November 19, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1731 (05:31 PM).

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: William Lieberman arrived at 1734

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE

Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director 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 5 would not be able to attend the meeting tonight. Chairman Lichtenfeld moves the item to the next meeting to be held on December 03, 2018.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of November 05, 2018 were presented for approval.

RON REIM (RR) – MOTION TO APPROVE

CRAIG OWENS (CO) – MOTION SECONDED

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN)

2 NEW BUSINESS

950 FRANCIS PLACE – SPECIAL ANTENNA – SPECIAL ANTENNA

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “Consideration of a request by Megan Flower, agent on behalf of AT&T, for review of the design and materials associated with the construction of telecommunications antennas on a building rooftop. Article XXVI of the Zoning Regulations require Architectural Review Board approval of new telecommunications antenna applications which create a visible change to the property. As part of the proposal, the applicant will upgrade some existing AT&T antennas and equipment and install one new antenna.

The 950 Francis Place building currently contains several antennas from multiple carriers. AT&T has four antennas behind a stealth screen system. The applicant is proposing to expand the screen system to accommodate the existing antenna upgrades and addition of one antenna. The existing screen system is located in the middle of the southern half of the building roof. The applicant is proposing to extend the screen to the north.

The proposed location and design of the additional antenna is consistent with existing antennas. The proposed antenna location is setback from the edge of the roof, screening the antenna from view at street level. The proposed roof appearance will be substantially similar to the existing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

DARCY GRIMMER (DG) – CROWN CASTLE FOR AT&T – REPRESENTATIVE DG – Has nothing to add to staff report

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7 CARRSWOLD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 35,468 square foot site is located in the northeast corner of the Carrswold Subdivision. The property has a zoning designation of R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District. On October 15, 2018, the Architectural Review Board approved the installation of front yard retaining walls, which are being completed by a different contractor. The current request is for the repaving and expansion of the driveway in the front yard to create a circle drive. The existing asphalt driveway will be replaced with exposed aggregate.

3 Section 405.1730.A.1.i of the Zoning Regulations states that, “Lots in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and having one hundred (100) lineal feet of frontage or more may install two (2) drive approaches to accommodate a turnaround, with the written approval from the Director of Public Works and subject to Architectural Review Board approval (all other lots shall be limited to one (1) drive approach).”

The subject lot is greater than 15,000 square feet in area and has 150 feet of frontage. The subject property is located in a private subdivision and therefore, the Director of Public Works does not need to approve the second curb cut. The R-1 Zoning Regulations limit front yard impervious coverage to 45 percent. The existing front yard coverage of the subject property is 19.6 percent. The proposed front yard coverage is 24.8 percent, which is below the maximum allowed.

The Carrswold Neighborhood contains many front circle driveways and the applicant is proposing exposed aggregate, which is a preferred paving material. The front yard alterations and landscape previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board will also help to improve the aesthetics of the front yard. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed driveway material, location and design are consistent with neighborhood character.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

KEVIN LEWIS (KL) – CASTLE CONCRETE – APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR

KL – Current driveway is a safety issue, so the owner would like to add a circle Drive

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Will there be any trees removed, it looks like there will be

KL – We are going to be backfilling for this additional concrete, this plan is from the landscape architect but was approved by you guys, there is no tree that we are removing.

ANNA KRANE – The scope of this project does not require tree replacement or landscape plans. The plan approved before was proposed by the landscape architect and he didn’t know the specifics of the driveway. This driveway was shown on the approved plans for the retaining wall and has not changed.

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7508 OXFORD DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 8,800 square foot site is located on the south side of Oxford Drive between Westwood Drive and Glenridge Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-6 Medium Density Multiple Family Dwelling District and contains a multi-family building. The proposed project consists of the construction of retaining walls on both sides of the existing driveways.

4 Section 405.2560 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all retaining located in the front yard in residential 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 subject property contains two driveways leading to front entry garages. The proposed retaining walls will be located along the sides of the driveways to hold existing grade and prevent further erosion of the grass slopes. The proposed retaining walls vary in length and height based on existing grades. The proposed material is a modular block system with three different size blocks, tumbled edges and face and a varying color pallet. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed material conforms to the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for retaining wall materials. There are also many buildings in the surrounding area with front yard retaining walls to allow for below grade garages.

The R-6 Zoning Regulations state that front yard coverage is limited to 45 percent. The existing front yard coverage for the subject property is 43.4 percent. Proposed front yard coverage is 46.7 percent. The applicant was originally requesting to widen both driveways; however, the proposed impervious coverage was over the allowed maximum and the applicant revised the plan. The revised plan is still 1.7 percent over the maximum coverage allowed. In instances where the applicant can provide just cause, the Plan Commission-Architectural Review Board may approve additional coverage up to 50 percent front yard coverage. The applicant is requesting that the Architectural Review Board approves an additional 1.7 percent of coverage to allow for instillation of the proposed retaining walls. The applicant has stated that erosion of the existing grass slopes has led to clogging of the trench drains and flooding of the garages. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed walls are compatible with neighborhood character.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

CHRIS SULJAK (CS) – RETAINING WALLS INC. – CONTRACTOR

CS – We are staying the same width for the driveway but will be moving the retaining walls two and one-half feet from the drive so car doors do not hit the walls. There will be grass or landscaping in the space between the driveway and retaining walls.

ANNA KRANE – Traditionally we like to have vegetative areas/plants. Grass is acceptable.

CS – Ok, thank you.

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

5 7625 – 7629 WYDOWN BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 22,678 square foot site is located on the north side of Wydown Boulevard between South Hanley Road and Edgewood Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and contains a multi-family condominium building. The proposed project consists of the construction of a two foot tall wrought iron front yard fence.

The proposed design and materials of the fence are consistent with the Architectural Review Board’s preference for ornamental or decorative fencing in front yards. The applicant included a photograph of a similar fence recently approved by the Architectural Review Board and installed at 745 Glenridge Drive. The proposed fence will be an accent feature for the subject property and compliment similar front yard features of adjacent commercial properties and the park.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED”

AMBER SHOUSLER (AS) – RESIDENT OF 7625 WYDOWN BOULEVARD

AS – This is the one of the final installation of the plan we enacted back in 2013 and will hopefully increase the property value and increase curb appeal for this property.

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CRAIG OWENS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

15 N. MERAMEC AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The approximately 3,640 square foot site is located on the west side of North Meramec Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District. The property contains a multi-tenant commercial building. The existing building has been vacant for many years. The applicant has already begun interior renovations to create two office spaces on the second floor of the building and plans to renovate the first floor for a restaurant tenant. The proposed exterior revisions include removing the second-floor windows along the front façade to create an open-air space, window replacement, a new cornice, second floor planter boxes, gooseneck light fixtures, removing the façade paint, replacement of the first-floor storefront system and replacement of the existing retractable awning.

A Building Permit was previously issued for the interior second floor renovation, which included removing the second-floor windows to create the open-air space. Work on the first-floor storefront system was not included in the plans submitted for a Building Permit and was completed without approval. The applicant was told to retroactively submit for Architectural Review Board review of the new storefront system and to include any other façade renovations proposed in the plans submitted.

6 The applicant has exposed the existing brick façade by removing the beige paint layer and is proposing additional exterior alterations with a black accent color. Staff is of the opinion that the detail work proposed is compatible with the historic character of the building style. The proposed black accent will create a nice contrast with the red brick façade. The cornice, planter boxes and first floor trim will create a cohesive façade appearance and give the building a refreshed appearance. The applicant has removed the angled first floor storefront and installed a recessed storefront that is parallel to the street. The modern storefront will upgrade the appearance of the façade and staff is of the opinion that the storefront is compatible with the surrounding area.

Signage and outdoor dining tables on the rendering are shown for context and are not part of the current review. Signage and outdoor dining will be review when a restaurant tenant is proposed for the space. The planter box located along the adjacent parking lot and shown in the rendering is not located on the subject property, not under the same ownership and not part of the current review.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

MICHAEL PATE (MP) –RESTAURANT RETAIL OUTFITTERS – CONTRACTOR

MP – There is not a first-floor tenant and so when that is identified we will come back. Right now I’m just trying to make the building look better.

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7739 DAVID DRIVE – SITE PLAN REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 7,876 square foot site is located on the north side of Davis Drive, between South Bemiston Avenue and North Biltmore Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and construction of a 4,100 square foot single-family residence. The height of the proposed residence is 27 feet 9 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 surrounding properties contain single-family homes. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District.

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 northern elevation of the house with screening provided by a wood fence.

3) The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in a 45.5 square foot wood enclosure located along the eastern elevation and accessed from the driveway.

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 >> In the R-2 Zoning District, impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent of the total lot area. The existing impervious coverage on site is 42.4 percent. The proposed plans increase the impervious coverage to 52.5 percent. >> Front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed front yard coverage is 23 percent.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.20 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.27 CFS, which represents a 0.07 CFS increase. All downspouts will be piped to an underground storage bed in the front yard. 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 plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcover. There are two street trees and 2,872 square feet of existing canopy coverage on site with 2,872 square feet being removed. The plan provides a surplus of 127 square feet of canopy coverage and meets the native tree requirement with 37.4 percent native.

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 location of the sewer and water connections from the main to the house are shown underground in the front yard. The electric line connection will run underground through the rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the utilities plan acceptable.

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.

8 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. 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-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings 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 STORMWATER STORAGE BED, 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.

ARTHUR KOTES (AK) – APPLICANT/OWNER CLAY VANCE (CV) – VANCE ENGINEERING – CIVIL ENGINEER

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Is the driveway a fully shared driveway with the property to the east and is there an agreement to share the driveway, also how will the cars get into the garage with the driveway being so tight?

AK – The lady who owns property to the east needs part of my driveway to get to the back of her house so we are working on an easement currently and agree to not leave a car blocking the driveway. I am replacing the whole driveway at my expense and the asphalt she has will be removed and replaced.

RON REIM – The trash enclosure looks to restrict the space is that an issue?

AK – It is almost 11 feet so the car will be able to go by easily

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Has anyone checked the radius for a car getting into the garage in relation to the house.

ANNA KRANE – Yes we have and it is ok.

CV – Were providing storage in the front and excess will come out of a pop up and go towards the street.

MARK CARLEE – 7757 DAVIS DRIVE

MC – I am concerned about the side entry garage and visibility into the contents of the garage as you’ll notice Davis Drive curves at that location and we’ll have a pretty prominent view into the garage. All of Davis Place to my knowledge, could be wrong, does not have side entry garages except for the corner lots where they may be necessary. I think we have a neighborhood that’s gone to great lengths to try and prevent that kind of view. It is a neighborhood with rear entry garages and we don’t really care to see the contents, so I would ask you to consider what restrictions could be appropriate to prevent that view. Other than that, I have no other comments.

AK – There are several homes in the neighborhood that have side entry garages and the only reason we did the side entry was to reduce the coverage and to have more green space for kids to play.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Typically the garage doors are down in the neighborhood – it is a security thing. I would assume you would follow that.

AK – Sure.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FIRST CONDITION OF MAINTENANCE OF THE STORAGE BED

AK - YES

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS AS WELL AS AN ADDED CONDITION: THAT A PERMANENT BINDING EASEMENT BE RECORDED WITH THE CITY DOCUMENTING THAT BOTH HOMEOWNERS ARE IN AGREEMENT AND THIS EASEMENT NEEDS TO BE TRANSFERABLE IN THE EVENT THAT THE NEXT OWNER SELLS THEIR HOUSE AND IT TRANSFERS TO THE NEW OWNERS.

AK – YES IT WILL BE PERMANENT

SUSAN ISTENES – FOR THE USE OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND THEN WE WILL ALSO NEED IT TO BE RECORDED WITH THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OFFICE

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7739 DAVID DRIVE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD– NEW SINGLE FAMILY

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 7,876 square foot site is located on the north side of Davis Drive, between South Bemiston Avenue and North Biltmore Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing house and construction of a 4,100 square foot single-family residence. The height of the proposed residence is 27 feet 9 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

The homes located in Davis Place are predominately two-stories in height, making the integration of new development somewhat easier. The basic massing of the proposed two-story home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, and variations in material. This block of Davis Drive contains a variation in massing and character of homes. The limestone entry and front porch add character to the proposed house. The style is a mixture of modern and traditional elements that will compliment neighboring houses.

The existing home to the west (7745 Davis Drive) was constructed in 1931 and is +/- 4.58 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the east (7735 Davis Drive) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 8.1 feet shorter than the proposed home. The subject property is not located in an overlay district that requires specific height mitigation techniques. The proposed house is located at the required 6.6 foot side yard setback along the west property line. The proposed house is setback from the east property line more than the required 6.6 foot side yard setback, which will mitigate the height difference to the east. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed massing is compatible with the existing neighborhood character.

Davis Place has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones; however, Davis Drive features homes with various colors of brick, stucco and stone. The primary building material for the proposed home is sea grey brick with limestone as an accent material. The proposed roof is clad in black architectural shingles and black casement windows are proposed.

An uncovered front porch is proposed with brick pillars and a metal railing. The proposed porch will add a unique feature to the house. A solid wood fence is proposed to replace portions of an existing chain link fence. The fence of the adjacent property to the west encroaches on the subject property. Portions of this fence will likely need to be removed during demolition and construction of the new house. The applicant has stated an intent to work with the adjacent property owner to reach an agreement for the replacement fence plan.

A 9 foot wide City standard mix concrete driveway is proposed on the east side of the home that leads to an attached, at-grade, side entry garage with a black paneled garage door. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace a portion of the existing driveway of the adjacent property to the east. The adjacent property uses a portion of the subject property’s driveway to maneuver cars in and out of the garage and the subject property will likely use the adjacent property’s driveway to maneuver cars in and of the garage as well.

The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

ARTHUR KOTES (AK) – APPLICANT/OWNER

RON REIM – Most are red brick

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – there are but there are stucco and painted brick as well.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Red brick would be less oppressive with the height of your house

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I agree with that but this is a new modern house and that’s what we are seeing with our new homes. So Carolyn I agree with you it could be toned down, however, I think this is where we are going with the new homes today as far as size goes.

BOB Q – 7752 DAVIS DRIVE

BQ – I want to object to the architecture review proposal of this particular house. It is not compatible with the block. It is not compatible with the greater neighborhood of Davis Place. It does not conform with the

11 surrounding structures. I fear that the application gives you a very incomplete picture of what is going on here. I walked the neighborhood on Sunday and have provided photos of houses in the neighborhood to show how this house does not fit in. These are the north and south parts of Davis Drive. These are primarily red brick houses. It is next to the Drunk Brick houses and this house does not match at all. It is a nice house but it is not compatible and the thing I fear is that this has a tendency to flip the neighborhood. I think it is important to note that this is not the start of a trend they need to go back and redesign, so it is more compatible and blends in more with the neighborhood. I would ask that you have them redesign a house that is more compatible.

RICHARD LINTZ – I drove the neighborhood and thought about my own neighborhood and there was a new house that I thought wouldn’t fit in and it ended up looking very nice. I love the old ones but I can’t argue with putting up a new one. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I would go along with what Alderman Lintz has said in that we are getting more contemporary homes – the others tend to be more traditional as they go up though so I don’t see this as setting a trend to flip the neighborhood.

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

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

7701 MARYLAND AVENUE – SITE PLAN REVIEW – COMMERCIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The applicant previously appeared before the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board on May 7, 2018 and received approval for a proposed addition and site alterations to the subject property. Since the approvals were granted for the original proposal, the applicant has made modifications to the site plan to allow for a phased development plan. The City’s approval and permitting process is not set-up for phased projects. The applicant is before the Plan Commission to present the first phase, which represents the minimum level of site work. The applicant could return to the City in the future for additional building permits to construct elements of the project that were originally proposed and approved but are not part of the current proposal. The reduced scope qualifies for administrative approval by the City Manager; however, due to the potential impact and the multiple previous revisions, the City Manager has requested input from the Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board.

The applicant has provided a narrative of changes and annotated the originally approved landscape plan. The major change is removing the daycare from the lower level, which results in removing the two recessed play areas. The previously proposed recessed daycare entrance at the northwest end of the building is revised to be a grass area. The previously proposed recessed play area at the southeast corner of the building has been removed and the stairway is to remain as existing. Additional changes to the interior renovation plans have been made that do not impact the exterior appearance. The applicant is proposing to use the same tree planting plan as originally approved. Some of the walkways and groundcover plantings have been reduced but should not have significant impact to the site layout and appearance.

The reduced plan will result in less impervious coverage on site. The Plan Commission previously approved an additional five percent of impervious coverage to allow a total lot coverage of 59.93 percent. The revised scope will

12 result in 54.2 percent impervious coverage. Approval of the additional coverage expires after one year if the plan is not implement, so the applicant has until May 7, 2019 to install the rest of the site coverage or to return to the Plan Commission to ask for an extension of the approval.

Staff is of the opinion that the reduced scope will still result in a cohesive site design. The applicant has not reduced the caliper inches proposed on site and the general site circulation pattern previously approved will be constructed. In considering and acting upon site plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration:

The proposed project is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed revisions meet the criteria for site plan approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED”

ANNA IVES (AI) – PATTERHN IVES – ARCHITECT OF RECORD ON THE PROJECT

AI – This will be construction package one – the intended minimum scope of project. The intention is to keep design intact as approved and is planning to build the entire project in phases as funds comes in. The full build of the project is the intent and everything we’ve pulled out you can put back. The basement is still being build but it is unoccupied. In a future phase we would come back for another permit and build the rest as funds come in.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – It’s a very nice landscape plan.

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

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

13 6611 – 6619 CLAYTON ROAD AND 6602 ALAMO – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – GENERAL CUP

Director Susan M. Istenes 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. The applicant presented the revised plans 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 following staff report has not changed since the last meeting because the applicant has not made further revisions to the plans. 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.

14 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 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.

15 >> 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. 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 drop-off circulation. 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

16 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 CBB 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. The Public Works Department reserves the right to implement the recommendation in the future if the daycare is approved and 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. 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. 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. 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;

17 >> 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.

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 IDLING OF VEHICLES IS PERMITTED IN THE ALLEY.”

LYNN GOESSLING (LG) – ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF 6611 CLAYTON PARTNERS, LLC MARGARET MALEWSKI (MM) – DIRECTOR OF EXPANSION – HIGHER GROUND AARON BAILEY (AB) – DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE – HIGHER GROUND LINDSEY JOURNO (LJ) – EXECUTIVE PROGRAM DEVELOPER – HIGHER GROUND BRIAN SCHNUCK (BS) – REPRESENTATIVE FOR PROPERTY OWNER BRIAN IVY (BI) – IDEA ARCHITECTS – ARCHITECT FOR PROJECT

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – For everyone in the audience, what we are talking about right now is the Conditional Use Permit, we will get to the architectural review later.

LG – Introduces herself and explains she is here to ask for approval of a conditional use permit for a Montessori preschool at 6611 Clayton Road and the use of a parking lot at 6602 Alamo. This project was on the May agenda but was withdrawn in order to address concerns with regards to parking and traffic and to refine other aspects of the project. Since then, four major things have occurred. The first being Higher Ground has refined it’s plans with attention to safety and managing traffic. Second, the size has been reduced to 208 students max. Third, Higher Ground held an information gathering on August 16th in order to get input on revised plans from neighbors. While our alderman attended, unfortunately none of the neighbors showed up to see the plans. Finally, comprehensive traffic and parking studies were obtained from CBB the details of which we will talk about later.

BS – Walks through revisions of the plan. Plans to gut and redo the interior of the building and will be adding new elevator and stairs, fire suppression, ramped walk ways, rooftop play area, retaining walls, landscaping, and other elements. 6602 Alamo has been used as a parking lot since at least 1955. The site is currently striped for 42 spaces and has been reconfigured to contain 26 spaces. Parking lot will have evergreen landscape buffers recommended by staff. The exterior will remain mostly the same. All added materials will be compatible and in accordance with City requirements. The patio play area will be fences with non-climbable fences and shielded from the public with shrubbery buffer. All fencing, retaining walls, and landscape will be in accordance with City requirements. Steel bollards are incorporated in the fence that exceed requirements. Clayton should be proud to have a rooftop playground in its municipality with non-climbable fence. When there is inclement weather there will be a play space in the basement. Rooftop play areas are frequently used as play space areas: one in Brooklyn and one at Cardinal Glennon. We moved the elevator to the interior of the building and all the changes that went to do that were nothing short of excessive. The height of the elevator has been lowered. The drop off area in the back was enhanced and sheltered. The parking lot was redone to meet CBB requirements to run efficiently. Lastly, we redesigned the front play areas to include a more robust barrier *see animation*.

MM – Talks about Higher Ground and what they are about. Higher Ground Education specializes in Montessori early child programs. They deliver top quality education for children. We do not franchise. In 2.5 year they have opened 19 schools across the country. The school will have 11 classrooms. Once capacity is reached 2 infant rooms, 3 toddler rooms, and 6 preschool rooms with a total of 208 students and 26 staff at any given point. We expect to create

19 31 jobs with 26 on site. We do not expect the school to be completely full immediately, 28% in year one and 68% in year three and 98% in year five. The school will operate 7am -6pm Monday through Friday with part time and full- time programs. Infant and toddlers will start at 9am with half day dismissal between 12 and 12:30pm. Full day dismissal is at 4:30pm with extended day going till 6pm. Preschool starts at 8:30am their half day dismissal is at 2:30pm and the remaining dismissal times are the same. High Ground is proposing a Kid Valet service with cars stacking in the Alamo parking lot to ensure safe drop off. Cars will enter off St. Rita into the two stacking lanes. There will be a staff member located to direct cars at the mouth of the parking lot. Each car will then pull up to the space at the rear of the building were a staff member will get the child of the car and into the building *see animation*. We would like to also show you how this works in Chicago. This site is quite similar *see animation*. The process of processing a car takes about 21 seconds. We shared these with CBB – on average there are 85 families/100 children. So, in 5 years’ time we would expect 120 cars not have 208 cars and not all cars arrive and leave at the same time. Arrivals are staggered. About 30% of children arrive more than 45 minutes before their class starts while 70% arrive within 45 minutes. About 60% of infants and toddlers and 25% of preschoolers depart at their half day marks. Between 4:30pm and 5:30pm will be the biggest concentration of departures because most preschoolers will be wrapping up their day and only about 15% of all children stay until 6pm. The peak loading will be between 7:40am and 8:30am with 61 cars within 50 minutes. There are 15 cars in a stack in those two stacking lanes. So, the parking drop off lane allows for a 15 car stack. If each drop off takes 21 seconds as we showed it would take 5.25 minutes to clear a 15-car stack. We allow for 50 minutes to clear 61 cars, that is 4 stacks of 15 cars. We’ve shown we can clear 4 stacks in 21 minutes. We are allowing for 30 minutes of buffer time. So, we offer more than double the time we think it takes to clear a stack and CBB has reviewed and confirmed this. Resident traffic during peak periods is an issue I would like to address. When a resident wants to leave during peak hours, a staff member will stop the stack while a resident is pulling out of their garage and allow them to get out. There is very light traffic in the alley so we don’t expect it to occur often but that is how we would handle it. Another question is what happens during off peak times with pick up and to that, we may not have an attendant out there so parents will be instructed to text the school with their expectant pick up time and their child will be ready at the door. The parents will be asked to enter the stacking lanes and to advance one by one as staff members help children into the cars. Another question that’s been asked is what if parents want to enter the school and to that we would direct the parent to park on Clayton Road and bring their child in through the front door. Parents will be advised that be best time to do that will be in the morning when that lane is open and that they should not during 4 and 6pm when they parking lane is open to traffic. They will be free to bring their child in other than 4 to 6 pm which should be adequate time come in and speak with a teacher. Occasionally we will host open houses or parent events. Those will be on weekdays between 6 and 7pm after the school is no longer operating but before the time limit on the parking lot expires. We will be mindful to stagger parent teacher meetings throughout several days to ensure we can accommodate all the relevant parents and teachers at that time. Finally, there was a question about special occasions like a Christmas program or Halloween event and in that case, we would arrange for offsite parking and shuttle the parents to the school. One question that has been raised to us is “why open a Montessori school at this location?” um from a business perspective we looked at the demographics and the preschool options available in the Clayton residential community and found that there is a shortage of daycare options especially for children under three years old. As a parent myself I try to find preschool solutions for my 16 mo old son and I was advised at two locations in the Clayton area that there is over a one year waiting list. When I inquired in August of 2017 I was told that the earliest spots would be open August of 2019 for a one year old. Which means I would have had to reserve my spot while pregnant or really even before conceiving which is rather difficult. So, the closest option is the Clayton Early Childhood Center which is at 1 Oak Knoll Park and they have a waitlist for over 20 families for each of their infant and one year old programs and in May 2018 they were only accepting applications for August of 2019. We believe there is strong demand for this not only for Clayton residents but also for the Clayton Business district. There is also demand from Washington University and Fontbonne University as well as St. Mary’s Hospital workers. Shares other schools that they operate across America as a conclusion.

20 LG – The City Staff is recommending approval of the CUP based on their detailed analysis of the project. I want to summarize how the project will satisfy the City’s CUP requirements. First, there are 7 requirements relating to compatibility. I would simply state that the project, as presented in the staff report, meets all the compatibility requirements. They did a really good job of outlining that and I would go through it but it’s already been read by the Director. I will say that we agree with all of their comments and recommendations with regards to the compatibility factors. Next, the project contains adequate landscaping in accordance with the CUP requirements and staff recommendations. CBB preformed a comprehensive traffic and parking study and analysis. These included a traffic impact study, a review of the kid valet service as well as a parking sufficiency study. Please note that all of CBB’s studies were based off the 238 students and that now we will only be having 208 students. With regard to the traffic generated by the project, CBB determined that the projects impact on current conditions is well within acceptable guidelines, even with a higher number of students. CBB found no significant negative impacts on the functions of the adjacent roadways and intersections even during peak times. She proceeds to outline the CBB studies in extreme detail. The next requirement is in relation to noise, lighting, and odors and again the staff has covered those. Lastly, we agree with staff there are no adverse impacts from the project. In summary, Higher Ground as reworked and finetuned the details of this project based on all the input we have received. The proposal meets all the Conditional Use requirements of the City of Clayton for this district. Higher Ground is a respected and experienced operator in their sector. They will help bridge a gap in Clayton and become a key amenity. To conclude I would like to share a few excerpts from letters of support that Higher Ground has received from its peers.

“Having seen their California facilities, I would like to testify to the high standards of the Higher Ground

Education team and assure you that this is a company which takes the quality of education it

provides, the safety of its facilities, and training of its staff very seriously, adhering to the Association

Montessori Internationale standards. Please consider the advantages of having a reputable, well-

resourced child-care-and-education provider in the community. Guidepost Montessori will allow young

families in Clayton to receive quality educational services for their children within their own

neighborhood, making living and working in Clayton a more viable option.” – Sara Krenski, Head of

MAP St. Louis in Grand Center

“We have a waitlist for our preschool program, and we are unable to provide advice to our parents who

have younger children, as we know the Washington University Family Learning Center (for Washington

University employees only) and the Clayton Early Childhood Center (for all parents) to have over one

year-long waitlists for infants and toddlers. As you evaluate the merits of the proposed Guidepost

Montessori at Clayton, I urge you to consider the importance of the project to the entire community.” –

Nikki Scheele, Director of the Washington University Nursery School We thank you for giving us the opportunity this evening to explain the project and we are happy to answer any questions or take any comments that you have. Thank you

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We thank you for the complete explanation and I think I certainly have a better understanding of the operation. I find the reuse of that building to be quite creative with the spaces and the rooftops and the play areas. I’d like to go back to one of your slides and it’s the one where you have 6 items where you’re answering questions, 5. I’m going to respond from personal experience with having several children, one who is still in a preschool/daycare situation. There are about 120 kids in the facility with staggered arrival and departure times but what I’ve noticed is I’m there at least twice a month either during the day or the evening. If only 50% of the parents do what I do and maybe ½ of them do it then you have maybe 25-30 people at various times coming to holiday observances, art with your grandchild or your child, a musical, a conference, an all school assembly, an evening program quite often for fundraising and what I have found is that they have a parking lot on their premises that can handle all of those cars. I went over, and I counted and it’s just under a 100-car parking space lot. This is in the midst of a residential area. My concern is where you have these events, where are these parents going to put their cars during the day and the evening. I know you said you would terminate at 7pm because of your parking lot but

21 your staff is going to be there also so I’m not sure where all the parent and grandparent parking will occur unless you’re not going to have them come in at any time.

LJ – We do not hold full school events. The students are 6 weeks up through preschool, they are very young so unfortunately, they won’t be putting on any Christmas concerts for us. The type of events we hold we typically do one classroom at a time. They’re much more intimate small-scale events because it’s only one classroom there’s very minimal staff. It would be the teacher of that room and the administrator. That is what makes us confident. We stagger these events on a class to class basis. So you will not see a big volume of parents coming in at one time.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well where would the parents and grandparents coming in be expected to park because as you go through the neighborhood, there are quite a lot of cars on the street in the parking areas, throughout the day.

MM – As we mentioned the events would occur after school hours and so they would be invited to park in the Alamo lot from 6-7pm.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I appreciate your comments; however, I am still concerned about where those cars are going to go but we will move on.

RICHARD LINTZ – Just to follow up, along the same lines, if most of your high peek time is 4:30-5:30pm and there is no parking on Clayton from 4-6 and the staff is still there, I’m confused about any parent that needs to come in for whatever reason to pick up a child and where that would happen. How would they, because I’ve watches parents pick up kids at all hours and, I don’t understand how they are going to get in there, where they are going to be if they can’t park there. How does that work. I’m not talking about an event but a parent who comes by and says I’m going to come in and get them.

MM – The Kid Valet will operate during those hours between 4:30 and 5:30pm which is actually not the peak time, as we clarified, the peak time is actually in the morning, the arrival period. 4:30 to 5:30pm while intense is not as intense as that morning period because many of the children will leave earlier at 12:30 and at 2:30pm. So the afternoons are more staggered. However, we will have a very open line of communication with the parents, a lot of the success of this project and other projects that we have done is dependent on having a really open line of communication with the parents and setting clear expectations of what can and cannot be done. We have operated a school in San Francisco and it was a dense urban environment with only 2 drop off spaces in front of the school and we had a very elaborate and highly timed drop off system to operate an entire school out of only two spots in front of the building without any kind of queuing lane and we were very successful. So, part of it is establishing clear rules for the parents to the time window that they can pick up and drop off their children and also making it clear to them that if they have questions or concerns they should do that outside the hours of 4-6pm when the parking on Clayton Road is not available. This can be done by communicating with the parents and setting clear expectations. I know it has been raised, what happens if some parents are not compliant, you know we are a private school, a for profit institution, it is in our power to not renew the contract of parents that are not behaving appropriately and in a consistent way. So we have a method for interacting and setting limits which works for everyone and respects our rules and the rules of the comminute that we agreed to. CRAIG OWENS – Your simulations of drop offs are at 21 seconds, I pride myself on getting my toddler safely in the car, but it takes me longer than that. What about the load up, did you time that because taking them out of a seat is a lot easier than putting them in. Almost always.

MM – That is a good point. As I mentioned we have buffered the time required by almost double the time that is… you know we timed the minimum and we have more than twice the time in the mornings. In the evenings there is even less congestion, so we have triple the time approximately that we would need to actually execute the transaction.

22 So, I feel confident that on average some toddlers might be more difficult on a given day some might be more imitable and on average we should be able to fit in within the requirements. I should also add that CBB in reviewing our numbers and our stats has looked at a manual of a daycare pickup and drop off statistics so there is some sort of universal resource where these kinds of rules exist, and they found that our estimates fell very much within the guidelines of what those manuals indicated. And I did not know that there was such a manual, so these were sort of the two sources of information triangulated at pretty much a single point. So, we felt somewhat confident that we’re within what is acceptable practice.

Carolyn Gaidis – Are you requiring all drop off along the alley or are some parents able to drop off on Clayton for the school day?

MM – No so we will require that all parents use the stacking mechanism. The only acceptation is if a parent needs to come in and again, we will make it very clear that that’s not something to be used on a daily basis. If we find out that a parent is abusing it or doing it every day, that will be cause for conversations with the parent. That would be used only in the case of illness, dropping off particular clothes or something particular situation that requires interaction with the teacher.

CRAIG OWENS – Similarly the pedestrians, the people who live around there, can they just walk? There are neighborhoods all around you, can they walk to school?

MM – Yes, we took a worst-case scenario approach so we assumed that absolutely every parent would be driving. Given the nature of the De Mun neighborhood, I would expect that some parents and families, would walk their children and we have space to store strollers. That is very typical but for the sake of prudence we wanted to take the worst-case scenario for our approach

RON REIM – so would those people still come in the off the alley?

MM – No, pedestrians would actually come in off Clayton Road. they would come off the sidewalk and enter through Clayton Road which is where the ADA ramp is so they can roll their strollers up the ramp and enter the school from the front.

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – Can you park on Clayton Road in the morning?

MM – Yes

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – So what would stop someone from parking on Clayton Road as opposed to going through the alley?

CAROLYN GAIDIS – That is what I was asking… MM – Simply parent coaching. We would monitor how often that happens and on what grounds and if a parent does that for not good reasons or every day or some sort of routine basis we would have a conversation with that parent and make it clear that the expectation is that they use the parking lot.

RICHARD LINTZ – I have an engineering question for whoever designed the bollards. Can you tell me in terms what they would withstand in terms of a car?

BI – No, we’ve not done any engineering on it. This is simply a conceptional approach at this point in time. Once we had gotten through the ARB and CUP process we would obviously have this engineered and calculations run.

23 RICHARD LINTZ – With the intent of it being resistant to a car impact.

RON REIM – So from the illustrations it looks like there is a short retaining wall before you get to the bollards so I’m assuming that retaining wall is also a part of a system to prevent vehicles from impacting the playground areas or into the building, is that correct?

BI – Yes, it’s a reinforced concrete with a brick veneer

RICHARD LINTZ – You all know Ted Spade, the landscaper, he is doing a project on Skinker and he was telling me that years ago they had their daycare and a playground on that yard on Skinker and one day there was a car there, in the playground and so they immediately said no more playground on Skinker and I just couldn’t help but think that yours is awfully close to Clayton Road. Even with a tree and what not.

BI – Yes, I understand, and we’ve done a number of daycares and stuff more in a retail setting obviously and the velocity of vehicles is not substantial in that scenario but it’s always a major concern of ours to protect the children that are exposed in these situations and that’s precisely what this system is designed or will be designed to do. We just don’t have the numbers that have been applied to it at this point.

RON REIM – Traffic in the alley, it came up in our last discussion and the CBB report says the alley is a low traffic environment. Is there any coordination and their traffic study and say when the trash vehicles will be going up and down the alley and other vehicles back there?

LG – Yes there were, and we contacted the trash company that provides the trash service and there are a variety of options available for trash services but suffices to say that we absolutely are prepared and intend to contract for trash services outside of those peak hours. We can absolutely accommodate that.

RICHARD LINTZ – We are talking about the trash service to the existing residential

BS – Let me answer this. I had the conversation with Republic who provides trash service for Clayton and the neighborhood and Republic will be able to, in addition to running their trucks for the residents, we will be able to add additional service on a scheduled timeline for us. So, the requested timeline being 10 to 12 is the best window for service time and that can be adjusted accordingly, and republic has indicated that they have ultimate flexibility in this because of the smaller nature of the trash containers. They are 95gallon similar to what a residential would be, so the same equipment can be used and maintain the routes they have in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We will take audience comments after we are finished up here. So just hold on.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I would like to say something about this. I actually wish my kids were still little, so they could go to a place like this. This is really wonderful and for me personally, the location with all the possible users right around it is intense. It’s really… I think we are lacking this in Clayton. I also feel like the design is really unique and very thoughtful of its surroundings. And I also feel, like every time I walk down Wydown and go down to Skinker and pass the Forsyth school going to teach at Wash U, I hear the little kids laughing and having fun and I just smile. I mean that’s me personally I’m just like that just made my day to hear that. Having this where Katie’s Pizza was, I mean that’s such a crime that that went away first of all but having this in that location will bring life to the whole area. ________________________________________________________

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Before we take audience comments. We have received several letters from people in the City and I’ll just paraphrase them. Many of them are not in favor of the proposal but there are a few that are in favor.

24 Also, one that has not been printed for us came in roughly at 4:30 this afternoon and it was in favor of it for many of the things that Carolyn said. Good for the neighborhood, providing a needed service, and of course we will be considering everything that’s been, not only spoken, questioned, but also written and sent to us. There were a couple of voicemails that also came that we did not have transcribed. With that if there are no more questions on the commission, then we will entertain audience comments and questions. We will let them come up one at a time and introduce themselves.

BARB NAUTER (BN) – 6607 CLAYTON ROAD BUILDING OWNER

I spoke in May of this year and I am here again to voice strong disapproval of this daycare plan. It will have a tremendous negative impact on our largely residential neighborhood made up of multi-family apartments, condos and individual homes. Due to the timing of this meeting during a holiday week, some of the residents and owners who oppose the daycare proposal could not attend because they are working, out of town, have family and friends in for the holiday or, one apartment owner broke her foot. They did however, say that they would contact our representatives via phone or email, voicing their opposition to the proposal. They also support this talk in opposition of the proposal. I would like to provide you with a hand drawn map to show you some of what I’m talking about. As a committee you’ve had almost two weeks to review the application and plans submitted by the daycare center on November 05, 2018. In contrast we found out about the City’s online posting of the daycares application on November 06, 2018 which gave us less than two weeks to notify residents and organize factual and perinate information for this committee’s review. We created a binder for each committee member presenting the opposition data and information demonstrating why this daycare proposal should not be approved. Because out information is detailed and too lengthy to discuss this evening we are requesting that you do not make a final decision tonight until you review our material. Your committee has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Clayton to review our submitted information to complete your due diligence regarding this proposal. The informational binders were created for each committee member and a single green folder was created that contains photos and annotations showing the negative externality of the proposal. We suggest that the photo folder be shared among the committee members. They are not pictures, they are not drawings, they are not dimensionally inaccurate, they are pictures. In your individual binder there are several documents presented. One of which is Claytons list of 16 criteria for conditional use permit approval section 405.840. Following those pages is another list showing how daycare proposal has violated 13 of those 16 criteria. Another important document in the back of the binder is the detailed, detailed architectural plans that contain pertinent information about the number of children per room, the square footage of each room and some future expansion plan numbers that are not found on the newly submitted plans. Same plans but those important numbers are mysteriously missing. I am hoping that after your review of the information in your binder and listening to the comments made tonight in opposition to the daycare this committee will have the knowledge to be able to decide that the daycare proposal shall not be approved. I would like to focus on three major factors that will negatively impact our neighborhood residents and property owners. First the traffic based on the enrollment. Two, the flaws and omissions in the CBB traffic report. Three, the parking for this facility. The traffic generated by this facility. The traffic generated by the neighborhood is directly linked to the maximum number of children enrolled in this facility. At the first meeting of this committee in May of 2018, the max number of students was never stated but was assumed to be 100 children. Over the summer one of the owners told a neighbor that the number was going to be 200. Now in the application I received it states there will be 238 max students. Now that’s been changed to 208. After looking at the number of children on the detailed plans the true number of children is more like 265 with the possibility of 300 based on a 3300 square foot area marked in the basement drawing as available space. The number of 265-300 children is in line with the child per square foot standards of the American Montessori Internationale. These AMI standards for enrollment are verified in your binder. We also included the calculations per floor for the three floors in the building to reach the number of 265-300 children. As a former working mom, I have observed the pickup and drop off of my child at daycare that most parent’s cars have one child per car. Most. Let’s be honest, whether it’s their numbers of 208 or 238 or 265-300 children, this is a tremendous number of cars coming through our neighborhood twice a day. And if it’s staggered, we’ll never have accessibility

25 to our alley. The sheer volume of cars will create a traffic nightmare, gridlocking our neighborhood streets and alleys for hours at a time. The flaws and omissions in the traffic report. The CBB traffic report it is obvious that the report was tailormade to make the volume of cars work so this plan would be approved by the committee. After looking at the report 9 flaws or omissions became very apparent. Flaw number 1, the large enrollment in the comparison to the very small number of car trips reported in the report. Flaw 2, the converging of not two but three lines of traffic into the narrow public alley used as the main ingress and egress for the daycare alone. Flaw 3, the lack of access in the alley for emergency vehicles during several hours of the day and lack of access for emergency utility vehicles. Flaw 4, the extremely small and inadequate pick up and drop off area for the daycare facility next to the narrow alley. No time consideration was made for buckling children into their car seats. Flaw 5, the alternative routes are neighborhood streets. Clayton Road is the only access road to St. Rita which is one way. Flaw 6, the negative impact of a one-way alley on residents whose cars are parked adjacent to the alley. There are 54 parking spaces on that alley, properties adjacent to the daycare. Flaw number 7, the location of the trash containers in the parking lot. Obstructing the views of cars. Flaw 8, noise and health issues such as fumes from a large number of idling cars, slamming of doors, or parents parking in front of residences and walking their children through properties to get to the school twice a day. Flaw number 9, the lack of a loading zone to accommodate their deliveries or services to the daycare. The loading zone needs to be a designated area. The lack of a loading zone will cause the alley to be additionally blocked during times of the day. I would like to discuss number 2 and number 6 because these two have the most significant effect on the ebb and flow of traffic in our neighborhood. Number 2 one of the most obvious flaws is the created hot spot of created congestion. This is the spot where three lanes of traffic meet at the double exit point of the parking lot intersecting the alley. What the study failed to mention is the line coming in directly from St. Rita into the alley and colliding with the double lines of the parking lot. There are 54 residents who have no other way to get out besides backing out into the alley. The second is making the alley a one-way lane. This alley has been two-way since it was created over 90 years ago. It gives residents timely east and west access to all major roads. The owners of the daycare are asking to make the alley one way solely to serve them and not considering the other 54 owners or tenants who have no other way to leave or enter their residences. Making the alley one way for one building would be devastating for our residents. The final issue is parking of the daycare. the parking is clearly inadequate. In addition to the daycare owner’s inconsistent statements for the number of parking spaces for their 42 employees, a number stated in the record in May, now they want the City to give them a CUP for only 26. According to the CBB report the industry accepted standards for daycares is between 58 and 79 parking spaces. That’s found on their information. The owners of the daycare want 26 and want the City to base the number off what the owners say they need. Owners don’t get to dictate their own parking requirements. Most of the 26 spaces on the Alamo parking lot are small in size. Not standard and they are squeezed into the plan. These mini-size spaces are not functional during peak hours because they will be blocked by cars traveling across the lot to get to the daycare facility to get their child, so no one parked on the lot can get in or out at heavy traffic times. Then the question is where 19 or more employees will at least park every day and where will visitors park. The answer is, all over the neighborhood. If street parking is consumed by daycare employees and visitors, it will leave no street parking for residents. Come visit our neighborhood streets any early morning or evening to see our streets filled with resident’s cars. There isn’t enough parking for our residents and daycare employees and visitors. In conclusion, approving this daycare would be a disaster for our area. I would ask each committee member to put yourself in the position of our neighborhood property owners and residents. How would you like living or investing in an area that had such an undesirable ill-conceived plan that you’ve got to squeeze and make sure everything is done perfectly, calling parents and saying you can’t be contractual because you didn’t do this or that. I mean I’ve been a teacher. Teaching is not a fine science. There are all sorts of scenarios where kids and parents have… you know they aren’t going to be told what to do. They are paying for the daycare. So, these are irreconcilable differences that I mentioned. So, I am requesting, and we are requesting that you do not make a final decision tonight until you review our written material. Your committee had the fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Clayton to review our submitted information to complete your due diligence regarding this proposal. Please. Vote. No. And please enter these materials I’m going to give you into the record. Thank you.

BS – Whatever was just handed out, I would like a copy of it.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Do you have an extra copy for the applicant

BN – Yes.

HUN SON (HS) – I have lived in my house for 55 years. The person who lives there 55 years knows best than ARB. I know the area best. 5 years ago there was Katie’s Pizza and I was moving from St. Rita to the back alley and there was a delivery van that was blocking the whole area. I called the Clayton Police and the police came and talk to the driver to move his car. The driver protested to the police that they were in the middle of unloading food stuff. The police man told the driver “right now!” One car blocks that back alley! Now they are going to add 223-230 cars morning and afternoon. It is infeasible. It’s impossible. The person who lives there knows the area best. How can they add 200+ cars in the morning and afternoon at the rush hour times. That is infeasible. The pictures they submitted are the wrong pictures. I have been inside that building so many times for so many years. It needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The last picture they showed, the backdoor, that is my house. That is the wrong picture. Do not believe those pictures. Second point. For the school to be successful there needs to be three elements. The first is the community to support. Second is the school authority. Third is student body. They may have the school authority and the student body, but they do not have community support. Every property owner I’ve been talking to is opposed to the school they do not want it there. We will be harmed if they start their project out there. Third we buy groceries by using the rent of our tenants. They will starve us they will take away our means of living. Our tenants will leave. They will not tolerate lack of parking spaces. It is already a traffic jammed area. St. Rita is already a one way. It is very difficult to drive today. It is a jammed packed area. They are going to add 230 cars. They are going to drive down our property values. Maybe so we will be scared away from that area. 6616, 6612 , 6610 Alamo those areas, maybe they want to buy out those areas and demo those homes. Maybe they have a long range plan like they did with the two the demoed and created one large housing area. Scared away those property owners, buy out at a cheaper price then demolished it.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Sir we will not get into hypotheticals here. Please stick to the point we are discussing and try to wrap it up also.

HS – Today they are trying to take away our means of living by driving down our property values. By driving our tenants away. This is injustice. You can prevent all of this from happening right here. I wish you disapprove this. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen for the privilege of your time.

MIMI DEEM (MD) – 6610 ALAMO

MD – My first thought was the current traffic study did not take into account the maintenance work which is extensive, done by ATT, Charter, Ameren, MSD, in that alley. In addition to the trash pickup let’s not forget there is also yard, recycling. I take issue with the fact that it is a low use alley. I backed up, I told Barb last week, I said I tried to back in three times thinking it was a low use alley and someone is honking their horn it me because they are behind me. It is a pretty well-travelled alley. From a resident stand point, we need to think about all of the use that that alley gets. And it’s significantly higher than what was projected. I’m taking issue with the numbers that were given on the spaces that would be needed for parking. I cannot make it work. If you’ve got 2 infant rooms you’ve got one teacher. I’m assuming it’s 1 teacher per 4 students per room. So, the math on the teachers alone comes out to be about 22 spaces. On Alamo avenue, if you wanted to use Alamo Avenue, it doesn’t clear till about 10 in the morning. I go out to rake leaves on leaf pick up day because I don’t like them blowing all over from my neighbors and I really can’t get those out there at 9 because that’s when they like to come down. I try to get out there, but the cars are still parked there. So, the cars don’t really clear till about midmorning. The scenario that was given on student pick up, if this were a military exercise, I could see that working but children do not to that. Children have bad days, they don’t want to get out of the car, they don’t want to get in their car seat. This was a military precision

27 and that’s great on that video we saw. That was the perfect scenario. The teachers were there. Sometimes the teachers run late. Sometimes their pick up is not there. No one was out there this morning. What do they do in icy weather? I would ask Higher Ground, have they just stood on that parking lot next door to my house, and looked east? Washington University has the perfect scenario for this daycare. that’s where it should be. It’s an empty building that has parking space. It has a drop off space. That is the ideal space for this facility. It’s not that we don’t need the daycare, that it wouldn’t be a good idea. It would be a very good idea. Especially in this area. It’s just that this is a third-rate plan. Its creative, it’s just not a top rate plan. It’s not top-rate for citizens, it’s residents. It’s not really top-rate for parents and children. But if you looked up at Wash U and looked up at that parking lot and all the spaces that are over there, how you could drive up to the building, drop off. That’s the ideal scenario. That is the ideal. There is a measure to evaluate preschools spaces. Its call the early childhood environmental. It has been in place since 1980, it’s been revised numerous times, it talks about what is an optimum space for a preschool environment. And this is why is say this space that has been planned is created and needed is not top notch. Think Oak Knoll Park, think, visualize a fenced space. Maybe half a football field, maybe three quarters of a football field with diverse vegetation around the perimeter. Aged-diverse vegetation. Maybe have sycamore trees on one side and different kinds of Oaks with different kinds of eggcorns. A riding track inside that fence so children can ride vehicles that have pedals, that don’t have pedals. Inside that track, is a space to plant a garden. You have microscopes out there you are digging up bugs. Inside that space is also a space for a sand play, water play, and a multipurpose playground with a minimum of seven different movements on that playground. This is, that would be a primes space. You could even do that up at Wash U. You can’t do that on this space. I look at this and although it’s creative and it would use the building, what you are asking us to do as residents is to be maximumly inconvenienced for a space that is at best, using this assessment from the early childhood standards of an outdoor space, a C+ maybe B-. It is not a prime space no matter how you slice this. It is the proverbial you really can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear. That’s the proverbial. Although, as I said that space would be used. I ask this Board to turn down and reject this proposal because of this reason. It is not the best use of this space. The sacrifices and the negative impact this proposal will have on our residential community is extensive. WE have a mixed-use community. New developments try to create what we have. It’s up to us to successfully redevelop this site so that residents and businesses are successful. We should not be at odds. We ought to be able to get a win, win. A win for the business and a win for the residents. It can be done. This is a good development for the owner/developer because it’s one tenant. In years past lets not forget, before Katie’s Pizza, we had Blackberry Breakfast Place, we had dance studios, we had hair salons, we had an alterations shop. We had architects and a lawyers office upstairs. It was multi-use and a little bit higher maintenance. When that was fully developed and fully occupied and that parking lot was totally occupied. It didn’t require, ‘well the trash truck can only come between 10 and 12 we’ve got this stipulation. And if youre going to stipulate that, what do you do about Ameren, Charter, MSD, the telephone company, etc. This is just not a good plan. It’s creative but just not a good plan. Thank you for rejecting the one way alley. But the real site is Washington University Campus. That is optimal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you

JOSH SABE (JS) – 108 ARUNDEL PLACE

JS – I want to make this short and sweet. I am the father of a two-year-old daughter. I have a different perspective, I am in favor of the Montessori school. That is largely in part to what I would characterize as more of a macroscopic set of characterizations which are. Is this going to be good for the community? In my opinion, yes. That is based on a couple things. I moved to St. Louis a couple years ago for work from San Francisco and we moved here to Clayton specifically for a variety of reasons, about 4-5 different factors. 1. What is the quality of life in the area. 2. What are the educational characteristics and capabilities of the town? 3 & 4. What is the walkability and sense of community of the neighborhood we were going into? We had a lot of options, in or around St. Louis and we specifically chose Clayton because it hit on all of those factors. In my opinion, the preschool is actually a positive for the neighborhood. It clearly fills a need. As a parent there is an unmet need for early childhood development and preschools in this

28 community. I think this is an excellent use of that building and creates a net benefit for it. Furthermore, I think it is actually going to create a positive community element, in terms of attracting more people and a sense of vibrancy and more people that are likeminded about these types of things. So, I think it is very positive for the neighborhood. Again, I think if you zoom out and think about this more broadly, is this beneficial for Clayton neighborhood? And as a neighborhood and a member of that community and a homeowner of that community, I think that it is. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you

RENEE COLE (RC) – 6615 ALAMO AVENUE RC – I would like to add that one of my main concerns is emergency vehicles. That neighborhood is very, sort of isolated. There is one-way entrance north from St. Rita, Concordia, and Seminary boarder San Bonita, Alamo, and the adjacent alleys. It would take additional time for an emergency vehicle to go around to get to us. Not to mention everything else that has already been said. I just wanted to add that one little thing to think about.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you

Fred Stivers (FS) – I am a father of two (2.5yr & 9mo). I would give my teeth to be able to drop both of them off on my way to work. I work at the University, I’m a senior lecturer in the architecture department and my wife is an orthopedic hand surgeon and both of us have pretty crazy schedules and I really value what Montessori education could possibly do for my children and I think it would be a tremendous value to the neighborhood. I refuse to think of my children as a barrier or a source of conflict in the neighborhood but the benefit they could bring to the neighborhood could be a vibrant place. I live in Ladue. At number 17 Willow Hill. Thank you

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you

JEN DLUGOSZ (JD) – RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER AT 6409 SAN BONITA AVENUE

JD – I want to offer some comments, for background, I have a 1 and 5 year old and until this year my 5 year old went to a Montessori school so I am standing here as a person who is totally convinced to the benefits of a Montessori education. As a homeowner in the neighborhood, I also have some concerns with this development. I don’t think that the proposal in its current form to show that negative impacts would be mitigated. Specific concerns I have are the traffic and parking studies did not analyze the impact of periotic events beyond the daily events of pickup and drop off. That are a regular predictable part of running a daycare center or school. So I was glad to see this was mentioned in the presentation given by the developer. However, I would really like to see it added to the study and simulated because I think when we talk about this in person it’s easy to get really slippery with the facts and so it would be nice to see those things estimated by CBB. We heard a lot earlier where people were saying the CBB study shows that this would work well. My reading of the study was a little bit different. I read they were saying, given the assumptions that were working with this works well. So now I wanted to mention some of the assumptions that may not be so realistic that were put into that study. 1. Families would be willing to park on Clayton Road. This seems unrealistic and also unsafe. The transportation study says that we need to use the alley for pick up and drop off so it’s not clear why all of the sudden it would become safe to load or unload your children on Clayton Road at other times. As a parent of a 1 and 5 year old, I can tell you I would not park on Clayton Road to load or unload my children if I had to go in for a meeting or an event. I would certainly drive into the neighborhood and park there. It doesn’t seem safe to me to unload 1 child, potentially multiple children with the car seat on both sides of the car, on this busy road. 2. This assumption that Clayton Road could accommodate the parking demands that would be created was not tested by the study and it’s something that should be analyzed jointly with the Kid Valet and taking into account parking restrictions. Rich mentioned some of this before, just imagine you have cars queuing up for the Kid Valet on Clayton Road, meanwhile parking is not permitted on Clayton Road at all in the right most lane between 4 and 6pm and as

29 far as I can tell from the signage never permitted in the right most lane beyond this property. It’s very unclear if there is some demand for parents to park, at times, where that parking will happen. I think that needs to be rolled into the study. 3. I also thought that minor deviations from expected behavior could interfere with the smooth running of the Kid Valet. It sounds a lot like a precision machine. Something that was also mentioned in the study, that parents would be assigned a 10-15 minute drop off and pick up window in order to make this work. I’m concerned that it would be easy for parents to miss this window based on traffic or unexpected events at work or you know difficulties getting kids ready in the morning. So, what if parents don’t get to their window, they might not be able to do that and then the daycare center says, ‘well we have the power to discipline them’ yes they have the power but do they have the financial interest in disciplining them if this means those parents then leave the daycare center and go somewhere else with less restrictive policies. We have to be concerned about what is actually going to happen if this is approved and it’s in there and it’s operation. It needs to run perfectly and it is kind of hard to believe enforcement is going to be very strict if it hurts their bottom line. I also noticed the under provision of parking spaces relative to the ITE specifications. The CBB study says that they estimate 58-79 parking spots would be needed for a daycare of this size and the school is only proposing 29 sports. The report just threw that out there so the question is, why don’t we need that number and I’m not entirely convinced that the Kid Valet can wholly eliminate the need for any parking for parents, ever. Right now those 29 spots are only for workers. Finally, I have a lot of sympathy for the people who live in the very immediate area of this development. I think letting a commercial business monopolize the alley, twice per day is wrong and infringes on the rights of the residents who live there. If you look at what was expected based on the report and this is directly from there, ‘a steady stream of vehicles down the alley, every 25-35 seconds’. That would be happing twice, or maybe now as we hear today, multiple times daily. As far as I can see, this is really going to impede the ability of residents to use that alley. I know if I lived there and that was the alley approaching my garage, I would be really upset about that. I think overall my stance on this is… I think it would be interesting to have a school there, it could be valuable for the neighborhood. I think the current proposal doesn’t go far enough to meet the requirements for the CUP and show that the negative impacts wouldn’t be too great. I would like to see some of these issues thought about and actually simulated and looked at before going forward. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. Any other comments from the audience. *NONE* ________________________________________________________

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any further comment from the applicant at this time?

LG – Aaron Bailey, the directory of compliance from Higher Ground is going to talk about some of the operational issue that were raised. I mean obviously we can’t respond to allegations of flaws and errors in the CBB report. All of the data that was given to them they did analyze, and all of the assumptions were tested and within industry guidelines. So, I can’t refute that at this point but that is our understanding. All of our numbers come from what Higher Ground experiences with their other sites, so I think it would be helpful to have Aaron talk about the dynamics and how this works in real time.

AB – I handle anything to do with regulatory standards that apply to our business. I’ve been with the company 2.5 years. I want to cover a couple points. Generally, 3 points. 1. I understand people have a lot of concerns based on experiences with other daycares, public schools, high schools. I personally license every school we open. 18 schools in 8 states and pre-licensed in 16 states. There’s nothing like walking into a Montessori school, it’s extremely different from anything else you’ve experienced. I’m sure that you might be skeptical about that, but I routinely talk to childcare licensing officials and I hear this every times. While we do work to mitigate pickup/drop off/ special events I want to reassure you it happens differently in our schools than in others. 2. Regarding the square footage and max capacity objections that came up. We stick to our own internal standards. We don’t particularly follow AMI and definitely don’t follow max square footage requirements as allowed by law. Montessori schools use much more

30 space per child than is minimally required by state standards. I quite often find myself in situation where I could license a school by state standards at 50-100% capacity higher than what were actually going to use. Yes the building is big enough to hold more children but were not going to do that. Regarding parking, with my experience and my wife working as a teacher in one of these schools, staff counts ebb and flow during the day. So when were concerned about whether or not there will be a couple of spaces open for a random parent to park at 4:30-5 pm, at 4:30-5pm, there are not 26 people working at a school this size. There is 5-12 depending on drop off and pickup and the ebb and flow of what enrollment looks like throughout the day. If you’re concerned very early or late afternoon usually all of the staff is not there and there is extra parking. This is my last point, our financial incentives about kicking out parents who don’t comply with our requirements. I understand the concern but in my mind that is completely backwards from our actual experience. If you look at the financial incentives, this is a building I want to operate that can generate up to 208 enrollments, angering the neighbors and you guys and losing 208 enrollments over 1 parents enrollment does not make any financial sense to me. If parents jeopardize our ability to operate, we get rid of them. There’s just… I don’t know how much more blunt I can be about that. It makes no financial sense, it disrupts the campus it’s not the environment we operate in. obviously, we work with parents we don’t just kick them out on a whim, but if you are jeopardizing our ability to operate our schools I’m not going to let you stick around because you pay to go here. We have people on waitlists, they are high quality schools, parents want to enroll their children. I can find someone that can follow the rules.

RON REIM – Regarding the max number of students – you have mentioned based on the square footage, in the state of Missouri, you guys would be able to license the building for more, but you guys don’t do that. You’re going to license for your program. If we were to approve, you all would be willing to put that as a condition of approval that you could only have 208 and not the max number allowed by the state

AB – I believe we assumed it would be limited to 208. That’s what we are requesting. That’s what we would stick to.

RON REIM – So the use of those spaces the basement etc. would not be used to have more children

AB – Correct, we wouldn’t add more classes at a later date.

BRIAN MAGUIRE – That is in the staff recommendation the maximum enrollment be 208 and maximum staff is 26.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – One other comment is in the CUP process, we are not looking at reviewing the school method or this particular one. We are looking at how the entire use of the property will work both with the school and with the community. It has to work with both.

AB – I would add there as a national Montessori school operator, these aren’t novel ideas we are coming up with trying to sneak one past you hoping it works. These are methods that we use at some of our schools and use successfully. The last comment I’ll make – the reason I have a job and the reason this is so important to us is we are a national group of school and we are continuing to expand and it’s a scalability issue. I can’t continue to open schools if it gets schools shut down, I can’t get new licenses if I get licenses revoked. All of these things tie in together. Messing up the things we promised, losing a CUP, these would all be fatal to our business model and my ability to open schools. It’s not a risk I’m willing to take. We make these promises because we know we can back them up.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. I think we’ve heard from the applicant and both residents in the area, both pro and con. We have a very complete staff report on the Conditional Use Permit request and 16 different staff recommendations that I assume the applicant has seen. Do you have any issues with them?

31 LG – No we do not have any issues with them

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – There is a sentence in the staff report that I would like to go back to and it has sort of been alluded to by several people it says – it is important to determine a scale of use that will limit impacts to the surrounding neighborhood (Staff Report, pg. 4). 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, and I think that’s what we have been talking about tonight quite a bit. Are there other comments from our Plan Commission at this point? Knowing that we’ve also been requested to look at the information given to us in the white binder and the green binder.

RICHARD LINTZ – I think we’ve heard from a lot of people that a daycare facility, a high-quality daycare facility, and I think we’ve seen that they are willing to provide a high-quality daycare facility, they do it around the country, is something that the community could well use. From that point of view, I think it is a great use of the building. However, by using this building and its noncontiguous parking lot and in essences changing what is the back yard, back alley, utility access for residents to a front door for the school, changes the use of the community completely. I think that is something, you’re taking away from the residents something that they have, they have. It is theirs. And it is a right, as we talked about, it is part of the public use of the alley way. And whether it’s 10 cars or 50 cars, you’ve changed the use of the alley way by making it the front door and I think that is just a difficult… I can go into the whole, I’m still not convinced that the safety factor is mitigated completely. I hear the, I like the word of the military precision of your operation and I’m sure you make that work in other places. I live across the street from a school, I watch what those parents do all the time, I watch them ignoring no U-turn signs on Wydown. I watch them do this day after day after day and if you’ve got some military way of keeping them inline, that’s fine. I don’t see it. But more importantly, I’m really not… I don’t think we can ignore the fact that this is the back door for the residents and it is a mixed-use area. I know the front door is all commercial on Clayton, but the alley way is their back door and they use is as a back door and to change it to a front door changes the use of it. I can’t support that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any other comments?

BRIAN MAGUIRE – I think I’ve mentioned this before, but it wasn’t that long ago that CBC was parking all over that neighborhood and 17-year-old kids were going 55 up and down all of those alleys. I know, I was one of them. Sorry. I think the use makes a lot of sense, it’s nothing compared to the impact of what CBC was in that neighborhood. I think they demonstrated that they put a lot of thought into a parking plan and I participate in dropping a toddler off every day and it’s less organized than what this plan is. I think staff has done a good job of limiting the enrollment, limiting the employees, I think it’s all pretty well shown that CBB agrees that the math works. I understand it’s somewhat of an inconvenience, but I don’t think it’s a huge inconvenience for anyone.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any other comments?

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – I thought of the CBC scenario. As Brian mentioned, there were what about 1000 students there. Initially when the applicant came in May they mentioned there might be parking at the mortuary. If this doesn’t work out, is there any prescription that can be had where they would pursue additional parking on either the former CBC Campus, Washington University, or the mortuary or something to mitigate effects on the community? I see a lot of positive with the Montessori, I see the individuals that live there. That has been their alley for many years, so is there, are we too far along to think about some sort of compromise, if this is a terrible situation for the school the parents of the school for the neighbors if it is approved in order to mitigate that and there have been preliminary conversations with Wash U about utilizing parking, maybe could you speak to that so we could use that as some basis.

BS – I would also remind everyone up here that the schools population goes from 24% to maybe 50something percent by year 3. So, we are not talking about a large number on year one. Year two there’s inevitable growth and by year

32 3 you’re looking at where the rubber meets the road as far as the number of cars and stacking goes on. Wash U has available parking in the neighborhood at the CBC parking lot. It is, their position to not insert themselves in a contentious debate. So, it’s available but it’s not…it’s not available guess is the way to put it. It is there. I might add that, the neighborhood constituency has been consistent in…I uhh…in a message that is been convenient for them. It has been using facts that are… or using statements that we as the developer have no way of defending. Using approaches that test our ability to have an answer. We are time and time again put into a corner if you will, we have… we’ve trusted the analysis of CBB in using this parking lot. The use of an alley is not one for the exclusive right of one particular individual and we’re not proposing that. We’re not saying this is our alley. This is a safety matter. This was a… the best place for the best outcome of dropping off and picking up. This is really all based about being safe for these kids. Our intention is to provide a high-quality amenity for the greater community in the best way that we can. And we believe that we have.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well, thank you Brian. Any other comments?

CAROLYN GAIDIS – As far as property values are concerned, have you looked at any comparable neighborhoods to see what Montessori school might have done. I know that my sister and brother in New England have sent their kids all through Montessori school and very positive, they are brilliant and successful people today. Regardless, one of the things that I know from that experience is that the property value soared because of the proximity to an elite school. That’s one thing that I would mention that could be a positive for the neighborhood as well. I also have a lot of respect for CBB. I’ve used them a lot in the past for traffic studies, for Abraham Lincoln Memorial Library project, we used them for that, to locate the actual museum and library in Springfield, Illinois. They are really, really reputable. So I personally am having a hard time believing that they did anything sneaky or took into account different facts when they are doing any kind of study. They are engineers. This is what they do for a living and they are liable if they do something that would not be correct.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We’ve come to a point and I would like to make a suggestion. I think we’ve heard a lot of comments on both sides, both from the citizens and the audience as well as the members of the commission. We’ve been requested to review information that citizens have put together and although I hesitate to recommend a continuance to a future meeting I think it might be most appropriate to give the applicant time to respond to the comments that have been made here tonight. Both the positive and negative and to allow the commission members time to review other information. I also say that because I cannot tell if it were to pass or be denied tonight and I would like to avoid a denial at this point to give everyone an opportunity to respond. Now before you go on, any comments on that.

BRAIN MAGUIRE – It was brought up to the commission earlier that there was a meeting held and a number of the people who had comments were not there for that meeting. I think that would also give the opportunity to have a meeting in person and to maybe flush some of these things out.

BS – Repeat that – a neighborhood meeting that none of the neighbors showed up to when invited. Is that what you’re suggesting?

JEN DLUGOSZ (JD) – Can I say that I did not receive an invitation. I would suggest advertising more broadly next time. We have a Facebook group I can help you use.

OTHER PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE – DO IT WHEN WE’RE IN TOWN, I WAS OUT OF TOWN.

BS – As you can see.

33 RICHARD LINTZ – You know Brian, you guys aren’t blameless either on this so don’t, you know… I understand your concern but be careful. I want you know that I think when you start talking about taking away things and imposing on the residents that have lived there for 55 years without giving them anything back, you are not giving them anything… I think you need to be thinking about how you can approach them. Maybe they didn’t show up, maybe there is another way to do it, maybe there is another way you can find a way to reach out to them because it’s clearly not working the way it is. On either side.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – I have a question on the material we just received now – is there a reason when this meeting was listed as being on an agenda, a reason we did not get this information earlier to review prior to this meeting?

BARB NAUTER (BN) – The amount of time it took to put that together was a tremendous amount of time of gathering information, photos, everything. It’s just impossible. We are not a company. We are a group of residents trying to fight something that we see as irreconcilable. They invited us to a meeting but yet some of their actions in the community with one on one with the owners of the buildings were so repugnant with what they did. They are trying to shove this down our throats, but this is where we live and they are changing the alley and as far as CBC is concerned CBC didn’t go up and down our alley. They took public streets and parked there but they didn’t take our alley way which is our access to the world.

BS – *makes a comment but cannot be made out*

BN – Why would we repeat a problem they we’ve already resolved when they moved out. You’re asking us to take on another problem of finding parking and it’s just not acceptable anymore.

Carolyn Gaidis – So is there no business that can go in there then?

BN – No of course there is. There have been businesses there for 50+ years but now all of the sudden this is the only business that can go in there.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We’ve made a suggestion

LG – Yes, thank you Chairman, may we take a couple of moments. This is obviously a big decision for us and for the applicant. They’ve put a lot of work into preparing and presenting. So frankly we need a couple of minutes to talk about the suggestion of tabling.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Sure, take a couple of minutes. I would like to hear from the rest of the commission about how they feel about tabling or not.

RON REIM – I personally think that tabling at this point is the right thing to do. I understand from the developer’s point of view why that might not be what they hoped to come away with this evening. Given the additional information we have and the comments I think that would be prudent on all of our parts. We also know that in Clayton if we reject it, if it gets voted down, there is some time limit before it can come back unless it makes a substantial or material change to the submission.

CG – I agree with what you said. I would like to give the community a chance for me to review this. I don’t think it would be fair to rule without this information being read. I think that would be poor from.

CRAIG OWENS – We can receive information at any time and consider it however you want. If you decide you want to take it up, we can take it up.

34 CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Have you returned?

SUSAN ISTENES – Why don’t you take a five-minute break Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Good idea, we will take a five-minute break and be back at five till nine.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Welcome back, does the applicant have anything

LG – Obviously the applicant has gone to great length to submit their project to CBB’s analysis and work with staff. We feel like we have put forth basically the best project under the circumstances. We feel that we have included in the project, quite a number of conditions that are being used to mitigate any detrimental impact to this neighborhood. We feel that we’ve reached out to the neighbors. We have published a meeting, tried to have a meeting with them and get input on those plans. All of that said obviously we understand that the commission has been given this information this evening and if the recommendation is that it be tabled so that you can all review that information, we will respect that. That said we would like to come back at the next meeting and at that time we are prepared to have you vote on the project.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ok I have a question for staff – do we have the time to get them on the next agenda

SUSAN ISTENES – We have a pretty big agenda but yes it could. Would you be inclined to table the ARB to that meeting I as well would suggest that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Do we have to vote on that, make a motion?

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE

RON REIM – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

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

This item was continued to the next meeting 12/03/2018

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2100 (09:00 PM)

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

November 19, 2018 — Meeting Minutes