Storefront architecture is used on the ground floor retail spaces facing Maryland Avenue including stone building material, large storefront windows with clear glazing, building piers, canvas awnings, and four entrances. The

3 proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along the majority of its street frontage. The proposed building occupies the majority of the Maryland Avenue frontage. The Maryland Avenue ground floor façade features pedestrian-scale storefront architecture. Stone is used at the Maryland Avenue storefronts to distinguish it from the design of the rest of the building. Large storefront windows, building piers, and canvas awnings are also used. Clear glazing will be used at the storefronts, and four entrances are proposed. Canvas awnings are proposed on the Maryland Avenue façade. Façade relief is incorporated into all building elevations through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms. Windows are incorporated into all building elevations. The building measures 5 stories at Maryland Avenue and 7 stories on Gay Avenue. Heightened parapets are used along the building’s length to help divide and organize exterior elements. The proposed roof forms provide much more articulation and visual interest than the level roof forms found on adjacent structures to the east and west. The two-level parking structure is located entirely below grade at Maryland Avenue. Due to changes in grade, the parking structure is entirely above grade along Gay Avenue. The parking structure is integrated into the design of the building, will be clad in brick and stone to match the rest of the building, and will have window openings along its length. The proposed building is similar in scale and materials to surrounding buildings along Maryland Avenue, and will maintain continuity with adjacent structures. To complement the urban character of the building, three raised planters and four benches are proposed adjacent to the retail storefronts fronting Maryland Avenue. The planters will contain appropriate evergreen and seasonal plantings. The western most planter and benches are located in the right-of-way and must be removed and/or relocated onto private property. The landscape bed at the northeast corner of the building is intended for a monument sign, to be considered at a later time. Along the west side of the building (in Ladue), a publicly accessible10-foot multi-use path and linear park are proposed. The path will run from Maryland Avenue along the western edge of the property and connect to the Centennial Greenway Trail at the southern corner of the site. Landscaping is proposed along the path as well as benches, bicycle racks, and a water bottle filling station. Landscaping is proposed along the east side of the building, between the building and the streetscape. A private fenced patio and dog park for residents are proposed on the south side of the building. The project as proposed is in conformance with the architectural review guidelines of the Maryland Gateway Overlay District, and meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The proposed site design, building form and materials are urban in character, and will contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures and recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Braswell began a PowerPoint presentation; the first slide depicted the site plan. Subsequent slides depicted various elevation renderings (in color and black and white) of the proposed building. He indicated that the brick pallet has been changed to a more brown tone (specifically Smokey Mountain); a color rendering was presented. He added that an additional stucco color has been incorporated as well. He informed the members that they recently came up with another idea (color pallet) which includes Santa Rosa (red tone) brick as the dominant brick

He added that an additional stucco color has been incorporated as well. He informed the members that they recently came up with another idea (color pallet) which includes Santa Rosa (red tone) brick as the dominant brick

4 color with Brook Haven as an infill color (samples presented). He indicated that each choice is two different looks; one more red and the other more brown.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if all elevations would contain the Santa Rosa and Brook Haven if that is the pallet chosen.

Mr. Braswell replied “yes”.

Sally Cohn asked why two different colors.

Mr. Braswell indicated the two colors, along with the balconies, help break-up the building.

Sally Cohn stated that the light color stucco across the top of the building is the dominant feature; not the brick. She asked about the imprints on the brick.

Mr. Braswell indicated that he’s not against using one brick color if that’s what’s preferred. He stated it is difficult to get the renderings to accurately reflect the true colors.

Sally Cohn indicated she may be okay with the building if the top color was a bit darker. She stated she prefers one brick color; brown.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he likes these bricks better than the ones previously proposed and that he agrees that the color of the top should be toned down. He stated he is okay with the utilization of two brick colors, although he has some concern with their weathering as they may not blend as well over time. He added that he likes the Santa Rosa brick.

Ron Reim concurred about lightening up the top so the contrast is not so sharp. He stated that he, too, is okay with utilizing two brick colors; he likes the brown better.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if other changes were made.

Mr. Braswell indicated that they pulled in the extended caps, added raised planter beds and moved the entrance down 1 ½ feet.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it appears as though the line at the top is level, referring to the west elevation rendering, but that it goes up and down on the east elevation.

Sally Cohn mentioned the discussion about the rain garden and landscaping that previously took place.

Mr. Braswell informed Sally that they are still working with staff on those issues.

Josh Corson stated that he likes the red brick and the imprints.

He indicated that in the 6300 block of San Bonita, 1 property has a front entry garage and 11 have front entry garages located at the back of the lot. He stated the proposed garage is a modest, 2-car garage and the 2-story

6 addition will provide much needed space for the owner. He stated that the owner would have to fund the relocation of the street light, per the City’s Public Works Department.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that although the design fits in the neighborhood, he has concerns with the proposed front entry garage, as that does not fit in the neighborhood, even though there are several driveways off San Bonita leading to a rear garage.

Mr. Sparks stated that a rear garage would interrupt the yard where the children play and that he doubts that those garages that are in the rear of those other properties are being used; he believes those people most likely park in the street.

Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that the design is okay, it’s the entrance that is a problem. He asked if a front driveway but rear entry garage was considered

Mr. Sparks indicated that it is certainly possible; however, he is working with the owner to keep price at a certain amount. He reiterated that a rear garage would result in loss of yard area.

Ron Reim stated that he understands the property is unique; however, he would also prefer that the garage be entered from the alley and that is the intention of the subdivision.

Sally Cohn agreed.

Mr. Sparks asked if the members are okay with the garage placement if the door were facing the alley (rear).

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes, but conceptually only”. He added that the overall design is fine with him.

Mark Winings referred to the numerous e-mails received this afternoon. He asked if the City staff is okay with the driveway.

Louis Clayton replied “conceptually, yes.”

Mark Winings asked where the streetlight is located.

Louis Clayton indicated that it is in the driveway.

Mr. Sparks stated that they may be relocating the driveway.

Mr. Spees commented that it sounds like a conceptual decision has been made. He referred to seven letters of support he has received (provided to City staff). He indicated that he wants to be sensitive to the character of the neighborhood; he bought the property in 2011 and has spent a lot of time making improvements. He noted that the home is currently a 4 bedroom, 1 bathroom home

He indicated that he wants to be sensitive to the character of the neighborhood; he bought the property in 2011 and has spent a lot of time making improvements. He noted that the home is currently a 4 bedroom, 1 bathroom home

7 with no off-street parking, which is a safety concern. He stated that he is not aware of anyone who uses their rear garages and believes that 9 out of 10 people would prefer an attached garage.

Chris Carstensen, San Bonita resident, commented that Alamo Avenue is also a one-way street, so they would have to go around the block anyway.

Mr. Spees disagreed.

Lori Hirst, 6300 San Bonita, stated that they bought their home in 1992 because of the nature of the neighborhood, but that the safety of children is a concern due to the blind curve. She stated she prefers a rear entry garage and that she sees people using their rear entry garages; she is one of them.

John (?), 6435 San Bonita, indicated that he drives off the street to access his property and that his bigger concern revolves around houses being heavily modified. He stated the owner’s plan fits.

No more comments were received.

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – PARKING LOT – 210 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD

Carolyn Gaidis, Washington University Professor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes noted that this is a request for conceptual review of a project at 210 South Hanley Road. The vacant site is located at the northeast corner of Hanley Road and Forest Park Parkway. The 16,566-square-foot property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial, and is located in the Clayton Plaza Overlay District. The site is surrounded by retail and office uses to the north and west, and Forest Park Parkway to the south. On December 1, 2014, Washington University’s Integrated Planting Design class presented potential temporary design solutions for the site. Since then, the class professor has worked with the property owner to refine the conceptual designs to create a feasible plan that would also meet the site’s parking needs. The applicant proposes a 24-space parking lot which will be integrated with native landscaping, stormwater best management practices (BMPs), and public seating. The parking lot will be accessible by car from the existing parking structure serving the building at 200 South Hanley Road, and to pedestrians from the adjacent sidewalk. According to the applicant, when the site is not used for parking, it will be used for a variety of special events. New streetscape will be required along the property’s Hanley Road frontage and the project will require Site Plan Review approval by the Plan Commission. Susan stated that staff recommends that the Plan Commission/ Architectural Review Board consider the proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only and therefore any comments made in this report or at the meeting, either by the developer or by the Board/Commission members, are not binding.