June 19, 2017 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

JUNE 19, 2017

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

These meeting minutes do not include the presentation of the proposed Centene Clayton Campus Sub-district 2b or the proposed architectural changes to Sub-district 2a. A court reporter attended this meeting and a transcription prepared.

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: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Craig Owens, City Manager Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative William Liebermann Scott Wilson

Absent: Ron Reim Josh Corson

Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services 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. He noted that the agenda for this evening is long and asked that presentations be quick and that comments not be repeated

MINUTES

The minutes of the June 5, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously forwarded to each member.

LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT – 8321 MARYLAND AVENUE

2

Josh Barcus, engineer with Stock & Associates, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the north side of Maryland Avenue between Crandon Drive and Lancaster Drive. The development plan for this property was approved by the Plan Commission-Architectural Review Board on March 6, 2017. The project consists of a freestanding bank (Regions Bank), a remote drive-through associated with the bank, a freestanding retail building and a surface parking lot. The 2,743-square-foot bank building is located at the southwest corner of the site and the 3,457-square-foot retail building is located at the southeast corner of the site. The bank and retail buildings will measure 21-feet 6-inches to the top of the parapet. The project is currently being reviewed for Building Permits. As originally approved, the bank building and retail building were to be located on separate lots. Due to restrictions of the Building Code, it has been determined that the lots should be consolidated. The proposed plat consolidates two existing lots (Lots C and D, Block 14 of Clayton Gardens No.3 and No.4) that have historically been under common ownership and addressed as 8321 Maryland Avenue. The consolidated lot measures 34,888 square feet. Director Istenes stated that staff believes 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. Barcus informed the members that they have no issues with staff’s recommendations.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this is a simple issue and hearing no comments from the members or audience, a motion was solicited.

Scott Wilson made a motion to recommend approval of the plat to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY – 6367 ELLENWOOD AVENUE

Dennis & Tiffanie Upshaw, owners, were in attendance at the meeting.

City Manager Owens informed the remaining members that he had previously administratively approved this project.

3 Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a new front yard circle drive, repaving and extension of the front patio and a knee wall. She noted that the proposed project was originally submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department for review on May 11, 2017 and it received administrative Architectural Review Board approval on May 18, 2017. The project does not require a Building Permit and therefore, no formal permit was issued. In the R-1 Zoning District, a front circle drive is allowed if the lot has a minimum of 100 feet of linear street frontage, is a minimum of 15,000 square feet in area, with Public Works Department approval for a second curb cut and with Architectural Review Board approval. The subject property meets both the width and area requirements and the Public Works Department approved the request for a second curb cut. Director Istenes continued by stating that there are examples of circle drives or enlarged front paving areas in the vicinity of the property. Some front yard drives feature knee walls or landscaping to screen the driveway or parked cars from the public right of way, while others do not. In the R-1 Zoning District, front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent and total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent. Existing front yard coverage is approximately 11 percent and proposed front yard coverage is approximately 44.5 percent. Existing total lot coverage is 22 percent and proposed total lot coverage is approximately 32.8 percent. With the proposed increase in impervious coverage, the property will still stay below the maximum coverage allowed. The property currently features a shared driveway with the adjoining property to the east, which leads to a detached garage in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to install a circle drive leading from the existing shared driveway west across the front of the house, then turning south along the property line and connecting back to Ellenwood Avenue. The proposed driveway footprint will be centered between existing trees located in the southwest corner of the property. The proposed material is exposed aggregate, which is an approved driveway material according to the Architectural Review Guidelines. The topography of the lot is generally flat, with a slight slope along the existing driveway edge. Significant regrading is not required to install the driveway. The existing stone retaining wall located near the southeast corner of the house will be extended to support some excavation near the front of the house. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed driveway will not cause an increase of storm water runoff to be shed onto adjoining properties. The applicant intends to remove the existing brick walkway leading from the sidewalk to a small patio at the front door. The project proposes to replace the walk and patio with a stamped concrete walkway and enlarged front patio. Stamped concrete is an approved paving material according to the Architectural Review Guidelines. The proposed patio will also feature a brick knee wall with a limestone cap. The proposed wall is similar the existing wall at the southeast corner of the house, which currently displays the property address. The red brick and limestone cap will match the existing house in color and style. The knee wall is less than 48 inches tall and therefore does not require a building permit. Director Istenes concluded by stating that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-1 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines and that staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the front drive and patio are compatible with the neighborhood and character of the existing house and recommends approval as submitted.

4 Mr. Upshaw began a PowerPoint presentation. He announced that they’ve been residents of Clayton for 13 years; their previous home was 21 Arundel Place, which they sold last December for $1.1 Million. A slide depicting a photo of the addition they constructed to their former home on Arundel Place was shown. Mr. Upshaw commented that they have a history of compliance and quality work.

Slides depicting vehicles parked on Ellenwood Drive were shown; Mr. Upshaw noted that parking is a challenge and informed the members that his property is the only property on Ellenwood with a shared driveway. He stated that his property and the adjacent property are ½ acre each and share a 10-foot wide driveway.

A slide depicting a sit plan of the subject property was presented. Mr. Upshaw stated that a front circular drive will allow for a pick-up and drop-off area and that they have no intention of making this a parking lot.

A slide depicting Clayton’s zoning map was shown and a slide depicting two circular drives on Cecil Drive were shown. Mr. Upshaw noted that 30% of the properties zoned R-1 have either a U- shape or circular drive in the front yard.

Material samples of brick, stamped concrete and stone were shown. Mr. Upshaw stated that their proposal meets the Architectural Review Board Guidelines and that they previously received administrative ARB and Public Works Department approval.

Slides depicting photos of the work that has already been completed were shown. Mr. Upshaw stated that the knee wall is nearly complete. He stated that he is aware of the opposition to the circular drive and learned only one week ago that their appearance this evening would be necessary. He stated that he has support from the owners of 6365 & 6357 Ellenwood. Mr. Upshaw asked the members for approval of their proposal so they may proceed with the project.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this is “quite a project” and that he likes to see improvements. He added that the east/west drive section is more like a dual roadway as it is quite wide at 20-feet.

Mr. Upshaw stated that the 20-feet tapers down to 14-feet wide, which would allow for 2 cars side- by-side.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the tree report recommends the removal of two trees.

Mr. Upshaw stated that removing the 2 Ash trees was not their original intent.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if one of those two trees is a street tree.

Mr. Upshaw replied “no”.

5

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that there were six trees on the original application.

Mr. Upshaw stated that they did not denote every tree.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the report that was received today was more accurate.

Mr. Upshaw replied “yes”.

A brief discussion regarding other area properties with front circular drives ensued. Scott Wilson commented that if he lived there he would be concerned about setting a precedent, although he likes the design.

Mrs. Upshaw informed the members that they do not have a small front yard.

Joanne Boulton stated that both Forsyth and Wydown Boulevards are busy roads and her biggest concern and the reason for the opposition is that the front circular drive potentially creates 2 lanes of parking, which is an aesthetic issue. She noted that the two front drives on Cecil that were mentioned earlier are non-conforming.

Mr. Upshaw stated that zoning allows for front circular drives.

Joanne Boulton stated that ARB approval is a needed.

William Liebermann asked about the potential for screening or narrowing the drive as there is no other shared driveway on Ellenwood except this one. He asked if pavement for more parking could be made available at the rear of the house.

Mr. Upshaw commented that the gorgeous architecture would be hidden by shrubs.

Joanne Boulton made reference to the Whittemore House.

Mr. Upshaw stated that a lot of people park on the street.

Mrs. Upshaw stated that many residents park in their own driveways.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the neighborhood area they are looking at here consists of the streets Cecil and Ellenwood and that circular drives are not in the context of the neighborhood. He added that the two circular drives that exist on Cecil would not be approved today. He added that there is also a concern of setting a precedent. He asked about alternatives and informed the Upshaws that the City would like to help them alleviate the parking problem; however, he sees no reason for all this paving in the front yard. He suggested a possibility of widening/adding pavement to the existing shared driveway.

6

Joanne Boulton stated that the wall and patio are lovely.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he hopes there is another solution to the parking problem.

Mrs. Upshaw informed the members that they entered into this with approval and that she’s concerned because they have binding contracts for this work. She questioned who will be paying to put the property back to its pre-work condition if their project is not approved.

Mr. Upshaw indicated that they have counsel. He then assured the members that they do good work and that the project will improve property values.

Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited public comment.

Liza Streett, 6420 Cecil, indicated that there is one other shared driveway on Cecil and properties with expanded pavement behind the houses. She stated that home facades are not enhanced by parked cars and that mature trees can be threatened by this drive. She asked that screening be required if this Board is inclined to approve this project.

Walter Wittenberg, 6434 Cecil, stated he’s been a resident here since 1958 and that both circular drives were done back when the subdivision was private. He stated that he agrees that Forsyth is not the same as Cecil and Ellenwood and that the slides the Upshaws presented were an excellent representation of the parking problem, but that their circular drive won’t solve it.

Joanne Boulton pointed out that the church-driven parking is short-term.

Mr. Upshaw stated that parking is not just a problem on Sundays.

Mrs. Upshaw stated that their shared driveway is only 10-foot wide.

Mr. Upshaw stated that the earlier suggestion to double the pavement at the driveway is a bad idea and that would create a “sea of concrete”. He reminded the members that their immediate neighbors are in favor of their project.

A brief discussion regarding green screening ensued.

Craig Owens asked if the Upshaws would be open to narrowing the drive to less than 20 feet and not visible from the street.

Joanne Boulton commented that in her opinion, it does not fit.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Joanne Boulton made a motion to approve the project minus the circular driveway. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson. The motion received the

7 following vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Joanne Boulton and Scott Wilson. William Liebermann abstained.

SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8132 KINGSBURY BOULEVARD

Paul Fendler, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of demolition of the existing house and the construction of a 2,887-square-foot single-family residence and a 483-square-foot detached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 27 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located at the southeast corner of the house with the proposed deck providing screening to the west and landscape screening to the east. A 6-foot tall wood fence is proposed to enclose the rear yard, which will provide screening to all adjacent properties. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located off the southwest corner of the driveway, next to the detached garage. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 55 percent for the inclusion of an at-grade, detached garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 49.8 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 54.9 percent. Front yard impervious coverage is limited to 30 percent in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed front yard coverage is 29.1 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.36 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.27 CFS, which represents a 0.02 CFS decrease. All downspouts will be piped to either a dry well or a pop-up emitter, both located in the front yard. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. There are two street trees and 113- square-feet of existing canopy coverage on site with 113-square-feet being removed. The plan provides a surplus of 240-square-feet of canopy coverage. The design meets the native tree requirement with 77.8 percent native. The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive planting; however, too many trees are proposed in the front yard for the size of the lot. It is the opinion of the City’s contracted landscape architect that to maintain appropriate proportion, the front yard should have two ornamental trees, a canopy tree could be added near the deck for shade and additional Dragon Lady Holly could be placed around the garage to compensate for trees removed from the front yard. Revisions to the Landscape Plan are required prior to the issuing of building permits. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. The height, setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Storm water will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Director Istenes noted that it is staff’s opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions, to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:

8

1. 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Revise the SWPPP to move the note for siltation protection around the drywell from the rear yard to the front yard, to correspond with the revised location of the drywell. 3. Revise the Landscape Plan to show one cantilever along the eastern elevation of the house and depict the correct location of the drywell as shown on the civil site plan. 4. Revise the Landscape Plan per the following recommendations from the City’s contracted landscape architect: a. The River Birch is a medium deciduous tree and counts toward the canopy tree requirement. b. Provide only two ornamental trees in the front yard. c. Provide a canopy tree in the rear yard. d. Omit one 250 square foot tree to reduce the replacement total. e. Provide additional Dragon Lady Holly around the garage to compensate for reduced trees in the front yard.

Mr. Fendler informed the members that they will comply with staff’s recommendations.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if additional drainage will flow to the neighbor’s property, as the site slopes toward the west.

Mr. Fendler indicated that he did not believe so.

Joanne Boulton commented that the civil and architectural drawings differ.

Mr. Fendler stated that the civil drawing is accurate.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Susan Istenes explained that the homes located east of Forsyth Boulevard in Clayton Gardens are predominately two-stories in height, making the integration of new development somewhat easier. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, and variations in material. The existing home to the west (8136 Kingsbury Boulevard) was

9 constructed in 1941 is +/- 4 feet, 7.75 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the east (8128 Kingsbury Boulevard) was constructed in 1942 and is 2 feet, 8.38 inches shorter than the proposed home. As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, to avoid tall, blocky building forms, new structures shall incorporate a transition in height and scale through one of six possible techniques. The proposed house is not significantly taller than the existing homes to either side. A hip roof is proposed, which lowers the slope of the roof line and the perceived height of the house. The driveway is located along the western property line, providing an increased side yard setback. An approved mitigation techniques is an increased side yard setback of 1 foot for every 5 feet of height difference. The proposed house is less than five feet taller than the existing house to the west. The required side yard setback is 5 feet and the proposed side yard setback is 13.3 feet. Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is brick painted light-grey with the secondary building material being stucco. The stucco will make up no more than 25 percent of any façade. Two limestone accent bands are also proposed. The proposed roof is clad in asphalt shingles, grey in color. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9-foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the west side of the home that leads to an at-grade detached garage with a black paneled garage door. The primary building material of the garage is proposed as grey brick to match the house. Grey roof shingles to match the house are also proposed. A 6-foot tall wood, sight-proof fence is proposed along the east, west and south property lines to enclose the rear yard. The proposed fence does not extend into the front yard. Director Istenes noted that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines and staff’s opinion is that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. Architectural plans should be numbered and bear the seal, signed and dated, of the licensed architect who prepared the drawings or under whose immediate personal supervision the plans were prepared. 2. Add the stucco color to the “Exterior Colors” note found on the architectural elevations sheet.

Samples of the proposed limestone, brick and windows were presented. In addition, a color (similar to the brick color) sample of the stucco was shown.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the stucco strip helps hold the height down and that the house is a good fit in the neighborhood.

Joanne Boulton stated that she likes the house.

10 Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they hope to begin construction.

Mr. Fendler indicated that they will soon be applying for permits.

The time is now 6:40 p.m. and the court reporter began the transcription for the next agenda item, Centene Special Development Sub-district 2b. Chairman Lichtenfeld opened the public hearing. The Centene presentation/consideration ended at approximately 9 p.m.

*******************************************************************************

Scott Wilson made a reference to the Ellenwood project that was reviewed earlier. Craig Owens commented that City staff does not bear any financial liability regarding decisions that are made. He informed the other members that he evaluates and considers over a hundred projects a year that are eligible for administrative approval and that during his tenure, there have been three projects that he has approved that have resulted in a problem. He noted that mistakes are rare and certainly not the intention.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary