Citation in context
August 6, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
The minutes were approved as presented, after having been previously distributed to the members. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – 7676 FORSYTH BLVD (WELLBRIDGE)
Ken Manssouri, architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
2
Susan Istenes explained that on June 18, 2018, a Sign Subdistrict Plan was approved for the entire Centene Clayton Campus. The approved plan included a tenant sign option for an interior wall graphic. The unique sign was presented as an option for first floor tenants and was not specifically designed. The interior wall graphic sign is subject to property owner approval as well as Architectural Review Board approval. The subject tenant is a fitness club and will occupy parts of the first, second and third floors along the Forsyth Boulevard frontage. The applicant is proposing a 65 square foot wall sign located in the lobby area of the Wellbridge tenant space. The sign will be constructed of medium grey and dark grey metal and will be internally illuminated. The proposed sign is located on an interior wall, but due to the size and window wall system of the building, it will be highly visible. The sign will be setback from the building wall approximately 30 feet, which will reduce the impact of the large size. The proposed colors and materials are compatible with the building. The sign has received building owner approval. Staff believes that the proposed sign will be compatible with the surrounding character and will serve as an advertising feature as well as a design feature for the tenant space. The proposed sign conforms with the Sign Subdistrict regulations. The proposed sign seems to be of high quality materials and will complement the building façades and staff recommends approval as requested.
Mr. Manssouri thanked the Board for the opportunity to present this proposal. He noted that the sign complied with Wellbridge’s other tenant spaces throughout the Country; however, this location is more focused on a corporate setting. He indicated that the lighting will have a “halo” effect. He asked if there were any questions about the proposal.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to additional lighting shown on Sheet 4 of the submitted plans.
Mr. Manssouri indicated that there are additional lights within the lobby that are not part of the sign package.
Richard Lintz asked about the proposed illumination.
Mr. Manssouri stated that the letters are white with overlay in black/gray metal lit to create a halo effect. He indicated that the white lighting will be changed to red for the American Heart Association and pink for the Susan B. Koman foundation. He added that there may also be seasonal color changes; however, the lighting will at most times be white.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked staff if the lighting needs to be specific.
Susan Istenes indicated that specific colors are preferred.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the colors that are allowed should be included in the motion.
Stephanie Karr suggested that in addition to the colors, she suggested a time limit be included as well.
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
AUGUST 6, 2018
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:
Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman Richard Lintz, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim Brian Maguire Carolyn Gaidis
Absent:
William Liebermann
Also in Attendance: Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed newcomer Carolyn Gaidis to the Board (replacing Scott Wilson). Chairman Lichtenfeld then asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meetings of May 7, 2018 and July 16, 2018 were presented for approval. The minutes were approved as presented, after having been previously distributed to the members.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – 7676 FORSYTH BLVD (WELLBRIDGE)
Ken Manssouri, architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the colors that are allowed should be included in the motion. Stephanie Karr suggested that in addition to the colors, she suggested a time limit be included as well.
3
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the signage as requested with the condition that other than the requested and allowed red and pink for the mentioned charitable events, staff be provided proposed lighting colors and that they be approved by staff prior to use. In addition, the use of any color other than white not to exceed 30 days. The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – BANNER COLORS – 212 S MERAMEC AVENUE
Josh Goodman, HDA Architects (project architect), was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that on February 5, 2018, a Sign Subdistrict Plan was approved for the subject property which included wall signs for the commercial tenant spaces, identification of the apartment use entrance and a series of banners that are permitted to display graphics. The banner colors were approved as fall colors to coordinate with the public art bicycle racks located around the building. The bicycle racks are yellow, orange, red and green. The applicant is now requesting to revise the banner color scheme. The property (zoned PUD) contains a multi-family apartment building with restaurant/retail space on the first floor. A total of 12 banners are allowed on the building. The Sign Subdistrict allows for up to five banners depicting graphics and the remaining banners will be solid colors. The applicant is proposing indigo and yellow for the banner colors. The following table outlines all signage allowed by the approved Sign Subdistrict.
Sign Type Location Use Size Proposed Address Southwest entrance Residential 10.02 sqft Perpendicular, banners (2) West façade Residential 3.5 sqft per face Wall – inline tenant ID sign Southwest tenant space; west façade Retail 28 sqft Wall – corner tenant ID sign Northwest tenant space; west façade Retail 40 sqft Address Northwest tenant space; west façade Retail 10.02 sqft Wall – inline tenant ID sign Northwest tenant space; north façade Retail 28 sqft Perpendicular, banners (2) Northwest tenant space; 1 west façade and 1 north façade Retail 3.5 sqft per face Wall – inline tenant ID sign Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 28 sqft Address Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 10.02 sqft Perpendicular, banner Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 3.5 sqft per face
The following table outlines all signage allowed by the approved Sign Subdistrict. Sign Type Location Use Size Proposed Address Southwest entrance Residential 10.02 sqft Perpendicular, banners (2) West façade Residential 3.5 sqft per face Wall – inline tenant ID sign Southwest tenant space; west façade Retail 28 sqft Wall – corner tenant ID sign Northwest tenant space; west façade Retail 40 sqft Address Northwest tenant space; west façade Retail 10.02 sqft Wall – inline tenant ID sign Northwest tenant space; north façade Retail 28 sqft Perpendicular, banners (2) Northwest tenant space; 1 west façade and 1 north façade Retail 3.5 sqft per face Wall – inline tenant ID sign Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 28 sqft Address Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 10.02 sqft Perpendicular, banner Northeast tenant space; north façade Retail 3.5 sqft per face
4 Director Istenes continued by stating that the Architectural Review Board was specific about the color scheme of the banners being coordinated with the bicycle rack colors in order to create a cohesive corner environment. The yellow color proposed for the banners is coordinated with the bicycle racks, but the indigo/blue color is not and was also not discussed during the original banner approval. There are already blue accents on the building in the window tinting. Staff is of the opinion that the indigo banners would be compatible with the building façade but would not help to connect the bicycle racks with the development. Page four of the plan set submitted by the applicant shows a proof of the potential banners. All graphic banners depict advertising for the apartment use of the building. The approved Sign Subdistrict included banners for the apartment use and the retail uses. Staff requests that the applicant clarifies if the requested revisions include allowing all graphic banners to depict signage only for the apartment use. Staff believes that using all banners to advertise the apartment use would result in over signage for one use and distract from or screen signage for the other uses. The proposed Sign Subdistrict provides uniform signage at the intersection of a developing restaurant node. The proposed signs seem to be of high quality materials and with some modifications, the Sign Subdistrict will complement the building façades and staff recommends approval with the following conditions: