November 5, 2018

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1730 (05:30 PM)

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager Craig Owens, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, William Lieberman, Carolyn Gaidis, answered roll call.

Rom Reim Arrived at 1739

Absent: Brian Maguire

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner

CHAIRMAN REQUESTS

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of October 15, 2018 were presented for approval.

CRAIG OWENS – MOTION TO APPROVE

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION SECONDED

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD (MINUS RON REIM)

2

NEW BUSINESS

6345 CLAYTON ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GENERAL CUP

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 6,080 square foot property is located on the north side of Clayton Road between DeMun Avenue and Skinker Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The property contains a two-story, which has been used by the owner as an office. The owner is proposing to convert the first and second floors into living space and move the office into the basement level. The proposed living space includes two bedrooms and one bathroom, totaling 1,650 square feet. The proposed office space includes a work area and one bathroom, totaling 293 square feet. The existing parking pad in the rear yard will remain and provides seven parking spaces. No exterior building alterations, site improvements or landscaping are proposed at this time.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

Live/work units are permitted in the Clayton Road Urban Design District subject to approval of a conditional use permit as per Article VII of this Chapter and the following criteria. Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics associated with that particular use.

Compatibility

1) The Clayton Road Urban Design District Regulations define a live/work unit as “A structure with a combination of uses where work activities occur, and a dwelling unit is included for the business occupant. Such unit shall have only one (1) kitchen and not more than fifty percent (50%) of the structure shall be dedicated for a business use. The dwelling unit shall be occupied by either the owner, the tenant or the owner or tenant's employee. The residence must be the residence of a person responsible for the work performed on the premises.” >> The proposed live/work unit conforms to the definition above. Only one kitchen is located within the building, the business owner will live on site and the office will account for less than fifty percent of the building area.

2) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood;

3 >> The surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north, multi- family residential to the south and commercial to the east and west. The proposed live/work unit is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

3) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The existing structure is comparable in size to adjacent structures. The applicant is not proposing changes the massing of the existing structure.

4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood; >> No exterior changes to the building are proposed at this time.

5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> At this time, staff does not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise transfer, or heat generation.

6) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> Staff is of the opinion that the live/work unit will be comparable to other uses nearby and that it will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties.

7) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single- purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The proposed use does not involve unusual single-purpose structures or temporary components.

8) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code and good planning practices.

Landscaping

4 9) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use. >> No site improvements or additional landscaping are proposed at this time.

Traffic & Parking

10) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; >> Existing site access is provided from the rear alley, which is adequate. There are no proposed changes to site access.

11) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking;

>> The Zoning Code requires one parking space for each dwelling unit and one parking space for every 300 square feet of commercial/office space. Based on the proposed plans, only one parking space would be required on site. The applicant intends to maintain the existing seven parking spaces.

12) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> Staff is of the opinion that it is unlikely that the proposed use will affect transit movements.

13) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff does not anticipate a significant increase in demand for fire and police protection services in association with the proposed use.

Noise, Lighting & Odors

14) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood >> Staff does not anticipate any potential impacts related to noise.

15) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the use will generate obnoxious odors.

5

16) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood; >> Exterior lighting is not proposed at this time.

Mitigation of Potential Impacts

17) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts. >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the proposed use. CONCLUSION

The building size and proposed use is comparable to other buildings nearby. Sufficient off-street parking is provided to meet expected demand. No exterior building alterations, site improvements or landscaping are proposed at this time. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project meets the criteria for conditional use permit approval.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.

SHERRY EISENBERG (SE) – APPLICANT/ARCHITECT

SE – Does not have much to add to the staff report. She is re-adding the kitchen and renovating 2nd story bathroom and will be moving her office to the lower level.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – It would be 2/3 live and 1/3 work?

SE – Pretty much, yes.

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD (MINUS RON REIM AND BRIAN MAGUIRE) – UNANIMOUS YAY

6641, 6645, 6701 SAN BONITA AVENUE – PLAT APPLICATIONS – LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT

6 Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject properties are located on the north side of San Bonita Avenue at the intersection with Concordia Lane. The properties are zoned R-5 Medium-Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District. The property currently addressed 6641 San Bonita Avenue is 6,400 square feet and is currently vacant. The property currently addressed 6645 San Bonita Avenue is 6,400 square feet and contains a paved access drive to the main Concordia Seminary campus. The property currently addressed 6701 San Bonita Avenue is 10,146 square feet and contains a vacant building previously used for student housing.

The property owner intends to renovate the existing building into apartments. The City’s Zoning Regulations require that two off-street parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit. The property addressed 6701 San Bonita Avenue does not have any off-street parking spaces, so the owner intends to construct some parking spaces along the existing drive lane. This plan would result in parking on the lots addressed 6641 and 6645 San Bonita Avenue, which do not contain a structure. Parking lots are not allowed in the R-5 Zoning District. By consolidating the lots, the owner would be able to comply with the City’s Zoning and Parking Regulations. The consolidated lot will measure 22,946 square feet and will conform with minimum lot area and minimum lot width of the R-5 Zoning District.

PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION

In considering and acting upon plats and other applicable plans, staff and the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

1. Compatibility of lot size and density; 2. Creation of a lot which provides adequate dimensions to construct improvements of similar size and nature to the surrounding area; 3. Creation of a lot which is in compliance with the area and frontage requirements (no flag lots) as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and provides for an orderly pattern of development; 4. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better site layout and development; 5. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 6. Elimination of incompatible land configurations; 7. Consistency with good planning practices; 8. Compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards.

CONCLUSION

Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement.”

7

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A MYLAR FOR THE APPROPRIATE CITY OF CLAYTON SIGNATURES PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL; 2. THAT THE APPLICANT FILES THE PLAT WITH THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS OFFICE AND SUBMIT PROOF OF FILING TO THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL.

JOHN FALK (JF) – CIVIL DESIGN

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – The parking would be on the eastern most part of the lot?

JF – Yes

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL?

JF – Yes and we will do that. We plan on putting an easement for the fire land because we want to make sure it remains a fire access lane no matter who owns the lot but this is not the way or time to do it.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – APPROVE WITH THE STATED CONDITIONS

RON REIM – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7635 WESTMORELAND AVENUE – SITE PLAN REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 8,194 square foot site is located on the north side of Westmoreland Avenue between North Hanley Road and Jackson Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a 3,769 (this is a change from the staff report) square foot single-family residence not including the 775 square foot attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29.5 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

8 The purpose of the site plan review process is to provide a review of the following criteria listed below:

Compatibility

1) A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. >> The surrounding properties contain single-family homes. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District.

2) The location and screening of a project's air-conditioning units and other associated equipment. >> The plans show the HVAC units located along the east elevation of the proposed house. The units will be screened by a fence.

3) The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in an approximately 70 square foot trash enclosure located under the rear covered porch and accessed from the driveway.

Stormwater Drainage

4) Provisions for storm surface drainage shall be in accordance with the City’s design standards. Stormwater drainage shall be connected to a storm sewer whenever one is available as determined by the City. Disposal of storm or natural waters both on and off the site shall be provided in such a manner as not to have a detrimental effect on the property of others or the public right-of-way.

Impervious Coverage >> Impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent of the total lot area and 45 percent of the front yard in the R-2 zoning district. The existing total lot impervious coverage on site is 30.8 percent. The new plans increase the total lot impervious coverage to 54.1 percent. The proposed plan will cover 23.5 percent of the front yard.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.42 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.51 CFS, which represents a 0.09 CFS increase. A drywell in the rear yard is sized to handle the increased runoff. The runoff going north to the adjacent property (7478 University Drive) will be reduced by the proposed plan. The stormwater plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable.

Landscaping

9 5) The applicant is required to submit a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed and trees to be replaced by canopy cover, species and condition. Such plans must reflect City of Clayton preservation standards. >> The landscape plan provides an attractive planting design mix of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcovers. Dense shrubs are proposed along the top of the retaining wall along the south property line, which will provide screening of the wall and below grade garage. There is currently 8,036 square feet of canopy coverage on site. All existing trees are to be removed except for the two existing street trees. The proposed plan provides a total of 3,750 square feet of canopy coverage with a deficit of 4 square feet of canopy coverage, which requires payment into the City’s Forestry Fund. The plan meets the native tree requirement with 84.6 percent native.

Driveways, Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters

6) The site plan must state that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department. >> The site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department.

Utilities

7) Provision of hookups to public utilities connections shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. All connections shall be shown on the site plan. >> The location of the electric, gas, sewer and water connections from the mains to the house are shown. The Public Works Department finds the utilities plan acceptable.

Lighting

8) All developments shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on the surrounding area. Light sources shall be shielded and there shall be no spillover onto adjacent properties >> Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less.

PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION

In considering and acting upon site plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

1) Creation of a desirable environment. 2) Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities.

10 3) Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships. 4) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 5) Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City. 6) Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment. 7) Inclusion of special features. 8) Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

The height, setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 1. TO ENSURE THE FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DRY WELL, THE APPLICANT SHALL RECORD THE APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY AND SUBMIT PROOF OF RECORDING TO THE CITY. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY $2.16 TO THE CITY’S FORESTRY FUND.

DICK BUSCH (DB) – ARCHITECT ERIC VIETMEIER (EV) – CIVIL ENGINEER – VOLZ ENGINEERING

DB – Talks about the project

EV – Talks about the drywell and the slight increase in runoff to the street and notes that the neighbors will not be impacted. The retaining wall will not change anything for the neighbors. The direction of the water is not changing at all.

CAROLYN GAIDIS (CG) – Could we change the Eastern Red Cedar that is proposed in the back, would we sub it out for something different like a White Pine because the Eastern Red Cedar is invasive.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – DICK, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS 1. IS ABOUT THE DRYWELL TO ENSURE LONG-TERM FUNCTIONALITY AND THE SECOND IS TO PAY THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THE CITY’S FORESTRY FUND ALONG WITH CHANGING THE TREES OUT.

11 CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND A THIRD RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EASTERN RED CEDAR TREE(S) BE SWITCHED FOR WHITE PINE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR

RON REIM – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7635 WESTMORELAND AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 8,194 square foot site is located on the north side of Westmoreland Avenue between North Hanley Road and Jackson Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a 6,022 square foot single-family residence not including the 775 square foot attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29.5 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

Compatibility The homes located along Westmoreland Avenue are predominately two stories with similar massing shapes and varying design styles. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, variations in the roofline and landscaping. The existing house to the west (7639 Westmoreland Avenue) was constructed in 1934 and is +/- 2.42 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing house to the east (7631 Westmoreland Avenue) was constructed in 2008 and is +/- 11 inches taller than the proposed house (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). Staff is of the opinion that the massing and architectural elements of the proposed house are compatible with existing houses in the area.

Building Materials The primary building material for the proposed house is brick painted white with the secondary material of cedar siding. Siding will be used on 20 percent of the front façade, 24 percent of the rear façade, 23 percent of the left façade and 22 percent of the right façade. Wood siding is a common material on this block of Westmoreland Avenue. The house also features a limestone front entry. The roof will be clad in slate blend shingles. The house will feature black casement windows. A cedar deck and railing is proposed at the northeast corner of the house.

Driveway and Garage

12 A 9 foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed from the southeast corner of the lot along the east elevation to a rear entry, below grade, attached garage. One dark brown, carriage style garage door is proposed.

Permanent Fence & Retaining Wall A Belgard Celtic modular block retaining wall is proposed along the east and west sides of the driveway. A wood fence is proposed to screen the HVAC units on the east side of the house.

CONCLUSION

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the plan is compatible in terms of mass, height and design with existing nearby homes.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

DICK BUSCH (DB) – ARCHITECT

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – This home is beautiful. Are the limestone and slate real?

DB – Yes.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, DO WE HAVE A MOTION

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7600 WYDOWN BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 1,200 square foot restaurant is located in the southern tenant space of the building located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Wydown Boulevard and Westwood Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District. The restaurant owner is proposing to construct an awning over the 342.8 square foot outdoor dining patio located in front of the restaurant, facing Westwood Drive.

13 COMPATIBILITY/ VISUAL APPEARANCE

The restaurant is located in a small commercial node surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing a black awning with metal supports to cover the existing seating area. The applicant is also requesting the ability to install clear plastic sides during inclement weather. The parking lot located between the patio and street will remain. The restaurant space is setback from the street; however, the proposed awning is located in the area of the site closest to the multi-family residential neighborhood. No signage is proposed on the awning and the existing planter bed at the east end of the patio will remain.

There are many restaurants and stores in the commercial node with black awnings; however, most of the awnings are located over entrances and not as large as the proposed awning. The awning will extend toward Westwood Drive, but will remain behind the front building line of the residential buildings to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed awning is compatible with the surrounding area.

CONCLUSION

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the plan is compatible in terms of mass, height and design with the surrounding area.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

PATRICK KEHM (PK) – RESTAURANT OWNER STEVE BACON (SB) – ARCHITECT RICK ANGLOF (RA) – SUPPLIER

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD - Will the plastic roll up or will they be removed?

RA – The structure can be removed the plastic will not roll up. It is a fixed unit, framed unit, you pop them off and the fabric stays on them. It is a clear vinyl fabric, not plastic. It’s like Cantina Larado’s.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

14

CITY BUSINESS LAND USE EDUCATION DISCUSSION

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD - WE ARE GOING TO POSTPONE THE EDUCATION DISCUSSION UNTIL THE NEXT RELATIVELY SHORT AGENDA.

SHERRY EISENBERG – General question about tree protection and what the city is doing to ensure the new trees planted survive.

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1822 (06:22 PM)

_______________________________ Recording Secretary