Mr. Lieb informed the members that he will tell the architect to relocate the machine and keep the beige color. He asked how to proceed from this point.

Ron Reim indicated that he agrees with staff recommendation.

Scott Wilson commented that this was discussed at the last meeting.

Mr. Lieb stated he didn’t know why the architect did not follow the instructions from the previous meeting.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that most people drive, not walk, to that bank.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE (MODIFICATION TO SIGN REGULATIONS) – 100 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD

Daniel Kirchhoff, sign contractor (Engraphix), was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is proposing to install an aluminum wall sign on the west elevation to depict the name of the building owner, who is also a tenant, “Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate,” in bronze letters. The proposed sign is 24.97 square feet in area and will be halo-lit from behind. The proposed sign will be located approximately 21 feet above grade and bracket-mounted to the brick facade. The proposed location is above the first floor windows.

The proposed sign will be located approximately 21 feet above grade and bracket-mounted to the brick facade. The proposed location is above the first floor windows.

4 Based on the tenant’s location within a multi-tenant office building, the following sign is be permitted by the Sign Code: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” The proposed sign is the only wall sign on the west elevation; however, the proposed sign is 24.97 square feet and therefore requires a sign modification. While the proposed sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code, the sign will appear compatible in terms of scale with the building. An existing wall sign located around the corner from the proposed sign is similar in size and style to the proposed sign. The building is located on a corner, and therefore can have wall signs on both street frontages. The proposed sign is also higher off of the ground due to the change in grade and the location of the first floor. The proposed sign is constructed of a high quality material. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign is compatible with surrounding buildings and wall signs in terms of design, material and size and recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Kirchhoff stated that they believe the sign to be tasteful and size appropriate. He added that staff’s report was accurate and asked if there were any questions.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the former Bancorp sign is gone.

Scott Wilson commented that the proposed sign is nice looking.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the sign/modification as requested. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD WALL - 8045 WATKINS

Lakmipthi Rayalacheruvu, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of a retaining wall along the southwest corner of the house; the wall ranges in height from 6 inches to 1.5 feet and is constructed of a modular stone system. 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 as required by the Architectural Review Guidelines; however, only one size of stone was used. The location of the wall is perpendicular to the public sidewalk and setback from the sidewalk. Additionally, the new wall supports existing planting beds in the front yard. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house and recommends approval with the condition that three different size blocks be incorporated into the wall system.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu stated that he did not know approval by the City was needed and that at its highest point, the wall is only 18-inches.

The ideal location for veterinary services is in proximity to residential neighborhoods; however, operational characteristics of the businesses are more compatible with commercial districts than residential. Hours of operation, noise generation and traffic impacts of veterinary service businesses would likely align with other

6 commercial businesses. Under regulations of a Conditional Use Permit, additional impacts based on the details of the specific business and location can be mitigated on a case by case basis.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is a comprehensive list of definitions for different industries that is commonly referenced by zoning ordinances as a source of business definitions. The 2012 publishing of NAICS lists the following definition for veterinary services:

“The industry comprises establishments of licensed veterinary practitioners primarily engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for animals; and establishments primarily engaged in providing testing services for licensed veterinary practitioners.”

Staff proposes the addition a definition to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify a veterinary hospital/clinic as opposed to other animal service type facilities such as kennels, grooming or training facilities. The proposed definition was developed based on the NAICS definition along with research into definitions used by other cities. The definition serves to outline business characteristics, but not to regulate business operations (proposed definition: “Facilities primarily for the practice of veterinary medicine, dentistry or surgery for animals which can include accessory accommodations for overnight patients”). Staff also recommends the addition of veterinary hospital/clinic to be listed as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1, C- 2 and HDC Zoning Districts. By allowing the use with a Conditional Use Permit, the City can regulate specifics of the business operations. Veterinary hospitals provide a service desired by many residents; however, the operation is a business and therefore should be located in commercial districts only. Adding a definition of veterinary hospital/clinic to the Zoning Regulations and as an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit will bring the existing clinic into conformance and allow for the addition of other clinics. Veterinary hospital/clinics are not know to group locations, as you may see for retail clothing stores or hardware stores. As a result, it is not likely that one area of town will be over concentrated with veterinary hospitals/clinics. Staff also does not anticipate a large influx of veterinary hospitals/clinics after the code amendment. Staff recommends listing this use as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit so that each business proposed can be analyzed individually and appropriate conditions can be imposed. Staff does not anticipate negative impacts associated with the proposed text amendments. Director Istenes noted that the proposed changes will bring an existing business into conformance and allow similar businesses that provide services desired by residents to locate within the City. Veterinary hospitals/clinics can have operations that are unusual compared to other general commercial uses and therefore, staff recommends listing veterinary hospitals/clinics as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.

Joanne Boulton informed the members that she asked a resident of Clayton who is a non- practicing veterinarian to review the proposed changes and had some suggestions; Joanne referred to a vet business that’s located adjacent to a Chinese restaurant on Forest Park Parkway.

Veterinary hospitals/clinics can have operations that are unusual compared to other general commercial uses and therefore, staff recommends listing veterinary hospitals/clinics as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Joanne Boulton informed the members that she asked a resident of Clayton who is a non- practicing veterinarian to review the proposed changes and had some suggestions; Joanne referred to a vet business that’s located adjacent to a Chinese restaurant on Forest Park Parkway.

7 Ron Reim mentioned large versus small animals and the possibility of having a weight limit of the animals that are serviced; suggesting 300 pounds.

Scott Wilson asked if adding the word “small” would cover it.

William Liebermann asked the largest animal Dr. Fraser (CUP Applicant) taken care of.

Dr. Fraser, veterinarian, replied that he has a 180 pound Great Dane as a patient.

Joanne Boulton asked about animals that have died.

Dr. Fraser indicated that they have a service pick up animal remains (deceased animals).

Joanne Boulton asked where they are stored until then.

Dr. Fraser indicated that there is a freezer on-site.

Joanne Boulton asked about waste disposal.

Dr. Fraser indicated that medical waste is also picked up.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if disposal is regulated by the state.

Dr. Fraser replied that medical waste is, yes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Dr. Fraser that the information he is providing helps the Commission understand the operational aspect of the business for the text amendment.

A brief discussion regarding proximity of veterinary clinics and restaurants ensued. Planner

Krane informed the members that the cities of Richmond Heights, University City and Creve Coeur allow veterinary clinics with a CUP.

It was decided to keep the language in the zoning regulations simple and further regulations could be handled through the CUP process.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing nothing from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the members. Ron Reim then made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendments to the Board of Aldermen with the addition of the words “small/ companion” to the definition. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.