October 5, 2015 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

OCTOBER 5, 2015

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

Present: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim Sherry Eisenberg Pepe Finn

Absent: Josh Corson

Also Present: Louis Clayton, Planner Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phone ringers be turned off, that conversations take place outside the meeting room and that those who wish to speak approach the podium and to be sure the green light on the microphone is on for property recording of this meeting.

Susan Istenes noted that due to the lengthy agenda for this evening, she will only provide a brief synopsis of each application.

MINUTES

The minutes of the September 21st, 2015 meeting were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – PUBLIC INTEREST SIGN/SIGNAGE – COMMERCIAL – BARRY WEHMILLER – 8020 FORSTYH BOULEVARD

Steve Behrens, sign contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

2 Susan Istenes explained that an existing 10.6-square-foot, double-sided, time and temperature sign is located on the Brentwood Boulevard facade integrated with a 5.4-square foot, double sided, perpendicular wall sign for Barry-Wehmiller. The signs project +/- 4 feet beyond the face of the building. The applicant proposes to remove and replace the existing time and temperature sign with new 6-square-foot, double-sided sign and City ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for the public interest sign (no record of a CUP can be found for the existing sign).

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any questions or comments; noting that the request seems straightforward.

Hearing none, Craig Owens made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.

The architectural review aspects of the proposal were now up for consideration.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed public interest sign will be smaller than the existing and will display the same information. Staff does not anticipate negative impacts associated with the sign as it will be a continuation of an existing condition. The existing perpendicular sign is an existing non-conforming sign, and because it is integrated with the public interest sign being replaced, it must be approved through a modification to the Sign Ordinance. Modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. The existing perpendicular and public interest signs are integrated and function as one sign. The signs have been in place for many years and are compatible in terms of design and materials with the building. Approval of the Sign Modification would allow a continuation of this existing condition.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the materials will be the same as existing; the sign is simply smaller.

Mr. Behrens replied “yes”.

Ron Reim asked if the sign will function the same.

Mr. Behrens replied “yes”.

Being 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 Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARHITECTUIRAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 83 ARUNDEL PLACE

Tom Diggs, project architect and Julie Schmidt, owner, were in attendance at the meeting.

3 Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 2.5-foot tall retaining wall along University Lane, a 3-foot black decorative aluminum fence on top of the retaining wall, a new rear patio, and a new rear driveway. The wall and fence will be placed within the required front yard setback along University Lane. The wall is Mosaic by Versa-lok, and the fence will be constructed of black aluminum. The wall will be built up to the sidewalk along University Lane, and runs 90 feet along University Lane. The applicant is proposing landscaping along the inside of the fence; however, the specific plant material is not noted on the plans. An existing rear patio will be replaced with a new stamped concrete patio, sitting walls, and grill enclosure wall. New French doors and stairs are also proposed. An existing asphalt driveway with access from the rear alley will be removed and replaced with a new stained and scored concrete driveway, which is not an approved material. The Architectural Review Guidelines require new driveways be constructed of exposed aggregate, brick pavers or stamped concrete. Maximum 4- foot tall stone veneer retaining walls are proposed along portions of the new driveway. A 15-square-foot trash enclosure is located adjacent to the driveway and alley, and will be screened by a 42-inch black decorative aluminum fence. Based on the number of bedrooms in the home, the Architectural Review Guidelines require a 40 square foot trash enclosure and that the trash enclosure not be visible from the street at any time. According to the applicant, the smaller trash enclosure will meet the homeowners’ needs. Staff’s recommendation is to approve with the following conditions, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:

1. That the applicant submit a revised site plan identifying the proposed plant material.

2. That the trash enclosure be at least 40 square feet and screened so as not to be visible from the street at any time.

3. That the driveway material be exposed aggregate, brick pavers, or stamped concrete.

Mr. Diggs stated that they understand staff’s issues and would like to discuss them. He noted that the Trustees have approved the plans as proposed. He stated that the summary Susan provided is accurate; noting that the owner has made improvements to the property since they purchased in in 2012. He stated that compliance with the first recommendation is not a problem; they will put the proposed plant material on the site plan; however, the second and third recommendations they would like to discuss. He stated that a 40 square feet trash area is too big and would not only be unsightly, but would cover more area and that they want to use a fence like that to be used on top of the retaining wall for the enclosure rather than an unsightly “box”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that they can discuss the trash issue now. He stated that the enclosure needs to be screened on three sides.

Mr. Diggs referred to the west, east and south sides (not the alley side).

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this may require the driveway be moved to the east a bit.

4 Mr. Diggs stated they would consider that.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would like to see the trash enclosure larger than 15 square feet.

Mr. Diggs indicated that currently, it is 5 x 3; they could expand it to 7 x 3.

Ron Reim stated it should be large enough to accommodate at least one trash can, one recycling container and one yard waste container.

Ms. Schmidt informed the members that everybody has their cans sitting at the alley.

Pepe Finn asked how many receptacles a 40 square foot enclosure is designed to accommodate.

Ron Reim replied “four”; 4 x 10.

A discussion ensued about the size of the enclosure.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that Clayton has rear yard pick up which is extremely convenient for the trash collectors. He asked that they consider an enclosure size to accommodate at least 3 cans.

Mr. Diggs agreed.

Mark Winings commented that he doesn’t remember this [enclosure size] ever being an issue in the past.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that maybe this property will become a catalyst for other properties.

Craig Owens suggested a solid enclosure large enough to accommodate 4 cans.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the driveway.

Mr. Diggs asked if they come back with an enclosure for 3 cans would that be acceptable or does it need to accommodate 4 cans.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the vote will likely answer that question.

Mr. Diggs indicated that the existing asphalt driveway is in bad shape and that they propose a simple concrete/scored/stained driveway. He noted that there are maintenance issues and concerns using a different material and that cost is an issue as well. He reminded the members that the driveway will be at the back of the house; off the alley where nobody will see.

Pepe Finn commented that it seems eminently practical.

5 Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed and stated his appreciation for the applicant not asking for asphalt. He stated that in this application, he feels stained concrete is okay.

Ron Reim stated he concurs, adding that it will only be visible from the alley.

Mark Winings asked the applicant for an explanation of “scored”.

Mr. Diggs stated that there will be a line about a foot from the driveway edges.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that overall, it’s a nice looking design.

Hearing no other questions or comments, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.

Ron Reim made a motion to approve with staff recommendation No. 1 and that the trash enclosure be large enough to accommodate 3 cans and screened by plant material on three of the four sides (not the alley side)…the scored/stained concrete driveway is approved as requested. The motion was seconded by Pepe Finn and received the following vote: Yays: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Craig Owens, Ron Reim and Pepe Finn. Nays: Mark Winings and Sherry Eisenberg. Motion carries.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ROOFTOP ANTENNAS - COMMERCIAL – 150 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Russell Been, with Collective Solutions on behalf of Sprint, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that three existing telecommunications antennas are installed onto the north and south sides of a screen wall. The applicant proposes to add three new 7 foot tall and 1 foot wide antennas, one on the north side and two on the south side of the screen wall, visible from the street. In lieu of a physical screen around the antennas, the applicant proposes to paint all equipment to match the building exterior, which minimizes the visual impact. The location and design of the antennas and equipment is consistent with existing antennas on the building and staff is of the opinion that they will not have an adverse visual impact on adjacent properties and recommends approval as requested.

Ron Reim recused himself as Sprint is a client of his. Ron did not participate in the discussion and/or vote regarding this application.

Mr. Been stated that staff’s assessment is accurate; they plan to install 3 new antennas consistent with the existing ones painted to match the building.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this seems straightforward as well.

Hearing no questions or comments, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as requested. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members (Ron Reim excluded).

6

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITIONS/ALTERATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 7419 MARYLAND AVENUE

Chris Marshall, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the 14,421-square-foot corner lot is located on the northeast corner of Maryland Avenue and Jackson Avenue and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The existing 2-story home measures 2,627 square feet, and the proposed project consists of the construction of multiple additions to each side of the home and above the existing attached garage totaling 1,114 square feet. A new covered front porch is also proposed as is a new 2-story, 1,265-square-foot detached garage at the northwest corner of the lot that is 19 feet 11 inches tall from average grade to the midpoint of the roof. Subdivision trustee approval has been submitted. New HVAC units are proposed at the southwest corner of the home, and on the east side of the new detached garage. The units will be screened by a 4-foot tall cedar fence. Trash will be stored in a 51-square-foot trash enclosure on the east side of the new detached garage, and will be screened by a 4-foot tall cedar fence and gate. The existing impervious coverage on site is 32.2 percent. The proposed project will increase the impervious coverage amount to 46 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 20 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.810 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.856 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.046 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts from the detached garage will be piped to two underground infiltration trenches. These are rock-filled trenches with no outlets which store storm water until it is absorbed into the soil. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape plan maintains and repurposes a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials that are present throughout the site today. The landscape plan shows the removal of 20 caliper inches of deciduous trees, all of which require replacement, and proposes 24-caliper-inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. An existing 4- caliper-inch Japanese Maple will be transplanted on site but is shown on the plans to be removed. The tree chart should be revised accordingly. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site but has concerns regarding the viability of the 26-caliper-inch Sycamore which will be impacted by new underground utilities, grading, and the new driveway. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant submit a bond in the amount of $3,120 ($120 per caliper inch) prior to building permit issuance, to be refunded only if after an inspection by the City’s contracted landscape architect one year after the occupancy permit has been issued, the tree is found to be in good or fair condition. If the tree is determined to be in poor condition, it is to be replaced, and any replacement less than 26-inches is to be paid into the City’s Forestry fund. Exterior lighting is proposed at the rear patios, attached garage and detached garage, and will not exceed 75 watts. Susan stated that the proposed additions and detached garage are compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan maintains and repurposes the variety of trees, shrubs and perennials that are present throughout the site today. The height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling

7 District. 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. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the infiltration trenches, the applicant shall record the approved site plan (sheets C1 and C17) with St. Louis County and submit proof of recording to the City. 2. That the tree chart be revised to show the existing 4-caliper-inch Japanese Maple remain. 3. That the applicant submit a bond in the amount of $3,120 ($120 per caliper inch) prior to building permit issuance, to be refunded only if after an inspection by the City’s contracted landscape architect one year after the occupancy permit has been issued, the tree is found to be in good or fair condition. If the tree is determined to be in poor condition, it is to be replaced, and any replacement less than 26-inches is to be paid into the City’s Forestry fund.

Mr. Marshall asked the members if they had any questions.

Pepe Finn asked how the $3,120 works relative to the bond.

Susan Istenes explained that caliper per caliper inch replacement would be required for the loss of the 26 caliper inch Sycamore, so if one year after occupancy the tree is found to be in poor condition, all 26 caliper inches would have to be replaced on site; either by planting 26 new caliper inches of tree or anything less than that payment into the Forestry fund at a cost of $120/caliper inch would be required for tree planting somewhere in the City.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that they much prefer the preservation of the existing tree. He asked if there will be two, 2-car garages once this project is complete.

Mr. Marshall replied “yes”. He informed the members that he has no problem complying with staff recommendations.

Hank Winkleman, 7405 Maryland Avenue, stated that he appreciates the bond as that Sycamore is a wonderful tree. He then questioned construction techniques as there is limited curb space in this location. He noted that the new front porch is a significant change to the existing porch.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that everyone is concerned about the tree; noting that the driveway goes near the tree.

Mr. Winkleman stated that the tree gets its water from the open space.

Mr. Marshall indicated that the owners want to preserve the tree.

Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that the new driveway comes close to the tree and suggested that it not encroach any more than it does now, by moving the curve as far to the north as possible so

8 there is no more tree root encroachment. He added that this is plan provides a very large paved driveway.

Ron Reim concurred.

Mark Winings asked about construction.

Susan Istenes explained that a 6-foot high opaque construction fence with a lockable gate will be required.

Mark Winings asked about a dumpster.

Susan Istenes stated it will be within the construction fence.

Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan with all three staff recommendations and that the site plan be modified to keep encroachment around the tree no closer than exists currently. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.

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

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed additions and detached garage will be highly visible from both Maryland and Jackson Avenues. The basic massing of the proposed additions is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, accent materials and variations in roof forms. The primary building material for the proposed additions is brick. “Fossil” and “sandstone” colored Hardie panels and trim is used above the gutter line on the gable ends and roof dormers. The proposed roof of the additions will be clad in architectural shingles, weathered wood in color. “Fossil” colored double-hung and casement windows are proposed. The brick, roof and windows will match the existing materials on the home. The proposed detached garage is located at the northwest corner of the property and is 19 feet 11 inches tall as measured from average grade to the mid-point of the roof. The building materials and design will match those on the home. Hardie panels and trim are used above the gutter line on the gable ends and roof dormers, and will amount to 30 and 45 percent of the north and south elevations respectively. According to the applicant, the detached garage was designed to match the attached garage and create a “book end” effect for the driveway court. The total amounts of Hardie panels and trim on the north and south façades are the same; however, the percentage is higher on the south façade because the garage door is excluded from the calculation. For purposes of applying the Architectural Review Guidelines, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Hardie panels and trim are closely related to stucco in appearance. The Architectural Review Guidelines state that whenever 15 percent or more of the homes within a neighborhood are constructed with stucco, the amount of stucco used for new construction may exceed 25 percent per elevation. The Maryland Terrace Subdivision is split between University City and Clayton. Based on a windshield survey conducted by staff, of the seven homes located in Clayton, one home (16.6 percent) uses stucco as an accent material. If all 59 homes located on

9 Maryland and Westmoreland Avenues between Jackson Avenue and Forest Park Parkway are included, 16 homes (27 percent) use stucco as an accent material or are entirely stucco. Therefore, the amount of stucco may exceed 25 percent per elevation. Susan stated that staff recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Marshall indicated that the siding percentages are way under on the house and over on the detached garage. Samples of the brick, cut limestone, siding and asphalt shingle roof were presented.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the existing roof is asphalt shingle.

Mr. Marshall informed the members that the entire existing roof will be re-shingled to match new.

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that he’s okay with the siding.

Mark Winings asked if the brick will match.

Mr. Marshall stated that the brick on the additions will match the brick from the 1995 addition; in texture as well.

Ron Reim asked about the new front porch.

Mr. Marshall stated that currently, the front door gets blasted by the sun and they need a protrusion. He stated that he believes aesthetically, the design ties in with existing.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it has a different roof pitch than the roof above.

Mr. Marshall agreed, noting that the problem is with the bathroom window above.

Mr. Winkleman reiterated that the front of this house is being really transformed, adding that it’s on the National Historic Register. He informed the members that he was not contacted prior about this proposal.

Mr. Marshall stated that he would love to use the 16/12 but it won’t work.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he doesn’t mind the porch addition but if it were slightly narrower, he could do a 16/12 pitch.

Mr. Marshall indicated that making it narrower would result in a porch that is only 3-4 foot in area; not a sufficiently covered size porch.

Ron Reim noted that the City has no enforcement regarding historic districts.

10 Kevin O’Keefe confirmed.

Sherry Eisenberg asked if an arched roof was considered.

Mr. Marshall replied “yes, but it wouldn’t look right.”

Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and received the following vote: Ayes: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Craig Owens, Sherry Eisenberg and Pepe Finn. Nays: Ron Reim and Mark Winings. Motion carries.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 7418 BUCKINGHAM

Lauren Strutman, project architect, Eric Veetmeier, project civil engineer and Mark Mehlman, developer, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing home and the construction of a 3,366-square-foot single-family residence (excluding the basement) with an at-grade rear-entry garage. The height of the proposed residence is 27-feet 7-inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The HVAC units will be located on the east side of the home and screen by a 4-foot tall wood lattice fence. Trash will be stored in a 40- square-foot trash enclosure located in the rear yard adjacent to the driveway. The existing impervious coverage on site is 43.6 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 53.5 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The proposed impervious coverage for the required front yard is 19.4 percent which is below the allowable 45 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.42 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.47 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.05 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts on the front of the home will be piped to a dry well in the front yard. Downspouts on the rear of the home will be piped to a pop up bubbler in the rear yard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of understory trees, ornamental grasses and shrubs that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape plan shows the removal of 44 caliper inches of deciduous trees, all of which require replacement, and proposes 44.5 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. Two existing street trees are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines; however, the plans indicate that regrading will occur within the trees’ critical root zones. To avoid potential damage to the street trees, it is recommended that re-grading be avoided within the critical root zones and that the site and landscape plans are revised accordingly. Exterior lighting is proposed at all doors and the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or below. Susan stated that the proposed home is compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site,

11 and the landscape plan provides for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover that is suitable for the area. The height and setbacks as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, and the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and staff recommends approval with the following conditions, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:

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.

2) That the applicant submit revised landscape and site plans showing no grading within the street trees’ critical root zones.

Ms. Strutman presented a site plan to the members, noting the locations of the HVAC units and trash enclosure. The landscape plan was also presented. Ms. Strutman noted that they are replacing more caliper inches than required.

Mr. Veetmeier presented a drainage flow chart showing the existing drainage pattern and the proposed drainage pattern. He noted that the proposed plan will result in less water runoff toward the rear of the property.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the color charts are very helpful.

Hearing no questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.

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

Susan Istenes indicated that the basic massing of the proposed home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, accent materials, brick banding and variations in roof forms. As measured from the mid-point of each roof, the 2-story home to the west (7412 Buckingham Drive) is +/- 3 foot shorter than the proposed home, and the 2-story home the east (7424 Buckingham Drive) is +/- 1 foot taller than the proposed home. The primary building material is red brick with taupe stucco accents. The proposed roof is clad in architectural asphalt shingles, charcoal blend in color. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed along the eastern property line and will lead to an at-grade, rear-entry garage with a raised garage door painted taupe. A low stacked stone retaining will is proposed along the east side of the driveway.

Samples of the brick, window, roof and cast stone were presented, as was a color rendering.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that overall, it’s a very nice house, but it has a very high peak. He asked if it could be pulled down.

12 Ms. Strutman stated that the height is 27-feet, 7-inches; below the 30 feet allowed. She added that there are varying roof heights in the neighborhood.

Craig Owens commented that the pitches match.

Ron Reim stated that if it were cut off it wouldn’t affect the space that can be occupied.

Pepe Finn asked for a comparison between this house and the adjacent houses.

A contextual drawing was presented.

Ms. Strutman informed the members that they are 1 foot higher than the house to the west and 3 feet higher than the house to the east. She reminded that they sloped the sides down.

Being no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they plan to break ground.

Mr. Mehlman indicated as soon as their permit gets issued.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 210 TOPTON WAY

John Faulk, project civil engineer, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Paul Doerner, project architect.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing one- story home and the construction of a 4,034-square-foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence with an attached, rear-entry, below-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 10.5 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units and generator located at the north side of the home and screened by evergreen landscaping. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located adjacent to the garage and screened by wood doors. 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, below-grade, rear-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 44.14 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 49.57 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 50 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.52 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.542 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.021 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts on the north side of the home will be piped to a dry well in the front yard. All other downspouts and drains will be piped to

13 the storm sewer and a pop up bubbler in the rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of understory trees, ornamental shrubs and perennials that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape plan shows the removal of 22 caliper inches of deciduous trees, 4 of which require replacement, and proposes 125 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. Three existing street trees are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines; however, the location of the tree protection fencing is not accurately shown on the site plan. Gas lights are proposed on the front and rear elevations. Susan stated 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. Storm water 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:

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; and

2) That the applicant submit a revised site plan depicting the accurate location of all required tree protection fencing as shown on the landscape plan.

Mr. Faulk presented the storm water drainage plan to the members. He explained that the downspouts on the existing home splash on grade; they plan to connect to the storm sewer and to absorb the differential by including a drywell.

Ron Reim asked the capacity of the dry well.

Mr. Faulk stated that he did not know as the system has its own calculations. He explained that they are adding 2 feet of rock below the drywell.

Mark Winings asked if the reason they are allowed more coverage is because this is considered a rear loading garage.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.

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

14 Susan Istenes explained that the home to the north (214 Topton Way) was constructed in 1951 and is +/- 9 feet 7 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The home to the south (206 Topton Way) was constructed in 2005 and is +/- 10 feet 8 inches 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. 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 7.11 feet and the proposed setbacks are 17.24 on the north side and 17.22 on the south side. The primary building material for the proposed home is linen colored brick with cast stone window and door surrounds. The proposed roof is clad in slate colored architectural shingles. A small amount of metal roofing will be used on the sides of the home and above the garage. White double hung windows are proposed. A 9-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a rear-entry, below-grade attached garage with a white paneled garage door. A maximum 7-foot tall brick retaining wall with a 42-inch black iron rail is proposed along the south and east sides of the driveway. The rear yard will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall black metal fence. Susan stated that staff recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Doerner presented a color rendering to the members, as well as samples of the proposed window, roof and brick. He stated that the home was inspired by 18th century France and that the owners have a home in Atlanta of similar style. A color swatch of the proposed paint color was shown to the members.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the house is elegant. He noted that he only sees one chimney.

Mr. Doerner stated the second is way in the back and won’t be seen from the front.

Ron Reim, referring to the south elevation, commented that this house is significantly taller than the other homes.

Mr. Doerner stated that the garage roof helps with the house’s mass.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the quantity, location and details of the windows are all very nice. He asked if the brick paint is off-white.

Mr. Doerner replied “yes”.

Being no further questions or comments, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and received the following vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Mark Winings, Sherry Eisenberg and Pepe Finn. Nays: Ron Reim.

15 PUBLIC HEARING - TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS – PERTAINING TO ALCOHOL SALES

Susan Istenes explained that this is a public hearing to solicit input regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations), Section 405.390 (Definitions), and the adoption of Section 405.340, to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises as an accessory use to the operation of grocery and package liquor stores. Package liquor stores, which require liquor license(s), are conditionally permitted uses in all commercial zoning districts. The current definition of package liquor store states that the store may offer complimentary tastings but otherwise alcohol consumption on the premises is prohibited. The modification of the definition will remove the prohibition for consumption on premises. Recently, staff has been made aware that some existing package liquor and grocery stores have been selling alcohol by the drink for consumption on their premises, which violates the current code definition of package liquor store; but complies with the liquor licensing code. The Land Use Code does not address alcohol sales by the drink and consumption on premises with respect to grocery stores. After careful consideration, staff proposes text amendments to revise the definition of package liquor store to remove the prohibition of on premises consumption and to add a new Section (405.340) to allow alcohol service as an accessory use to package liquor stores and grocery stores. Susan stated that the proposed text amendments will allow the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises of package liquor and grocery stores, a practice that presently occurs in several establishments. Staff does not anticipate negative impacts associated with the proposed text amendments, given the limited conditions under which alcohol sales as an accessory use may be approved and the compliance requirements pursuant to Chapter 600: Alcoholic Beverages. Because package liquor and grocery stores require a Conditional Use Permit, staff, the Plan Commission, and the Board of Aldermen will be also given the opportunity to review the specific facts associated with each individual application in order to determine the appropriate conditions to place on the use to mitigate potential negative impacts. Susan stated that staff recommends approval of the text amendments to Chapter 405: Zoning Regulations of the City’s Land Use Code to the Board of Aldermen as proposed.

Ron Reim made a motion, seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved, to open the public hearing.

Susan Istenes stated the objective of the criteria is to keep businesses from turning into a bar.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to Craft Beer Cellar, Wine Merchant and Straub’s.

Susan Istenes reminded the members this only applies to package liquor stores and grocery stores, both of which require a conditional use permit to operate.

Ron Reim commented that the failsafe is the 75%.

16 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how that is measured.

Susan Istenes replied “gross receipts”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it seems as though there is some built-in protection.

Susan Istenes stated that the type of liquor license a business has regulates what type and when they can sell alcohol.

Mark Winings, referring to 405.340 (6), stated that the percentage is only imposed on package liquor stores, not grocery stores.

Susan Istenes stated that she would look into that as the same should apply to grocery stores as well.

Ron Reim commented that there’s a greater chance that a package liquor store would exceed the percentage.

Hearing no questions or comments from the audience and hearing no more questions or comments from the members, Ron Reim made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and unanimously approved by the members.

Pepe Finn made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.

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

Susan announced that staff is trying to keep the October 19th agenda light as there will be a presentation from the Public Works Department regarding storm water drainage and the roles of MSD.

Chairman Lichtenfeld reminded the members that the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council will be attending that meeting as well and will be arriving at 5 p.m.

Being no further question or comments, this meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

________________________________ Recording Secretary