August 2, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

1

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AUGUST 2, 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: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld David Gipson, City Manager Ira Berkowitz, Aldermanic Representative (joined meeting later) Bob Denlow Helen DiFate George Hettich Carolyn Gaidis

Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Annisa Kumerow, Principal Planner Stephanie Karr, City Attorney

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting. MINUTES The minutes of July 19, 2021 were approved with corrections. NEW BUSINESS 8140 KINGSBURY BOULEVARD – SITE PLAN REVIEW – NEW RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Ryan Meeks, THD Design, was present. Mike Thompson, Thompson Design Group, Architect, was present. Steve Lichtenfeld asked Ryan Meeks to summarize the stormwater plan. Ryan Meeks – summarized the stormwater plan and noted a slight increase in stormwater runoff of .02 CFS to the street and noted the impervious area is not being increased, therefore they do not need to provide stormwater detention and confirmed surrounding properties will not receive additional water; the only additional water will be to the north.

2

Carolyn Gaidis – no comments. Steve Lichtenfeld - asked Ryan and Mike to confirm they understood conditions 1 and 2 associated with the staff recommendations. Ryan and Mike confirmed they understood the conditions and are willing to make the changes as noted. No other speakers or concerns from Commission members. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis moved to recommend approval as submitted with staff conditions. George Hettich seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission.

8140 KINGSBURY BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Ryan Meeks, THD Design was present. Mike Thompson, Thompson Design Group, Architect, was present. Mike Thompson presented using pictures and elevation renderings. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if windows are vinyl or vinyl clad? Mike Thompson – noted they are proposed to be vinyl, black in color. Steve Lichtenfeld – noted we have not historically approved solid vinyl windows, but vinyl cladding would be fine. Noted house will fit in on the street. Helen DiFate – questioned if EIFS is allowed, or do we require Stucco? Susan Istenes – we have not allowed EIFS on residential; it’s been stucco, wood, brick or stone. Hele DiFate – noted material surrounding bay windows is EIFS and has concerns because we have not allowed it for residential;asked if they could use stucco in those areas where EIFS is shown. Mike Thompson – noted they would be willing to use stucco in those areas where EIFS is shown on plans. Bob Denlow – asked what will be changed on the garage? Mike Thompson – garage will be painted, windows and doors replaced to match house. Mike Manlin, applicant, in audience, noted the windows are Anderson Wood, 400 series black windows. Materials on side of bays will not be EIFS but will be stucco board and he noted that the lights will be copper lanterns, gas lights. Susan Istenes – when asked by chairman, stated there are no regulations on gas lights.

3

Mike Manlin – agreed to resubmit plans noting gas lights, stucco material for box bays, and noted that tree protection fencing will be around the trees; will be submitted to staff. No other speakers or concerns from Commission members. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis moved to recommend approval as submitted with the following to be submitted to staff: Note that Anderson 400 wood series windows will be used; Identify type and locations of proposed gas lighting and note the use of Stucco Board in lieu of EIFS. George Hettich seconded the motion, and the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. Public Hearing SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT – PLAN COMMISSION – AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MASTER PLAN (SDD) FOR CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS 7600 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report which was a combined report for both the proposed amendment to the SDD Master Plan and the proposed amendment to the Subdistrict 2A Master Plan. Tobias Rafael, RAFCO, summarized reasons for request. Steve Lichtenfeld (SL) asked for confirmation that the amendment is only for Subdistrict 2A. Tobias Rafael confirmed amendment is only for Subdistrict 2A. Bob Denlow – asked if the proposed use was for Urgent Care? Tobias Rafael – responded that it is for an Orthodontist Office. George Hettich – asked about size of office space for orthodontist office. Referenced Page G3 – square block that shows the space. Is that two spaces? Tobias Rafael – the space under consideration is located to the left of drive entrance to garage. To right of drive entrance is a 900 square foot space that is not under consideration tonight. He also confirmed the space is not being carved up; it is two separate spaces. The space was originally planned to be a ticket office for the auditorium. George Hettich – noted this is the second time that retail spaces have come in for changes to non-retail use. Are more planned for the future? Would rather not do this on a piecemeal basis. Tobias Rafael – commented on market and future tenants. Noted that putting restrictions on use for a large campus that isn’t incentivized, the current climate for “mom” and “pop “businesses isn’t good. Emphasis for Centene is on quality development and businesses that are financially sustainable. Ira Berkowitz – commented on proposal. Helen DiFate – asked about access to office space from garage. Tobias Rafael – explained pedestrian circulation from garage to office space. Noted that access does not require people to walk outside to get to office. Helen DiFate -expressed concern over lack of pedestrians on street.

4

Tobias Rafael – explained reasoning for proposed circulation and agreed to two staff conditions in staff report. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no comments from the audience, George Hettich moved to approve item 1, an amendment to the Special Development District Master Plan (SDD) for Centene Clayton Campus, per staff recommendations but then questioned the “Whereas” clause on page 2 of 5, of the draft ordinance, under the Special Development District. Stephanie Karr- noted “whereas” clause isn’t clear as to an amendment that was previously approved and made suggestions to modify the content to reference the subdistrict more clearly. George Hettich - noted his comfort level with Stephanie’s suggestion. Steve Lichtenfeld again called for a motion and Carolyn Gaidis, made a motion to recommend approval based on staff recommendation number 1 as discussed, this evening, with change to the Whereas clause on page 2 of 5 as previously mentioned, and as submitted per staff’s recommendation; George Hettich seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT – PLAN COMMISSION – AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT PLAN FOR SUBDISTRICT 2A FOR CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS 7600 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report which was a combined report for both the proposed amendment to the SDD Master Plan and the proposed amendment to the Subdistrict 2A Master Plan. Steve Lichtenfeld, subdistrict 2A, Carolyn Gaidis made a recommendation to approve with staff recommendations, seconded by Ira Berkowitz, the motion was unanimously approved. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ZONING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS.

Susan Istenes summarized the history of the study conducted with H3 Studios and read staff recommendations into record (with corrections to section numbers). Helen DiFate – Questioned 50 percent maximum recommendation. Is that a requirement? Required to have a maximum coverage? Suggested rewording to Maximum coverage of 50 percent of building façade. Tim Breihan – responded, yes, 50 percent is maximum allowable coverage. Suggested modification along same lines – maximum façade coverage is limited to 50 percent. Ira Berkowitz – raised concern that the Board of Aldermen discussed about making sure that we don’t keep building right up to the building line at the ground level. Concerns raised by the Board were over wonky building frontages in terms of setbacks, if a setback is required as opposed to building up to building line. Carolyn Gaidis - demonstrated with a drawing that there is a variety of different ways to create space in the street with street architecture and urban design mechanisms and that we should consider variation.

5

David Gipson – noted that achieving wider sidewalks through zoning is difficult, only way to do that is to require wider sidewalks as opposed to reconstructing the entire right of way. Moving curb lines is problematic; keep curb where it is and get more space through setbacks. George Hettich – noted an arcade may be another solution for that as well. Provides continuity of façade and gives outdoor protected areas where you can sit. Discussion ensued among members regarding design of Bemiston Place and Forsyth Pointe. Tim Breihan – noted other provisions in code that are designed to modify the build to requirements - percentage of ground floor/upper floor facades allowed to be setback up to 12 feet and the café frontage type is designed to permit open air dining area adjacent to sidewalk. Important to permit sidewalk uses throughout the district and there are existing provisions that allow that in certain situations. Steve Lichtenfeld – potential 6 foot setback – would that be voluntarily or mandatory? Tim Breihan – it depends on how written but if was written as a 6 foot build to line then that would be a mandatory setback and all buildings would be required to be placed at a distance of 6 feet from the parcel line. Requiring individual parcel owners to dedicate 6 feet of their property for the use of a sidewalk, it would be done on an incremental basis, and would be responsibility of private property owner to provide that amenity in front of their building on their property. Steve Lichtenfeld – if it was mandatory (6 foot setback) paralleled zero foot setback to build to line, and not affording ins and outs, setbacks would be greater than 6 feet. If mandatory, ground floor level or entire building façade? Tim Breihan – if there is a mandatory 6 foot build to line at ground floor but permitted 0 feet setback from the build to line on upper floors, it would result in an overhang condition. Treated in a variety of ways such as arcade. Is that the desired form characteristic for this area? Would mandating an arcade/colonnade for entirety of district, would that be the desired form characteristic for this area, or do we want a variety of treatments? Retail storefronts won’t want a 12 foot setback at the ground floor, but a restaurant/bar would. Going thru process decisions made were to allow for a maximum amount of flexibility while still maintaining a coherent and texturally relative urban form from one building to another. Discussion ensured between members about walkability of sidewalks and use of sidewalks. Helen DiFate – suggest flexibility to build to line or setback 6 feet so we don’t require this arcade, and notes some of restaurants have taken advantage of the ability to put tables and chairs on sidewalks as they tend to be reconfigured during use by patrons. Suggested being more stringent and remind restaurant owners to maintain clear path. Not user friendly to pedestrian. George Hettich – disagreed. Building to sidewalk creates impacts to use of narrow sidewalk make it difficult to use sidewalk when restaurants want outdoor dining. Arcade concept design or build 6 feet back, one or the other.

6

Helen DiFate - would not support setback at from build to line on upper floors. Questioned Tim on setbacks at 6 stories remain, or do they change? Because suddenly making everything wider and want to keep some feeling of enclosure and not a big wide open space. Carolyn Gaidis – noted with arcade styles pedestrians tend to question whether or not they can go into the arcade and it gets confusing. Questioned – if setback desired, can we make that part of list of point system? Susan Istenes – points are used during the PUD rezoning process and the intent behind the overlay amendments is to preclude developers from utilizing a PUD to remove the underlying standards. George Hettich – felt like we are allowing a public aspect of a restaurant business to become private on public sidewalks. Tim Breihan – suggests a more detailed look at what the form implications are going to be as a result of implementing a 6 foot setback. It is a situation seen in many places including a few in Downtown Clayton but if the Board would like us to consider the form implications then we will work with the City to do that. Steve Lichtenfeld – notes he hears that “we would like wider sidewalks” – we need to begin encroaching in private property due to the implications of trying to modify the public property. How far? More we carve out the less developable space will be provided, therefore immediately above ground floor need to stay at the build to line until we get to a height where stepbacks come in to play. On the fence about 6 feet everywhere and 0 feet. David Gipson – referenced page 5, on top of page 5, 1A. Exceptions; “up to a maximum of 25 percent of the façade shall be setback from the build to line.” Is the suggestion that we tinker with this language and if so, this is the starting point would be to consider modifying the setback. Steve Lichtenfeld – confirmed, that’s the starting point. George Hettich – is it optional or required, as written? David Gipson – Currently written as optional. George Hettich – I think what we are saying right now is it will be required instead of optional. David Gipson – correct. Steve Lichtenfeld – Exception on page 5 – As I was reading it I understand it could be setback to a quarter of the total façade up to 12 feet. Tim Breihan – confirmed that is correct. Steve – could be set back 6, 12 or 10 up to 25 percent and would preclude having a full length arcade. Tim Breihan – correct. Bob Denlow – Clayton is not like the loop; there are no suitable destinations in the City therefore there are not enough pedestrians on the sidewalk. Dead feel to downtown Clayton, currently – are we looking at it the wrong way? Maybe having them up against the line isn’t a bad thing aesthetically and the

7

fundamental issues previously noted the width of the sidewalk is secondary, we don’t have enough people to use them. Carolyn Gaidis – we are trying to build what we have already, good businesses and good restaurants. H3 has come up with the plan and we are now trying to find the dimensions of what would create the space people want to be in. Bob Denlow – characterized Clayton downtown is just restaurants; real estate so expensive can’t support dying retail. Fundamental question is not whether having wider sidewalks is going to do anything, ground floor uses we need more of and market controls what goes on ground floor. Ira Berkowitz – Have to start somewhere with making the City conducive to foot traffic; if having sidewalks people don’t want to walk on is going to be a negative. Make sure we have plenty of room. Good for us to have a standard. How do we set city up with our infrastructure so that we start somewhere with building what we want to see happen in the City? Steve Lichtenfeld – title of page 5 is “form standards”, if form of a building is carefully developed it may affect use of building or use in different ways. Allowing the developer to make decision on how to use it instead of us telling them how to use it might be the best way to go. The existing numbers may not be right, but we should be dealing with the form sidewalk and setback usage. Doubt an arcade a full block long that would be used consistently with the setback. Growing concerned with full flock setback that could be seen as a full arcade. George Hettich provided examples of existing businesses. Suggested change to code to read: Ground floor facades will be set back from the build to line for open air seating or other programmatic uses up to a maximum of ___(blank)____________, upper level façade should be built to the build to line then upper floor stepbacks would be required. Discussion about useful life of buildings and location of restaurants, width of sidewalks, protection of right of way, dedication of private property, moving property line/build to line, easements, etc. protecting sidewalks, not allow encroachment to go further, etc. Tim Breihan – if we establish a “shall requirement” then a minimum and maximum percentage depth needs to be specified. 6 foot minimum and 12 foot maximum seem reasonable. Instead of specifying a defined numerical value we could say it has a minimum average of 6 feet or maximum average of 12 feet and would permit additional flexibility; 25 to 80 percent seems acceptable. 80 percent may be a bit high perhaps, 70-75 percent. Do we want to set a maximum because we don’t want an involved arcade being developed? I think it is a matter of what percentage requirement makes sense given the desired urban form. Believes this is the right approach based on what everyone has expressed as their desired outcome tonight. Public Speaker – Hank Winkelman - sidewalk and pedestrian experience is significant on Maryland. What does it look like? Balconies projecting out on Maryland Walk over the setback and are landscaped? Are any balconies going to project out over the private property seems to me they only need to extend out as far as their property line. Maryland reminds me of Hanley. Ragged, uneven not very attractive and intersections are gateways to the City. Conversation regarding what form and uses are and look at graphics that a consultant can produce that will show you what it will look like with the proposed setbacks. Look at it that way – form based code then develop the form. What is there now is

8

unattractive and whether pedestrian line or control of projections it doesn’t work. The 6 foot concept was a way of giving the intentions of all of the developers a chance to grow and the uniqueness of all of these sites. Suggest return to developing the form then go to the law to in essence allow it to be created. Helen DiFate – questioned allowing build to line to be setback 6 feet and then the second floor above would be at 0 feet, if I do that with my building, may I have columns coming down from the second floor or must I cantilever it? Steve Lichtenfeld – would have to allow columns coming down for the structural integrity of building. Helen Di Fate- then I am building to 0 build to line, I am just carving out pieces to allow for outdoor dining. Steve Lichtenfeld – yes, but you won’t gain rentable interior space by building that way. Helen DiFate – we are saying you need to build to 6 foot setback for a certain percentage maximum but if I bring columns down then my building can be at that 0 building to line. Concerned over how the language could be manipulated. Steve Lichtenfeld– exception on page 5 notes façade; faced is different from structure of building. Helen DiFate – agrees with that distinction but is that routine? David Gipson – we could take care of that in the definition section. Can’t imagine columns will be 6 feet deep you will have space between columns and building. Steve Lichtenfeld– don’t want to leave this undefined where it may come back in the future. Ira Berkowitz – Board was looking for the PC to weigh in on this issue. Where do we go from here? Helen DiFate – suggested to give Tim some time to digest what we’ve decided on tonight and to see if that has other ramifications that we haven’t considered and come back with his recommendations. Carolyn Gaidis – suggested another meeting for ARB to come together and discuss as this is a complex issue. George Hettich – agree we need to continue public hearing. Steve Lichtenfeld – prefers Tim gives us his thoughts and professional recommendations. Ira Berkowitz – ok with giving Tim some time to come back with a recommendation. Tim Breihan – agreed to study and determine if there are any unforeseen pitfalls or concerns that arrive from this approach. Steve Lichtenfeld moved that the meeting be continued to next regularly scheduled meeting. So moved. Educational Discussion Susan Istenes presented the proposed training/educational proposal for Plan Commission discussion for future agendas.

9

Plan Commission agreed to educational approach proposed by staff and give members time to prepare and use it on future, shorter agendas.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.