Smith stated that the two trees will not be affected by the construction, but some of the hedges need to be removed for this new porch. She noted that the owners do plan to install some landscaping.

5

Mr. Hickman informed the members that they do plan to do some landscaping; specifics not yet determined…possible Azealia’s or boxwoods. He noted that they also plan on installing a sprinkler system.

Chairman Lichtenfeld encouraged the use of landscaping. He then referred to Sheet A.6, noting the slope and voiced concerned about the porch settlement against the north face of the house.

Joanne Boulton commented that she really likes the design.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – RESIDENTIAL - 147 NORTH HANLEY ROAD

Rebecca Eisele, landscape designer, was in attendance at the meeting.

Director Istenes explained that the project consists of replacing the existing deteriorated wood tie wall along the east property line with a stone retaining wall system, ranging in height from 1 foot to 3 feet. 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. The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet and at least three different sizes of stone. The existing wall is located against the public sidewalk and supports lawn area. The replacement wall will be in the same place but will be supporting a new landscaped area. Multiple nearby houses have front yard retaining walls and fences constructed directly against the sidewalk. Staff’s opinion is that the proposed location of the wall is consistent with neighborhood character and recommends approval as requested.

Ms. Eisele referred to the submittal and explained that they plan to replace the existing railroad tie wall with a stone wall system (Rosetta Belvedere) to be located in the same place and at the same height as the existing wall. She stated that she believes the proposed wall meets the City’s requirements for modular block. She stated that the homeowners wanted a more environmentally friendly wall and selected this one (the Rosetta Belvedere) to better match the home.

Joanne Boulton asked if the wall is stacked.

Ms. Eisele replied “yes”.

Ms. Eisele replied “yes”.

6 The colors of the wall were discussed. Ms. Eisele explained that the colors are subtle, but they do include white, gray and a bit of beige stones.

A discussion about the location of the wall and its close proximity to the sidewalk ensued. Ms. Eisele noted that the Oak trees would be impacted (per an arborist) if the wall were to be moved further from the sidewalk (new wall to be in same footprint as existing wall).

Chairman Lichtenfeld referenced the small wall on the north side of the wall (gray wall). He asked if it is to be replaced as well.

Ms. Eisele indicated that the owners just put that wall back together; they don’t plan on replacing that wall.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – WALGREEN’S – 6733 CLAYTON ROAD

Dan Larue, sign contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the building currently features a 50 square foot wall sign on the southern elevation, facing Clayton Road, an engraved logo sign above the entrance, facing southwest, and a 20 square foot ground sign located at the intersection. The applicant is proposing to replace the engraved logo sign with an updated logo sign. The new logo will be red, burgundy, white and tan, constructed of aluminum and will measure 68.1 square feet. The Walgreen’s building and wall signage was approved by the Architectural Review Board in December of 2002 and the ground sign was approved in July of 2003. Signage was a significant point of discussion during the meetings, with the Architectural Review Board members striving to raise the design standards at the corner. The existing engraved tile logo above the building entrance was proposed as an architectural design feature for the building. The logo is engraved in tan panels and illuminated from a row of up-lights located just below the sign. The proposed logo replacement is colored aluminum and the existing up-lights are to remain. The existing sign is much more subtle and understated, while the proposed sign will be highly visible and appear more obviously as a sign, not an architectural design feature. Staff recommends replacing the engraved panels with new engraved panels depicting the updated logo. This will maintain the character of the building, while still providing the proper advertising. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the condition that the replacement sign be constructed of engraved panels to match the style and appearance of the existing sign.

Mr. Larue presented color renderings & photos of the existing building and other Walgreen’s locations to the members.

Subdistrict 2C is zoned for residential, retail and parking. Subdistrict 3 is zoned for office, hospitality, parking and

8 retail. Subdistrict 4 is zoned for office, retail and parking. In an effort to accommodate signage needs for future tenants and maintain visual conformity, the applicant is proposing a signage sub district for the entire Special Development District. per Section 425.050.8(c) of the City’s Sign Regulations. If adopted, the signage sub-district standards will govern signage for the buildings, not the City’s Sign Regulations. All signs must receive a Sign Permit from the City prior to installation. The following signage is proposed to be installed over time as the buildings are constructed and occupied. (In 2010, the Architectural Review Board approved a signage sub- district for Subdistrict A, the existing office tower and parking garage. The proposed signage sub-district would replace the existing regulations).

Campus Identification Signs Campus identification signs are proposed in multiple forms including wall signs, tower monument signs and window signs. Campus identification signs are geared toward identification of the multiple properties as part of the overall “Centene Centre” and to provide wayfinding within the campus.

I. Primary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs constructed of metal channel letters, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 25 square feet in area. A total of 15 primary ID wall signs are proposed. II. Secondary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs located above main building entrances, constructed of metal channel letters and measuring a maximum of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight secondary ID signs are proposed. III. Monument: metal cabinets with side LED lighting, listing the campus ID and up to eight tenant names and measuring 12 feet tall by 46 inches wide and 10 inches deep. A total of eight monument signs are proposed. IV. Tower main Entry ID: adjacent to main entrance doors will the list campus ID, tenants and addresses, cut vinyl letters and measuring a total of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight main entry ID signs are proposed. V. General Info: located at tenant entry doors, listing hours of operation and other building policies, cut vinyl letters and measuring five square feet in area. VI. Single User ID: facade (window) sign, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 100 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2B building (auditorium) and a maximum of 25 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2C building. A total of two single user signs are proposed. VII. Primary Area ID: directional wall sign identifying secondary entrances and functions including parking and loading docks, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed. VIII. Secondary Area ID: directional blade sign identifying secondary entrances and functions, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 5 square feet in area. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed.

Tenant Identification Signs Tenant identification signs, in addition to those included in the campus signs above, are proposed

A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed. Tenant Identification Signs Tenant identification signs, in addition to those included in the campus signs above, are proposed

9 for specific commercial tenant spaces. Tenant sign options are separated based on location of the tenant space in either a tower or a parking structure. Tenant signage includes wall signs, window graphics, awning signs and blade signs.

I. Tower Tenant Primary ID: wall sign located along a street frontage, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet in area. II. Parking Tenant Primary ID: awning sign located at the tenant entry, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet in area. III. Tower and Parking Tenant Secondary ID: blade sign, one per tenant, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 5 square feet in area. IV. Parking Tenant Graphics: window graphic, constructed of cut vinyl, measuring a maximum of eight feet tall and covering a maximum of 15 percent of tenant glazing area. V. Forsyth and Hanley Interior Graphic: interior wall graphic, specific to single tenant space with the size and design subject to property owner.

Materials proposed are not specific to individual proposed signs, rather the type of sign chosen. Signs can be constructed of metal channel letters, cut vinyl or acrylic face. Lighting is proposed for signs using either LED through metal, up lights, halo lighting or internal illumination. The materials listed in the sub-district are coordinated with the building material found throughout the Special Development District. The purpose of forming a signage sub-district is to allow a sign package which fosters creativity and cohesiveness for larger developments. The adoption of a signage sub-district is beneficial to the building owner and the City because it ensures predictability. Without the adoption of a sub-district, each tenant requesting a sign not in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance would have to seek approval from the Architectural Review Board on a case by case basis. Staff estimates that the proposed signage sub-district would allow slightly more signage than what is currently permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Staff did not prepare a side-by-side comparison of the City’s Sign Ordinance and the proposed sign package because of the unique development context and size. Many of the proposed signs are similar to the signage seen on the existing tower and parking garage. Some slight modifications are proposed, but the proposed district will not create non- conforming signs on the existing buildings. Overall, staff believes the proposed signage sub- district will result in coordinated signage that will ease pedestrian and vehicle navigation of the urban campus. The sign materials proposed seem to be of high quality and compatible with the building materials and urban context. The proposed signage sub-district plan does not specify a maximum vertical location for the campus identification signs. The City’s Sign Ordinance specifies that wall signs should be located at or near first floor height and does not allow signs located near roof lines. The existing tower “Centene Plaza” signs at the intersection of Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard measure 15 square feet and are located near second floor ceiling height. Staff is supportive of this location due to the design of the building. Staff recommends that a restriction is added to the signage sub-district stating that walls signs should be located at or below second floor ceiling height. The majority of the identification signs are proposed at entrances or building corners, adjacent to intersections. Staff is supportive of most primary identification sign locations, with the exception of the Primary Campus ID proposed on the west