Board approves Big Bend porch replacement, requires skirting, finish and code‑compliant handrail

The Webster Groves Architecture Review Board voted to approve a front-porch replacement at 8631 Big Bend Boulevard after clarifying details about construction drawings, renderings and handrail compliance.

The board’s approval required that the area under the porch stairs be closed with a deck skirt matching the primary skirting, that the porch receive a painted or stained finish rather than raw wood, that a top rail be added to the guard rail, and that the applicant consult with the building department to ensure the stair handrail meets the code requirement for a graspable handrail. Chair Bob Buckman read the motion and the board approved it with one member recorded as opposed.

During public discussion, Carol Dunkey asked whether the project intended a flat-top perimeter rail and raised concerns about the stair handrail shown in the submitted photograph being a flat board rather than a code‑compliant graspable rail. Dr. Taylor, participating by Zoom, explained that a contractor had taken photos showing the underside and that the skirting shown in the photograph is what will be installed. “That proposed deck skirting that’s shown in the photograph is what’s going to be on the project,” Dr. Taylor said in response to board questions.

Board members also spent time in the work session noting confusion caused by the applicant’s packet, which included photographs, architectural drawings and at least one AI‑generated rendering. A board member said the AI‑generated image made it harder to tell whether the photo represented the current condition or the proposed finish and suggested applicants clearly label AI renderings and state the construction status of each image.

The board’s motion spelled out the conditions and included the consultation with the building department about handrail graspability. The applicant and project representatives affirmed those clarifications and the board carried the measure by voice vote.

The ARB did not specify a timeline for completion in the meeting record. The project file will reflect the board’s conditions and the applicant is expected to document compliance when seeking final sign-off.