August 16, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

1

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 16, 2021 ZOOM MEETING

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. via a ZOOM meeting. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: David Gipson, City Manager Ira Berkowitz, Aldermanic Representative Bob Denlow Helen DiFate George Hettich Absent: Steve Lichtenfeld Carolyn Gaidis

Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Annisa Kumerow, Principal Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney

Bob Denlow, Acting Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. MINUTES The minutes of August 2, 2021 were not available for consideration. NEW BUSINESS 6428 CECIL AVENUE – SITE PLAN REVIEW- NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Doug Leipziger, Civil Engineer, CDI, was present. Peter and Dianne Swank, homeowners, were present. Doug Leipziger summarized the project and spoke about existing drainage on site (Drainage area map 1). DMA2 shows new improvements and information about the amount of stormwater being captured. The increase is being captured and directed to underground drywell system in rear of garage.

2

Ira Berkowitz – questioned function of drywell. Doug Leipziger explained dry well system and noted page C-4- provides detail of drywell. Rock and drywell act as storage area for stormwater, underground. Peter and Dianne – noted their intent was to keep historical feel and architecture of neighborhood. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no comments from the audience, George Hettich moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; Helen DiFate seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. 6428 CECIL AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Doug Leipziger, Civil Engineer, CDI, was present. Peter and Dianne Swank, homeowners were present. Mark Critchfield, Principal, Mainline Group Architecture, was present. Peter Swank – noted brick matches front of existing home. Noted that the size of garage was not overwhelming, and the additional pool will be a smaller pool and landscaping will be installed. Bob Denlow – questioned canopy and side stairs. Dianne Swank– noted they were building a terrace off back of home that will be used as a seating area and wrought iron railing that matches front of home with landscaping. Bob Denlow – questioned use of second floor of garage. Peter Swank – noted intent would be for office and gym area as a rec room/bonus room. Mark Critchfield – summarized plans to add pool, raised terrace and 3 car garage with sensitivity of architecture of neighborhood and existing home. Helen DiFate – commented that the details on brick and railings were handled well. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; George Hettich seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. 420 OAKLEY AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Todd Snyder, Homeowner, was present. Todd Snyder - noted construction going on next door. Installed a retaining wall which replaced old railroad ties. Mud is running off onto the sidewalk. Retaining wall located alongside entrance. Length requested is 20 feet. Second phase is to prevent mud from running off sidewalk, which was not previously an issue due to ivy on site. Will look the same as the one recently installed. Ira Berkowitz – noted Pin Oak tree in yard and encouraged preventing damage to Oak Tree.

3

Todd Snyder – wall located 27 inches back (in audible). George Hettich – questioned trustee approval. Ira Berkowitz - stated the trustees approved unanimously.

Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing and no comments from the audience, George Hettich moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; Helen DiFate seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. 7600 WYDOWN BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Rick Gangloff, Lawrence Fabric & Metal Structure, was present. Pepe Kehm, Owner, was present. Annisa Kumerow noted since the time of the writing of the staff report, staff has received an outdoor dining permit application which addresses one of the outstanding items identified in the staff report as needed in order for the staff to recommend approval. Clarification on parking is necessary. Pepe Kehm – noted the request is just for seating for waiting because there is none presently, and they are trying to mirror what they have now under the awning. Noted that the barriers shown on plan were not required for the first awning and would like to not have to install them for this awning. Bob Denlow questioned bollards. Why needed? Rich Gangloff – noted location of bollards and their relationship to sidewalk and parking area. Bob Denlow – questioned location of retaining wall. Rick Gangloff - two foot retaining wall extended across existing canopy over to first parking spot and canopy will be placed on top of wall. Would prefer not to have bollards on right side but could possibly extend concrete as a lip. Helen DiFate – questions how the two canopies will meet. Rick – existing gutter will be used for new canopy as well. Rick asked about parking space in front of canopy. Annisa noted that the space creates a pinch point and should be removed. (#7) Ira Berkowitz – didn’t see a raised deck or anything upon which this would sit. David motions to table to September 7 (Tuesday). Helen seconds. All ayes. Item tabled 7676 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Chris Smith, Dale Signs, was present

4

Chris Smith is the installer and discussed lettering and lighting of proposed signage. The letters will have a day night film. Day film looks black, night film looks white. Standard wood wall, no product proposed for wall at this time. Also noted there are several elements to project. Chris Smith – outlined the different elements/ signs in proposal. Bob Denlow – asked about appearance at night. Chris Smith – noted film decreased illumination of LEDs. Bob Denlow – Questioned TV shown on plans below interior sign. Chris Smith – stated the TV installed by someone else, for use during day. Ira Berkowitz – questioned TV or some type of messaging on Board? Chris Smith – noted location of TV is back in office/reception area approximately 50 feet back. Estimates it will be hardly visible. Ira Berkowitz – questioned if the applicant was installing flashing signs, TV or messaging? Visibility from traffic? Noted importance of appearance of signage downtown. Chris Smith – noted there is no illumination for windows signs. Illuminated octagon in back is the same as other locations. The lighted letters are set back deeper than similar signs existing in Clayton. Helen DiFate – asked about location of TV – under Chase Octagon? Chris Smith - confirmed location is under Chase Octagon. Referenced page 4. Helen DiFate – believes at night the proposed location of TV used as a moving display presents a concern; has no problems with logo but addition of tv in concert with logo sign is of concern. ARB signing off on a wood wall that we really don’t know the design of the graphics is a concern. 380 square feet is a major feature along that façade. David Gipson – has concern over wood wall, no information provided but it is shown on the application. David Gipson – should wood wall be part of the package since there are no graphics? Annisa Kumerow – said applicant decided on wood wall, interior to building without graphics. It was included as part of sign package due to its location. Chris Smith – described it as a standard wood panel going up from floor to ceiling and the blue lighting is interior light. Applicant decided to remove any potential graphics from the wall to avoid having to seek City approvals every time the graphics on the wall changed. Kevin O’Keefe– stated that the motion should include neither installation or finish is part of this approval and when and if owner wants to put some graphic or attention getting devise or graphic on there it will be considered at that time and it will come back for this Board’s approval. Kevin’s suggested motion: Commission action today doesn’t not include approval of installation or appearance of item marked wooden wall and when and if constructed, staff will review it and if there is signage it will require an amendment to sign package.

5

Bob Denlow – summarized- and asked we are approving sign permit application excluding the wall. Correct? Confirmed by Kevin O’Keefe Ira Berkowitz – wants to make sure the TV is not included in the vote. Bob Denlow added on to previously read motion: “and to emphasize that vote on this matter in no way related to the TV.” Ira Berkowitz moved to approve motion as stated and clarified by Bob Denlow– Helen DiFate seconded motion– unanimous approval. Public Hearing PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ZONING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS Susan Istenes gave a summary of the updated staff report. Noted that the Plan Commission had asked Tim to go back and take a look at issue of 6 foot setback vs zero foot from the front build to line, and Tim generated a memo, dated August 5, contained in your packet. Bob Denlow asked Tim to summarize his conclusions in the memo with regard to zero foot setback. Tim Breihan– here to discuss our evaluation of proposed amendments dealing with a Mandatory minimum percentage of ground floor build to line that would be required to be setback by a minimum distance that was discussed at the last public hearing. Noted that there was no real decision or dimensional recommendation made. Instead of the permitted a minimum percentage of ground floor façade would be required to be setback that a minimum of the ground floor façade would be required to be setback a minimum of 6 feet to create outdoor program use and to keep it out of the public right of way of the sidewalk because of concerns that sidewalks were too narrow for outdoor dining and outdoor retail use to maintain a comfortable clear outdoor area. How is inset setback at ground floor is required to be treated and how the use of that is enforced over time. As well as the impacts the setback requirements would have on smaller lots or smaller incremental developments. Thoughts of Board seem to be around the large ½ block developments, but overlay development standards have to address a variety of conditions as well. Although a lot of discussion dealt with outdoor dining, one of the hall makres of form based code overlay district is building forms can support a variety of uses over time and design elements are so narrowly confined to a particular use that it makes it so difficult to allow/adapt to different uses in the future. Recommendation number 1 – through enhanced detail in the approval of outdoor dining permits, where it is desired and permitted on public sidewalks, the city can and should take a more active and detailed role in ensuring table position number and arrangement is appropriate for the sidewalk width upon which they are located so clear area is maintained and enforcement and management as approved in a permit, are enforced over time. This is a city role. Secondly – incremental upgrades of sidewalks widths specifically along north central through and during development of property by developers can be used to provide wider sidewalks, as done with Ceylon De elopement. 1. Developer reconstructs sidewalks adjacent to their property If PC wishes to continue

6

investigation of revised Setback requirements particularly if it comes to requiring a mandatory ground floor setback (by requiring a mandatory setback of a min percentage). Implications need to be modeled using 3D digital models as done previously, in order to fully understand physical form implicatins on different size parcels/developments in order to decide exactly what impacts are and what dimneiosnal requirements could be incorporated or revised into dimensional standards. If PC wishes to move forward with this recommendation to do some 3 dimensional modeling on different sized parcels in order to determine what dimensional requirements that could be incorporated or revised into standards, what those specific requirements would be. David Gipson – talking about changing setbacks potentially and we don’t know exactly what those implications would be to building massing and from the ground. Without a visual representation it’s difficult to feel comfortable on this issue. Tim Breihan – two examples outlined in memo, we mentioned in the discussion of design considerations, there are lots that are 25 feet in width where the overlay standards would apply. One discussions at last hearing, revising to state ground floor facades must be setback to a minimum average of 6 feet up to max average 12 feet min 25 percent façade length up to a max of 75 percent facade length, on 25 foot wide lot – 6 x 6 foot inset which wouldn’t be useful for any of programmatic purposes discussed previously. Reviewed Ceylon that does have in sets. While they are not 6 foot min depth, there are 60 – 65 feet of total ground floor façade length that is setback on the north central ave façade for a total faced length of 218 feet, which means 27-29 percent of total faced length is set back. Those are individual store front insets, even if setback to proposed 6 feet, we don’t believe that will meet the intent of providing programmatic space. Needs careful consideration to make space is usab le and how the space is treated and how use of space is monitored by city in order to ensure intent of updates is achieved. Bob Denlow – noted strong sentiment to protect sidewalks for walkability and to figure out a setback formula for open air uses are available to buildings and that the uses now and in the future, so if our goal is to protect sidewalks for public benefit and not have private uses encroach. Do you feel we are at a point to move forward or do we have to do this modeling? Tim Breihan - it’s important to make a distinction - are there certain type of sidewalk uses in public ROW that the commission considers to be a positive contributor to the character and vitality of an entertainment district. Our opinion that having outdoor dining in particular is something that is very important to have a vibrant and active sidewalk environment, but it doesn’t need to occur everywhere and works best when concentrated on a particular block or street. Has to be implemented m managed and operated to still preserve public use of sidewalk. Any use by private business for outdoor programmatic use undesirable or it is more of an issue that we want those uses but have to be done in such a way there has to be a comfortable use of sidewalk. Ira Berkowitz – having stationary objects that precludes free flow – have to find necessary pockets to see that occur – entertainment. Tim – maintaining consistency with other overlays (Entertainment overlay). Our reading that ordinance seems to clearly support and encourage outdoor dining and retail uses. Because it is part of what we were tasked for studying, that is certainly a priority that we were being responsive to but perhaps that is no longer the desired condition or concerns that impact dining and retail uses can have (negative) on

7

broader use of sidewalk. Understanding form implications and how long terms management of setback areas. From a form standpoint – it’s fair to say that what a boutique or storefront retailer is going to want in terms of accessibility they are not going to want a mandatory 6 foot setback area particularly if it is not required to be maintained as a publicly setback on private property – it will reduce the visibility and retail accessibility from a sidewalk. For dining it can be different. Can have useful patio area that goes back – when weather is nice can be welcome and inviting for passersby. What happens 5-6 month out of year when it is too cold – how is that space activated and what is it used for? Intent is providing contextual and compatible building forms that can support a variety of ground floor uses over time. One concern with this approach is you are tailoring a building for a specific use in this case dining, within the parcel boundary but that is a form condition that is not conducive to other non-dining commercial or commercial/retail uses on ground floor. Would that then make those ground floor units less desirable if no market for a restaurant? Then you have a building designed for a specific set of uses then building to becomes less desirable over time Bob Denlow – we wanted to protect our existing sidewalk- what are we doing to private developer? Why mandate a developer to recess back when that use may not be usable for 6-8 months out of the year and only for a restaurant. in any of these cases – what are these spaces used for? Tim Breihan– is it possible to require public infrastructure improvements of developer under a by right overlay? One approach (larger developments) – require developer to make sidewalk improvements; if smaller, in lieu of improvements collect a fee to support future improvements of adjacent sidewalks. Ira Berkowitz – Board’s desire is for pedestrian experience. Buildings built up to sidewalk doesn’t add to your pedestrian experience. Bob Denlow – summary – want wider sidewalks and areas for outdoor activities, under that scenari preservation of existing space is a minimum but goal is to widen it. It will be difficult to require a developer to dedicate. Ira- discussed additional levels to building or other benefits for developer dedicating space for public. David Gipson – ½ blocks that are left on Central, unless you have full block, those lots are not deep so once you require 6 foot setback and a stepback, not sure you have capability to go up in those particular spots if we were to require setbacks Don’t want to drive people to PUD because they are trying to avoid the overlay. That’s why modeling is important. Helen DiFate – agrees with David. Going up an extra floor may not be economical. There is a ratio of floor area to core that works. It could discourage development especially because of shallow lots. I don’t think moving building back 6 feet is not going to allow dining without encroaching on public sidewalk. Tim Breihan– summary – it’s not an easy solution but it’s important to note this is not unique to Clayton. Ultimately what we need to do is to get everyone around a table and understand various stakeholder perspectives and what ultimately are we trying to achieve and that will point us in the direction for the most appropriate solution. Public Speakers:

8

Kathy Beilein – member of steering committee – David’s and Tim’s suggestion is appropriate. Tim and John have worked really hard to move Clayton forward but it is complicated sets of facts and issues and deserves more time. A lot of focus on design, but the meat and potatoes is the development side and more time needs to be spent on regrouping and get more focus. David Gipson summarized an email from Hank Winkelman. Plan Commission voted to refer matter back to steering committee and table to a future date. Hearing adjourned. 8:01 p.m.