The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – COMMERCIAL – 230 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Bob Winters, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

4 Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of removing a portion of the brick veneer along the southern elevation of the parking garage façade and replacing the area with concrete walls to match the façade treatment of the garage further east. The existing brick veneer has begun to buckle and is no longer structurally sound. The western wall of the garage fronts South Bemiston Avenue and is clad in brick veneer with landscape screening between the wall and the public side walk. The brick veneer currently wraps the southwest corner of the building and covers a portion of the southern wall, which fronts Shaw Park Drive. The proposed project will only remove the brick veneer from the southern elevation. The proposed concrete wall treatment will match the remainder of the southern elevation of the garage; however, there will not be landscaping and trees to provide additional screening of the garage as there is along other portions of the elevation. Due to sight distance requirements, trees cannot be added along this portion of the elevation to provide screening of the concrete garage. Shaw Park Drive runs parallel to Forest Park Parkway. There is a residential neighborhood on the south side of Forest Park Parkway. The residential neighborhood is screened from the subject building by mature trees and a concrete wall, so the proposed garage elevation will not be directly visible. Most of the buildings fronting Shaw Park Drive are parking garages with various forms of screening. Director Istenes stated that staff believes the proposed concrete screening is compatible with the existing character of Shaw Park Drive and will adequately shield car headlights from the south and therefore, recommends approval as submitted.

Mr. Winters noted that the brick veneer is buckling.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the concrete will be flush with the existing material.

Mr. Winters replied “yes”.

Ron Reim asked about the brick on the west façade.

Mr. Winters stated that changes to the west façade is a future project.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – OUTDOOR HEATERS (RESTAURANT) – DEMUN OYSTER BAR – 740 DEMUN AVENUE

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that the City has received a request that this item be continued.

Robert Seipp, attorney for Steve Barron, property owner, asked that consideration of this application be continued or that the request be denied for these reasons: application deficiencies including incorrect property owner information, lack of property owner signature and because the owner just received notice of this request on Friday.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – OUTDOOR HEATERS (RESTAURANT) – DEMUN OYSTER BAR – 740 DEMUN AVENUE

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that the City has received a request that this item be continued. Robert Seipp, attorney for Steve Barron, property owner, asked that consideration of this application be continued or that the request be denied for these reasons: application deficiencies including incorrect property owner information, lack of property owner signature and because the owner just received notice of this request on Friday.

5 Alan Richman, business owner, indicated that he thought he was applying for outdoor heaters for both restaurants, DeMun Oyster Bar and Sasha’s. He stated that his goal is to improve the function of the outdoor area and improve the image. He noted that he has had traditional outdoor heaters at both establishments (since 2003 at Sasha’s and since 2010 at DeMun Oyster Bar). He stated that he thinks these new heaters are better looking.

Joanne Boulton asked why the owner is requesting a continuance.

Mr. Seipp stated that his client did not get a chance to review the submittal nor did he sign the application as the owner.

Kevin O’Keefe explained that notice is not required for projects that only require architectural review; notice is provided as a courtesy. He added that because these heaters are not permanent fixtures to the building or property and would be personal property of the tenant, staff determined that property owner signature on the application was not necessary.

The subject of the lease came up. City Attorney O’Keefe indicated that the City does not have any dealings with private leases. He then informed the Board that it is at their discretion whether or not to continue consideration of this application.

Joanne Boulton commented that this is the season for outdoor heaters and she’s not sure there’s a need to continue this.

Mr. Barron stated that the lease requires his approval.

Mr. Richman stated that the owner was not consulted regarding the outdoor furniture.

Kevin O’Keefe reiterated that this Board is not equipped to handle tenant/landlord disputes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would prefer voting on these heaters tonight.

Joanne Boulton asked if this Board is only being asked about these heaters for aesthetic purposes.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

Mr. Barron stated that a form can’t change after it’s used.

A discussion regarding the heaters ensued between the Board members and Mr. Richman. Mr. Richman explained that the lights are not multi-colored; they are one color at a time and the light color for the Oyster Bar is blue.

Ron Reim asked if these heaters have already been purchased.

The project was approved in 2015 and is currently under construction. The applicant has applied for multiple amendments under the Building Permit, some

7 of which require architectural review. Based on the number of requested changes and the timing of the amendment applications, staff determined the Architectural Review Board should consider the amendment requests that impact the appearance of the development. Some of the requested amendments also require either administrative approval from the City Manager or approval from the Board of Aldermen. The Architectural Review Board is being asked to review proposed amendments that include changes to building openings, materials, walls or elevations and the general appearance of the development. The City Manager has the authority to approve minor amendments including adjustment of final grades and alterations to landscaping elements and their arrangement. The multiple revisions requested by the applicant are being presented as one amendment package because the aesthetic changes proposed are directly connected to the minor amendments proposed that require further approval. Based on the discussion and outcome of the Architectural Review Board meeting, the City Manager may decide to either exercise administrative approval authority for the amendments beyond the scope of the Architectural Review Board or send the proposed amendments to the Board of Aldermen for review. The applicant is proposing two amendments that impact the building located at 25 North Central Avenue and one amendment impacting the surface parking lot located at 111 North Central Avenue. The proposed amendments include a reduction in the clearance height for the service entrance, re-organization of the amenity terrace and alterations to the surface parking lot. The service dock entrance is located at the southwest corner of the building with access off of the east-west alley connecting North Central Avenue and North Meramec Avenue. The applicant is proposing a reduction in the clearance height of the service entrance from 14 feet to 13.6 feet. The amendment will not impact the organization or location of the service/loading dock. The change will be visible only in the size of the opening along the alley. The amenity terrace is located in the interior of the site along the western property line with access provided from the second floor of the building. The original plan for the terrace included a green roof for the entire area and did not provide any gathering space. The applicant is proposing reducing the green roof area in order to provide a seating area for residents. The gathering area includes a fireplace and two trellis structures. The surface parking lot is located north of the building, across Maryland Avenue at 111 North Central Avenue. The applicant is proposing to raise the grade of the surface lot to match the grade of the existing surface lot south of the subject property. The applicant is also proposing to remove existing block walls located along the south and west property lines. The walls are no longer needed if the grade is raised. A planter bed with concrete curbs will be located along the southern property line to separate the two surface parking lots. A short concrete wall is proposed along the western property line with a landscape bed in front to provide screening of the adjacent property. The existing brick veneer wall along the north property line will remain with a landscape bed in front. The parking lot will still include 30 parking spaces (including two accessible spaces) as the original plan required. The proposed amendment to the service entrance clearance height will not have a significant visible impact. The opening is remaining in the same location. The applicant does not believe the reduced clearance height will impact delivery trucks and the City does not have a required minimum clearance for this use. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is compatible with the originally approved plan. With regard to the amenity terrace, the proposed amendment is not visible from the public right of way, but is visible from adjacent properties. The proposed changes will create a more useful space for residents of the building. The

The proposed changes will create a more useful space for residents of the building. The

8 applicant has met MSD requirements in other ways, and therefore, was able to reduce the green roof area and create the new gathering space. There is a reduction in the overall green roof area; however, green roof trays have been added to some areas that were left bare by the original plan. The applicant is proposing to maintain the raised planter beds from the original plan. A condition of the PUD approval is the inclusion of a green roof. Staff believes the revised design still meets the intent of the condition. The proposed revisions also include the addition of a fire place and two seating areas, each under a trellis. The proposed trellises are constructed of steel and aluminum. The proposed trellises are compatible with the materials and colors of the building. Staff believes the proposed revisions will give the space a more active purpose and benefit residents of the building. The general layout and site circulation of the surface parking lot is not changed by the proposed revisions. The lot will still be accessed from North Central Avenue. The same number of parking spaces will be provided. The proposed light pole locations and design remains the same. The main revision being proposed is raising the grade of the parking lot to match the grade of the existing lot to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed revision is compatible with the surrounding area. The change will allow the proposed landscaping to be visible from Maryland Avenue and North Central Avenue. The original plan included walls that would have screened the plantings from Maryland Avenue. The original plan called for maintaining the existing brick veneer walls along the south and west property lines; however, by raising the grade of the site, there is no longer a need for the walls. The revised plan includes additional landscaping to provide the buffer and screening that was formerly achieved by the wall. There is a detached garage and dumpsters located just west of the subject property on the adjacent church property. This area is currently screened by the existing brick wall. The applicant is proposing to remove that wall and replace it with a concrete wall. The proposed concrete wall will measure approximately 2 inches above grade at the southwest corner of the property and raise up to approximately 30 inches above grade at the northwest corner. The adjacent church property to the west is at a higher finished grade than the subject property. The proposed wall will maintain a minimum 6 inch curb height above grade of the adjacent property. The applicant is proposing a row of 4 foot to 5 foot tall Hicks Yew along the western property line to provide screening in lieu of a taller wall. The City’s contracted landscape architect has reviewed the proposed landscape revisions and finds the planting plan acceptable and that sufficient screening of the concrete wall and dumpsters is provided. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed parking lot amendments are compatible with the intent of the original plan and will positively impact the public right of way along North Central Avenue. Director Istenes concluded by stating that the proposed changes will not negatively impact surrounding properties or the public right of way. Sufficient screening is provided and the landscape plan is not significantly altered. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments conform to the approved Planned Unit Development plan and ordinance and recommend approval as submitted.

Mr. Downs began by stating that they hope to welcome their first residents by November 1st. He then informed the members that the entire project team is available this evening to answer questions if needed. He noted that the changes are positive and the parking lot will be safer.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that this is an improvement.