September 4, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman Richard Lintz, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim* William Liebermann* Carolyn Gaidis

*arrived after roll call was taken

Absent:

Brian Maguire

Also in Attendance: Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner

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

MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of August 20, 2018 were presented for approval. Carolyn Gaidis asked that the following correction be made to Page 5, third to last paragraph: “She asked if the wall will be hard pruned or…”. The minutes were then approved as amended, after having been previously distributed to the members.

2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SUNSHADE – 6501 WYDOWN BLVD (FIRST TRINITARIAN CONCREGATION PRESCHOOL)

Anne Chao, Preschool Director, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the site is improved with a church building and a small playground for the daycare. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 550 square foot canopy structure adjacent to the playground at the southeast corner of the building and lot. The height of the proposed shade structure is approximately 12 feet as measured from grade to the top of the support posts. The proposed structure is located in the front yard of the church property, adjacent to the existing daycare play area. The shade structure will be visible from Wydown Boulevard and University Lane. The daycare play area has been located along Wydown Boulevard for many years with some renovations receiving approval from the Architectural Review Board in 2005. Staff believes that the shade structure is compatible with the play area, but the more modern design does stray from the classic architecture of the church. The support posts are proposed as powder coated steel and the shade canopy color is royal blue. The canopy color has been selected to match the preschool colors of blue and yellow. The applicant is proposing to remove the shade portion of the structure during winter months, leaving only the support posts in place throughout the year. There is also an existing row of bushes along both streets providing screening of the play area. Staff is of the opinion that a more muted canopy color would blend with the church building and not attract as much attention as the royal blue; however, staff also recognizes that the canopy is for a preschool and brighter colors are often preferred when associated with this type of use. Staff is of the opinion that the screening provided by onsite plantings and street trees would reduce the visual impact of the blue canopy. The proposed shade structure extends from the southeast corner of the church building. Covered porches and patios may extend into a front yard setback up to five feet. The proposed shade structure extends into both front yards (Wydown Boulevard and University Lane) further than allowed, so a setback variance granted by the Board of Adjustment will be needed in order to construct the structure as proposed. Director Istenes stated that staff’s opinion is that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing neighborhood character. The proposed project will require review by the Board of Adjustment for a setback variance, but otherwise the project is in conformance with the zoning requirements of the R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District, and staff recommends approval as requested.

Ms. Chao indicated that the preschool has been in operation since 1983 and many trees have been lost over the last 20 years. She stated that this is the only location for the playground and the children need shade. She informed the members that they have been raising money for the past 2 years for this shade structure and that they would like to use Shade Guard as the contractor.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the shade structure will be removed in the winter.

Ms. Chao replied “yes”, adding that they plan to remove it annually by the end of October and have it cleaned before storing it until the following March when they reinstall it.

3 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about its stability during a storm.

Ms. Chao explained that it will handle most winds okay; however, during a heavy storm the grommets can release.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there are 3 poles and the building itself that this structure is supported by.

Ms. Chao replied “yes”.

A sample of the material/color (aquamarine) was presented. Ms. Chao informed the members that she is certainly open to another color if necessary; the important thing is the shade it will provide.

Carolyn Gaidis commented that she’s used these sunshades before and they are great.

Elisa Wang, Church member, voiced the Church’s support of the proposal.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Ms. Chao understood the need for a variance.

Ms. Chao replied “yes”.

The topic of the proposed color began. Craig Owens commented that he would prefer a neutral color, but he’s okay with the blue. After a brief discussion regarding the proposed blue color, the members all agreed to the color as proposed.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 419 POLO

Mike Antkowiak, on behalf of Jane Ann Forney, project architect, and the owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 544 square foot addition above the attached, rear-entry garage and a rear deck. The height of the existing residence is approximately 30 feet 10 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof and the height of the addition measure 19 feet above grade. There is a distinct character and design of the houses located on this block of Polo Drive. Most houses were constructed around the 1920s and feature large front porches, predominantly dark red brick and clay tile roofs. Over the years renovations to various houses have included adding screens or glass to the front porches, painting brick and constructing rear additions; however, the character along the street has remained stable. The proposed rear addition and deck will not change the style of the

4 existing front elevation, but the addition could be visible from the north along Shaw Park Drive or South Bemiston Avenue. The existing attached garage is partially below grade. The proposed addition is located above the garage and will align with the first floor of the house. The shape of the addition and roof pitch is consistent with the style of the existing house. The attached garage extends beyond the rear and side yard setbacks of the property and is considered existing non- conforming. In order to construct the proposed addition, the applicant will need to obtain a setback variance from the Board of Adjustment. The Architectural Review Board is providing review of the design and materials of the addition and deck, not evaluating the setbacks of the project. This block of Polo Drive is predominantly dark red brick with painted wood trim and stucco accent materials. The proposed addition will leave the existing stucco and brick façade of the garage in tact with brown composite siding proposed on the new structure. The west façade of the addition will be visible from the sidewalk. While siding is used on homes in the larger Polo neighborhood, staff believes dark red brick is more consistent with the distinct character of the houses on the block. Brown casement windows are proposed to match the existing. Slate grey/green architectural shingles are proposed for the roof of the addition. The existing house has a green clay tile roof. From afar, the addition roof may appear similar to the existing roof, but it will be difficult to match the green tile with shingles. The proposed design and materials of the composite wood deck are consistent with rear yard decks in the area. The existing metal fence will remain. The applicant will relocate the HVAC units from the rear of the house and the new location has not been determined. The new location will need to be screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. The new location and screening will be evaluated during review of the Building Permit. Director Istenes concluded that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, except for setbacks. Staff is of the opinion that with slight modification, the design will be compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with neighborhood character and therefore, staff recommends approval with the following condition:

1. The applicant shall replace the siding material with dark red brick.

Staff also has the following corrections for the site plan submitted by the applicant:

1. The side yard setback is 7.52 feet. The side yard setback is set off the east and west property lines, not the north property as shown on the plan. 2. The rear yard setback is 40.88 feet. The rear yard setback is set off the north property line, not the south property line as shown on the plan. 3. The front yard setback is the average of the block face.

Ron Reim asked staff if changing the setbacks will alter the review.

Anna Krane replied “no”.

Mr. Antkowiak commented that the comment that the addition can be seen from Shaw Park Drive is inaccurate.

5

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that it is due to the time of year.

Mr. Antkowiak stated that they believe the addition as proposed is consistent with the area.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the applicant understands the need for a variance.

Mr. Antkowiak replied “yes”. He added that they were instructed by staff to come to this Board first.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if material samples were available.

Mr. Antkowiak stated that brick is not in the budget. He presented print-outs depicting the proposed siding, which will, according to Mr. Antkowiak, match the house trim.

Brochures depicting the proposed windows (Anderson), roof shingles (Certainteed) and siding were presented.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is supposed to be a small window in the addition that is shown on the plan submitted as blank.

Mr. Antkowiak replied “no”; that’s a mistake.

William Liebermann asked the minimum percentage of brick or stone that’s required.

Anna Krane replied 75%.

William Liebermann commented that the siding is less than 25%.

Anna Krane commented that the percentage of material is found in the Architectural Review Guidelines.

William Liebermann asked if there are Trustees.

Craig Owens commented that there may be.

Mr. Antkowiak stated he’s not aware of any.

William Liebermann asked if there is a color rendering.

Mr. Antkowiak indicated that there is one on the last page of their submittal.

6 The property owner, Christopher Springer, approached the podium and informed the members that he just had his slate tile roof redone; he went from Spanish to French and that he believes there is enough left over to use on the addition. He added that he has received positive feedback from his neighbors; his current garage is unsightly and this addition will improve the appearance.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed.

Ron Reim stated that he’s okay with the Hardie Board as requested; the addition will be more difficult to see from the back roads.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it will be more noticeable from the north side of the Parkway during the winter.

Ron Reim asked if work on the garage is anticipated.

Mr. Springer replied “yes”; in the future.

Richard Lintz asked if the project results in a change in lot coverage.

Susan Istenes replied “no”.

Anna Krane added that they are under the allowed coverage.

Susan Istenes asked about the roof.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he prefers it to match.

Mr. Springer informed the members that he needs to have the roofing contractor to come out; that the roof slope needs to stay, but it can come down a little bit.

Ron Reim stated that he, too, would like to see the roof match.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as proposed with the condition that the roof of the addition is to stay sloped (slope can be reduced from what’s shown on plan as long it is not flat) and the tile is to be French to match existing roof; Hardie Board approved as proposed; staff to approve the color of the Hardie Board. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – GENERATOR/SCREENING IN FRONT YARD – 241 LINDEN AVENUE

7 Charles Deutsch, owner, and Chris Leonard, agent for owner, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the installation of an emergency generator adjacent to the existing HVAC units in the front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The proposed generator measures approximately 4.5 feet wide by 11 feet long by 5.67 feet tall. Two retaining walls are required to create a level area for the generator and a solid screen fence is proposed. The proposed generator location is in the secondary front yard along Kingsbury Boulevard. The generator would be highly visible from the public right-of-way; however, the applicant is proposing a solid screen fence. Staff supports the proposed location of the existing generator because it is adjacent to existing mechanical equipment and the necessary service connections. The proposed screen fence is black vinyl. The Architectural Review Board has previously outlined a strong preference for wood and metal fences and more specifically, decorative metal fences when located in the front yard. A solid fence is preferred by staff in this instance because it would be used to screen the generator. Staff recommends that the proposed fence material is revised to solid wood. Front yard fences are also usually limited to a maximum of 4 feet tall. Staff supports a 6 foot tall fence because the generator is over 5 feet tall. The subject property contains a metal decorative fence along the sidewalk of Kingsbury Boulevard that will remain in place. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping between the new screen fence and the existing metal fence. The new landscaping will help provide screening of the additional mechanical equipment and soften the visual impact of a tall and solid fence. The applicant is proposing two retaining walls to create a level area for the generator pad. One size and color block are proposed for the retaining wall, which does not conform the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for three size blocks and a varying color pattern. The proposed site plan shows the retaining walls behind the solid fence and therefore not visible from the right-of-way. Staff has concerns about this design because existing grade slopes down from the house to the right-of-way. As shown, the fence will be installed at a lower grade than the generator, leaving a portion of the generator visible above the top of the fence. Staff does not support increasing the height of the fence and instead staff requests that the site design is altered to allow the fence to be installed at the same grade as the generator. The altered design would shift the retaining wall north, toward the right-of-way making the retaining wall visible from the street. Staff recommends that the proposed retaining wall material is revised to meet the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for retaining wall materials. Director Istenes continued by stating that staff is of the opinion that with revisions, the design will be compatible with existing neighborhood character and requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Board Guidelines and as such, recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. The solid fence shall be constructed of wood. 2. The northern most retaining wall shall be shifted north, allowing the fence to be installed at the same grade as the generator. 3. The retaining wall material shall conform to the Architectural Review Board Guidelines and include at least three different size blocks and a varying color pattern.

8 Mr. Leonard began speaking to staff recommendations as follows: (1) a product cut-sheet was distributed to meet this recommendation (wood); it was asked that they be allowed to paint the fence to match the existing AC unit’s screening material; (2) proposed changes explained and discussed; the wall is proposed to run east to west; the fence will be at the same grade/elevation as the pad on three sides; the height of the fence will be the same or taller than the generator height. The intent is that the generator match the grade on the south, west and east sides of the pad, as the grade falls off towards Kingsbury; (3) the retaining wall is 30-inches at its highest point-the sketch differs in that it is showing two retaining walls.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that one of them is not needed, as water drains to the north.

Mr. Leonard agreed. He stated that they will plant landscaping outside the fencing, which is 6-foot in height, similar to that of the existing landscaping.

Carolyn Gaidis asked to see a cross-section to see how tall of a fence will be needed to screen the generator.

Mr. Leonard stated that the generator is 65-inches tall.

Ron Reim questioned where the diesel fuel will be stored and how it will be replaced.

Mr. Leonard stated that the fuel will be stored underneath the unit.

Ron Reim asked why not use natural gas.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this feels like a commercial generator and that this Board may need more information to make a decision.

Anna Krane informed the members that mechanical and building permits will be needed for this project.

Ron Reim commented that setbacks may be an issue.

Anna Krane explained that the generator/screening fence is located in the front yard along Kingsbury and that’s why this project is being considered by this Board.

Susan Istenes commented that it may be beneficial to the members to have a rendering from the street.

Chairman Lichtenfeld added that an updated site plan and north and south sections would also be helpful. He recommended continuing this application until the next meeting.

Ron Reim questioned again about re-fueling.

9

William Liebermann asked the size of the generator.

Carolyn Gaidis asked about landscaping.

Anna Krane informed Carolyn that because this project does not require site plan review, a SWPPP plan and landscape plan are not required.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to continue this request until the meeting of September 17th. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.

PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION - LOT CONSOLIDATION – 7739 & 7741 DAVIS DRIVE

Arthur Kotets, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the property currently addressed 7739 Davis Drive is 7,438 square feet and contains a single-family house. The property currently addressed 7741 Davis Drive is 439 square feet and contains a portion of a fence. The proposed plat will consolidate one existing non- conforming lot and one existing conforming lot. The R-2 Single Family Dwelling District has a minimum lot width of 60 feet and a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet. Lots of record established prior to April 14, 1959 that are less width or area than the minimum requirements are considered conforming lots. The non-conforming lot (7741 Davis Drive) was never officially consolidated with another lot, but the lot has historically been under common ownership with the lot addressed 7739 Davis Drive. The proposed plat will remove the existing non-conforming lot and will bring the larger lot into compliance with the minimum required lot area and closer to the minimum requirement for lot width. The consolidated lot will measure 7,876 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement and recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:

1. That the applicant provide a mylar for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval;

2. That the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds office and submit proof of filing to the City within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.

Mr. Kotets stated that he recently purchased the property to build a new home.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any comments.

William Liebermann stated that this seems logical.

10

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Carolyn Gaidis and unanimously approved by the members.

SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8120 STRATFORD

Lauren Strutman, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Eric Vietmeier, project civil engineer, was also in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes announced that the architectural aspects of this project will be considered first due to the applicant’s request for “Alternative Compliance” as defined in the Urban Design District Regulations. She proceeded by explaining (taken from staff’s report) that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,255 square foot single-family residence with a 795 square foot attached, front entry garage. The height of the proposed residence is 26 feet 6 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. This project was presented to the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2018 for a conceptual review. Stratford Drive features mostly two story homes and has the highest concentration of new houses in the Clayton Gardens neighborhood. The height and massing of the proposed house is similar to the new construction trends seen in the neighborhood. The main difference of this proposed structure is the inclusion of a below-grade, front entry garage. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District states that “at- grade, side loading garages or detached garages or rear loading garages are preferred in all cases and shall be utilized where 51 percent or more of the homes on the block have them.” Based on the definition of a block in the City’s Zoning Regulations, which includes both sides of the street, over 51 percent of the houses on the block have side loading, detached or rear loading garages, which means that one of those three options should be used on any new construction house. The applicant is proposing a below-grade, front entry garage as a form of Alternative Compliance. Article VI General Provisions for the Urban Design Zoning Districts outlines a process for Alternative Compliance, where applicants can request that the Plan Commission or Architectural Review Board review designs that do not meet standards due to unusual site conditions, but that conform to the intent of the standards. This process is similar to a request for a variance from the Zoning Regulations that is heard by Board of Adjustment. The “Alternative Compliance” Section of the Code reads:

Section 410.285 Alternative Compliance: Upon request of an applicant, the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Board, as appropriate depending on the type of development and application, may approve an alternative approach that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting these design standards. This approach is intended to apply in unusual circumstances that might arise where an alternative approach would provide a result that is equal to or superior to that which would be provided by the approach outlined by the standards in this Chapter. Economic consideration shall not be a basis for alternative compliance.

11 1. Procedure. An alternative compliance approach shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements as set forth by the City of Clayton. The approach shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the intent of these design standards than would an approach which complies with these design standards. 2. Review criteria. To approve an alternative approach, the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Board must find that the proposed alternative approach accomplishes the intent of these design standards equally well or better than would an approach which complies with these design standards.

Staff offers the following code section to explain the intent of the garage regulations for the design district. In order to approve the alternative compliance approach proposed, the Architectural Review Board must find that the proposed design conforms to the intent of the code.

Section 410.375 Garage Width and Location (Lot Zoned “R-2”) A. General. The garage has not typically been a dominant feature in Clayton Gardens and Clayshire. Locating the garage to the rear or side of the home, as is typical in these neighborhoods, allows the architectural details of the home and front yard to define the character of the street. Below-grade front garages have been introduced in several areas of Clayton Gardens. In many cases, the garage and associated driveway replace the yard and dominate the street, completely changing its character. To protect the established character of these neighborhoods, garage placement and scale need to be carefully considered to minimize visual impacts upon the street and surrounding development.

Director Istenes continued by stating that the applicant has submitted a letter dated July 27, 2018 (attached to the application) to outline the reasoning for the alternative design. Staff agrees with statements in the letter comparing the topography of the south side of Stratford Drive to the topography of the north side of Stratford Drive. The subject property slopes up from the street to the rear of the lot, while properties across the street slope down from the street to the rear of the lots. The existing topography can make a side, rear or detached garage design more difficult, but not impossible given that two-thirds of the existing houses on the south side of Stratford Drive (not including the subject property) feature a side, rear or detached garage. To minimize the impacts of the proposed garage, the site design features a curved retaining wall with landscaping to obscure the view of the garage from certain angles. The garage door is also recessed into the façade of the house. Staff agrees that these design elements would help reduce the impacts of a front entry garage; however, a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk will still be confronted with the larger paving area and the house will seem taller due to the exposed basement level. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District regulations also state that when front entry garages are allowed, the width of the garage shall not exceed 24 feet or 50 percent of the total width of the front façade, whichever is less. The proposed garage is less than 24 feet wide and accounts for less than 50 percent of the total

12 façade width. The intent of the garage regulations included in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District are to protect the existing character of the neighborhood and prevent paved areas from encroaching into front lawn areas. There are five homes on the south side of Stratford Drive with front entry garages. Four of the five garages have a single car width garage door. The proposed double garage would have a greater impact on street character that the existing single car garages. The existing home to the west (8124 Stratford Drive) was constructed in 1948 and is +/- 4.8 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the east (8116 Stratford Drive) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 4.7 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). 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 following permitted technique is used: “increasing the side yard setback one foot for every five feet the height of the structure exceeds the height of the adjacent structure at the side yard.” The proposed house is just under five feet taller than the existing homes to either side. The minimum side yard setback for the subject property is five feet and the proposed plan includes a side yard setback of six feet on both sides. Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is tan brick and no secondary building materials are proposed. The proposed roof is clad in charcoal blend asphalt shingles. Black casement windows are proposed. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials are compatible with the existing neighborhood character. An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed that measures 8 feet wide at the property line and gradually widens to the width of the garage doors. A tan carriage style garage door is proposed. The existing 6 foot tall wood fence will remain surrounding the rear yard. Brick clad retaining walls will line both sides of the driveway to expose the below grade garage. The most northern points of the walls, closest to the sidewalk, will measure less than a foot tall. The tallest point of the west wall is at the southern end and measures 5.3 feet tall. The tallest point of the east wall is also at the southern end and measures 9.4 feet tall. Landscape buffering is proposed along the top of both walls and variegated liriope is located along the base of the walls. Staff is of the opinion that the curved design of the eastern wall will help to mitigate the impact of the tallest end. The tan brick of the walls will match the brick of the house. The muted color will also help the walls blend into the background and allow the landscape design to stand out. The project, with the exception of the front entry garage, 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 with a side entry garage, rear entry garage or detached garage, the design would be compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and therefore, recommends denial of the request for a below grade, front entry garage.

Ms. Strutman began a PowerPoint presentation. A slide depicting the proposed site plan was shown. Ms. Strutman indicated that she had several letters of support from the neighbors for this project. She then introduced Mr. Vietmeier to the members.

Ron Reim asked how far down the garage is from street level.

13

Mr. Vietmeier indicated that the driveway has an 8% slope.

Ms. Strutman noted that they used the rear of the house to control the grades. She noted that the trash area is under the front porch.

Slides depicting various photos of the block (both sides of the street) and the subject property were shown. Ms. Strutman indicated that in the past, 9 of 16 homes had front entry garages. She stated that ten years ago, when 8128 Stratford was built, it featured a side entry garage but that’s because this lot was 30 feet wider; retaining walls were needed for this project.

An aerial photo of the area was shown.

William Liebermann asked Ms. Strutman if there’s been any opposition to this proposal.

Ms. Strutman replied “no”. She reminded the members that this project is in compliance with all other applicable codes and regulations and that the new driveway is in the same location as the existing driveway so as to save two existing street trees.

A color rendering of the proposed house was presented.

Ms. Strutman explained that the garage door is recessed.

Material samples were shown (black clad windows, black architectural shingle roof, limestone and tan brick).

A contextual rendering as well as elevation drawings were shown.

Ms. Strutman reiterated that they’ve received many letters of support, including from the adjacent neighbors. She indicated that if there were to incorporate a side entry attached garage, that 15-foot tall retaining walls would be needed, which is not feasible, and that detached garages are not typical for new construction.

Lawrence Baerveldt, owner, thanked staff, especially the City’s Planner, Anna Krane, for the assistance received during the application process.

William Liebermann asked if the one car width apron will remain and the driveway will widen once it approaches the garage entry.

Ms. Strutman confirmed.

Ron Reim commented that this is a great gesture to address the site issues and that Ms. Strutman did a good job; he likes the house.

14

Richard Lintz stated that he appreciates the slope issue and now he has a better understanding of the issue at hand.

William Liebermann commented that a rear garage would need a lot more concrete and that there would be a height issue as well.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that the 8128 lot is larger.

Carolyn Gaidis asked about the guardrail on top of the wall.

Ms. Strutman indicated that the guardrail is there for safety.

David Zimmermann, owner across the street, commented that there’s no way to construct a side or rear entry garage on this lot.

Carolyn Gaidis asked about the driveway entrance.

Ms. Strutman indicated that the existing curb-cut will remain as it is today; emphasizing that to do this allows the two existing Oak trees to remain (street trees).

Carolyn Gaidis asked about snow removal for the driveway.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the architectural aspects of the project as submitted (allowing the front entry garage). The motion was seconded by Carolyn Gaidis and unanimously approved by the Board.

The site plan was now up for review.

Susan Istenes indicated that staff’s recommendation is to approve the site plan as proposed, noting that downspouts and the sump-pump will be piped to a pop-up emitter located in the front yard at the northeast corner of the lot. Staff is requesting further explanation by the civil engineer of the proposed stormwater runoff plan. The calculations provided determine that less water will flow from the property; however, in the proposed condition all runoff from the roof and the water from the driveway pump will be sent to one corner of the lot. The pop-up emitters are also shown on a slope. Staff requests an explanation of how less water will leave the site, when all water is focused to a point closer to the property line than in the existing condition.

Mr. Vietmeier presented a drainage “map” to the members, explaining that mathematically, there will be reduction in drainage. He noted that current and new conditions have the rear drainage running to the street, but a pop-up will be installed in the front yard and drainage will now discharge ten feet from the property line. He stated that if there’s concern, they could pull the pop-ups closer to the house to allow additional time to soak into the yard.

15

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if all downspouts go to the front.

Mr. Vietmeier replied “yes”.

William Liebermann asked what happens if the pump fails.

Mr. Vietmeier stated that he recommends a back-up system.

William Liebermann asked why there is no MSD connection.

Mr. Vietmeier stated that MSD doesn’t like that.

A brief discussion regarding drainage and the 10 X 4 sump pit ensued.

Carolyn Gaidis asked if a permeable paver driveway was considered.

Mr. Vietmeier indicated that they take more time to install and cost more money.

Carolyn Gaidis asked if the City’s landscape architect review the landscape plan.

Anna Krane replied “yes”.

Carolyn Gaidis stated that there’s an opportunity to increase the native species in the front yard. She commented that bald cypress trees soak up a lot of water.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that maybe they could do two pop-ups for the downspouts.

Mr. Vietmeier stated that there is a space issue to do two there.

Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested one on either side of the walkway.

Mr. Vietmeier stated that would require splitting.

William Liebermann questioned if overflow could go to the storm sewer.

Mr. Vietmeier indicated that they had not looked at that; he’s not confident it would work and MSD would need to review.

Ron Reim asked about tree protection for the two street trees.

16 Carolyn Gaidis commented that there’s a lot of regrading going on with this project and that those tree roots go out further than shown on the submitted landscape plan. She added that she trusts this will be under control by City staff and the City’s landscape architect.

Ron Reim voiced concern about water run-off.

Mr. Vietmeier indicated that the water runs south to north and they are not changing when it gets to the street.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.

CITY BUSINESS – DISCUSSION OF THE “GENERAL REGULATIONS” ARTICLE CONTAINED IN THE CITY’S ZONING REGULATIONS

Ron Reim initiated the discussion. He commented that Conditional Use Permit uses are reviewed more closely and regulated via a Permit (CUP); that Planned Unit Developments allow flexibility as a rezoning is needed and that the end result is a better project as the City gets something in return for approval of a PUD.

Regarding Sections 405.280 “Townhouses” and 405.290 “Detached Multi-Unit Housing”, Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the townhouse language has been recently updated (November, 2017).

“Second Units” (Section 405.330) have been reviewed in the past and also require a CUP.

Richard Lintz asked about rental properties (i.e. bed & breakfasts).

Director Istenes explained that she did a code interpretation and a thorough analysis and has determined that transient use of a property is equal to that of a hotel and not allowed in the residential zones.

A brief discussion of “family” took place and it was noted that this issue can be a challenging one; the City’s definition of family may be altered at some point in the future.

Stephanie Karr informed the members that the City is obligated to follow state law with regard to “group homes”.

Staff indicated that they would continue to include Articles for discussion on future light agendas; the meeting of September 17th would be one of them.

17 Director Istenes announced that the next “lunch and learn” topic would be drainage and that she would ask Spencer Litteken from our Public Works Department to attend. It was mentioned that MSD is bound by an agreement with the EPA.

Kathy Scott was thanked for her 24 years of service to the City. She’s retiring on Friday.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary