley Drive and Oakley Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project includes removing and replacing portions of an asphalt driveway and patching the remaining portions of the asphalt driveway.

VISUAL IMPACT

The Architectural Review Board Guidelines state, “To eliminate the appearance of "a sea of concrete," new driveways and existing driveways that are reconstructed or extended must be constructed with exposed aggregate, brick pavers or stamped concrete. Flat concrete is permitted and shall be an 8.5-sack mix with Meramec sand and gravel (max. size 1"). Color shall match City of Clayton public sidewalks. Ribbon and asphalt driveways are not permitted.” The Guidelines state that an overlay may be placed over existing asphalt driveways, but if more significant reconstruction is required, the driveway material should be brought into conformance.

The applicant would like to replace and repair the existing asphalt driveway and not install a conforming material. The applicant has stated this is due to an easement agreement for a portion of the existing asphalt driveway located on the adjacent property to the north. The applicant has stated that the driveway encroachment is necessary for a car to pass the exterior stair located on the north elevation of the house.

Staff recognizes the desire to maintain usability of the driveway and comply with terms of the easement agreement; however the proposed asphalt work does not comply with the Architectural Review Board Guidelines. The intent of the guidelines is to overtime bring non-conforming driveways into conformance. Staff recommends that the driveway is replaced with a conforming material and that only the portion of the driveway located in the easement on the adjacent property is repaired with asphalt.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

1. The driveway shall be replaced with an approved material (exposed aggregate, stamped concrete, brick pavers, or flat concrete with City standard mix) and only the portion of

10 the driveway located in the easement on the adjacent property may be repaired with asphalt. _______________________________________________________________________________

LARRY WEST (LW) – APPLICANT

LW – I’m ok with staff recommendations.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE SINGLE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

16 RIDGEMOOR DRIVE– SITE PLAN REVIEW – RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 13,069 square foot site is located on the east side of Ridgemoor Drive between Harcourt Drive and Broadview Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The existing home will be demolished and a new house will be constructed on the lot. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 4,709 square foot single-family residence not including the 793 square foot attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 28 feet 5.6 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

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. >> The proposed house features a below grade, side entry garage. The proposed driveway will require retaining walls along both sides. The brick walls will begin at the midpoint of the front yard. While the surrounding neighborhood does not feature many below grade garages that require front yard retaining walls, there are many driveways with short retaining walls to support the grade of front yards. Staff is of the opinion that with minor modification, the wall material and landscape screening

11 provided will mitigate the visual impacts. Staff recommends that the metal railing proposed on top of the retaining wall only starts in the front yard once the height of the wall is 30 inches or greater. The Building Code does not require the guardrail for less than 30 inches and staff is of the opinion that without the railing in the front yard, the wall will have less of an impact.

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 north elevation of the proposed house. The units will be screened by five Blue Holly shrubs.

3) The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in a 43 square foot trash enclosure located at the east end of the driveway. The trash enclosure will be built into the house next to the garage.

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.

Impervious Coverage >> Impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent of the total lot area and 45 percent of the front yard in the R-2 zoning district. The existing total lot impervious coverage on site is 39.67 percent. The new plans increase the total lot impervious coverage to 42.11 percent. The proposed plan will cover 23.13 percent of the front yard.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.738 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.775 CFS, which represents a 0.037 CFS increase. A drywell in the front yard is sized to handle the increased runoff. There are also area inlets located in the driveway and rear yard. The runoff going south to the adjacent property will be reduced by the proposed plan. 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 landscape plan provides an attractive planting design mix of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcovers. Dense shrubs are proposed along the top of the retaining wall along the south property line, which will provide screening of the wall and below grade garage. There is currently 15,315 square feet of canopy coverage on site. All existing trees are to be removed except for the two existing street trees and

12 the large Sycamore at the northwest corner of the property. The proposed plan provides a total of 23,202 square feet of canopy coverage with a surplus of 17,207 square feet of canopy coverage. The plan meets the native tree requirement with 40 percent native. >> Per recommendations from the City’s contracted landscape architect, no trenching for utility or drainage lines should occur within the tree protection zone of the Sycamore tree. Boring methods should be used for utility or drainage lines that pass- through tree protection zones of trees on adjacent properties.

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 electric, gas, sewer and water connections from the mains to the house are shown. 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 all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will 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.

13 In conclusion the height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

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

1. The front yard retaining wall railing shall begin when wall height reaches 30 inches. 2. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County and submit proof of recording to the City. 3. Boring methods, no trenching, shall be used for utility and drainage lines located within any tree protection zones. ____________________________________________________________________________

PAUL DOERNER (PD) – ARCHITECT

DOUG L (DL)– CDI ENGINEERING – CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE M (SM) – 18 RIDGEMOOR

PD – We are ok with accepting the terms of approval

DL – Talks about drywell and answers questions about it, the inlet in the back, where the storm water will be routed, and the steepness of the driveway.

CAROLYN GAIDIS (CG) – Asks about landscape, points out the Vinca and that some of the choices are very repetitive and the creation of a monoculture and the polyculture is more what the City should want.

SM – Use to live at 16 Ridgemoor but now lives at 18 Ridgemoor. Has question about the drywell and the line running in the front of the yard. Also about trees and tree removal and fence to maintain privacy of yard.

DL – Dry well is not a part of the public system it’s a part of the private system, so it can be in the front yard. Whereas MSD is making you move yours.

PD – Yes, we are trying to preserve that as well.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – PAUL YOU HAVE INDICATED YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE THREE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

16 RIDGEMOOR DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – RESIDENTIAL

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

Compatibility The homes located along Ridgemoor Drive are predominately two stories with similar massing shapes and varying design styles. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, variations in the roofline and landscaping. The existing house to the north (14 Ridgemoor Drive) was constructed in 1923 and is +/- 6.5 feet taller than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing house to the south (18 Ridgemoor Drive) was constructed in 1929 and is +/- 2.3 feet shorter than the proposed house (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The required side yard setback for the subject lot is 7.8 feet. The proposed side yard setback is greater than the minimum required setback. The house is 10.16 feet from the north property line and 15.1 feet from the south property line. Staff is of the opinion that the massing and architectural elements of the proposed house are compatible with existing houses in the area.

Building Materials The primary building material for the proposed home is whitewashed red brick with the secondary material of cream hardi-board siding. Siding will be used on no more than 2 percent of the front and rear façades and 6 percent of the side façades. The roof will be clad in slate/charcoal blend shingles. The house will feature cream casement windows with black shutters on the front façade.

Driveway and Garage A 10 foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed from the southwest corner of the lot along the south elevation to a below grade, attached garage. One cream, carriage style garage door is proposed.

Permanent Fence & Retaining Wall A brick retaining wall with a stone cap is proposed along both sides of the driveway. The brick and stone will match the house. A metal fence is proposed along the top of the driveway retaining wall. The same metal fence will be used for the railing of the rear deck.

An eight foot tall wood fence is proposed around the rear yard. The top two feet of the fence must be constructed of lattice or with regular openings so that a combined area of the openings shall be at least 50 percent of the actual surface area.

In conclusion 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 is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

1. The top two feet of the eight-foot-tall rear yard fence must be constructed of lattice or with regular openings so that a combined area of the openings shall be at least 50 percent of the actual surface area.

PAUL DOERNER (PD) – ARCHITECT

DOUG L (DL)– CDI ENGINEERING – CIVIL ENGINEER

PD – We were already intending to do that with the fence anyway so that is no problem. Designed the house to fit with the neighborhood as much as possible. Also too measures to have the sides of the house have windows and shutters to create a nice home.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITION

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE SINGLE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

CITY BUSINESS LAND USE: ARTICLE VIII – SITE PLAN REVIEW

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Speaks to the board about the process of site plan review and what the Plan Commission’ s job is when it comes to reviewing site plans

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1950 (07:50 PM)

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

October 15, 2018 — Meeting Minutes