Citation in context
May 16, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 600 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE
Brian Slater, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
2 Susan Istenes explained that in January, 2016, the City received an anonymous complaint that a front yard retaining wall had been installed along the front of the home. The wall is constructed with modular blocks that have tumbled/rolled edges and a varying color pattern, but not varying block sizes. The wall is 12-19 inches tall and is located adjacent to the home’s foundation, creating a raised landscape area. The applicant has not submitted subdivision trustee approval. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all retaining walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The Architectural Review Guidelines recommend that retaining walls be constructed of brick, stone or stucco to match the main structure. Modular block wall systems have been approved in the past provided they have varying block sizes, varying color patterns and tumbled or rolled edges. Although the wall is visible from the street, it is not a prominent feature. Staff is of the opinion that due to the small size of the wall and its large setback from the street, the design and materials are acceptable and recommends approval as installed.
Mr. Slater informed the members that he was unaware of the rules about retaining walls and that prior making application, he sawed-off every other block to make every other block a different size.
Mark Winings asked if the photos that were submitted for this meeting were taken prior to him saw-cutting.
Mr. Slater replied “yes”.
Pepe Finn commented that she thought the wall was innocuous.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he walks by this property almost daily and that he wishes it was constructed differently, he agrees with Pepe.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as installed. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD FENCE – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 938 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE
Tyler Stephens, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the 8,971-square-foot site is located on the east side of South Central Drive, just north of Clayton Road, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. On July 6, 2015, the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved plans for a 2-story, 1,128-square-foot rear addition to the existing home. Construction is nearing completion and the applicant now proposes to install a 6-foot cedar shadow-box fence along the southern property line in the front yard that will provide screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south. The fence will be screened on the north side by evergreen trees
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MAY 16, 2016
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 in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Louis Clayton, Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney
Chairman Steve 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 proper recording of this meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 2, 2016 meeting were presented for approval. Pepe Finn noted that because she had left the meeting early, she was not in attendance during the vote for the requested Special Development Sub-district (for the Apogee project) as indicated on Page 21 and asked that her name be removed from the vote. The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 600 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE
Brian Slater, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Construction is nearing completion and the applicant now proposes to install a 6-foot cedar shadow-box fence along the southern property line in the front yard that will provide screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south. The fence will be screened on the north side by evergreen trees
3 (Junipers). The applicant has not submitted approval from the Subdivision Trustees. The City’s Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.
“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”
Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For example, on corner lots, 6-foot fences have been approved on “secondary” front yards (what functionally would be a property’s side yard) provided the fence is ornamental or decorative (not a solid wood, chain or vinyl fence) and is placed on the property in a manner which provides a sufficient area for landscaping to break up the monotonous appearance of the fence. This property is not a corner lot by definition; however, it is bordered by a public alley along its southern property line. These configurations of single-family properties with their side yards adjacent to commercial properties are common on the blocks adjacent to Clayton Road in Davis Place and Maryland Avenue in Clayton Gardens and in many cases there are existing front yard fences in place that do not conform to the zoning requirements. The proposed design and materials of the fence is not consistent with the requirement in the zoning regulations for a 4-foot “ornamental or decorative” fence; however, an ornamental or decorative fence would not likely provide the opacity needed to adequately screen the adjacent alley, dumpsters, and commercial building. If a fence was located on the adjacent commercial property, it could be up to 8 feet tall and located up to the front property line without requiring approval by the Architectural Review Board. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the proposed fence is adequately screened on the north side by evergreen landscaping and that it will provide adequate screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Stephens began a PowerPoint presentation. A slide depicting the subject property was shown. He noted that the addition was brought before this Board last July and a fence was not discussed at that time; however, due to the alley and commercial property, a new fence is being proposed.
Slides depicting the alley, dumpsters and commercial property were shown.
A slide depicting a site plan depicting the location of the proposed fence was shown. Mr. Stephens stated that the proposed shadow-box fence is 80-feet in length. A slide depicting an aerial view of the property and surrounding properties was also shown.
Mr. Stephens informed the members that the property at Meramec and the alley has a similar fence. He asked if there were any questions.
Stephens informed the members that the property at Meramec and the alley has a similar fence. He asked if there were any questions.
4 Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the house addition is very nice and that this is a lot of fence, but it is necessary.
Sherry Eisenberg asked how the fence will end.
Mr. Stephens stated that it will just “end”; they can use a heavier post and landscaping.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as proposed. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – APARTMENT BUILDING – 15-23 LEE AVENUE (SOLIRE APARTMENTS)
Robert Saur and Bryce Mosher, developers/purchaser, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Thomas Stern, property owner.
Susan Istenes noted that the applicant is asking for feedback at this time; reiterating that this is conceptual review only. She explained that the 23,400-square-foot property is located on the west side of Lee Avenue between Forsyth Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multi Family Dwelling District and is located in the Forsyth Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. In 2014, a 36-unit multi-family structure on the site was demolished and the site is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses include residential, institutional and commercial (the chart included in the staff report was referenced). The proposed project consists of the construction of 78 residential units located within 13 free-standing structures on top of a 1-story parking podium. Including the parking structure, the total height is 49 feet 8 inches measured from average existing grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The buildings are constructed primarily of cementitious rain screen panels. The roof is clad in green metal. Bronze fixed and single-hung windows are proposed. The 79-space parking structure will be accessible from the existing northern alley. The alley to the west is proposed to be vacated which would increase the lot area to 26,491 square feet. Additionally, Lee Avenue is proposed to be converted to two-way traffic in front of the subject property. The Forsyth Station TOD Overlay District is intended to apply to redevelopment in the immediate vicinity of the Forsyth MetroLink Station. This location presents a unique opportunity for the City to leverage the benefits of its proximity to MetroLink with future mid to high density residential and mixed-use development. Any person requesting a building permit involving construction of a new building or within the overlay district shall submit an application for a rezoning to a Special Development District or Planned Unit Development District. The project will be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and will require a public hearing. The following table summarizes the applicable zoning requirements and whether the proposed development complies with each standard. The PUD process gives the Board of Aldermen the authority to approve waivers from specific zoning requirements in exchange for public benefits. Once approved, the PUD becomes the specific zoning regulations governing the use and development of the property.