18

Director Istenes noted that the revisions do not impact all elements of the previously proposed plan. She referred to the staff report which includes an analysis previously provided for areas of the plan that have not changed as well as new analysis (in bold) for areas of the plan that were revised in the most recent submission. She stated that she was not going to read the staff report in its entirety and referred to the “visual impact” portion of the report which states that the project, as proposed, is in conformance with the architectural review guidelines of the Downtown Overlay Zoning District, and meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan, with the exception of the garage structure. The proposed tower building form and materials are urban in character and will contribute to a pedestrian-friendly environment. She added that staff is of the opinion that the tower design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures and recommends approval with the condition that the applicant revise all applications and/or the plans to accurately list the building and use square footages prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. She noted that staff recommendation number 2 as listed on the report is no longer applicable because the applicant has already made that change. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that generally the tower building looks good and the solid to void ratio is okay.

She noted that staff recommendation number 2 as listed on the report is no longer applicable because the applicant has already made that change. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that generally the tower building looks good and the solid to void ratio is okay. He mentioned that with respect to the garage, it appears that one side is shiny and the other is a matte finish. Mr. Hull indicated that it is a silver finish. Chairman Lichtenfeld recommended that the finish be matte to reduce reflectivity. Ron Reim concurred. Joanne Boulton asked if the building has been pulled back. Mr. Bogan replied “yes”; by about 1.5 feet. Joanne Boulton asked if there is now more space at the corner. Mr. Hull replied “yes”. Mr. Bogan stated that the building was adjusted to accommodate more outdoor dining space. He stated that they will prepare a building mock up. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that they are going in the right direction. Ron Reim voiced his pleasure that they added panels on the south garage façade. Hank Winkelmann, 7405 Maryland Avenue, voiced concern about pedestrian safety.

SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION/RENOVATION – 7501 MARYLAND AVENUE (FORMER MARYLAND SCHOOL; CENTENE UNIVERSITY & DAY CARE)

Bob Clark, Clayco and Eli Hoisington, project architect were in attendance at the meeting. Susan Istenes explained that on November 6, 2017, the Plan Commission voted to continue consideration of the proposed project, allowing the applicant to revise the plans based on outstanding comments and concerns voiced during the meeting. On December 4, 2017, the applicant submitted revised plans, which include many changes to the site design and building design. The applicant proposes to demolish 2,935 square feet of the existing building, renovate the interior of the existing building and to construct multiple additions totaling 16,703 square feet, resulting in a total building area of 54,684 square feet. The existing parking lot will be expanded to wrap the northeast corner of the building and include 90 spaces. The parking lot will be accessible from Maryland Avenue. The proposed project is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District and the approved Conditional Use Permit for the property. Storm water will be adequately managed on site. The landscape plan features a variety of native species, shrubs and trees. Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval subject to the following conditions:

1) The applicant shall address outstanding comments outlined in the City’s contracted landscape architect’s review letter dated December 13, 2017 (attached).

20 2) The applicant shall revise the square footages listed in the applications and plans to be consistent. Mr. Clark stated that they have made a good faith effort in response to previous comments.

Mr. Hoisington began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting an aerial photo, site access, service access, trees along Maryland Avenue and a site plan were shown. He stated that the impervious coverage is 53.8-percent. Slides depicting the hardscape plan were shown. Mr. Hoisington explained that this new plan created a safe child care drop-off area and that they did not include any of the playground area in their pervious calculations.

Slides depicting building elevations from various streets, berm details, and several renderings were shown. A 3D animation devoid of the foliage was presented as well. A slide depicting the proposed north and east (newly added) canopies was shown.

Joanne Boulton asked if the canopies are solid.

Mr. Hoisington replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked who will use the south façade doorway.

Mr. Hoisington stated that they hope the door will be used in good weather.

Joanne Boulton asked if the gate will lock.

Mr. Hoisington stated that they are not proposing to lock the gate at this time.

A discussion regarding proposed materials ensued and slides depicting the materials were shown.

Joanne Boulton asked the location of the water feature.

Mr. Hoisington indicated that it is gone.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he is pleased with the outcome; it is a great improvement over the previous proposal.

Mr. Clark stated he believes it works better for everyone3.

A discussion regarding the landscape plan took place. Joanne Boulton asked about a butterfly garden; something to see from the curb.

Mr. Hoisington stated that they already have four species that will attract butterflies in the plan.