Clayton Plan Commission — January 5: A one-foot lot-line shift at 6464 Ellenwood clears the board
The Plan Commission approved a boundary adjustment at 6464 Ellenwood to let the owners widen a driveway; on the same joint agenda, a sign request deadlocked and two new-house plans stalled.
What happened
Clayton's Plan Commission met on Monday, January 5 and approved a small lot-line change at 6464 Ellenwood, the only Plan Commission item on a long joint agenda with the Architectural Review Board. The owners want to shift the boundary between two parcels they own about one foot to the west so they can widen a driveway, and city staff said both lots would still meet the standards for the R-2 single-family district. The board approved the request unanimously, subject to two conditions. The rest of the night ran to design and site-plan reviews handled by the Architectural Review Board, including a sign request that deadlocked and two new-house proposals that did not advance.
What the board decided
- The Plan Commission took up an applicant's request, for the property's owners, to review a boundary-adjustment plat at 6464 Ellenwood. Ryan Helle presented the staff report with a recommendation to approve, on the conditions that the applicant provide a mylar for the city's signatures and file the plat with St. Louis County within 30 days. Helen DiFate moved to approve with those conditions and Jim Arsenault seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
Who was there
Chair Steve Lichtenfeld led the meeting, with members Helen DiFate, Jim Arsenault and Chris Brennan. Member Darren Vant 'Hof and the board's Aldermanic Representative, Susan Buse, were absent. Director of Planning and Development Anna Krane, planner Ryan Helle and City Attorney Kevin O'Keefe staffed the meeting. With four of the board's members present, a tie was possible — and one of the night's later votes ended in exactly that.
What they debated
The Ellenwood item drew little debate. Staff explained that the two parcels sit at the southeast corner of Ellenwood and University, that the rear of the shared boundary would not move while the front would shift about a foot west, and that both resulting lots would still meet the R-2 district's dimensional standards. Asked what the change was for, the owner explained the strip being added is a gravel area west of the driveway that he intends to pave to widen the driveway. With no questions from the board and no audience comment, the commission moved to the staff-recommended approval.
Also at the meeting
The remaining items were Architectural Review Board and Site Plan Review matters, decided by the same members:
- The Architectural Review Board approved exterior alterations at 241 Linden Avenue — a request by the property owners' representative — with conditions, after the board set aside a staff suggestion to open up sightlines at the alley.
- A request to enlarge a window sign at 7811 Clayton Road, for the tenant High Life, deadlocked: the motion to approve it failed on a two-to-two tie. Staff had recommended approval on the condition that no other permanent signage be installed; with four members voting, the tie meant the request did not pass.
- Both reviews of a proposed new house at 8145 University Drive — a site plan and an architectural review for MRM Manlin Development Group — were continued to an undetermined date at the applicant's request, after a long exchange over the size of the house and its stormwater plan.
- For a new single-family house at 436 Oakley Drive, brought by the property owner, the board approved the site plan with conditions but declined the architectural review, one vote in favor to three opposed, with members saying the design read as too tall for the neighborhood.
- The board closed with a discussion session: a presenter, appearing as an intern in no official capacity, gave a review of the city's tree and landscape regulations, with recommendations for potential code revisions. No action was taken.
Public comments
The minutes record that no members of the audience elected to participate in the open forum. Residents did speak on individual applications during the board's review of each. On the 7811 Clayton Road sign, a neighbor who lives across from the store, told the board the request looked to him like a straightforward case of a sign exceeding the code's limit and should not be allowed.