July 19, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

1

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD JULY 19, 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 Bob Denlow Helen DiFate George Hettich Absent: 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 6, 2021 were approved. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Helen Di Fate moved to elect Steve Lichtenfeld as the Chairman and Carolyn Gaidis, Vice Chairman. George Hettich seconded the motion. Unanimous approval for Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman and Carolyn Gaidis, Vice Chairman. OLD BUSINESS 8000 FORSYTH BLVD- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PUBLIC ART Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. DENNIS HOLEZER Applicant and representative of Commerce Bank was present

2

ROBIN TRAFTON, Applicant, was present Steve Lichtenfeld stated his support for the proposed art. Ira Berkowitz – doesn’t like the process for approval that this art piece has gone through to date and felt that the Board of Aldermen specifically indicated that the applicant was to hire a consultant that would be a 3rd party to the developer. He feels this applicant is not qualified and nor does the process used by the developer is consistent with the spirit or wording of the PUD. In previous discussions with the Board of Aldermen and Commerce bank, both parties agreed with the process to hire a consultant. Doesn’t support the art piece. Bob Denlow – noted the estimated value of the art is $2 million. Steve Lichtenfeld – noted it’s good to follow the process but also feels like at times there may be exceptions. This is a corporate citizen with a large, extensive, and valuable art collection and if it meets all other parameters set up, we should move ahead. In favor of moving forward per staff recommendation. Stephanie Karr – stated there isn’t a legal issue here; the selection process is not written into ordinance. There is no clear requirement that the consultant has to be a 3rd party. Ira Berkowitz – differs with Stephanie’s opinion, it is in the ordinance, noted that the ordinance says “developer shall hire an art consultant to assist,” that clearly does not mean you hire an existing employee. Bob Denlow – noted art chosen is by a renowned artist, Commerce Bank has a large art collection, Robin Trafton is well qualified, and the value of the art is significant. If you look at the substance of which Commerce bank has brought to the table, overall, they’ve put together a good proposal. They have honored what the City was looking for – a significant piece of art for this project – that’s the requirement and they’ve met it. Bob Denlow made a motion to approve as submitted; George Hettich seconded the motion. Motion carries 5 in favor 1 opposed. NEW BUSINESS 6611 CLAYTON ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Amanda Norris, Core 10 Architecture, representing the applicant, was in attendance Tyler Stephens, Core 10 Architecture, representing Period Restoration who is purchasing the building, was in attendance. Julian Hess, representing the applicant, was in attendance Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Tyler Stephens gave a brief presentation and history of building and outlined the proposed project.

3

Bob Denlow – asked about building immediately to the east, was it ever used for commercial purposes? SL – believes office was proposed but never occurred. Julian Hess – noted at one time it was commercial. Has been empty for at least 3 years. IB – questioned the location of bike racks. Didn’t see in the original plan. Tyler Stephens – shared his screen and noted location of bike racks in rear of property, on north wall against the alley. Discussion regarding location of bike racks on drawings. IB – noted he had no problem with the CUP and parking seems to be adequate. George Hettich – no comments Hele DiFate – no comments David Gipson – no comments Public Speakers: Barb Nauert, property owner, 6607 Clayton Road spoke in favor of the plan. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen, per staff’s recommendation; Ira Berkowitz – seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR MINOR REVISIONS TO THE BUILDING AND SITE LOCATED AT 6611 CLAYTON ROAD Tyler Stephens, Architect, Core 10 Architecture, representing applicant, was present Amanda Norris, Architect, Core 10 Architecture, representing the applicant, was present Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Tyler Stephens gave a presentation on the project. Steve Lichtenfeld (SL) commented on the proposed removal of the box windows and questioned the interior building circulation. Also questioned the lack of windows in many of the bedrooms. Tyler Stephens responded and answered questions regarding the box windows and internal building circulation. He also noted that the lack of windows in the bedrooms were mitigated by skylight installations in those rooms to allow natural light into the bedrooms. SL noted the plans do not show skylights. George Hettich had no questions. Helen DiFate questioned if there is roof access.

4

Tyler Stephens – commented that access to roof is for maintenance; not for public access. Bob Denlow – commented that overall plan is good. Is bothered that there are no windows in the bedrooms and questioned why holes in the walls to insert windows wasn’t considered? Tyler Stephens – noted you could put windows in for the side units with fire shutters but there is no way to add windows to the interior units. He also noted that windowless bedrooms are not uncommon. Ira Berkowitz – does not agree without having windows for air circulation/venting issues. Also noted there is not a lawn in front of their building. Tyler Stephens – noted they were putting in a lawn by removing patios and replacing with grass within the combined patio space. Commented that the existing number of entrances will remain with the existing sidewalks that go up to them. The overall look will be a lawn, similar to the rest of the building. Patios and sidewalks take up impervious coverage areas. Public Speakers: Barb Nauert, neighbor, questioned the ownership interest and whether or not the sidewalk was part of the property and questioned a drop off at the rear of the property and the potential necessity for a retaining wall. Tyler and Amanda – clarified ownership interest, noted sidewalk was on adjoining property and noted no plan for retaining wall but grading needs to be analyzed so there may be a retaining wall needed. Barb Nauert asked about the St. Rita/Alamo construction timeline. Tyler Stephens noted that the St. Rita construction timeline is much longer (approximately 1 year). During some point that project and this project will be on the same schedule. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional 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. Architectural Review Board – Request for approval of an amendment to a sign subdistrict for property located at 8500 Maryland Avenue. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report.

Murphy Webster, on behalf of the applicant/owner, was present.

Murphy Webster summarized the reasons for the requested sign district amendment and noted that the proposed sign is within the allotted square footage for the project. Steve Lichtenfeld – questioned if sign would be lighted and which parts of the sign would be lit. Murphy Webster noted the sign will be internally illuminated and described the lighting type and material. He clarified that all elements of the proposed sign will be illuminated, including the directional fish bones at the bottom, and noted that page 3 of the submittal shows that illustrated graphically.

5

Steve Lichtenfeld noted the proposed sign is a better identification for the building then what exists now. George Hettich – no comments. Helen Di Fate – no comments. Bob Denlow – no comments. David Gipson – no comments. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; Helen DiFate seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. Public Hearing PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ZONING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS Susan Istenes, AICP, Planning Director summarized the staff report. Steve Lichtenfeld - questioned page 3 at top – confused about boundary as drafted. Written portion does not reflect the boundaries as shown on the map. David Gipson noted “southerly along east property line” is written twice. Same path is described twice. Susan Istenes - noted the correction needed. Steve Lichtenfeld – page 8 notes on Figure 5, directly above figure 5 – “west of western most district boundary,” is that correct? Susan Istenes - should read “ east of the western most district boundary” Steve Lichtenfeld – page 9 – does not see color on north Brentwood, parts of Maryland Avenue, Bemiston, Meramec – where stepbacks labeled under “I” but there is no color to it. Are there stepbacks on all main streets? John Hoal – no stepbacks on all main streets. Discussion moved to division along Maryland as height comes down and on Brentwood and Meramec. SL – what about on Bemiston, south of Forsyth? John Hoal – that is reflecting the whole bank of America building that doesn’t have a stepback. Stepback coming down Bemiston was reflective of city hall as a transition coming across Forsyth. They were adjusted at that point. SL – items l,m.n, o, p – where do they show up graphically on page 10? If they belong on figure 6 it could be easily added on. *** Staff confirmed with consultant that these items are not part of figure 6. George Hettich – had the same questions. John Hoal – will need to check. May be the same on number 6.

6

SL – further down on page 10, A building facades, item 2 …. Facades longer then 70 feet…. In second line says “with building setbacks, recesses projections with comprising the base” should that read “with” or should it read “without” should it read “ Comprising or compromising.” John Hoal – without, compromising Steve Lichtenfeld – Item c, changes in wall plane for two feet minimum depth, under item f on next page, utilize minor wall offsets up to 2 feet. Are they related and if so, are they in conflict? pages 10 and 11. John Hoal - Doesn’t believe they are in conflict. First one is dealing with overall mass of building, on figure 7 you would see that. Then on the on one you are talking about I would say its (inaudible). Encouraging people to have some subtilties. Steve Lichtenfeld – under same building articulation section A. John Hoal – first one – facades longer than 70 feet; second one, building could be 50 feet so we would still be encouraging offsets. Number 2 facades longer than 70 feet. Steve Lichtenfeld – page 11, last item, item 6 “whenever possible development with smaller lot increments.” Is there any other description/definition we need to go along with this statement? It is open ended. John Hoal – agreed the term smaller lot is open ended. It’s relative to building articulation. In this area you have small areas of buildings – try to encourage smaller lot development if possible. We can put a definition in the document and define it as relative to historical mass that has been developed. Steve Lichtenfeld – maybe we should take a look at it on our second reading. Typo on page 14 second line should read calculated “by” instead of “my.” On 15, questioning under 410.120 paragraph A. Allow access to sky view while improving the quality of buildings interior. Page 19, at the very top lowercase, a, must provide one parking space per each dwelling unit. We just had a project that had 2 spaces earlier tonight, but I don’t think we’ve ever gone to 1. Susan Istenes – limiting parking garages and being able to do corner to corner development was intended with the limit on parking. John Hoal – noted parking is always difficult particularly for smaller lots. If you keep going up in terms of number of spaces per unit you inherently limit development. In broader concept, parking is an additional cost. Many cities reducing parking downtown and leave it up to developer. In this case our discussion was directed as to how could we facilitate redevelopment of smaller lots and parking is a huge implication to that. We had earlier discussion on parking ratios. In this area – entertainment uses on ground floor parking was challenging with smaller lots. With larger ½ blocks it is easier to insert parking; very difficult to do on smaller lot. SL – so since this is related to multiple dwelling units. Should it say “at least one” – how can we be flexible enough not to burden. John Hoal – noted we could make it read “minimum is 1” SL – would that work for small lots?

7

John Hoal – minimum of one per dwelling, allows developer to go beyond that depending upon the demographic. SL- more comfortable with minimum of 1. Helen DiFate – agrees with minimum of 1. Stephanie Karr – if they make a showing of a certain things – proof of certain items – that would allow them to go down to one, then at that point in time they could go down to one. SL – likes description JH – asked what are you requiring them to prove? What do you expect? Susan Istenes – parking studies determine what parking requirements are necessary for the characteristics associated with the use. I think if we reference the requirement as a result of a parking study that will cover the issue. George Hettich – are we going back to the content of our existing regulations? Parking studies were done for mixed use. This refers to solely dwelling units. It’s fine as written. Intent in this area is to bring down parking requirements. JH – agreed. SL – looks like leaving it as one per dwelling unit is the way to go. Stephanie Karr - I’m ok with that suggestion. SL – polled board. DG – can’t we just add the words “at least” to make sure there is no ambiguity going forward? SL – agreed. SL – Building types, on page 31, section D Bay and Oriel windows. Concern is ground floor windows but I think “if approved” is the control mechanism. HD – question on page 30. The under balcony’s wording says they may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space. John what did you mean by that? “A frontage type …. Balconies may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space.” John Hoal – refers to an occupiable space. (inaudible) HD – page 31, with bay and oriel windows – like that they are limited to 6 feet in depth and length of 8 feet. Have you considered windows could be stacked and could do an 8 foot wide bay then 2 feet, another 8 foot wide bay, building would be bay windows extending 6 feet into the right of way? JH – noting a percentage of maximum areas of façade would you be comfortable if we looked at that? HD – Agreed a percentage coverage maximum would handle the issue.

8

SL – page 38, toward bottom, section 410.020. Is that part of Article IV? SI – Everything struck out in that section is part of Article 1 – it is at the beginning. It removes references to CBD and Downtown Overlay and adds the Northeast Downtown Overlay. SL- moving into Design Guidelines. HD – page 18, paragraph C. Balconies encourage on street facades but now required. Notes “false” balconies are prohibited. Prohibited across the board or just on a street façade? If across the board, then why? John Hoal – “yes” because they are false. Different then where you can have a hand rail or Juliette balcony. Can you show us examples of false balconies that represents what you are thinking about? HD – no, but ability to open doors, 6-8 inches from face, added decorative element from exterior, and from interior provided a felling of a balcony. John Hoal – I don’t see the difference. I wouldn’t call what you are talking about, a false balcony. I define it as 12-18 inches non-occupiable space. HD – I think a definition would help for false balconies. John Hoal – we will provide clarification. SL – Have the members of the original steering committee received the information where they can look at it? Susan Istenes – drafts are posted under “Pending Applications” on web site. SL – would like to pull in steering committee at next meeting to see if they have comments. Otherwise, I feel pretty good as to where we got tonight. Public Speakers: Hank Winkleman – the ideas for massing that somehow build off architecture and walk sidewalks and to have a little bit of relief as you are walking along narrow streets. I’ve had difficulty understanding what the streets would look like per your graphics. Extruding them up with a variety of setbacks, as towers extend up further and I don’t think graphic depiction is attractive, sensitive and building off our heritage. Very concerned with minutes on the June 21 – it seems like we are not going to have any open space. Has reservations and ready to share exploration sketch up which are put into power point presentation. Envisioning this I think it is your responsibility to give it a little bit of clarity. Lack of consistency and thinking. David Gipson – happy to set up a time to meet with you Hank after this meeting. Peter Barkowski – is staff report referenced available for review? Having a hard time following what was discussed.

9

Susan Istenes – noted that the reports that are on the web are the same that the Commission received. Formatting is different because it is an ordinance, updated today. Seeing no other speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this issue. Discussion regarding staff presentations. Susan Istenes gave a summary of the staff report presentations. Discussion centered around shortening the verbiage, items that have conflict or code requirements should be brought up, but items like lighting or trash enclosures may be noted that they meet all requirements, leaving the detail for items of importance as you described which are code items. Bob Denlow – happy with status quo. You don’t have to read it verbatim, but to highlight some of the points works for me. SL – it will be a judgement process to determine what the highlights are – the staff can make that decision as to what is critical to highlight vs what could be alluded to. Probably some parts that could have less discussion. HD – hit the highlights and summarize GH – hit highlight quick and move it through quick. GH – Should an affirmation from staff that its posted to the web site given first, then I am for a very short report reading. SL – could make that statement, but they (the public) have homework to do before the come to the meeting. Susan Istenes – everything is loaded on the web site at the same time we send this Commission an email notifying you of the availability of staff reports. SL – lets give process a try and making it available to public is very important, also. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.