Citation in context
November 16, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
No retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines; staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.
9
Mr. Fendler presented a color rendering to the members and material samples to the members. He noted there are a couple of metal roofs and the windows are black frame.
Acting Chairman Reim commented that it’s a handsome house.
Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sherry Eisenberg and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – 417 OAKLEY
Roger Kepner, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the west side of Oakley Drive between Edgewood and Shirley Drives. In September 2015, a new retaining wall was approved administratively and constructed along the south side of the driveway behind the front building line. The retaining wall was constructed using tan-colored, standard size modular blocks. While not an approved material, the wall is located almost entirely below grade and minimally visible from the street and adjacent properties. On October 14, 2015, a city inspector observed a second retaining wall under construction along the north side of the driveway between the house and the public sidewalk. The wall is constructed with the same materials as the previously approved wall. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Code requires that all front yard retaining walls in residential zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The applicant has not submitted subdivision trustee approval. 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. The material used in this case has tumbled/rolled edges, but does not have varying block sizes or color patterns. While the previously approved retaining wall was not a permitted material, it was not highly visible from the street. The front yard retaining wall is highly visible from the street and has a stronger visual impact. Therefore, staff recommends that the front yard retaining wall be replaced with a wall constructed with an approved retaining wall material. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and finds the placement of the retaining wall in the right-of-way acceptable, but has concerns regarding the new pipe which will discharge water onto the driveway and public sidewalk. If the pipe is connected to a downspout, it should be removed and popup emitters should be installed in the yard. If it is a relief drain for the retaining wall then staff recommends the pipe be removed and the wall be redesigned. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request as submitted and require that the applicant submit plans depicting an approved retaining wall material and drain design as requested by Public Works, to be approved by staff prior to installation.
Mr. Kepner indicated that nobody informed him that trustee approval was needed, but they have it now.
Ms. McGowan asked if two City trees are being removed.
8 Louis Clayton informed Ms. McGowan that the two street (City) trees are to remain; however, they will be impacted by construction and therefore require protection measures to be put in place.
Ms. McGowan indicated that when two trees came down at 233 Lancaster it felt like an earthquake and resulted in damage to her house.
Being no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing one- story home and the construction of a 2-story, 4,796-square-foot single-family residence (not including the basement) with an attached, side-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 28 feet as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. Also proposed are a +/- 13-foot tall, 225-square-foot accessory building and a pool. The 2-story home to the west (8330 University Drive) was constructed in 2001 and is 2 feet taller than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The home to the south (127 Lancaster Drive) was constructed in 2013 and is 2 feet taller than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, new homes must provide a transition in height and scale to the existing adjacent homes. According to the applicant, the proposed home will use the following techniques:
Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is limestone colored brick. The proposed roof is clad in grey fiberglass shingles. A black standing seam metal roof will be used on a small portion of the east elevation and above the front entry. Black casement windows are proposed. The proposed 225- square-foot accessory building is located at the southwest corner of the property and is +/- 13 feet tall as measured from grade to the mid-point of the roof. The building is constructed with brick columns, wood-framed screen panels and a black standing seam metal roof. A new exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the east side of the property. The new driveway will lead to a side-entry, at-grade garage with a wood carriage garage door. A 6-foot tall stained wood and brick fence will enclose the rear yard. No retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines; staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Kepner indicated that nobody informed him that trustee approval was needed, but they have it now.
10
Louis Clayton stated that trustee approval was submitted to staff earlier today.
Mr. Kepner indicated that they received a permit to build the wall in the back and during the process of construction it was discovered that there was a downspout at the corner of the driveway was covered with mulch which was causing drainage into the basement. He stated that in his experience, pop-ups fail and that the best solution is to daylight. He presented photos of a neighbor who has the same walls. He indicated that staff’s report does not make sense to him.
Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if the wall was approved.
Louis Clayton announced that walls below four feet in height don’t require a building permit; however, there are still material regulations. He added that he believes the administrative approval was only for the wall behind the front building line.
Craig Owens informed the other members the approval came after the wall was built.
Acting Chairman Reim asked if there are other ways to get water out.
Mr. Kepner stated that pop-ups are a cheap solution and not a good one.
Josh Corson asked if there are other systems that can be used.
Louis Clayton indicated that the installation of pop-ups is what the Public Works Department recommended. He added that during the winter water flows onto the sidewalk and freezes.
Mr. Kepner stated that water won’t freeze when it flows out.
Pepe Finn asked where the closest drain is located.
Mr. Kepner stated that he doesn’t know.
Josh Corson questioned if this Board can approve drainage like that.
Louis Clayton replied that he believes so; a portion of the wall is in the city’s right-of-way.
Mark Winings made reference to Mr. Kepner’s earlier comment about other neighborhood properties with similar walls.
Mr. Kepner stated that the property to the south (in the picture) and another up the hill have similar walls.
Mr. Kepner stated that the property to the south (in the picture) and another up the hill have similar walls.
11 Acting Chairman Reim commented that there seems to be a lack of consistency.
Susan Istenes stated that the Board has allowed man-made block systems that have tumbled edges and varying sizes/color variations.
Craig Owens explained that at the time of the administrative approval, the rear wall had already been built and because of its minimal visibility, he approved it; the front wall had not been constructed yet.
Josh Corson commented that he likes that the two walls are the same.
Acting Chairman Reim stated that he’s not thrilled by the material but that he wants a pop-up emitter.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve the wall as constructed with the condition that a pop up emitter be installed as staff recommends. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT – 216 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE (HAMPTON INN)
Conor Pandl, representing Equis Hospitality Management, LLC, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this request is for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a restaurant to be known as Danielle’s Place. The subject property is located on the east side of North Meramec Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Kingsbury Boulevard and has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is developed with a Hampton Inn Hotel that opened in October 2014. A condition of the PUD approval was that the hotel contain a public restaurant. The 2,282-square-foot restaurant space is located on the ground floor of the hotel and accommodates 70 seats indoors. Breakfast is available for purchase during the morning hours, and a select menu of small prate appetizers and entrees is available in the evenings. The restaurant is currently operating and has a liquor license. The restaurant is open Monday through Friday from 6:30 am to 9:30 am, and from 4:30 pm to 11:00 pm; and Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 am to 10:00 am, and from 4:30 pm to 11:00 pm. Deliveries to the restaurant are made in the morning through the building’s side entrance. Delivery service from the restaurant is not proposed. Trash is stored in existing receptacles located in the loading area and the restaurant does not participate in a recycling program. Valet services are located on North Meramec Avenue. Because the restaurant is located in the Central Business District and is less than 3,000 square feet, it is exempt from providing off-street parking. Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed restaurant is required to provide one bicycle rack; however, one has not been shown on the plans. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a site plan showing the location of the required bicycle rack in conformance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations, to be approved by staff