He noted that they are duplicating materials. Joanne Boulton asked if material samples were brought to the meeting for presentation.

4

Mr. Levine replied “no”; noting that the EIFS is duplicated and the stone is the same light gray.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the EIFS will look like stone.

Mr. Levine replied “no” and indicated that it will match the existing dormers.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if EIFS was located anywhere else.

Mr. Levine replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned the use of EIFS and the flat roof and commented that this structure will be very prominent as one drives north into the neighborhood.

Mr. Levine stated that there is a flat parapet roof on the sunroom.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the sunroom has a nice style.

Mr. Levine noted that this is the last house on a dead end street.

Mr. Holtzman stated that the breezeway has a flat roof also.

Joanne Boulton indicated that she is trying to understand the project; however, it is difficult without material samples and a well-designed plan/rendering.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the existing stone.

Mr. Holtzman indicated that it is a solid stone that was made on-site.

Scott Wilson commented that this garage will stick out like a sore thumb on the property that has the prettiest house in the neighborhood.

Mr. Holtzman informed the members that all the neighbors have approved this project and he does not know what else he can do with the existing concrete wall.

Scott Wilson asked if this complies with the subdivision indentures.

Mr. Levine informed Scott that all the indentures require is a fireproof wall.

Mr. Holtzman stated that the two homes to the east and one to the west have similar garages; the two to the east are also 4-car garages and the one to the west is a 5-car garage. He stated that he can add ivy to the wall to tone it down. He then referenced an issue with the existing geothermal system.

He stated that he can add ivy to the wall to tone it down. He then referenced an issue with the existing geothermal system.

5

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he is still concerned about the material use even with the stone insets at the corners. He stated that he has no problem with the size or location of the garage; his concern is the lack of a pitch roof and the use of EIFS, as both are inconsistent.

Mr. Holtzman stated that he could add up to 2 to 3 feet of stone. He indicated that on the right side of the garage will be four, mahogany carriage style doors that cost $8,000 each.

Joanne Boulton stated that it seems that they are not using the right percentage of material.

Director Istenes informed the members that staff did not take measurements and that information was not provided by the applicant. She noted that the property is not in a design district.

Mr. Levine stated that he believes the use of stucco is acceptable.

Director Istenes noted the provisions do also speak to material compatibility and that because stone accents were being incorporated, staff felt the materials were acceptable.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that stone Wainscoting be added as suggested by the owner.

Scott Wilson made a motion to approve with the condition that 36-inches of stone Wainscoting be incorporated into 3 of the 4 elevations (not required on the concrete wall elevation). The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – COMMERCIAL – 231 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Gretchen Tillman, Custom Signworks, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed sign will replace an existing ground sign and will be located in the front landscaped area adjacent to Bemiston Avenue at the southeast corner of the tower and the entrance to the parking garage; perpendicular to the street. The sign consists of 2 clear textured panels (one on each side) attached to a welded base, covered in stainless steel with a stainless steel welded header. The .5 inch thick routed Acrylic letters, black in color, will be flush mounted to the face of a 1 inch deep stainless steel show box panel on each side. The sign area will total 24 square feet (per side). The design and quality of the materials are consistent with high quality, modern designs and are compatible with the adjacent building’s construction which is comprised of brick and white pre-case concrete panels. The sign as proposed is in compliance with the Sign Regulations and staff recommends approval with the condition that the sign be located so as not to create an unobstructed line of sight to the north from drivers exiting the garage.

Ms. Tillman informed the members that the existing ground sign is unsightly and out of date.

City Manager Owens noted that existing asphalt can be sealed. Joanne Boulton questioned why brushed concrete is not permitted; however, she does not approve of asphalt.

7 Chairman Lichtenfeld reminded the members that the ARB Guidelines are not enforceable.

Director Istenes noted that staff is working on getting them codified. She added that projects that driveway materials that are approved through the site plan review/architectural review process are enforceable; other than that, people don’t think about getting approval for just replacement driveways.

Joanne Boulton stated that materials could be regulated if the City required a permit for driveway replacement.

Director Istenes agreed; adding, however, that some people will do the work without a permit.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he likes the driveways with the strip of grass down the middle. He stated that Craig made a good point earlier about the City’s use of concrete and/or asphalt. He added that he would like to remove asphalt from residential properties and permit the use of #4 Meramec Gravel (not require exposed aggregate).

Joanne Boulton stated that she’s okay with brushed concrete as well. She noted that exposed aggregate is difficult to walk on in bare feet and hard to shovel.

William Lieberman stated he doesn’t like asphalt, but it’s great for kids to play on. He added that he finds it difficult to encroach on people’s material choice unless there is a safety concern. He stated that he prefers concrete as it lasts 30 years and that he does not think that the City needs another permitted process.

Joanne Boulton commented that this Board has a responsibility regarding aesthetics.

William Lieberman stated that he would only approve asphalt if there was a good reason for its use.

City Attorney O’Keefe noted that the City can have an aesthetic perspective and impose aesthetic standards in an effort to maintain value. He added that the City has a variance process when a hardship exists, but he believes it would be difficult to prove hardship related to the property in this case.

Joanne Boulton stated that she believes asphalt devalues property but that concrete does not; she has no issue with a brushed or broom finish concrete driveway or one with a grass strip down the middle.

Director Istenes commented that a request for a non-approved material would come to this Board. She stated that her preference would be for this Board to vote to change the Guidelines and then it would go to the Board of Aldermen for them to adopt.

Director Istenes commented that a request for a non-approved material would come to this Board. She stated that her preference would be for this Board to vote to change the Guidelines and then it would go to the Board of Aldermen for them to adopt.

8 William Lieberman stated that he’s changing his opinion on asphalt; he now would not want asphalt to be used in conjunction with new construction, but he’s okay with replacing existing. He stated he’s not a fan of aggregate.

Scott Wilson stated he likes concrete and would also not want asphalt to be used on a new construction project.

William Lieberman stated that he has seen exposed aggregate fail.

Everyone agreed that asphalt should not be used in conjunction with new construction.

Joanne Boulton asked if it would be okay to bring the driveway request back before them this evening or should it be re-introduced at the next meeting.

City Attorney O’Keefe noted that it may not be appropriate to bring it back up this evening as one member has already left. He announced that he, too, has to leave.

A brief discussion regarding whether or not to require a permit took place. It was suggested to simply charge a $5 permit fee just to cover administrative costs.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he’d prefer to avoid the permit and inspection process.

Joanne Boulton disagreed.

Alex Berger, III, 8025 Venetian Drive, stated that the two Clayton homes he owns have flat concrete driveways and he asks that the Board to include flat concrete (Meramec Gravel) as a permitted material as it is brown from the beginning.

Victor Frankel asked that drainage be considered. He also asked about screening HVAC units.

Director Istenes stated that opaque screening is needed.

Scott Wilson mentioned impervious coverage limitations.

Director Istenes noted that many homes in Clayton don’t comply with current zoning regulations. She added that with regard to drainage, it is not acceptable for water to drain onto adjacent property.

Victor Frankel stated that if he began the project tomorrow, the City couldn’t do anything as acceptable driveway materials are listed within a guideline document as opposed to an ordinance. He stated that he is in a bind; this type of work is not done in the winter.

Director Istenes attempted to summarize the discussion as follows: