May 17, 2021 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Virtual ZOOM Meeting MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021 1730 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 17:32.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager David Gipson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Robert Denlow, Helen DiFate and Carolyn Gaidis answered roll call.
Absent: George Hettich
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Annisa Kumerow, Planner Anna Krane, AICP, City Contracted Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 3, 2021 were not available for consideration.
2
PUBLIC HEARING
8001-8049 FORSYTH AND 15 N MERAMEC – PLAN COMMISSION – LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
Principal Planner Annisa Kumerow summarizes the following staff report: Background & Project Description
The subject property is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Meramec Avenue. The site is currently made up of multiple properties located at 8001, 8015, 8019, 8023, and 8027 Forsyth Boulevard and 15 North Meramec Avenue. The property is zoned PUD and is currently under development with a mixed-use commercial and office project, comprised of two towers with a parking garage between them.
The proposed plat will consolidate the existing lots into two lots to allow for the development of the mixed-use project. The consolidated lots will measure 57,967 square feet and 31,305 square feet. Development and design of the mixed-use towers have been previously approved. There is an existing 20’ wide alley on the property which the City will initiate vacation of through an ordinance in the near future.
Plan Commission Consideration
In considering and acting upon plats and other applicable plans, staff and the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:
1. Compatibility of lot size and density; 2. Creation of a lot which provides adequate dimensions to construct improvements of similar size and nature to the surrounding area; 3. Creation of a lot which is in compliance with the area and frontage requirements (no flag lots) as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and provides for an orderly pattern of development; 4. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better site layout and development; 5. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 6. Elimination of incompatible land configurations; 7. Consistency with good planning practices; 8. Compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards.
Conclusion
Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO: To recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
3 1. That the applicant provides a mylar (with the surveyor’s signature and the property owner’s signature) for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval; and
2. That the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds office and submit proof of filing to the City within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.
SCOTT HALEY (SH) – APPLICANT. DID NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ADD TO STAFF REPORT NOTED THAT THEY HAD WORKED WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO GET PROPER LANGUAGE FOR PLAT. READ AND AGREED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
Rich Lintz - Motion to recommend approval of the plat to the Board of Aldermen with the two staff conditions. Robert Denlow - Second
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
OLD BUSINESS: 801 CHOPHOUSE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SIGNAGE
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The proposed signage was originally presented to the Architectural Review Board. UPDATE: After consideration of this item at the April 19 meeting, the ARB elected to table the item to the May 3 meeting so the applicant could present their plans to address the windows located above the main entrance canopy, which was not shown on their original submittal. Subsequently, the applicant submitted plans which show the windows covered with fabric canopy (color not specified) but did not appear at the May 3 meeting. The applicant also did not provide details of the logo signage. The drawings appear to show the windows covered in their entirety. Provided the fabric canopy panels match the color and style of the proposed awnings on the other windows, staff recommends approval as proposed. At the time of this writing, the applicant has been non-responsive to staff as to whether they plan to appear at the May 17 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
To approve as submitted with the following conditions:
1. The proposed logo signage on the awnings shall be limited to a total of 6. Each awning shall be permitted 1 logo sign to be located and centered upon the lower base of the awning. The awning at the entrance window shall not have any signage.
2. Sign Permits shall be applied for and issued prior to installation. _______________________________________________________________________________________
Tim Koehler with Lawrence Design Fabrics (TK)- Applicant Chris Harris with 801 Chophouse (CH)- Applicant
4 Steve Lichtenfeld – window behind entrance canopy, behind and to the right, Why does the fabric panel proposed at the ½ barrel entry canopy not match with the others in terms of length, leaving the lower window exposed? Glazing is ground level up to a certain height and if you want to be uniform awnings should be the same also. CH : Noted willingness to clad and cover window in the single glass panel as are the other openings. TK noted covering the window is possible. Rich Lintz – Questioned height of awnings as proposed and requested clarification as to whether the proposed cladding behind the existing barrel awning is an awning. CH: Noted it is flush mounted to the wall – cladding wall 1 inch thick panel; the barrel awning will remain. Carolyn Gaidis- Agrees with Helen’s comments Bob Denlow – I understand Steve’s comments. Above barrel will change the look but will be flush mount on wall. Feels applicant’s solution is practical. Helen DiFate – questioned level of awnings above barrel. TK– noted it will be lowered to the lowest part of the barrel arch. Helen DiFate – Questioned, continuing the awning line straight across on the left side of the front entry. Why not make it on the right side, 11 and ½ inches? Likes Logo increased in size so it fits into the valance. David Gipson – not comments/concerns TK – extended height of valance to 13 inches; height of oval is 12 inches so won’t hang over valance. Steve Lichtenfeld – questioned change of angle or height above grade due to increase in valance length. TK- noted kept height above grade the same Graphic will be within valance edge. CH – described logo signage and lighting. No other comments from Board members on lighting.
Rich Lintz – motion to approve design of awnings and signage as discussed with increased length on entry board panel to 11 ½ inches on the right side to align with the same length on the left side and also with two remaining staff recommendations that signage be limited to 6 signs limit and permits to be applied for. Robert Denlow -second.
Motion Approved Unanimously by the Board.
NEW BUSINESS
808 FRANCIS PLACE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION/ADDITION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report:
The 12,000 square foot property is located at the west side of Francis Place just north of its intersection with Halifax Place. The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multi Family Dwelling District. Portions of the structure were destroyed by fire and the applicant is proposing to re-construct the attached front facing garage and add a second story addition master suite above the garage, totaling 1,597 square feet. The applicant also proposes to replace existing windows, replace the roof with black asphalt shingles, and reconstruct the existing driveway to a new exposed aggregate concrete drive. The applicant is also proposing interior changes.
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
The applicant is locating the addition on the south end of the property where the former garage was located. The garage addition is two stories, 22 feet 10 inches in height and is attached to the single family home which is
5 approximately 12 feet in height. Each elevation of the addition will be clad in brick to match the existing. The east elevation contains first and second floor glazing in the form of a sufficient number of windows and glass doors. The type of window frames was not provided, and the color of the windows frames was originally specified as black but it is unclear if recent revisions changed the proposed color. The west elevation contains the garage door (type and color not specified) and a sufficient amount of glazing on the second story. The gable ends of the proposed addition and the front gable on the existing home will be clad with siding (type and color not specified). The project does not exceed the impervious area allowances for the R-4 zoning district.
The massing and style of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing structure and structures in the neighborhood which are built as one or two story homes, largely clad in brick, with gable style roofs and front entry garages.
A trash enclosure will be installed at the southwest corner of the garage and the HVAC units will be screened with a fence and gate (height and type not specified) on the rear of the home.
No trees will be impacted as a result of construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To approve as submitted with the following conditions:
1. The window frame material and color shall be specified by the applicant at the ARB meeting and shall be approved by the ARB. 2. The type of siding proposed shall be fiber cement board and the color of the siding shall be specified by the applicant at the ARB meeting and approved by the ARB. 3. The height, size and material of the trash enclosure shall be specified at the ARB meeting by the applicant and shall be approved by the ARB. 4. The height, size and material of the air conditioner screening shall be specified at the ARB meeting by the applicant and shall be approved by the ARB. 5. The color and style of the garage door shall be specified at the ARB meeting by the applicant and shall be approved by the ARB. _______________________________________________________________________________________
Craig Teich owner(CT) Ray Bucher architect and owner (RB)
CT- specified that window replacements are comprised of Anderson 400 series in black which is vinyl or fibrex however he fine with changing to the E series which is aluminum framed, onn both the existing home and the new structure. Steve Lichtenfeld – wants to keep with not allowing vinyl frames. Comment on west elevation on A-3 – garage addition to right on south side. Looks light two different houses being put together one being a one story ranch and the other being a two story with a living space over the new garage. It appears new garage extends up to 2 feet in front of the existing building. RB – confirmed garage addition is set two feet in front of existing home. Rich Lintz – as long as gables match and brick is painted the same I’m fine with it. Carolyn Gaidis – had same reaction as Steve Lichtenfeld with ranch and two story together. South elevation – why so few windows? RB – bathroom in master suite and bed located in this area. CT – because of adjacent two story apartment complex, they wanted more privacy on that side.
6 Bob Denlow – concurs with Rich Lintz’s comments. Helen DiFate: Did architect consider Dutch Hip roof ? It would reduce height and volume of two story mass. Gables on Dutch roof would tie back into gables on house and visually reduces volume of roof. The design appears as a two story garage with a house attached. Front entry needs something to give it more presence. Dutch hip roof would be on the front and back. Steve Lichtenfeld – would like owner and architect to take a look at comments regarding appearance house/garage attached. Need something to draw your attention to front door. Richard Lintz – commented one window in garage would go a long way to make it look less like a large blank wall. RB – need to talk to Craig and see what his thoughts are. CT – bought in 2018. Insurance covered none of expense. Waiting for process to go through. Idea of any expense added is daunting. Would like to get it done as quickly as possible. In response to staff comments he summarized the following changes and location of changes on plans: Changes to brick façade- all brick painted white Architectural shingles will be used, Driveway location shown on sheet A-1 Impervious calculations attached Style color entry point – elevations on floor plan and on elevations on A-3 Garage door is carriage house style, 303 black walnut single doors No new trees planned, and no trees affected ______________________________________________________________________________________ Motion by Carolyn Gaidis: Move to approve based on the responses from the applicant on staff recommendations 1 thru 5 and also to make a motion that we allow them the option to make the two gable changes that were discussed by the Board and submit to staff for approval.
Rich Lintz – second.
Unanimously approved.
6309 Alamo Avenue - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
Susan Istenes, Director, summarized the following staff report: The subject property is located at 6309 Alamo Avenue, on the north side of the street, just west of the City of Clayton’s eastern boundary. The applicant is requesting consideration by the Architectural Review Board for after- the-fact approval of the removal of existing windows from the front and west elevations of an existing single family home that is currently undergoing interior and exterior renovations.
VISUAL IMPACT
On June 15, 2020, the applicant received Architectural Review Board approval to paint the exterior of the 2-story single family home, replace all but two of the windows and the front door on the front elevation, and to replace the existing clay tile roof with black shingles. In October of 2020, the applicant received administrative architectural review approval for a proposed two-story addition located on the rear elevation of the house, through the building permit review process. The demolition plans submitted for review and approval of the addition did not show the removal of windows on the existing home’s west elevation nor did it show any changes to the already approved front elevation. In fact, the plans indicated that the front elevation would be consistent with the ARB approval granted on June 15, 2020.
7 During construction it was discovered that the existing diamond shaped windows located on the second story of the front elevation were filled in with an unknown material and three existing windows on the west elevation were bricked over. It also appears that several other windows on the west side of the existing structure were reconfigured and replacement windows were installed.
The applicant provided a detailed explanation as to why the west side windows were removed. In short, the interior remodeling conflicted with the existing window locations. The applicant would like the ARB to retroactively approve these changes to the west elevation (see photographs on last page of the report). The two windows that were removed were located on the south half of the west elevation, closer to the front of the house. There are several other homes in the immediate neighborhood with similar window configurations wherein a small portion of the side elevations are devoid of windows, so the lack of windows in this location on the side of the house is not out of the ordinary. The distance between homes is approximately 10 feet, thus reducing the ability for the public to see the side elevations easily. In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the revised appearance of the west elevation is acceptable.
Regarding the diamond shaped windows on the second story of the front elevation, according to the applicant, during construction it was discovered that these windows were encased with Plexiglas and were non-functional, therefore, the brick mason was directed to infill them with limestone to match the existing porch stone. Most of the homes in this neighborhood contain architectural details such as square and diamond shaped windows on the second story, dormer windows on the second story, clay tile roofs, front porches, and heavy use of trim detail. The contrasting colors of red brick and cream colored grout on homes in the neighborhood along with tile roofs create the feeling of depth and character. The subject home has been painted grey with white trim and the tile roof was replaced with black shingles. Although these color changes were approved by the Architectural Review Board, the resulting appearance is rather flat and lacks character as it relates to the context of the neighborhood. The diamond shaped windows created a tie to similar architectural details located on homes within the neighborhood and created a sense of depth on an otherwise flat second story facade. Regardless of the Plexiglass material they were allegedly encased in, in their previous condition, they read as windows from the public view. The staff and the ARB have not historically approved the removal of windows on front elevations unless replacement windows elsewhere were proposed which enhanced the appearance of the front elevation. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the diamond windows should be restored to their original appearance.
Staff Recommendation:
To approve as submitted with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall restore the Diamond shaped windows on the second story to their original appearance. 2. The applicant shall apply for an amendment to their building permit to reflect the changes in design as indicated in the site plan provided and as approved by the Architectural Review Board.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Allison Reichart and Danny (husband) -applicant/owners (AR) Dan Spiegel- contractor (DS) Steve Lichtenfeld – side windows not visible from public Bob Denlow – what’s involved and cost to restore diamond windows DS- contractor explained plexi glass covering on window. Took Plexi glass out, filled in with a thin piece of glass – most windows have sills, water when to bottom of diamond. Never on same plane as brick. Took glass out, Mason cut a diamond shaped Bob Denlow – questioned the removal of the window - how would it affect the inside?
8 SL – could window be put in but not be seen on interior – leave as drywall covering? To look like a window from exterior. DS – could make it look like a window with drywall behind Carolyn Gaidis – if we were respecting the character of neighborhood the brick would have stayed red brick if we were – don’t see a point of requiring a window if it is not functional. Leave it as it is right now (covered up). Helen DiFate – changes made to date (window mullion and color changes) with all of those you’ve lost the color of old home already. Difference of changing to glass or darker stone, would like to see them go back to glass. If that’s impossible, then a dark stone or tile, something that gives same visual appearance as glass. Bob Denlow – agrees with Carolyn. So much change already to the historic character that ship has come and gone. Two diamonds are minor and will not capture historic look of house. Rich Lintz- agree with Carolyn Gaidis comments and Bob Denlow’s comments. Character has changed and trying to put back tiny windows would be difficult. Steve Lichtenfeld – agrees with last few comments but would rather see the diamond windows as windows. Not convinced that changing back to window would really make much difference at this point. David Gipson – agrees with other comments but feels going back to diamond windows wouldn’t make much difference at this point. Steve Lichtenfeld – mentions letter from neighbor and comment about door.
Motion: CG – approve with accepting the diamond shaped windows in their current state and approve staff recommendation number 2 and approving the side windows (west as well). Rich Lintz – second the motion.
Motion approved Unanimously.
HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 19:30 (7:30).
_______________________________ Recording Secretary