October 5, 2020 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VIRTUAL ZOOM MEETING MONDAY OCTOBER 05, 2020 17:30 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lichtenfeld at 17:30.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager David Gipson, George Hettich, and Helen DiFate answered roll call.
Absent: Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES WAS TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
2 NEW BUSINESS
92 ABERDEEN PLACE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Aberdeen Place between Dartford Drive and University Lane. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is currently developed with a +/- 3,400 square foot single family residence. The project consists of renovations to the front elevation of the house, including window and door replacement, painting the front façade and installing a raised front terrace and an at grade front patio.
The applicant is removing and replacing the following:
1. Remove all trim and the window on the dormer and replace with board and batten siding, new trim at rake and new trim at corner. The window is being replace with black clad Marvin Signature Modern (material not specified).
2. Remove dentil at top of second story and replace with 5 ¼ inch Fipon painted concave molding.
3. Remove shutters surrounding second story windows; do not replace.
4. Remove second story windows and replace with new black clad casement windows (Marvin Signature Modern).
5. Remove coach lights and replace with new.
6. Add two additional coach lights; one on each side of secondary (French) doors on front facade.
7. Remove all front facade glass doors and replace with inswing French doors with an arched top. 8. Remove main front door and replace with glass door (black in color).
9. Remove wrought iron railing in front of front doors and along steps.
10. Remove front elevation basement windows and infill openings using a solid 7 inch by 14-inch limestone block across the front façade to create a raised patio which will project 7 feet 4 inches out from front of house and will have a limestone face and a textured concrete surface.
10. Remove all landscaping along front elevation.
11. Remove front steps.
12. Replace brick stoop with new bluestone veneer and a new stamped concrete porch.
13. Change gutter color to black, Sherwin Williams Tricorn Black.
14. Paint all brick on the home Benjamin Moore Chantilly Lace.
15. Replace front concrete walkway and install a proposed entry wall and apron at sidewalk.
3 The proposed changes will update the front of the house and give it a cleaner more modern appearance. Surrounding homes are constructed of brick, primarily red in color with white trim and there are some instances of painted brick in the neighborhood. The colors selected are traditional in appearance and are compatible with the traditional colors and designs prevalent in the neighborhood.
The addition of the front patio and the changes to the front walkway will increase the existing impervious coverage on site from 47 percent to 52 percent which is still less than the maximum allowable 55 percent. The proposed entry wall is constructed of 2-inch limestone, capped with bluestone and is setback one foot from the back edge of the sidewalk at a height of one foot at that point. The wall parallels the steps back towards the front of the house and at its highest point will be 2 feet 4 inches from grade. The paving apron in front of the steps will be paved in 2- inch bluestone. The concrete walkway will be divided by and edged with bluestone accents. A black tubular steel railing will also be installed on both sides of the steps. The applicant indicates the concrete walk will be brushed concrete, however the Architectural Standards requires that it be either exposed aggregate or a Meramec sand mix, to avoid a flat, white concrete appearance. No additional landscaping is proposed, but the front elevation indicates four large planters will be installed on the porch.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE FRONT WALKWAY SHALL BE COMPRISED OF EXPOSED AGGREGATE, STAMPED CONCRETE TO A MIX OF
MERAMEC SAND AND GRAVEL PER CITY STANDARDS.
2. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT YARD TO BREAK
UP THE HARD APPEARANCE OF THE FRONT PORCH AND WALKWAY.
DARREN VAN’T HOF (DVH) – OWNER TRISH VAN’T HOF (TVH) – OWNER VICTORIA HATFIELD (VH) – WALLFLOWERDESIGNS ALISA BLATTER (AB) – WALLFLOWERDESIGNS
AB – Addresses the Board and explains the project and offers to answer questions.
GEORGE HETTICH – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
HELEN DIFATE – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 4-0
424 OAKLEY DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 4,748 square foot property is located south of the intersection at Shirley Drive and Oakley Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project consists of replacing the garage door and installing a retaining wall. In February 2020 the applicant received ARB approval to replace the windows, fix the slate roof and remove the shutters and replace the garage door with a window. The applicant has decided to restore the garage from living area to a garage and plans to replace the existing garage door with a new one.
4 The applicant is removing the black wood garage door in front of the existing home and proposing to replace it with a black wood garage door with a similar style as the existing. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed garage door is comparable in design and color with the appearance of the home.
Retaining wall segments number 1 and number 2, as shown on the plans, are replacing a retaining wall which is in poor condition and is made of rotting railroad ties, concrete, and stones. Segment number 1 will not be visible from the street. Approximately 3 feet of segment number 2 will be visible from the street.
Retaining wall segment number 3 is replacing a rock and mortar (or cement) wall which is too close to the driveway to open a car door. The current rock and mortar (or cement) section of wall on the other side of the driveway will not be needed because of grading.
At this time the applicant believes wall segments number 4 and number 5 will most likely not be constructed because of grading, but the location has been previously approved, administratively, as have wall segments 1 through 3.
Portions of the wall segments on the side and rear of the house are partially in the neighbors’ yard. The applicant notes that the neighbors prefer retaining wall segments in the location where they are shown and have preferences for materials. The applicant has provided a color overhead rendering showing this along with the neighbor’s signatures indicating both parties agree about the details, location and material of the wall.
Both parties would like to use modular block as a building material and request that the Board approve the use of Belgard Ashlar Tandem modular block to construct all the retaining walls. It contains three different block sizes and a varying color pattern but does not have tumbled or rolled edges. If the Board will not approve the Ashlar, then the applicant is requesting the Board approve Mosaic Weathered series as a second choice. The applicant believes the Ashlar looks better with the existing home and others in the neighborhood. The Belgard Ashlar tandem comes in three colors. One is a solid color and two are variegated colors. The applicant is undecided about which color to select of the two variegated colors (see attached photos), either the Danville Beige or Shelby Blend. Most of the wall will be located in the rear and side yards and will not be visible to the public.
Although the Board usually prefers the tumbled edges of modular block wall systems, staff believes the proposed Belgard Ashlar is comparable to and compliments the stone found in the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE AS SUBMITTED WITH THE USE OF BELGARD ASHLAR SHELBY BLEND PER THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST.”
TOM LUCAS (TL) – OWNER
TL– Explains the changes to the Board and offers to answer questions.
GEORGE HETTICH – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
HELEN DIFATE – SECOND.
BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 4-0
5
8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – PLAN COMMISSION – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT PLAN
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 0.52-acre site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, and has a zoning designation of Special Development District (SDD). The property is improved with a two-story commercial building that was constructed in 1947 and is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses include retail and office buildings and Shaw Park to the south. In 1982, the subject property and the other properties in the block bounded by Brentwood Boulevard, Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard were rezoned to a Special Development District (SDD). As part of the SDD ordinance, the individual parcels on the block were to be developed in phases in accordance with general development standards for height, size and parking found in the Special Development Plan. Since approval of the rezoning in 1982, four office buildings and a shared parking structure have been constructed. Two parcels, including the subject property, have not yet been redeveloped. Development of the property for an office building use is subject to the use, area, height, and parking requirements which are specified in the Special Development Plan. The applicant has filed an application for amendment to the adopted Special Development Plan to allow for the hotel use on this phase 5 property. That application is being considered concurrently with this and the application for Architectural Review.
The project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 155,379 square-foot, 170 extended stay guest rooms with full kitchens. The 12-story hotel building includes 3,800 square feet of meeting space, a 1,500 square foot fitness center and ground floor space for a bar/lounge area. Parking will be in the existing parking structure which serves other buildings on the block. On December 2, 2019, this project was presented to the Plan Commission for Conceptual Review. This project requires approval of the following applications, each of which is accompanied by a staff report detailing the specific request and the criteria for approval: 1. SSD Amendment 2. Subdistrict Plan Review 3. Architectural Review
A Special Development District (SDD) is a distinct zoning classification for large-scale development which involves a multi-phased, multi-year timeframe. The purpose of the special development process is to enable compatible development, provide a public benefit as itemized in Section 405.1190 and achieve the following objectives:
1. Allow for a complex, large scale project to be phased in a manner advantageous to the City, developer and adjacent neighborhoods; 2. Development of a large tract of land which is vacant or underutilized in a coordinated manner; 3. Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations designed for smaller projects; 4. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities; 5. Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships covering different phases within a single development project; 6. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 7. Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City; 8. Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment; 9. Inclusion of special features; 10. Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation; and
6 11. Facilitate implementation of the recommendations of the Business Districts Master Plan, where applicable.
An SDD is governed by a Special Development Plan and Subdistrict Plans, each of which require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The Special Development Plan provides the general development standards for the proposed development including the location of project phases and schedules, location and use of each proposed building, the maximum height and size of each building, the location of open space and landscape buffers, general traffic circulation and the location of parking. The Subdistrict Plan provides detailed information related to each specific phase of the development.
The Plan Commission shall recommend to the Board of Aldermen approval, approval with conditions or denial of the Special Development Subdistrict plan. In considering and acting upon development plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:
1) The proposed development is consistent with the special development plan for this site and complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances. >> Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is generally consistent with the approved Special Development Plan and complies with other applicable codes and ordinances. The following table lists the applicable development standards from the SDD plan and whether the proposed development complies with each standard.
Development Standard Requirement/Limitation Proposed SDD Amendment Required Use Office Hotel Yes Building area 169,994 square feet 155,877 No Building height 14 stories 12 stories No Parking Spaces (per code for hotel) 140 165
No
2) The materials, design and uses are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development phase and the City as a whole. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the design of the special development plan, are consistent with other phases and are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. >> The building is compatible in terms of mass and height, with existing nearby structures. The design and materials used on the first two stories are compatible with existing buildings to the southeast and northwest using brick and large windows which reflect the street level design of existing buildings. Above the second story, the building materials are comprised of metal panels and EIFS. A complete review of the proposed materials was conducted by the ARB on September 21 where masonry was noted by the Board as the preferred material. The Board also commented that the layout of the building on site should be comparable to the existing street geometry. The applicant has indicated that the proposed footprint of the building will not be modified, therefore, it is appropriate to consider this application for the subdistrict plan; the appearance of the building will be reviewed again by the ARB later.
3) Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts; and, new developments should be screened from adjacent properties by use of high caliper tree plantings. A landscape plan depicting all new plantings for the phase must be submitted as part of the plan.
7 >> Due to the urban context of the site and the surrounding compatible land uses, buffering between adjacent properties isn’t necessary however the City’s contract Landscape Architect recommends the installation of tall trees to help soften the appearance of the sides of the building which lack glazing and architectural interest. Eight evergreen trees are proposed on the northwest side of the building.
4) Landscaping is appropriate with the scale of the development and consistent with any applicable City codes, ordinances and standards.
5) The preservation of mature trees is encouraged. The developer/architect will be required to submit a plan showing trees and other significant plant material as they currently exist and how they will be preserved. Tree preservation must comply with the provisions of the Architectural Review Board guidelines, landscape ordinance and any other applicable City codes and standards. Landscape plan requirements shall be in conformance with the City's adopted landscape ordinance. >> The existing street trees will be removed and replaced with new street trees when the streetscape is installed. All seven of the existing on-site trees will be removed, and nine new trees are proposed on site. The City’s contracted landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plan and finds it acceptable. The plan exceeds the tree caliper inch requirement by 32 caliper inches and meets the native tree requirement with 33.3 percent native. Evergreen trees are proposed for the northwest side of the structure to help soften its appearance.
6) Every attempt shall be made to preserve the topography of the property. If the topography must be altered to accommodate construction, the plan must contain specific information regarding the proposed topography change and its impact on the flow of drainage on adjacent properties. >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15-year, 20 minute calculation, is 2.31 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 2.21 CFS, which represents a decrease of 0.10 CFS, and therefore stormwater mitigation is not required. Stormwater runoff from the site will be piped directly to the public storm sewer system. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the stormwater plan acceptable. The project has not received conceptual approval from the Metropolitan Sewer District.
4) Streets or other means of access to the proposed phase of development meet City of Clayton standards and are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic.
Streetscape >> New streetscape will be installed along the project limits on Forsyth Boulevard. The conditions of approval require a streetscape easement to be granted to the City which is currently illustrated on the plans with variable widths.
Traffic >> A traffic impact study was prepared by CBB to identify how much traffic would be generated by the proposed development; evaluate the ability of motorists to safely enter and exit the site at each access point; determine the impact of the additional trips on the adjacent roads; and recommend improvements, as needed, to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic and provide safe ingress and egress at each access drive. The traffic study found the following: i. The signalized and unsignalized study intersections currently operate at desirable levels of service during both the AM and PM weekday peak hour except for the southern garage exit onto Forsyth Boulevard. The development is expected to generate 80 new vehicular trips during the AM peak hour and 100 new trips during the PM peak hours.
8 ii. Field observations made during the AM peak hour indicate that the heavy westbound left- turn movement from Forsyth Boulevard to Parkside Drive and the moderate eastbound left-turn movement from Forsyth Boulevard into the south garage access are physically offset meaning that the left-turns need to cross each other’s paths to complete their left turns. The conflicting turning volumes are problematic and create a safety concern. This safety concern will be exacerbated by additional traffic to and from the south garage. iii. In an attempt to improve safety at the south garage access, it is desirable that the south garage access by re-aligned to minimize the offset between the garage access and Parkside Drive. Because that change in alignment is unlikely and/or impractical, CBB recommends that the left turns from Forsyth Boulevard to the south garage access be physically restricted to prevent that entering movement. There are multiple alternative ways to access the garage, with the longest route (around the block to become a right turn in from Forsyth Boulevard) being less than an additional 0.15 mile in length. iv. Based on the existing safety and congestion concerns at Forsyth Boulevard with Parkside Drive/south garage access, consideration should be given to eliminate/minimize the negative offset along Forsyth Boulevard for the mainline left turns into the south garage access. The eastbound left turn from Forsyth Boulevard into the south garage access could be physically restricted. Public works will require a mountable curb median in the southern entrance and shall either be installed as part of the development or an escrow agreement shall be executed for the estimated cost as determined by the City of Clayton. v. The additional trips created by the development can be accommodated at the adjacent signalized and unsignalized intersections. CBB recommends the following be provided: 1. Provide site distance triangles at the entrances/exits of the site. . 5) The internal circulation system of the proposed phase encourages safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and is in compliance with the special development plan;
Site Access >> Existing private alleys provide access to the site from Maryland Avenue, Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard. Deliveries and trash pick‐up are expected via the middle alley on Forsyth Boulevard. The applicant has not provided enough data to verify the safe movement of vehicles throughout the site.
Automobile Parking >> The hotel land use requires parking to be constructed at a rate of .75 space per room plus one per 300 square feet of office/meeting room. Based on the size of the proposed hotel, 140 new parking spaces are required. The applicant does not propose to construct any new parking spaces and will utilize existing parking spaces in the shared parking structure. >> According to the parking study conducted by CBB, the existing parking supply for the shared parking structure is 2,134 spaces and when the other parking structures and miscellaneous parking spaces are included, the total parking supply for this block is 2,884 spaces. >> Based on observations made by CBB, the existing parking demand for the project block peaked at 10:45 AM, at which time 63 percent of the provided spaces (1,822 of 2,884) were occupied. Based on the size and use of the proposed development, the ULI Shared Parking Manual recommends 140 parking spaces and the ITE Parking Generation Manual recommends 186 parking spaces. With a 10 percent parking supply cushion for the existing users, the recommended parking supply for the block would be 2,190 parking spaces. CBB concluded that the existing parking supply provided in the project block (2,884 parking spaces) adequately serves current and projected parking demands with an adequate surplus of unoccupied spaces during the peak.
9 >> CBB identifies a “comfortable number” of parking spaces to be supplied should be around 165 spaces based on the standard resources. It is our understanding that the Residence Inn hotel development would utilize the main parking garage for their primary parking accommodations, and 165 stalls are available based on the prior demand counts. Additionally, the garage owner indicated that at least 165 stalls can be legally designated for this tract in the shared parking agreement. Assuming the 82 spaces “pledged” to SDD 5 and 83 of the 111 unallocated in the parking garage is allocated to the proposed hotel, then the CBB recommended 165 spaces could be met.
Loading Spaces >> Based on the size and use of the building, three loading spaces are required, and one is proposed in the rear of the building. This requirement may be waived by the Board of Aldermen through the Special Development Subdistrict process. The proposed loading dock is located directly across from the loading area for 8235 Forsyth Boulevard which is under the same ownership and currently has five loading spaces which can be shared by both buildings.
Bicycle Parking >> Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed development is required to provide 8 bicycle racks. The applicant proposes to install 0 bicycle racks >> Upon request by the applicant, the Director of Planning or her designee may approve alternative compliance from the provisions of the Bicycle Parking Regulations, which may include a reduction or deviation in the number, type, or location of the required bicycle racks. Considerations used in the determination to grant or deny alternative compliance may include existing site constraints, proximity to existing bicycle parking, and the nature of the proposed building or use. No such request has been made; therefore, the applicant will have to provide the required bike racks. There are no existing bicycle racks on this block and staff would not support a reduction.
10) Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed subdistrict and is in conformance with the special development plan. >> All connections to public utilities are shown on the plans to be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department.
The proposed development is compatible in terms of mass and height, with existing nearby structures. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is generally consistent with the requirements of the approved Special Development Plan per the conditions of approval outlined in the staff recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE DEVELOPER SHALL EXECUTE A STREETSCAPE EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CLAYTON
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
2. THE SUBDISTRICT PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO SHOW THE 8 REQUIRED BICYCLE RACKS INCLUDING THE
DESIGN AND SETBACKS FROM OTHER FEATURES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BICYCLE PARKING REGULATIONS.
3. THE SUBDISTRICT PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO SHOW THE REQUIRED SITE DISTANCE TRIANGLES AT THE
ENTRANCES/EXITS OF THE SITE.
4. THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR A
BUILDING PERMIT:
A. RECORDING THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT
ORDINANCE WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY AND SUBMITTING PROOF OF FILING TO THE CITY.
10
5. THE APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDISTRICT PLAN IS CONDITIONED UPON APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A HOTEL LAND USE, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD OF
ALDERMEN.
6. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFICATIONS TO SIGNAL
TIMING AT NEARBY INTERSECTIONS.
7. THE STREETSCAPE SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE CITY OF CLAYTON STANDARDS, AND
APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
8. A MOUNTABLE CURB MEDIAN IN THE SOUTHERN ENTRANCE SHALL EITHER BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE
DEVELOPMENT, BY THE DEVELOPER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS, OR AN ESCROW AGREEMENT
SHALL BE EXECUTED FOR AN ESTIMATED COST AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF CLAYTON.
9. APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDISTRICT PLAN IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
10. SUFFICIENT DATA SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF THAT SAFE VEHICULAR
MOVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE SITE CAN BE ACCOMMODATED.
DAVID ROBERT (DR) – MIDAS CHRIS SHINKLE (CS) – MIDAS BRAD CYTRON (BC) – SPENCER FANE LLP
DS – Addresses the Board and changes to the design made in response to comments from the last PC/ARB meeting.
GARY FEDER – Makes comments regarding parking in the shared garage that were noted in the letter he submitted prior to the meeting.
BC – Notes that the agreement with the seller requires the seller to provide necessary parking as determined by the City. These agreements are all private agreements and there is nothing in them that says where we can park and cannot park. This is not a zoning issue which is why we are here. I don’t think it would be appropriate for this Zoning board to dictate private agreements.
Stephanie Karr and Susan Istenes both note that it is not within the power of the Board to mitigate the garage parking and where the location of the parking within the private garage must be and that this issue will be up to the owners to work out.
GEORGE HETTICH – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SANS 2, 3, AND 10 WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS MET AND STAFF CONFIRMED HAVE BEEN MET.
HELEN DIFATE – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 4-0
OLD BUSINESS
19 CARRSWOLD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
11 Director Susan M. Istenes summarized the staff report, however, the applicant was not present on the Zoom call. The item was tabled until the meeting of October 19, 2020.
GEORGE HETTICH – MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2020.
HELEN DIFATE – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 4-0
HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 18:30.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary