The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 600 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Brian Slater, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

2 Susan Istenes explained that in January, 2016, the City received an anonymous complaint that a front yard retaining wall had been installed along the front of the home. The wall is constructed with modular blocks that have tumbled/rolled edges and a varying color pattern, but not varying block sizes. The wall is 12-19 inches tall and is located adjacent to the home’s foundation, creating a raised landscape area. The applicant has not submitted subdivision trustee approval. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all retaining walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The Architectural Review Guidelines recommend that retaining walls be constructed of brick, stone or stucco to match the main structure. Modular block wall systems have been approved in the past provided they have varying block sizes, varying color patterns and tumbled or rolled edges. Although the wall is visible from the street, it is not a prominent feature. Staff is of the opinion that due to the small size of the wall and its large setback from the street, the design and materials are acceptable and recommends approval as installed.

Mr. Slater informed the members that he was unaware of the rules about retaining walls and that prior making application, he sawed-off every other block to make every other block a different size.

Mark Winings asked if the photos that were submitted for this meeting were taken prior to him saw-cutting.

Mr. Slater replied “yes”.

Pepe Finn commented that she thought the wall was innocuous.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he walks by this property almost daily and that he wishes it was constructed differently, he agrees with Pepe.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as installed. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD FENCE – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 938 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE

Tyler Stephens, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the 8,971-square-foot site is located on the east side of South Central Drive, just north of Clayton Road, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. On July 6, 2015, the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board approved plans for a 2-story, 1,128-square-foot rear addition to the existing home. Construction is nearing completion and the applicant now proposes to install a 6-foot cedar shadow-box fence along the southern property line in the front yard that will provide screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south. The fence will be screened on the north side by evergreen trees

Construction is nearing completion and the applicant now proposes to install a 6-foot cedar shadow-box fence along the southern property line in the front yard that will provide screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south. The fence will be screened on the north side by evergreen trees

3 (Junipers). The applicant has not submitted approval from the Subdivision Trustees. The City’s Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.

“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”

Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For example, on corner lots, 6-foot fences have been approved on “secondary” front yards (what functionally would be a property’s side yard) provided the fence is ornamental or decorative (not a solid wood, chain or vinyl fence) and is placed on the property in a manner which provides a sufficient area for landscaping to break up the monotonous appearance of the fence. This property is not a corner lot by definition; however, it is bordered by a public alley along its southern property line. These configurations of single-family properties with their side yards adjacent to commercial properties are common on the blocks adjacent to Clayton Road in Davis Place and Maryland Avenue in Clayton Gardens and in many cases there are existing front yard fences in place that do not conform to the zoning requirements. The proposed design and materials of the fence is not consistent with the requirement in the zoning regulations for a 4-foot “ornamental or decorative” fence; however, an ornamental or decorative fence would not likely provide the opacity needed to adequately screen the adjacent alley, dumpsters, and commercial building. If a fence was located on the adjacent commercial property, it could be up to 8 feet tall and located up to the front property line without requiring approval by the Architectural Review Board. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the proposed fence is adequately screened on the north side by evergreen landscaping and that it will provide adequate screening of the adjacent alley and commercial property to the south and recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Stephens began a PowerPoint presentation. A slide depicting the subject property was shown. He noted that the addition was brought before this Board last July and a fence was not discussed at that time; however, due to the alley and commercial property, a new fence is being proposed.

Slides depicting the alley, dumpsters and commercial property were shown.

A slide depicting a site plan depicting the location of the proposed fence was shown. Mr. Stephens stated that the proposed shadow-box fence is 80-feet in length. A slide depicting an aerial view of the property and surrounding properties was also shown.

Mr. Stephens informed the members that the property at Meramec and the alley has a similar fence. He asked if there were any questions.

The PUD process gives the Board of Aldermen the authority to approve waivers from specific zoning requirements in exchange for public benefits. Once approved, the PUD becomes the specific zoning regulations governing the use and development of the property.

5 Development Standard R-4/Forsyth Station TOD District Requirements Proposed Waiver Required Units/Minimum Lot Area (based on proposed property lines) 15 units (maximum) / 1,750 sf per unit (minimum) 78 units / 340 sf per unit Yes Setbacks (based on proposed property lines) Front: 10’ (minimum) Side: 15.6’ (minimum) Rear: 35.6 (minimum) Front: 0’ Side: 2’ Rear: 2’ Yes Height 3 Stories or 45’ (maximum) 49’ 8” Yes Impervious Coverage 55% maximum lot coverage 92% Yes Parking garage Ground floor retail required No ground floor retail No (requires a conditional use permit) Parking (Automobile) None 79 (1.01 per unit) No Parking (Bicycle) 4 (1 per 20 units) 15 (1 per 5.2 units) No

The site is located in the Forsyth Village District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision of the district is to “create a dense, walkable, mixed-use district including a significant new urban residential development oriented around the Forsyth Metrolink Station with appropriate connections to the existing development at Carondelet Plaza and the adjacent neighborhoods”. The site is identified as being located in a low-rise transition zone, which recommends a minimum height of 25 feet, a maximum height of 60 feet, and that developments step down towards the adjacent single-family residences. The plan suggests that the development be designed so that the winter solstice shadow created by the building projects no more than 20 feet beyond the adjacent single-family property lines. Susan noted that a project of this scale requires a thorough staff review prior to a public hearing. The project will be reviewed and is subject to comments by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments, and also the City’s contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, storm water management, traffic and parking. Staff offers the following comments based on these conceptual plans:

Design

discouraged and only permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. Although this may not be a viable location for retail, staff has concerns with the potential visual impact of the long expanse of the parking garage’s exposed wall and ramp adjacent to the sidewalk. Staff recommends the applicant consider the following revisions: a. Provide a minimum 10-foot setback from the front property line.

6 b. Lower the parking podium as far below grade as possible. c. Consider a more visually appealing solution to provide access instead of the highly visible ramp in front of the building. d. Consider adding multiple stairways along the frontage to provide access from the upper level to the sidewalk e. Soften the appearance of the parking garage and ramp using design and materials which complement the freestanding structures above. f. Provide landscaping between the building and sidewalk.