Citation in context
November 16, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
He stated that they want natural light and that’s the reason for the amount of proposed glass in front. He referenced the photo of the existing home, noting that it is quite dark.
3 Acting Chairman Reim asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the members or the audience.
None were received.
Acting Chairman Reim asked staff their opinion about the proposed roofing material.
Louis Clayton stated that staff is okay with it and that if this Board agrees, there’s no need to mention staff’s recommendation in the motion.
Josh Corson asked why they are not matching the existing roof.
Mr. Grewe stated that they don’t think they can; it’s over 60 years old. He added that they feel their material proposal is far superior and assured the members they would get a good color match and the same size shingle to what’s existing.
Tom Caspari, 7624 Maryland Avenue, stated that they could get slate to match; he then questioned why they are not replacing the entire roof with the new roofing material as the mix will be seen from the rear. He stated it’s not appropriate to mix roofing material and that they should either match existing or do all new. He noted he is a slate contractor.
Pepe Finn asked if there is an ordinance that requires slate.
Louis Clayton stated that there is not; it’s at the discretion of this Board.
Mr. Caspari questioned how they will get more light in front considering it’s a northern exposure.
Mr. Grewe replied “more glass, more light”.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or the audience, Josh Corson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Pepe Finn and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Acting Chairman Ron Reim, Craig Owens, Mark Winings, Pepe Finn & Josh Corson. Nays: Sherry Eisenberg. Motion carried.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR RENOVATION – COMMERCIAL – 16 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE (LOUIE’S WINE DIVE)
Ben Van Zant, restaurant VP, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this request was first presented to the Architectural Review Board on October 19, 2015 and was continued at the request of the Board, with the suggestion that the applicant revise the plans to accurately depict all proposed improvements, materials and colors. The applicant has made the following revisions to the plans:
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met upon the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:
Present: Acting Chairman Ron Reim Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Josh Corson Sherry Eisenberg Pepe Finn
Absent: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld
Also Present: Louis Clayton, Planner Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney
Acting Chairman Reim asked that all cell phone ringers be turned off, that conversations take place outside the meeting room and that those who wish to speak approach the podium and to be sure the green light on the microphone is on for property recording of this meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the November 2, 2015 meeting were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION/ALTERATION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - 7620 MARYLAND AVENUE (CONTINUED)
Chris Dalton, owner, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Val Grewe, project architect.
Susan Istenes explained that this project was first presented to the Architectural Review Board on November 2, 2015, and was continued at the request of the Board, with the suggestion that the applicant present samples of all proposed building materials and consider revising the design of the
Also in attendance was Val Grewe, project architect. Susan Istenes explained that this project was first presented to the Architectural Review Board on November 2, 2015, and was continued at the request of the Board, with the suggestion that the applicant present samples of all proposed building materials and consider revising the design of the
2 front entry. The applicant has not made any plan revisions. The existing 2-story home measures 2,117 square feet, and the proposed project consists of the construction of two, 2-story additions on the front and rear of the home, totaling 1,770-square feet. The height of the home with the additions is 27 feet 6 inches as measured from average existing grade to the mid-point of the roof. The new additions will not exceed the height of the existing home. The rear addition is constructed of red brick to match the home, the roof of the rear addition is clad with slate textured fiberglass shingles, and bronze colored double-hung windows are proposed. A cedar deck is proposed on the rear of the addition. The front addition is located within the footprint of the existing front porch and is constructed with a limestone veneer and acrylic stucco accents with a limestone finish. The proposed roof of the front addition is clad with salvaged slate shingles from the front porch, and bronze colored double-hung windows and doors are proposed. The existing wood siding on the gable ends on each side of the home will be replaced with acrylic stucco with a limestone finish. The amount of stucco does not exceed 13.9 percent on any elevation. An existing asphalt driveway located on the east side of the site will be replaced and expanded with a new exposed aggregate driveway which will lead to a side loading garage located on the lower level of the rear addition. One tan overhead garage door is proposed. No permanent fences or retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that staff has concerns that the proposed roofing material on the rear addition will not match the existing slate roof. Otherwise, staff is of the opinion that the proposed design of the additions is consistent with the existing design and materials on the home and on other homes in the neighborhood and recommends that the applicant present samples of the existing and proposed roof materials at the meeting for the Architectural Review Board to determine compatibility.
Mr. Grewe presented a color rendering (front elevation) and photo of the existing front elevation to the members. He explained that they plan to enclose the front porch (North elevation) as the front of the house is currently dark and shadowy and the owners want more light in the front. He noted that traditional materials are being used; samples of the proposed brick, limestone, acrylic stucco and roof were presented. He stated that the color of the roof can be matched; that the salvaged slate roof will be used for the new construction in front; the cultured slate will only be used in the rear and one would never see both roofs in the same plane.
Acting Chairman Reim asked if they are removing the entire south facing roof.
Mr. Grewe replied “not all of it”.
Acting Chairman Reim commented that from the rear (south), one would see both roofing materials. He referred to a discussion held during the previous presentation that this proposal does not include a covering at the front entrance.
Mr. Grewe stated that there is a 7-inch projection around the door. He indicated that there are 7 homes on the street including one to the east (2 doors down) that don’t have a front canopy/covering. He stated that they want natural light and that’s the reason for the amount of proposed glass in front. He referenced the photo of the existing home, noting that it is quite dark.
Susan Istenes explained that this request was first presented to the Architectural Review Board on October 19, 2015 and was continued at the request of the Board, with the suggestion that the applicant revise the plans to accurately depict all proposed improvements, materials and colors. The applicant has made the following revisions to the plans:
4
The subject property is located on the east side of South Bemiston Avenue between Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of High Density Commercial District (HDC) and is located in the CBD Overlay Zoning District. The property contains a one-story, gray EIFS and brick commercial building, most recently occupied by Tani Sushi. In conjunction with an interior renovation of the building, the applicant proposes to install reclaimed wood to the front façade and a small portion of the south side of the building. The existing EIFS and brick will be painted Bohemian Black and the EIFS trim panels will be painted gray (Peppercorn). The southernmost window on the front elevation will be removed and replaced with a garage door window. The size of the window opening will not change. Also proposed are new black canvas awnings, new railing adjacent to the front entry, and a new window on the alley side of the building. Signage shown on the plan is for illustration only and is not being considered at this time. Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations, the proposed use is required to provide one bicycle rack. The Public Works Department has conditionally approved the request to place the required bicycle rack on the public sidewalk in front of the building. The proposed changes will significantly change the building’s appearance. Wood siding is rarely used as a building material in Downtown.