MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

AUGUST 28, 2017

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim William Liebermann Scott Wilson Brian Maguire

Absent: None

Also in Attendance: Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Anna Krane, Planner

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

MINUTES

The minutes of the August 7, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously forwarded to each member.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A VINYL FENCE – 918 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Victor Vergara, homeowner, was in attendance at the meeting.

The minutes were approved, after having been previously forwarded to each member. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A VINYL FENCE – 918 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Victor Vergara, homeowner, was in attendance at the meeting.

2 Susan Istenes explained that this request was originally on the July 17, 2017 meeting agenda, but was continued until the applicant could be present. The applicant has not made any changes to the original request or submission. The subject property is located on the east side of South Meramec Avenue between Watkins Drive and Clayton Road. A Fence Permit was applied for by the applicant back on May 11, 2017 and was notified on May 23, 2017 that the proposed project did not receive Administrative Architectural Review approval. The applicant was given the option to revise the fence material or apply to the Architectural Review Board. The proposed project consists of the construction of a fence along the north and east property lines with a gate across the driveway. The proposed gate is 6 feet tall, black metal, attached to the northwest corner of the house on one end and attached to a 6 foot tall brick pillar located north of the driveway on the other end. Stemming east from the brick pillar is approximately 30 linear feet of 4 foot tall black metal fencing. The project proposes 6 foot tall white vinyl fencing connected to the metal fence running the remainder of the northern property line and the length of the eastern property line. The proposed metal gate, brick pillar and section of metal fence are compatible with neighborhood character and the appearance of the house. Metal and brick are preferred materials and staff believes this section of the proposal would have a positive visual impact. White vinyl fencing is not a common material in the Davis Place neighborhood. Vinyl is also not a preferred material per the Architectural Review Board Guidelines. Vinyl as a building material requires full Architectural Review Board approval, regardless of the amount proposed. Staff believes a metal or wood fence would be more compatible with the neighborhood character. The proposed metal fencing and brick pillar would positively contribute to the neighborhood character, while the proposed white vinyl fencing is not compatible with the neighborhood character and therefore, staff recommends that the fence be constructed of wood or metal.

Mr. Vergara thanked the Board for the opportunity to make his presentation this evening; he noted that he’s lived in the St. Louis area for 5 years, but that he’s originally from Chile hence the accent. He stated that a vinyl fence in the back yard would have minimal impact. He then presented an aerial photo of Davis Place, highlighting all the vinyl fences that already exist (19 of them).

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the brick pier at the front fencing is his property.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if he is looking for a solid fence because of the pool.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if other materials were considered.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes” and noted that because of durability and maintenance, he chose vinyl. He added that his understanding is that water accelerates the deterioration of wood and that vinyl actually costs more than wood.

The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members. REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE MODIFICATION – REGIONS BANK – 8321 MARYLAND AVENUE

4

Allison Higgins with PlastiLite (contractor) and David Coggins with CBRE were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the development plan for this property was approved by the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board on March 6, 2017. The project consists of a freestanding bank (Regions Bank), a remote drive-through associated with the bank, a freestanding retail building and a surface parking lot. The 2,743-square-foot bank building is located at the southwest corner of the site and the 3,457-square-foot retail building is located at the southeast corner of the site. Regions Bank, owner of the property, is proposing a wall sign located on the western elevation of the bank building. The proposed sign is 8 square feet in area and displays the name of the bank, “Regions,” in white letters and the bank logo in green. The proposed sign face is acrylic and will be internally illuminated. The proposed sign location is approximately 20 feet above grade, bracket- mounted to an architectural tower feature extending above the roof of the one story building. The proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, which states that wall signs should be located at or near the first floor ceiling level, and therefore requires approval of a sign modification. The applicant has also applied for a 39.9 square foot wall sign along the Maryland Avenue frontage and an 8 square foot wall sign located at the rear building entrance on the northern elevation. Both of these wall signs conform to the Sign Ordinance and therefore do not require review or approval from the Architectural Review Board. According to the Sign Ordinance, modifications should only be granted “due to unusual conditions, such as façades that are angled or curved to the front street or streets or land uses which involve substantial accessory uses both inside and outside of buildings and requiring identification or substantial open space or street frontage or a similar unusual condition. The Architectural Review Board shall have the authority to determine the appropriate location, size or number of signs, provided the intent of these regulations is met. The Architectural Review Board shall also have authority to allow signs for ground floor tenants to be located above the first floor ceiling height when such ground floor tenant space is obstructed from view by a transit shelter erected on a public right-of-way.” The purpose of the location restriction for signs is to orient signage toward the pedestrian/ground level environment and create a cohesive signage appearance throughout the City. The proposed location is facing the western street frontage; however, the sign is placed on the tower feature, which is set back from Crandon Drive in a way that the sign would only be visible to vehicle traffic heading east on Maryland Avenue. The building does not have any unusual conditions or façade angles that prohibit a sign from being located at the first floor ceiling height. Regions Bank is the only use to be located in the building and additional signage that does conform to the Sign Ordinance has been proposed. There is not a transit shelter located in the public right-of-way causing an obstructed view. Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to warrant deviation from the Sign Ordinance. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the proposed location of the wall sign is not appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context and therefore, staff does not support granting the requested sign modification.

Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to warrant deviation from the Sign Ordinance. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the proposed location of the wall sign is not appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context and therefore, staff does not support granting the requested sign modification.

5 Ms. Higgins stated that she’s discussed the requested sign with the project architect and that the project, which includes a half million dollars in streetscape, has been going on for quite a while. She stated that they are asking for this variance from the sign code so that the sign will be visible even after the street trees grow.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the sign would be visible by motorists once the trees have grown.

Ms. Higgins indicated that they hope it will.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how high up the sign is from grade.

Ms. Higgins replied “22 feet”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that a visual rendering/elevation drawing is needed. He noted that the lower parapet in front of the sign will block it and a motorist driving east won’t see it. He commented that there’s a lot of signage going on here and suggested re-thinking this sign.

Joanne Boulton suggested that the applicant withdraw this request and redesign the sign for the west side.

Mr. Coggins verbally withdrew the application.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SCULPTURE – 21 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Marta Toczylowski with Twin Springs Investment, property owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the property owner is proposing to place a statue adjacent to the building entrance along North Meramec Avenue. The proposed bronze statue called ‘The Constable,’ measures 5-feet 8-inches in height and weighs just under 1,000 pounds. The statue is mounted on a square 3-foot 3 3/8-inch base and will not be anchored into the sidewalk. The proposed location of the statue will encroach into the public right-of-way. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and approves the location Because the proposed statue is located at a private office building and not associated with a public art development requirement, the statue was not sent to the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC). Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the location and design of the proposed statue will complement the building’s entrance and add a point of visual interest to the street wall and recommends approval as requested.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for confirmation that the statue won’t encroach into the clearance per ADA requirements.

Ms. Toczylowski stated that there is more than 5 feet of clearance.