January 2, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Plan Commission ARB for January 2nd. If you have electronic gadgets, please power them down at this point. We'll get started with the roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Carolyn Gatiss?

Bridget McAndrew?

Bob Denlow? Here. Helen DiFate?

Bob Denlo? Here. Helen DeFate?

Kami Waldman?

Amy Waldman?

David Gipson? Here.

David Gibson? Here.

Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting, which I think was December 20th, not November. Are there any changes beyond that? No. Do we have a motion?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, thank you. We'll move on to new business. Item number 17451 Bland Avenue. Is the applicant here? Thank you.

Okay, Ryan. The proposed plot includes the consolidation of 7449 and 7451 Bland Drive. The parcels are on the west side of the intersection of Bland and Northbourne Drive. They are zoned R2 and developed a single-family home that resides on 7451 Blam. Its green porch and patio sit atop the property line separating the parcels. The remainder of 7449 Bland Drive is undeveloped. As a result of St. Louis County right-of-way expansions for Forest Park Parkway, 7449 Bland is a triangular shape and smaller than the minimum lot area for our two districts. Consolidation of the parcels was approved by the Planning Commission in December of 2010 and Board of Aldermen in January of 2011. The consolidated plots were never filed at St. Louis County, resulting in the lots remaining separate. The lots are located in the Northmore Park Addition neighborhood, an enclave located between Forest Park Parkway and the city's boundary with University City. The neighborhood contains six parcels within the city of Clayton zoned R2. Other lots in the same neighborhood are in University City and are similar in size and configuration. To the west is the Ydown Forest neighborhood, which contains similar R2 lots, and to the south is Carswold, which contains larger R1 lots. The new lot would total 15,686 square feet which is larger than R2 lots nearby but would be more consistent with the required lot sizes for the R2 district. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed consolidation would have a minimal impact due to the existing home residing across the property line and that the lot size would remain consistent with R2 lots in Clayton. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. That the applicant shall submit a signed and sealed plat that includes the following revisions to the signature block prior to the Board of aldermen meeting, where the document references the City Council, the document shall reference the Board of Alderman. Where the document references the city of Maryland Heights, it shall reference the city of Clayton. And where the document identifies the signature of Anna Krane, it shall identify the signature of the Mayor. and the applicant shall file a plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of filing to the city within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.

Okay, Ryan. The proposed plot includes the consolidation of 7449 and 7451 Bland Drive. The parcels are on the west side of the intersection of Bland and Northbourne Drive. They are zoned R2 and developed a single-family home that resides on 7451 Blam. Its green porch and patio sit atop the property line separating the parcels. The remainder of 7449 Bland Drive is undeveloped. As a result of St. Louis County right-of-way expansions for Forest Park Parkway, 7449 Bland is a triangular shape and smaller than the minimum lot area for our two districts. Consolidation of the parcels was approved by the Planning Commission in December of 2010 and Board of Aldermen in January of 2011. The consolidated plots were never filed at St. Louis County, resulting in the lots remaining separate. The lots are located in the Northmore Park Addition neighborhood, an enclave located between Forest Park Parkway and the city's boundary with University City. The neighborhood contains six parcels within the city of Clayton zoned R2. Other lots in the same neighborhood are in University City and are similar in size and configuration. To the west is the Ydown Forest neighborhood, which contains similar R2 lots, and to the south is Carswold, which contains larger R1 lots. The new lot would total 15,686 square feet which is larger than R2 lots nearby but would be more consistent with the required lot sizes for the R2 district. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed consolidation would have a minimal impact due to the existing home residing across the property line and that the lot size would remain consistent with R2 lots in Clayton. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions. That the applicant shall submit a signed and sealed plat that includes the following revisions to the signature block prior to the Board of aldermen meeting, where the document references the City Council, the document shall reference the Board of Alderman. Where the document references the city of Maryland Heights, it shall reference the city of Clayton. And where the document identifies the signature of Anna Crane, it shall identify the signature of the Mayor. and the applicant shall file a plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds Office and submit proof of filing to the city within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.

Okay, thank you. If the applicant could come up, identify yourself, and add anything else you'd like.

No, my name is Sanford Talley. I'm the architectural designer and builder for this new home. The owner bought the property in 2018 with the express request that in three years, which is this year, she would build a house for her mother, which is what we're going to suggest she do with an ADU. So that's the reason for lot consolidation.

Okay. So you will not be replacing the existing home?

No, it'll be an addition.

Okay. And are you in agreement with the recommendations? I am. Okay. Thank you. Kami, any comments?

No, I think it looks great.

Helen?

Nothing to add.

Bob? Nothing. Bridget?

Carolyn?

David? Comments or questions? Looks good to all of us. So let's see if we can vote on it. Okay. Do we have a motion?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now that is to go to the Board of Aldermen.

Correct.

Okay. Thank

you. You're welcome. By the way, I think the owner is on zoom. I don't know if you need to talk to her. Yes.

Don.

Yes. Yes.

Do you have any comments? Good evening. Do you have Okay. Well, thank you very much. We'll move on to item two, which is 833 Audubon Drive. I see the applicant is online and we'll get started with the staff

report. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Audubon and Jeffery Yorg Drive. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a two-story single-family home. The property primarily faces Audubon with frontage along Jeffery Yorg, acting as a side yard. The applicant is seeking approval for fencing in the yard along Jeffery Yorg and fencing on the north side of the home for a trash enclosure. Both fences are proposed to be four feet tall. The trash enclosure would be a solid wood fence. Although visible from the street, it would not be located in a front yard. The fencing along Jeffery Yorg would comprise black aluminum in the form of vertical pickets with horizontal rails, similar to the neighbor across Jeffery Yorg. The fence would reside on the west property line, measure 9 feet from the southern property line, and measure 38 feet from the east property line. Properties on the west side of Audubon commonly experience dual frontage. Where screening is present, it takes the form of landscaping or fencing comprising wood or metal. As proposed, the new fence complies with the height and distance requirements for front yard fencing and complies with the architectural review guidelines. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

report. The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Audubon and York Drive. The property is zoned R2 and is developed with a two-story single-family home. The property primarily faces Audubon with frontage along York, acting as a side yard. The applicant is seeking approval for fencing in the yard along York and fencing on the north side of the home for a trash enclosure. Both fences are proposed to be four feet tall. The trash enclosure would be a solid wood fence. Although visible from the street, it would not be located in a front yard. The fencing along York would comprise black aluminum in the form of vertical pickets with horizontal rails, similar to the neighbor across York. The fence would reside on the west property line, measure 9 feet from the southern property line, and measure 38 feet from the east property line. Properties on the west side of Audubon commonly experience dual frontage. Where screening is present, it takes the form of landscaping or fencing comprising wood or metal. As proposed, the new fence complies with the height and distance requirements for front yard fencing and complies with the architectural review guidelines. Staff recommend approval as submitted.

Okay, thank you. Scott, do you have any comments to make? Unmute.

No comments at the moment. We hope it'll get approved as it's very similar to the house right across Jeffery Yorg. from us in terms of how they fenced it in.

No comments at the moment. We hope it'll get approved as it's very similar to the house right across York. from us in terms of how they fenced it in.

Okay, thank you. Kami?

When I did a quick drive-by, I noticed that there was like some shrubbery along Jeffery Yorg and that runs along the sidewalk. Are you going to keep that?

When I did a quick drive-by, I noticed that there was like some shrubbery along York and that runs along the sidewalk. Are you going to keep that?

Yes, we're going to put the fence inside the shrubbery so the shrubbery will remain along the sidewalk and the fence will be inside of that.

The shrubbery will not be enclosed by the fence?

Right.

Okay. Yeah, I think it looks good, and I think it does match well with the neighborhood for corner lots.

Thank you. Ellen?

I think it looks Good. Nothing further.

Bob? Nothing there. Richard?

Nothing further.

Carolyn?

Nothing further.

David.

I agree that both fences fit in just fine. Let's see, do we have a motion?

Second. All in favor?

Opposed? Okay. You're on your way, Scott. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Well, we're moving right along. Let's move on to item 38318 Kingsbury and the applicants are here. Okay.

The property is located on the west side of the intersection of Lancaster and Kingsbury. The property is zoned R2 and is in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The applicant is seeking approval for the construction of a pool, patio, and fence that encroaches into the front yard and for alternative compliance related to impervious coverage. The home primarily faces Kingsbury with frontage along Lancaster Drive functioning as the side yard. The pool, fence, and patio would encroach into the front yard along Lancaster Drive The pool equipment pad is proposed to be at the front yard setback. The proposed metal picket fence measure four feet in height and is set back 20 feet from the property line and roughly 34 feet from the street. As proposed, this meets the front yard height and material requirements. Corner properties, enclave and gardens exhibited diverse approaches. Two corners well front yard fences are less common retaining walls and extensive landscaping are prevalent staff believes that the proposed encroachments would have a minimal visual impact and maintain the open character of the clayton gardens neighborhood due to the open low fence design and an extensive use of landscaping. The applicant is seeking approval of section 410.285 alternative compliance for the installation of blue 60 pervious paver systems for the pool patio, which are not recognized as pervious by the zoning code. Goals of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District include limiting front entry garages, mitigating the impacts of large driveways and addressing flooding concerns with stricter lot coverage limits. The property doesn't include any characteristics that meet the incentives for increased coverage and is therefore limited to 40% impervious coverage. The property exceeds 40% impervious but aims to reorganize without surpassing its current 44.6% impervious coverage The pavers would cover 711 square feet and have an advertised infiltration rate of 570 inches per hour. A strict application of the code would result in a lot coverage of 49%, whereas considering the pavers to be pervious would result in an impervious coverage of 44%. per MSD 15 year, 20 minute stormwater calculations. The site currently has a flow rate of 0.762 cubic feet squared. If the pavers were considered impervious, the flow rate would increase to 0.79. If they were considered pervious, the flow rate would decrease from 0.762 to 0.76. Staff are of the opinion that it would be acceptable to use the advertised infiltration rate and that this approach would mitigate some of the increased coverage while also recognizing that the function of this is not completely pervious. New landscaping has been proposed surrounding the pool and patio. The species have not been identified, but have been described as non-invasive local varieties. The use of these plantings will assist in screening the rear yard and provide some additional runoff mitigation. Staff recommends the species be selected to mitigate the additional 0.027 cubic foot squared runoff from the project. Staff's opinion is that the proposal aligns with the ARB guidelines, mitigates runoff, and meets the design district goals. Staff reckon approval with the following conditions. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the previous paper system, the applicant shall record a deed restriction identifying the location and maintenance details of the system with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds and provide proof of the recording with the building permit submission. And the exact type of species of landscaping shall be selected and provided with the building permit, submission to ensure that a minimum screening requirements of mechanical equipment are met, that the species provide for treatment of water above the performance of the standard lawn areas such as those of a rain garden.

Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to come up? Add anything?

Ethan Zachman, contractor. I think Brian put that together pretty well. You know, obviously we've got a little bit of work to do on the landscape side and get that cleaned up, but I think we can make that happen. Mary is the client.

Okay, thank you. Amy?

Overall, I think the design looks really nice. I like how you did the screening with all the plantings and things like that. So really, we're just kind of talking about impervious coverage. And so just so I understand this. So right now, there would be allowed for 40% under normal standards coverage.

Yes. So currently they don't get any of the incentives because they have a front entry garage. Okay. And if they had gotten incentives, that would be

55% allowed? If they had a rear entry garage, then they would be allowed to go to 55%. And then right now as it stands, it's 44.6%. Yes. Okay. So they're already over anyway. And then just with like the 3% impervious coverage would be total 49%.

Correct, because right now we don't separate out impervious pavers to limit the impervious coverage. So Ryan did a good job of outlining if we took our strict application of the code, how this proposal would fit, but then also evaluated based on the specs from the manufacturer for their specific paver system, how that would fall into the stormwater runoff.

Yeah, I think it was smart to include the 3% part of it to figure out that calculation. I'm not opposed to it. I think you still fall below the max allowed in that area.

ellen

i have a question about a note on sp 0.1 I can't read the first three letters. It is referring to a coating on the pool deck. It looks like something G or M.

That was a note. When we previously submitted this project, we had concrete shown and we were going to install a cool deck concrete. And we have since changed that material to an impervious paver.

Okay. So that note would be scratched.

Correct.

Okay. No, because I wondered pervious pavers and then you're coating them kind of.

Correct.

Defeats the purpose. Which paver system are you using? The full, the partial, or no infiltration?

Full infiltration. Okay,

because there is no indication of where it would drain to.

So that's part of our civil package, which will be part of our permit package. But we do have a rock garden designed on this project. I say dry well for our stormwater mitigation that will tie in our deck drains and the downspouts for the house.

Okay. Who is the civil engineer?

The HD group.

Okay. Those were my only questions. It looks neat. I wish I had it.

Bob? I think you solved the compliance issues, and it looks like it's a nice project. Enjoy swimming. Bridget?

Yeah, I mean, I always get a little bit nervous kind of messing with the impervious coverage in this area because I know as you, I mean, I do appreciate, especially with the pavers that you guys have thought to be creative. You know, just because this is not my area of expertise, but the plantings that are over kind of in the back part of the yard, so I guess what faces Lancaster, are a lot of those pretty water soaking up vegetation. I know that there's things that you can plant that are much better at capturing water runoff than other plantings.

Yes, and that is our intent. I am not the plant expert. We do have an in-house landscape architect that works for our firm that will help Mary select those plants, but that is the intent.

Um, and I, you know, I, I drove by today and I mean, there's not a lot of space back there, you know, for a pool. I mean, I'm sure you've, I, you know what I mean? I guess there's space enough for a pool that you're happy with. So, um, you know, you're going to come pretty close to your next door neighbor who, but you know, I guess that, you know, that's certainly up to you. So yeah, it's, it's a

little deceiving with the amount of stuff we're pulling off from our house. There is a patio and retaining wall there. That's all coming off. And then the pool actually comes pretty close. Okay.

Yeah.

It does look tight, but we've laid it out multiple times. Yeah. I mean, yeah, it actually is some pretty usable space.

And I think, you know, Kimmy brings up a good point. You know, if you just didn't have that front-facing garage, you would, you know, it wouldn't necessarily be an issue. So, yeah, and, you know, other than that, I just, you know, water is just an issue we have to be careful about. So, you know, hopefully with the plantings and with your drywall and stuff, that'll take care of it.

OSBT- Dave Kuntz & Carolyn.

Yeah, we can provide some additional details in our permits that show our true installation of that assembly and then anywhere where it meets soil or meets the edge of the house, what those cross sections look like.

We've installed similar systems like this around other and it's yeah, we have not seen issues of that type come up.

Yeah, that was our intent. I think it was some bad verbiage used, but yeah, native. Okay. Also part of the recommendation is to provide our species with our permit application.

David?

I don't really have anything to add as far as the native species. I would recommend we just add that as a condition on here to be clear rather than trying to strike you from the notes.

Well, being familiar with that house, I think this will be a good addition. It's a tricky site to work with. And I do agree with Carolyn about making sure that the underlayment below the pavers are sufficient to allow complete water penetration through it. Otherwise, I think it looks quite good.

Can I just ask one more question? Sure. Ana, this is maybe more for... Do you feel like our inspectors are starting to see more permeable pavers and can recognize... something's being installed correctly versus incorrectly i just feel like this is a newer technology or at least you know so i get i just have i was just wondering like as we go out and make sure things are installed you know what i'm

right yeah it's we haven't um changed some of our inspection requirements to address all that yet but they'll provide the spec package so our inspectors will be able to see kind of the details of how it's supposed to be put together the other item that they mentioned is the drywall system. So that was something that was in some of the earlier civil packages that they provided to us, but they made some changes. So if they're still planning to do a drywall system, that will also alleviate a lot of these concerns because the actual, you know, gaps between the pavers won't have to operate as much to support the infiltration. If they're collecting a good portion of runoff from part of their patio and then also from rooftops of their existing home, that offset into a drywall system is probably going to function a little bit better than the 3% pervious that you're going to get out of the paver system anyway. So that also does even better to alleviate additional concerns.

Okay. Anything else, Carolyn?

Okay. Thank you. PB, Jorge Boone.: : I had one other question comment in this project seems to be. PB, Jorge Boene.: : doable. and meet the intent of the code and regulation, even though it does not meet the wording of the code and regulations. And I think we have to have a little judgment in it. And with that, I think the staff recommendation is right on target, and we need to go with it. I'm fully supportive of it. You've heard the comments about the permeability, and you do understand the two recommendations that have been put in there. And by the city manager, we will include a third recommendation for the native species. Okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, excuse me before that. Any comments from anyone online? Raise your hand if so. No? Okay, let's go on. Do we have a motion?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay.

Very

good. When will it be started? Good luck. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. That was one of our shortest meetings, but is that you story? It is. Well, welcome tonight. We haven't seen you for a while, but we're glad you could come. It was a short meeting and I see you took some notes. Good. Do you have any comments you'd like to make? Sure. Come on up to the microphone.

I say my name and address like everybody else does in these meetings. If you'd like to.

I'm Story Coomer. I go to John Burroughs School. I'm a junior and I live on 225 Wyndon. What is the what are pervious pavers and impervious coverage?

Well, pervious pavers allow a certain amount of water to go through. Impervious means no water will go through. Is that simple enough? Okay.

That's it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

And this is all important because a lot of areas face stormwater issues, which means that in periods of really heavy rain or a lot of rain over a period of time and the ground becomes saturated, then there might be flash flooding. There could be... um backups you know with our storm sewer you know system and so um the government tries to prevent that from happening by controlling storm water as much as it can and so that's why a lot of city governments regulate how much impervious coverage you can have of a lot because they don't want a completely paved lot. They want some green space in order to absorb some of that stormwater to lessen the possibility of flash flooding and that kind of thing. And so that's why there's a lot of discussion, and that's why this is so important to talk about impervious coverage versus pervious coverage, so that we don't make the situation with possible flooding even worse than it already is.

Very cool. Thank you.

Carolyn, now I have a question. Sure. Are there any pavers? that actually have some openings in them that would allow water to penetrate through the paver as well as through the joints. Well, you know, every

so often I read about pervious streets. Yes. That's what I'm thinking.

Well, we'll probably see more of it then.

Okay. Thanks, Carolyn.

Okay. Kami, any further comments?

No comments.

Ellen?

No comments.

Bob? All I can say is I thought we were going to break the record for shortest meeting, but this darn John Burrell student got up and asked that question. It's nice having you here.

Bridget? No comments. Carolyn?

You too. Thank you. Same to you, David. Nothing else tonight. Brian. Nothing else.

Anna. Sure, I'll just give a plug to the Stormwater Center at University of New Hampshire. if you want to see some good videos of testing pervious asphalt pavement in snow conditions. But beyond stormwater, just a quick reminder that we do have that meeting on January 26th, the joint meeting with the Board of Aldermen and our comprehensive plan consultants to kind of really kick off the final phase of planning for that. So Ryan sent out the calendar invite that has Zoom or you can join us in person here.

Okay, thank you. Stephanie?

Nothing further this evening. Thank you.

Thank you for the legal description. I think we appreciate that. Okay, well, thank you, everyone. We'll see you on Tuesday, the 16th. And thank you for letting me save my voice.

Can I just ask this? Do we have a schedule of all the meetings for the whole year? Have you sent that out already? It's online. It's online,

okay. We'll send an email.

I know every time you've always emailed us the schedule of the dates and I kind of put them in the calendar so I never block them.

Yep, because our next – this month is kind of a funky one because we also moved next the following – I can't remember the date right now. Martin Luther King Day is on Monday, so our next meeting is also on a Tuesday, so it truly is two weeks from today.

And that'll happen again in February, only for the second meeting.

Right. Yes. So the schedule that we'll email you has all of the shifted holidays and other dates, yes.

Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you. See you in two weeks.