Clayton ARB — May 18: A Brighton Way addition goes back over vinyl, and a Francis Place sign is declined
The board sent a 221 Brighton Way addition back for a non-vinyl redesign and declined a 950 Francis Place wall sign it read as advertising rather than wayfinding.
What happened
Clayton's Architectural Review Board met on Monday, May 18 and took up two requests, both of which it sent away unfinished. The longer of the two was a residential addition at 221 Brighton Way, where the owner proposed vinyl siding in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District — a district whose code does not allow vinyl. City staff recommended approving the project with conditions, but after a long discussion of materials the board voted unanimously to continue the application so the owner could come back with a non-vinyl design. The board also declined a wall sign at 950 Francis Place: staff had recommended continuing that request, but the board instead took up a motion to approve it as submitted, and the motion failed with all votes opposed.
What the board decided
- On a homeowner's request for review of a residential addition at 221 Brighton Way, staff recommended approval with conditions. Helen DiFate moved to continue the application instead and Jim Arsenault seconded; the motion to continue carried unanimously, so the addition was neither approved nor denied — it returns to the board on June 1.
- On the sign-modification request at 950 Francis Place, for owner Francis Place Group LLC, staff recommended continuing the application to allow a revised location. Helen DiFate moved to approve the sign as submitted and Jim Arsenault seconded, but the motion did not carry, with all votes opposed, so the sign was declined.
- The board approved the minutes of its May 4 meeting on a motion by Helen DiFate, seconded by Jim Arsenault.
Who was there
Chair Steve Lichtenfeld led the meeting, with members Helen DiFate, Jim Arsenault, Blair Kweskin and Jeff Morrisey, and Council Representative Susan Buse. Member Chris Brennan was absent. Director of Planning and Development Anna Krane, planner Ryan Helle and City Attorney Stephanie Karr staffed the meeting.
What they debated
The Brighton Way item took most of the night, and it turned on siding. The addition had a complicated history: staff explained that a March inspection found construction underway without a permit, and that once a permit was filed the addition did not meet the R-2 setback or the Clayton Gardens material requirements. The plan had since been revised to meet the setback apart from a roof overhang, but it still proposed vinyl — and the board pressed the owner to use a more durable material. Members repeatedly suggested a cement-fiber product such as Hardie board in place of the vinyl, and worried about how new siding would meet the old where the addition joins the house.
The owner said he was willing to switch materials, and at one point asked that the board approve a new material and let staff handle it administratively. Members wanted the redesign to come back to them instead. They ultimately moved to table the application to a date to be determined so the applicant could make the suggested revisions, and discussed asking the owner to waive a rule requiring the board to decide within 60 days of the application — so the clock would run from when he resubmits rather than from his original filing. The owner said he would want to read the waiver form before signing it. One member also questioned, more broadly, whether an addition like this drawn only by a structural engineer rather than an architect gave the board enough architectural detail to review; staff explained the city defers to the state's licensure rules, which do not require an architect for a single-family addition.
The Francis Place sign turned on a now-familiar distinction in Clayton's sign code: wayfinding versus advertising. Staff explained the proposed wall sign would sit on the building's northwest facade, which is not a permitted sign location and does not meet the frontage and ground-floor placement rules, and recommended continuing the request so the applicant could consider a compliant spot. Members said the highway-facing placement read as an advertising sign rather than wayfinding, in part because it carried the business's website, and that a driver who could see it from the parking structure would already have found the building. The representative argued the location gave the tenant its best visibility, but the board was unpersuaded.
In context
Both items show the design board doing the same job in two registers. On Francis Place it applied the wayfinding-versus-advertising test that decided a 121 Hunter Avenue sign two weeks earlier, again treating a highway-side, website-bearing sign as advertising the code is not built to permit. On Brighton Way it leaned on Clayton Gardens' material rules, which bar vinyl and cap secondary materials at a quarter of a facade, to push an addition toward a more durable, cohesive material before signing off. Rather than deny the project, the board kept it open — the continuance gives the owner a path back with a revised design on June 1.
Public comments
The minutes record that no members of the audience elected to participate in the open forum. During the Brighton Way item, however, a neighbor spoke from the floor, saying she welcomed the project but was against adding any new vinyl. On the Francis Place item, the only non-staff speaker was the applicant's representative, who answered the board's questions before the vote.