Citation in context
October 19, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Susan Istenes explained that the 7,882-square-foot site is located on the south side of Arundel Place between DeMun and Skinker Avenues and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The existing two-story stone home was constructed in 1920 and measures 2,296
2 square feet in area. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing two-story stone and vinyl siding addition at the rear of the home, and the construction of a 700-square-foot addition in the same general location. The basic massing of the addition is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, accent materials and variations in roof forms. Susan noted that staff finds the revision that was just received acceptable as long as siding doesn’t exceed 30-percent of any of the elevations, which appears is not the case.
Mr. Fendler informed the members that they came to an agreement with the Trustees and that he believes everyone is happy with the proposal as revised.
Craig Owens asked if staff includes windows in the calculations when determining material percentages.
Louis Clayton replied “no”; neither are doors.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that each elevation now contains less than 30-percent siding.
Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as revised. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE – WALL SIGN – 7750 CARONDELET AVENUE (CLAYTON PLAZA HOTEL)
Bill Brink, owner of Classic Sign Services, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located at the southeast corner of South Bemiston Avenue and Carondelet Avenue and contains the Clayton Plaza Hotel (previously known as Crowne Plaza Hotel). On July 14, 2015, after receiving administrative Architectural Review Board approval by the City Manager, the Planning Department issued a Sign Permit for the installation of two identical 35.28-square-foot wall signs on the Carondelet Avenue and Bemiston Avenue facades to replace the two existing 49.56-square-foot Crowne Plaza Hotel signs. On September 16, 2015, staff observed that the signs that were installed were inconsistent with the approved Sign Permit, in that the signs contained logos that were not depicted on the permit plans. The applicant was advised to remove these logos or submit an amendment to the Sign Permit. On September 17, the applicant submitted an amendment to the Sign Permit, and upon review, staff determined that the installed signage exceeded the allowable size per the Sign Regulations. Section 425.040.1 of the Sign Regulations sets the permitted sign size and location based on usage and building type. For hotels, the Sign Regulations permit one wall sign 15 square feet or 5 percent of the front wall area up to a maximum area of 50 square feet. Additionally, buildings on corner lots with display windows and/or a separate street entrance may have a sign on each building elevation with street frontage.
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 19, 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: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim Josh Corson Sherry Eisenberg Pepe Finn
Absent: None
Also Present: Louis Clayton, Planner Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director
Chairman Lichtenfeld 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 October 5th, 2015 meeting were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 40 ARUNDEL PLACE
Paul Fendler, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. He distributed revised plan sets to the members and to staff.
Susan Istenes explained that the 7,882-square-foot site is located on the south side of Arundel Place between DeMun and Skinker Avenues and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The existing two-story stone home was constructed in 1920 and measures 2,296
For hotels, the Sign Regulations permit one wall sign 15 square feet or 5 percent of the front wall area up to a maximum area of 50 square feet. Additionally, buildings on corner lots with display windows and/or a separate street entrance may have a sign on each building elevation with street frontage.
3 Based on the size of the building, wall signage not to exceed 50 square feet is permitted on both the Bemiston Avenue and the Carondelet Avenue elevations. The signs which were installed are 65.85 square feet each; therefore, a sign modification is being requested to allow the signs to remain. The signs are constructed with blue acrylic channel letters installed on a raceway and are internally lit by LEDs. According to the Sign Regulations, modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. According to the applicant, the hotel has high auto and pedestrian traffic and needs the branding visibility for the safety of the public. The hotel’s vehicles and other signage have the same branding so out of town guests can easily recognize their destination. Staff does not believe the applicant has identified any unusual conditions with the building or site that would warrant an exception to the regulations to allow larger signs than permitted. The signage shown on the Sign Permit plans did not include logos, and were in conformance with the Sign Regulations. The signs were not installed in accordance with approved plans and measure 65.85 square feet each, which is 30 percent larger than the 50 square feet permitted. On April 18, 2005, the Architectural Review Board denied a requested sign modification by Crowne Plaza Hotel to allow the installation of two 66.35 square feet signs in the same location as the existing signs. The signs that were ultimately installed measured 49.56 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that the size of the signs is not compatible with the building they serve or to other nearby signage. The addition of the logos changed the character of the signs which are not consistent with the approved plans that received administrative Architectural Review Board approval. For these reasons, staff does not support the granting of a sign modification and recommends denial.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what constitutes the logo; the curved/angled lines; not the lettering?
Louis Clayton replied “yes” the logo is the detailing above and below the words.
Mr. Brink stated that it took him 6 weeks to get the permit and at the last minute, the owner decided to incorporate the logos and he didn’t have another 6 weeks to wait so he installed the sign knowing he would end up here. He informed the members that if this Board does not approve the signage as installed, they would ask to simply allow the top logo to remain (they would remove the bottom logo).
Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned if removing the bottom logo would get them below 50 square feet.
Mr. Brink stated that it would be close. He noted that all their other signage has the full logo.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he prefers the consistency of both (upper and lower); however, 50 square feet is the maximum allowed and the signage should comply with that.
Ron Reim agreed.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he prefers the consistency of both (upper and lower); however, 50 square feet is the maximum allowed and the signage should comply with that. Ron Reim agreed.
4 Mr. Brink stated that they could move everything closer together. He stated that some cities deduct the “dead” space from the calculations.
Louis Clayton stated that we do not; we measure the outside perimeter.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested leaving it up to the sign designer to come up with a sign that meets the maximum of 50 square feet or revise and come back to this Board for review. He noted that size is the issue here and that he thinks both the top and bottom details are needed for the sign to “work”.
A discussion ensued about the size of the sign and possible ways to reduce its size.
Mark Winings stated that it seems to him that if the bottom detailing were removed, the sign would still be over 50 square feet, although slightly.
Pepe Finn commented that “squishing” the sign may be of consequence and that the top detail looks like a roof.
Mark Winings agreed. He commented that if his measurements are accurate, the sign minus the bottom detailing would be just below 52 square feet. He asked the other members if they would be comfortable approving that size.
Ron Reim asked the Chairman if he is okay with just the top detailing.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “no”; he thinks the sign needs both and that he is more concerned with the size.
Craig Owens suggested re-making the sign to make it fit.
Mr. Brink stated that everything could be reduced in size.
Craig Owens asked that the wires be hidden as well.
Mr. Brink stated that the old wires showed as well.
Craig Owens asked that the motion include that the wires be hidden.
Mr. Brink reiterated that at the 9th hour the owners said they wanted the logos included and that he didn’t have another 6 weeks to wait for the permit.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.