August 17, 2020 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VIRTUAL ZOOM MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2020 17:30 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Carolyn Gaidis at 17:30.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager David Gipson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow, George Hettich, and Helen DiFate answered roll call.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH A MINOR AMENDMENT
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES AUGUST 3, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 7-0
2 NEW BUSINESS
329 NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SOLAR
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “This item was first heard at the July 20 meeting. At that meeting, the Architectural Review Board tabled the item until the proposed layout could be reviewed for fire safety concerns. The Fire Marshall reviewed the PV roof layout and determined that the proposal is not typical as other installations where the entire south side roof section is covered with panels. He considered the roof access options for the Fire Department with regards to the proposed layout.
Based on the building elevation, pitch of the roof and surrounding ground obstacles the Fire Marshall determined that the proposed layout does not create a hardship for the Fire Department to conduct roof operations.
The subject property is located mid-block on Bemiston Avenue north of the intersection of Bemiston Avenue and Kingsbury Boulevard, on the west side of the street. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The applicant is proposing to install 14 solar panels on the roof of the existing house, mounted on an Iron Ridge racking system.
Section 405.3880 of the Zoning Regulations outlines requirements for the design and construction of renewable energy systems. For building mounted solar energy systems in residential neighborhoods, the following criteria apply:
1. Building-mounted solar energy collectors installed in residential zoning districts shall be: (a) Installed in the plane of the roof (flush mounted); or (b) Made part of the roof design (capping or framing compatible with the color of the roof or structure); or (c) Building-integrated system. Mounting brackets shall be permitted to be placed parallel on the slope of a rear-facing roof if the applicant can demonstrate that the existing pitch of the roof would render the solar energy equipment ineffective or incapable of reasonable operation. 2. When located on a sloped roof, solar energy collectors shall be located on a rear- or side-facing roof, as viewed from a fronting street. In cases of corner lots or lots with more than one (1) street frontage, the side roof fronting a street shall be considered a front-facing roof. 3. Solar energy systems shall not project vertically above the peak of a sloped roof to which it is attached. 4. When located on a sloped roof, solar energy collectors shall be positioned in a symmetrical fashion and centered on the plane of the roof on which they are located. 5. When located on a sloped roof, solar energy collectors shall be set back at least two (2) feet from any outside edge, ridge, or valley of the roof. 6. Solar energy collectors installed on a flat roof must be screened by the use of a parapet or other architectural feature to screen the view from the street or from ground level on adjoining properties. 7. All exterior electrical or plumbing lines must be painted in a color scheme that matches as closely as possible the color of the structure and the materials adjacent to the lines when visible from the street.
A total of fourteen solar panels are proposed on the south and west slopes of the primary structure roof. Nine will be facing the side yard and five solar panels will be facing the rear yard. The plans indicate the solar energy collectors or panels will not be setback by two (2) feet from the outside edge of the roof. Staff is of the opinion that the design of the proposed panels are in conformance with the renewable energy design criteria, except for the
3 requirement that they be setback from the outside edge by two (2) feet. The setback requirement is necessary to allow the Fire Department access to the roof in the event of a fire.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. ALL EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE.”
CONOR WATERS (CW) – STRAIGHTUP SOLAR KATHLEEN GUND (KG) – OWNER
CW – Addresses the Board but has nothing to add to the staff report.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 7-0
7635 CARSWOLD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “At the meeting of July 20, this item was tabled to the meeting of August 17, with direction to the applicant to return with revisions that will soften the appearance of the home and to provide a landscape plan for the front yard. The revised plans include the addition of composite shutters; framed, flat panel style (simple lines, to coordinate with the awning) and painted black to match the awning, 12 inches wide x 60 inches tall (upper story) and 12 inches wide x 70 inches tall (ground floor). They will be fixed to the exterior and will not open/close as functional shutters. The front door will be repainted from white to black to match the awning and provide greater coherence to the front façade. The brown siding in the rear is now proposed to be painted a very dark grey to tie together the exterior of the house. The landscape plan for the front yard includes new sod, boxwoods, perennial grasses and shade-tolerant perennial plantings and a small seating area over pervious coverage.
The subject property is located at 7635 Carswold Drive, on the north side of the street, north of the intersection of Shirley Drive and Carswold Drive. The property has an R-2, Single Family Dwelling District zoning designation. The proposed project consists of painting the exterior of the 2-story, single-family residence, removing shutters from the front of the house, replacing a front door canopy feature, removing a brick planting bed and landscaping, altering the front access walkway and replacing front yard retaining walls.
The proposed modifications identified in this staff report have already been installed. The existing structure is constructed of brick. The previous off-white color brick has been painted a Sherwin Williams Ellie Gray, SW7650. The previous concrete walkway leading through the yard to the house, was approximately 3 feet wide and was comprised of brush-finished concrete. The new concrete walkway is located parallel to the driveway and varies in width from 8 feet at the front stoop to approximately 5 feet at the sidewalk; the new material is pebble aggregate. The front stoop was removed and reconfigured and the steps along the stop were removed and relocated further down the walkway leading directly to the driveway. The retaining walls were brick and concrete block. The new walls are constructed with Versa-Look Mosaic, Timberwood varietal color mix with tumbled faces. The blocks are
4 only one size as opposed to the three different sizes that is preferred by the Board. The walls are located at the east and west edges of the front elevation and are +/- 7 feet long, 24 inches in height and 6 feet long, 27 inches in height, respectively. The previously existing front porch covering was decorative metal with a yellow finish and sat upon two open, decorative metal columns. The new covering is aluminum, square shaped, black in color and measures 8 feet wide by 42 inches deep and 8 inches high. It is attached to the front face of the house with two metal rods located above it. The yellow shutters surrounding the five windows on the front façade were removed and were not replaced. The brick planter box containing shrubs located along the front facade was removed and not replaced.
In 2017, the Architectural Review Board approved the design of a 216-square-foot two story addition and a 330- square-foot deck/carport at the rear of the home. The addition was constructed with stone veneer on the first story and lap siding on the second story. The lap siding, as approved by the ARB, was to be painted white to match existing lap siding (see page 3 for approved plan). The lap siding was not painted white; it remains a red/brown to match the deck. The homeowner would like to keep the existing color lap siding (see page 4 for photograph of existing siding).
The neighborhood has similarly styled, single-family dwelling structures which are two stories high, constructed with brick; some brick has been painted. Many of the homes have shutters surrounding the windows on the front façade and if they don’t, they have architecturally designed door surrounds made of stone, roofed entry coverings with columns, or similar designs that frame the front entry door.
Gray is considered a neutral, earth tone color. The painted gray brick is compatible with the neighborhood. The redesigned walkway does not result in an overage of impervious coverage that violates the zoning ordinance and its location and material are compatible with the neighborhood and the home. The retaining walls meet the Architectural Review Board’s preference for tumbled edges, and color variety, but not block size. The walls face the side property lines and are not directly visible from the street. The change in color to the siding in the rear is not visible from the Carswold right of way. The property abuts Forest Park Parkway to the north and therefore only the residential properties to the east and west can see the rear of the house. The siding is consistent with the wood color of the deck.
The removal of the shutters and the lack of architectural interest of the front door covering give the front elevation of the house a very stark appearance. The new front entry covering is plain and has no architectural interest. The lack of framing around the windows as a result of the removal of the shutters and the lack of landscaping to soften the appearance of the structure gives the home a cold appearance that lacks interest and lacks the architectural detail that surrounding properties have. The design of the home is square without any articulation to add visual interest and help offset the removal of the shutters and the previously decorative front entry covering. Staff recommends the property owner consider designing a new landscape planting plan for the front yard to enhance the appearance of the property and consider replacing the front entry covering with a design and material that frame the front door comprised of architectural detail and context to the colonial styled architecture of the house and the neighborhood.
Updated (8/17/2020): The addition of black shutters, the painting of the front door to black and the installation of front yard landscaping softens the appearance of the front elevation of the home and gives it a more distinct and warmer feel, consistent with the neighboring properties. The landscaping plan, although minimal in scope, will help soften the hard edges of the home and the modification to the walkway, giving the front yard less of a harsh appearance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
JAMES DOLAN (JD) – OWNER
5 EVE GILMAN (EG) – OWNER MATT FALK (MF) – WYDOWN FOREST TRUSTEE
JD – Explains the changes to the Board and offers to answer questions.
MF – Thanks the Board for their review of the project and for helping the trustees with the process as well and appreciate the comments from the Board at the last meeting. We don’t feel the canopy has been addressed, we would like that it be softened and there be addition of columns.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 5-2 WITH CHAIRMAN STEVE LICHTENFELD AND HELEN DIFATE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.
7700 BONHOMME AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SIGNAGE
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Bonhomme Avenue and Hanley Road. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial. The applicant would like to install two wall signs, one facing Hanley Road (east elevation) and the second, facing Bonhomme Avenue (north elevation). The signs will be located just below the roof line of the glassed portion of the office tower that sits perpendicular to the main tower. The proposed signage is approximately 40 feet in height as measured from the adjoining sidewalk elevation and approximately 32 feet in height from the front landing area at the main entrance to the office tower.
Each proposed wall sign is +/- 49 square feet in area with remote channel letters and will be internally LED illuminated. The proposed sign will be made of aluminum, steel and acrylic and will be blue, gold and white in color.
Section 425.040 of the City’s Sign Regulations address wall sign as follows:
One (1) wall sign fifteen (15) square feet or five percent (5%) of the front wall area up to a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet shall be permitted as follows: Corner lots. Buildings and stores as described above on corner lots with a display window and/or a separate street entrance may have a sign on the side street side of the building conforming to the above requirements. Such signs shall be centrally proportioned on each facade or located above display windows but in no event shall such signs be located within four (4) feet of the corner of the building.
Because the signs are required to be located at the ground floor level and these signs are proposed at the roof line, the applicant is requesting approval of a modification to allow the signs at the roof line. The subject property is a corner lot; therefore, wall signs are allowed on both street frontages. The sign code requires that wall signs should be attached to front walls at or near the first (1st) floor ceiling level and project no more than 18 inches. The code also requires they be centrally proportioned on the facade. The building’s wall area along Hanley Road is approximately 32 feet in height x 36 feet in width and the wall area fronting Bonhomme Avenue is approximately 32 feet height x 48 feet in width. The sign code allows for a maximum of 2, fifty square foot signs, one on each wall. For signs located on side streets, the code
6 requires a 4-foot setback from the corner of the building. No measurements were provided with the drawings however a field inspection revelated that each glass panel comprising the building is approximately 4 feet in height and width, therefore it appears that the proposed Bonhomme facing sign does not meet the required 4-foot setback requirement from the corner of the building.
There was similar signage approved by the City in the same area. The sign shown below, was approved in 2006 and was 1.75 feet in height and 13.42 feet in width for a total square footage of 23.49 square feet.
The following signage appeared on the building in the same location, but no permit was issued by the City; it was there from approximately 2015 to 2020. Staff estimates the size of the signage was approximately 10 feet wide x 3.5 feet in height for a total area of approximately 35 square feet.
The present building appearance (no sign, Bonhomme frontage):
7
Proposed signage (Bonhomme frontage +/- 50 square feet):
Proposed signage (Hanley frontage +/- 50 square feet):
8
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed material and sign color is compatible with the building and surrounding character. As to the proposed location, the code requires the sign to be located at or near the first-floor ceiling level, whereas these signs are proposed to be located at the top of the building. At least one previously approved sign (Charles Schwab) was in the same location albeit both former signs (Schwab and Edwardsville Bank) were in a similar location and the Bonhomme facing sign was not centrally located on the building façade.
Staff would like to see the sign reduced in area, so the signs scale aligns more closely with the scale of the glass portion of the building upon which it is located, and the scale of the existing ground sign located along the Hanley Road frontage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA, PER SIGN, SHALL BE 40 SQUARE FEET.
2, THE SIGN ALONG BONHOMME AVENUE SHALL BE SET BACK 4 FEET FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING.”
DAVE CORNELL (DC) – APPLICANT
DC – Addresses the Board and gives background on variances received to get to this Board and a presentation explaining the project.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0 HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 18:15
_______________________________ Recording Secretary