December 3, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 03, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1730 (05:30 PM).

ROLL CALL

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld, City Manager Craig Owens, Aldermanic Representative Richard Lintz, William Lieberman, Brian Maguire, Carolyn Gaidis, answered roll call.

Absent: Ron Reim and Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Anna Krane, 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 notes that staff informed him the applicant for item numbered 1 would not be able to attend the meeting tonight. The item is moved until the applicant resubmits.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 19, 2018 were presented for approval.

RICHARD LINTZ – MOTION TO APPROVE

CRAIG OWENS (CO) – MOTION SECONDED

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD

Chairman Lichtenfeld now states that items 4-6 will be heard prior to the old business items numbered 2 and 3. Since these items are relatively short, if the applicant is present we would like to proceed with them first.

2 NEW BUSINESS

125 N. HANLEY ROAD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the west side of the intersection between North Hanley Road and Westmoreland Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project consists of replacing the existing stacked stone wall along the east property line with a stone retaining wall system. The retaining wall ranges in height from 1 foot to 3 feet.

Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.

“Front yard masonry garden walls, planting boxes, retaining walls, plantings or ornamental or decorative fences may be erected as part of new construction, up to four (4) feet above the grade level in the front yard, provided such structure is an integral part of the architectural feature of the principal structure, is in compliance with sight distance standards and is approved by the Architectural Review Board.”

The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet at least three different sizes of stone. The existing wall is located against the public sidewalk and supports lawn area. The replacement wall will be located in the same place. Multiple nearby houses have front yard retaining walls and fences constructed directly against the sidewalk. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed location of the wall is consistent with neighborhood character.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

JERRY PERRISH (JP) – APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS JEREMY BUHLER AND WENDY LOVE ANDERSON JP – Addresses the board to answers questions

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CRAIG OWENS– MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

8321 MARYLAND AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - SIGNAGE

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the north side of Maryland Avenue between Crandon Drive and Lancaster Drive. Mercy Go Health Urgent Care is occupying the east tenant space in the 3,457-square-foot retail building located at the southeast corner of the site. The west tenant space of the building is vacant. Regions Bank, the property owner, occupies the entire western building on the site.

3 The applicant is proposing a sign located on the top of the entrance canopy at the southeast corner of the building. The proposed sign is 22.37 square feet in area and constructed of white, blue and orange internally illuminated LED channel letters. The proposed sign location is approximately 10 feet above grade and mounted to the top of metal canopy. The proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, which states that wall signs should be attached to the wall face and not installed on roof structures. The applicant is also proposing a one square foot perpendicular sign located under the metal canopy, which conforms to the Sign Ordinance.

The applicant is proposing a third sign located on the north wall of the building, facing the surface parking area. The plans show a 7.9 square foot sign located above a rear entrance. The tenant will be removing the rear entrance door as part of the tenant finish according to the issued Building Permit. The Sign Ordinance states that signs should be located on street frontages, but does allow for an eight square foot sign at rear entrances. With the tenant removing the rear entrance door, the space no longer qualifies for the rear entrance sign and would require a sign modification.

According to the Sign Ordinance, modifications should only be granted “due to unusual conditions, such as façades that are angled or curved to the front street or streets or land uses which involve substantial accessory uses both inside and outside of buildings and requiring identification or substantial open space or street frontage or a similar unusual condition. The Architectural Review Board shall have the authority to determine the appropriate location, size or number of signs, provided the intent of these regulations is met.”

The purpose of the location restriction for signs is to orient signage toward the pedestrian/ground level environment and create a cohesive signage appearance throughout the City. The proposed south elevation sign is a similar design to the Regions Bank sign that was previously approved and installed on the canopy of the west building. The proposed sign conforms to the size requirement of the Sign Ordinance and staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign is compatible with the surrounding area.

Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to warrant deviation from the Sign Ordinance for the proposed north elevation sign. The intent of the accessory sign for rear entrances is to help patrons navigate from parking areas to secondary building entrances. Patrons of the urgent care facility will have to walk to the entrance along Maryland Avenue, so the additional north elevation signage will not serve a wayfinding purpose. Also, north of the subject property is a single family residential neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed north elevation sign does not conform to the Sign Ordinance and that there are not unusual conditions to warrant a sign modification.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE SOUTH ELEVATION SIGN AND DENY THE NORTH ELEVATION SIGN.”

TREY WATTS (TW) – SPRINGFIELD SIGNS – MERCY GO HEALTH URGENT CARE REPRESENTATIVE TW – Addresses Board to answer questions: Mercy Go Health usually likes to be well identified, especially with high stress incidents they would like to be able to be found so that is why there is a sign shown on the back of the building. RICHARD LINTZ – How is Regions allowed to have a sign there? The north facing sign of regions is not supposed to be there. Without the signage in the back there, there are two buildings so I do think there is some wayfinding to the second sign back there especially for a medical facility. If there were neither sign it would be very confusing as to which is which.

4 ANNA KRANE – At one point there was a door there and so they were allowed to have the sign. Since then the door has been filled in and the sign is allowed to remain. STEPHANIE KARR – It would be a non-conforming sign. When the door was there it was allowed. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Could this have a directional sign? I think what Alderman Lintz brought up is very important especially for an urgent care if you are looking for which building to go into. Without a door we need some directional information. Why did they take the door out? TW – I’m not sure – I’m surprised by that. Most of the clinics have a backdoor for staff to use. ANNA KRANE – Section 425.070 Accessory Signs: Parking lot ground signs not exceeding 6 square feet. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SOUTH ELEVATION SIGN AND DENY THE NORTH ELEVATION SIGN CRAIG OWENS – APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND WILLIAM LIEBERMANN AND CAROLYN GAIDIS – AYE RICHARD LINTZ - NAY

7440 SOMERSET AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection between Somerset Avenue and Clayton Road. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The property is a double frontage, with front yards along both Somerset Avenue and Clayton Road. A solid wood fence is currently located along Clayton Road. Staff did not find any records of previous Architectural Review Board approval of the existing front yard fence.

The proposed project consists of the construction of a 6-foot tall wood privacy fence along the southern property line, facing Clayton Road. The proposed fence will replace the existing wood fence and a new row of arborvitae is proposed to replace the honey suckle and existing overgrowth between the fence and the Clayton Road sidewalk.

Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all fences located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation.

Historically, the Architectural Review Board has considered requests for front yard fences that are not in conformance with the zoning requirements. For instance, 6 foot tall ornamental or decorative fences (not solid

5 wood, chain link or vinyl) have been approved on secondary front yards of corner lots when a sufficient landscape buffer is provided along the street and the fence style and location is consistent with neighborhood character.

The proposed design and materials of the fence are not consistent with the Architectural Review Board’s preference for ornamental or decorative fencing in front yards; however, the proposed fence is consistent with other fences along this area of Clayton Road. The applicant is proposing to install evergreen landscape between the fence and the sidewalk to create a buffer. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed fence and landscape is compatible with neighborhood character.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

PATRICK LEAHY (PL) – OUTDOOR LIVING GUSSY KLORER (GK) – OWNER PL – Addresses the Board to answer questions CAROLYN GAIDIS – What is the spacing? GK – Every three feet.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMAN – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

OLD BUSINESS

6611 – 6619 CLAYTON ROAD AND 6602 ALAMO – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GENERAL CUP

*ANNA KRANE NOTES THAT SPENCER LITTEKEN FROM PUBLIC WORKS AND A CBB REPRESENTATIVE ARE IN THE AUDIENCE IF ANYONE HAS QUESTION FOR THEM*

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The daycare use at the subject properties was originally presented to the Plan Commission on May 7, 2018. The Plan Commission voted to continue the request to a future meeting date to allow the applicants additional time to address parking and traffic concerns discussed at the meeting. On June 29, 2018, the applicants notified the City that they were withdrawing the application and would re-apply in the future upon completion of traffic and parking studies. The applicant has now re-applied for the daycare use after making some revisions to the plans and obtaining results of traffic and parking studies.

6 The applicant presented the revised plans at the November 19, 2018 Plan Commission-Architectural Review Board meeting. The Plan Commission voted to continue the request to the next meeting on December 3, 2018 to allow for more time to analyze information presented at the meeting. The following staff report has not substantially changed since the last meeting because the applicant has not made further revisions to the plans. More details for staff analysis and conclusions have been added to sections of the report based on questions raised at the previous meeting. Areas of additional explanation are in bold. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Montessori school and daycare. The subject property is located on the north side of Clayton Road between St. Rita Avenue and Concordia Lane. The 13,000 square foot site has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The site is currently developed with a 19,231 square foot multi-tenant office building and four surface parking spaces. The property is surrounded by residential land uses to the north and east and commercial uses to the south and west. The applicant proposes to renovate the interior of the existing building, add an elevator, construct a rooftop deck, front yard alterations including retaining walls and modifications to the existing building entrances and exits. The existing parking area will be reconfigured to create a drop-off space adjacent to the east-west alley located north of the property. The proposed daycare will occupy the entire building and provide programs for infants through pre- kindergarten. The daycare will operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Maximum capacity of the daycare is 208 children and 26 staff. The applicant is also proposing renovation to the surface parking lot at 6602 Alamo Avenue located northeast of the building. The surface parking lot will provide drop-off queuing and 26 parking spaces. The surface parking lot property is zoned R-5 Medium-Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. 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. Daycare facilities and educational facilities 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 subject property is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The proposed use functions during the day and does not extend into the night, making it compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. >> The applicant is proposing some changes to the existing surface parking lot located at 6602 Alamo Avenue. Staff is of the opinion that the surface parking lot is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 use will occupy an existing building. The existing building is similar in size and design to adjacent buildings and staff believes the proposed square footage is reasonable in relation to the surrounding area. 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

7 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 applicant is proposing front yard play areas and a rooftop play area. Permanent playground equipment is not proposed in the front yard play areas. Playground equipment and canopy screens are proposed for the rooftop play area. The rooftop play area is located at the rear of the building and will not be highly visible from Clayton Road but will be visible from the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials proposed are compatible with the existing neighborhood character. The design of building alterations will be considered by the Architectural Review Board. >> The applicant is proposing alterations to the existing surface parking lot. The existing grass area in the front yard setback along Alamo Avenue will be maintained. Staff recommends that a row of evergreen shrubs is planted along the north edge of the parking lot to provide screening of parked cars from Alamo Avenue. The applicant is also proposing a wood fence trash enclosure located at the southwest corner of the parking lot. 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; >> The applicant is proposing some additional impervious coverage in the front yard; however, landscape beds are also proposed. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of water runoff or heat generation. >> A rooftop play area is proposed that will be occupied by children throughout the day. The proposed hours of operation end at 6:00 p.m. on weeknights and do not include weekends. Staff is of the opinion that noise created by the outside play areas will not adversely impact the neighborhood. >> Proposed alterations to the surface parking lot will not significantly increase the impervious coverage and staff believes the parking lot will not adversely affect the neighborhood in terms of 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; >> Because most of the building has been vacant for many years, any use will generate more noise than is currently generated on the site. Staff believes that noise generation due to the playground for the daycare will not be substantially more than that of commercial activities. >> Staff recommends that the surface parking lot operates under the same hours as the daycare center. Limiting use of the surface parking will mitigate potential negative impacts on the residential neighborhood. 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. The applicant is proposing alterations and renovations to an existing building.

8 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. The C-2 Zoning District Code lists “daycare, nursery and pre-kindergarten” as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit and no specific conditions listed. The subject property is located near residential neighborhoods and easily accessible from Clayton Road, a major commuter road. >> Surface parking lots are allowed in the R-5 Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit when the property is located within 500 feet of a commercial district. The subject lots are within 500 feet of each other, therefore a surface parking lot at 6602 Alamo Avenue is allowed. >> Locating daycare facilities near residential areas and job centers and along commuter routes is good planning practice. The subject property is directly adjacent to residential, so staff believes it is important to determine a scale of use that will limit impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Part of determining an appropriate scale is ensuring that all aspects of the use can be managed on private property and not spill over into adjacent areas. 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; >> A six foot wide landscape buffer is proposed along the front property line. This landscape area will help mitigate the height of retaining walls needed to level grade for the front yard play areas. Staff is of the opinion that the plantings proposed will provide an adequate buffer. >> A two foot wide landscape bed is proposed along the east side of the parking lot, facing St. Rita Avenue. The proposed landscape bed is not large enough to support screening plants, but will provide a small buffer between cars and the sidewalk. The front yard setback along Alamo Avenue should be maintained with landscape and evergreen screening. 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; >> The City’s contracted traffic and parking engineering firm, CBB, completed a traffic impact study for the proposed daycare use. The completed study is attached to this report. CBB found that the proposed daycare will not have significant negative impacts to the function of the adjacent roads and that intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak hours. Trips generated by the daycare use are not likely to result in additional cars driving through the residential neighborhood to the north. >> The site plan depicts the proposed pick-up and drop-off circulation. An original proposal by the daycare included parents parking and walking children into the school. Safety concerns were raised about inappropriate use of the alley as a pedestrian walkway. Alleys are not designed for pedestrian to walk alongside cars, so the applicant revised the plan to propose the “kid-valet” service. Two queuing lanes are proposed in the surface parking lot with the entrance on St. Rita Avenue and exit on the east-west alley. Cars will line up in the parking lot and take turns driving west in the alley, pull into the parking space and daycare staff will take the children from the car into the building. The daycare will place staff members at the parking lot and alley to facilitate the movement of cars and keep queuing out of the alley. CBB completed a review of the proposed drop-off pattern. The results of the review are attached to this report. CBB determined that the proposed drop-off circulation would function without overflow queuing onto St. Rita Avenue or major impacts to the east-west alley. The report concluded that the alley has the capacity to handle the increased vehicle volume generated by the daycare use. The CBB

9 report recommends some best practices that should be implement by the daycare staff to help ensure that the drop-off circulation runs safely. >> The CBB report also recommends that the City considers making the east-west alley one way due to the substandard width. The current alley width does not provide enough room for two cars to pass each other. With a two way alley, cars going in opposite directions will have to stop while one car pulls off to the side and allows the other car to pass. At this time, the Public Works Department has decided not to implement the recommendation to make the alley one way. Limiting the alley to westbound traffic only would likely have a greater negative impact on the adjacent properties than any potential positive impacts. According to traffic counts from the CBB reports, about five vehicles during peak hours traveled east on the alley. This low number of vehicles traveling east during the peak hours for daycare related vehicles traveling west combined with the low speed limit of the alley led the Public Works Department to believe that the potential number of conflicts would not be significant and would not be a safety issue. Making the alley one way would restrict the movement of neighboring property vehicles even when the daycare is not operating. The Public Works Department also notes that the site distance for the drop-off, pick-up vehicle in the parallel parking space is better than the existing perpendicular parking spaces. The Public Works Department reserves the right to implement the recommendation of the one-way alley in the future if alley conditions warrant the change. 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; >> Per the Zoning Code, 12 onsite parking spaces should be provided for the proposed daycare based on the rate of one parking space per classroom. The applicant is proposing to provide 26 parking spaces. The applicant is providing one off-street parking space per staff member. CBB completed a parking study for the proposed use and determined that the parking spaces provided on a ratio of one space per staff member would be sufficient. A copy of the parking study is attached to this report. There are also some on-street parking spaces located along Clayton Road. Staff is of the opinion that the off-street parking provided is sufficient to support the proposed use and prevent overflow parking from residential streets. >> Questions were raised at the previous meeting regarding parking for special events at the school. The applicant responded that the plan is to secure parking at a remote site and bus family members to the school for special events. The applicant also stated that some special events would be staggered over multiple days by classroom. The applicant did not have a lease or agreement document for the location of the remote parking spaces. It is common for uses to provide the City with copies of agreements for off-site parking related to infrequent events. Should the Conditional Use Permit be approved, staff would request that proof of the off-site parking agreement is provided to the City prior to issuing an Occupancy Permit for the daycare. 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 north of Alamo Avenue. Based on the proposed use and site layout, trips to the site will mostly come from south of the property and will be directed from the site west and then south toward Clayton Road.

10 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 does not anticipate an increase in demand for fire and police protection services. The Police Department does not see safety issues with the proposed plan, but does stress that daycare staff operating the pick-up and drop-off process should to be vigilant in enforcement of the process to avoid conflicts with neighbors. The Fire Department stated that primary emergency access to the subject property and adjacent properties is from Clayton Road and that the proposed plan will not impact the emergency access. Alleys do not meet the requirements for fire access and are not typically used in the City of Clayton, except for as a means of convenience in some circumstances. Both the Police Department and the Fire Department do not believe that the proposed plan will negatively impact their ability to perform duties or provide emergency services to the surrounding area. 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; >> Staff does not believe that the noise associated with this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties. The outdoor playground area will generate noise, but mostly during daytime hours. 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 use 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; >> No exterior lighting is proposed for the roof deck. Lighting at the building entrances and exits will not adversely impact the residential neighborhood or adjacent properties. 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. >> At this time, there does not appear to be additional adverse impacts associated with the proposed use. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed daycare and surface parking lot meet requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff believes that with restrictions, the daycare use will not be disruptive to the surrounding properties. Staff believes that the on-site parking provided on the surface lot will be sufficient to meet demand. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. USE OF THE SURFACE PARKING LOT SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS OF 5:00 A.M. THROUGH 7:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

2. THE SURFACE PARKING LOT SHALL PROVIDE 26 PARKING SPACES.

3. ALL TRASH AND RECYCLE BINS SHALL BE STORED IN A TRASH ENCLOSURE.

11 4. A MINIMUM TWO-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPED BUFFER SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG ST. RITA AVENUE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ANY SURFACE PARKING.

5. A LANDSCAPED BUFFER A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG ALAMO AVENUE. THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL BE THE AVERAGE EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK AS DETERMINED BY A BLOCK FACE STUDY PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT.

6. NO CURB CUTS ARE PERMITTED ALONG ALAMO AVENUE.

7. A ROW OF EVERGREEN SHRUBS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG THE NORTH EDGE OF THE SURFACE PARKING LOT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET TO CREATE AN OPAQUE SCREEN OF CARS AND HEADLIGHTS.

8. A MINIMUM SIX-FOOT-TALL SOLID SCREEN FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF THE PARKING LOT, BUT NOT BEYOND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF ALAMO AVENUE.

9. NO LIGHT POLES ARE ALLOWED ON THE SURFACE PARKING LOT.

10. NO LIGHTS, OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED FOR EGRESS OR EMERGENCY LIGHTING, SHALL BE PERMITTED ON THE ROOF DECK.

11. EXTERIOR LIGHTS SHALL BE DIRECTED/SHIELDED SO AS NOT TO SPILL LIGHT ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

12. THE MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT SHALL BE 208 CHILDREN.

13. THE MAXIMUM STAFF SHALL BE 26 PERSONS.

14. PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF SHALL BE OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND DESCRIPTION PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2018.

15. DAYCARE STAFF DIRECTING PICK-UP AND DROP-OFF TRAFFIC SHALL WEAR REFLECTIVE SAFETY VESTS.

16. NO STOPPING, CUEING OR STANDING OF VEHICLES IS PERMITTED IN THE ALLEY.

17. THE APPLICANT OR DAYCARE MUST SECURE AND MAINTAIN AN AGREEMENT FOR OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES TO BE USED FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SUCH AGREEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT.”

LYNN GOESSLING (LG) – ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF 6611 CLAYTON PARTNERS, LLC MARGARET MALEWSKI (MM) – DIRECTOR OF EXPANSION – HIGHER GROUND BRIAN SCHNUCK (BS) – REPRESENTATIVE FOR PROPERTY OWNER BRIAN IVY (BI) – IDEA ARCHITECTS – ARCHITECT FOR PROJECT LG – We are here to request approval of a CUP for the Clayton Road Property for a Montessori School and the use to the parking lot at 6602 Alamo Road. Addresses the Board to answer questions regarding the 17 conditions of approval. Also addresses question brought up at last meeting and meeting held by the property owners for residents to come and discuss their feelings regarding the project.

12 BS – On Wednesday November, 28 we had a listening session at the Clayton Center. We opened up a dialog with the residents. What are you most concerned about is the question we asked and then we listened. The conversation went on for over an hour and a half. Some of the issues mentioned were: rental income and increased traffic. None were with the daycare. Higher Ground will offer at ten percent discount on tuition to residents in this neighborhood. This discount will directly benefit tenants who choose rental properties in the neighborhood and could motivate quality tenants to consider those properties. We have also offered to master lease any vacant apartment units at their present day rental rates for a period of three years. This Montessori will attract good tenants. We also have offered the use of the Alamo Lot to the residents for use on the weekends – subject to City approval. We recognize the parking lot will be vacant on the weekends and we would like to make it available to the neighborhood. We have accepted the 17 conditions that City has proposed. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – The condition number 17, the agreement for offsite parking, is that in the works? BS – Right now we have engaged Wash U and Clayton Valet. Clayton Valet says they will be able to handle 40 – 80 cars. It would be a matter of staffing and runners/drivers to handle special events. MM – We would expect most of the events be before 7 since most young children go to bed early. Clayton Road will also be the place that parents can park during day time hours. We will inform parents not to park in the neighborhood. Also, all 26 staff will not be present at all times so I expect there will be parking spots available on the Alamo lot for parents to park. LG – Answers questions about trash enclosure, queuing lanes, and the offering of the parking lot to the residents on the weekends per the City’s approval. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Brian you indicated that commercial deliveries would be done up front but where do larger deliveries happen? Diapers, food, cleaning supplies, etc. MM – We do not offer food. Children will have to bring their own food. Children bring their own diapers in their bags. The only deliveries we receive are misc. office supplies, toilet paper and things of that nature and we use Amazon for that. *CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – OPENS THE FLOOR UP FOR AUDIENCE COMMENTS* BARB NAUERT (BN) – SUBMITTED “CORRECTIONS TO THE RECORD REGARDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S DECEMBER 3 CUP RECOMMENDATIONS DOCUMENT” *SPEECH SENT IN VIA EMAIL POST MEETING IS COPIED BELOW*

I. Introduction

• It was explained to me by one of our council members that the philosophy of The Architectural Plan Commission is: Any proposal presented to this Commission and approved by the Planning Department is worthy of strong consideration. It is up to the taxpayers or residents to convince the committee the proposal will have a negative impact to the residents and give reasons why the proposal should not be approved.

• I feel that the residents in our area have made a strong case in presenting facts and reasons why this daycare proposal should not be approved.

13 • Owners have sent emails, made calls, provided pictures and a binder that reveal the negative impact this proposal will have on the neighborhood and the reasons why the proposal should not be approved.

• As a committee it is your responsibility to avoid any possibility of numerous negative externality from a project such as this.

• Let’s recall that in May of 2018 the first proposal the daycare owners made. It was a proposal that had definite and serious safety issues regarding traffic and children.

• The Planning Department stated it wrong in the latest CUP recommendations dated Dec. 3. The plan wasn’t that the parents parked their cars and walked their child to the day care.

• The facts are that the plan proposed children being dropped off at the southwest end of the Alamo parking lot, to be escorted across the alley by daycare staff and then down the alley 40-50 feet to the daycare center. The alley that has no sidewalks, the children would be walking no more than 2 feet from moving cars exiting the alley and they would be walking across areas where residents’ cars would be backing out of their parking lots or garages right in the path where the children would be approaching the daycare.

• Sound dangerous? Of course it is dangerous. Yet the Planning Department recommended approval of this plan.

• And one of the reasons given by the Planning Department for approval of this first application--the Old Title building had been vacant for two years. This is an “on the record” fact. In other words the Planning Department prioritized and promoted this proposal valuing a vacant building over the safety of children.

• Because of the obvious safety issues brought up by the residents at the ARB meeting in May along with the problem with off site parking, this first proposal was withdrawn by the owners of the daycare.

• Remember--the Planning Department did not see this proposal as dangerous or inadequate but they saw it as acceptable and highly desirable using the public policy verbiage, “It would be a good use” for the building.

• A second attempt was made by the owners to get a different version of this proposal approved so on November 5, 2018 they filed again.

• Because of the failure of the first plan, the daycare owners had an expensive traffic study done by CBB that eliminated the children being escorted down the alley.

• This new plan doesn’t put the children at risk, it just puts 54 adults who live and park at properties adjoin the alley in very precarious position. How get in or out of where they live through 3, yes 3 lanes, of traffic converging in alley.

• Owners and tenants will not have the ability to move freely as they do now and will be at the mercy of daycare traffic managed by employees who will become traffic controllers.

14 • In order to get the daycare traffic plan to work is CBB’s crucial requirement is to make the alley one- way. A definite hindrance to Clayton owners and tenants.

• I don’t know if the Committee is aware of a statement made more than once by Brian Schnuck at a meeting between the residents and owners of the daycare on November 28. He stated that neither the daycare parents nor Clayton area residents could approach the alley directly from St. Rita during drop off and pick up times because that would mess up their traffic plan.

• Imagine, Clayton taxpayers are told they cannot use a public alley because it would mess up a daycare’s traffic plan? Now really, do you think the daycare employees are going to stop residents or even the parents of the daycare facility from St. Rita directly into a public alley during drop off and pick up hours? This could cause a volatile situation between residents and employees.

• From the public record of emails between Clayton Departments, hear what Mr. Spencer Litteken, Civil Engineer City of Clayton Public Works Department emails to the Planning Department, “The Clayton Public Works Department has decided to not implement CBB’s one-way alley recommendation as part of the Montessori School Project.”

• One of his reasons for this denial: the adjacent properties utilize the two- way alley.

• This statement was mentioned at the Architectural Review Board meeting on November 19, but it certainly wasn’t elaborated or explained in any detail by Susan Istenes, head of the Planning Department.

• She simply mentioned it and went on with her recommendation of her approval of the project. Why didn’t she elaborate and inform residents in more detail about Mr. Litteken’s major impact statement?

• Susan Istenes, the entire Planning Department, the daycare owners, CBB and the residents know that the proposed traffic plan WILL NOT WORK WITHOUT THE ALLEY BEING ONE WAY. Yet in the Dec. 3 CUP report the Planning Department states, “The Public Works Department reserves the right to implement the recommendation of the one-way alley in the future if alley conditions warrant the change.”

• I am sorry, this is totally incorrect. The CBB traffic report makes it clear and the architectural rendition makes it clear that the daycare traffic pattern would not work without the alley being one-way. The statement in the CUP is somewhat of a deception.

• The public record reveals in emails that after receiving Mr. Litteken’s opposition to the one-way alley, the Planning Department had meetings discussing the issue.

• To ease the pain of the Public Works Department’s opposition to the alley being one-way, Mr. Litteken concedes, “If the school is approved, Public Works intends on monitoring the alley to determine whether or not improvements are necessary. If improvements are determined necessary, Public Works will survey adjacent properties before implementation.”

• Nothing is stated by the Public Works Department that they would rescind their ruling of not wanting the alley being one way. Rather Public Works will consider improvements. The Planning Department,

15 CBB, the owners and Clayton residents know that traffic plan could not work without the alley being one way. This would only be an improvement for the benefit of the daycare facility not for the residents who live along adjoining properties to the alley.

• NO explanation is mentioned in the Planning Department November 19 CUP about what Mr. Litteken has in mind. The alley has already been improved with a new concrete surface.

• The alley can’t be widened because of the utility poles and garages abutting the alley. What kind of improvements is he indicating?

• Improvements” usually mean spending taxpayer money, our money, for an alley that doesn’t need improving except for the daycare center.

• Instead of the Planning Department being Pro-Active about a potentially serious accessibility and traffic issues for Clayton residents before the project was recommended for approval, the Planning Department chooses to be Reactive on behalf of the daycare owners and to address a known problem after the plan gets approval.

• No elaboration, no explanation, no mitigation of this major issue was revealed at the November 19 ARB meeting.

• Mr. Litteken also states “the school” will use “their” traffic control personnel in able to mitigate congestion and safety concerns. Really?

• The CBB report recommends some best practices that should be implemented by the daycare’s staff to help ensure that the drop-off circulation runs safely.

• Residents and owners are not confident in daycare personnel being able to mitigate traffic issues in the alley only the Police Department should be doing that and so does Mr. Litteken when he states in his email:

• “If this is a real concern, I would consider discussing an off duty police presence to prevent issues. Maybe we could require one for a certain period of time after the school opens or require if it is a problem at a later date. I am not sure how this would work, but lets discuss if need be.”

• There is the city’s anticipation of a problem. Traffic in a public alley being controlled by a daycare employee. What will happen when there is no traffic control employee in a thunderstorm, hail, ice, or snowstorm? Will accept liability if there is an accident in the alley.

• What if the traffic controller is sick and so on?

• Following up on Mr. Litteken’s comment, MAYBE FOR A SHORT WHILE using off duty police? This is not reassuring to our Clayton property owners. What happens if we need this off duty police every day twice a day at drop off and pick up?

16 • To residents these traffic issues are “real issues” that will affect the safety and accessibility of our residents. This issue should have been clearly and pro-actively assured and resolved before Planning Department recommended approval.

• Then there are the comments made by Police Department about the CBB traffic plan stated in the emails to Susan Istenes.

• Quote from the Chief, “While we have concerns about the number of children (260 or 208, based on figures from you and Ana) who will be dropped off/picked up each day and the impact on surrounding properties and residents, we do not see an issue with the traffic plan from a safety standpoint, with a caveat. He continues,

• “What we know about human behavior is that it is unpredictable. It is when motorists become frustrated that they get angry and commit traffic violations and engage in so-called “road rage” incidents.

• While we expect the overwhelming majority to follow the traffic plan as outlined, the possibility exists that Montessori parents and neighboring residents may deviate from the planned process. An additional concern is that the school monitors do not “shortcut” their responsibilities and leave the alley unattended because they have responsibilities within the school at the time they should be focusing on the alley.” Unquote

• The possibility of motorists becoming frustrated when they can’t get out of their garages and parking lots? You bet.

• Drivers becoming angry and frustrated. You bet.

• Road rage could happen? A possibility when people can’t get to work, catch a flight on time, or have a need to leave their home for any reason.

• The chief is right when he states “school monitors might short cut their responsibilities. Another negative possibility.

• Yet at the Architectural Review Board meeting on November 19, the Clayton Planning Department regardless of these major issues recommended approval for this daycare proposal.

• Clayton Staff didn’t solve what residents consider major issues.

• In reading the latest Dec. 3 CUP recommendations here is what the report reveals about the Planning Department’s responses to issues:

• 7 times the Planning Dept. states “Staff is of the opinion”,

• 7 times the Planning Dept. states, “Staff believes”,

• 1 time the Planning Dept. responds, “staff does not anticipate,

• 1 time the Planning Dept. responds, “there does not appear”

• and 1 important time “The applicant did not have a lease document for the location of the remote parking spaces.

• We question, What if the “staffs opinions” are wrong?

• We question, What if what “the staff believes” is incorrect?

• We question, What if what “the staff did not anticipate” happens?

• Who bears the brunt of misjudgments of Staff? The Staff? Do they get their pay docked?

• No, it is the residents will pay the price for these indeterminate evaluations having no factual basis just beliefs, opinions, or anticipations or outright admissions they don’t have important contracts for off-site parking secured.

• How can Clayton owners have confidence in the Clayton Planning Department?

• This attitude of getting the daycare project approved with so much hanging in the balance for residents is not, not acceptable.

IN CONCLUSION

• The residents have made a strong case about the negative effects of this daycare proposal. We have done all we can in responding to the challenge put forth by a councilperson. “It is up to the taxpayers or residents to convince the committee the proposal will have a negative impact to the residents and give reasons why the proposal should not be approved”

• Clayton residents accepted the invitation of the daycare owners and met with them on November 28 at the Center of Clayton. At that meeting I presented to the owners written questions addressing residents’ concerns. In front of the group I asked Brian Schnuck for a written reply to those concerns. We have not received any response to from the owners.

• I submitted an alternative plan for drop off/pick up which would eliminate the traffic issues in the alley, the parking issues, and emergency response time concerns. Admittedly I only thought of the plan on Friday, November 30. But as quickly as possible on Saturday, December 1, I sent out emails to our council reps, the daycare owners, ARB Committee member sand residents. No response from the owners.

• We feel we have strongly made our case with a volume of factual information in picture and binder. Numerous resident comments were sent via emails and snail mail and calls to city representatives.

• What is this Architectural Review Board committee going to do?

• Will you support a Planning Department that used very poor judgment in recommending approval of the first application, putting children in harms way walking down the alley loaded with traffic escorted not by parents, but by daycare staff?

• Are you going to support a daycare center and a Planning Department is not pro-active but recommends approval of a plan that has major issues pointed out by the Public Works and Police Departments?

• I would ask each committee member to put yourself in the position of our neighborhood property owners and tenants. How would you like living or investing in an area that had such an undesirable plan?

• Our Residents want you to Vote NO on this proposal.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – AS WE CONTINUE – COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES EACH. PLEASE AVOID REPETITION AND DO NOT USE DEROGATORY TERMS TO ANY OF THE STAFF OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM OR ANYWHERE ELSE. CAROLYN GAIDIS – Barb I appreciate everything you said but one thing you did state was the ARB approved the plan on Nov. 19 and I want to make sure it’s on record that that was misspoken. HUN B. SON (HS) – 6616 ALAMO RESIDENT HS – One snow will cripple the back alley completely. MIMI DEEM (MD) – 6610 ALAMO RESIDENT MD – What about offsite parking for all 3 – 5 year old children and shuttle them in to avoid the influx of traffic. Is there any disabled parking in this plan? My major concern is that there is no room for surplus (20lbs of potatoes in a 5lbs sack). At no time have we had 100+ trips in the morning and another in the afternoon this leads to frustration and that’s a concern as well. SANMAY DAS (SD) – 6409 SAN BONITA AVENUE RESIDENT SD – I really appreciate the openness and transparency of these meetings. As someone who is not in the immediate neighborhood but in the broader neighborhood and in the ward, I am concerned about the fundamental change to the character of the alley. There will always be this tension between developers and the residents that use this alley but it’s reasonable to think this alley will remain how it has been in the past. Allies could be used like this all over the City and that is concerning. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Can someone answer if people park in the alley? BN – I park in the alley to unload things. Service people park in the alley if the streets are full. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – There will be no issuance of an occupancy permit until there is a verifiable agreement for offsite parking, you understand that. Correct? LG – Yes, we understand and agree to all conditions of approval

19 CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH 17 CONDITIONS

BRIAN MAGUIRE – MOTION TO APPROVE TO BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH CONDITIONS

CHAIRMAN STEVE LICHTENFELD – NAY CRAIG OWENS – AYE RICHARD LINTZ – NAY WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – AYE BRIAN MAGUIRE - AYE CAROLYN GAIDIS - AYE

6611 – 6619 CLAYTON ROAD AND 6602 ALAMO – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW COMMERCIAL

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The applicant presented revised plans for the daycare and parking lot at the November 19, 2018 Plan Commission-Architectural Review Board meeting. A neighbor provided the Plan Commission members with additional information during the meeting and requested that the Plan Commission delayed a decision in order to review the new information. The Plan Commission voted to continue the request to the next meeting on December 3, 2018. The request for architectural review was also continued. The following staff report has not changed since the last meeting because the applicant has not made revisions to the plans. The subject property is located on the north side of Clayton Road between St. Rita Avenue and Concordia Lane. The 13,000 square foot site has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The site is currently developed with a 19,231 square foot multi-tenant office building and four surface parking spaces. The property is surrounded by residential land uses to the north and east and commercial uses to the south and west. The applicant proposes to renovate the interior of the existing building, add an elevator, construct a rooftop deck, front yard alterations including retaining walls and modifications to the existing building entrances and exits. The existing parking area will be reconfigured to create a drop-off space adjacent to the east-west alley located north of the property. The applicant is also proposing renovation to the surface parking lot at 6602 Alamo Avenue located northeast of the building. The surface parking lot will provide drop-off queuing and 26 parking spaces. The surface parking lot property is zoned R-5 Medium-Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. The existing building will remain mostly as it appears. The primary building material of the existing building is brick. The street frontage, south elevation, features tan brick with art deco design elements. The north, east and west elevations feature red brick. The building elevations feature frequent and uniformly spaced windows and a flat roof. Some of the existing windows and doors will be replaced with a similar style, while other openings will remain. Small rooftop additions are proposed to provide stair and elevator access. The exterior alteration materials include tan brick, dark grey NICHIHA panels, a three-color system of NICHIHA panels, an aluminum storefront window system and metal accents. The proposed elevator overrun measures 42 feet 7 inches from existing average grade to the top of the flat roof. A parapet wall and aluminum fence are proposed along the top of the building to create the roof deck. The parapet wall is proposed as brick patterned NICHIHA panels. Metal panel screens are proposed for rooftop mechanical equipment. The existing front elevation entrances will be maintained; however, the walkways from the public sidewalk to the entrances will be reconfigured. A walkway with stairs is proposed along the west property line. One ramped walkway is proposed in the middle of the site and another is located along the east property line. The front yard is proposed as a gross motor area. The existing lawn area and patios will be replaced with a playground surface. Brick retaining walls are proposed to level grade between the sidewalk

20 (lowest point) to the building entrances (highest point). An aluminum fence is proposed on top of the brick walls to enclose the play areas.

The proposed building material for the new addition is compatible with the existing building. The NICHIHA panel systems are a new material. Research into the product revealed that it is fiber cement panels that can be installed with different color patterns. The random three-color pattern proposed on the elevation drawings includes tan, white and grey. These colors are compatible with the color palate of the front elevation. Red brick is the primary material on the existing rear elevation of the building. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials will connect the front and rear of the building creating a cohesive design. The Clayton Road Urban Design District prohibits the use of EIFS and jumbo brick as a primary or accent building material and encourages the use of decorative brick patterns and varied brick textures. Staff is of the opinion that NICHIHA panels will not appear as jumbo brick and will add a modern design accent that is still compatible with the art deco style of the building. The proposed muted color pattern will create interest, while not overpowering the existing character. The rear entry of the building will be used frequently due to the location of the off-street parking lot and staff believes the design of the rear addition and drop-off area will result in a more welcoming entrance than the existing elevation.

The Clayton Road Urban Design District states that buildings exceeding 3 stories or 45 feet in height shall step down to the height of adjacent rear buildings or 30 feet, whichever is greater. The highest point of the addition is just under 43 feet above average existing grade. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed roof access additions are compatible with the surrounding building character and massing.

The applicant is proposing concrete for the front walkways and play areas. The applicant also proposes new asphalt paving for the parking space behind the building.

An aluminum fence is proposed along the roof deck and to enclose the front yard play areas. The rooftop fence is setback from the front façade, which will reduce the impact on the art deco character of the elevation. The aluminum fence is a standard design found throughout the City and staff is of the opinion that the fence design is compatible with neighborhood character.

The tan brick retaining walls proposed in the front yard. The proposed front yard walls and fences are located at the front property line. Because the fences are located on top of the retaining walls, the height from sidewalk grade to top of fence varies from 4.5 feet tall at the east end to 8 feet tall at the west end. There is approximately six feet of grass area (public right of way) between the property line and the public sideway. The applicant is proposing landscape within this buffer.

The Clayton Road Urban Design District seeks to protect the existing landscaped character; however, the impervious coverage limitation is only applicable to residential and mixed-use developments. The buildings on either side of the subject property have a similar front yard setback with large lawn areas. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed retaining walls will significantly change the front yard appearance but will also compliment the character and design of the existing building.

Staff is of the opinion that the mass, design and materials of the proposed project are compatible with existing and nearby structures and the Clayton Road Urban Design District. The renovation will bring new life to the art deco building.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

LYNN GOESSLING (LG) – ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF 6611 CLAYTON PARTNERS, LLC

21 MARGARET MALEWSKI (MM) – DIRECTOR OF EXPANSION – HIGHER GROUND BRIAN SCHNUCK (BS) – REPRESENTATIVE FOR PROPERTY OWNER BRIAN IVY (BI) – IDEA ARCHITECTS – ARCHITECT FOR PROJECT

BI – Addresses the Board to answer questions regarding the materials and design.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CAROLYN GAIDIS & CRAIG OWENS - SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

706 DEMUN AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the east side of DeMun Avenue between North Rosebury Avenue and Northwood Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1). The existing restaurant Sasha’s occupies the southern tenant space in the building. North of the restaurant is a connected two story building. The first floor of the two story portion is occupied by a hair salon and the second floor is vacant. The applicant is proposing to renovate the vacant second floor to create three party rooms and add a roof deck above the existing restaurant space.

The restaurant space currently measures 1,600 square feet and contains 38 seats inside and 18 seats in the outdoor dining area. The applicant is proposing to occupy 1,000 square feet of the second floor for party rooms with a maximum of 49 seats. The proposed roof deck measures 800 square feet and will contain between 32 and 49 seats.

The applicant intends to maintain the existing hours of operation, which are Monday through Saturday from 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. The restaurant has a current liquor license, which the applicant intends to amend to include the expanded area. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing delivery, trash or recycling services.

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. Restaurants 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 restaurant is surrounded by restaurant, retail and office uses to the north and south, Concordia Seminary to the west and multi-family residential to the east. The proposed restaurant expansion for party rooms will occupy a currently vacant space. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed party room expansion is compatible with surrounding uses. The sidewalk in front of the restaurant is narrow and during nice weather outdoor dining often overflows into the public realm. The proposed roof deck will allow for more outdoor seating while potentially reducing

22 current negative impacts. Staff is of the opinion that with conditions to control impacts on the residential area, the roof deck would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 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 2,600 square feet and appears to be comparable to others. 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 proposed exterior alterations are discussed in the Architectural Review Board application. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed alterations are compatible with surrounding character. 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; >> At this time, 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; >> Staff is of the opinion that the proposed party rooms will not have negative impacts on the surrounding area. The roof deck will more than double the amount of outdoor dining available at the restaurant. Only a solid wood fence will separate the roof deck from the residential buildings to the east; however, the residential buildings have always abutted the commercial district. The proposed roof deck will have more screening from residential buildings than the outdoor dining areas of other restaurants in the DeMun neighborhood, yet the potential for noise is greater on the roof deck due to the larger number of seats. Staff is of the opinion that the roof deck should close at 10:00 p.m. on weeknights. 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;

23 >> Three planters are proposed on the roof deck. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed planters are adequate for the scale of the deck. 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 the only proposed change is the addition of an exterior stair to provide access to the roof deck. 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; >> Because the restaurant is less than 3,000 square feet, off-street parking for patrons is not required. Historically, the City has not included outdoor dining areas in the square footage calculations for parking requirements. The DeMun area does not have a large amount of public parking; however, streets are not restricted to residential parking only and there is parking on the school lot available after hours. A large number of patrons for the businesses in this area come from walking distance. Staff is of the opinion that sufficient public parking is available to support the demand. Restaurants outside of the Downtown area are required to provide employee parking. The applicant should secure off-street parking options for the increased staff required to support parties and events. 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. 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; >> Outdoor dining on the street is popular and staff does not believe the proposed restaurant will adversely impact the ambient noise level of the surrounding area. As stated earlier in the report, staff is of the opinion that the roof deck should close at 10:00 p.m. on weeknights due to the proximity to a residential area. 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;

24 >> The roof deck lighting proposed includes sconces located on the solid screen fence. Staff is of the opinion that the fence will prevent light from negatively impacting the residential neighborhood. 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 proposed use.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant expansion meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The restaurant space is compatible in size to other restaurants and adequate public parking will be available along the street. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other restaurants 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 proposed restaurant will be compatible with surrounding uses.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (ONLY NEW CONDITIONS ARE LISTED, EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE TO REMAIN):

1. A SCREEN FENCE WITH A MINIMUM OF A SIX-FOOT-TALL SOLID FENCE WITH TWO FEET OF LATTICE FOR TOTAL HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET SHALL BE MAINTAINED ALONG THE EAST EDGE OF THE ROOF DECK

2. THE ROOF DECK HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL END AT 10:00 P.M. ON WEEKNIGHTS BUT SHOULD OTHERWISE FOLLOW THE RESTAURANT HOURS OF OPERATION.”

ALAN RICHMAN (AR) – APPLICANT/ OWNER OF SASHA’S

AR – Addressed the Board to answer questions and urges the Board to reconsider the 10 pm time limit.

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – How do we mitigate complaints as a result of approval?

STEPHANIE KARR – Discipline of the Conditional Use permit 1. The Commission can recommend suspension for a period of time. 2. Shut down the roof deck for a period of time. 3. Revoke the condition all together and not allow the roof top deck to remain open. The final decision lies with the BOA. You would send written notice to the permit holder/property owner then have a hearing to give them an opportunity to be heard and refute any complains. You can discipline the CUP and worst case you can revoke the Condition that allows the roof deck.

MARK ASHBY – 728 DEMUN AVENUE RESIDENT

MA – City notification is faulty. We who live in Clayton who are renters are not notified about changes in the neighborhood. Noise is the first concern. The second concern is parking for residents. The third concern is noise, again. The fourth is the change of the function of the neighborhood. The final concern is notification of residents.

AMANDA FINUCAN – N. ROSEBURY RESIDENT

AF – Feels this would be a great addition and that Sasha’s is a part of the character of the neighborhood.

25 MARTA TOCZYLOWSKI – MERAMEC AVENUE RESIDENT

MT – So excited for this. We have wanted a rooftop deck/larger patio area for a long time. My friends and I leave Clayton often to go to other places that offer a rooftop deck/larger patio. This isn’t your rowdy crowd. It is a quiet late 20s early 30s crowd that go there to have a nice bottle of wine and cheese plate. It will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and Clayton and bring more people into Clayton as opposed to leaving to go to places that offer this space.

CATHERINE ECKART – GENERAL MANAGER AT SASHA’S

CE – Has worked at Sasha’s for 2.5 years. I can tell that most people in the neighborhood and surrounding businesses are very exited for the addition. We also encouraging people to Uber/ride share to help with the issues of parking. We work to minimize rowdiness because we don’t want to upset the neighborhood. I’m very excited for this and happy to see it move forward if that is to happen.

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – We need to figure out the notification of residents. And I think that if this gets out of hand we have two ways to mitigate this CUP. I don’t want to proactively penalize them and their business. I would like to give them a chance to grow their business and do the right thing for their business.

RICHARD LINTZ – With regard to parking – downtown we have arrangements for staff parking Joanne and I met with Dale from Concordia and asked if they would be willing to let staff park there and he said that could be a possibility so we will look to move forward with that.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Limiting the roof deck for a different time would be very hard to manage. I think we need more of this in Clayton. I would be for this if it was near my house. To say someone at 10pm has to go downstairs where there is no room because Sasha’s is always packed, how does that work.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I would be in support of that, after hearing how to mitigate this and the avenues we have.

RICHARD LINTZ – I’m a little nervous about a 1am closing time in a residential neighborhood.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT

BRIAN MAGUIRE – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH 1ST STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE AND TO ELIMINATE 2ND STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR HOURS ON THE ROOF.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN, CRAIG OWENS, AND STEVE LICHTENFELD – AYE

RICHARD LINTZ - NAY

706 DEMUN AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW COMMERCIAL ADDITION

26 of Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1). The existing restaurant Sasha’s occupies the southern tenant space in the building. North of the restaurant is a connected two story building. The first floor of the two story portion is occupied by a hair salon and the second floor is vacant. The applicant is proposing to renovate the vacant second floor to create three party rooms and add a roof deck above the existing restaurant space.

To accommodate the party rooms, the applicant is proposing mostly interior renovations except for creating a Juliet balcony. The applicant intends to remove the five existing casement windows and replace them with one larger opening with sliding doors and a metal railing. The applicant is proposing a wood deck with a metal railing on top of the flat roof to create a second floor outdoor space. The applicant is not proposing any alterations to the existing first floor tenant spaces.

The proposed second story window changes will bring a modern appearance to the second floor. The proposed party room area was originally an apartment and the existing windows have a residential appearance. The sliding doors will result in a more commercial look. The applicant is proposing to maintain other architectural elements on the second floor including the brick patterns and roofline details, which will allow the modifications to still be compatible with the building. The metal railing for the Juliet balcony will match the roof deck railing. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed second floor alterations are compatible with surrounding character.

The proposed roof deck will bring life to the existing flat roof and provide a more finished look along the top of the building. The existing rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened. The applicant is proposing decorative metal guardrail along the front façade and a solid wood fence along the east side of the deck. The solid fence will provide screening from the residential area east of the subject building. Staff recommends the addition of two feet of lattice above the six foot tall solid fence. The lattice will provide additional screening and will also add a decorative element to the top of the fence. The applicant is proposing a covered stair along the south side of the building. The stair will not result in the loss of any parking spaces in the lot south of the building. The black cover over the stairs will connect to the existing awning over the main entrance to Sasha’s. The applicant is also proposing three planter boxes on the deck with ornamental trees or shrubs. Staff is of the opinion that the trees will provide a soft element to the roof. The applicant is proposing sconce lights along the solid wood fence. Locating the lights on the fence will ensure that the light is screened from the residential area to the east. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed roof deck is compatible with surrounding character.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THE ROOF DECK SCREEN FENCE SHALL BE AT LEAST EIGHT FEET TALL WITH SIX FEET OF SOLID WOOD AND TWO FEET OF LATTICE ON TOP.

2. A MINIMUM OF THREE PLANTERS WITH ORNAMENTAL TREES OR TALL SHRUBS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF DECK.

ALAN RICHMAN (AR) – APPLICANT/ OWNER OF SASHA’S MICHAEL BLAZE (MB) – ARCHITECT

MB – Addresses the Board to answer questions. AR – Addresses the Board to answer questions.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH TWO CONDITIONS

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

BRIAN MAGUIRE - SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

PLANNER ANNA KRANE SUGGESTED HEARING SPR FIRST, HOWEVER, PLT WAS VOTED ON BEFORE THE SPR TO INSURE THE LOTS WERE CONSOLIDATED BEFORE APPROVING A SITE PLAN. THESE MINUTES ARE FORMATTED TO REFLECT THE AGENDA AND VOTING ORDER.

43 – 55 TOPTON WAY – PLAT APPLICATIONS – LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The subject properties are located on the east side of Topton Way between Maryland Avenue and Parkside Drive. The properties have a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Dwelling District and are located in the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The site currently contains four multi-family apartment buildings on four separate lots. The applicant proposes to consolidate the four lots into one lot measuring 34,634 square feet. The proposed consolidated lot will conform to the minimum lot width and area requirements of the R-4 Zoning District.

In considering and acting upon plats and other applicable plans, staff and the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

1. Compatibility of lot size and density; 2. Creation of a lot which provides adequate dimensions to construct improvements of similar size and nature to the surrounding area; 3. Creation of a lot which is in compliance with the area and frontage requirements (no flag lots) as specified in the Zoning Ordinance and provides for an orderly pattern of development; 4. Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better site layout and development; 5. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 6. Elimination of incompatible land configurations; 7. Consistency with good planning practices; 8. Compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and standards.

Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A MYLAR FOR THE APPROPRIATE CITY OF CLAYTON SIGNATURES PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AFTER BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL

2. THAT THE APPLICANT FILES THE PLAT WITH THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS OFFICE AND SUBMIT PROOF OF FILING TO THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL”

TYLER STEVENS (TS) – ARCHITECT WITH CORE10 DAVID VOLZ (DV) – VOLLZ ENGINEERING

TS – NO COMMENTS

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

28 WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

43 – 55 TOPTON WAY – SITE PLAN REVIEW – NEW RESIDENTIAL

Planner Anna Krane summarizes the following staff report: “The 34,634 square foot site is located on the east side of Topton Way between Maryland Avenue and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Dwelling District and is located in the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The site currently contains four multi-family apartment buildings on four separate lots. The proposed project consists of the consolidation of the four lots and the construction of two, nine unit condominium buildings totaling 46,380 square feet. A shared driveway is proposed between the two buildings, providing access to the below grade parking garages beneath each building. The height of the proposed buildings is 44 feet 10 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

The purpose of the site plan review process is to provide a review of the following criteria listed below:

1) A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. >> The subject property is located in a multi-family neighborhood and across the street from Clayton High School. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-4 Zoning District and the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The applicant is proposing two condominium buildings that are similar in massing and scale to the newer multi-family buildings located along Brighton Way, east of the subject site. >> The R-4 Zoning District allows for multi-family developments with a minimum of 1,750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing a total of 18 dwelling units, which amounts to 1,924 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.

2) The location and screening of a project's air-conditioning units and other associated equipment. >> The plans show the HVAC units located along the north side of the northern building and along the south side of the southern building with screening provided by a solid wood fence and landscaping.

3) The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in a 400 square foot trash enclosure located at the east end of the driveway. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence and retaining wall.

4) Provisions for storm surface drainage shall be in accordance with the City’s design standards. Stormwater drainage shall be connected to a storm sewer whenever one is available as determined by the City. Disposal of storm or natural waters both on and off the site shall be provided in such a manner as not to have a detrimental effect on the property of others or the public right-of-way.

Impervious Coverage >> The Topton-Brighton Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 55 percent for the inclusion of a below

29 grade, side-loading garage with a shared driveway. The existing impervious coverage on site is 48.6 percent. The new plans increase the total lot impervious coverage to 53.3 percent. Proposed front yard impervious coverage is 17.4 percent, which is below the maximum front yard coverage allowed.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 2.06 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 2.13 CFS, which represents a 0.07 CFS increase. Downspouts from the southern building will be piped to a drywell located at the southwest corner of the property. The stormwater plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable.

5) The applicant is required to submit a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed and trees to be replaced by canopy cover, species and condition. Such plans must reflect City of Clayton preservation standards. >> The proposed landscape design features appropriate façade planting and screening. The plan proposes removing all existing trees on the site. The landscape plan proposes 28,750 square feet of canopy coverage (19,745 square feet surplus) and meets the native tree requirement with 47.2 percent native trees. The subject property does not currently have the City standard tree lawn between the sidewalk and the street. The applicant is proposing to install twelve street trees to create the City standard residential streetscape.

6) The site plan must state that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department. >> The site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department.

7) Provision of hookups to public utilities connections shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. All connections shall be shown on the site plan. >> The applicant is proposing to relocate above ground electric lines below ground in the rear yard. The water lines are proposed in the front yard. The applicant plans to re-rout sewer lines through new easements in the rear and side yards.

8) All developments shall provide adequate lighting to assure safety and security. Lighting installations shall not have an adverse impact on traffic safety or on the surrounding area. Light sources shall be shielded and there shall be no spillover onto adjacent properties >> Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less.

In considering and acting upon site plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

1) Creation of a desirable environment. 2) Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities. 3) Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships. 4) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 5) Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City.

30 6) Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment. 7) Inclusion of special features. 8) Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.

The height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District and the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan features a variety of understory trees, ornamental shrubs and perennials that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

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) TO ENSURE THE FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE DRY WELL THE APPLICANT SHALL RECORD THE APPROVED SITE PLAN WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY, AND SUBMIT PROOF OF RECORDING TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.

MARK MEHLMEN (MM) – OWNER UNDER CONTRACT - CARONDELET PLAZA UNIT 102 RESIDENT TYLER STEVENS (TS) – ARCHITECT WITH CORE10 DAVID VOLZ (DV) – VOLLZ ENGINEERING SCOTT MEHLMEN (SM) – BLAIR MEHLMEN (BM) –

MM – Introduces The Pearl Condominiums

BM – Thanks Board members for their time and echo’s what Mark said

SM – Thanks everyone for their time.

TS – Addresses Board to answer questions and give background on the progression of development in the neighborhood as well as the design of the buildings

DV – Talks about the engineering and that there is little increase in runoff

GABRIELLA – 59 TOPTON RESIDENT

G – Concerned about noise from A/C units.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS

WILLIAM LIEBERMAN – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADD AN ADDITIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BEING CONTINGENT ON BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVAL

CRAIG OWENS - SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS AYE

31 43 – 55 TOPTON WAY – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 34,634 square foot site is located on the east side of Topton Way between Maryland Avenue and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multi-Family Dwelling District and is located in the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The site currently contains four multi-family apartment buildings on four separate lots. The proposed project consists of the consolidation of the four lots and the construction of two, nine unit condominium buildings totaling 46,380 square feet. A shared driveway is proposed between the two buildings, providing access to the below grade parking garages beneath each building. The height of the proposed buildings is 44 feet 10 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW

Compatibility The Topton-Brighton neighborhood consists of multi-family condominiums, apartments and townhomes. Most buildings are three and a half stories, while some of the older apartment buildings are two stories. The area is dominated by traditional brick and masonry buildings, while many of the newer construction buildings feature accents of modern design. The basic massing of the proposed three and a half story buildings are articulated on all sides with windows, doors and variations in massing. The proposed scale and shape of the buildings are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the front entrance accent will be unique to the subject property.

The Topton-Brighton Urban Design District states that “Building facades (with street frontage) fifty feet or greater in length shall incorporate wall offsets, a minimum of three feet in depth, a minimum of every thirty-five feet.” Both of the proposed buildings have more than fifty feet of frontage length, but do not incorporate offsets with a minimum depth of three feet. The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance from the Architectural Review Board. Article VI General Provisions for the Urban Design Zoning Districts outlines a process for Alternative Compliance, where applicants can request that the Plan Commission or Architectural Review Board review designs that do not meet standards due to unusual site conditions, but that conform to the intent of the standards. This process is similar to a request for a variance from the Zoning Regulations that is heard by Board of Adjustment.

Section 410.285 Alternative Compliance: Upon request of an applicant, the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Board, as appropriate depending on the type of development and application, may approve an alternative approach that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting these design standards. This approach is intended to apply in unusual circumstances that might arise where an alternative approach would provide a result that is equal to or superior to that which would be provided by the approach outlined by the standards in this Chapter. Economic consideration shall not be a basis for alternative compliance. 1. Procedure. An alternative compliance approach shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements as set forth by the City of Clayton. The approach shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the intent of these design standards than would an approach which complies with these design standards. 2. Review criteria. To approve an alternative approach, the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Board must find that the proposed alternative approach accomplishes the intent of these design standards equally well or better than would an approach which complies with these design standards.

32 Staff offers the following code section to explain the intent of the façade offset regulation for the design district. In order to approve the alternative compliance approach proposed, the Architectural Review Board must find that the proposed design conforms to the intent of the code.

Section 410.525.A states “The two-story apartment homes originally found in Topton-Brighton are fairly modest in scale and boxy in form. Though most are oriented towards the street, several are clustered in groups oriented towards a central yard. Many of these structures are being replaced with larger town home style units in groups of two (2), three (3) or four (4). These homes are typically taller, with a strong vertical emphasis. Also becoming more prevalent are larger, blocky multi-family buildings, often on combined lots. The height and massing of these structures should be designed to be compatible with the variety of established forms found in the neighborhood.”

The applicant has submitted a letter dated November 20, 2018 (attached to the application) to outline the reasoning for the alternative design. Staff agrees with statements in the letter describing the curved character of the lot and the resulting buildable area. The letter also references the other elements of the proposed front façade that contribute to reducing the scale of the building. Staff agrees that the window wall system entrance and bump-outs with different materials will result in a similar appearance to the goal of the regulation. Staff supports the request for alternative compliance.

The existing building to the north (59 Topton Way) was constructed in 1937 and is two stories. The existing building to the south (35 Topton Way) was constructed in 1941 and is also two stories. The Topton-Brighton Urban Design District does not have specific height mitigation requirements, but does suggest that new development should work to integrate with neighboring conditions. The proposed hip roof and dormers focus the height of the building toward the interior of the site and away from the buildings to the north and south. The proposed buildings are also setback from the side property lines by 15 feet. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed buildings are compatible with surrounding development in terms of mass and height.

Building Materials Topton-Brighton has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although tan and painted brick have been introduced along Brighton Way. The primary building material for the proposed buildings is brown brick with secondary building materials of buff cast stone and composite panels. The patterned brick proposed at the third story level will create a visual interest point, while still incorporating traditional materials. Composite panels are not listed as an allowed secondary material in the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance. Composite panels are proposed for trim and the sides of dormers. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use of the composite panels is minimal and will be compatible with the overall design and neighborhood character. The proposed roof is clad in grey and charcoal blend asphalt shingles. Black fixed and casement windows are proposed.

Driveway and Garage An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed between the two buildings that leads to side-entry, below-grade attached garages with paneled garage doors.

Retaining Walls Brick clad retaining walls are proposed along the north and south sides of the driveway to allow for the below grade garages. A retaining wall is also proposed at the east end of the driveway to hold grade for the transformer and trash enclosure area.

CONCLUSION

33 The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District, the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the plan is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

TYLER STEVENS (TS) – ARCHITECT WITH CORE10

TS – Approaches Board to answer questions

JOHN TYLER (JT) – 23 TOPTON WAY RESIDENT

JT – Very happy about this project, loves it. Thinks it will be great

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2116 (09:16 PM)

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

December 3, 2018 — Meeting Minutes