Kevin O’Keefe reiterated that the applicant could appeal the Director’s (Susan’s) decision (determination that it is a sign; not art) to the Board of Adjustment. He added that everything suggests that this is a sign.

12 Craig Owens asked if an amendment to the Sign Code is possible.

Kevin O’Keefe replied “yes”.

Scott Wilson stated that it would help Clayton.

Mr. Braidwood informed the members that the “C” is for the City.

Susan Istenes stated that an amendment to the sign code (text amendment) could be proposed to allow for rotational signs (an amendment would come before this Board for consideration before going to the Board of Aldermen) or, as an alternative, the applicant could request a modification to the sign code to allow a size modification; however, it could not be movable. She added that if this is the route the applicant chooses to take, they would have to submit an application for a modification to the sign code for which this Board would consider.

Joanne Boulton asked how much of a modification they would need.

Anna Krane stated that the sign code allows up to 25 square feet; the proposed sign is 36 square feet. She added that ground signs are to be located in a landscape bed as well.

Mr. Rubin referenced the 101 Hanley Road sign and that the Pierre Laclede sign is not in a landscape bed.

Mr. Braidwood commented that this sign, at 25 square feet, is too small for its intent.

Ron Reim stated that if it was art, it could be larger.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he took it as art and agrees that it should be large. He stated that granite chat is more of a garden material.

Mr. Braidwood asked if the “C” could come back as art.

Joanne Boulton commented that City administration has already defined it as signage; to change that would require an appeal to the Board of Adjustment.

Susan Istenes indicated that if her decision is appealed to the Board of Adjustment and the appeal is granted, then the applicant would have to apply and go before both the PAAC and the ARB. If the applicant decreases the size to 25 square-feet and eliminates the mechanism that allows it to move, the ARB can approve. Alternatively, the sign regulations could be amended to allow for rotational/movable signs.

Joanne Boulton asked if the Board of Aldermen ultimately has the decision to change the code.

Alternatively, the sign regulations could be amended to allow for rotational/movable signs. Joanne Boulton asked if the Board of Aldermen ultimately has the decision to change the code.

13 Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

William Liebermann asked how long it takes to go through the PAAC process.

Susan Istenes indicated that the applicant would first have to go through the appeal process (Board of Adjustment); be granted the appeal and then appear before the PAAC and ARB. She stated that the PAAC meet on an as-needed/on-demand basis.

Scott Wilson asked if this Board could approve the balance of the project.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the sign (“C”) is only referenced in one of the ten conditions of approval as recommended by staff.

Craig Owens commented that it appears the consensus is that this Board likes the “C” and would like to find a path to get it to an approval process.

Garrick Hamilton, also with Koman Group, commented that the “C” could be approved if it was reduced in size and made stationary if the Board of Adjustment denies an appeal.

Joanne Boulton referred to the nine other staff recommendations.

Mr. Rubin stated that he would like financial accommodations for staff recommendation numbers 6 & 7 as money has already been budgeted for these projects.

It was determined that these issues can be decided at a later time with City staff.

Joanne Boulton stated that the worst case scenario would be that Clayton on the Park/Koman Group would have to cover the expenses. She noted that this Board only has so much discretion.

Scott Wilson commented that the resurfacing is a City project.

Kevin O’Keefe commented that there is a timing issue here.

Mr. Braidwood stated that their design is not the same as the Brentwood resurfacing project; he added that they are not looking for a kick-back from the City.

Craig Owens indicated that the project has to be compliant with City standards and match up with the project in its entirety.

Mr. Day stated that they need to know the alignment of the ramp.

She indicated that the Library project would not need to provide a 3D presentation. She informed the members that this would simply be a policy change; no code

15 change is necessary. She added that the applicant would be asked to provide the presentation 2 weeks prior to the meeting date.

William Lieberman asked about cost.

Ron Reim commented that they prepare a 3D presentation for all their projects and that the presentations are user-controlled.

Joanne Boulton asked if software has to be purchased.

Ron Reim stated that there are apps available.’’

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that they use them all the time as well.

Everyone agreed that 3D presentations would be a beneficial tool.

Susan Istenes informed the members that Centene was told to provide a 3D presentation.

Joanne Boulton stated that a 3D presentation would be wanted for the Novelly project.

Susan Istenes agreed.

Ron Reim stated that he can suggest tools.

Susan Istenes stated that staff would simply need to revise the submittal requirements on the applications.

Chairman Lichtenfeld recommended that this move forward.

Craig Owens stated that the City appreciates Mr. Winkelman’s suggestion for this useful tool.

Ron Reim stated that he won’t be at the June 19th meeting.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary