ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – COMMERCIAL - 135 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE (MIDWEST REGIONAL BANK)

Terry Dawdy, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project includes adding a door to the northeast corner of the building, installing a walkway leading to the North Meramec Avenue sidewalk and installing a

2 retaining wall to support the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a concrete walkway and versa- lok retaining wall. The proposed changes will provide an access point to the building from the northeast corner of the site. A retaining wall is required due to the difference in finished floor height inside the building and grade of the sidewalk. The proposed wall varies in height with the highest point being 2.5 feet above grade. The applicant has not provided details on the proposed versa-lock wall. Modular stone or versa-lok is an allowed retaining wall material if it includes three different size blocks, a varying color pattern and tumbled or rolled edges. Staff believes that a retaining wall in this location is compatible with the existing building and surrounding properties. The applicant is also removing a tree to make room for the concrete walkway. The proposed project does not require Site Plan Review, and therefore, the applicant is not required to replace the tree. Staff recommendation is to approve with the condition that the versa-lok retaining wall contain three different size blocks, a varying color pattern and tumbled or rolled edges.

Mr. Dawdy presented a block sample to the members.

A discussion regarding the tree removal ensued. Mr. Dawdy stated that they will come back with a landscape plan.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the block wall being proposed is laid/installed dry.

Mr. Dawdy replied “yes”.

Slides depicting sites that contain the wall they are proposing to use were shown.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendation and that the tree to be removed as part of this project is to be replaced or otherwise compensated per staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION (REPLACEMENT FRONT YARD WALL) – 7653 CARSWOLD DRIVE

Amber Jordan, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the installation of a new walkway leading from the driveway to the existing front walkway and installing retaining walls along both sides of the new walkway and existing front patio. The project was constructed without a permit or review from the Architectural Review Board and therefore, the applicant has been asked to retroactively apply. The retaining walls replaced existing deteriorated walls. The retaining walls range in height from 3 inches to 3 feet. The walls are constructed of Anchor Highland Stone System. Director Istenes noted that the City’s Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. She added that the proposed design and materials of the retaining walls are consistent with the

Director Istenes noted that the City’s Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. She added that the proposed design and materials of the retaining walls are consistent with the

3 Architectural Review Board’s preference for masonry walls in front yards. The modular block wall includes three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. Anchor Highland Stone is listed as an example of an accepted modular block system in the Architectural Review Guidelines for retaining walls. The location of the wall is perpendicular to the public sidewalk and setback from the sidewalk. Additionally, the new wall supports existing planting beds in the front yard. Director Istenes continued by informing the members that staff is of the opinion that the wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house and recommends approval as installed.

Ms. Jordan apologized for not realizing she needed review by this Board. She then distributed photographs of the property depicting the subject wall.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what was there before.

Ms. Jordan indicated that there was a failing brick wall before.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the new wall has color variations.

Ms. Jordan replied “yes” noting dark and light grays.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the house is buff and red. He asked if the wall matches.

Ms. Jordan stated that the wall matches well with the roof on the house; she added that she also plans to install gray shutters on the house.

Ron Reim commented that this is the second after-the-fact install in a short time; suggesting there must be confusion between homeowners and contractors. He asked how this confusion can be addressed and suggested the possibility of requiring a permit.

Ms. Jordan referred to incorrect information in the City’s brochure about retaining walls.

Joanne Boulton noted the importance of getting the right information out there to the public; adding that she likes Ron’s idea of a requiring a permit.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as installed. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – COMMERCIAL – 230 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Bob Winters, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – OUTDOOR HEATERS (RESTAURANT) – DEMUN OYSTER BAR – 740 DEMUN AVENUE

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that the City has received a request that this item be continued. Robert Seipp, attorney for Steve Barron, property owner, asked that consideration of this application be continued or that the request be denied for these reasons: application deficiencies including incorrect property owner information, lack of property owner signature and because the owner just received notice of this request on Friday.

5 Alan Richman, business owner, indicated that he thought he was applying for outdoor heaters for both restaurants, DeMun Oyster Bar and Sasha’s. He stated that his goal is to improve the function of the outdoor area and improve the image. He noted that he has had traditional outdoor heaters at both establishments (since 2003 at Sasha’s and since 2010 at DeMun Oyster Bar). He stated that he thinks these new heaters are better looking.

Joanne Boulton asked why the owner is requesting a continuance.

Mr. Seipp stated that his client did not get a chance to review the submittal nor did he sign the application as the owner.

Kevin O’Keefe explained that notice is not required for projects that only require architectural review; notice is provided as a courtesy. He added that because these heaters are not permanent fixtures to the building or property and would be personal property of the tenant, staff determined that property owner signature on the application was not necessary.

The subject of the lease came up. City Attorney O’Keefe indicated that the City does not have any dealings with private leases. He then informed the Board that it is at their discretion whether or not to continue consideration of this application.

Joanne Boulton commented that this is the season for outdoor heaters and she’s not sure there’s a need to continue this.

Mr. Barron stated that the lease requires his approval.

Mr. Richman stated that the owner was not consulted regarding the outdoor furniture.

Kevin O’Keefe reiterated that this Board is not equipped to handle tenant/landlord disputes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would prefer voting on these heaters tonight.

Joanne Boulton asked if this Board is only being asked about these heaters for aesthetic purposes.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

Mr. Barron stated that a form can’t change after it’s used.

A discussion regarding the heaters ensued between the Board members and Mr. Richman. Mr. Richman explained that the lights are not multi-colored; they are one color at a time and the light color for the Oyster Bar is blue.

Ron Reim asked if these heaters have already been purchased.

Richman explained that the lights are not multi-colored; they are one color at a time and the light color for the Oyster Bar is blue. Ron Reim asked if these heaters have already been purchased.

6 Mr. Richman replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the shade seems out of place/out of scale.

Mr. Richman stated that for him, the lamp shade is the attraction. He added that the heaters are more effective with the shades as they concentrate the heat downwards.

Ron Reim referred to the pleated and smooth shades as shown on the submittal.

Photographs of the heaters in outdoor dining areas were shown.

Joanne Boulton asked how many of these heaters he wants to use.

Mr. Richman replied “6”.

Joanne Boulton asked how the City will handle requests from other restaurants for similar heaters.

Susan Istenes stated that it is staff’s intent to accept a standard.

Joanne Boulton stated that she suspects similar requests will come in.

Chairman Lichtenfeld made reference to the Oyster Bar making the Top Ten Neighborhood Gem’s list in “Open Table”. He then stated that the heaters will be fine; he likes that they are trendy.

Susan Istenes commented that staff can make a reasonable judgement for Sasha’s and other restaurants.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve heaters (white, black or sandstone) with blue lights for DeMun Oyster Bar; similar heaters allowable at other Clayton restaurants with staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS – OPUS PROJECT – 25 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

Joe Downs, Vice-president of Real Estate Development/Opus Group, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the property known as 25 North Central Avenue contains a six story building with retail on the first floor and multi-family residential on the upper floors. The property known as 111 North Central Avenue is proposed as a surface parking lot and currently serves as the construction staging area. The project was approved in 2015 and is currently under construction. The applicant has applied for multiple amendments under the Building Permit, some