April 16, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

APRIL 16, 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 Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim (arrived at 5:45 p.m.) William Liebermann Scott Wilson Brian Maguire

Absent:

Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative

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

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

MINUTES

The minutes of the April 2, 2018 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (POOL HOUSE) – SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE – 320 DEMUN AVENUE

Matt Shaver, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

2 Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is proposing the construction of a pool, a deck and a 565 square foot pool house. The height of the pool house is actually 10.5 feet; however, the structure is built into the side of a hill and when measured from the average existing grade to the top of the flat roof, as code states, the height is approximately 5 feet. The proposed pool house is a minimum of 5 feet from the side property line and a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line, in conformance with setback requirements for accessory structures. The subject lot has unique topography in the rear yard, which slopes up from the back of the house to the rear property line. Because the structure is built into the side of the hill, it will not be very visible from adjacent properties. The proposed location is screened from the north, south and east by the existing solid fence. The proposed pool house is similar in style to the existing house. Total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent in the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed project will increase impervious coverage on site from 42 percent to 48.4 percent, which remains below the maximum allowed. Accessory structure footprints are limited to 35 percent of the required rear yard. The proposed pool house footprint covers 27.3 percent of the required rear yard. The primary building material of the proposed pool house is cedar lap siding, stained grey. Natural concrete is proposed as the accent material for the remainder of the exposed walls. The proposed flat roof will feature green roof trays and a wood deck. Dark bronze, aluminum casement windows are proposed. The existing house is primarily grey stucco and features modern design elements. The proposed pool house also features modern design characteristics and will not be highly visible from adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing a 9 foot by 12 foot in-ground pool in the rear yard with a concrete pool deck. A fire pit and two wood decks are also proposed. There is an existing solid wood fence along both sides and the rear property lines that will remain. The applicant is proposing an additional cedar screen fence along the southern wood deck to provide additional screening of the pool area. The applicant is proposing concrete retaining walls to support grade around the pool house and lawn areas. The concrete retaining walls will match the exposed concrete of the pool house and will vary in height. The retaining walls are used to preserve a higher grade along the property lines and create flat areas at a lower grade interior to the site. The exposed side of the concrete walls will be visible from the subject property and will not be visible from adjacent properties. Director Istenes concluded by stating that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines and that staff is of the opinion that the proposed pool house is compatible in terms of mass, height and design with the existing house and surrounding neighborhood and therefore, recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Shaver began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting the existing house/property were shown as well as an aerial photo. He indicated that they tried to retain as much yard as possible, noting that the rear yard is relatively small. He added that the topography slopes up at the rear yard (10 feet from the back of the house to the rear property line).

Slides depicting the site plan, sun study, diagram, footprint and a 3D sketch were shown.

Mr. Shaver explained that the roof of the pool house will be green (a colored site plan shown) and will be accessible from the back of the building. In addition, the privacy fence will remain. A slide

3 depicting the floor plan was shown. Mr. Shaver informed the members that a civil engineer was engaged to address coverage and drainage.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about water flow.

Mr. Shaver indicated that the goal was to redirect the water to the current drainage flow.

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Mr. Shaver that drainage onto adjacent properties should not increase as a result of the project; water needs to remain on the property. He asked that Mr. Shaver verify that with the civil engineer.

Mr. Shaver agreed.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the 9 X 12 pool is an exercise pool.

Mr. Shaver replied “no” adding that it’s a plunge pool.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it’s a creative design on a tight site.

Scott Wilson asked if the fence on the south elevation will remain.

Mr. Shaver replied “yes”.

Scott Wilson asked if the Trustees have approved the project.

Mr. Shaver indicated that they have reached out and have received support from two neighbors.

Scott Wilson referred to a letter that was received from a neighbor about this proposal.

Craig Owens asked Mr. Shaver to address the points raised in the neighbor’s letter.

Mr. Shaver indicated that if someone is sitting on the roof of this pool ho use, then he/she could see over the 6-foot fence, similar to the neighbor’s deck situation; however, the two structures will be occupied differently. He added that the neighbor’s deck is on the second story of their home and that their property is 2-feet higher as well.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that considering this is a densely populated City, most people can see into their neighbor’s property.

William Liebermann stated that this is a thoughtful design and he’s glad to see this property continue to improve.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that if this were a 2-car garage, it could have a pitched roof.

4

William Liebermann asked if the referenced letter came from the neighbor, Joan McCormick, at 326 DeMun and if that property contains a 2-story addition.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.

Craig Owens asked about the green roof.

Mr. Shaver indicated that the plan includes modular trays; it won’t be a walk-on roof.

Ron Reim commented that it was well thought out.

Richard Lintz, Subdivision Trustee (and Alderman) stated that he thinks it’s a cool project and that they went to a lot of trouble to make it fit.

Ron Reim stated that private subdivision indentures are not enforced by the City/this Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld confirmed.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the project as requested with the condition that the applicant’s civil engineer confirm that there will be no additional run-off from the property as a result of this project and provide that information to staff. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that he looks forward to seeing the project completed.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION/PARKING – 7601 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Trevor Becherer representing Clayco, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a temporary construction office with parking on the subject site. The property has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial District. Office uses are permitted in the C-2 Zoning District; however, given the temporary nature and proposed design of the site, a Conditional Use Permit is necessary to govern the specifics of this request. The applicant will also extend the temporary office use into a small portion of the lot just north of the subject lot, which is addressed 14 North Lyle Avenue. The northern lot is under the same ownership as the subject lot; however, it is zoned R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District. Parking lots and office uses are conditionally permitted uses in the R-4 Zoning District. The 7,575 square foot site, addressed 7601 Forsyth Boulevard, is currently vacant greenspace. The applicant proposes using approximately 1,875 square feet of area on the 14 North Lyle Avenue lot, which is also currently vacant greenspace. The applicant is proposing to temporarily cover the site with gravel for a surface

5 parking lot and move the existing office trailers from the south side of Forsyth Boulevard to the subject lot. The applicant is the contractor for the Centene construction project located south of Forsyth Boulevard. The applicant intends to use the subject lot as the main construction office for the project. The parking on site will be for employees with offices in the trailer, not for general construction parking. Terms of the applicant’s lease state that the lot shall be restored to the former state (lawn) upon expiration or termination of the lease. The applicant is proposing 20 parking spaces on the surface lot with access from the north-south alley located east of the subject property. The hours of operation will correspond with the hours of construction, which are 7:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Friday. If a permit for extended construction hours or weekend construction is granted for the Centene project, the subject lot will likely be used. Adjacent lots are currently used for surface parking and there is a significant area of mature trees north of the subject property creating a buffer between the single family residences and the site. The proposed use will not involve significant construction and will fill a need related to the ongoing construction project south of the site. The use will not encroach into the residential neighborhood and the vehicles utilizing the lot will be guided south by the traffic circulation pattern of the alley. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is proposing a temporary office structure using construction trailers. The existing office trailers located south of Forsyth Boulevard will be relocated to the subject site. The one-story trailers combine to create an approximately 3,150 square foot office. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed office structure is compatible in terms of size, floor area and mass with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant proposes covering the lot with a crushed rock surface. There are multiple surface parking lots in the immediate vicinity and most are paved with an asphalt surface. The temporary nature of the subject lot makes the use of a rock surface acceptable, when it would not be an allowed surface for a permanent lot. The crushed rock will also be a more permeable surface than asphalt. Based on surrounding uses and conditions, staff will not be requiring a solid screen fence around the subject lot; however, the applicant may erect a fence if preferred. Any fence will require a Fence Permit and review by staff for proposed materials. The crushed rock surface will be more permeable than other pavement types and will also not have the same heat generation impacts. The lot will be used for parking during construction hours and therefore will not generate increased noise levels during the early morning, evening or night. Because of the temporary nature of the construction parking and the fact that the subject lot is a lower grade than the residential lots to the north, staff does not believe that the proposed lot will adversely affect the residential neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation. Because the lot has been vacant for many years, any use will generate more noise than is currently generated on the site. Staff believes that noise generation due to the proposed construction parking will not be more than typically generated by the adjacent commercial uses. The hours of use of the lot are restricted to correspond to the allowed construction hours. The mature trees and vegetation located north of the site will also create a buffer for sight and noise mitigation. Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code. Office and parking uses are allowed in the C-2 Zoning District and the Conditional Use Permit process allows the temporary nature of the proposal to be mitigated. The proposal will provide a use to an otherwise vacant lot and will allow construction of the multiple phase Centene development to continue. Staff believes this is good planning practice and will fill an existing need. The

6 applicant is not proposing any landscape buffers. The existing trees north of the site provide a landscape buffer between the subject lot and the residential lots. Staff does not believe a landscape buffer is necessary along the adjacent surface parking lot or the public sidewalk. Staff would not want the office trailers or onsite parking to be shifted north toward the residential in order to create a landscape buffer along Forsyth Boulevard. Vehicles will enter the site at the southeast corner of the property from the north-south alley, wrap around the front of the site and exit back into the north-south alley. The applicant is proposing that exiting vehicles travel south on the north-south alley and take a right onto Forsyth Boulevard. Sight distance at the southern end of the alley is very poor and the Public Works Department has requested that vehicles exiting the lot travel north on the north-south alley to mitigate potential safety hazards. After traveling north, vehicles will have to turn east onto the east-west alley. The east-west alley connects to Lee Avenue, which is one-way in this section, so vehicles must turn south toward Forsyth Boulevard. No new curb cuts are proposed along Forsyth Boulevard. The proposed use will generate more traffic than currently generated by the empty lot; however, based on the use proposed and traffic circulation pattern, the trips generated will likely not negatively impact the residential neighborhood. The proposed lot includes 20 parking spaces. The City’s Parking Code requires that one space is provided for every 300 square feet of office space. Based on the size of the office trailers, 11 onsite parking spaces would be required; however, the proposed construction office use is a different operation than typical office uses. Staff supports the proposal of 20 onsite parking spaces. There are no lights proposed for the parking lot. Director Istenes concluded by stating that staff is of the opinion that the proposed construction office meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff does not believe that this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:

1. Vehicles exiting the subject lot must travel north on the north-south alley. The applicant shall install a “no right turn” or “left turn only” sign at the exit. The sign design and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to installation. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for the temporary parking lot shall expire after two years and upon expiration, the applicant shall restore the lot to grass. 3. Within 7 days of approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the Board of Aldermen, the applicant shall post a performance bond to guarantee restoration of the site after the Permit expires in an amount deemed acceptable by the City’s Building Official, naming the City as beneficiary.

Mr. Becherer began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting the City’s zoning map (subject area emphasized), an aerial photo of the subject site and photos of the property as it appears today were shown. Mr. Becherer indicated that the existing trees will be maintained.

A slide depicting a photo of a construction trailer was shown.

7 Chairman Lichtenfeld made reference to staff recommendation that vehicles exit the lot must travel north using the north/south alley.

Mr. Becherer agreed.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the lot to the west is owned by Gershman.

Mr. Becherer indicated that he believed it was, noting that Gershman is who they are leasing the lot from.

Brian Maguire asked if they will be requesting temporary offices for the Maryland School property as well.

Mr. Becherer indicated that they will be considering that at a later time. He then asked if they could extend the use of the subject lot until October, 2020.

William Liebermann thanked Mr. Becherer for asking ahead of time.

Ron Reim asked Mr. Becherer if he would comply with staff recommendations.

Mr. Becherer replied “yes”.

Jennifer Taussig, 7608 Maryland Avenue, asked that the trees be protected as they provide a buffer.

Mr. Becherer indicated that protecting those existing trees is their main focus and the reason for the layout of the site. He noted that the trailers will be placed back at the rear of the lot near the trees so there will be no traffic next to them.

Hearing no further comments or questions, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, allowing an extension to October, 2020, to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

CITY BUSINESS – DISCUSSIONS REGARDING LAND USE TOPICS AND THE BASICS OF MAKING MOTIONS AND VOTING

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney, if a closed/executive session was necessary.

Stephanie Karr indicated that she did not believe so as long as the conversation remained non- specific.

The following is a breakdown of the Articles and the members who will address them:

8

Ron Reim: General Regulations & Conditional Use Permits William Liebermann: Non-Conforming Uses Brian Maguire: Plannned Unit Developments & Special Development Districts Scott Wilson: Off-street Parking and Loading Regulations and Site Plan Review

The recording secretary was asked to email the Articles to the members. Staff noted that the Articles up for discussion will be placed on future light agendas. Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that due to his absence at the May 7th meeting, discussion items will not be on that agenda.

It was announced that Richard Lintz will be taking Joanne Boulton’s place on this Commission as Aldermanic Representative.

Planner Krane referred to Roberts Rules of Order with regard to motions and voting.

Attorney Karr noted that it is very important that all elements are included in a motion; discussions cannot be later enforced. She added that if a motion is not clear, it is up to the Chairperson to call it out and be sure that it is clear.

Planner Krane reminded that there are times that recommendations of this Commission go on to the Board of Aldermen. She emphasized that discussions that take place during the course of deliberations that are not included in a motion are not enforceable.

Attorney Karr explained that calling a question is the same as calling for a vote.

Planner Krane noted that sometimes extra conditions are added before and sometimes after a motion or second to a motion is made, which can complicate things. The Chairman can request that the recording secretary repeat the conditions back if there is any confusion.

Attorney Karr indicated that the recording secretary can also ask the Chairman to clarify a motion at any time before the vote. She added that modifications are acceptable provided that the person who made the motion and seconded the motion (if applicable) are favorable of the modifications.

Director Istenes stated that the public/audience need to understand the vote (and conditions thereof). She asked if the Chairman is allowed to make a motion.

Attorney Karr replied “yes” although it is not typical.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if it’s acceptable to receive public comments or questions after a motion is made; as conditions of approval may trigger more public input.

Attorney Karr indicated that it is acceptable as long as the vote has not been taken. She added that in the case of a public hearing, the public hearing may need to be re-opened.

9

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this Commission tries to confirm with the applicant that he/she is aware of the conditions being imposed.

Craig Owens recommended that a vote not take place until the motion is clear and on record in a way that can be executed. He added that there are times when he would like to modify a motion that’s been made, or when he would like to discuss further, but he does not.

Planner Krane stated that it is important to include {if applicable} verbal agreements that were made during discussions as well as staff recommendations into the motion.

Ron Reim brought up the challenges of when an applicant comes to the meeting with different plans than those included in the submittal packet.

Craig Owens commented that it’s an issue of timing; we should not be accepting changes on the fly as staff needs time to review and make a recommendation.

A discussion on how to communicate that to the applicants ensued.

Attorney Karr recommended that the City obtain a copy of all PowerPoint presentations as well.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it’s best to avoid last minute substantial changes.

Craig Owens encouraged staff to speak up during the meeting.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed, noting that the Commission relies on staff’s expertise.

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that he will not be in attendance at the May 7th meeting.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary