Citation in context
May 7, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Barnett replied “yes”; adding that they also have their own standards. Ron Reim asked if they’ve met with the state licensing reps.
6 Mr. Barnett indicated that they have begun dialogue with them.
Ron Reim recommended they speak with them before coming back.
Joanne Boulton stated that she wants to know the number of students.
Ron Reim informed the applicants that the City may place a restriction within the Conditional Use Permit.
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to table consideration of this application until the second meeting in June in order to provide the applicant more time to respond to concerns. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
Brian Maguire made a motion to table the architectural review portion of this proposal until the second meeting in June (June 18). The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
NOTE: Director Istenes left the meeting (7:10 p.m.)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - FRONT YARD FENCE – 8101 EDINBURGH
Laura & Jorik Ittmann, owners, were in attendance at the meeting.
Anna Krane indicated that the proposal is to allow the installation of a 6-foot high wood privacy fence along the eastern and northern property lines. The proposed fence will be setback approximately 8 feet from Francis Place and will not extend beyond the front wall of the house along Edinburgh Drive. Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For instance, 6 foot tall ornamental or decorative fences (not solid wood, chain link or vinyl) have been approved on secondary front yards of corner lots when a sufficient landscape buffer is provided along the street and the fence style and location is consistent with neighborhood character. The proposed design and materials of the fence are not consistent with the Architectural Review Board’s preference for ornamental or decorative fencing in front yards. The proposed front yard fence style and location is also not compatible with neighborhood character. The majority of corner lots in the Clayshire Neighborhood do not have fences enclosing the secondary front yards. The lots that have enclosed the secondary frontage are located adjacent to other corner lots with the same context. The secondary front yard of the subject property is located adjacent to the primary front yards of the homes along Francis Place. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed fence should be constructed of iron/metal and limited to a maximum of 4 feet tall to be consistent with the Architectural Review Board preferences, Zoning Regulations and neighborhood character. Supplemental screening can be provided with landscaping. Staff believes that the lawn area between the proposed fence and the
Mr. Schnuck stated that they are okay with the conditions; however, they will lose parking spaces if they create the recommended setback.
Anna Krane stated that the project currently conforms with no front yard parking.
A lengthy discussion regarding traffic/drop-offs and pick-ups ensued. Parking was also discussed in detail.
A lengthy discussion regarding traffic/drop-offs and pick-ups ensued. Parking was also discussed in detail.
5 Ron Reim voiced his concern about the use of the lot and the use of St. Rita to gain access to Alamo Avenue.
Anna Krane reminded everyone that St. Rita is one-way and everyone leaving the lot now has to use the residential area.
A discussion regarding the number of parking spaces; who and when they would be used ensued.
Barbara Nauert, 6607 Clayton Road, voiced her opposition to the proposal. She distributed photos and written comments to the members and asked that her opposition be made part of the record.
Mimi Deen, 6610 Alamo, voiced opposition as well.
Maggie Baisch voiced her support of the proposal; noting that as a parent, she’s excited to see another day care facility in the area and as an administrator, safety is the number one priority.
Ted Fischer, 6615 Alamo Avenue, voiced his strong concern for the safety of the children.
Mehrdad Sehi, 6601 Clayton Road, voiced his objection to the proposal.
Counsel for Ms. Nauert asked if this proposal eliminates public use of the alley.
Other objections were received.
Mr. Schnuck commented that there is a lot of incorrect information out there; they would never engage in something that would be harmful to a child.
Ron Reim commented that with regard to the alley, people with garages use the alley to access them.
Mr. Ivy presented a proposed site plan and explained the traffic flow.
Mr. Schnuck asked for more time; he stated he’s confident he can address the concerns.
Joanne Boulton suggested keeping pedestrians off the alley. She asked they they also provide the number of students and staff.
Ron Reim asked if they are Missouri state licensed.
Mr. Barnett replied “yes”; adding that they also have their own standards.
Ron Reim asked if they’ve met with the state licensing reps.
Supplemental screening can be provided with landscaping. Staff believes that the lawn area between the proposed fence and the
7 street is consistent with neighborhood character, but landscaping can be installed if the owner desires and staff recommends that the fence shall be limited in height to 4 feet and shall be constructed of a decorative iron or metal to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a fence permit.
The Ittmanns presented a photo of a metal fence they can install and indicated their willingness to comply with the recommended 4 foot height limitation.
Brian Maguire stated he’s not opposed to a wood fence.
Jonathan Waller, 707 Francis Place, stated his support of the proposal with staff recommendations.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Brian Maguire made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE (REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE)– COMMERCIAL – 7822 BONHOMME (COPIA II)
Amer Hawatmeh, restaurant owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Anna Krane explained that the applicant has installed a projecting awning on the north elevation over the entrance to the restaurant tenant space of Copia. The awning is constructed of black fabric and features a 9.2 square foot sign on each of the north, east and west faces. The awning signage was installed without a Sign Permit and does not meet the City’s Sign Code, therefore the applicant is requesting a sign modification. The following awning sign is permitted by the Sign Code: “Advertising signs, logos or emblems may be applied to the surface of an awning provided the total area of such advertising does not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the area of the awning parallel to an adjacent street.” The north awning face is on a street frontage; however, the east and west awning faces are not, and therefore only the north face is permitted to display signage per the code. Based on the area of the awning, one 6.7 square foot sign on the north awning face would be allowed per the code. The awning projects beyond the front wall of the building, creating three faces as opposed to one face parallel to the street as typically seen with awnings in the downtown area. As proposed, the awning will feature more signage than allowed per the City’s sign code. The awning signage will also be located closer to the street than adjacent tenant wall signs, and therefore will be significantly more visible and not in competition with other signage. Staff is of the opinion that maintaining the signage proportion to the awning face, as dictated by the sign code, is important to creating a compatible appearance with the downtown area and the street character. The awning signage should be reduced to one 6.7 square foot sign located on the north face. Planner Krane stated that it is staff’s recommendation is to approve with the following conditions:
The awning signage should be reduced to one 6.7 square foot sign located on the north face. Planner Krane stated that it is staff’s recommendation is to approve with the following conditions:
8