March 7, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for March 6th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Ryan, we'll start with a roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Carolyn Gatiss?

Here.

Bridget McAndrew?

Here.

Bob Denlow? Helen DiFate?

Bob Dunlow? Helen DeFate?

Here.

Kami Waldman?

Jamie Waldman?

Here.

David Gipson? Here.

David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on February 21st. Are there any changes to it?

Okay, do we have a motion?

I'm going to make the motion since I wasn't here.

I move to approve the minutes as submitted. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, thank you. Before we go on, I'd like to let everyone know that the old business, which is labeled 48 South Emiston Avenue and 7745 and 7751 Carondelet Avenue, is going to be moved to a meeting in the future. So if anyone is here for that, there's no reason to stick around tonight.

Steve, can you still entertain a motion for that?

Yes. Do we have a motion to that effect?

I'll make a motion to the word

to postpone. Thank you.

Postpone. You can continue it to the next one. Motion to continue to the next meeting. Seconded.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, now we'll proceed. The first item is a public hearing on chapter 405. And Ana, I believe you'll take that.

Yes. Okay, so this is... TAB, A proposed text amendment to various sections of the code related to medical marijuana so to quickly go through a summary in. November of 2022, Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment which allows for the cultivation sale use of marijuana for recreational purposes. Currently our city code has provisions relating to medical marijuana facilities and where those can be located and how they would operate. So staff's proposing a series of text amendments that will allow for our city regulations to align with the Missouri Constitution and the most recent amendment to that. These changes cover a variety of things. The largest change, or the one that you see most often if you look through the red line version, is simply removing the reference to medical marijuana from the regulations. We're not substantially changing where different facilities are allowed, other than some specific ones I'll get into or how they're operated. But we're making it clear that our provisions no longer apply just to medical marijuana facilities, but will apply to all marijuana facilities in general. And part of that is also updating our definition section to align with the definitions that were included in that Missouri constitutional amendment. In addition to definitions, there's also within the amendment some specific language about how measurements for the distances or the buffer uses from general marijuana facilities that included religious institutions or churches, daycares and schools. Previously in the first amendment that Missouri voters passed, There was not clear definition of church, clear definition of how that measurement should be calculated. And so most communities had their own version of that calculation within their code like we did. So now we're updating that so that our definitions and our calculations match with the city or with the state constitution. Another amendment that we have is related to the operation. In our existing regulations, as they're written right now, we have a series of operational characteristics or restrictions that are tied to a business license, but then we also allow these uses with a conditional use permit. And so operationally, we don't have any right now with a conditional use permits, so it makes sense to correct it so that we're not checking for their hours of operation and their license requirements as part of the building permit which comes after the conditional use permit process. So instead, we've aligned that all so that we'll look at all of the characteristics of that business and their state license when we review the conditional use permit request first. Then following through this, we have also proposed a few changes to the overlay districts. So I'm just scrolling through some of those definitions that I mentioned before. Currently, we allow the dispensaries and various uses to be located in C2, HTC High Density Commercial, and S1, which is our service district. However, there are two overlay districts that we have that specifically modify the uses allowed. So some of our overlay districts will say uses allowed are the same as the base zoning district, and then they might have some provisions such as retail has to be on the first floor. But both our downtown overlay district and our Clayton Road district essentially replace the use table of their base zoning districts and specifically outline what uses are allowed within those overlay district regulations. So as our code is currently written, the medical marijuana dispensaries that are allowed within the HTC or the C2 zoning district would not be allowed within our downtown overlay district or Clayton Road urban design district. Both of those districts have locations where we've recently fielded requests and interests from people locating the dispensary and when we review the land use and the characteristics of both of those areas, they are logical places for a dispensary to be located. And so as part of aligning ourselves with the state constitution and the amendment, we also are recommending modifying the table of uses for those two zoning districts to add the marijuana dispensary facility with a conditional use permit. That summarizes all the changes made, so I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

Okay. This is an open public hearing right now, if I didn't make it clear. I had two items. One was a question from a citizen. Does this have anything to do with the upcoming tax vote? I said no.

I mean, they're somewhat related because the amendment that was passed for the Constitution covered that as well. So that's a tax that local jurisdictions are allowed to put before the voters to institute. And as it's currently written, we want to make sure that should the voters decide to approve that tax, that we would also be allowing those dispensary locations within our city. So they're not directly related. Any approval of this text amendment does not influence what might or might happen by the voters on that Prop M amendment.

Thank you. And the other item was section 405.350. Section E, paragraph four. I was a little confused by the seven, not less than seven acres in size.

Sorry, I'm just trying to get to the section you were talking about. Which one, 350? Oh, E4, yes.

There we go.

Yes, those are related to cultivation and manufacturing facilities. So, correct.

Okay, so dispensaries would not come under this? Correct. Otherwise, I thought it read fine. But let's see all the other questions we have. Carolyn?

I actually didn't have any questions.

Anna, just Anna, just so I'm clear, then the only areas even though we're modifying some of the overlay districts really the only areas because of the church and school restriction that a dispensary it could be located would potentially be Clayton Road, like closer to like Clayton Road in Brentwood, like kind of that corner, and then an area along Clayton Road closer to the moon. And then is there a portion in downtown where it could potentially be located despite the restriction or

Yes, there likely are some options within downtown but we do, there are limitations because of the religious institutions.

So still there's a pretty narrow group of businesses.

Yeah, compared to a lot of other areas, we are pretty narrowed, but there are a few, that was why it was very important for us to modify that overlay district because some of the really logical locations without that modification are wiped out, which essentially leaves us with a handful of properties.

Thank you. Ellen? No questions. Amy? No questions.

David? No questions. Okay. Any comments from the audience or

are there any hands up? No? Okay, that's not a hand up. So

we do have a, well, let's close the public hearing. And we do need to follow the staff recommendation to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the Board of Aldermen.

I'll make a motion to approve proposed text amendment to Board of Aldermens.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? OK. Good work. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to new business. And our first item is 8009 Watkins Drive. Are the applicants here? Raise your hand if you're here. Oh, okay. Thank you. Krista, hold on and we'll get back to you.

Okay, Ryan. Subject property is located on the north side of Watkins Drive just west of its intersection with South Merrimack Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R2 single family and is developed with a two-story single family home. The project scope includes the installation of a new retaining wall and landscaping. The wall is proposed to be a maximum of 30 inches in height and complies with setback and coverage requirements and is proposed to comprise of gray Hampton modular stone blocks. The blocks have straight edges, vary in texture, and do not vary in size and color. Per the architectural review board guidelines, new retaining walls may comprise of modular blocks so long as they include tumbled or rolled edges and vary in size and color. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed block does not comply with the architectural review guidelines due to the blocks lacking tumbled or rolled the edges and the lack of variation in size or color. Staff recommends approval of the wall on the condition that the applicant shall select a new retaining wall material that complies with the architectural review of guidelines and submit the material to staff for administrative approval.

Okay, thank you. Krista Taylor, do you have

any further comments? Hi, can you hear me? Yes.

Yeah, so I am proposing this for my client and just I sent pictures as well. You can only see this wall from the west side of the property from the street and then as well as the aesthetic on here. This is why I am asking for their architectural review board to approve this is very minimal. And we are going to do a natural stone cap around the pool area. So having a tumbled with different colorations, though I understand the ordinance of it, Really would clash with their aesthetic. Because we're again having simple line simple color and it's a short wall, but we looked at the options for the tumbled and varying sizes. And it was not at all working with what I created for their space and then being able to use natural stone along with it was looking tacky so. I wanted to put forth effort and ask for this to make the aesthetic up-to-date and

pleasing for our design. Anything further?

That is what I have for the moment.

OK. I'm sure we have a few questions and I'll start. How high is the retaining wall that goes around three sides of the property?

So at the highest point is only going to be 30 inches tall. And we're going to taper down to nine inches. And then along the pool side, it's going to be a seat wall. So we're going to be about 18 inches for our seat wall. And it's designed there to keep the existing fence and then level the property for usable space outside the pool.

Okay, you said you're going to level the property around the pool.

Is that

correct? Yes. I didn't see, I see a layout, but I don't see any site gradations in there. So the question is between the retaining wall and the fence or property line on the east, west, and north sides, what happens with the grading there? That would be on the outside of the retaining wall.

So outside towards the fence? So that space between... Is that what you're asking? So I'm keeping the existing grade as it is because there's an existing fence. So I did put spot elevations. I don't know if you have the most updated submittal I put in there, but I did put all the height points that was requested and all the corners and then the swale. So I'm only building the wall to keep the existing grade where that fence line is. And so I have a five foot easement in that space as well. So I'm not encroaching on the easement, I'm just simply following the existing grades, building the wall to the height of the bottom of the fence. And then in my other drawing, maybe you don't have it, I also put a swale where all my water patterns are going as well. So do not create any issues onto neighbors or

negative grade back to the house. Okay. Well,

I walked around it and it seemed like some of the neighbor's properties drain into this property. So when that happens, primarily on the east and a little bit of the north, will the retaining wall then retain the water in that five foot dimension?

Well, it's going to and I have it drawn as well. I don't think you have the plan, but how I'm going to do it in that five foot space, I'm still going to grade it appropriately. So if you're looking at that northeast corner, which is our high point, I'm going to have it all graded and followed the existing grade to the existing low point, which is to the southeast of the residence. So any water that's coming and draining on their property is going to follow the existing lines that we have now. So I'm not going to create a dam or a lake in there. It's going to follow. And then at my release, where it comes down to the lowest point, I am creating a kind of a drywall situation. So I'm going to excavate down, put in clean in a rock to make sure that all the water even existing situations is all not going to create issues around my pool, the pool equipment, nor do I want it to go on anyone's property or create issues for my clients. It's not asking us to do that for water mitigation, but I'm doing it as a landscape architect. I know what I should do.

Good. Could you describe the pool equipment where it's located? I'm

sorry, I got glitchy.

The pool equipment where you're locating it.

It's going to be on the side of the house. The pool per the pool was already approved their their permit but it's on this on the east side of the house should be labeled on the drawing as well kind of the southeast side of the house so it's not gonna be visible from the street and then it'll be higher up. And then the low points will be to the east of

the equipment. Okay,

then in the landscape area, what will occur in there around the three sides behind the retaining wall?

So we'll go with the same aesthetic as the wall. So we'll balance out some columnar evergreens, maybe some flowering. And then how I typically do it too on the base, I'll have a lower ground cover just to manage our water. And then we'll have a decorative stone or mulch depending on what the client prefers.

Okay. On the inside of the retaining wall, will that land be the same higher or lower than the land on the outside of the retaining wall?

So it's going to be lower. So what we're doing is building the wall to retain the elevation along the fence lines And then internally, I'm cutting that out because currently there's kind of a weird drive that kind of bumps up. So I'm leveling all that out and then I'm creating a swale in that backyard area so we don't get a lake in that area. And then I'm putting in around the pool, micro drains, catch basins, as well to make sure there's no water coming onto the existing carport.

Okay, and then is there a complete enclosure around the pool? I see pool code fence labeled.

Does

the retaining wall suffice or is it the other property line fences that take care of that?

So there will be a full closure of fencing. So the existing fence on that north side and east side till we get to a power pole will stay existing. And then once we turn a 90 from that north going west, we'll change to appropriate pool regulation fence. And same thing on the south side as we we turn into the house, everything will go into pool regulated fencing. And then I'm also gonna need to snug up against the existing carport to provide fencing as well, just so it's fully enclosed, but working with making it look obviously attractive with existing fence of the neighbors using their fence and then adding onto it with matching just the standard aluminum pool fencing.

Okay, going back to the retaining wall of the photos that you submitted. There are four photos. Which one is the one that you're proposing?

The one I'm proposing is the one I took from site one. It has a tag on it. It says Anchor Hampton Gray. So that is the wall that I'm proposing. I sent the other photos to demonstrate how I want to do a natural cap on top of it. So I didn't have necessarily a Hampton stone and a natural piece of stone that I had in my hands. So I was trying to demonstrate how I'll have the Hampton solid in that back area, but then transition and kick it up a notch as we hit to the pool area for my columns and cap. And then that would allow me to use that stone down the line onto my fireplace and accent. So then it is staying cohesive and more like neutral tones. We're going to kind of have neutral palette, you know, like a traditional clean palette of color. So that's, that's the picture. If you see one that I sent that had kind of plantings, like a wall with a cap. That was one out in the field. Sometimes lighting's different. So I like to demonstrate how a cap would look, a regular retaining wall with a cap would look as well. So trying to convey the idea with the materials, but also describing that we are going to change the cap as we transition into the pool zone.

Well, in looking at the color and the shape, that you're proposing, I'm going to recommend that we follow the staff recommendation that a different material be submitted. To me, this looks a little more commercial than we've been allowing in the city. In the neighborhood, we do have other tumbled edges and slight multicolored differentiations, which seem to fit better in our neighborhood. So I would go with the staff recommendation in there. But I've talked long enough. Let's see what the other members have to say. Carolyn?

It's always tough going after you because you ask everything just about. A little question about maintenance. between that retaining wall and the fence aligned to your neighbor. That's going to be a little tough to get in there to maintain that. What are you proposing exactly for there? Because I noticed on the staff report, it said that you were going to have a landscape plan with it too, and I'm not seeing that.

Well, I don't have a full landscape submittal plan, but it's only going to be 30 inches high and five feet wide. So being able to get in there and weed it is comfortable. So it's not like you just jump on top of a wall. So I don't see that being an issue as in any kind of maintenance issue at all.

It's just, you have the fence up against you as well.

Yeah, you have a five foot space. So it's that level that you could reach in and weed appropriately.

I just, yeah. Do you have any of, well, that's okay. Other than what Steve has mentioned? I'm a little torn about the materials. I understand where you were going with it. But I do know that once we set a precedent then we're kind of, we've set a precedent. So I'm leaning towards the change in material as well.

So you're saying you're not allowing change in material?

What?

I'm sorry, when you're saying with both-

I'm saying we should go with the city requirement for the stone wall itself. The change in size and color.

Because it's kind of the point, you know, and I understand what you're trying to do, but this isn't going to be a commercial setting and it's not someone's front yard. But, you know, having a three colors tumbled situation is like you're telling somebody you've got to use a speckled carpet. in your bedroom. Like that means the rest of everything we're doing, we have to blend three colors and a tumbled look, which is very dated as a landscape architect. Like, you know, there's certain fads that come in and out. So if you're making someone do something, you know, I understand the structural portion. I understand commercial frontages and signage, right? But you know, as a landscape architect, and I'm sure this is probably other people having it. If you're, you know, we're designing worse, you're making us make changes that are, are not the best decision aesthetically as we get progressive. Like, I don't know when this is dated to do three piece and three colors, but that's, it's like you telling people they just spec, you know, you're, you're looking at wall color that sets the whole stage. for the property. I don't think you're looking at it as an architecturally, like, you know, we have to evolve and be progressive.

I think, yeah, I understand. I totally understand what you're saying. And I am a landscape architect. So I hear you.

Yes. Thank you.

But our, our role on this board is to um, adhere to the code unless we deem and accept. I mean, I don't know how else to put it. Um,

well, that's why I had to go through. I saw, I had to go to architectural review board because I, they wouldn't let me do it for administrative. Right. So I had to come here and say, this is why I'm trying to do it and explain it to you as a landscape architect, the landscape architect, if you understand my point of view, then as we're looking at things, I don't want my, we don't want dated. We had to be progressive at some point. I understand functionally and structurally master specs, but seeing a 30 inch wall from the front of the street on one side of someone's property, it's just hard for me to

understand the reasoning.

Yeah, I guess I, What is the major objection to the different sizes and the different colors though? I mean, I'm not sure that that's so dated at all. But

it's subjective. So like, I don't work anywhere else. Again, I understand your frontages are roads. I understand commercial. I'm listening to you about the marijuana thing. Like, you know, all those pieces. I'm getting that. I understand that because you're looking for a cohesiveness as your street frontage or your commercial frontage. But in people's rear yard, and I personally don't, I think a tumbled look and like some of that VersaLock with those three colors is tacky. That's where I am as in working with clients and picking out materials personally. Like I understand we're looking at, you know, trying to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. And what I'm doing is not going to be tacky. It's not like I'm using some Windsor block that I picked up from Home Depot, right? Like that's not the look that we're going for. You know, so that's why I have to go through architectural review. If it was just the standard retaining wall, then I could have administrative review.

Krista, this is Steve again. What is the color of the block that you're proposing?

It's a light gray.

Light gray. Well, in looking at the house, it's a very warm place. brick color. And I think that color of the blocks that would pick up the warmth would be a lot better looking than the gray color. You might consider that as well as the tumble that we have in our regulations, but I'll stop there. Carolyn, were you finished?

Um, yeah, for now,

Richard.

Um, Krista I'm and I guess on a maybe this is a question for you. I know I'm not landscape architect, but in our code we have certain materials that are allowed, that can be administratively approved. And in this case, because Ms. Taylor was picking out something for her clients that weren't on that list, she had to come before us. Is there anything wrong with these materials or is it simply a preference? Is it just a...

These are guidelines, how they're established. So it's a little different from the hard and strict code. It was a preference that was established by the Architecture Review Board a number of years ago that outlined what could be administratively approved and guidelines to follow for block walls as it became more popular. So this board has the ability and the authority to change those guidelines as opposed to a hard code requirement that would need a variance.

But structurally speaking, there's nothing wrong with the materials that are being proposed. It's simply an aesthetic preference on this particular applicant. Correct. Okay. You know, I think given the fact that the wall is small, it's in the backyard, I don't have any problem with, I guess in this case, allowing the applicant to go, I guess, to go beyond and pick their own materials in this case. So I would go against the staff recommendation in this case.

Ellen?

Okay. Steve took most of my questions with the drainage. Karen Hollweg, i'm looking at the proposed layout it's labeled and the Northwest corner. Karen Hollweg, Between the retaining wall and the fence for the property line. Karen Hollweg , As you come down the West side there is the wall turns a corner to the property line, how will you deal with the water that is coming in that direction.

So when you do a retaining wall like this, our standard practice is you have clean rock behind your wall and then you have a pipe, discharge pipe. So any water that comes into that area is going to hit my pipe and then disperse either to the driveway or to the lawn area.

So the discharge pipe will send it on to the lawn area within the retaining wall?

So it would, yeah, it can discharge it in either right outside that retaining wall and have it follow the grade of back into the drive or to the lawn space between the property line, or it can discharge and have it come out towards the yard area I know we have to be 10 foot off your property.

I would agree with Steve on the color and the type of block for the retaining wall. It is visible if you look at the Karen Hollweg, upper right corner there's three elevations three photos on one of the sheets submitted and you can see straight down the driveway to the retaining wall, the future retaining wall. Karen Hollweg, So I think something in a beige tone would be far handsomer.

Well, and I understand what you're saying, but if my client's wanting to do not beige, there's not a lot of beige options. And then if you've looked at these VersaLock blocks, the choices of them are red. They're like a mixed color and it's tacky. And so she was looking at browns. When we've looked, we've gone all over St. Louis and And I have called different suppliers to have materials brought in and she doesn't like any of them. It doesn't go with the aesthetic. I don't personally care for them either, you know, because I could do whatever the three piece and either it could be a gray or a tan, but trying to have it not match the brick because that looks clashing. But, you know, I don't know if you guys have been, look at what options are out there. But again, three colors on a wall and three pieces when you're trying to go for a simple style, it misses the mark. Like it's not a structural thing. It's the aesthetic I know you're talking about. And I will take your advice here or there. But by the end, as the landscape architect, I'm going to leave my design on the colors I feel are best and the aesthetic is best for my client and what or overall designers. But I, I don't, I mean, I feel like this is an issue because if you're stuck in this three piece, three color, and we only have, no one's making that anymore. So you're limited in options. Everything's going to look out of style and you're dealing with people that got a lot of money in Clayton. So I can't keep going back to my clients dealing with, you know, ugly stuff that was back in the, you know, late two, you know, 2000s or 10 years ago, because it dates it. Like it's like clothing and trends. Like it's very stylish and it's going to be an issue if I have to keep using limited options on a three-piece, three-color wall. I don't recommend it.

Krista, so how does the rock that you're proposing, do you feel like it fits into an overall scheme for outside? I mean, I'm... I mean, I'm advocating for you right now in the sense that I think we should allow you to use that material. But I'm just wondering, just in terms of an overall picture for the outside area, do you feel like the gray stone that you're proposing would match the outside better area versus matching the red brick house, for instance?

Yes. Yes, 100%. As a landscape architect, regardless, I never try to match my retaining walls to my house. Like, I like to compliment it because then it looks...

Do you have any idea if the homeowners plan to paint their house or something? I mean, I don't know. I don't know, do you? I mean, in case a lot of people paint their

house. That is added in addition to this.

No, I know that, but I... I know that, but I mean, like, do they plan to paint the house white? I just feel like that also, you know, if it was the house ends up being painted white and, you know, I'm just trying to understand the overall scheme that. No,

they're not painting the house. They're keeping it the color. They like the brick. I like the brick. We liked the tradition of it. I'm not trying to go commercial or abstract or too mod. It's a very traditional house or layouts, you know, traditional it's, classy. It doesn't go out of style, which is one of the issues.

I just wanted to kind of get a picture of what it was going to look like. But I do appreciate the fact that I think if the stone is going to match better with the rest of the pool area, I think that's significant.

Yes. Thank you.

Krista, one more comment. The image that you have of the four, the upper left one is the tumbled. And it's very hard to tell a difference between the colors um

maybe in a photo but but but even if you want a tumbled one to say for example your your your clauses a tumbled three colors so even if we went to one tumbled which again does not fit the aesthetic we're trying to achieve we're not looking colonial we're looking clean line you know that aesthetic um that again, I'd have to come through architectural review board because I would want a solid color. Okay. I just don't know why this was even enforced for three colors. It's, it's a little bit like, again, dated. Like I work in Ladue, I work in Kirkwood and I understand these are your rules. That's why I went to following the rules. That's I want to make sure by whatever we're designing and moving forward is very, you know, people are going to, people pay money. People live in that area. They want things per their aesthetic and also updated. And they don't want it to look like it's 10 years old VersaLock block that y'all chose with three colors and rounded corners. Like that's just kind of

tacky at this point. No one does that anymore. Yeah. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Ellen are you finished okay

camey. COB, Erika

Vandenbrande, um so the the picture that i'm looking at the bottom left corner, that is the stone you're proposing. COB, Erika Vandenbrande , Is that right it looks a little bit Brown and then the picture on the bottom right, that is. COB, ERIKA Vandenbrande . What it looks like when and completely installed

i've not seen the pictures right now um. COB, Erica Vandenbrande & But it's just a it's a basic kind of like limestone he Gray. wall

because like the one on the left seems a lot warmer than the one on the right is why i'm asking

i'm not sure but they're all gonna patina they're all gonna age um regardless yeah so the one on the bottom left is the one at site one which is what my client likes so that's the one but it's also inside it's dirty it's aged you know so when we put it out there it may look more brighter at first But knowing that it will go down to that gray color with that cap on it, that's what they have at Site 1 is there. It is labeled. It's called the Hampton Anchor Gray. You can see it. The one I showed on the picture in particular was more to show, OK, this is the cap. It's going to be all one size. It's going be a hue of this. Nothing's going to be exactly from your pictures. But I was trying to find things without lugging in actual block with me to convey the idea. And

so when you have a 30 inch high wall, like how many blocks would that be?

Like three or

five?

Yeah, because they're six inch increments. So you're going to have five of those high with a cap. And that's in the back corner. You cannot see that back corner from the street. The one that you do see on the west side, that's nine inches and I have a planting in front of it. So you have a fence, I have an accent planting in front of the wall, and then we're gonna have it green. The idea is for it to go away. I'm not trying to highlight a wall. I just want it to recede clean lines in the back of the landscape I don't want to look back there and see orange and red and yellow all dancing around because we're trying to match the brick. That's not the intent. I don't want anyone when they're at the pool to be looking at the retaining wall. I just want it to

go. If you go with a solid same color with your retaining wall, is there a way to change the size of them and just give that variation at least? So it doesn't look, I mean, the one that you're saying that is, up to date, that's not dated. I mean, that's been around forever. So I would kind of argue that that also is dated. I mean it's not colonial as you quoted, but it's been around for a very long time. So I'm not seeing like a modernism to it or anything like that. However, I think maybe varying the shape of it, or I'm sorry, the different sizes and maybe at least you get the color story you want, but at least there's some variation with size. Is that an option with this product? Well,

if most of the time, if you have a variation in sizes is it's going to have a tumbled like a lot of the times. I mean, I can see if I can get a straight face in it. And the reason why these blocks have been around for so long is because they they are. They don't go out of style because they're they're monochromatic and they're basic. And that's what we're trying to achieve. So I've been using them for, you know, a long time as well. But when you're choosing something, I recommend this to my clients all the time, choose something that doesn't go out of style. Like I know personally, if I go to someone's house and they've got a certain color wall blend, I know what year it is. But if you go into just a basic wall, you can update your plantings, you can update So yes, is it been around a long time? Yes. Does it, but it has rectilinear lines to it. So everything we're doing is rectilinear. Like I'm not doing, you know.

Sure. Can you tell me just real quick where the highest point of that wall is on the plan?

It's on the very, so behind the pool back corner on that northeast side. Okay. So like the one that goes along the driveway, what height is that? So we're going to taper that back down to get to like about nine inches as we get into that, it'll be a block and a half from the street. And it's going to have a plant in front of it.

So the highest point is really at the backyard.

Correct. Okay. This is, this is why I'm struggling with, again, if it was the front, I understand. I understand if it was high profile, you know, then I understand that. You know what I mean? Everyone's front yards. Yes, they share the same street trees. They share the same walls. A lot of people aren't going to the architectural review board. I'm driving all over the place and theirs aren't attractive because they just do what they want. So I'm trying to follow the rules. I'm trying to hide it. I'm trying too-

Sure, when I get that, I mean, attractive is subjective so I can appreciate that. Okay, thanks for your answer to the questions.

David,

I don't really have any additional questions in this particular case with the location in the back. I'm not as concerned about not having the variation on the blocks there personally.

Krista, it's Steve again. I have a couple other questions. There are two points that are labeled 24 inch height column, anchor wall gray with natural cap. one at the northeast corner of what appears to be the pool deck, and one at the southeast end of the retaining wall. What are those?

Those are my transitional points from going from a standard cap to a natural stone. So if you see the picture right as an example, see how it's higher that that column at end points of a wall. So a seat wall. And then as I transition, I want to go up with my column, do a natural cap to it just to give bookends to that space along the pool. So that whole wall will be a seat wall that the people could use in the pool. And then I don't want it to be an awkward transition when I change my cap. So I want the basic cap in the back, but then at those columns both ends is where I transition to a natural stone.

Okay, I understand it now. Will the retaining wall between those two column caps, will it be level or will there be a step in it at any point?

It'll be no step. It'll be level. The only time we're going to start stepping and transitioning is at that column as we hit that back northeast.

So from the upper column to the northeast corner of the retaining wall? Did I understand that?

Correct. It'll be a standard seat wall. So then that way it was not going to have a step.

It would really be helpful if we had elevations of those. I have

them on my plan. I'm not sure if you're not, but I did put the high point and low points.

We did. Yes, some of us are more visual and you are too. We have two architects and a landscape architect on this panel. And to see the walls in elevation is much more descriptive than just reading the elevation numbers. So when I look at the North side, I see from the Northeast corner, the wall is going from 101.5 at the top of the wall to the West 100.5 top of the wall. So that means there's a one foot drop, correct? Correct. Will there be a step in there somewhere or is the wall actually going to slope?

No, no, no. I'd never slope a wall. If someone's sloping- Well, that's

why I'm asking.

Oh, yeah, yeah. No, there's going to be a step. So there'll be steps in the wall for the retaining wall, that rear one. I thought you were asking between the two columns. Between the two columns, there's no step. As we have to change grade per elevation along that fence line, then yes, we will step accordingly to grade appropriately in six inch increments?

Well, we can't see that. It's not indicated. It looks like it's a sloping wall, which I think is the wrong way to put up a block wall completely.

Well, yeah, I wouldn't slope something. I just thought having these conversations, if I've had spot elevations in here, And we have a conversation like industry standards. As someone is sloping a wall, they don't need to be building walls. So I will step it down. So I gave corner points that was requested for elevations on this wall to dictate on the heights of the wall so you would know how tall it is and how obtrusive it might be. But I'm not going to build anything or anyone that knows what they're doing sloping or any kind of wall? Does that look like a mess up?

Well, as you're a landscape architect, you know very well that the appearance is really what you're after. And that's why we on the Architectural Review Board are looking at this discussing it right now. I'll be honest, I do not have a good feeling about how this wall is going to work. It looks like the elevations change. I know you will not slope a block wall like this. The other thing is The type of wall that you're looking at, the very squared off appearance, has been around. It came because that type of a structural block is actually a structural block that is still used many times, even in residential construction. But staying away from the dated look and the stylistic ideas, I would recommend that maybe you and the property owner look at some of the other masonry walls that are in our neighborhood. One in particular dividing the two properties directly north of this property. There's a retaining wall between two houses that picks up very subtly the color of both of the houses, which are very similar to the house on this property. I would recommend you take a look at that and also clarify how this wall is going to look. Another question is, are there any lights out there in the pool area or the new upgraded rear yard? I don't think I found any. Or maybe I've missed them.

I didn't know I was submitting a lighting plan for you.

You are submitting it?

If we do, it would be low voltage lighting. So I'm not submitting anything that's included on here. I thought this was purely based on a retaining wall.

Okay. I guess I would have to come back with lighting.

They don't need to provide a lighting plan. The only request that needed to come before you is for the materials of the retaining wall.

Only that, okay. If the owner does want to put lights in?

They can put lights in that comply with our regulations and they don't need to come before the ARB. Okay,

thank you. Looking at the materials and how that wall is going to look, I would really appreciate having the drawings be more descriptive more graphic, where we could see more than just a plan that does not show where the breaks are. Yeah, I

mean, there's spot elevations on here and it's a 30 inch wall, about a four foot, eight foot wall. But I mean, you know, all due respect, I think it's a little bit overkill. I'm sorry, you don't understand the wall as much as we do as in thinking in 3D, but to draw a third, I mean, I can draw an elevation if that's necessary, but I just thought having spot elevations and having 30 inches and tapering it down to nine inches on a standard wall would be not necessarily to have a visual.

I think you could have probably just drawn a line where it steps. That's right. And been done with it. I think that's all he's saying.

And I certainly, I can, you know, it's, it's just a, Yeah, I guess this is just common every day for me and for my, you know, explaining the heights of it. And, you know, with practices wasn't really my concern at that moment. I thought the concern truly was, is this material going to be accepted? And if you're, if I'm not going over 30 inches, that would be, you know, the limiting factor, whether it's steps here or there. I don't know if it's really relevant. the conversation other than if you see it from here and it's not higher than 30 inches in that back corner, the back over here, I put a spot elevation. If it's two feet, then what you're going to see from the road is a two foot high wall.

The spot elevation certainly helped for the contractor putting the wall in. The way I see it, if we're dropping along that north wall from the east to the west one foot, you're going to have two steps if you're using six inch high blocks. Yes.

Yep. You're right.

Right?

Yes. So my

assumption would be that you might step it at the one third and the two third points, but that's an assumption because I don't see anything.

The assumption is correct. Like you're going to follow the grade of the fence. So you step it as your grade falls down as necessary. So if you're running elevations, the height of the fence, you're going to step it down and work with the existing grade. I'm not going to redo the fence over, you know, I can't change the grade. I have to keep a certain standard of space below the fence. So my grades can be based on from that corner to that corner, making sure it's running with the elevations when I put a string line in it with the bottom of the fence. So I took elevation points out there with a level and got the corner points that was requested. And then realizing, you know, in that transitional period, we'll have a step to get down to that point. But regardless of that, you know, it's more if you're saying you don't want to see a two foot tight wall with this material from the road, then that's the conversation that you said

you're not that comfortable with.

I'm not sure that we've said anything about not seeing a two-foot wall from the street, but I'm beginning to hear what you're trying to do. I just feel the drawings don't show it. I do have another question, and that is where the wall on the west side meets the driveway. You have about three, about nine inches between the bottom and the top of the wall. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, and that will be roughly three inches lower, no, about nine inches lower than the northwest corner top of the wall. Is that correct?

Yes, so then we would step it to get down to grade as well.

Okay, so you would need another step on that west side. Correct.

We'll have to step it down to get back to grade. So I have to, again, run it with the fence, but then I have to get my wall back down to elevation point to where the driveway is. So I set that elevation point too, knowing between the corners, we have to step down to the elevation to make sure I'm having my fence level and making sure all my grades work with existing grades.

Okay. Another question, and that is about the double gate at the back end of the driveway.

Yeah.

I'm just making this as a suggestion. Do they have sufficient back and turn around in there?

Yes, they get into the carport. Mm hmm.

Okay, and that is a three-car carport, right?

It is. They're only going to use probably two of it. The standard one from the back of the turning radius, you need at least 10 feet. So I pull back that gate 10 feet.

Okay, but they could park three cars in the carport.

I believe so.

You might just want to review that with the owner. And I only bring it up because so many young families, when they have drivers, they tend to get a third car. But that's off of what we're discussing. Just a suggestion. Let's see. Are there any comments here in the audience? Any other hands up? No. Okay. Let's see, we have a staff recommendation to select a retaining wall material that complies with the architectural review guidelines and submit that material to staff for administrative approval. Do we have any other concern that we may need to put into a motion? No. Before we go on, I had one other question, Krista. On the plan with the landscaping, do the circles represent specific plantings?

Yes and no. I mean, I had originally had more plantings in there and removed them so you could read the text and not be clouded by the plantings. I hadn't gotten to fully lay out and specify the plant material until I know what material, like wall material and everything that I'm going to have to work with. But that area will be softened because right now you're looking at just a wooden fence on that back side. So they're not specified, but there'll be something columnar and appropriate in that five foot space.

will you have any ground cover in that five foot space?

Yes. Most likely it'll be something like a liriope, um, or a low juniper, something that would not sucker onto the wall or anything such as that. Um, maybe something that would toughed over a little bit, but nothing again, too messy because her, their aesthetic is they want low maintenance and simple and clean. So, um, But my aesthetic, I typically like to have a ground cover so it's not full of mold.

Okay. Have you discussed with the owner maintaining that five foot area? Because some of the neighbors have had excessive creeping growth from this property under the fences onto the adjacent properties.

Cause they used to have a, they used to have an aggressive ground cover, like a Vinca that was rhizomic. Um, obviously I won't be doing that because that's ugly. You know, it's not, it's not going to work. It's suckers. Like you said, it goes on the fence. Um, it's messy, snaky. So if we put in a ground cover, if I do like a Liriope muscari, it's not rhizomic. So it's clumps. So it's not going PB, Lupita D Montoya, spread into that space, it would just be something to soften the space and. PB, Lupita Д Montoya, keep it. PB, Lupia D Montoya, You know trees and a lower. PB, Lupica D Montoya, plane so they're not driving Arab you're looking at and seeing all that fence. PB,

Harmon Zuckerman, Well, the Jason neighbors are looking to have well this is going to be redeveloped on the backyard. And they look forward to not having any creeping items also. So thank

you. Yes.

Now

we can go back. We have the staff recommendation. Any additions to it? And do we have a motion? I

am torn. I'm gonna make a recommendation that we approve the submission without the staff recommendation, but with the caveat that the color will not be a stark gray color. It will be a

warm gray. told you we were all going to be torn.

We have a second.

I'll second it. I guess I'm a little concerned about putting, putting, you know, those sort of, we're not going to be traveling to the quarry or wherever this rock is. So I think I would, I would second it as long as we're just, I would, I think we have to give them the, You know, I just think there's too much, too many restrictions on, you know, what they could go out and get. I don't think Ana wants to go to the quarry with Krista and pick out the rock. So, yeah.

You can get a sample, this is not quarried stone necessarily this you order a color. And you get that color within you know. A slight variation. But then

are we going to ask them to come back here and get that approved? No, go to

Kirshner Block and Brick and get a piece of material in a half hour. It's really not that

difficult. I guess, again, I'm just having trouble with like some, we have a homeowner who wants to put a certain amount of rock that's 30 inches high in her backyard. And I am happy to have this homeowner and Krista Taylor pick out this rock. So I'm not, I just think it's unnecessary to put if this was in the front yard, but this is a short wall and it's in their backyard. I'm uncomfortable putting color restrictions that aren't wildly crazy, which I'm sure this is not gonna be. It's not like they're putting blue rock or something in the backyard. Again, just I would make a motion to approve the material that the applicant has submitted. against the staff recommendation.

Then we have two motions.

I like hers better though.

Okay.

Carolyn, if you like hers, you can withdraw your first motion.

I will withdraw my first motion. Second her motion. We have

yours. Okay. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay. Okay. Krista, it passed. And good luck with the project. I'm sure we'll all be over to take a look at it when it's finished.

Okay, good. I want you to. It's going to look great. I appreciate it. And I appreciate all your time tonight as well.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Okay.

We'll move on to item 233 North Central Avenue is the applicant here

or at the applicant online?

Oh, you're right. We have two different.

It's a the salon has a multiple addresses. There's the address of the property in general and then they St. Louis County assigns individual addresses for the tenant spaces. So that's why there's

confusion. Mr. Dang, if you are representing native foods, would you raise your

hand?

I don't see that name anywhere.

If you don't have any questions to ask based on their application, we can move forward with it anyway. It will go to the Board of Aldermen for final approval. So this is a recommendation. If you have questions that you need them to answer, then we would have to wait.

Honestly, I had no questions. It looked pretty straightforward as a CUP request. Were there any other questions? Nope. Okay. Well, how about if we make a motion to recommend to the Board of Aldermen?

I'll make a recommendation to approve the conditional use permit to the Board of aldermen as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. We'll go on to item number three, and that is 21 and 21A Dartford Avenue. And I believe the applicant is here.

Okay.

We'll get back to you in a minute. Ryan.

Subject properties are located on the west side of Dartford Avenue adjacent to the intersection with Aberdeen Place and adjacent to Fond Vaughan University. The properties have a zoning designation of R2 and developed with a single family house and detached garage. Both properties were originally plotted as 50 foot wide lots. The property addressed 21 Dartford Avenue was developed with the existing single family house in 1901. The northern 50 foot wide lot remained vacant until it was split into a 20 foot wide lot and a 30 foot wide lot. The 20 foot wide lot was combined with 21 Dartford, while the 30 foot wide lot was sold to Fontbonne as a secondary access point. Later when access was no longer needed by Fontbonne, 30 foot wide lot was sold and is currently 21A Dartford. The property owner is seeking to construct a new home on the property. The project will consist of the consolidation of the two lots, the demolition of the existing home and the construction of a new single family home. Review of the demolition and new construction will take place under those associated permits. So we're just looking at the lot consolidation. Proposed consolidation would conform to the lot size requirements of the R2 district. The lot would be 100 by 150 feet, the 100 feet being the width, 150 being the depth of it. Adjacent lots on the west side of Dartford average about 50 feet wide. Homes on the east side of Dartford averaged 160 feet of frontage, but these homes face streets perpendicular to Dartford, resulting in their side yards having that frontage on Dartford Avenue. Criteria for consideration has been identified in the staff report. Staff is of the opinion that although the lot is larger than other lots on the west side of Darper Avenue, it is more consistent with frontage of lots on the east side of Dartford and does not have a scale that would propose a detrimental impact to adjacent properties. Staff recommends that this board recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with condition that the applicant file a plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of the filing to the city within 30 days at Board of Alderman approval.

Okay, thank you. The applicant, would you like to come up and give any further information? Before you do so, please give us your name and address.

My name is Ken Shuffler. I am Senior Project Manager at Club Engineering working for Robert Slavin. We have presented this consolidation plat to clean up a longstanding mess on these two properties. Originally, they were platted as two 50-foot lots somewhere along the line. Nobody seems to know there was a separation of a portion of the property, a 30-foot portion of the property that was owned are used by Fontbonne College to construct a walkway from Dartford Avenue over to the college property through a hole in the wall that exists along the western side of the existing alley that also runs back there. There's a little bit of history going on with this property and as much as past surveys call the alley as being vacated, some surveys don't. I've been working with the city and the trustees to vacate this alley. It was Originally plotted in 1912 as a private alley dedicated to the lot owners in the subdivision. And in 1995, the trustees and the owners in the subdivisions deeded it over, conveyed it, dedicated it to the city. That portion is in limbo right now. So all we're dealing with is the 150 foot deep property and then the two parcels, the 70 foot parcel and a 30 foot parcel. In order to construct the house the way that we would like to, it would have to go across some property line, whichever that one is. And that's the division either between the 50 foot and the 50 foot lot or the 70 foot lot and the 30 foot lot. We can't build a house across a property line. So we're here today to consolidate those two parcels into one lot so that

we can construct a house. Thank you.

Are there any other people? We have someone else who would like to come up and speak. Stan, please give us your name and address.

My name is Stan Mulvihill. I'm with the trustees of Hillcrest. So I'm here tonight in that regard. I live at 16 Arundel Place, actually in the city of St. Louis portion, but we collectively operate as the trustees for these purposes of the Romanian indenture items, which include a certain overview of setbacks and other things that are done in connection with development. The engineer mentioned the alley vacation here that's going on. I'm working with your public works people to affect that. That's been a paper alley for a long time and a real problem. We're going to clean that up eventually through, I think Matt Malik is working on that through the legal review and should have something coming up here in a matter of months, but that should get cleaned up so that that alley will be finally officially vacated and owners can petition to plat or replat their ground accordingly. leaving aside that our interest as trustees is to support the better development of our neighborhood. We've done, I think, a pretty good job working with Clayton over the last, oh, particularly last 30, 35 years. One of the big things that happened here is we dedicated back in 1995, I was on a committee that helped figure out how to dedicate the Clayton portion to the city of Clayton so we could do a grand re uh, rebuilding of all the infrastructure in that area. And we were able to match the remaining private portion of the city of St. Louis, which is about 15% of our subdivision to the remaining 85% Clayton. So it reads as one neighborhood. So I come to you tonight in the spirit of trying to say that regardless of our city County divisions, we like to think of this as ground zero for where we can have the greatest cooperation between public and private. Our original indenture actually predates the city of Clayton by one year, 1912. So prior to that, this was the Wild West and we had the private subdivisions all had to create their own indentures and their restrictions because there was no real legal ground in that, right? Since then, the city has been incorporated and there's been generations of zoning and other matters that have come before you. And as of 1959, I believe was when the real R2 is, I understand that the R2 regulations really took effect and that became then the 60 foot minimum lot divisions that you're very fond of. However, those divisions don't take into account the classic 50 foot subdivision dimensions that we have throughout most of Hillcrest. In fact, you'll find that about, 50% of the 225 households there are in 50-foot lots, and the majority of them are under 60 feet. So many of them wouldn't comply with your R2 sense in other portions of the city. It may be perfectly appropriate in Hillcrest. It's a much more dense and successful, I think, development that regard. I've talked to the developer back and forth for several generations on this, and I haven't had a chance to talk to your engineer there. But I think that it's safe to say that if everyone had their best foot forward here, the obvious plan would be two homes on 250-foot lots, much as we have done throughout most of Hillcrest and frankly on Dartford Avenue in particular, if you notice, with the exception of the President's House for Fon Fon that's on the corner, which is sort of a dramatic corner. Even that house is modest by comparison to what is planned here for this 100 foot development. I don't blame the developer at all. He's been sort of framed into this position of having to do a consolidation, but I'm going to speculate. I'm not going to speak for him, but I'm gonna speculate that most of us would prefer a two home 50 foot lot division here, which recognizes the original planning that was done in 1912. And it was only subsequent to that, that the homeowner was approached by Von Bond to see if they could somehow codify a pass-through as was described earlier. And that, it's a little fuzzy, but I think it took place in the late 20s or early 30s, to be honest. But in any case, the only thing they could come up with is a 30-foot easement sale or whatever, which corrupted the 50-foot lot. What we're trying to do and what we're recommending here is two things. One, we accept that this 100-foot consolidation can happen. It doesn't violate any indenture terms that we know of. But two, we're asking you to reconsider this and we're asking the developer to reconsider this with the city. to see this more as a boundary adjustment plan approach, as opposed to a variance needed to do two 50-foot lots. In other words, return it to its natural state. And I have a homeowner here, Greg Bray, who's our treasurer, as a matter of fact, done a really good job in that regard, who several years ago approached the same commission and the city and asked for essentially to take two lots and to create two, one lot I'll say, or excuse me, two lots, but to tweak the boundaries so that he could do two homes on the remaining ground. I've asked him to come today to explain that a little bit. And Anna, I sent you and Ryan pictures. I'm not sure if you can put those up from the email. It would help, but anyway, if you can't, it's not necessary. But I do have, did

you pass those out?

Yeah. Okay. So Greg has passed out a little handout. I'm going to ask him to speak for a moment about his experience at 45-47 Arundel, which is just illustrative of what we're talking about in terms of a boundary plat adjustment. which is to tweak this to 250 foot. It's just moving the boundary from the 30-foot line of that one northern parcel back to the 50-foot line as it was originally. Greg?

Stan, you emailed a picture. It looks like it's just a street view. Can we just pull up Google Street View for you?

Sure. I was trying to do that for both Greg's property as well as... I took pictures and those are actual pictures, but

Yeah, only one's coming through, but I'm not connected

to the screen. I don't want to put you out there. Please go ahead. Thank you. Can I text you this? Okay. Can you just ask us which address to pull up? We have Google here for you. I do recall this. There it is. That's a good one, yeah. Okay, my name is Greg Bray and I'm a homeowner in the Hillcrest subdivision. That's the same subdivision that

the subject property what 21 Dartford is in. My address is 45 Arundel. I went through a process like this, extremely similar to this in 2013 and where we had two lots and I had to move the property line to create a lot of 50 feet and then 84 feet. When we bought the properties together, they were 49 feet. and 85 feet, so we had to move it 12 inches. And I was granted that. So the second two pages of my handout are dated 2013. That's the meeting minutes and the agenda and whatnot from the ARB meeting from 2013. So if I could just briefly, looking at my handout just to kind of, this is, I was only told about this last night. So I apologize if I'm not fully prepared. The current situation is there are two lots. They each have a locator ID. They're both addressed as 21 Dartford owned by Mr. Slavin. One is 30 foot wide and one is 70 foot wide, total of 100 feet. The desired or what we're advocating would be to split them and to return them to 50 feet wide each. So one could be 21 Dartford, and then the next one could be 23. Okay. Looking at the Clayton R2 zoning requirements, I just copied and pasted this from the Clayton website. It calls for a minimum of 60 foot lot. but it said a modification may be allowed subject to section 405.1880. And then when I looked at section 405.180, it says that lots of record that were established prior to April 14th, 1959 with less width will be considered a conforming lot. So in my viewpoint, it seems that there is a written exception for this. Okay, and then really to summarize my points are the supporting items number one through six. Number one, there are two lots already in existence so we're not creating a new lot. There already are two lots. Supporting item number two, the home addresses that you go along Dartford, there's 19, 21, And then the next one is 25 so house number 23 is available to be created. Okay. Also it's not listed on here, but I just checked. Seven dartford 911. 13, 15, 17, 19 and 25. All of those are 50 foot in width. So when you're looking at Dartford, 50, 50, 50 and then you've got currently 100 and then 50. So splitting the 100 into two fifties goes right along with the entire block. Item number four is the zoning, which we just talked about. Item number five is that the trustees of Hillcrest are in full support of this, making it two 50-foot lots. Item number six, we have about 223 lots in the neighborhood. And I know this because I'm the treasurer and our fees are based on frontage. but about 49% are 50 feet. I also looked, we have about nine lots out of 223, nine lots are 95 to 116 feet. So only about nine, only about 4% of our lots are in that 100 foot area. So creating two 50-foot lots would be well in line with what's in our neighborhood right

now. Just come up to the mic so that it's recorded, please.

So Greg, hang on. So in case there's a question, perhaps if we've had your experience. Greg mentioned about the lots that are 100-foot. Mark Benthien, ECA- proximate we've got several of them, but they are tend to be at the end cap, if you will, of our streets there on skinker. Mark Benthien , ECA- near the you know entrance there they're right the corner sometimes some of these streets there's just a couple smattering here and there, and none of them are as big and massive as the thing that. Mark Benthie, ECA- has been proposed to be built here, so this is really going to be a very different 100 foot development. We're not saying he doesn't have a right to do it. We want to support good development. We know slave and homes will do a beautiful job. There's no question about that. But what we are concerned with here is that somehow or another, we've reframed this thing to where a place where none of us really want to end up. The developer probably, I won't speak for Bobby, but I'm thinking he probably would prefer to do two homes rather than one, but he doesn't want to, face a variance request or other things that could substantially delay or make his whole plan uncertain. So that's number one. The city would benefit from two developments there, not one in terms of taxes, density, people and so forth. The neighborhood would support it in terms of its scale and its appropriateness, particularly in the middle of that Dartford block where every other property is 50 feet. And this is suddenly this big mansion that's in the middle of it. It seems a bit incongruous to us and not a result we really want. And I'd like to think, and I've asked this planning staff and I respect their point of view on this, but I have to disagree with a couple of things. There's no practical reason why we have to have this 10 foot minimum addition to a 50 foot lot. What does that gain us here? When we have so much success with the 50 foot lot as it is in Hillcrest. And I'm saying, I've recommended to Mr. Slavin, I've recommended it to you if I can, that while we agree with his right to develop this and we don't want to get in the way of good development no matter where it takes place, we're asking everyone to frankly take a couple of weeks here and see if we can't reconsider how this might fit as a boundary plat adjustment. as opposed to a requirement to do the full scale variants or whatever else in our view. Because that probably won't happen. We'll probably just proceed with 100 foot lot development and that'll be gone. It's not the end of the world for us, but I just think we could do so much better here. And it would be a win for all aspects of our community. various points of view here. I just hate to see this. I've been a trustee now for some 22 years, and I've had some tilted at windmills occasionally and lost, but we've also had some real big successes with the city of Clayton here, and I just don't want to waste this opportunity. So we're happy to answer questions. Greg is here. He's been very kind to share his experience, I think, and it was a good one. We think it's comparable to what you're considering here. And frankly, I'd like to think Mr. Slavin would consider as well.

Thank you. Of course, I have a couple of comments. Number one, I think 50-foot lots would fit the context of Dartford Avenue and the general feeling of the entire neighborhood better than 100-foot lot. And I am certainly not against combining lots into larger lots. We've done it before, we'll be doing it again. The idea of a boundary adjustment is intriguing and I'd like to ask Stephanie, can that be done?

I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. First of all, the applicant has not changed his application from a lot consolidation. Second of all, in 2020, there's a report that was written by the previous director from a previous request for creating two 50-foot wide lots. And based on the review of that, I don't have any evidence to change the decision that was in there. Essentially what's happening here is you're taking one lot that is now conforming as greater than 60-foot wide and a lot that is less than 60-foot. In order to do the adjustment, now you would create two 50-foot, which are both now nonconforming under the current zoning code, which is what prevents a boundary adjustment from being an option. It would have to go through a variance process to reduce the minimum lot width.

So a lot consolidation is kind of like a boundary adjustment. It's just that you're getting rid of the boundary. You're moving that over to the other side of the lot being consolidated. So essentially, it's pretty much the same. It's just wherever you're going to move that boundary. Are you going to move it all the way over and consolidate the two lots? Or are you going to move in the other direction? The one thing that you cannot do with any plat is that you cannot create a nonconforming lot. So under the zoning regulations enacted by the Board of Aldermen, the minimum lot width is 60 feet. So you cannot do any kind of boundary adjustment or subdivision plat or anything like that that's going to create a lot that is less than 60 feet in width.

Without going through the variance?

Without either going through a variance or without going through a text amendment through the Board of Aldermen.

Okay. Well, then I guess it really comes back to the developer if he would want to go the variance process or not. Is that true?

That's true.

Mr. Chair, basically these lots were already grandfathered in at 50 feet as part of the 1959 cutoff. All this was acknowledged to be conforming for the sense of as of 1959. Again, the whole idea of a boundary adjustment is to avoid running afoul of the whole reconsideration of whether it's conforming or not conforming. It's considered a right, if you will, to return it to 50 feet and consider the reason it was divided at all in the first place. It was to accommodate a civic request, which was to allow Fontbonne this access that the city and the college at that point needed. And now you're penalizing, it seems to me, the property owner for having made that accommodation. They got some compensation for it, but it was very modest is my understanding. And again, these are anecdotal things. These go back to the late 1920s, early 30s is my understanding also. So some of this is in the vague recollection of Clayton, but I wish you could look at this in the spirit of really what it is, which is that a 50-foot lot should be conforming there and as a matter of fact. And that what you've created here is an interpretation, it seems to me, that guarantees we're going to have a very, we're going to be conforming, but very massive jarring kind of development there. I don't think anyone really wants that. And I think if I could speak, if I were a developer here, I would want some assurance from the city, the staff, the attorney and others, that there's some chance to discuss this further and to have some possibility to do this, whether it's a text amendment to the Board of Aldermen. I've not been through one of those things, so I can't speak to the degree of difficulty. Mr. Chair, you may have experience with this. I would just like to explore it and not close it off because we just can't seem to find a way out of the bureaucratic spot we found ourselves in. And I think we've made an adequate case about how this could be done for what Greg did, what he went through. And I think you could say the same thing about his stuff except that somehow it got approved 10 years ago and this one it didn't. Thank you.

Well, as I said before, I am not against consolidating lots into a larger property. But here I feel that the context really calls for two 50-foot lots. My suggestion would be that we table this and let the property owner make a decision how to go through. Unless you have further comments, Mr. Scheffler?

Yes, I would like to see the recommendation for approval of the consolidation plan. At least allow us to get past this commission. We can talk with the trustees. We had looked at the 50 foot thing, but the zoning ordinance was completely clear, 60 foot minimum. I suggested that to Mr. Slavin. I was in these chambers a couple of weeks ago, trying to get a variance on a rear yard setback based on the alley being vacated, therefore creating 160 foot deep lot so that I could have a 40 foot setback from the Western edge of the alley, which would be a 30 foot setback. from the existing 150-foot depth. I removed that. I withdrew that application because there was no way it was going to get approved, number one, because I couldn't prove a hardship. And that's the big sticking word with Board of Adjustment. In order for us to go back to the Board of Adjustment and ask for this to be – a variance approved on this, I have to prove hardship. When I tried to prove hardship on the other setback, I was told you can build a smaller house. If I go and try and prove hardship for a 50 foot lot, I have nothing other than I can build two houses instead of one larger house. So that's why I would ask that the consolidation plat recommendation for approval goes to the Board of Aldermen from this body this evening. And then I can work with the trustees, I can work with city, I can work the city attorney prior to the next Board of Aldermens meeting when this would come up. We've been dealing with this site for a month and a half or better through a lot of processes. And we just keep running into walls. So I would ask this board to approve the consolidation plat, make the recommendation of that to the Board of Aldermen. And then I can work with the trustees, the subdivision, the city, and things like that. If something changes and we can help these guys out and make two 50 foot lots, I can't hold up development on arguments of not being able to prove a hardship because it can't be done. They'll just tell me consolidate. You can't have less than, what's your hardship that you need two 50-foot lots? And I don't have an answer for that because they're going to say, just make it 100-foot lot. And that's what brought me here today. So if we could at least get to that point, get this approved, recommended, And then I can deal with the city, the trustees, the city attorney, all the rules and regulations. Like I said, these two properties have been a mess from the get-go. Nobody knows how anything happened, how the 30 foot got made from a 50 foot. We haven't found any kind of platting or anything of that nature. And I'm here because this is easy. This gets me working. This gets the process started to create site plans, building plans, and get the site plan submitted to the city so I can come back to y'all with a house plan for this. So that's what I'm asking. If I could get approval on a consolidation plan and then I'll deal with the city and the trustees.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, just a quick point on some legal aspects of approval of a plat. So approval of the plat is one thing that comes to you that is purely ministerial. You have very little discretion. If a plat comes to you and it complies with ordinance, that means minimum lot size, minimum lot width, that kind of thing, then you have no discretion not to approve it. You must approve it. If it doesn't comply with ordinance, you can't approve it at all. You have to deny. You don't have the discretion to approve it. So basically you don't have the discussion either way. If it comes to you and it complies with all aspects of the zoning regulations for that zoning district, then you have to approve it. They've come to you now with a plat to create a lot that meets the minimum lot width, the minimum lot size, meets all the other requirements of the ordinance. So there's very little discretion there. And at this point, we're just at a purely ministerial act.

Okay, thank you. I think you stated that very clearly for all of us, but I would like everyone else to make their comment at the same time. So Carolyn, if you'd like to start.

Yeah, sure. One thing I have to say, I appreciate all the comments that were made regarding scale and appropriateness for a neighborhood. I do realize that you're, This whatever you come up with for this house has to come back to this board for architecture review for the house itself. And without being able to promise the neighborhood that we're not going to allow a mammoth of a building that would be inappropriate, we will use discretion when reviewing the actual house site plan and the actual building itself.

If I may add, this property has been approved by the Architectural Review Board previously. But like I said, everything was kind of, the house was built over that property line and things like that. So isn't that correct, Ms. Crane? Okay.

Yes, there was previously a house approved based on a survey that marked that these lots were already consolidated and that the right-of-way was already vacated.

Okay, so part of this is fixing some of the problems that we found when we took this project over. But I'm certain that when we bring building plans, house plans before the ARB that you guys will be happy. Richard?

I don't think there's a whole lot to say. It sounds like we, this is an action we have to approve, but you know, I do appreciate the comments and I think as was mentioned, you know, be very careful about what sort of property is put there. Thanks.

Ellen?

I would echo what Carolyn and Bridget have said.

Amy?

Yes,

I would agree with

everyone.

David. No questions or comments.

Well, I think Stephanie laid it out pretty clear for us. We thank you for that. We do have the staff recommendation to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with that single condition of the recorder of deeds office, if you're familiar with that.

Are there any people in the audience?

Looks

like that could be a neighbor. Dang.

If anyone virtually needs to speak, raise your hand now. Any further comment here on the council chambers? No,

go with the motion.

I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendation. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We will look forward to seeing the next step. Thank you. Now we can move on to item four, which is Brentmore Park, number 28. And I believe the applicant is here. we'll get started.

Ryan. So this site is located on the north side of Brentmore park adjacent to the city's boundaries university city property has a zoning destination of our one large single family dwelling district. The applicant is proposing regrading and landscaping in the rear yard in December of 2022 a site inspection identified and permitted work indicate, including regrading and tree removal being performed on the subject property. A stop work order was issued and the applicant provided the required plans for review. The applicant applied for site plan review in December of 2022, and is seeking approval for both work performed and work to be completed. The criteria for review have been detailed in the staff report To summarize, the proposed changes comply with coverage and drainage requirements, and there are no proposed changes to the structures on the property. Trees were removed prior to site plan review. Kristner has provided comments pertaining to the preservation of existing trees and the replacement of damaged trees. Staff recommends approval on the condition that tree protection and other measures identified by the city's contracted landscape architect shall be installed and maintained per the markup drawing dated February 5th of 2023. Okay,

thank you.

The applicant?

Yeah, hi, I'm Greg Zippel at 28 Brentmore and happy to answer any questions. I just my only introductory comments is that I apologize for not getting through the process properly before the work started. This was one of ignorance, not of a specific intent. I am a trustee in our neighborhood. Everybody in my neighborhood knew about this. My immediate neighbors who I thought would be affected knew about this project. And I did send a letter to Northmore folks as well and had gotten from my contractors that they had talked to the city of Clayton. We were free to proceed, but now I now understand about the permit and happy to answer any questions about the stage of the process. And I think that's it. Thank you.

Well, thank you for being here tonight and waiting. I was looking at it. I went over, and I didn't walk all the way down. Yeah. But that's a pretty massive project you have undergoing there. But from the drawings to me, everything looked fine. So I'll defer to our landscape architect.

OK. Yeah, I read pretty thoroughly through everything. and I hear your apology. It is a little heart-wrenching for me. I'm also a certified arborist, so knowing that a landmark tree, at least one, was removed. Has there been any payment to the forestry fund for the caliber inches of the trees

removed? So this property is under canopy coverage, and per the calculations with the removal of the trees, they still comply, so there's no need to pay into the fund.

Even with a landmark tree over 19 inches being removed?

Yes, according to the review of everything, they're still in compliance.

You want to offer it? Sorry, it's getting late. Okay, well, I guess I don't have any comments. I read through everything. The gentleman from Christner was very thorough. Impressive, actually. You're going to comply with putting up the protection fence for the trees that are remaining?

Yeah, yeah, we're doing that. And it's not, it's mentioned in this, and I guess it's not part of the site permits, John Pimentel, process, but we do have an extensive landscaping plan it's an evolution, but the first pass of it. John Pimentel , came through just this week from my landscape architect so we're gonna be planting many evergreen trees along the north border which will provide privacy for North more folks as well as us and our neighbors. We'll be planting additional oaks and things of that nature to make it hospitable and replace some trees that had been removed and also provide some privacy evergreen type of material along the east border for our neighbors to the east and us. So that is something that we're excited to move forward on as we can get the grading done.

It would be great if you had the minimum height of the evergreen trees, at least six feet.

Yeah, the ones along Northmoor, what was presented to me by the landscape architect are 10 foot. And I believe he said seven foot distance between those. I mean, this is just an evolution, but the initial pass was 10 foot along north border and then along the east border aspect of our property, which would just be shielding our property and the next door neighbors. In some areas where it's less visual, maybe three or four feet in an area that's directly kind of our driveways trying to screen, they would be seven feet is what the initial proposal is. And what he didn't include, but what we are requesting is areas where we'll add some additional oaks and things that will grow up over time.

Okay,

great.

I don't have any comments.

Alan.

No comments. Amy.

David. No comments.

Okay, we do have a staff recommendation to approve and I'm sure you've seen the staff recommendation and everything. Do you agree with it? Yes. Okay. Do we have a motion? I'm sorry. Anyone want to speak on this project? Come on up. Please give us your name and address.

Thank you. Darren Girdler, newly appointed director of public works for University City 6801 Del Mar. We reviewed the project today with several homeowners on the Northmore side. And while we've satisfied most of any concerns, we've satisfied the main concern of the residents now is the green wall. as they would put it, the barrier, the buffer of the fir trees or the pines along the north border. And as the gentleman said, that's in his plan for 10 foot on the, where there's a, where the, along the back lot line. So as long as that's part of the final approval, we're satisfied with the project.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments?

No? Okay, we can.

I will just note for clarity that the landscape plan that he verbally talked about is not part of the scope of this site plan approval. So it's more of a courtesy that he's talked about including those, but per the regulations and the scope of his work, the detailed landscape plan of that nature was not included.

Shall it be submitted to the staff?

If the description of the trees that he described along the north property, if you want to include that in the approval, it needs to be part of the motion because it was not a part of the plan set.

Yes, we need to include that.

As a condition.

As a condition, mm-hmm.

Sure, okay. You're

comfortable with that?

That's the plan, so it won't change things. So I'm happy to

provide it if that helps. Okay.

I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation and also a conditional item of the heights of the evergreen trees should be 10 feet in height along

the north border. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed?

Okay.

Okay, appreciate it. Good luck. Have a good night, everybody. Thank you.

That brings us to the end of our new business. We already took care of the old business. So, Kami, any comments? No comment. Ellen?

No comment.

Bridget?

No comment.

Carolyn?

I think somehow we need to change the code that there is a penalty for removing trees prior to any approval. So it deters people from doing that and just killing trees on our property. I'm not saying that he did anything maliciously, but if we have no penalty, what's to keep anybody from doing it?

That's all

I wanted to say.

David. Okay, well,

Anna, anything further?

No, I think the tree element would be a larger code rewrite. The only reason he even had to get a permit is because of the regrading aspect of the project and had nothing to do with the removal of trees. Currently, as it stands, our tree and landscape only applies when you trigger site plan review, which he did so by regrading in the area of disturbance. But that is something that definitely look at when we do some code rewrites.

Ryan? Nothing further.

Thank you, Stephanie, for your legal opinions. We appreciate it. And I think that's it. So we'll see everyone two weeks from tonight on the 20th.

Okay. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.