July 20, 2020 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VIRTUAL ZOOM MEETING MONDAY, JULY 20, 2020 17:30 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld 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.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES JULY 06, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 7-0
2 OLD BUSINESS
6329 NORTH ROSEBURY AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located at 6329 North Rosebury Avenue, on the north side of the street, just east of its intersection with De Mun Avenue. The property is located in the R-5, Medium Density Multiple Family Dwelling district. The proposed project consists of painting the exterior of the 2-story, 6-unit multi-family residence and adding an awning over the front entry door along with replacing the two light sconces with sconces of a similar size.
The existing structure is constructed of brick, red in color, with exposed concrete at the base of the building, approximately three feet in height. There is a concrete walkway which leads to a single step up into a double glass, aluminum framed entry door. The existing windows are white vinyl and the roof has black shingles. The property is surrounded by multiple family dwelling structures which range in height from three to four stories. All are constructed of red brick with a variety of accent materials such as stone banding, stone window and door surrounds, white window trims, white wood accent material, cut stone accents, plinths, etc. This building is one of only two structures on the street that is two stories in height. All the structures located on surrounding properties and the entire street are constructed with red brick; painted brick is not found in this area.
As proposed, all existing red brick surface areas and the concrete base will be painted with BEHR Ultra-Pure White. A white and black striped awning is proposed over the front door. The fabric awning is eight feet four inches in length and three feet in width with a six-inch valance. The awning will project over the front doors by four feet and attach to the structure with black metal rods.
Unlike other structures in this area, this structure does not have any interesting architectural features. It was built in the 1930’s and it lacks the architectural details and stature that many of the buildings on the street have. Painting the brick white will freshen the appearance; the awning addition will add a classic look to the front entry. It will be the only structure on this street with painted brick, however, staff is of the opinion that painting the brick will not take away from anything of interest on the building, because there is a notable lack of interest and historical reference associated with this building. Painted brick is not inherently incompatible with non-painted brick and white is a neutral color. Additionally, white accents are found on buildings throughout the neighborhood.
Staff notes that the shrubs in the front of the property are overgrown and one appears to be in poor condition. The landscaping lacks design and interest. Staff recommends the property owner consider designing a new planting plan for the front yard to enhance the appearance of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
KYLE KRAEMER (KK) – APPLICANT DAN SLAVIN (DS) – APPLICANT
KK – Nothing to add to the staff report.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
3 BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0 NEW BUSINESS
329 BEMISTON AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SOLAR
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “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 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 APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:
1. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A REVISED PLAN SET SHOWING THE SOLAR COLLECTORS OR PANELS ARE
SETBACK TWO (2) FEET FROM ANY OUTSIDE EDGE, RIDGE, OR VALLEY OF THE ROOF.
2. ALL EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE.”
4
CONNOR WATERS (CR) – STRAIGHTUP SOLAR REPRESENTATIVE KATHLEEN GUND (KG) – OWNER
CW– Addresses the Board and goes over the project. Explains why they laid the project out how it currently is and that the portion that is not meeting the setback is because the space is the garage and not a habitable area. We are asking for an exception for the 2 feet from the edges.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I am unsure if we are able to change the setback requirement by fire.
CW – We have had two projects approved in Clayton with the similar layout where we are not meeting the setback on the edges.
SUSAN ISTENES – Historically we have revisited this requirement with the Fire Department and each one fo those times the FD has not waived.
RICHARD LINTZ – This board does not have the power to override or make an exception?
STEPHANIE KARR – That is correct.
KG – We have a very large roof and the panels are only covering a small section, and while I understand the need for safety but there is a lot of space there and the portion of the roof that has the most panels is the garage.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Connor would you like to ask us to table this for now so that you would be able to come back and meet the requirements or speak to the Fire Department.
CW – Yes. That works.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 2020.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO TABLE. 7-0
100 CARONDELET PLAZA – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Carondelet Plaza, between Forest Park Parkway and Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of HDC (High Density Commercia) and is in the Forsyth Station TOD Overlay District. On October 7, 2019, the Architectural Review Board approved several exterior alterations including renovations to the first floor to create a restaurant entry, an exterior enclosed stairway, an elevator and a second floor partially covered rooftop terrace lounge and banquet area. The applicant would like to modify the design of the second story rooftop terrace lounge area to cover it completely with a membrane covered metal frame structure over the existing second floor roof area of approximately 2,700 square feet, along with other minor changes.
The applicant is proposing the following changes:
5 1. Replacing the approved steel framed and glass arbor roof on the roof top with an enclosed metal framed fabric membrane structure to enclose the entire roof top area. The structure is approximately 24 feet 4 inches wide; approximately 12 feet in height and 144 feet in length (measured along the back wall) and approximately 114 feet long (measured along the front wall). 2. Enlarging the roof top elevator vestibule on level two by approximately 80 square feet to connect with the proposed covered membrane structure. 3. Removing the storage area on the second-floor terrace. 4. The applicant provided additional design details for the originally approved awnings over the two doors located at the ground floor outdoor seating/patio area. The awnings are proposed to be fabric with black and white stripes. 5. Minor alterations at the rooftop terrace level to the windows and doors leading to and from the existing hotel structure to second floor terrace. 6. Minor material changes to the outside stairway to use an aluminum curtain wall system with wire mesh panels (same as original design).
All of the proposed changes are relatively minor and do not represent a significant change from the originally approved design, except for the replacement of the arbor that was to be located on the second-floor terrace. The proposed steel frame structure supporting a membrane roof, front glass panels and interior removable glass walls encloses the entire rooftop space. The membrane roof will slope down from its attachment to the front facing wall of the structure. The roof top structure will be open air on the front, weather permitting, and on other seasonal days it will have removable all clear glass walls. The steel will have a powder coat finish, black in color. The steel color is consistent with the color of the metal used for the other proposed improvements and the balcony railings at the front of the hotel. The front glass wall will minimize the impact of the appearance of the roofed structure from the street, facing the hotel. The membrane roof will give the structure a lighter and less permanent looking appearance but will not be a prominent feature from views at the street level.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
KEITH SCHUTZ (KS) – APPLICANT AMANDA JOINER (AJ) – RITZ REPRESENTATIVE
KS – It is a temporary, or seasonal structure. The fabric is translucent, slightly opaque. There is a slight slope that will slope to the front with a gutter and downspouts that will lead to the existing roof drains. The water is the same amount as the flat roof.
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
6 RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0
7635 CARSWOLD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “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 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
7 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
1. FRONT YARD RETAINING WALLS.
2. FRONT WALKWAY AND STOOP.
3. COLOR CHANGE OF REAR ADDITION LAP SIDING FROM WHITE TO BROWN.
4. PAINTING OF BRICK TO SW 7650 ELLIE GRAY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DENY THE FOLLOWING AND REQUEST THE PROPERTY OWNER RETURN WITH A REVISED PLAN TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING CHANGED:
1. REMOVAL OF FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING – PRODUCE A PLANTING PLAN TO ADD LANDSCAPING TO THE
FRONT YARD.
2. FRONT DOOR CANOPY/COVERING – REVISE TO INCORPORATE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS TO
FRAME THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOME.
3. REMOVAL OF SHUTTERS. Approved location and color of wood lap siding (2017)
Existing conditions/color of lap siding on second floor.
8
EVE GILMAN (EG) – OWNER JAMES DOLAN (JD) - OWNER
JD – Apologizes for doing the work without a permit/approval. We are working on a plan for landscaping. We are hoping to address the starkness in the front with landscaping. I am not a fan of shutters without function.
EG – We do certainly plan to soften the front with plantings.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – Having gone by and looked at the home, it feels very industrial it is devoid of any character of other homes in the neighborhood. The covering over the door makes the home stand out but not in a positive manner. I have a problem with how it looks now. All other homes on the street are decorative but they are apart of the Wydown Forest neighborhood.
Richard Lintz – I am in agreement. I don’t know if this clean look is my style but I am not sure that I could argue that everyone has to have my style. I am less apt to critique the awning. The shutters and landscaping will go along way though, but the shutters are kind of like the awning. I’m ok with the other stuff but would like to see a landscape plan.
Carolyn Gaidis – The awning isn’t my style but some window treatments would help and then a landscape plan.
Robert Denlow – I am more inclined to go with the staff recommendations.
George Hettich – I am inclined to go with the staff recommendations as well. I believe the applicant has a plan and a vision and I think it will come out as we move forward with the plans.
9 Helen DiFate – It does not have a contemporary look, it looks industrial. This doesn’t cut it, the sidewalk next to the driveway needs to be softened. It is a sea of concrete and none of the other homes have that. There needs to be plantings. The shutters, I could go either way, the windows need something to enrich them, window boxes are ok but they require plantings. I would like to see the applicant come back with their ideas.
David Gipson – I would second the comments from the other board members.
Chairman Lichtenfeld – I think we are all in agreement that we need to soften the façade to fit into the context of the neighborhood.
JD – We appreciate your comments. We started it and it’s kind of paused because we weren’t sure about what you all would say and now that we know where to focus I think we are confident to get to a place where everyone is reasonably satisfied. The gutters are black, which makes it slightly more interesting. We did stop in the middle of it though but I think we can get back on track.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Anything else?
*NO*
CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE AUGUST 17, 2020, MEETING.
RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO TABLE. 7-0
HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 19:30.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary