December 17, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1733 (05:33 PM).
ROLL CALL
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Rom Reim, Brian Maguire, answered roll call.
Absent: William Lieberman City Manager Craig Owens arrived at 1734 Carolyn Gaidis arrived at 1744
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
CHAIRMAN REQUESTS
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 03, 2018 were presented for approval.
RON REIM (RR) – MOTION TO APPROVE
RICHARD LINTZ (RL) – MOTION SECONDED
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN, CRAIG OWENS, AND CAROLYN GAIDIS)
2 NEW BUSINESS
8025 BONHOMME AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - SIGNAGE
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection between South Brentwood Boulevard and Bonhomme Avenue. The property is zoned PUD Planned Unit Development and contains office, restaurant and apartment uses. The restaurant tenant will be replacing the previous restaurant located in the tenant space along South Brentwood Boulevard.
The previous restaurant had a wall sign located at the north end of the space and window signs. The new restaurant is proposing to remove the existing signs and install a perpendicular sign located at the south end of the tenant space. The proposed sign is double faced and measures approximately 21 square feet per face or a total of 42 square feet.
The City’s Sign Regulations state that wall signs shall “project no more than eighteen (18) inches and face a fronting street.” The sign code allows for a perpendicular sign that measures six inches by twenty-four inches. The applicant is proposing a perpendicular sign that extends 72 inches from the wall face (more if the mounting bracket is included). The proposed sign type requires a sign modification.
The restaurant tenant space is allowed, “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.” Based on the front wall area, the maximum 50 square foot sign would be allowed. The amount of signage proposed conforms to the sign regulations; however, the sign type does not.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed perpendicular sign is compatible with the building scale. The sign projects from the wall, but the front wall of the building is setback from the property line by a landscaped area. The proposed sign would not project into the public right of way area. Large perpendicular signs are not common within the City. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign aligns with City goals to focus signage toward pedestrians and not vehicles. The front façade design does not leave a logical wall sign location near the proposed restaurant entrance. Staff is of the opinion that the sign design and size is compatible with the building and street character.
The upper portion of the proposed sign is constructed of a silver cabinet with channel letters. The black channel letters will have a white center that is internally illuminated. The sign will also be halo lit. The lower portion of the sign is proposed as a black curved panel with red neon letters. The proposed sign is constructed of high quality materials and will be compatible with the building façade.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
STEVE FLINN (SF) – REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SIGN COMPANY AARON TEITELBAUM (AT) – OWNER
SF and AT – Addresses Board to answer questions but has nothing to add to the staff report.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
3 RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
CRAIG OWENS – SECOND
BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY (MINUS CAROLYN GAIDIS)
88 ARUNDEL PLACE– ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Arundel Place between Dartford Avenue and University Lane. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project consists of the replacement of the front walk and steps and enlargement of the front porch. The proposed porch and walk are concrete clad in flagstone with brick pillars and a decorative metal railing.
The proposed porch will extend further north, toward the street. Uncovered porches are allowed to encroach up to ten feet into a front yard setback and the proposed porch only extends eight feet from the front of the house. The proposed walk will require some minor re-grading. Currently, the walkway includes steps that are spaced out across the front yard. The applicant is proposing to move the steps to the front of the yard, closer to the street, allowing for a flatter walk in the middle of the front yard. The applicant is also proposing two brick pillars to frame the front stairs.
Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.
“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”
The proposed front porch extension and the flagstone material proposed are compatible with the existing house and neighborhood character. The two brick pillars will complement the traditional style of the house and the decorative railing is consistent with other railings in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood.
In the R-2 Zoning District front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed front yard coverage is 17.5 percent.
An “option” is noted on the site plan to replace the walkway strip located in the tree lawn with same flagstone material. The tree lawn is part of the public right of way and this option would require a permit from the Public Works Department prior to installation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
JACOB BAKER (JB) – APPLICANT AND OWNER
JB – Addresses Board to answer questions but has nothing to add to the staff report.
4
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND
BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN)
6450 CECIL AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Cecil Avenue between Ellenwood Drive and University Lane. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project consists of the construction of a rear garage addition with a deck, replacement and enlargement of the front dormer, window and door replacements and painting the house an off- white color. The proposed addition is located partially below grade and will be clad in brick. The applicant also proposes to replace the existing horizontal siding on a previously constructed rear addition with fiber cement board and batten vertical siding.
The proposed addition and modifications will maintain the existing traditional style of the house. The Skinker Heights Neighborhood contains many similar style, two and a half story homes. The applicant is proposing to widen the third-floor dormer along the front elevation to center the dormer over the front entrance. Staff is of the opinion that the dormer modification is compatible with the neighborhood and will balance the front elevation. The applicant is also proposing to replace the single front door with a double door and to replace the windows and shutters with a similar style. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed replacements will maintain the existing house style and are compatible with neighborhood character.
The applicant is proposing a stone retaining wall to enlarge the concrete driveway area in the rear yard, allowing for an expansion of the existing below grade garage. The propose retaining wall will match the existing. The applicant is proposing brick for the exposed areas of the garage addition. A deck with a metal railing is proposed on top of the garage addition. The deck will align with the first floor of the existing house. The applicant is also proposing modifications to the window and door openings of the previous rear addition. The existing horizontal siding will be replaced with vertical board and batten siding. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed modifications to the previous addition will result in a more compatible appearance.
The applicant is proposing to paint the existing brick and new brick an off-white color. The proposed siding will also match the new paint color. The Skinker Heights neighborhood features mostly red brick and stone houses; however, there are stucco homes and painted additions located throughout the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed paint color will be compatible with neighborhood character.
Total lot coverage in the R-2 Zoning District is limited to a maximum of 55 percent. The proposed rear yard work will increase total lot impervious coverage on site to 29.3 percent. The applicant is not proposing any additional impervious coverage in the front yard.
The existing evergreen shrubs located along the south side of the previous rear addition will be removed in order to construct the garage expansion and deck. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees on site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”
5
LEIGH HALSEY – KILLEEN STUDIO ARCHITECTS
LH - Addresses Board to answer questions but has nothing to add to the staff report.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED
CRAIG OWENS – SECOND
BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN)
7 NORTH BEMISTON AND 7817 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – PLAN COMMISSION – MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT
Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject addresses are located at the northwest corner of the intersection between North Bemiston Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard. The property is zoned HDC High Density Commercial District and is located in the CBD Core Downtown Overlay District. St. Louis County real estate records show two parcels with separate addresses and locator numbers. The recorded plat and legal description only refer to one parcel measuring 28,709 square feet. The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision plat to formally divide the one parcel into two lots. The proposed Lot A is currently addressed 7 North Bemiston Avenue and measures 18,745 square feet. The proposed Lot B is currently addressed 7817 Forsyth Boulevard and measures 9,964 square feet.
The applicant originally submitted a boundary adjustment plat. During staff review, it was determined that the applicant was proposing to create two lots out of one lot and not proposing to shift an existing line between lots. As a result of the staff review, the applicant was directed to resubmit a minor subdivision plat. The applicant acknowledges that there are deficiencies in the proposed minor subdivision plat due to additional requirements that are not part of a boundary adjustment plat. Per Section 415.340.F of the City’s Subdivision Regulations, the applicant has submitted a written request to forward the plat to the Plan Commission for consideration. The applicant intends to make the required revisions prior to the Board of Aldermen meeting for final review. The plat deficiencies are listed on the attached letter.
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;
6 8. Compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards.
Staff is of the opinion that the lots are consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement. There is no minimum side yard setback or rear yard setback required by either the CBD Core Overlay Regulations or the HDC High Density Commercial District Regulations. There is no minimum lot area or minimum lot width required by either the overlay zoning district or the base zoning district. The proposed lot division will not create any non-conforming conditions with respect to building setback and lot size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A MYLAR FOR THE APPROPRIATE CITY OF CLAYTON SIGNATURES PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL;
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
3. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A REVISED PLAT FOR STAFF REVIEW TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 PM ON JANUARY 15, 2019”
JOE FLAIGER (JF) – STOCK AND ASSOCIATES – REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LOWERY (EL) – REPRESENTS THE APPLICANT
JF – Addresses Board to answer questions and would like to request this be a boundary adjustment and not a minor subdivision plat because the County did not recognize the consolidation. They have their own addresses and are their own tax parcels with their own tax ID.
SUSAN ISTENES (SI) – We have already gone over this with the applicant and in your staff report on the second page, it says they already submitted a boundary adjustment plat and during staff review we found they were separating one lot into two and per our regulations they have to go through the minor subdivision plat process
STEPHANIE KARR (SK) – Give background information on the difference between boundary adjustments and splitting lots. The last record we have are that the lots are consolidate. They are creating separate lots, so they need to do the subdivision plat process.
SI – This is a matter for the Board of Adjustment in order to appeal an administrative decision regarding what the Code requires there is a process that takes time. We can continue this matter if that is the route the applicant wishes to take.
EL – The applicant is fine with continuing with this hearing and the minor subdivision plat process.
CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS
RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
CRAIG OWENS – SECOND
BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN)
7
CITY BUSINESS
TITLE IV. LAND USE – CHAPTER 405 EDUCATION DISCUSSION – LED BY BRIAN MAGUIRE
1. ARTICLE IX: Special Development District 2. ARTICLE X: Planned Unit Development __________________________________________________________________________________________
HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1841 (06:41 PM)
_______________________________ Recording Secretary