No retaining walls are proposed. Susan stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines; staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.

9

Mr. Fendler presented a color rendering to the members and material samples to the members. He noted there are a couple of metal roofs and the windows are black frame.

Acting Chairman Reim commented that it’s a handsome house.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Pepe Finn made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sherry Eisenberg and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – 417 OAKLEY

Roger Kepner, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the west side of Oakley Drive between Edgewood and Shirley Drives. In September 2015, a new retaining wall was approved administratively and constructed along the south side of the driveway behind the front building line. The retaining wall was constructed using tan-colored, standard size modular blocks. While not an approved material, the wall is located almost entirely below grade and minimally visible from the street and adjacent properties. On October 14, 2015, a city inspector observed a second retaining wall under construction along the north side of the driveway between the house and the public sidewalk. The wall is constructed with the same materials as the previously approved wall. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Code requires that all front yard retaining walls in residential zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The applicant has not submitted subdivision trustee approval. 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. The material used in this case has tumbled/rolled edges, but does not have varying block sizes or color patterns. While the previously approved retaining wall was not a permitted material, it was not highly visible from the street. The front yard retaining wall is highly visible from the street and has a stronger visual impact. Therefore, staff recommends that the front yard retaining wall be replaced with a wall constructed with an approved retaining wall material. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and finds the placement of the retaining wall in the right-of-way acceptable, but has concerns regarding the new pipe which will discharge water onto the driveway and public sidewalk. If the pipe is connected to a downspout, it should be removed and popup emitters should be installed in the yard. If it is a relief drain for the retaining wall then staff recommends the pipe be removed and the wall be redesigned. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the request as submitted and require that the applicant submit plans depicting an approved retaining wall material and drain design as requested by Public Works, to be approved by staff prior to installation.

Mr. Kepner indicated that nobody informed him that trustee approval was needed, but they have it now.

Mr. Kepner indicated that nobody informed him that trustee approval was needed, but they have it now.

10

Louis Clayton stated that trustee approval was submitted to staff earlier today.

Mr. Kepner indicated that they received a permit to build the wall in the back and during the process of construction it was discovered that there was a downspout at the corner of the driveway was covered with mulch which was causing drainage into the basement. He stated that in his experience, pop-ups fail and that the best solution is to daylight. He presented photos of a neighbor who has the same walls. He indicated that staff’s report does not make sense to him.

Acting Chairman Ron Reim asked if the wall was approved.

Louis Clayton announced that walls below four feet in height don’t require a building permit; however, there are still material regulations. He added that he believes the administrative approval was only for the wall behind the front building line.

Craig Owens informed the other members the approval came after the wall was built.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if there are other ways to get water out.

Mr. Kepner stated that pop-ups are a cheap solution and not a good one.

Josh Corson asked if there are other systems that can be used.

Louis Clayton indicated that the installation of pop-ups is what the Public Works Department recommended. He added that during the winter water flows onto the sidewalk and freezes.

Mr. Kepner stated that water won’t freeze when it flows out.

Pepe Finn asked where the closest drain is located.

Mr. Kepner stated that he doesn’t know.

Josh Corson questioned if this Board can approve drainage like that.

Louis Clayton replied that he believes so; a portion of the wall is in the city’s right-of-way.

Mark Winings made reference to Mr. Kepner’s earlier comment about other neighborhood properties with similar walls.

Mr. Kepner stated that the property to the south (in the picture) and another up the hill have similar walls.

Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed restaurant is required to provide one bicycle rack; however, one has not been shown on the plans. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a site plan showing the location of the required bicycle rack in conformance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations, to be approved by staff

12 prior to the issuance of a building permit. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The restaurant space is comparable in size, hours of operation, and method of deliveries with other restaurants Downtown. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant will be compatible with surrounding uses and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that the applicant submit a site plan showing the location of the required bicycle rack in conformance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Mr. Pandl stated that this is the final stage of the hotel development. He added that they will comply with staff’s recommendation to provide bicycle parking.

Acting Chairman Reim asked if they are currently operating.

Mr. Pandl replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by Pepe Finn and unanimously approved by the Board.

CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION – MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT – 7601-7651 CLAYTON ROAD (SCHNUCK’S SITE)

Jim Fredericks, Posenelli Law Firm, representing the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. Ben Owenell, Darren Moore and Preston Dial representing GBT Realty, developer, and Jack Holleran & Tyson Pyle, project architects, were also in attendance.

Susan Istenes explained that the 3.3-acre site includes two separate properties bounded by Hanley Road to the west, Clayton Road to the south, and Westwood Drive to the east. The western property (7651 Clayton Road) has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and is improved with a one-story commercial building (former Schnuck’s) which was constructed in 1950 and has been vacant since 2003. The eastern property (7601 Clayton Road) has a zoning designation of R-6 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling District, is located in the Westwood Corridor Urban Design Zoning District, and is improved with a surface parking lot. Adjacent land uses include multi-family and commercial to the west, multi-family to the north and east, and single-family to the south. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 537,740-square-foot mixed-use development. Access to the site is proposed from Hanley Road near the existing access point, mid-block from Clayton Road, and from Westwood Avenue for residents only. The west end of the site will include a two-story structure containing 43,000 square feet of ground floor retail space including a grocery store, and 42,000 square feet of second floor office space. A surface parking lot with a single row of parking is proposed between the building and Hanley and Clayton Roads. The east end of the site will

A surface parking lot with a single row of parking is proposed between the building and Hanley and Clayton Roads. The east end of the site will

13 include a 488-space parking structure, a 4-5-story residential building wrapping the parking structure containing 44 units, and a 12-story residential building containing 247 units. The proposed development will be constructed primarily of brick, stone, glass, EIFS, and concrete. The project will be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will require public hearings before the Plan Commission and Board of Aldermen. As currently proposed, the project will require zoning waivers for height, setbacks, parking, and density. The applicant has not specified what public benefits will be provided to the City in exchange for the requested zoning waivers. The western property is not located in an urban design or overlay zoning district, but is subject to the following design standards which affect the site and building form:

 Stepbacks: For buildings permitted to exceed the maximum height through the planned unit development procedure, a 15-foot stepback (upper story building setback) shall be provided beginning at the 3rd-story level or 30 feet above grade, whichever is less.  Parking: Surface parking lots and parking structures with parking at ground level are not permitted along the street frontage.

The eastern property has a zoning designation of R-6 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling District and is located in the Westwood Corridor Urban Design District (UDD). The intent of the Westwood Corridor UDD is to ensure that redevelopment responds to and protects the established character of the Westwood Corridor. The UDD has detailed development standards for building orientation, lot coverage, setbacks, parking, building materials, height, massing, and architectural details. A more detailed submittal is required to evaluate the project’s compliance with the UDD standards. The Clayton Master Plan was adopted in 1975 and was last updated in 1989. The Master Plan designates the western property as “commercial” on the Future Land Use Plan and the eastern property as “mid density multi-family (25-45 units per acre)”. 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 the conceptual plans presented.

Planning