February 6, 2017 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

FEBRUARY 6, 2017

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: Acting Chairman Ron Reim Joanne M. Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Josh Corson William Liebermann Scott Wilson

Absent: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld

Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner

Acting Chairman Ron Reim welcomed everyone to the meeting. He then asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

MINUTES

The minutes of the January 17, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved after having been previously forwarded to each member.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8147 STRATFORD DRIVE

Loretta Mullins & Arthur Kotets, owners/developers, were in attendance at the meeting.

Anna Krane explained that this is a request for review of the site plan associated with the proposed construction of a 3,860-square-foot single-family residence with a 420-square-foot attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 9.38 inches as

2 measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located just behind the house under the rear deck with the trash enclosure fence providing screening to the west. Landscaping is proposed underneath and around the deck however, it is not dense enough or tall enough to screen the location of the A/C units. See Landscaping for recommendations. Trash will be stored in a 45-square-foot trash enclosure located behind the northwest corner of the house with access provided from the driveway. 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 50 percent for the inclusion of an attached, at-grade, side-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 34 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 50 percent, which is the maximum allowed. The rear deck area was not included as impervious coverage in the calculations due to the height above grade. In order to insure the deck does not act as an impervious surface, it is the recommendation of the City’s Department of Public Works that the deck be constructed with slats/openings to allow water to flow directly down to grade and reach the pervious ground cover below. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 20 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.35 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.38 CFS, which represents a 0.03 CFS increase. All downspouts and the sump-pump discharge will be piped to the proposed infiltration trenches in either the front yard or rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the stormwater plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design provides front façade planting and screening in the rear yard as well as along the eastern elevation. There is 113 square feet of existing canopy on site in addition to two street trees. The landscape plan provides 3,500 square feet of canopy coverage with 41.7 percent native trees. The design provides 981 square feet of surplus canopy coverage. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The proposed landscaping underneath and around the rear deck does not provide sufficient screening of HVAC equipment. It is the recommendation of the City’s contracted landscape architect that the area underneath the deck be covered with decorative gravel and that tall, narrow evergreen shrubs (such as Juniper or Arbovitae) are planted along the north and east side of the deck to provide dense screening of HVAC units. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. Anna noted that 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; that stormwater will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan features a variety of understory trees, ornamental shrubs and perennials that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:

3 3. That the applicant submit a revised site plan showing the location of gas and electric lines, also noting the method of connection to the gas line across Stratford Drive.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if the applicants had anything to add.

Ms. Mullins replied “no”.

Acting Chairman Reim informed the applicants that he had visited the property and noted a substantial drop in grade between the western edge of this property and the adjacent property. He asked the applicants to explain the drainage plan.

Mr. Kotets said that the proposed (new) grade will match that of the neighbor’s.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if that meant the drop will go away.

Mr. Kotets replied “yes”.

Susan Istenes commented that they are referring to 8151; however, 8147 is the one being considered now.

Everyone concurred and Acting Chairman Reim stated that he had very few comments about 8147.

Scott Wilson asked if they had built another home on Stratford.

Ms. Mullins replied “no”.

Acting Chairman Reim asked the applicants if they would comply with staff recommendations.

Ms. Mullins replied “yes”.

John Schmelzer, 7900 Lafon (to the north of the subject property), voiced his concern with run- off onto his property and suggested volume storage in lieu of pop-up emitters.

Acting Chairman Reim noted that there is a zero differential run-off.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that he has a wet basement now.

Susan Istenes stated that the 8147 project includes a trench drain.

Anna Krane added that the trench drain also features emitters.

Mr. Schmelzer asked the size of the trench drain.

Ms. Mullins indicated that it is 24-inches wide by 18-inches deep.

Acting Chairman Reim asked where the water goes from there (the drain).

Ms. Mullins stated that it discharges to the left pop-up emitter.

Scott Wilson commented that the proposed temporary water retention system should be an improvement as there’s no retention system on the site now.

Susan Istenes reiterated that there is no increase in discharge.

Scott Wilson suggested speaking with the civil engineer.

Ms. Mullins commented that their civil engineer was not here this evening.

Joanne Boulton asked for an explanation of the system.

Susan Istenes indicated that the trench drain will capture and hold/detain water until it flows to the pop-up emitters at which time it percolates onto the ground.

Joanne Boulton asked if the system includes gravel.

Susan Istenes stated that it could.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that an 18 X 24 trench is not very big and again suggested volume storage.

Susan Istenes said that either way, the requirement remains the same; she noted that there are pros and cons to all retention systems and they all need to be maintained to function properly.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that a result of volume storage is a better yard as they are not tripping hazards and that the property is more marketable with a (buried) volume storage system.

Acting Chairman Reim asked about the run-off calculations.

Susan Istenes informed the members that the City’s Public Works Department (City’s Civil Engineer) checked the calculations and to be sure the proposal met code.

Acting Chairman Reim noted that he saw a large concrete pad on the property and it seems all the water flows to the northwest corner which is not the case with the plan.

5 Daren Kest, owner of 8155 Stratford, informed the members that he has spent over $50,000 fixing water problems on his property and wants assurances that these projects won’t result in more problems.

Acting Chairman Reim asked where the trench drain is located.

Mr. Kest stated that it is next to the driveway almost along the fence-line.

Acting Chairman Reim informed Mr. Kest that this Commission/Board does not act as a mediator between neighbor disputes.

Scott Wilson commented that common sense dictates that the proposed plan will be an improvement over the current drainage/run-off situation.

Susan Istenes asked Mr. Kest if he is adjacent to the 8151 property; again noting that the review is currently for the 8147 site.

Mr. Kest replied “yes”.

Susan Istenes noted that the coverage for this lot is being reduced, which is typically not the case with new development projects.

Acting Chairman Reim reminded everyone that the project currently being considered is 8147; 8151 will be considered afterwards.

Joanna Boulton asked if the end result with regard to run-off will be no worse than it is today.

Susan Istenes replied “essentially, yes”, adding that the code only requires mitigation for additional run-off.

Joanne Boulton asked what is or can be done about existing run-off problems.

Susan Istenes indicated that there is not provision in the code that requires mitigation for existing issues.

Joanne Boulton asked the applicants to comment.

Mr. Kotets commented that most of the drainage will flow away from Mr. Kest’s property.

Joanne Boulton asked about the 8147 project.

Ms. Mullins stated that the trench drain is 15-feet in length.

6 William Liebermann asked what size that is in cubic feet.

Mr. Kotets replied “45”.

Mr. Schmelzer commented that the trench will fill in 100 seconds; which does not seem like much mitigation to him.

Acting Chairman Reim informed Mr. Schmelzer that the City can’t impose additional mitigation.

Mr. Schmelzer again recommended volume storage.

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

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

Susan Istenes explained that 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 home proposed to the west (8151 Stratford Drive) is +/- 0.5 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the east (8141 Stratford Drive) is 13.1 feet shorter than proposed home on this lot. 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. According to the applicant, 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 required side yard setbacks are 5 feet and the proposed setbacks are 10 feet on the west side and 5 feet on the east side. Directly to the east of the property is a 10 foot wide public right of way with a sidewalk that separates the proposed home from 8141 Stratford Drive. 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 brick painted sea-grey (light) with the secondary building material being limestone. The limestone will make up no more than 25 percent of the front façade and 10 percent of each side façade. The proposed roof is clad in asphalt shingles, slate grey in color. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9.5-foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the west side of the home that leads to a side-entry, at-grade attached garage with a black paneled garage door. A 6-foot tall wood, sight-proof fence is proposed along the north property line and along the east property line. The proposed fence does not extend into the front yard. Director Istenes stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and that staff’s recommendation is to approve as submitted.

7 Ms. Mullins presented samples of the proposed brick and limestone; color swatches of the proposed colors for the roof and windows were also shown. A color rendering of the proposed home (front elevation) was distributed for review by the members.

Joanne Boulton asked if this is a spec home.

Ms. Mullins replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton asked what color the mortar will be.

Ms. Mullins indicated that the mortar color will be similar to the brick color.

Scott Wilson noted that sometimes, applicants bring in actual window samples and roofing samples; he asked if what they brought for presentation is acceptable.

Susan Istenes stated that whatever the Board is comfortable with is acceptable.

While the color rendering was being passed among the members, Ms. Mullins noted that they are trying to retain the neighborhood’s color scheme.

Joanne Boulton commented that it seems a bit “bland”.

William Lieberman asked if the windows will be aluminum clad; wood interior.

Ms. Mullins replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

Acting Chairman Reim asked when they plan to start construction.

Ms. Mullins replied “as soon as possible”.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8151 STRATFOR DRIVE

Joanne Boulton asked when the current house was built.

Ms. Mullins indicated that she believed it was built in 1927.

Anna Krane explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,590-square- foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence with an attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 6.8 inches as measured from the average existing

8 grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located just behind the house under the rear deck with the trash enclosure fence providing screening to the west. Landscaping is proposed underneath and around the deck however, it is not dense enough or tall enough to screen the location of the A/C units. See Landscaping for recommendations. Trash will be stored in a 45- square-foot trash enclosure located behind the northwest corner of the house with access provided from the driveway. 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 50 percent for the inclusion of an attached, at-grade, side- loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 54 percent; however the existing structure is to be demolished. The new plans decrease the impervious coverage to 50 percent, which is the maximum allowed. The rear deck area was not included as impervious coverage in the calculations due to the height above grade. In order to insure the deck does not act as an impervious surface, it is the recommendation of the City’s Department of Public Works that the deck be constructed with slats/openings to allow water to flow directly down to grade and reach the pervious ground cover below. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 20 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.38 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.38 CFS, which represents no change. All downspouts and the sump-pump discharge will be piped to the proposed pop-up emitter in either the front yard or rear yard. The Public Works Department recommends considering an infiltration trench in the rear yard of 8151 (or relocating the proposed infiltration trench from the front yard of 8147) to connect the sump pump discharge and downspouts. The proposed landscape design features appropriate front façade planting and rear yard screening. There is 6,039 square feet of existing canopy. The landscape plan proposes 3,500 square feet of canopy coverage on site (740 square feet surplus) and meets the native tree requirement with 41.7 percent native trees. One existing street tree is dead and will need to be removed. The City will be replacing this tree. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The proposed landscaping underneath and around the rear deck does not provide sufficient screening of A/C equipment. It is the recommendation of the City’s contracted landscape architect that the area underneath the deck be covered with decorative gravel and that tall, narrow evergreen shrubs (such as Juniper or Arbovitae) are planted along the north and east side of the deck to provide dense screening of A/C units. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. Anna noted that staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:

1. That the applicant constructs the rear deck with slats or openings that allow water to flow directly down to grade, reaching the pervious ground cover below. 2. That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan showing existing and proposed utilities, tree protection fencing and revised plantings underneath and surrounding the rear deck as recommended by the City’s contracted landscape architect. 3. That the applicant submit a revised site plan showing the location of gas and electric lines, also noting the method of connection to the gas line across Stratford Drive.

9 Acting Chairman Reim asked for confirmation that the considerable drop-off in grade will be eliminated.

Ms. Mullins confirmed.

Joanne Boulton noted that a letter had been received from the property owner directly to the north of this property.

Acting Chairman Reim stated that there is concern about run-off from this lot (51) and asked the applicants if they would consider mitigation methods for this lot as well.

Ms. Mullins agreed and reminded the members that once the project is complete, the lot will contain 30% less coverage/concrete.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that he suggests a volume storage system on this lot as well and noted that one downspout discharges directly onto the ground.

Joanne Boulton stated that the applicant just agreed to incorporate an infiltration system on this lot.

Mr. Schmelzer stated that an infiltration system is not enough; volume storage is needed. He again stated that the property will be more marketable if there are no pop-ups and that he does not believe a volume storage system costs more. He then stated that he believes there is a discrepancy in the run-off calculations.

Acting Chairman Reim asked the applicant to comment, as the City’s civil engineer is not here this evening.

Mr. Kotets stated that the documents/calculations have been reviewed by the City’s civil engineer and that they agree to add a trench on this lot as well.

Ms. Mullins added that the proposal was designed by their civil engineer and reviewed by the City’s civil engineer.

Scott Wilson commented that he assumes these engineers have done their jobs.

Joanne Boulton stated that she is concerned that the calculations are wrong.

Scott Wilson stated that the experts can re-review.

Susan Istenes reiterated that the City can still only require mitigation on the differential.

10 Mr. Kest stated that he does not want any more water problems; he’s had to deal with water and sewer problems since he moved in; he wants assurance that these project won’t negatively impact his property.

Joanne Boulton asked what the cost difference is between a trench and storage.

Ms. Mullins stated that she does not know.

Acting Chairman Reim commented that different engineers have different methods.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve per staff recommendations, that a trench drain be added to the project and that the calculations be re- checked for accuracy. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved b y the members.

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

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,860-square- foot single-family residence with a 420-square-foot attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 6.8 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. 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 (8155 Stratford Drive) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 14.1 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid- point of each roof). The proposed home to the east (8147 Stratford Drive) is +/- 0.5 feet taller than proposed home on this lot. 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. According to the applicant, 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 required side yard setbacks are 5 feet and a minimum 7.8 foot setback on the west side would be needed to meet mitigation technique described above. The proposed setbacks are 10 feet on the west side and 5 feet on the east side. 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 red brick with the secondary building material being off-white limestone. The limestone will make up no more than 25 percent of the front façade and 10 percent of each side façade. The proposed roof is clad in asphalt shingles, slate grey in color. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9.5-foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the west side of the home that leads to a side-entry, at-grade attached garage with a black paneled garage door. A 6-foot tall wood-sight proof fence is proposed along the north property line. Anna stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.

Acting Chairman Reim advised the applicants to make arrangements with the neighbor regarding the privacy fence.

Scott Wilson asked how long the applicants anticipated construction to take.

Ms. Mullins replied “9 months”.

Joanne Boulton asked what color mortar they plan to use on this home.

Ms. Mullins replied “gray”.

A brief discussion regarding the removal of the existing bamboo took place.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Lieberman and unanimously approved by the Board.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

February 6, 2017 — Meeting Minutes