July 6, 2021 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD JULY 6, 2021 ZOOM MEETING
The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. via a ZOOM meeting. Upon roll call, the following responded:
Present: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld David Gipson, City Manager Ira Berkowitz, Aldermanic Representative Carolyn Gaidis Helen DiFate George Hettich Absent: Bob Denlow
Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Annisa Kumerow, Principal Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney Anna Krane, PGAV, Contracted Planner with the City of Clayton
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting.
MINUTES The minutes of June 7, 2021 were approved, with minor changes. The minutes of June 21 were approved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – 920 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BLVD. VETERINARY CLINIC. Dr. Seth Williams, applicant, was in attendance. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned whether the interior HVAC system will be replaced.
Dr. Williams – noted he anticipated that all 3 a/c units would have to be replaced but wasn’t sure at this time. Carolyn Gaidis – no comments George Hettich – no comments Hele DiFate – no comments David Gipson – no comments Dr. Williams noted he was aware of the staff conditions in the staff report and was in agreement with the staff conditions. Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve the project with the three staff recommended conditions, George Hettich seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. SITE PLAN REVIEW- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 7539 MARYLAND AVENUE Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Jim Bulejski, Architect, was present (JB) Jeff Preichter, Developer, was present (JP) Steve Lichtenfeld (SL) asked the Architect to explain where the water on site was being routed to or how it would be contained. JB – noted water containment is in the front yard. Existing site slopes toward street. Finished product will continue to slope towards street. Area inlet located at bottom of driveway. This water will be pumped up into the front yard containment system. SL – asked if containment system will capture all water. JB – noted, yes, it will capture all the water. Carolyn Gaidis (CG) questioned the grading plan and a swale shown on the plans that appears to go into street? JB – noted in front of containment system a little would go to street onto the grass in that area. CG – questioned tree selection. Number 1 says “unknown” – no label as to what they are on the proposed tree schedule on three large shade trees. Jeff Preichter – Noted that Public Works will pick trees out in that location for street tree. CG – Noted creeping jenny and butterfly bush are invasive. Helen DiFate (HD)- likes the way garage is tucked under and is glad there is enough room to maneuver. Has concern over length of retaining wall. Asked if at the rear the wall could be narrowed and planted
with hedges to visually soften and assist with noise up at grade level. Noted that the two driveways are close and to have one high and another other drop down is visually disconcerting. Ira Berkowitz – no questions David Gipson – asked if the railing shown on sheet C-2 is that the accurate location based on the code requirements for walls over 30 inches? JB – confirmed the drawing is accurate as to the location of the railing. SL – asked if the applicant was aware of and in agreement with the staff conditions. JB – confirmed they were aware of and in agreement with the staff conditions. Public Speakers: Cheryl Breigallen – lives to the east of the proposed project and they live at 7535 Maryland Ave. Has concern over location of proposed wall on project site. It will interfere with their ability to park their cars in the driveway safely and open their car doors on the driveway. Discussion ensued regarding the close proximity of the two driveways and the possibility of the developer improving the neighbor’s driveway by widening it with asphalt. Driveway to be widened for approximately 45 feet to make it a 10 foot wide driveway for neighborhoods driveway. CG – felt that it was setting a precedent to required that someone else’s project improves another’s house/site. Feels that the Commission should have further discussion about it. SL - noted this is a unique situation but agrees it may set a precedent. GH – agrees with Carolyn and appreciates that both parties are in agreement but doesn’t feel that we shouldn’t be voting on a condition to construct a driveway for the neighbors. IB – doesn’t think they can make this a condition of this project. But if parties agree, they can do that. Uncomfortable making it a condition. Perhaps explore the option of both parties coming up with a written agreement and having the PC look at that. Kevin O’Keefe – noted that trying to get these two parties to compromise claims they may have against each other and the City’s interest in resolving that is tenuous. Perhaps require developer to report within 30 days or so if some settlement has been reached between applicant and neighbor with respect to the resolution of the neighbor’s driveway currently on the subject property and leave it to them to decide as to what that is going to consist of. Merely require them to report to the PC if they have reached some accommodation. It would allow you to proceed with site plan review at this point. JP – noted both parties have an understanding right now and we can resolve it outside of this forum and would work with neighbors on repairs as a result of construction. CG – sounds like you have an agreement. My objection is putting it into the record that it is required and agrees with Kevin’s recommendations. SL – agrees Kevin’s recommendation seems to be best for all parties and would allow the PC to move forward with two conditions in staff report.
Kevin O’ Keefe – suggest PC add a 3rd condition to require the applicant to report within 30 days to the Plan Commission as to whether or not they have reached an agreement with respect to the driveway situation. Cheryl B., neighbor - noted she will work with JP to work it out so they can have a safe driveway to open car doors and will be glad to work with the developer on that issue. Rick Bliss from the audience, questioned curb cut and whether it will be able to accommodate a driveway that is 2-3 foot wider. JB – spoke to curb cut and configuration and noted they are replacing curb cut for both properties. Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve with two staff recommendations and a third condition – to report within 30 days to the Plan Commission whether or not an agreement has been reached with the adjoining property owner with respect to the driveway which will be impacted as a result of construction. George Hettich seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW OF DESIGN AND MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 7539 MARYLAND AVENUE. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report, staff recommends project is approved as submitted. Jeff Preichter, applicant, was in attendance. Jim Bulejski, was in attendance. Steve Lichtenfeld asked for comments from applicant. JB – clarified home is 4,100 square feet, noted they are going for a timeless, classic look and the articulation with windows would fit in well with neighborhood. SL – agreed the desi looks good and details bring apparent height of house down and noted Sheet 6 shows in detail how the roof/home relate to neighboring properties. Noted it is a large house, windows on all sides and is comfortable with design. Ira Berkowitz – believes design is compatible with neighborhood. Carolyn Gaidis – no comments George Hettich – no comments. Helen Di Fate – no additional comments. David Gipson – no comments. Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve the project with the staff recommendation and George Hettich, seconded the motion. Motion to approved passes unanimously.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR 7604 CARSWOLD FOR EXTERIOR ALTERNATION FOR A FRONT YARD RETAINING. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following condition: The retaining wall shall be setback from the front property line by two feet with landscaping between the retaining wall and the sidewalk. Michael Keller, homeowner, was in attendance. Michael Keller noted he understood staff’s comments about setting the proposed retaining wall to be setback 2 feet from the sidewalk but felt by not having the wall the sidewalk, erosion concerns would be exasperated. Would like staff condition to be reconsidered by the Board. SL – noted when others have put walls roughly two feet back from sidewalk, it actually made their grading less severe and easier to maintain and two feet allows plantings to be made in front of it and this is one reason why ARB prefers the two foot setback. Otherwise the proposed wall is a nice improvement to front out house. GH – agrees retaining wall needs to be moved back 2 feet. HD – agrees with two-foot setback. Sidewalks are not wide in this area. Wall in essence encroaches not physically but people walk away from it making sidewalks narrower. IB - noted the landscape buffer softens the wall quite a bit and is in favor of maintaining 2-foot requirement for walkability and aesthetic reasons. DG – agrees with everything that has been said. (Carolyn Gaidis left the meeting) SL – summarized comments from ARB. Mike Keller – appreciates comments and agrees with exception that slope would be improved and that was his main concern of general maintenance on property side of wall. Hearing no additional comments or questions from the audience, David Gipson made a motion to approve with staff recommendation. George Hettich seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AN ALTERATION TO THE EXTERIOR TO REPLACE WINDOWS AND DOORS AT 444 CARSWOLD DRIVE. George Hettich, recused himself from this item. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Staff recommendation is to approve the project with the following condition: The vinyl clad windows and doors should be replaced with a wood or metal product.
George Hettich, property owner, was in attendance and gave a summary of his request including the reason for requesting vinyl windows. Steve Lichtenfeld felt the new windows should conform with the way the ARB has been traditionally working. Helen DiFate – asked are new windows vinyl clad or vinyl? GH – responded that they are vinyl clad, Anderson brand. HD – spoke to vinyl clad vs vinyl window. Noted her concern is vinyl clad window of the name brands are good windows. A vinyl window usually has a different profile and is vinyl inside/outside and is not the same as a vinyl clad window. That’s where she would make the distinction. They are two different products. Vinyl clad is a high end product where a vinyl window would be located in a less expensive home, such as a starter home. Also asked is there a room where they would be two different windows? Are existing windows true vinyl or vinyl clad.? GH – confirmed they are vinyl clad noted there would not be two different windows all are vinyl clad. DG – asked difference between vinyl clad vs vinyl, is clad a wood core? HD – Anderson windows it is a wood core with a vinyl clad on exterior and interior is a wood window. IB – Asked for basis of wood vs vinyl? Why is wood better? HD – wood is traditional window, and vinyl cladding is to protect exterior and minimizes painting maintenance cost and actual maintenance. The Vinyl window is vinyl outside and inside. Usually has a thinner profile and frame around it is thinner. Wood window is higher end, better quality window used in high end homes. Vinyl windows are also cheaper to customize. Comes down to cost and appearance. IB – notes he believes it is an appearance issue. Front of house should be wood. Susan Istenes – noted that the City asks, as part of the application process, what the windows are made of. Staff informs applicants up front that vinyl windows are not preferred by ARB. Noted Bemiston Place project wanted to use vinyl windows. ARB was concerned over visibility from street for that project. SL – noted he wasn’t sure without getting up really close he could tell if a window was vinyl or vinyl clad. Confirmed by HD. SL – vinyl clad wood window is of the quality we want. Does not think the difference would be noticeable. Leaning towards accepting vinyl clad. HD – would accept vinyl clad. IB – appears that vinyl clad appearance is very difficult to discern between vinyl clad or wood and is ok with either. DG – wants to make sure we are consistent when moving forward and staff communicates that to applicants if we are going to accept vinyl clad.
Hearing no additional comments from the Board and no comments from the audience. Helen Di Fate made a motion to approve the project as submitted with vinyl clad windows and sliding patio doors, seconded by Ira Berkowitz, motion approved unanimously. 8000 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – COMMERCE BANK EAST TOWER ARTWORK Annisa Kumerow summarized staff report. Staff recommendation is to approve as submitted. SL – noted it was a fabulous piece, 50 years old, and thinks it will fit into space beautifully. GH – no comments, beautiful piece. HD – likes piece; presents circular voids within each part presents wonderful opportunities for people to become engaged with it. IB – questioned if project meets stipulation in PUD for public benefit. Susan Istenes – noted that the public art for this project was approved in the PUD as a Public Benefit exchange for points and as a condition of approval there is a requirement that the applicant work with an art expert to help select the pieces (two pieces for the project). Robin Traxton (RT) – joined meeting, applicant DG – pointed out each tower has a separate owner and this piece is for the commerce bank tower and there will be another piece coming forward at a later time. RT – fine art curator for Commerce Bank introduced herself. Denny Holzmeier (sp), applicant, joined by telephone. Noted they met with City Art Commission and they have decided to relocate one of their pieces from Kansas City and that’s where Robin came in. Noted location and platform for art piece. Confirmed this piece is strictly for east tower and is one of the PUD requirements. SL – noted it went through PAAC and they recommended approval IB – there was a process how the artwork was to be selected and approve per the PUD SL – confirmed this item does not go to Board of Aldermen; PC is final approval authority. Chairman discussed tabling item to next meeting to ensure compliance with PUD requirements. Ira Berkowitz made a motion to table, second by GH. The motion was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ARTICLES III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS. Tim Breihan H3 Studios was present and summarized the changes to H3 made to the regulations and forwarded to the Commission Monday afternoon. SL – noted it was difficult to figure out the changes that were made in a short time frame and the document given to the Board was not properly formatted and was without page numbers. SL commented on Design Guidelines they are formatted nicely and understandably.
The Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the meeting of July 19, 2021. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.