Mr. Bauer stated he believed it could.

3 Liza Streett referenced the City’s ordinance with regard to variances that talks about practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. She asked Mr. Bauer to address that.

Mr. Bauer stated that if they don’t make any encroachment, they would be limited to painting.

Liza Streett asked if there was anything structurally wrong with the building.

Mr. Burke indicated that he is not aware of any structural issues.

Mr. Bauer noted that although the granite will be thin, it will provide extra protection for this 50+ year old building.

Liza Streett asked if the cornice is a design element.

Mr. Bauer replied “yes”.

Liza Streett asked about the pillars.

Mr. Bauer stated that they will help hold up the cornice a bit, but not much.

Mr. Burke reiterated that if the variances are granted, this proposal will also have to go before the City’s Architectural Review Board. He informed the members that a number of potential purchasers declined buying the property because of the money it would take to visually enhance, whereas this will be his clients’ “home”.

Ray Tait asked if, absent these requested variances, the owners would be unable to renovate.

Mr. Burke reiterated that his clients have closed on the property and that they would have to explore other options.

Liza Streett commented that this is a matter of taste and realizes that the City’s ARB weighs in on this, but she questioned if there was any discussion on playing up the existing building’s style.

Mr. Burke indicated that although they did consider staining/painting the building and while its style is making a comeback, the building is a box and simply painting or staining would not express “corporate headquarters” which is what the owners want to achieve.

Liza Streett commented that this is the shortest building on the block and that she feels it (the building) could have made an impression within the setback by adding some height. She stated that some architect really put their mind into this building back in 1961.

Mr. Bauer stated that all new mechanical equipment is also part of the renovation project.

Liza Streett asked if equipment will be on the roof.

Bauer stated that all new mechanical equipment is also part of the renovation project. Liza Streett asked if equipment will be on the roof.

4 Mr. Bauer replied “yes”, noting that there will be a stair that will provide rooftop access for the HVAC technicians. He stated that the cornice will serve other purposes than simply an aesthetic one.

Chairman Soule asked if any members had any questions for staff. He asked Louis if this were a larger project (at least 50,000 square feet), it could qualify for a Planned Unit Development.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”. He added that in addition to a PUD, there are three downtown overlay districts that waive building setbacks. He noted the subject building, according to St. Louis County records, is a little over 11,000 square feet.

Chairman Soule asked if a lot of buildings in downtown Clayton encroach over the building line.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”. He noted that in addition, some of them are built all the way up to the property line.

Chairman Soule asked if staff considers these encroachments to be minor.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agrees that there will be no detrimental effects if these variances are granted.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agrees that the proposed architectural features are similar to other downtown Clayton buildings.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if the structure would impede light or air to adjacent properties.

Louis Clayton replied “no”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agreed with the applicant’s assessment of the alternatives referred to in the application.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Being no further questions or comments, Anne Bishop made a motion to approve the variances as requested (a 9-foot 6-inch variance for an entrance canopy, a 6-inch variance for the building skin, a 1-foot variance for an overhead coiling grill unit, a 4-foot variance for architectural columns, a 5-foot variance for an architectural cornice and a 2-foot 6-inch variance for a decorative canopy). The motion was seconded by Anne Martin and unanimously approved by the members.