September 21, 2020 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD VIRTUAL ZOOM MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 17:30 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lichtenfeld at 17:30.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager David Gipson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow, George Hettich and Helen DiFate answered roll call.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES SEPTEMBER 8, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 6-0

2 NEW BUSINESS

7525 WESTMORELAND AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 9,925 square foot site is located on the north side of Westmoreland Avenue between N. Jackson Avenue and Hanley Road. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is currently developed with a single-family home. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing wood deck and covered porch and the construction of a 2 story single family addition including a hearth room on the first floor and bedroom and bathroom and master deck on the second floor. The proposed height of the new addition is 29 feet 6 inches. A new first floor deck will be added and there will also be some interior renovation to the home. Most of the proposed work will affect the rear (north facing) façade, and the east façade, however the applicant also intends to modify the existing front entryway and add two dormer windows on the front (south facing) façade, modify the existing landing and the walkway. There is an existing detached garage in the rear yard in the northeast corner; no work is proposed for the garage.

The demolition will include the removal of an existing, enclosed porch and deck located in the rear and on the east side of the structure; an existing concrete pad in the rear yard, existing steps, a sidewalk, select windows and doors in the rear will also be removed along with a retaining wall enclosing landscaped areas of the site. The air conditioning condenser units are proposed to be removed from the rear and relocated to the west side of the home.

On the front elevation, the entire porch roof structure will be removed and the eyebrow dormer at the roof will also be removed. The existing black shutters will be removed.

On the front elevation a new portico, pediment style, gable roof with barrel vault ceiling will be constructed and detailed with composite trim board white in color Two gabled dormers will be installed, with white aluminum framed double hung windows and trimmed with composite fascia board and composite crown molding trim and framed with horizontal white vinyl siding to match the existing. A new stained concrete step leading to a red brick porch and a new red brick paved walkway will be installed in the same place as the existing. The new portion of the driveway, to match the existing, will also be installed. The existing shutters will be replaced with black raised panel shutters. The front door will be a black paneled wood door with sidelights and trim. Five decorative brackets will be placed on the front façade at the second story.

Along the rear and east facades of the home, a 407 square foot first floor addition will be constructed which includes a new breakfast room and hearth room. The second-floor portion of the addition is approximately 222 square feet and includes a portion of a bedroom, bathroom and a 16 foot by 11-foot exterior deck. On the rear elevation, 4 panel door systems will be installed on the lower level and the first floor. At the lower level, the doors will lead out to a stamped concrete patio to match the existing, underneath the first-floor deck. On the first floor, a new 4 panel door will lead out from the breakfast room to a new 20 foot by 30 foot composite planked deck with black metal railings.

The exterior of the addition will be treated with white vinyl siding. Although vinyl siding is not a permissible exterior building material, the entire house is currently covered with vinyl siding, therefore it would look awkward to have a portion of the house in a different material then the existing. The roof of the addition, dormers and front entry will be asphalt shingles to match the existing grey color blend.

Trash will be stored underneath the new deck steps screened by a stepped concrete retaining wall.

3 The applicant did not address landscaping in their submittal. One tree will be removed in the rear that is part of an existing landscape bed. The proposed changes to the appearance of the structure are numerous on both the front and rear elevations. The front elevation changes are upgrades that refresh the appearance but don’t necessarily change it to any great degree. The house still retains its traditional, symmetrical design. The rear and east side elevation changes with the removal of the existing covered porch and the addition of numerous doors and windows really opens the rear elevation and adds a bright and airy feeling to the rear façade. The proposed window and door styles on the rear and side, retain the same trim, grill patterns and muntin style as the windows on the front, therefore they are compatible in terms of appearance.

The proposed retaining wall material is specified as stained concrete and the wall is located perpendicular to the north elevation along the driveway (east side) and also under the deck (west side). The height of the wall ranges from 2 to 4 feet. Stained concrete is not an approved retaining wall material, however the wall is located in the rear and side yards on the west elevation for a distance of approximately 30 feet; adjacent to the driveway it is approximately 15 feet in length, and approximately 2 feet in height.

Gutters and downspouts will be connected to pop-up bubblers in the front and rear yard.

The existing house is less than 5 feet from the west side property line; the required side yard setback is 6.5 feet; therefore, it is non-conforming. The proposed relocation of the Air Conditioning units will result in their placement on the west side property line. The City’s policy is to require Air Conditioning units to be no closer than 5 feet to the side property line. The units will have to remain in the rear or be relocated to the east side.

Total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent in the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed project will increase impervious coverage on site from 49 percent to 52.3 percent, which remains below the maximum allowed.

Most of the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition, exterior changes and deck are compatible in terms of mass, height and design with the existing house and surrounding neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RELOCATE THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS TO THE REAR OR EAST SIDE. THE UNITS

SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.

2. THE FRONT POP UP BUBBLER SHALL BE LOCATED NO LESS THAN 10 FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE.

LAURA MAYER (LM) – HOME OWNER KYLE MAYER (KM) – HOME OWNER THOMAS WALL (TW) – ARCHITECT

TW – Addresses the Board and explains the pop up bubbler is in the process of taken care of. We will move the HVAC if needed, we are more than happy to provide screening

LM – We didn’t want to put it under the deck so that we would be able to use the deck without hearing it. The HVAC will line up with our neighbors.

4 Board expresses concern with location of HVAC units but if the neighbors are ok with the fence and how close it will be to the property line and provide confirmation from the neighbors, then that would be ok.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION 2 AND AN ALTERATION TO NUMBER 1 THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSED LOCATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE NEIGHBORS PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THEY APPROVE TO STAFF.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 7-0

7730 BONHOMME AVENUE – PLAN COMMISSION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – HOTEL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Bonhomme Avenue between Bemiston Avenue and Hanley Road. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District and is located in the Central Station TOD Overlay District. The hotel has been operating for many years without a Conditional Use Permit. Along with the new ownership the hotel has undergone significant interior and exterior renovation which has triggered the need to bring the hotel into conformance with the Zoning Regulations. The hotel measures 300,320 square feet and contains 268 guest rooms, 11 event rooms with 17,055 square feet of total event space, a fitness facility, pool and a restaurant. The restaurant operates under a separate Conditional Use Permit.

The hotel has an attached covered parking structure and an adjacent surface lot with a total of 290 spaces, located on the east side of the hotel building. The code requires a minimum of 260 parking spaces for the hotel use, therefore the parking exceeds the code minimum requirement by 30 spaces. A 7-yard dumpster and trash compactor located in the alley on the west side of the building will handle trash. Deliveries will also be made to the delivery entrance, from the alley on the west side of the building.

Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics associated with that particular use. Hotels are permitted in this zoning district subject to approval of a conditional use permit as per Article VII of this Chapter and the following criteria: 1) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood; >> The hotel has operated at this location for many years. The surrounding land uses are primarily office but also include restaurants and parking. The proposed use appears to be compatible with surrounding uses. 2) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The size of the hotel is 300,320 square feet and contains 268 guest rooms, as well as event space including meeting rooms, a fitness facility, and a restaurant. The size is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses.

5 3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood; >> The hotel recently went through an extensive remodel in which the interior and the exterior appearance of the building changed significantly. The exterior changes were approved by the City’s Architectural Review Board on February 4, 2019 and were deemed to be compatible to the neighborhood at that time. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> Currently, staff does not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation. 5) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> The hotel has an outdoor pool and gathering area on top of the two-story structure on the west side. This has been the outdoor location for the pool for years with no known complaints about noise, however the pool area was originally covered with a roof, whereas now, it is uncovered. The properties on the west side are office buildings and therefore, are occupied during daytime hours. Staff does not anticipate that operations associated with the hotel occurring either inside or outside, will have negative impacts on the surrounding area. 6) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single-purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The proposed use does not involve single-purpose structures or temporary components. 7) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code. 8) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use; >> The landscaping was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board at the same time renovations to the exterior were approved. No additional landscaping is proposed as part of this project. 9) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; >> Existing site access is adequate and there are no proposed changes.

6 10) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking; >> The Zoning Code requires that hotels provide parking spaces at a ratio of 3/4 space for every guest room and parking for event space. With a total of 268 guest rooms and 17,055 square feet of event space, the hotel should provide 260 parking spaces. The existing conditions provide 290 parking spaces which exceeds the code requirements. >> Parking requirements directly related to the restaurant space are handled through the separate Conditional Use Permit. 11) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> The proposed use is not likely to affect transit movements. 12) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff is of the opinion that there will not be a significant increase in demand for fire and police protection services. This is not a new facility; it has been operating as a hotel for quite some time. 13) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood; >> Existing noise levels generated by the hotel have not adversely impacted the surrounding area in the past. The site is surrounded by office buildings, which primarily operate in the daytime. 14) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the hotel will generate obnoxious odors. 15) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood; >> There is no additional exterior lighting proposed as part of this permit application. 16) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 5814 §1(9.9), 4-27-04) >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the use. Staff is of the opinion that the hotel meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The hotel is compatible in size to other buildings and adequate parking is provided. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other businesses in this area. Based on the information

7 regarding the operation of the hotel as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the business is compatible with surrounding uses.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.”

ANDREW HARGIS (AH) – APPLICANT BRYANT SMITH (BS) – APPLICANT

AH – Susan covered everything I had on my notes.

BS – I would say she covered mine, too.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.

BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0

7730 BONHOMME AVENUE – PLAN COMMISSION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the south side of Bonhomme Avenue between Bemiston Avenue and Hanley Road. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District and is in the Central Station TOD overlay district. The hotel restaurant has been operating for many years without a Conditional Use Permit. Along with the new ownership the hotel has undergone significant interior and exterior renovation which has triggered the need to bring the hotel restaurant into conformance with the Zoning Regulations. The hotel itself measures 300,320 square feet and contains 268 guest rooms, 11 event rooms with 17,055 square feet of total event space, a fitness facility, pool and a restaurant. The restaurant is proposed as a three-meal full-service restaurant with a café and a full liquor bar. The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are, 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days per week.

The restaurant is 4,000 square feet in area and has 120 seats. The hotel has an attached covered parking structure and an adjacent surface lot with a total of 290 spaces, located on the east side of the hotel building. Off street parking is not required for restaurants located in hotels or motels. A 7-yard dumpster and trash compactor located in the alley on the west side of the building will handle trash. Deliveries will also be made to the delivery entrance, from the alley on the west side of the building.

1) The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and with the surrounding neighborhood;

8 >> The hotel has operated at this location for many years. The surrounding land uses are primarily office but also include restaurants and parking. The proposed restaurant use will operate indoors only and appears to be compatible with surrounding uses. 2) The comparative size, floor area and mass of the proposed use and/or proposed structure are appropriate and reasonable in relation to adjacent structures and buildings on surrounding properties and in the surrounding neighborhood; >> The proposed size of the restaurant is 4,000 square feet and it will have 120 seats. It will be open to the public, however its main clientele will be patrons of the hotel. The restaurant will be operated inside of the recently renovated hotel; therefore, no new structures are proposed. The restaurant size is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses. 3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the general appearance of the neighborhood due to the location of the proposed use on the parcel of ground or due to the materials used in the construction of any proposed buildings being greatly dissimilar to surrounding appearances of buildings or due to the architecture of any proposed building being of such nature as to create visual disharmony within the neighborhood; >> The hotel recently went through an extensive remodel in which the interior and the exterior appearance of the building changed significantly. The exterior changes were approved by the City’s Architectural Review Board on February 4, 2019 and were deemed to be compatible to the neighborhood at that time. As part of this conditional use permit, the applicant is not proposing changes to the exterior of the building. 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation due to significant amount of hard surfaced areas for buildings, sidewalk, drives, parking and service areas; >> Currently, staff does not anticipate adverse effects with respect to water runoff, noise transfer or heat generation. 5) The frequency and duration of various indoor and outdoor activities and special events associated with the proposed use will not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area; >> The applicant is not proposing outdoor dining, therefore all of the activities associated with the restaurant will occur indoors. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts. The previous hotel also had a restaurant of similar style with no known complaints. 6) The proposed use is likely to remain in existence for a reasonable length of time and not become vacant or unused and whether such use involves the presence of unusual, single-purpose structures or components of a temporary nature; >> The proposed use does not involve single-purpose structures or temporary components. 7) The proposed use complies with the standards of the Zoning Code and good planning practices; >> Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code.

9 8) The landscape plan for premises to be occupied by the proposed use is adequate in regard to the creation and maintenance of landscaped areas and the use of buffers for screening of the use; >> The landscaping was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board at the same time renovations to the exterior were approved. No additional landscaping is proposed as part of this project. 9) The impact of projected vehicular traffic volumes and site access is not detrimental with regard to the surrounding traffic flow, pedestrian safety and accessibility of emergency vehicles and equipment; >> Existing site access is adequate and there are no proposed changes. 10) The proposed use complies with the parking requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and does not add parking demand that cannot adequately be handled by on-site off-street parking; >> The Zoning Code requires that hotels provide parking spaces at a ratio of 3/4 space for every guest room and parking for event space. With a total of 268 guest rooms and 17,055 square feet of event space, the hotel should provide 260 parking spaces. The existing conditions provide 290 parking spaces which exceeds the code requirements. Restaurants located inside of hotels are not required to provide additional parking. 11) The number of transit movements on abutting streets and on minor streets in the neighborhood to be generated by or associated with the proposed use will not cause significant increases in hourly or daily traffic levels; >> The proposed use is not likely to affect transit movements. 12) The proposed use will not significantly increase demands on fire and Police protection services in excess of the individual demands of adjacent land uses and whether the proposed use will not present any real or potential fire or public safety hazard; >> Staff is of the opinion that there will not be a significant increase in demand for fire and police protection services. This is not a new facility; it has been operating as a hotel with a restaurant for quite some time. 13) Added noise levels generated by activities associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area and neighborhood; >> Existing noise levels generated by the hotel and restaurant have not adversely impacted the surrounding area in the past. The site is surrounded by office buildings. 14) The activities associated with the proposed use will not generate obnoxious odors to the detriment of the surrounding area; >> Staff does not anticipate that the restaurant will generate obnoxious odors. 15) The intensity, duration or frequency of lighting associated with the proposed use will not adversely impact adjacent properties or significantly increase the ambient level of night light in the neighborhood;

10 >> There is no additional exterior lighting proposed as part of this permit application. 16) Where a proposed use has the potential for adverse impacts, sufficient measures have been or will be taken by the applicant that would negate, to an acceptable level, such potentially adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 5814 §1(9.9), 4-27-04) >> At this time, there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with the restaurant use. Staff is of the opinion that the restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The restaurant is compatible in size to other buildings and adequate parking is provided. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other businesses in this area. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the business is compatible with surrounding uses.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.”

ANDREW HARGIS (AH) – APPLICANT BRYANT SMITH (BS) – APPLICANT

BS – Invites the Board to visit the new lobby and the restaurant.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN AS SUBMITTED.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0

8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – PLAN COMMISSION – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 0.52-acre site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, and has a zoning designation of Special Development District (SDD). It is identified on the adopted land use plan as Phase 5 (see attached Exhibit A). In 1982, the subject property and the other properties in the block bounded by Brentwood Boulevard, Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard were rezoned to a Special Development District (SDD). As part of the SDD ordinance, the individual parcels on the block were to be developed in phases in accordance with general development standards for height, size and parking found in the Special Development Plan. The property is improved with a two-story commercial building that was constructed in 1947 and is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses include retail, office and Shaw Park to the south.

Since approval of the rezoning in 1982 via Ordinance No. 4220, four office buildings and a shared parking structure have been constructed. Two parcels, including the subject property, have not yet been redeveloped. The property is subject to the use, area, height, and parking requirements which are specified in the Special Development District Land Use Plan.

This is a request to amend the final development plan to add “Hotel” land use to Phase 5 of the adopted land use plan, so the site can be redeveloped.

This request is for consideration of amendments to the existing Special Development District. The specific amendment is as follows:

1. Add a Hotel land use to allow the development of a hotel on what’s identified on the adopted land use plan as Phase 5, in addition to the already permissible office land use and update the proposed completion date set forth in the Phase 5 development standards table.

If the amendment is approved, separate approvals will be required for the Subdistrict plan for Phase 5 and the architectural/design plans. These plans will provide detailed information related to the hotel development such as required transportation related improvements, detailed architectural features, landscape design and plant material, building siting, and pedestrian and automobile circulation among others. Before the site can be developed, a Subdistrict Plan (reviewed by the Plan Commission and approved by the Board of Aldermen), and Architectural Plans (approved by the Architectural Review Board) will have to be considered by the appropriate City boards.

The SDD land use plan (Exhibit A) establishes development standards that govern the development of each of the seven phases of development shown on the plan. All but two phases have been redeveloped.

The following chart identifies and summarizes the adopted plan and the proposed amendment is underlined:

Phase No. Allowable land use Maximum allowable Building Area (sq ft) Maximum No. Stories Parking Spaces # Completion Date 1 Office/Retail 270,000 17 810 1986 2 Office 176,139 15 528 1987 3 Office 129,205 12 387 1985-1990 4 Office 163,835 11 492 1987-1995 5 Office, Hotel 169,994 14 510 1987-1995 6 Office 105,939 12 318 1987-1995 7 Office 46,728 4 87 Existing

Once approved, the Special Development Plan and Ordinance, as amended, becomes the specific zoning regulations governing the use and development of the properties.

*The proposed hotel project is 12 stories in height and 155,877 square feet in area which meets the current height and size limitations for Phase 5, therefore these development standards are not proposed for amendment.

Section 405.1210 of the zoning regulations lists eight criteria of approval (numbered and in italics on the following pages) designed to achieve the goals as set forth in Section 405.1160 of Article IX: Special Development District. The Plan Commission shall take these criteria into consideration when deliberating and acting upon the Special Development Plan.

1) “The proposed development, including proposed phases and schedule, is in harmony with general purposes and intent of Chapter 405 of the Municipal Code and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City.”

12 >> The proposed amendment adds “hotel” as an allowable land use in Phase 5 of the adopted Land Use Plan and amends the completion date.

>> Staff Analysis: Phase 5 is identified as part of the Park View District in the Downtown Master Plan. The Park View District encourages high and mid-rise buildings along the eastern and northern edges of Shaw Park that capitalize on the exceptional views of and adjacency to the park and encourages transforming the urban edge of the park into an active street life environment. A hotel land use will bring pedestrian activity to this area of Forsyth Boulevard which is largely comprised of office buildings. A hotel in this location will provide a convenient place for out of town guests to stay that may be visiting Clayton to conduct business or visit. With the implementation of staff’s recommendations, staff is of the opinion that consistency with the Downtown Master Plan will be achieved.

2) “The proposed height, arrangement and uses of the proposed development are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole.”

>> Staff believes the location of proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood land uses which are comprised of residential, office, retail, parking and service type land uses.

>> Staff analysis: The subject property is currently developed with a two-story former retail space that has been shuttered for over 10 years. The proposed hotel will be 12 stories in height, which is compatible with all the other phases of the SDD that have already been developed and capitalizes on the views of Shaw Park, as desired by the Downtown Master Plan. Existing residential land uses are located to the west, across Forsyth Boulevard and are separated from the hotel land use by the Forsyth Boulevard right- of-way and by adjacent property that currently has a C-1 zoning designation.

3) “Streets or other means of access to the proposed development meet City of Clayton standards and are suitable to carry anticipated traffic.” 4) “The internal circulation system of the proposed development encourages safe movement for vehicles and pedestrian.”

Traffic >> A traffic study conducted by Crawford Bunte Brammeier (CBB) analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development and determined that the proposed land use of hotel does not negatively impact traffic volumes on nearby roads. The proposed amendments to the SDD Master Plan do not warrant any additional traffic studies or improvements, as they do not cause an increase in trip generation, nor do they significantly alter the proposed site circulation.

Pedestrian Circulation >> The pedestrian circulation plan as originally approved, remains largely intact. There will be no changes to the existing pedestrian circulations plan as a result of this amendment.

5) “Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts.” >> City’s standard streetscape will be installed along the Forsyth frontage. The design and location of landscape buffers will be considered in detail at the time of subdistrict plan review.

6) “The proposed development preserves unique environmental features of the property.”

13 >> There are no unique environmental features of the property. The subject site is already developed with a building that is currently vacant. The proposed redevelopment will not significantly alter the environment of the site to a detrimental degree.

7) “Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development.” >> The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and finds them acceptable related to utility service.

8) “The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances”. >> Pursuant to the Subdistrict Plan and Architectural Review Board applications, this review will be conducted through the review of the subdistrict plan being considered concurrently with this rezoning application.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposal meets the criteria of approval for a Special Development District amendment as specified in Section 405.1210 of the zoning regulations and detailed in this staff report. The project will provide temporary housing for transient guests to the City and will provide support to retail and other commercial land uses in the City. The development will create street and sidewalk activity in this area of the City which is well connected to Shaw Park and other areas of the downtown. A hotel land use furthers the intent of the Park View District of the Downtown Master Plan and it will be a significant positive addition to the area and Downtown as a whole.

Separate approvals will be required for development of the site via the Subdistrict Plan approval and the Architectural Review Board approval process. Both applications are being considered concurrently with this SDD Zoning District amendment. These plans will provide detailed information related to any required transportation related improvements, detailed architectural features, landscape design and plant material, building siting and building appearance. Each subdistrict requires approval of a Subdistrict Plan (by the Board of Aldermen), and Architectural Review (by the Architectural Review Board).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADD A “HOTEL” LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN, PHASE 5, TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AN ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR THE PROJECT SO THE LAND USE

PLAN CAN BE AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE OF THE PROJECT.”

DAVID ROBERT (DR) – MIDAS HOSPITALITY

DR – Addresses the Board and agrees with Susan that it should be approved.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0

14 8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – PLAN COMMISSION – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN

THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD UNTIL OCTOBER 5, 2020.

8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW HOTEL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 0.52-acre site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, and has a zoning designation of Special Development District (SDD). The property is improved with a two-story commercial building that was constructed in 1947 and is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses include retail and office buildings and Shaw Park to the south. In 1982, the subject property and the other properties in the block bounded by Brentwood Boulevard, Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard were rezoned to a Special Development District (SDD). As part of the SDD ordinance, the individual parcels on the block were to be developed in phases in accordance with general development standards for height, size and parking found in the Special Development Plan. Since approval of the rezoning in 1982, four office buildings and a shared parking structure have been constructed. Two parcels, including the subject property, have not yet been redeveloped. The property is subject to the use, area, height, and parking requirements which are specified in the Special Development Plan.

The project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 155,379 square-foot, 170 extended stay guest rooms with full kitchens. The 12-story hotel building includes 3,800 square feet of meeting space, a 1,500 square foot fitness center, ground floor space for a bar/lounge area. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of metal composite panels, EIFS, brick and glass. The proposed design uses three different material types and four different colors. The front elevation is clad with Belden Brick, Brown Brick color up to the second floor of the structure where it transitions to Alpolic metal panels on the north and south sides peppercorn (dark grey) in color. The center of the front facade is clad in brick up to the third floor, then it transitions to a combination of materials including EIFS material, white in color and Alpolic metal panels Trespa Meteon Wood panels/Halmstead color. The first two stories of the front elevation have tall, two story windows separated by brick wall areas. This design and the brick material provide architectural and visual continuity on the street frontage at the ground level with the existing office buildings to the east and west. On the east side of the building’s frontage, an outdoor seating area is proposed on the first and second floors. The seating area design utilizes tall, rectangular shaped windows and a glass retaining wall to enclose the seating area. The front entry door is a typical glass panel double door framed with glazing on the sides and at the top.

At the top of the building in the center, the applicant proposes a design that appears to mimic an open metal screen type of feature, comprised of metal panels brown in color. This screen element is one story taller than the east and west sides of the front elevation.

The east elevation is comprised of brown Belden Brick and the southern half of the two-story elevation has tall glass windows on both levels; the porch and the glass porch retaining wall wrap around the side approximately ¼ of its length, from the front elevation. The northern half of the second story is brick, without windows. Above the second story, the material changes to metal panels (grey) and EIFS (white). A series of windows located in the EIFS banding in the center of the side elevation rises from the third to the twelfth story. On either side of the EIFS banding are metal panels without windows.

The rear elevation faces the internal parking garage and is not visible from the street. Brick is used up to the second story and then a combination of metal panels and EIFS is used to the top of the building. The roof line at the top of the rear elevation appears to be capped with a trim material, but the material type is not specified. The roof at the front elevation does not have the same trim detail. Approximately 70 percent of the rear facade contains glazing.

The west elevation is similar in design to the east elevation, except the glazing on the first two stories is located on the rear one half of the building, instead of the front half. An outdoor patio is proposed on the west side with a retaining wall. The proposed materials of the retaining wall are brick to match the existing brick proposed for the building. The wall appears to be approximately 6 feet in height, per the front elevation drawing.

The applicant did not update their original application for ARB which proposed different materials, therefore staff’s estimate of the percentages of material is listed as follows:

Front elevation: 70 percent metal panels 10 percent EIFS 20 percent brick

Side elevations: 80 percent metal panels 10 percent EIFS 10 percent brick

Rear Elevation: 80 percent EIFS 10 percent metal panels 10 percent brick

The proposed aluminum metal composite panels contrast with materials used within the existing development and the surrounding area. Because this is a tall, flat building, that lacks articulation, the extensive use of metal panels on the front of the building exacerbate its flat appearance and give it a sleek appearance. In this area of the City, surrounding Shaw Park, the use of brick/masonry is prevalent. Metal accent panels can be found on single/two story buildings in the City, but this area of the City is largely constructed with masonry materials and the sleek look of the metal panels produce a stark contrast to the warm feeling and texture that brick produces. Additionally, the building lacks articulation and utilizes the same window types, sizes and patterns on the upper stories. The attention given to the base of the building with the use of brick and large windows fits in with the context of the street level design of the surrounding buildings. In this area of the City it is also important to consider the context of the proposed structure from Shaw Park. The proposed building will become part of the skyline surrounding the park, when viewed from the park. Use of metal panels on the upper stories of the building, as currently designed, is a strong contrast to the quality of design and materials used at the skyline in surrounding buildings. A more judicious use of brick and masonry in the design of this building is critical to maintaining the coherence of design that is already prevalent in the development of this Special Subdistrict.

Because the building is square to the curve of the street, the sides of the building are highly visible from the street. This square placement creates large gaps between the buildings on both sides, which is uncommon in this development because the existing buildings are much closer together. Unfortunately, the squared placement of the building also exposes the lack of glazing on the sides of the building. If the footprint of the building was true to the street geometry, the nearly windowless sides would not be as visible.

A detailed lighting plan was not submitted. Screening and location of mechanical equipment was not readily evident on the plans submitted. Screening of the dumpster at the rear of the property was not readily evident on the plans submitted.

16 Landscaping will be discussed in the staff report for the subdistrict plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD TABLE THIS ITEM AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE DRAWINGS TO LIMIT THE USE OF EIFS AND METAL PANELS AS THE PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIALS, AND REVISE THE APPEARANCE OF THE EAST, WEST AND FRONT ELEVATIONS TO USE PREDOMINATELY BRICK, STONE AND OTHER MASONRY. CONSIDER RECOMMENDING THE BUILDING BE DESIGNED WITH MORE ARTICULATION TO ELIMINATE THE FLAT, MONOTONOUS FRONT FAÇADE.

1. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MIRROR THE CURVED STREET GEOMETRY OF FORSYTH BOULEVARD INSTEAD OF BEING PLACE SQUARE ON THE SITE.

2. THE WALL ENCLOSING THE SEATING AREA ON THE WEST ELEVATION SHALL BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT TO NO MORE THAN FOUR (4) FEET.

3. LIMIT THE USE OF MATERIAL COLORS TO NO MORE THAN THREE (3).

4. IDENTIFY THE ROOF TRIM MATERIAL AND DIMENSIONS ON THE REAR FAÇADE AND CARRY THE SAME OVER TO THE FRONT AND SIDE FACADES.

5. IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE HVAC AND OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND IDENTIFY HOW IT WILL BE SCREENED.

6. IDENTIFY THE SIZE AND MATERIAL USED TO SCREEN THE DUMPSTERS IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING .”

DAVID ROBERT (DR) – MIDAS HOSPITALITY TOBIAS HEDDINGHAUS (TH) – ARCHITECT

DR – Addresses the Board and goes over the project, both exterior and interior.

TH – Explains the reasoning behind the development design to be similar but still unique to the surrounding buildings. We would like it to have its own identity since it is not an office building it is a hotel.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – My concerns with the exterior follow the comments expressed in the staff report. However, even though we are not talking about the site plan, I would prefer it this building to curve the way the existing buildings do. This is also not matching with the primarily masonry buildings that surround. I fear this would really stand out, and not look right in this area. The first two floors with the brick do recall the brick in the remainder of the area but I don’t think the rest of it meets our expectations at this point.

RICHARD LINTZ – I am trying to like the black panels, but I am confused about the wood on the middle part – is it real wood or the white stripes down the front. It doesn’t do it for me. I like the first two floors but the rest of it I am underwhelmed by.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I agreed with the staff comments with the curving of the street. I agree with the first two and a half floors but I think we need to know the exact percentages of materials. This is a huge improvement from last year but I am concerned about the sides and what those office buildings are looking at with the black sides. Can we see the back side?

ROBERT DENLOW – I would agree with Steve, this is more of a hotel I would see at 141 and 44 but not here in downtown Clayton. I like the idea of staying with a curve and I like the lower floors but the upper floors and the white crossings coming down, I’m not an architect but it’s not doing it for me. I do want to thank you for your commitment to this project.

GEORGE HETTICH – I agree with all the comments.

HELEN DIFATE – I like the previous submission better, it had a better energy. This gives me a feeling that it could be put anywhere, the previous needed some tweaking but the floors on this above the brick concerns me. It’s a forbidding look, it is not welcoming with the black.

DAVID GIPSON – Agrees with addition of curvature of the street. I think the first two floors look great and I love the large windows in the charcoal sections but I think the colors need some work.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 19, 2020.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND.

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. 7-0

28, 30, 32, 38 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, 7800 & 7820 MARYLAND AVENUE, AND 9 & 19 N. BEMISTON AVENUE – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW MIXED-USE

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the west side of Bemiston Avenue and is comprised of the north half block bounded on the north by Maryland Avenue, the west by Central Avenue, the south by an east/west alley connecting Central Avenue and Bemiston Avenue, and the east by Bemiston Avenue. The property is 1.56 acres in size and the current zoning designation is High Density Commercial (HDC) and located within the CBD Core Overlay District. The property is currently developed with commercial buildings, some used as office space, some used as retail and restaurant, and a surface parking lot. Adjacent land uses include residential to the north, office to the east and south and mixed use residential/retail and retail to the west.

The project as proposed by the applicant will be a 5-story apartment building constructed on a concrete podium 3 stories in height used for parking, some of which will be partially below ground. There will be 242 apartment units, 346 parking spaces and 10,775 square feet of retail space. The retail space will be located along Central Avenue and will wrap the corner at Maryland Avenue. Fronting Maryland Avenue and Bemiston Avenue will be apartments with a small auto courtyard located off Bemiston Avenue.

The east/west alley will provide access to the delivery bays and trash storage bays, located on the south side of the building. Access to the parking garage will also be from the alley. The total area of the proposed buildings (excluding the garage) is 264,310 square feet for a floor area ratio of 3.88. The total building area including the garage, is 393,210 square feet. The proposed height will be 76 feet 8 inches. Due to grade changes on site, the buildings fronting Maryland Avenue and Central Avenue will be 6 stories in height and along Bemiston Avenue, they will be 7 stories in height. Based on the information submitted by the applicant, all the existing buildings on site will be demolished except for the two-story office building which has some historical significance and is located at the southwest corner of Bemiston Avenue and Maryland Avenue. This building is commonly known as the Shanley Building. It will remain intact and will be rehabbed and used as office space for residents of the proposed new apartment building.

The applicant proposes to use brick, cementitious panels, and glazing as the primary building materials. Air conditioning units will be located on the roof and screened by metal panels. The applicant will be required to install city standard streetscape along all 3 street frontages and will be required to widen the existing alley by 4 feet.

18 The applicant will be seeking deviations from the zoning district standards through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. For those deviations, the applicant will be required to provide public benefits under the City’s PUD point system process. The Downtown Core Overlay district currently limits the height of buildings to 4 stories not to exceed 35 feet and the floor area ratio to 1.5 percent. The overlay also requires a 15-foot setback from the rear property line, along the alley. The developer will be asking for deviations from those standards. Additionally, the developer will be required to provide a traffic study and a parking study, which will be reviewed as part of the PUD application review process. Additional improvements may be required as a result of those studies.

Finally, the City is currently undergoing a study with a consultant under contract which may result in amendments to the current overlay district standards for both the Downtown Core and CBD overlay districts. The consultant will provide comments under separate cover for this conceptual review application and will be part of the review team that will review the PUD application, Site Plan and Architectural Review applications, when they are submitted to the City by the developer.

The proposed project will require a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD), platting, site plan approval and architectural review board approval, prior to construction.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AND PROVIDE INPUT. THIS IS CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY AND THEREFORE ANY COMMENTS MADE IN THIS REPORT OR AT THE MEETING, EITHER BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF OR THE BOARD/COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE NOT BINDING.”

STEVE BROWN (SB) – DEVELOPER FRANK ANDRE (FA) – ARCHITECT HCM

SB – Addresses the Board and gives background of project and plan to restore the Shanley Building. Also talks about the community conference and how much support the project has received from the public.

FA – Shares screen (plans submitted) and walks through the design and the thinking behind the design. It will have residential, retail, restaurants, and restoration of the Shanley Building.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Good concept. The planning is quite good. My concerns start on North Central – the pedestrian experience and how that is important to the City. It would be nice if there would be some way to create greater width to that sidewalk. I like the outdoor dining space that you put in, but if it were more out on the sidewalk it would add to the experience. The retail areas all seem to be similar, if they had a bit more variety, that would add a little more liveliness. At the corner, where the restaurant is, the idea of being to open it is terrific, but it would be nice to see people sitting on the corner. Let’s talk about the niche, I don’t really understand what it is because all the parking is for residents, is this only for the residents to come out? The windows look a bit factory but when we go around to Maryland they look a lot different. I like it though.

SB – We would have valet parking. It creates access for valet parking, retail employees, shop owners, restaurant owners. This allowed us to create space.

RICHARD LINTZ – This is a great project. You guys have done a terrific job. I wondered if there were any negative comments from the Community Meeting. I’ve got great feedback from residents in Old Town. I like this a lot, I was having an issue with the blank wall on Maryland but you’ve said you are doing something to address that. The only other thing I will bring up is overall it is still one mass. There is the feeling that it is all one building, one size structure, it would be nice if there was a bit of height difference. Is the sidewalk the same as it is now for dining?

SB – We received no negative comments. People were asking about the appliances and for bigger units and condos. I was amazed, there was nothing negative, it was all supportive and constructive. Yes, the sidewalks are no narrower than now.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Steve you covered most of it. I do like the way you included the Shanley Building. It looks like it belongs.

ROBERT DENLOW – I think you guys did a great job, Steve and Frank. I love the colors, the way you incorporated the Shanley Building, its great. I don’t know what you can do to make Central more pedestrian friendly but I would take what Steve said to heart. I would think about pulling those steps on Maryland though too because I wouldn’t want to go through the garage. It’s more attractive and immediate.

GEORGE HETTICH – Can’t wait for the property to be developed! Thank you for saving the Shanley Building. I’m concerned about the loss of retail on Bemiston, could there be some small retail to help keep that block alive.

HELEN DIFATE – I love the creative use of the Shanley Building, it’s brilliant. The niche is a neat urban touch and it will be very much used. It is handy and I really like that. It also creates a setback on the sidewalk. I agree with Bob whole heartedly, we really need the human residential connection on Maryland. Those steps are important.

DAVID GIPSON – Overall it is fantastic and I am excited to see it.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We have had comments come through the chat about public benefit but that it with the PUD process. Another I saw was considering wider sidewalks similar to the other side of Central, which we’ve discussed at length.

SB – Our contractor has plans. It is a two year construction process.

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 20:30

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

September 21, 2020 — Meeting Minutes