Citation in context
November 2, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Ron Reim asked Chairman Lichtenfeld if he wanted the awnings to line up with the mullion or the stone, as they are not aligned. Chairman Lichtenfeld replied that he would prefer they line up with the mullions.
4 Ron Reim suggested that staff can make the final approval.
Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the awnings with the condition that they all be raised to align with the window mullion per staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 7620 MARYLAND AVENUE
Chris Dalton, homeowner, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was David Volz, civil engineer.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of two, 2-story additions (totaling 1,770-square-feet) on the front and rear of the home. Because the size of the additions is greater than 50 percent of the existing home, site plan review is required. 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 existing HVAC unit will be relocated to the south side of the home and will be screened by evergreen plants. Trash will be stored in a new, 36-square-foot trash enclosure located underneath the rear deck. The existing impervious coverage on site is 35.9 percent. The proposed impervious coverage is 40.8 percent which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.5 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.51 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.01 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, the downspouts from the addition will be piped to a dry well in the rear yard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, ornamental shrubs and perennials that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape plan shows the removal of five trees totaling 86 caliper inches, of which 30 caliper inches require onsite replacement. The landscape plan proposes 30 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site and the existing trees to remain are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. Exterior lighting is proposed at the exterior doors and garage and will not exceed 75 watts. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the condition that to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well downspouts, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County, and submit proof of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Dalton stated that he is excited to get this project started and move to Clayton.
Mr. Volz presented the site plan to the members; emphasizing the location of the proposed addition and deck. A drainage map was also presented. Mr. Volz indicated that the flow pattern remains
The sign will be made of a beige aluminum header and cabinet and will sit on top of a stone base. The sign will include the name and address of the building in black letters, and five black panels with white letters for
2 tenants of the building. The sign will not be illuminated. Susan stated that the proposed sign meets the requirements of the sign ordinance and that staff recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Christian indicated that staff’s memo is accurate.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited questions or comments.
Craig Owens asked if a tree will need to be removed to accommodate this sign.
Mr. Christian indicated that there is the potential that a tree will need to be removed.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve the sign as requested. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – AWNING INSTALLATION – COMMERCIAL (RESTAURANT) – 172 CARONDELET PLAZA (PLAZA IN CLAYTON BUILDING)
Ian Rockwell, Manager, and Joseph Sneed, contractor, were in attendance at the meeting.
Josh Corson announced that he is recusing himself and then he left the member table. He did not participate in any discussion or vote with regard to this application.
Mr. Rockwell stated that the awnings they propose provide a sense of intimacy, which is what this restaurant deserves as it is not a retail use. He stated that he was under the impression that they would be approved as there are similar awnings across the street. He then noted that the original louvers were copper; not black.
Mr. Sneed stated that the window coverage as proposed is about 55%, but they are willing to fluctuate. He added that they have a letter of approval from CBRE, property manager, on behalf of the owner.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the lower half of the awing covers the window.
Mr. Sneed stated that the window is above the ceiling and that’s why it starts up so high; the window doesn’t go to the top of the awning.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the drawing shows half the awning covers the window.
Ron Reim asked if there are mechanical louvers above.
Mr. Sneed replied “yes”, adding that they don’t want those visible.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the bottom of the awning is 7-foot, 2-inches above the sidewalk.
Sneed replied “yes”, adding that they don’t want those visible. Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the bottom of the awning is 7-foot, 2-inches above the sidewalk.
3
Mr. Sneed confirmed. He noted that there is a 7-foot door they have to clear.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if a drawing depicting the south side of Carondelet Plaza was available.
Louis Clayton replied “no”; adding that The Crescent building signage was approved as a Sign District specifically designed for that building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the glass.
Mr. Sneed stated that the glass will have a blue tint. He added that the awning framework will be painted to match the color of the awning.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the windows can be seen through by a pedestrian if the lighting is right.
Mr. Sneed replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited additional questions or comments.
Mark Winings commented that overall, the look is good; however, he shares staff’s concerns in that the awnings seem heavy and low.
Susan Istenes stated that staff’s main concern is the window coverage.
Mark Winings questioned what staff would find acceptable; what the applicant would need to do to receive a positive staff recommendation.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested lining up the awning with the window mullion which is about 8- 10 inches higher and align with the horizontal joint in the stone (it was noted that the fish graphic would move up).
Mr. Sneed stated that he was okay with doing that.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated it would be a lot better.
Mark Winings commented that the view from the street would be better as well.
Ron Reim asked Chairman Lichtenfeld if he wanted the awnings to line up with the mullion or the stone, as they are not aligned.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied that he would prefer they line up with the mullions.
Mr. Volz indicated that the flow pattern remains
5 the same. He noted that the downspouts from the addition will be piped to a drywell and then to a pop-up bubbler.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the additional water is minimal.
Mr. Volz indicated that is correct.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the drainage plan seems simple; noting that the drainage map is very helpful.
Being no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that proposed rear addition is constructed of red brick to match the home. The roof of the rear addition is clad with slate textured fiberglass shingles; 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; 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 is located on the east side of the site and will be replaced and expanded with a new exposed aggregate driveway. The new driveway will lead to a side loading garage located on the lower level of the rear addition. One tan overhead garage door is proposed. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. 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 approval with the condition that the applicant presents samples of the existing and proposed roof materials at the meeting for the Architectural Review Board to determine compatibility.
Mr. Dalton presented samples of the proposed roofing materials to the members.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if any of the existing windows are being changed out.
Mr. Dalton replied “no”.
Mr. Dalton replied “no”.
6 Sherry Eisenberg asked to discuss the appearance of the revised entrance. She stated that the existing entrance to the home is a human scale, provides a covered entry and one can tell that’s the front of the home; the proposed front entry has no cover and doesn’t really appear to be an entrance.
Mr. Dalton stated their intent is to have a 2-story front foyer.
Ron Reim reiterated that the proposed entryway is not covered. He asked the applicant if he brought samples of the proposed limestone or stucco.
Mr. Dalton replied “no”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the proposed front door/north elevation does alter the appearance of the house and that it’s different from other houses. He noted that it also takes light away.
Mr. Dalton referred to the large windows and noted that the new design is more in line with the home to the west.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reviewed Sheet S1, the contextual drawing.
Ron Reim questioned the stucco, asking if the wood trim is coming off.
Mr. Dalton replied “yes; it appears to be rotting.”
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that he sees the possibilities for the roof, but he’d like to see the other material samples. He stated he has a concern about the appearance of the front as it may look more commercial.
Ron Reim questioned the proposed materials, as there was no sample to review.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested tabling this item for a future meeting at which time the applicant is to bring in samples of all the proposed materials, including the roof material samples.
Mr. Dalton voiced his disappointment, but stated that if that’s what is necessary, he will come back with samples. He asked if there were any other comments he should be made aware of at this time.
Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to table so the applicant can come back with samples of all proposed materials. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 126 BRIGHTON WAY