June 21, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD JUNE 21, 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 Richard Lintz, Aldermanic Representative Carolyn Gaidis Helen DiFate Absent: Bob Denlow George Hettich

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

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting.

MINUTES The minutes of June 7, 2021 were not available for consideration. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE ADDITION OF A DECK AND PERGOLA – 4 HILLVALE DRIVE Mark Rubin, property owner was in attendance. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Mark Rubin summarized his reasons for the proposed changes to landscaping plan, the removal of landscaping behind the garage and the addition of decking and pergola, and the use of the space.

Rich Lintz questioned landscaping changes and limestone areas and location of fencing. Mark Rubin explained fencing per Architectural Site Plan page 1, noted fence on north is in place now and picks back up on east and runs back into the deck. Rich Lintz questioned proximity of home and view from neighboring property given the lack of landscaping which was removed behind the garage. Noted he agreed with need for updated drainage plans per staff recommendation. Mark Rubin explained location of structures and driveway on neighboring property and landscaping/natural area on neighboring property. Carolyn Gaidis questioned proposed removal of Silver Maple tree and replacement tree and suggested compacted limestone may be messy surface. Also questioned if all pear trees on property were being removed. Mark Rubin noted house is nearly finished and Maple tree has already been removed per previously approved landscape plan. Noted pear trees are shown to be removed on landscape plan. Mark Rubin noted the pear trees have been removed. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for discussion regarding staff recommendation number 2 about adding additional landscaping to the back of the garage as was originally shown on the landscape plan. All members were satisfied that there was enough growth/landscaping on neighbor’s property to provide an appropriate buffer. Annisa Kumerow repeated the third condition read into the record as a requirement to update drainage maps and mitigate any additional runoff due to the increase in impervious coverage. Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve the project striking staff recommendation no 2 and adding the following condition (No. 3) A drainage map update to the draining map submitted previously shall be made and the additional runoff shall be mitigated. Rich Linz Second the motion and the motion was unanimously approved by the Board.

SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 132 N. BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report for the site plan into the record. Doug Leipziger – Engineer, was in attendance Bobby Slavin- Developer, was in attendance Chris Pike, representing Developer, was in attendance Doug Lietziger summarized the project and described how stormwater drainage will be handled on site.

Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned site drainage and asked were water would be directed/piped. Doug Leipziger noted drainage goes to west and southern part comes across front yard towards sidewalk and drainage goes to Storm Sewer on northwest corner of property. Carolyn Gaidis made a recommendation to approve as submitted, Richard Lintz seconded the motion, Motion to approve as submitted passes Unanimously. ARCHITECURAL REVIEW- NEW CONSTRUCTION-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 132 N BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented on the appearance of the house and the use of the mansard roof which he noted was position. Questioned if applicant had materials and color to show the ARB. Bobby Slavin confirmed the driveway and walkway will be aggregate concrete similar to home next door. Chris Pike noted color of trim, hardi board product which will be color called “Cloud” also noted dark grey shingles will be used (architectural shingle). Helen DiFate – sheet A10 questioned light color brick line under the second-floor windows. Chris Pike confirmed it is limestone trim wrapping around side of building and stops at offset. Helen – noted the left and right elevations don’t match. Chris Pike noted the print was in error and the limestone will wrap around both right and left sides of the elevations and confirmed it dead ends at the large bay. Carolyn Gaidis made a motion to approve with staff recommendation noting pavement will be exposed aggregate. Rich Lintz seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Presentation by H3 Design Studios on Downtown Overlay District Standards study and proposed development standards. Susan Istenes gave a brief introduction to the presentation. Tim Brehihan gave an overview of the study as it was conducted brief summary of planning process, they helped facilitate summary of decision-making process/ planning process over last year or so. Then presented a summary of draft development standards recommendation. Objective is to review the draft development standards and design guidelines. Also noted the boundary on the map, the two existing overlays (core and CBD) have been consolidated into one district with slight expansion of boundaries. Tim Breihan noted that consensus from steering committee was that districts be combined and expand to south. North Central redesigned to be entertainment and the downtowns primary dining and entertainment street; support to remove two travel lanes to provide wider sidewalks; consensus input that standards have to acknowledge market conditions and not push every development into a Planned Unit Development.

Build to line set zero feet from ground level to floor 6 Ground floor facades can be set back for other programmatic uses up to a maximum of 12 feet and 25 % for façade length SL – noted 4 building types presented. Questioned if Bemiston Place project fit into one of the 4 types presented and are there hybrid types we should be considering. TB – types are not designed to be exhaustive or to limit to those types specifically they are designed to provide for models of development to be used by the PC/ARB as models when evaluating the suitability of a project to the district. Noted Bemiston Place had elements of liner building

Development Guidelines for building types are not exhaustive and hybrids of these elements could be considered***

RL – Questioned Build to line, zero feet with intent to keep activity on sidewalk. Criteria regarding corners was questioned TB – In terms of building form which refers to percentage of build to line which is required to be built. The combo of building height and side alley setbacks and building form percentages would permit a 100 percent coverage but a min of 85 percent of facades or single street facing façade for interior building. Regarding corner condition the overall building form needs to be located at corner. 85 percent should not be measured from the side lot condition to corner. Building form criteria can be further modified by building inset as specified in built to line up to a max of 12 feet. RL – referenced outdoor patio at Herbie’s restaurant, do these guidelines say we can’t build something that would mimic Herbies and provide a similar patio. TB – no would not be prohibited. Take ¼ façade facing MD and Brentwood both could be setback 12 feet and you can take it all at the corner. RL – Herbies would not be allowed under current guidelines? TB – if their setback is more than 12 feet then yes, it would not be allowed under current guidelines. But there are additional guidelines that deal with this issue. If there is a general feeling that these would not permit desired characteristics, then the dimensional requirements as currently drafted could be modified. CG - Questioned need for office space and open space in light of pandemic, including more housing. How do we adapt this plan to that potential future scenario? TB – noted permitted upper floor uses are quite flexible including residential, office, professional services, secondary retail, etc. Intent behind guidelines is driven by desire to maintain/increase vitality of the ground level district/ground floor uses. Idea for upper level space is to be flexible as possible within the urban context of downtown Clayton and govern the overall form of building and its relationship to streets. Codes and development regulations need to permit flexibility in some areas while focusing on areas that make city a great place to be.

Helen DiFate – where proposing balconies and bay windows extending 6 feet into ROW, what limits their width? Could I take a balcony and extend it full length of building? Same with bay windows – enough windows in an enclosed projecting and call it a bay window. Needs further refinement. Not a fan of giving public right of way to developers. Also, people like to put plantings on railings – watering plantings problematic for sidewalk users below. These issues need to be defined so we don’t end up with problems. TB – some items are covered in Architectural Guidelines, such as minimizing long horizontal elements and breaking façade up. Some could be codified into the new development standards. Helen DiFate – prefer it would be refined in development standards and further refined in guidelines. Noted developers looking for loophole. From citizens viewpoint these types of encroachments can be limited as to what they are intended to be. David Gipson no comments. SL - Next meeting in July we will looking at development standards and design guidelines in a different format.

Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.