December 2, 2019 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL MONDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2019 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1730.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, Interim City Manager Janet Watson, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, Carolyn Gaidis, Robert Denlow, and George Hettich answered roll call.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AIPC, Planning Director Scott Dedert, Planner

CHAIRMAN REQUESTS

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

Chairman Lichtenfeld also asks that anyone who speaks please spell out their last name.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

NOVEMBER 18 MEETING MINUTES, RICHARD LINTZ HAS ONE CORRECTION 227 SOUTH CENTRAL VOTE TO APPROVE NOT TO TABLE AND THE DATE SHOULD BE NOVEMBER 18 AND NOT NOVEMBER 4TH.

RICHARD LINTZ – MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE TWO NOTED CORRECTIONS.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES NOVEMBER 18, 2019, MEETING MINUTES.

NOTES

8144 KINGSBURY BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – SOLAR – THIS ITEM IS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

2 OLD BUSINESS

922 AUDUBON DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 8,800-square-foot site is located on the east side of Audubon Drive and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The property currently contains an attached garage and open porch that will be converted to usable space. The applicant was recently approved to build a new detached garage. On the northern half, which includes the front, side, and rear of the single-family residence, the applicant intends to convert the attached garage and open porch into an enclosed media room.

Currently, the single-family residence has an attached garage and the front of the home has an open porch that has an overhang with brick pillars. With this project, the applicant proposes to match the building materials of the existing single-family residence. The new enclosed space will require new brick, a below grade concrete footing, as well as the replacement and addition of windows. The applicant is also proposing to paint the wood trim and add a glass door on the north side of the structure. The existing garage door will be removed and replaced with a new brick wall.

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 design and materials of the enclosed media room are compatible with the home.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

PAT JONES (PJ) – ARCHITECT JIM AUBUCHON (JA) – CONTRACTOR

PJ – Staff report was very accurate

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I think it looks pretty good and will make the home more livable.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – On the north side of the existing garage, there is the a/c unit, is that getting relocated somewhere?

PJ – No, it’s existing as is and they are going to screen it.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

3 NEW BUSINESS

7651 CLAYTON ROAD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located at the north east corner of the intersection of Clayton Road and Hanley Road. The property is zoned PUD and is currently under development with a mixed-use commercial and residential project. The property is surrounded by a 6-foot-high wooden dog-eared picket temporary construction fence. The fence includes several gates providing three separate entrances to the construction site. Construction signage has been placed on the fence totaling approximately 100 square feet, which is the maximum allowable signage for properties with more than 100 feet of street frontage.

In addition to the construction related signage currently present on the construction fence, the applicant would like to place a 50-foot x 100-foot temporary banner sign which wraps the corner of Hanley Road and Clayton Road, for purposes of advertising the residential dwelling units for sale. The applicant indicates the signage will remain in place until May 2022, when the project is scheduled to be completed. The sign will be made of vinyl and the colors have not yet been determined.

The following sign is permitted by the Sign Code:

Newly constructed residential buildings or developments with four (4) or more dwelling units may be permitted a sign not to exceed twelve (12) square feet for a period of six (6) months after the issuance of the first (1st) tenancy permit or until all units are occupied, whichever comes first. Signs in excess of six (6) square feet shall be aesthetically designed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.

Due to the proposed signage being in excess of the maximum allowable size and because the sign will be erected before the building is completed, the applicant is requesting a sign modification.

While the proposed sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code, the sign is temporary. Because the site is under construction, the appearance of the sign will be mitigated by the appearance of the construction site, construction equipment, and the appearance of the building as it is constructed.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE TEMPORARY SIGN AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE SIGN SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION FENCE IS REMOVED OR BY MAY 30, 2020, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.

2. THE SIGN SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION AND IF FADING, WEATHERING, TEARING, OR THE LIKE OCCURS, THE SIGN SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME APPROVED DESIGN OR REMOVED PERMANENTLY.”

SUSAN ISTENES NOTES DURING THE READING OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE SIGN IS 5 FEET BY 100 FEET AND NOT 50 FEET BY 100 FEET.

WENDY TIMM (WT) – RYAN COMPANIES LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE

WT – In order to market the property, we have designed this concept for the 100-foot long vinyl banner sign in five, twenty-foot sections. It is 5 foot wide so of course it extends all but one foot of the fence height and it contains our graphic, photos of the property, an announcement of what the property is with our phone number. We respectfully request this temporary signage permit, I certainly hope that the construction fence is not up

4 until May 2022, it will hopefully be a year out from this coming May, hopefully May 2021. We will not make any difference on visibility or traffic considerations.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Does the sign encroach on the sidewalk at all?

WT – No.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Is the fence completely rounded or segmented?

WT – It is segmented, I don’t know what the segments are off the top of my head. These banners are 20 feet, so we will put it up in 5 pieces.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – The staff report says for purposes of advertising the residential dwelling units for sale, I thought they were…

WT – They are for lease, everything is for lease.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Ok.

WT – It is market rate rentals.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – The sign looks pretty good to me. Having it in five, twenty-foot sections I think is certainly more economical if one gets damaged, it can easily be replaced. I think it will look fine out there but let us see what everyone else says.

Richard Lintz – I think it is a little big. 100 feet wrapping around it basically becomes the construction fence. It’s 5 foot tall on a 6 foot tall fence. The maximum allowed is 100 square feet and this is 500 square feet. It’s a lot for that corner of Clayton. I would almost rather see the five, twenty-foot sections broken up and placed along the fence in various spots.

GEORGE HETTICH – I would agree, I think it is a bit large for the corner and it is, unfortunately well designs but just too big. It seems like a large billboard to me that is wrapping the corner of Clayton and Hanley. I also think the amount of time for that sign to be up is a bit too long and it should be rolled back to 2021.

RICHARD LINTZ – It says on the sign opening 2021 and yet you are asking that it can stay up until 2022. Can you discuss that?

WT – We are asking that it can be up for the duration of the construction fence. We are of course wanting that fence down in May of 2021 because that is when we plan to be finished and occupying but we don’t know if there will be delays. Right now, we are on schedule and we should make that May 2021 date. At a 120 million dollar investment we want to finish on time. Time is money, we don’t anticipate needing that 2022 date, but things happen.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Can we change it to be May of 2021 then? My view on the sign is, I know it’s large, but that piece of property has stayed vacant for so long that the more that we can entice people to actually lease that space the more business is going to come into Clayton, the more residents are going to be walking on the street. There is going to be a café in there, other things… to me I think because of the fastness of Hanley when that light is actually green, it’s going to be a fleeting second. I think the 100 on Hanley itself makes a lot of sense

5 and the fact that it occurs on a corner just captures Clayton as well. So, I don’t have a problem with it, it should be when the construction fence is removed the sign should be also.

RICHARD LINTZ – That is what the staff report currently says.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Oh, I’m sorry what is the 22 then? What is May 2022?

WT – Our completion expectation is May 2021, the extension until May 2022 is if we fall behind schedule. Right now we are on schedule.

ROBERT DENLOW – I personally don’t have a problem with it, it is nicer than a wood fence. You have so much money tied up and you are taking s sore spot of Clayton away, I would hate to impede your ability to market it.

WT – The very center of the sign is our branding, The Clarendale Clayton and we spent a lot of time speaking to marketing people and branding this so we want that to be very prominent.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – It is and you have included the word Clayton on each end so everyone knows they are in Clayton as they are coming. I agree, as I said before, I have no problem with 100 linear feet. And as Carolyn was saying, the traffic there is sometimes stopped or it is moving very quickly unless we have a snowstorm to slow it down, I think this is the right way to go.

RICHARD LINTZ – There is no lighting on the sign, correct?

WT – No.

GEORGE HETTICH – I don’t like if the sign stays up past 2021 and we are into 2022, the sign should be updated to reflect that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any comments from the audience? None. We have a staff recommendation to approve with two conditions.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I will make a motion to approve with the two staff recommendations modifying condition 1 to say removal by end of construction or December 1, 2021 whichever comes first.

ROBERT DENLOW – Second

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD, JANET WATSON, GEORGE HETTICH – AYE

RICHARD LINTZ – NAY

MOTION PASSED 5-1

24 ABERDEEN PLACE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION/RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 8,000 square foot property is located on the south side of Aberdeen Place between DeMun Avenue and Skinker Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project consists of constructing a 761 square foot addition in the rear of the home. The proposed two-story addition will extend 12-feet past the existing home in the rear yard

6 and be 24-feet in height. Due to the location and size of the addition, site plan review is not required. The applicant is also proposing to construct an outdoor living space with a kitchen, movable firepit, and two patio areas.

The applicant is proposing brick veneer to match the existing home with wood shaker shingles as accents on the second floor. The elevations show new windows with double rowlock brick proposed above them which will not match the existing windows of the home. The roof is proposed to be a flat roof approximately 7-feet shorter than the existing three-story, 31-foot tall home. The chain-link fence is being replaced by a wooden privacy fence with a gate.

On the proposed north elevation, two separate sets of steps exist. One, will be removed and a concrete pad is proposed. The other set of steps are granite and will remain with new wrought iron railings.

In the rear yard, access to the balcony will be through the sitting room with the use of French doors, the railing will be powder coated steel. The first-floor porch will be accessed through a proposed sunroom with the use of NanaWall folding doors. Staff believes the design and materials of the proposed addition are compatible with the existing structure and neighborhood character.

All downspouts are to be tied to the combined stormwater sewer. The applicant has provided a letter from the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) approving this plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:

1. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE DRIPLINE OF THE EXISTING TREES LOCATED

ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. TREE PROTECTION FENCE LOCATIONS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN.

2. THE NEW CONCRETE SHALL BE STAMPED, EXPOSED AGGREGATE, OR A MIX OF MERAMEC SAND AND

GRAVEL.”

TOR HOERMAN (TH) – HOMEOWNER JAMIE HENDERSON (JH) – ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT

JH – I would just like to say that no materials are changing. The window details on the addition will match the existing windows as well as the replacement windows.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Will there be any other exterior change?

JH – No the front of the home will remain the same. We are removing a porch and landscape the area.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Did you bring any materials?

JH – I was unaware we needed to. We are using brick to match the existing, the trim will be white to match existing, the only material in question I guess would be the cedar shake that we are proposing in a cement fiber.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – What are the pavers? Do you have a color?

JH – Right now they are just concrete pavers. Natural Stone.

7 CAROLYN GAIDIS – Ok, I have a lot of concerns with the proximity of the existing tree. That is huge beautiful tree.

TH – We love the tree.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I appreciate the sand based pavers, but you might want to think about how wide it is, I’m going to say this and everyone is probably sick of me saying this but the top 10-12 inches of soil are where the fibrous roots are on every tree and that is how they get all their nutrients from the water in the soil. Once you start compacting that, it’s like you’ve pushed on a sponge and all those pore spaces where those nutrients and all that water is found is now squished out like a sponge. Those little roots are going to go “I have no place to go to get my food” so it’s going to start to spin a little bit around and you’re going to do some damage there. I would encourage you to think about how far out that pavement comes. Even the construction, make sure they don’t lay stuff on that area and put fencing as much as you can around that tree because it’s a beauty.

TH – We have a arborist who has been consulting the entire time. We want to keep the tree.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – How old is the tree?

JH – Roughly 100 if not older.

TH – It’s got some lightening/burn damage, but we would like to keep it and do everything we can to keep it.

JH – The arborist also made recommendations on some limbs that are questionable, so they want to trim that up and keep it in good shape. We are trying to do whatever we can, that’s why we chose the pavers that we did. We are showing a fence around the tree and able to maintain the dripline except for a 10 foot pass along the western fence that we can use as construction traffic.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Ok, thank you.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Ok any comments from the audience? Or more from the Board? None. Ok, I will entertain a motion.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE TWO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

GEORGE HETTICH – SECOND

BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

8125 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW HOTEL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 22,651 square foot 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.

8 The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 157,052 square foot, 11-story hotel building with 168 rooms. The proposed building will be constructed of brick, stucco, limestone, glass, and metal accents. Parking will be valet only and located in the existing parking structure which serves other buildings on the block. A pick up/drop off area is proposed on the street level off of Forsyth Boulevard.

The project will be developed as a Special Development Subdistrict and will require public hearings before the Plan Commission and Board of Aldermen. The applicant has specified “constructing buildings exhibiting Architectural distinction and significance that would make the development unique,” and “enhanced public infrastructure, greater than the minimum code requirements including onsite common areas (exclusive of yards as defined herein), streets, curbs, sidewalks, sanitary sewers, stormwater sewers, landscape buffers, lighting” as public benefits the development will provide to the City.

SDD is a distinct zoning classification which provides the flexibility needed to encourage efficient use of land, public and utility services while encouraging innovation in the planning and building of a large-scale development which involves a multi-phased, multi-year timeframe. A SDD is governed by a Special Development Plan and Subdistrict Plans, each of which require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The Special Development Plan provides the general development standards for the proposed development including the location of project phases and schedules, location and use of each proposed building, the maximum height and size of each building, the location of open space and landscape buffers, general traffic circulation and the location of parking. The Subdistrict Plan provides detailed information related to each specific phase of the development.

In 1982, the block bounded by Brentwood Boulevard, Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard was rezoned to a 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 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 following design standards which are specified in the Special Development Plan:

Use:

Office Building Area:

169,994 square feet Stories:

14 Parking Spaces: 510 (1 per 333 square feet)

As currently proposed, the project is under the allowable building area through approval of the Subdistrict Plan.

The Downtown Master Plan was adopted in 2010 and identifies the property as being located in the Park View District. The vision for the Park View District is a “neighborhood along the park that takes advantage of the valuable views of Shaw Park and transforms the urban edge of the park into an active street life environment with sports, cultural and entertainment venues.” The plan makes specific recommendations for improving pedestrian connections to the park, increasing foot traffic, supporting small retail establishments and activity centers, and encouraging buildings facing the park to take advantage of the park views.

PLANNING

9 1. A SDD AMENDMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF A HOTEL.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY’S CONTRACTED TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS. THE DEVELOPER MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS TO ADJACENT STREETS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESTRICTIONS AT INGRESS/EGRESS LOCATIONS, TURN LANES, MEDIANS, AND NEW AND/OR IMPROVED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.

2. DEDICATED VALET ZONES SHALL ADHERE TO THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE CLAYTON CODE SECTION 350.230.

3. THE DESIGN OF SIDEWALKS AND STREETSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE TO CITY STANDARDS.

4. RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED THROUGH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

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.”

DAVID ROPER (DR) – MIDAS HOSPITALITY CHRIS SHINKLE (CS) – VP OF DEVELOPMENT

DR – Speaks about the project using a power point visual aid. There will be a ground floor restaurant/bar that will open up onto the street to activate the street and the second floor will have meeting space and an outdoor balcony. The first floor is limestone and then brick in the middle with a lot of glass. It is 11 stories, so it sits nicely between the two office buildings that are adjacent. We are asking for valet out front, the existing garage behind us will what we use for parking. This is an extended stay hotel, so they have full sized appliances and larger than normal rooms.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – This is quite a change from the office building we’ve looked at for years for this site. It’s good to see something that may come to fruition and replace that two story vacant building. There are a lot of questions: I couldn’t tell from the site plan about the VIP cut in, is that all on public property?

CS – The valet? Yes, it would be out front where there is parking today. We would need to lease three of the paid spots and then what you would see is a ramp up for accessibility.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Ok, and then do you have an agreement for parking?

CS – Not yet but we will get one. That is a part of our due diligence.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Ok, if you go back to the cover and then to the dusk rendering show the adjacent buildings different.

CS – The architect used some privileges on the buildings, and we went back and corrected them because we didn’t think they really mirrored what was currently there. Those are not exact replicas of what exists. They are something we pulled out to give you visual.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So you are not trying to change the adjacent buildings.

CS – Ha, correct.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – This rendering, is this the dusk rendering that we are looking at? It looks to me that we have a lot of materials going on, almost as if the building were built in pieces, trucked to the sight, and hoisted up in place. Secondly it looks like some of those areas are lights. Are they lights?

CS – There is some lighting on the building, yes.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I would caution you we are very concerned about lighting. Especially when it is adjacent to and would be seen from a residential area. Which is right across the street directly behind the Bank of America building. So, I think you should rethink lighting that looks like strip lighting around many of the parts of the building. I would also recommend maybe a little simplification in the number of materials.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I had a similar reaction to the amount of materials, the different materials, and the sort of block shapes of them all on there. I teach at WashU and if a student showed me this, I’d say what the big idea, tell me what your big, your one big move is about the building and how do all the other pieces fall into place from there. Their response would be like I don’t know, almost, right because like Steve said to me it seems like there is so many different ideas that there is nothing that is tying it all together yet. Some of them are really interesting.

DR – So typically in our hotels, we have multiple materials, it helps soften the building, hotel is home, your home way from home so we don’t want it to look like an office building. We want it to feel a little softer and the multiple finishes kind of helps do that. We liked it, I understand what you are saying, and we can sit down with the architect and talk about it but there is a sense of moderness to having the multiple different finishes on the outside.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – To me, it feels like there is discontinuations where maybe there doesn’t need to be discontinuations. Especially considering the surrounding buildings and how regular they are, comparatively. I mean, I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate that, and every architect has their view, but this is the Architectural Review Board so I’m hoping that we can give feedback. I agree with the lighting, if this was across from my house, I would probably have a panic attack. It might be the way it’s rendered…

DR – It’s a good question, but I don’t think it’s quite as dramatic as it might appear. It’s something we will look at.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I think it could be more subtle.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Back on the lighting, I can see lighting down near the street level where you have an entrance and you want your brand name to be seen but when it’s up in the sky at night it becomes intrusive to people around the area.

DR – I understand that. We like lighting from a safety perception standpoint. Our guests are not from the area so it’s a new area for them so we want it to be well lit so they feel safe. But you are right, the top part doesn’t necessarily help on the safety part.

11 CAROLYN GAIDIS – Plus it could be aggravating for them they would have to draw their blinds more. I love that it is an extended stay because it brings people to our businesses. So, I really love that that’s here.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Going back to the materials where you’ve heard comments about the multiple materials and the somewhat random look, when you look on either side, and behind, those buildings are predominantly brick. You might when you are rethinking it make it a little more brick and less stucco material and you do have limestone and glass. Some of those certainly fit together. I think the proportions you may want to restudy.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I’m counting seven different façade materials.

ROBERT DENLOW – Here is a flip side opinion, I kind of like the multiple material look, Clayton kind of specializes in drab, ugly, rectangular buildings and to bring some life into the views isn’t a bad thing. This isn’t the City Museum type architecture and I think visually it could work. As for the lighting I agree with Steve. Unless you plan to jump from the 11th story you don’t need the lights to see.

DR – I’m pretty sure you will not see those lights in the next rendering.

ROBERT DENLOW – I also like the fact that you are committed to inviting the public in with the use of a bar. As we are mixing up the downtown I think this is becoming a more component of Clayton and I congratulate you for that. My only other comment is those guys are the architects and I’m not.

DR – I appreciate the comments, thank you.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – One of the things about the glass pieces, the solid if they went all the way up, as solids those might actually become really quite powerful pieces of architecture and the rest could do what it does.

DR – As in glass all the way up?

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Yes, I’m not sure what ‘s up at the top though.

DR – Everything we are trying to screen

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Carolyn, you’re saying to carry the form up?

CAROLYN GAIDIS – It could actually be the structural element that holds all of the pieces together. It could be quite lovely.

ROB DENLOW – Can I ask about the parking, you are going to put all your parking needs back in that parking building, garage behind you?

DR – Yes sir.

ROBERT DENLOW – And that has enough space?

DR – Yes, the nice thing about the hotel is that it’s opposite use. All of our parking is at night the office is during the day, it fits very nicely into that parking system.

12 CAROLYN GAIDIS – Are you going to do any kind of tunneling underneath or are you going to leave people on the street?

CS and DR – Valet only. No tunneling

RICHARD LINTZ – I’m going to also talk about the materials and one of the main, first criteria for the SDD that you are asking for is the architectural distinction and significance, and I guess this kind of ducktails on what Carolyn said, other than lots of different materials is there something that is significant?

CS – We designed a hotel that we thought would complement the corner very well.

RICHARD LINTZ – Ok, the other question I have is on the valet lane, are you asking to take some of the sidewalk?

DR – No sir, just on the street where parking is now. We would create an accessible ramp for a wheelchair to get up on the sidewalk.

RICHARD LINTZ – Ok so it won’t imped foot traffic.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So the shaded portion on the site plan and it won’t be for people to drive on it is for the ramp.

DR – Correct.

RICHARD LINTZ – Janet or Stephanie, this isn’t apart of the entertainment district so the bar, how would that work?

STEPHANIE KARR – I will look it up and let you know.

PUBLIC COMMENT

GARY FEDER I represent Shaw Park Plaza. We feel relief and are pleased with this hotel concept rather than an office building. This will not exceed the maximum square footage, height limitation or FAR of the site. These are all positives. The concern in the past has been about parking and would like this Board to recognize the quasi- ownership that each property owner has for parking in the center. We feel this will address parking and that it will not take up much parking but want to share our concerns about the building itself not having parking. We are looking forward to discussing this with the property owner.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – The applicant will be working on an agreement which the City will need to see that will address parking.

PETER SMITH – BRIGHTON WAY 1. I would like to see something more upscale than a Residence Inn 2. Agrees with materials comments. Entire block is brick, stone, and glass, this sticks out like a sore thumb. 3. This could potentially create a mirror image on the opposite side of Forsyth.

CLAUDE EVANS – BEMISTON

13 I would like to follow up that final comment about the other side of the street. To have something anywhere near this tall on the other side of the street would not be a transition area and I would say that for the other side it would need to be a major step down in height.

DR – Thank you for your comments. We appreciate the comments regarding parking and the reason we chose valet is so that the valet guys will have to run up 15 stories and get a car. The intent is to have the valet in the least convenient place because it would be our employees running up to get them. We will fix the lighting so don’t worry about it as a neighbor.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD THANKS THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR TIME AND HE LOOKS FORWARD TO SEEING THEIR PROJECT COME BACK.

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

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The project site includes multiple parcels that make up the north half block between North Central Avenue, North Bemiston Avenue, Maryland Avenue and the east-west alley. The total project site measures approximately 68,563 square feet. The properties have a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District and are in the CBD Core Downtown Overlay District. The site is currently improved with multiple one and two-story buildings and a surface parking lot. Adjacent land uses include retail, restaurant, office, government, and residential.

The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a single-phase development. The development is comprised of a 14-story (including 3 stories of above grade parking), 115-unit luxury condominium tower facing both North Bemiston Avenue (at grade) and Maryland Avenue (on top of the parking garage). The parking structure is comprised of 4 levels (3 above ground and 1 below ground) for a total of 291 parking spaces. The retail component is proposed as a multi-tenant development comprised of single-story buildings which will face North Central Avenue. Parking for residential and retail will be in a shared garage behind the retail portion of the development.

The proposed area of the Buildings is as follows: Condominium 448,400 square feet Restaurant 3,500 square feet Retail on Central Avenue 11,500 square feet Total 463,000 square feet Garage 122,000 square feet

The design of the building has changed from the previous conceptual review process. The building design is now proposed as a T- shape with two building frontages; one facing North Bemiston Avenue and another facing Maryland Avenue. This design gives the building more depth and provides a presence on Maryland Avenue; it also reduces the scale and massing of the building from the previous design. The main residential building entrance is located on North Bemiston Avenue and a restaurant is proposed south of the main entrance. The proposed parking garage fronts on both Maryland Avenue and the east-west alley. Vehicle access to the garage is proposed from Maryland Avenue and from the east-west alley. The residential tower facing Maryland Avenue is located on top of a proposed 3-story above grade parking garage. There is a proposed outdoor recreation area for the residents, located on top of the 3-story parking garage, in front of the tower. The primary building material of both the garage and tower is red brick with a stone accent material.

Current zoning: Subject property outlined in red.

The project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will require public hearings before the Plan Commission and the Board of Aldermen. The CBD Core Overlay District applies to selected blocks which have been targeted to remain pedestrian friendly retail centers. The area encompassed in the CBD Overlay District is the historic and current heart of the commercial and service activities in the City of Clayton. The main reason for the continued vitality and integrity of the area is that the buildings are "pedestrian friendly" structures and human in scale. The CBD Core Overlay District aims to preserve the ambience of this section of the Central Business District. Section 410.075.B reads:

The purpose of these regulations, and the context within which they should be construed and applied, is to foster appropriate use of existing structures and enable compatible redevelopment where reuse is not feasible, through application of the following goals:

1. Promote structures that have sidewalk frontage suitable for smaller retail and service activities; 2. Stimulate designs that minimize scale and mass as perceived from the sidewalk; 3. Avoid regimentation and visual uniformity along the sidewalk frontage; 4. Encourage harmonious architecture which preserves the essential character of the district via variations in entrance size, setback, height, etc.; creation of varied sidewalk windows and display areas through the use of facade materials and design, which lend both visual and textural distinction. 5. Design buildings to encourage pedestrian activity by use of ground level retail shops and store fronts.

A project in this zoning district is eligible to rezone to a Planned Unit Development when it exceeds the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement and incorporates at least two of the following five uses: office, retail, residential, public parking, or hotel. The proposed project includes parking, residential, restaurant, and retail.

The property is also located in the North Central District as identified in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The vision of the North Central District is “to grow at a human scale along key pedestrian streets, with fine-grained development, active streets, and walkable commercial areas.”

A project of this scale requires a thorough staff review prior to a public hearing. The project will be reviewed and is subject to comments by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments, and the City’s contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, stormwater management, traffic and parking. 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. Staff offers the following comments based on the conceptual plans presented.

15 PLANNING

1. THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF THE TOWER SHOULD PROVIDE SOME DESIGN RELIEF TO BREAK UP THE MONOTONOUS SOLID WALL FAÇADE SO THE APPEARANCE AND FEEL FROM THE SCALE OF A PEDESTRIAN WALKING ALONG THE SIDEWALK IN THESE AREAS PROVIDES SOME VISUAL INTEREST.

2. THE DESIGN OF THE NORTH FAÇADE OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DOESN’T APPEAR TO TIE INTO THE DESIGN OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER AND PARKING GARAGE. CONSIDER ADDING BRICK TO THE FACADES TO TIE INTO THE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE TOWER AND PARKING GARAGE.

PUBLIC WORKS

1. PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES THE ALLEY TO BE WIDENED TO 24' MINIMUM AS PART OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE THE WIDTH NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE FULL 24' WIDTH (ENTIRE LENGTH OF BLOCK FROM NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE TO NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE).

2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPAVE THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE AND NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE.

3. THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING ALL ADJACENT OVERHEAD UTILITIES UNDERGROUND (PER UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS).

4. CENTRAL AVENUE IS SUBJECT TO RECONFIGURATION PER THE CITY’S MASTER PLAN, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN THE CENTRAL CURB LINE ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SHIFTING TO THE WEST.

5. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL CITY STANDARD STREETSCAPE ON ALL ADJACENT SIDEWALKS TO THE DEVELOPMENT (DEDICATE PROPERTY OR PROVIDE STREETSCAPE EASEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE 12' 2" WIDTH), DESIGN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY’S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

6. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING STUDIES WERE COMPLETED BASED ON THE PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. PUBLIC WORKS WILL DETERMINE IF AN UPDATE TO THE STUDIES ARE NECESSARY.

7. DEDICATED VALET ZONES SHALL ADHERE TO THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE CLAYTON CODE SECTION 350.230. THE CITY BOARD OF ALDERMEN WILL DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO CONVERT ALL OF BEMISTON AVENUE INTO A DEDICATED VALET ZONE, INCLUDING ANY POTENTIAL VALET ZONES ON CENTRAL AVENUE.

8. THE CURRENT SITE PLAN IDENTIFIES THE REMOVAL OF METERED PARKING ALONG MARYLAND AVENUE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY STANDARD STREETSCAPE (CONSISTENT WITH THE HALF BLOCK OF THE WEST). PUBLIC WORKS HAS COMMENTED IN THE PAST THAT THE STREETSCAPE SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATED FROM WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY VIA EASEMENT OR DEDICATION. CONSIDER MAINTAINING METERED PARKING WHILE PROVIDING THE AREA NECESSARY TO INSTALL THE CITY STANDARD STREETSCAPE, OR THE METERED SPACES WILL HAVE TO PURCHASED FROM THE CITY AT A COST DETERMINED BY THE CITY.”

FRED KUMMER (FK) – HBE PRESIDENT PETER CONANT (PC) – DESIGN ARCHITECT STEVE SMITH (SS) – ARCHITECT OF RECORD

16 FK – Introduces the project and the team that will be working on the project. We moved ahead a great deal in terms of getting input from the City and the development reflects much of what was said. When we talk about the project, it represents much research and input from various people who have come forth to express their opinions. I want to point out the quality of the development and the detail level and the streetscape to be. This is the kind of the development that we believe can be accomplished in this area. We are ready to run as soon as we get the approvals we need. We have chosen Peter Conant and the Lawrence Group headed by Steve Smith who will be making the presentation. Thank you.

SS – I’m here to talk about our goals, the metrics of the project and how the goals overlap with the goals of Clayton. We want to talk about the community input that we have received over the last 6 months. And finally, then we want to close with the benefits that the City will gain.

From a metrics standpoint this is a 115 condominium building, the first one built in over a decade, the sizes range from 1,800 to 5,700 square feet so it is low density, and 231 parking spaces will be available for the 115 condominiums with an additional 61 parking spaces for the retail development of the project.

Goals: 24/7 vibrancy in downtown Clayton, high quality home ownership in the downtown area, doing this without public support and we won’t be asking for any.

Community - Two formal community hearings at the Center - Multiple informal community meetings at various restaurants throughout Clayton - Met one on one with City staff and other individuals Issues taken away - Height o We lowered the height by 72 feet it’s 1/3 lower than it was previously o Reduced the number of floors from 21 to 14  We drove around the neighborhoods taking photos from various spots to see what it would look like from these points. *References photos on a PowerPoint. - How do we maintain activating the streets (Central, Maryland, Bemiston) how do we make sure that what is special about Clayton and the street environment is preserved and maintained? o Central Avenue  We will have restaurants, outdoor cafes, boutique retail  Updating the streetscape to meet Clayton standards  Off-street parking for the retail  There will be no imposing tower because we set the building back to maintain the character of central. It’s 60 feet back from Central o Bemiston Avenue – Currently not pedestrian friendly  We will have a 22 foot deep park  Public art  Restaurant 3,500 feet that will activate Bemiston  Improve sidewalks to meet City standards  Will have front door to Condo on Bemiston o Maryland Avenue – current has no existing retail (Meramec-Haley) but does have 8 commercial parking lots/entrances – it is a service street to Clayton and a buffer between the residential to the north and CBD to the south.  Retail at Central will wrap corner onto Maryland almost 60 feet to make it more pedestrian friendly  Park on Bemiston will be on Maryland as well

17  Take parking garage and have landscape to soften the garage on Maryland Avenue - Design o 150 people will live here and what they will want for their home. It’s not traditional or contemporary  Base of stone  Middle is brick with residential windows  Cap being stone with large balconies and large windows o Maryland is the only façade where you would be walking up against a high-rise and it is only one spot. Benefits - Financial o Appraised values that will pay taxes that will support the school district without additional enrollment o Restaurants will bring in 5-10 million in retail sales o Improve public sidewalks and public art and street scape on the entire site - Quality of life o Contributes to the diversity of Clayton o Additional people to patron businesses o Homeownership ability downtown o Lowest parking and traffic impact than any other use that could be proposed. - Stature that Clayton already has, and we feel this will contribute. o First high-rise residential in over a decade that is fully financed.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Height, you have moved in the direction we have been requesting. When we look at it now it is lower, but it seems more massive now. Part of the building is recessed to the south the way I understand it so it’s not right up along Maryland Avenue. I’m not sure what else to say about the height. I understand you are keeping the same number of units as previously proposed. The street activation, I’m still not seeing much activation on Maryland Avenue. I think the activation on Central is potentially questionable because you would be removing all of the existing vitality that is on the east side of the street. Bemiston, you have something similar but it’s being replaced with a restaurant that you’ve committed to. I don’t quite see it. I’m still questioning the 50% of Maryland being used for the garage entry and exit. It’s pretty dead on Maryland at the street level. The design itself, I’m not that inspired by it. I know you’ve brought out two different examples in the City, the Plaza and the Crescent, this still looks like a big block with not very much detail on it. I understand what you’ve used but there isn’t much embellishment to make any part stand out. I think the context that we are in, you are at the boundary of downtown to residential and we also have the historical aspects of the site, the Shanley building and the buildings on Central that fit the history of Clayton. I do understand that you’re showing more sensitivity to residential to the north and I think the height begins to address that and it’s not quite there, but I can see where you are going. When we are talking about public benefits, I’m worried about the vitality of the street, I’m not feeling that the City is getting much back for what it’s giving up we definitely would like to see non-parking at the street level and the landscaping, I’m not sure that a 22 foot wide public park really becomes a public benefit at this point when it’s up against a 152 foot vertical wall right next to it. I think reviewing the master plan, core overlay district, and PUD Requirements will be a hurdle you will have to get over. Summing up, we are looking for something that is unique, distinctive, and significant. I can see that being answered with the type of condominiums, the investment and ownership in it, but as far as the architecture I’m not sure we’re there yet. As I spoke about the context and the respect for the neighborhood and the historic entities that are there and giving back the benefits. Of course, we are looking for green space, retail to draw people in, non-obtrusive parking, vitality for pedestrian use, so I think I’ll stop there and let someone else talk.

18 RICHARD LINTZ – The two green roofs, one is at the corner of Maryland and Central and the other is the corner of the alley and Central, that is correct?

SS – One is an active roof and one is a passive roof.

RICHARD LINTZ – They are for the benefit of the owners?

SS – Correct.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – North is up so the green roof on the north side on Maryland will be completely in shadow and that is the area you were talking about cascading plants down? That might not be the right place. The idea is nice. The restaurant size is pretty tiny for a restaurant?

SS – In seats that is 80-100 seats. 1000 kitchen 2000 front of house. We also have outdoor café seating as well.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – The apartments across on north Central they have a green roof and green space and balconies and things like that, with this building they would be looking into a garage so that’s a bit concerning for those folks.

SS – Right now they look down on retail and at surface parking. Half the lot today is surface parking lot so the green roof would be where there is currently surface parking.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – My other comment, I agree with everything Steve has said and I personally think the Shanley should receive some consideration. This building replacing that does not give us any kind of reward back for what is being taken away.

ROBERT DENLOW – The Shanley building does not concern me that much it’s not attractive, doesn’t draw people to it or have a wow factor and it doesn’t. it doesn’t do anything for me. You make valid points, on Central there is a reason we have an entertainment district and it’s to encourage vitality in Clayton after dinner. Right now, that area is almost like the hub of outdoor activity for a lot of Claytonians for lunch and dinner and what I see there is basically the outdoor cafes are gone and I have to say this Steve, I think the outdoor cafes play a significant role in bringing life to the streets. If I could make one recommendation to you it would somehow keep that feature on Central because once that goes there’s almost nothing left in Clayton for being a very walkable area. It’s almost Clayton has said we’ve drawn a line in the sand here don’t cross it and as much as Clayton wants to create a high density multi-use environment I think with regard to central I would really try and figure out a way to bring people after dinner or during the day and even dinner there because if that goes, where do people go? We’d have to build a Kirkwood Commons somewhere to start bringing people and we don’t have the land for that. Since you have decided to go in on our entertainment district, I think you guys got to give serious thought to maybe we have to treat this animal a little different. With regard to the fact that you are two stories up and the building recesses back, terrific. The more you have the wall recessed back, terrific. The opposite is directly across the street where you have retail space and walls, no cafes, dead as a doornail after a certain time. It doesn’t work. This is what’s left and it’s in your care now to make it work. The fact that you have a cap on the building is a good idea. Is it massive, I’m trying to balance your investments with what we are getting. The building isn’t very sexy, it’d be nice to have a little character. Listening to Steve you are moving in the right direction but make it more appealing. I feel at this moment you can try and make something more appealing to look at. All the positives you’ve made ring true to me and I see them I just think you need to bring it over the finish line.

19 GEORGE HETTICH – I’m going talk about what we are losing verse what we are picking up and that’s 20,000 square feet of commercial space on that block and we are now going to have 13,000-15,000 now. I don’t see that what we are doing at this point is encouraging activation, we are actually discouraging it with what’s going on. I’ve seen great progress with the design on this, but we are still not there yet on that aspect and we need to continue to focus on what we are losing which is part of downtown Clayton and are we going to be putting it back or are we going to let it go away. I’d rather not see it go away at this point in time.

RICHARD LINTZ – Could you talk about how Bemiston and Central will be developed at the same time? Before it was phased and now it won’t be? How does that work?

FK – I will try speaking more clearly this time. We will have to build and open all of them at the same time. The Central side is going to be a little behind and that will be the staging area since there is no basement, but they will be relatively simple and rapid, so we don’t anticipate much of a difference in time in the opening of the project. Steve has mentioned a number of times that there haven’t been any condominiums built in a number of years. The economics don’t make any sense to build them and I have the money to do so and I want to make this happen.

Janet Watson – I would like to make a comment related to Central Avenue. This building has a very modern look compared to the charm and ambiance created by Central Avenue currently as well as the issues with outdoor seating. It appears very modern compared to our items down the street.

SS – We can easily create outdoor seating and add café to this area.

PC – Our solution to Central is we have a foot or so more sidewalk than currently and more than across the street which was recently approved.

PUBLIC COMMENT

JOHN GUENTHER – FAIA, LEED AP, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS, ST. LOUIS AND MISSOURI VALLEY CHAPTERS *COPIED FROM THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

On May 20, 2019, I spoke on behalf of the Board of the Society of Architectural Historians, St. Louis and Missouri Valley Chapters to express our grave concern regarding the potential demolition of the nationally and internationally recognized Shanley Building (1935), designed by the noted St. Louis architect Harris Armstrong, FAIA (1899-1973), due to the proposed condominium tower and retail development.

Given the revised submission of the proposed development, with the Shanley Building still proposed to be demolished, we must again implore that the developer reconsider the design in order to save the Shanley Building.

The Shanley Building received numerous national and international accolades upon its completion. The building was featured in Architectural Record (1936) and the English journal Architectural Review (1937). It was awarded the silver medal at the Exposition Internationale des Artes et des Techniques in Paris in 1937. It was also featured in the Gold Medal Exhibition of the New York Architectural League in 1938. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In short, this is a very significant building.

The 1935 Shanley Building is a masterwork of a great, accomplished architect and was the first International Style building in St. Louis and the central Midwest. Commissioned by orthodontist Leo M. Shanley, Harris

20 Armstrong designed a state-of-the-art dental office building which incorporated functional requirements in a progressive modern facility with bright, healthy interiors realized in a “clean” aesthetic.

Surely there is a way to modify the proposed development to accommodate and preserve the Shanley Building and find new uses for it. We note that the setback on Bemiston Avenue has been increased and with another increase, the Shanley Building could remain.

In fact, the historic retail buildings along North Central Avenue deserve the same consideration. Preservation and development do not have to be mutually exclusive. Indeed, when both are properly considered, healthy, vibrant cities emerge.

This approach does not mean a ban on change, but does speak to managing change to avoid unnecessary loss.

Regarding historic preservation, I’d like to share a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan of The United States Supreme Court, June 26, 1978, in New York Central and New Haven Railroad v. The City of New York…

“Structures with special historic, cultural, or architectural significance enhance the quality of life for all. Not only do these buildings and their workmanship represent the lessons of the past and embody previous features of our heritage, they serve as examples of quality for today. Historic conservation is but one aspect of a much larger problem, basically an environmental one, of enhancing – or perhaps developing for the first time – the quality of life for people.”

We ask the City of Clayton insist that the developer and his architects study and propose a new design which preserves the Shanley Building and the historic retail buildings along North Central Avenue.

For in the words of Eugene J. Mackey, III, FAIA, my friend, colleague, and collaborator for 27 years on a range of historic adaptive reuse projects, he would often caution…

“If we keep tearing down our past, we’ll have no way of understanding our future. The old pieces have to be there for the new to fit in and have meaning.”

There is but one opportunity to get this right.

Thank you for your considerations.

HELEN DIFATE – ARCHITECT – NORTH BEMISTON RESIDENT

This proposal concerns me it is an awkward height and mass and does nothing for the pedestrian experience on Maryland and is set 50 feet back from the face of the tree story garage. Nothing has changed at eye level. I have been to every meeting on this proposal that I have been invited to and asked for pedestrian activities at Maryland and it has nothing, nothing has changed. It removes the Shanley building and 12 street level retail and commercial spaces, 3 on Bemiston 2 on Maryland and 7 on Central. It replaces those with three retail spaces and one restaurant on Bemiston which does not have a street entrance. Along Central there are two large retail spaces. They are instead of the 7 small to medium spaces that exist now. The proposal removes 7 on street parking spaces between the alley and Maryland and replaces them with valet parking for the condos. This conceptual proposal needs further work.

CLAUDE EVANS – NORTH BEMISTON RESIDENT

21 I would like to make a comment, this is the second meeting I’ve attended about this and two at the clayton center. Many questions were asked at the Center meeting and no one attempted to answer our questions and they videotaped us and I have not received a report from this meeting. We signed in, put our addresses, were told we would get the report and we have gotten no report. The neighbors have not gotten the reports. I feel used and abused and there will probably be another meeting at the Center that will be videotaped and then we will get another proposal. This seems to me to be an abuse and I object to it deeply. About this proposal, one of our major objections is the height. It’s gone from 21 to 19 to 14 and we are supposed to feel better about it. I don’t feel better. The Master Plan determines this area of a transition zone with a max height of six stories. I have asked the developer to address that issue and there has been nothing but silence. Please pull up the image that is looking down Maryland, west. What I would like to point out here with this photo, if you look into the distance you see a bank building and the Graybar building. North of those buildings is business, as you step down you are getting to small buildings and now you are at Central and the library which is next to residential now we are at the parking garage and Old Town is to the north and that is residential and what do we get, 14 stories. This should not even be considered for high rise. It doesn’t make sense, fit in with the master plan, the developer has refused to address this point and I want to object most strongly to this entire project. Maryland is a problem, there are 8 parking facilities along Maryland, so lets add another one, that seems to be the logic. In terms of street activation, what the garage does is create some pedestrian activity, namely going to the garage and from the perspective of Old Town, that does not seem to contribute to much of anything. It is ugly, as garages tend to be, again, to the west there are parking facilities but that is much more commercial. When you come east, this simply doesn’t fit. If this is proposed to the PC, I would strongly urge the commission to deny it.

ESLEY HAMILTON – OUTGOING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PERSON FOR THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT

I wrote the original nomination for the National Register for the Shanley Building in 1982, 38 years ago. That was the first nomination that we did in Clayton and since then, Clayton has had a larger percentage of its total area listed on the register that any other municipality in the County other than Pasadena Hills, which the entire city was put on the register in one nomination. We listed the Wydown Forsyth area, Brentmoor Park, Forest Ridge, Carrswold, Seven Gables Building, Maryland Terrace, and then subsequently I have worked with citizens groups to list Hi-Pointe DeMun, Claverach Park, Moorlands Addition. Clayton needs to be proud of these designations. However, the National Registry does not protect from teardowns, only a local historic perseveration ordinance can do that. I started lecturing Clayton about the importance of such ordinance in 1982 and they still don’t have one that is workable. I know that the current mayor is working on one and I think that this project here is a good indication that it is now or never. If you don’t get a local historic ordinance pretty soon it will be too late for the downtown area. I said I would not do anymore nominations for Clayton until they got an ordinance, but then I weakened. This block of Central Avenue could be listed and that would make rehabilitations of these buildings eligible for grants. The idea of rehabilitating the row should be considered. You are getting a big break by using state and federal tax credits. This has been done elsewhere in D.C. the entire Lafayette Square was done and Red Lion Row that was rehabilitated by HOK. They were able to cut off some rooms and now they are still actively serving the student population at George Washington University. The Shanley Building was the first exceptionally significant building under 50 years old listed in Missouri on the National Register.

KATHY BEILEIN – NORTH BEMISTON RESIDENT

I am for development on this block, I’m for residential development on this block, I would like for it to follow the current zoning and master plan and it is my hope after sitting through meetings at the City’s suggestion an overlay in this area to keep it a transition zone from the higher CBD to the residential area. Bemiston is the

22 only street north of Maryland that is completely residential to Maryland. Central is within the library and a parking lot but those two streets and then Linden also is completely residential to Maryland. If you look at the amended master plan, time and again it mentions human scale and fine grain development. It talks about this being a transitional area that makes sense. With regard to a couple of buildings that Steve spoke of there is not residential across from Graybar or the Barton. We keep comparing this to the 21 and 19 story proposals and yes the height is lower and the shape is different but the FAR is still 4.5x what the code is and the height is 3.5x what the code is and we need to compare it to the master plan and the code.

JAN ANGLIN – SAN BONITA RESIDENT

I live in a National Register district and Nationally Significant as well. I live in a 1,800 square foot home and I need three spaces. I would not live in a place without two parking spaces at minimum. I don’t like the building and I agree with others.

BILL MELLISH – MARYLAND AVENUE

I am hopeful that he has seen change in the project and that it is positive. One of the wonderful things about St. Louis is that it is a city of neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are around interesting business districts and Central is Clayton’s spot. I would like to say to the developer that I know it is difficult, but in order to give and get a little I would like to see Central rehabbed and not torn down. It’s such a lovely space.

BILL HART – DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

I did speak in October at HBE’s public meeting and of course we spoke of the historical importance of the Shanley Building. We encouraged the owner and the designer to include this building. Gives background on Shanley Building and historical significance of it. Shanley is not a throw away building. This development should respect the existing development. There are historic buildings and there are historic buildings, and this definitely is a historic building.

CHARLES BELL – ARCHITECT, AIA

I have worked in downtown Clayton since 1973 and three of the buildings I worked in have been torn down. This is where we work and dine and meet clients. This is a healthy business environment. The master plan identifies 10 visionary principles included are 5 of these: identifying a fully functional mixed use, sustainable, urban environment, and development program; design a distinctive civic realm that establish the city’s identity, links districts, and is integral to surrounding development; establish a network of pedestrian friendly streets; celebrate adjacent neighborhoods and their connections to downtown; position each district according to its unique assets to promote diverse mixed-use environments. This is a nice model but it doesn’t show any of the important attributes of this site. The Central Avenue row of shops and restaurants, the iconic Shanley Building, the Old Town residential neighborhood, they are missing. The North Central District is the historic heart of downtown focusing on the low rise, resident row, restaurant row, and the nearby midrise office. Home it 1/3 of the retail. This area is active not only during lunch but on the weekends and evenings when most of downtown is closed. Future development on North Central can best leverage these existing strengths by maintain the existing the restaurant cluster, civic place that is a focus point and a gathering place for events and celebrations. This can be promoted by appropriately scaled environment.

LIZA STREETT – CECIL AVENUE RESIDENT

23 I am a pedestrian a lot of times and it don’t enjoy being a pedestrian and to walk around and look at tall, bland, chacterless, buildings. I like to walk around and admire things that have character, history, something unique about them, and I would like to see Clayton retain as much of that as possible. We’ve already lost so much because we don’t have a historic preservation ordinance. As Mr. Kummer said earlier, one of his objectives is to provide a condo building that would be what you see in New York or Chicago, or Boston, but that’s not why people enjoy Boston, New York, of Chicago, they enjoy the street life, the charm the character, I would hope Clayton would see fit to preserve what we have and provide the housing they think is necessary without wiping away what we have and have enjoyed for so long.

JANE MATOESIAN – NORTH BEMISTON RESIDENT

Attended community meetings and was recorded and haven’t received a report even though I have asked for it. I’m hearing is that I want do to this quickly and I have the money to do it now and the problem with that is that there is nothing about how this project benefits our community. We are getting 14 stories of cold and somber brick walls, a garage with cars going in and out 24/7, and we are having lights and noise coming into our community and our homes. We residents have to rely on you and our city leaders, we don’t want drab ugly and rectangular which is what we are hearing about today and like my neighbors we ask that you tell the developer that this is not up to Clayton standards.

JERRY PRATTER – LOUWEN RESIDENT

In 1968 I paid $125,000.00 for a house on Linden. When I sold it about 30 years later went for close to $600,000.00 and if it was listed today it would probably be twice that. It is totally renovated by one of the wealthiest men and families that have lived in St. Louis. You’ve had a lot of people talk about the Shanley Building, if you read the Post, in November there was an article about hotel development in Clayton. If you totaled up the number of hotel units that this group is proposing it is close to 800 units. It is coming to you and I think all I can say is, this project which looks as some have said, like a terrible design, if you approve this one you are going to have a very hard time keeping any character in Clayton and you are going to have a city of rectangular, awful buildings and hotels. If you want 800 people coming into Clayton for the hotels and leaving, you’re going to have an opportunity to do that. But if you don’t you may have a community that is worth keeping and living in. I don’t want to suggest this but if this went to a public vote, this project, would be turned down. The revenue projects are ridiculous. If you want more money then sure but your populous is going to be extremely unhappy and all of you will pay the price too.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD THANKS THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR TIME AND HE LOOKS FORWARD TO SEEING THEIR PROJECT COME BACK.

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 21:00.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

December 2, 2019 — Meeting Minutes