February 1, 2021 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 1, 2021 ZOOM MEETING

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date via a zoom meeting. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman David Gipson, City Manager Richard Lintz, Aldermanic Representative Carolyn Gaidis Bob Dunlow George Hettich Helen DiFate

Also in Attendance:

Susan Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Kari Cranford, Planning Technician Stephanie Karr, City Attorney

OLD BUSINESS 8009 WATKINS DR – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS, WINDOWS, LANDSCAPING Susan Istenes summarized the staff report. Danijela Boric, owner, was present. Blair Kweskin, designer, was present. David Mastin, STL Design Alliance, was also present. Danijela Boric – added to the staff report that trash screens could be added and that she would like to keep the dogwood tree in the front yard. David Mastin – pointed out a sketch that was added to the plans showing a different perspective. Richard Lintz – looks terrific and improved dramatically. I’m not sure about the trash issue.

Susan Istenes – it was hard to tell from the plans what was going on with the trash. We added the screening recommendation to ensure that it is screened from view. Carolyn Gaidis – I don’t see a plant list. I would be willing to look at the dogwood tree. Bob Dunlow – unless there is a reason, let her keep the tree. The house is a lot better. George Hettich – Going to be a beautiful home. Helen DiFate – I like it. Blair Kweskin – nothing to add. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and no comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis, made a motion to approve with staff’s 1 recommendation. Richard Lintz seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. NEW BUSINESS 101 S HANLEY RD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR SOUTH PATIO UPGRADES Susan Istenes summarized the staff report. Miki Wehmeier was present. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if any parking spaces would be lost. Miki Wehmeier – no, the curb stays the same except to line the ADA sidewalk up with the canopy. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if the space will be used for Capital Grille. Miki Wehmeier – no, not for serving food. Miki Wehmeier presented details of the design plan. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked it the pavers would be in a herringbone pattern. Miki Wehmeier – yes, and then a 90 degree pattern to break it up. Bob Denlow – asked if the curb cut is entirely under the canopy. Miki Wehmeier – yes Bob Denlow – asked how wide the canopy is. Steve Lichtenfeld – 17 feet. Miki Wehmeier – 16 feet 7 inches. Steve Lichtenfeld – it changes a cold entrance and makes a vast difference. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no further comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis, made a motion to approve as submitted. Richard Lintz seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. 8001 FORSYTH BLVD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – TEMPORARY SIGNAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION WALL Susan Istenes summarized the staff report.

Peter Sheahan and Jill DeLauter, NAI Desco, were present. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if the terrace mentioned on the sign was the terrace between the 2 towers or a different terrace. Peter Sheahan – yes, between the 2 buildings. Steve Lichtenfeld – I see no problem with the size because of the size of the site. George Hettich – asked if there are 2 signs on Brentwood and Forsyth and a third on Meramec. Peter Sheahan – there is no third sign on Meramec and the one on Brentwood was removed. Kari Cranford – they were told to remove those signs or apply for a permit. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no further comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis, made a motion to approve with the 2 staff recommendations. Richard Lintz seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Board. PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE Susan Istenes summarized the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked about cut-off classifications and conflict between residential and non- residential. Susan Istenes – our current code is mainly focused on defining a maximum amount of wattage that’s permissible and lights be shielded so it doesn’t trespass. LED is so much brighter and sharper that even with shielding they cast a different appearance that is unacceptable to people closeup. A measurement regulation in the ordinance ensures lighting isn’t trespassing beyond the property lines and addresses the changes in lighting over time, primarily LED. David Gipson – if a light is within 20 feet of a property, you should not be able to see the source of that light from the property line. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if you should not be able to see the source but should see the surface area below it. David Gipson – yes, that light has to be contained within that property. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if 4 upward lights are allowed for a flagpole, does that mean they can total 3000 lumens? Susan Istenes – yes, 3000 lumens maximum and 4 light sources maximum. Stephanie Karr – suggested wording change to shall not exceed 3000 lumens in aggregate. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked about the amortization timeline of 1 year and how it would be monitored. David Gipson – it will be longer than a year. Typically, it’s 5-10 years. Richard Lintz – asked about glares affecting the measurement. David Gipson – We’re going to measure lumens, the actual light source, and foot candles, light cast off at the property line. I don’t know how we regulate or measure glare. The foot candle should pick that up. Carolyn Gaidis – There’s nothing in here that talks about the aggregate of different lights.

David Gipson – maximum at the property line is still going to be 0.2 foot candle, even if it’s commercial next to commercial. Right now our ordinance only says the light can’t spill off that property. So the foot candles are the only thing being regulated. We don’t deal with point source. Bob Denlow – asked about the source these standards were adopted from and whether there is a national standard. Susan Istenes – a variety of codes recommended by a lighting expert. We made a hybrid from those that were applicable from similar communities. Bob Denlow – night-time darkness is a wonderful amenity. This will give us more standards and control. David Gipson – 0.1 and 0.2 are common foot candle standards because it’s the same as moonlight. Helen DiFate – a standard of 2700-3000 kelvin will be a big help and easier on the eyes. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked about LED sign board measurements. David Gipson – it’s a separate standard that would have to be addressed through the sign code. Rick Bliss, resident – suggested minor wording changes where purpose is listed. Reduce light pollution change to minimize light pollution. Also encourage light fixture shielding change to advance or promote light fixture shielding. Suggested building top lights go out at midnight. Peter Smith, resident – asked if parking lot lights would be exempt from the ordinance. David Gipson – exempt from amortization but not from the shielding requirements. The light can remain but it has to be shielded. Peter Smith – voiced concern over the 5-10 years to comply. Asked if security lighting was exempt. David Gipson – the standard is the same for security lighting as any other lighting. Susan Istenes – there will be changes made before the next public hearing. David Gipson – we’ll look into the issue of glare as well. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.

OTHER BUSINESS TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 405 Susan Istenes presented procedural text amendment. Steve Lichtenfeld – asked if the change would pertain to SDD entirely or individual districts with the SDD. Susan Istenes – applies to overall master plan for SDD and subdistrict plan. Would allow minor adjustment to 1 or all. David Gipson – we’ll change the wording to be consistent. Carolyn Gaidis – asked if the planning commission could be notified. David Gipson – something could be added about notification.

Stephanie Karr – O’Fallon has a notification clause. Carolyn Gaidis – voiced concern over this being a permanent change. Stephanie Karr – we could make a sunset provision for 3 years out but the planning commission can always make a recommendation to the Board of Alderman on ordinances. Richard Lintz – I don’t think David is going to approve anything the Board of Alderman would have a problem with. Bob Denlow – I don’t think notification is even necessary. George Hettich – in favor of notification clause. Helen DiFate – also in favor of notification clause. I think a sunset provision should be looked at. Steve Lichtenfeld – in favor of notification but is unsure of sunset provision. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no further comments from the audience, Carolyn Gaidis, made a motion to approve the changes with recommendation of SDD consistent wording and notification clause. Richard Lintz seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved to be sent to the Board of Alderman. Meeting adjourned.