Citation in context
June 4, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
Ms. Eisele replied “yes”.
6 The colors of the wall were discussed. Ms. Eisele explained that the colors are subtle, but they do include white, gray and a bit of beige stones.
A discussion about the location of the wall and its close proximity to the sidewalk ensued. Ms. Eisele noted that the Oak trees would be impacted (per an arborist) if the wall were to be moved further from the sidewalk (new wall to be in same footprint as existing wall).
Chairman Lichtenfeld referenced the small wall on the north side of the wall (gray wall). He asked if it is to be replaced as well.
Ms. Eisele indicated that the owners just put that wall back together; they don’t plan on replacing that wall.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – WALGREEN’S – 6733 CLAYTON ROAD
Dan Larue, sign contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the building currently features a 50 square foot wall sign on the southern elevation, facing Clayton Road, an engraved logo sign above the entrance, facing southwest, and a 20 square foot ground sign located at the intersection. The applicant is proposing to replace the engraved logo sign with an updated logo sign. The new logo will be red, burgundy, white and tan, constructed of aluminum and will measure 68.1 square feet. The Walgreen’s building and wall signage was approved by the Architectural Review Board in December of 2002 and the ground sign was approved in July of 2003. Signage was a significant point of discussion during the meetings, with the Architectural Review Board members striving to raise the design standards at the corner. The existing engraved tile logo above the building entrance was proposed as an architectural design feature for the building. The logo is engraved in tan panels and illuminated from a row of up-lights located just below the sign. The proposed logo replacement is colored aluminum and the existing up-lights are to remain. The existing sign is much more subtle and understated, while the proposed sign will be highly visible and appear more obviously as a sign, not an architectural design feature. Staff recommends replacing the engraved panels with new engraved panels depicting the updated logo. This will maintain the character of the building, while still providing the proper advertising. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the condition that the replacement sign be constructed of engraved panels to match the style and appearance of the existing sign.
Mr. Larue presented color renderings & photos of the existing building and other Walgreen’s locations to the members.
Carlson stated that the school district takes these concerns seriously and that there are studies that show no immediate or long-term effects of artificial turf; however, the landscape architect could better speak to this issue. She added that the exact material still has not been determined.
4
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR RENOVATION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 60 ARUNDEL PLACE
San San Smith, project architect, and Scot Hickman, owner, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the replacement and enlargement of the front porch. The proposed porch is concrete, clad in brick with brick pillars and a decorative metal railing. The proposed porch will extend further laterally across the front of the house than the existing porch. Uncovered porches are allowed to encroach up to 10 feet into a front yard setback and the proposed porch only extends 8 feet from the front of the house. Some evergreen shrubs will be removed to make room for the new porch; however, the two existing trees at either corner of the house will remain. In the R-2 Zoning District, total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent and front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed total lot coverage is 40 percent and the proposed front yard coverage is 18 percent. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The code section above requires walls and fences in the front yard to obtain approval from the Architectural Review Board. The code section does not specifically address the use of masonry walls and fences in conjunction with porches or patios in the front yard. The proposed porch will be red brick to match the primary structure with limestone caps, which is also an accent material of the primary structure. The proposed porch is consistent with other uncovered porches on similar style homes in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and recommends approval as submitted.
Ms. Smith explained that the Sheet A.1 shows the rendering. The existing concrete porch is 64- square feet; the new concrete porch (exposed aggregate finish) is 222 -square feet. The face of the new porch will match the house (red brick and charcoal mortar). The porch height remains unchanged, at approximately 20-inches from grade. The new steps will be 6-feet wide, which is one foot wider than the existing steps. The sidewalk will be the same width and also of exposed aggregate. The pilasters will be solid concrete interior with reinforced steel faced with brick. Ms. Smith then referred to the last page of the submittal and noted that there are approximately 10 other porches that contain pilasters, so they believe it will be compatible with the neighborhood.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about landscaping.
Ms. Smith stated that the two trees will not be affected by the construction, but some of the hedges need to be removed for this new porch. She noted that the owners do plan to install some landscaping.
Smith stated that the two trees will not be affected by the construction, but some of the hedges need to be removed for this new porch. She noted that the owners do plan to install some landscaping.
5
Mr. Hickman informed the members that they do plan to do some landscaping; specifics not yet determined…possible Azealia’s or boxwoods. He noted that they also plan on installing a sprinkler system.
Chairman Lichtenfeld encouraged the use of landscaping. He then referred to Sheet A.6, noting the slope and voiced concerned about the porch settlement against the north face of the house.
Joanne Boulton commented that she really likes the design.
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – RESIDENTIAL - 147 NORTH HANLEY ROAD
Rebecca Eisele, landscape designer, was in attendance at the meeting.
Director Istenes explained that the project consists of replacing the existing deteriorated wood tie wall along the east property line with a stone retaining wall system, ranging in height from 1 foot to 3 feet. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet and at least three different sizes of stone. The existing wall is located against the public sidewalk and supports lawn area. The replacement wall will be in the same place but will be supporting a new landscaped area. Multiple nearby houses have front yard retaining walls and fences constructed directly against the sidewalk. Staff’s opinion is that the proposed location of the wall is consistent with neighborhood character and recommends approval as requested.
Ms. Eisele referred to the submittal and explained that they plan to replace the existing railroad tie wall with a stone wall system (Rosetta Belvedere) to be located in the same place and at the same height as the existing wall. She stated that she believes the proposed wall meets the City’s requirements for modular block. She stated that the homeowners wanted a more environmentally friendly wall and selected this one (the Rosetta Belvedere) to better match the home.
Joanne Boulton asked if the wall is stacked.
Ms. Eisele replied “yes”.
Mr. Larue presented color renderings & photos of the existing building and other Walgreen’s locations to the members.
7 A discussion ensued regarding the logo. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he believes it is Walgreen’s new corporate logo, as it can be seen on other locations and their brand products.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to staff’s recommendation, which, if he understands correctly, would allow the “W” in lieu of the mortar & pestle.
Anna Krane noted that staff recommends allowing the new logo in place of the existing logo in the same format, minus the color.
Scott Wilson commented that staff’s recommendation is far different from what the applicant is requesting.
Joanne Boulton stated that she remembers the battle of the sign when they originally opened.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the other Walgreen’s signs on the property.
Mr. Larue informed the Board that they don’t plan to replace the other existing signs.
Joanne Boulton and Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that they agree with staff recommendation. Chairman Lichtenfeld added that allowing the red would drastically change the building and would be a beacon at night.
Mr. Larue stated that Walgreen’s wants the red.
The Board stated that the City does not.
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve with staff recommendation (no color allowed). The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.
SIGNAGE SUB-DISTRICT – CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS – 7620 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Deanna Kuhlmann-Leavitt, designer, and Tim Gaidis, HOK, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes read staff’s report as follows: the subject properties are located between Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Avenue, east of Bemiston Avenue and zoned Special Development District. The Centene Clayton Campus is comprised of multiple subdistricts to be constructed overtime. Subdistrict A includes the existing Centene office tower, retail spaces and parking garage. Subdistrict 1 is currently under construction and includes a tower and parking garage with retail, office and parking uses. Subdistrict 2A is also under construction and includes retail and parking uses. Subdistrict 2B has been approved for a corporate and civic auditorium. Subdistrict 2C is zoned for residential, retail and parking. Subdistrict 3 is zoned for office, hospitality, parking and
Subdistrict 2C is zoned for residential, retail and parking. Subdistrict 3 is zoned for office, hospitality, parking and
8 retail. Subdistrict 4 is zoned for office, retail and parking. In an effort to accommodate signage needs for future tenants and maintain visual conformity, the applicant is proposing a signage sub district for the entire Special Development District. per Section 425.050.8(c) of the City’s Sign Regulations. If adopted, the signage sub-district standards will govern signage for the buildings, not the City’s Sign Regulations. All signs must receive a Sign Permit from the City prior to installation. The following signage is proposed to be installed over time as the buildings are constructed and occupied. (In 2010, the Architectural Review Board approved a signage sub- district for Subdistrict A, the existing office tower and parking garage. The proposed signage sub-district would replace the existing regulations).
Campus Identification Signs Campus identification signs are proposed in multiple forms including wall signs, tower monument signs and window signs. Campus identification signs are geared toward identification of the multiple properties as part of the overall “Centene Centre” and to provide wayfinding within the campus.
I. Primary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs constructed of metal channel letters, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 25 square feet in area. A total of 15 primary ID wall signs are proposed. II. Secondary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs located above main building entrances, constructed of metal channel letters and measuring a maximum of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight secondary ID signs are proposed. III. Monument: metal cabinets with side LED lighting, listing the campus ID and up to eight tenant names and measuring 12 feet tall by 46 inches wide and 10 inches deep. A total of eight monument signs are proposed. IV. Tower main Entry ID: adjacent to main entrance doors will the list campus ID, tenants and addresses, cut vinyl letters and measuring a total of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight main entry ID signs are proposed. V. General Info: located at tenant entry doors, listing hours of operation and other building policies, cut vinyl letters and measuring five square feet in area. VI. Single User ID: facade (window) sign, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 100 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2B building (auditorium) and a maximum of 25 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2C building. A total of two single user signs are proposed. VII. Primary Area ID: directional wall sign identifying secondary entrances and functions including parking and loading docks, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed. VIII. Secondary Area ID: directional blade sign identifying secondary entrances and functions, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 5 square feet in area. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed.
Tenant Identification Signs Tenant identification signs, in addition to those included in the campus signs above, are proposed