Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design is a creative way to blend traditional and modern styles. The existing service drive located along the north and west boundary

3 of the project area will be resurfaced with asphalt and slightly reconfigured but will generally remain as it appears. The area wrapping southwest of the dugouts and press box will be concrete. The concrete will match the City standard mix. Accent strips of 1-foot wide colored concrete to match the red brick color are proposed to break up the large pavement areas. The project proposes collecting runoff from the turf field and connecting to an existing storm sewer. This will require approval from MSD and the applicant has begun that process. An 8-foot tall black chain link fence is proposed to enclose the baseball field. The metal fence design is similar to the fencing along the two baseball fields located east of the subject field. Safety netting ranging in height from 16 feet to 32 feet is proposed along the southeast and west sides of the field. The safety netting is specifically designed for athletic fields. Red Cordova stone CMU walls approximately 2.5 feet tall are proposed along the southeast and west sides of the baseball field to act as the backstop behind home plate. The interior side of the walls facing the field will be lined with grey padding and the exterior face will be the red stone. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed fences and walls are compatible with the proposed site design and surrounding area. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing field light poles. The new lights will go in the same locations but will feature upgraded lights with shields. The spillover of light onto adjacent properties will be reduced from the existing conditions. Director Istenes concluded by stating that it is staff’s opinion that the design and materials of the proposed baseball field are compatible in terms of height, mass and design with nearby structures. The use of red brick as the primary building material is compatible with adjacent buildings, while the proposed roof and secondary building materials introduce modern design elements and staff’s recommendation is to approve with the condition that the applicant shall provide proof of approval from MSD for the storm sewer connection prior to issuing of any Building Permits.

Ms. Carlson provided details regarding the changes made to the proposal based on the comments received at the last meeting. She then presented renderings/materials to the members. She noted that the existing bleachers will be used.

Joanne Boulton stated that she thinks it will look very nice.

Ms. Carlson presented the floor plan of the press box to the members; the first floor contains restrooms.

Gabriella Farkas, resident, spoke about the turf material; noting that it may not be the most environmentally safe and suggested that an environmental study be conducted.

Chairman Lichtenfeld explained to Ms. Farkas that this Board is not specifically reviewing the turf, but they could ask the applicant/school district to address her concern.

Ms. Carlson stated that the school district takes these concerns seriously and that there are studies that show no immediate or long-term effects of artificial turf; however, the landscape architect could better speak to this issue. She added that the exact material still has not been determined.

Carlson stated that the school district takes these concerns seriously and that there are studies that show no immediate or long-term effects of artificial turf; however, the landscape architect could better speak to this issue. She added that the exact material still has not been determined.

4

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

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR RENOVATION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 60 ARUNDEL PLACE

San San Smith, project architect, and Scot Hickman, owner, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the replacement and enlargement of the front porch. The proposed porch is concrete, clad in brick with brick pillars and a decorative metal railing. The proposed porch will extend further laterally across the front of the house than the existing porch. Uncovered porches are allowed to encroach up to 10 feet into a front yard setback and the proposed porch only extends 8 feet from the front of the house. Some evergreen shrubs will be removed to make room for the new porch; however, the two existing trees at either corner of the house will remain. In the R-2 Zoning District, total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent and front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed total lot coverage is 40 percent and the proposed front yard coverage is 18 percent. 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 code section above requires walls and fences in the front yard to obtain approval from the Architectural Review Board. The code section does not specifically address the use of masonry walls and fences in conjunction with porches or patios in the front yard. The proposed porch will be red brick to match the primary structure with limestone caps, which is also an accent material of the primary structure. The proposed porch is consistent with other uncovered porches on similar style homes in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and recommends approval as submitted.

Ms. Smith explained that the Sheet A.1 shows the rendering. The existing concrete porch is 64- square feet; the new concrete porch (exposed aggregate finish) is 222 -square feet. The face of the new porch will match the house (red brick and charcoal mortar). The porch height remains unchanged, at approximately 20-inches from grade. The new steps will be 6-feet wide, which is one foot wider than the existing steps. The sidewalk will be the same width and also of exposed aggregate. The pilasters will be solid concrete interior with reinforced steel faced with brick. Ms. Smith then referred to the last page of the submittal and noted that there are approximately 10 other porches that contain pilasters, so they believe it will be compatible with the neighborhood.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about landscaping.

Ms. 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.

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.

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

7 A discussion ensued regarding the logo. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he believes it is Walgreen’s new corporate logo, as it can be seen on other locations and their brand products.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to staff’s recommendation, which, if he understands correctly, would allow the “W” in lieu of the mortar & pestle.

Anna Krane noted that staff recommends allowing the new logo in place of the existing logo in the same format, minus the color.

Scott Wilson commented that staff’s recommendation is far different from what the applicant is requesting.

Joanne Boulton stated that she remembers the battle of the sign when they originally opened.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the other Walgreen’s signs on the property.

Mr. Larue informed the Board that they don’t plan to replace the other existing signs.

Joanne Boulton and Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that they agree with staff recommendation. Chairman Lichtenfeld added that allowing the red would drastically change the building and would be a beacon at night.

Mr. Larue stated that Walgreen’s wants the red.

The Board stated that the City does not.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve with staff recommendation (no color allowed). The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

SIGNAGE SUB-DISTRICT – CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS – 7620 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Deanna Kuhlmann-Leavitt, designer, and Tim Gaidis, HOK, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes read staff’s report as follows: the subject properties are located between Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Avenue, east of Bemiston Avenue and zoned Special Development District. The Centene Clayton Campus is comprised of multiple subdistricts to be constructed overtime. Subdistrict A includes the existing Centene office tower, retail spaces and parking garage. Subdistrict 1 is currently under construction and includes a tower and parking garage with retail, office and parking uses. Subdistrict 2A is also under construction and includes retail and parking uses. Subdistrict 2B has been approved for a corporate and civic auditorium. Subdistrict 2C is zoned for residential, retail and parking. Subdistrict 3 is zoned for office, hospitality, parking and