Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br />visible from the street. <br />- It was pointed out that based on the layout of the property; the peaks of the <br />gables would be able to be seen, but not the full garage. <br />- Commission members stated that the proposed garage should be consistent with <br />the guidance in the Code. <br /> <br />The applicant stated that a brick ledge was to be installed on the side of the garage <br />facing the house and it was the intent of the homeowners to install brick on that side in <br />the future. <br /> <br />- Commission members stated that the standards should be based on what is <br />visible from the street now rather than what could be visible in the future, in <br />reference to the privacy fence on the property. <br />- It was stated that no artificial siding should be on the side facing the street. <br />- Commission members discussed the definition of artificial siding. It was stated <br />that vinyl and aluminum siding were probably envisioned at the time the <br />Ordinance was written. <br /> <br />Ms. Ghasedi made a motion to recommend conditional approval of the proposed garage <br />subject to compliance with the standards regarding materials when visible from the <br />street as determined by Department of Community Development staff. The motion was <br />seconded by Mr. Myers. The motion was approved unanimously. <br /> <br />3. 702 Westgate Avenue Design review for proposed renovation of a multi-family <br />residential building in the Delmar Loop Parkview Gardens Historic District (National <br />Register). <br /> <br />4. 727 Limit Avenue Design review for proposed renovation of a multi-family <br />residential building in the Delmar Loop Parkview Gardens Historic District (National <br />Register). <br /> <br />5. 751 Interdrive Street Design review for proposed renovation of a multi-family <br />residential building in the Delmar Loop Parkview Gardens Historic District (National <br />Register). <br /> <br />(Agenda items 3 5 had the same applicant and were all discussed together.) <br /> <br />The applicant, Clinton Enyeart with St. Louis Design Alliance, requested that 702 <br />Westgate be removed from the agenda as the renovations were to be placed on hold. <br /> <br />The Commission members had no objection to the request. <br /> <br />Mr. Enyeart explained the proposed changes to the other two buildings. <br /> <br />Commission members discussed the proposed renovations. It was agreed that the <br />proposed windows successfully matched the existing windows. <br /> <br />Mr. Enyeart explained the proposed window opening infill locations for clarification. <br />24 <br />Page of <br /> <br /> <br />