October 1, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2018 1730 (05:30 PM)

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld at 1728 (05:28 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 1735

At 1808, Carolyn Gaidis and Ron Reim recused themselves from the Centene Project matters

At 1810, Craig Owens left

At 1840, Craig Owens returned

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.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of May 21, 2018 and September 17, 2018 were presented for approval.

RON REIM (RR) - MOTION TO APPROVE

BRIAN MAGUIRE (BM) - MOTION SECONDED

2 MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD (MINUS WILLIAM LIEBERMAN)

NEW BUSINESS

224 N BEMISTON AVENUE – SITE PLAN REVIEW - RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 8,117 square foot property is located on the east side of North Bemiston Avenue between Pershing Avenue and Kingsbury Boulevard and has a zoning designation of R-3 One and Two-Family Dwelling District. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing two-story home and the construction of a two-story, 3,551 square foot (excluding the attached garage) single-family residence with a 334 square foot detached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 28 feet 2.4 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 criteria listed below.

COMPATIBILITY

1) A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. >> The surrounding properties are single-family and two family residences as well as a public park. The project meets the setback and height requirements of the R-3 Zoning District.

2) The location and screening of a project's air-conditioning units and other associated equipment. >> The proposed house includes geothermal HVAC, so no exterior units are required.

3) The location, adequacy and screening for trash. >> Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located at the southwest corner of the garage and accessed from the driveway.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE

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

3 site shall be provided in such a manner as not to have a detrimental effect on the property of others or the public right-of-way.

Impervious Coverage >> The existing total lot impervious coverage on site is 53 percent. The new plans increase the total lot impervious coverage to 54.9 percent, which is below the maximum allowed impervious coverage of 55 percent. The proposed front yard impervious coverage is 30.5 percent, which is below the maximum allowed front yard coverage of 45 percent.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.50 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.50 CFS, which represents no change. Downspouts will be piped to the drywell in the northwest corner of the lot. A pop-up emitter in the front yard will be connected to the drywell system for overflow. The stormwater management plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable.

LANDSCAPING

5) The applicant is required to submit a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed and trees to be replaced by caliper, species and condition. Such plans must reflect City of Clayton preservation standards. >> It is the opinion of the City’s contracted landscape architect that the landscape plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcover. The plan provides a surplus of 234 square feet of canopy coverage. The proposed plans exceed the native tree requirement at 33.3 percent proposed. The City’s landscape architect has requested a more detailed plan for canopy protection and pruning, root pruning and other methods for protection of the existing tree in the southeast corner due to location of utility lines and construction. The plan shall be provided and reviewed prior to the issuing of a building permit.

DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS

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.

UTILITIES

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.

4 >> All connections to public utilities are shown on the plans to be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department.

LIGHTING

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 doors and the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less.

PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION

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.

In conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the proposed home is compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Stormwater will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan provides for an attractive design with a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials that are suitable for the area. The project meets the setback and height requirements of the R-3 Zoning District. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

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

5 2) A DETAILED TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF A BUILDING PERMIT.”

LAUREN STRUTMAN (LS) – ARCHITECT DAVID VOLZ (DV) – CIVIL ENGINEER LS – gives brief outline of project. DV – Gives explanation of drainage area map, present and proposed drainage area. How it is maintained, installed, Carolyn Gaidis (CG) – Has questions relating to replacing the Black Walnut tree and placement of driveway. Also comments on suffocating roots of the trees if new soil (6-8 inches) is added because the tree roots lay between the top 10-12 inches of soil so she would like plans showing they aren’t going to be suffocating the feeding roots. Suggests switching sugar and red maple to avoid roots ripping up sidewalk. LS – Explains they exceed the native tree requirement so they will not be replacing the Black Walnut tree and that they took careful consideration to where they were going to put the driveway and decided the high point of the yard would be best for drainage purposes. LS states that the owner is open to switching those two trees and that they do not wish to damage the sidewalk up.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – LAUREN YOU HAVE INDICATED AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THOSE TWO CONDITIONS

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPING CHANGE THAT THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

224 N BEMISTON AVENUE – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – RESIDENTIAL

The subject block of North Bemiston Avenue features a variety of house styles and materials. The proposed house features a covered front porch, variations along the facades and multiple roof lines. The height of the proposed residence is 28 feet 2.4 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The two-story home to the north (228 North Bemiston Avenue) was constructed in 1985 and is +/- 1 foot 9 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The two existing lots south of the subject property are vacant. A one car, detached garage is proposed in the northeast corner of the lot. The proposed garage measures approximately 15 feet from grade to the mean of the sloped roof. The proposed detached garage conforms to regulations for accessory structures. Staff is of the opinion that the massing of the proposed house and garage are compatible with existing character.

The primary building material for the proposed home is dark red brick with limestone accents. As proposed, the secondary material will make up 19 percent of the front façade, 7.7 percent of the rear façade, 4.3 percent of the north façade and 7.3 percent of the south façade. The roof is clad in faux slate grey shingles and tan casement windows are proposed. Red brick is the primary building material proposed for the detached garage. Limestone and fiber cement board panels are proposed as accent materials. Faux slate grey shingles and tan casement windows are also proposed. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials are compatible with existing character.

The 9 foot wide driveway will be exposed aggregate leading to an attached rear entry garage with one carriage style garage door. The driveway also leads to the detached one-car garage with a tan carriage style garage door.

A stone retaining wall is proposed along the north side of the driveway. The tallest point of the wall is 1.2 feet. No permanent fences are proposed.

In conclusion, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible in terms of mass, height and design with existing nearby homes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

LAUREN STRUTMAN (LS) – ARCHITECT DAVID VOLZ (DV) – CIVIL ENGINEER LS – gives description of the materials that will be used as well as the way the home will be constructed to include a front porch, detached garage that will look like a “little garden building”

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE? *NONE*

7 WELL THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? *NONE*

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

8100 STRATFORD – SITE PLAN REVIEW - RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 6,245 square foot site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection between Stratford Drive and North Brentwood Boulevard. The subject property is zoned R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is currently improved with a one and a half story single family house constructed in 1950. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 1,673 square foot single-family residence with a 541 square foot detached, one and a half story garage. The height of the proposed residence is 20 feet 3 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:

COMPATIBILITY

9) A project's compatibility with its environment and with other land uses and buildings existing in the surrounding area. >> There subject property is surrounded by single family houses. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The applicant is proposing an approximately 21 foot wide driveway, which does not conform to regulations of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed design will require review under the Alternative Compliance section of the regulations.

10) The location and screening of a project's air-conditioning units and other associated equipment. >> The propose house uses a geothermal system and does not have HVAC equipment.

11) The location, adequacy and screening for trash.

8 >> Trash will be stored in a 40 square foot trash enclosure located at the southeast corner of the garage and accessible through a gate from the driveway. The proposed trash enclosure is built into grade using a brick retaining wall.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE

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

Impervious Coverage >> The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 55 percent due to the inclusion of a detached garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 38 percent. The new plans increase the total lot impervious coverage to 55 percent. Proposed front yard impervious coverage is 21.9 percent, which is under the maximum 30 percent front yard coverage allowed.

Stormwater Runoff >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.34 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.39 CFS, which represents a 0.05 CFS increase. Downspouts and the sump-pump will be piped to a dry well located in the front yard at the northwest corner of the lot.

LANDSCAPING

13) The applicant is required to submit a separate landscape plan showing existing trees, trees to be removed and trees to be replaced by canopy cover, species and condition. Such plans must reflect City of Clayton preservation standards. >> The proposed landscape design provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcovers. The plan provides a canopy coverage surplus of 125 square feet and meets the native tree requirement with 50 percent native proposed. Acceptable tree protection measures are in place for the existing street trees and neighboring trees adjacent to the southwest corner of the site. The deck proposed at the southeast corner of the house will be constructed to allow water to seep below, reducing impacts to the existing street tree.

DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS

9 14) 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. >> The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District states that driveways should narrow to 10 feet at the property line. The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance for an approximately 21 foot wide, exposed aggregate driveway leading from North Brentwood Boulevard to the detached garage. Article VI General Provisions for the Urban Design Zoning Districts outlines a process for Alternative Compliance, where applicants can request that the Plan Commission or Architectural Review Board review designs that do not meet standards due to unusual site conditions, but that conform to the intent of the standards. This process is similar to a request for a variance from the Zoning Regulations that is heard by Board of Adjustment.

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

Staff offers the following code section to explain the intent of the driveway width regulation for the design district. In order to approve the alternative compliance approach proposed, the Plan Commission must find that the proposed design conforms to the intent of the code.

Section 410.345 Front Lot Coverage A. The open, park-like appearance of the front setback is a significant character- defining element. It provides a soft, landscaped buffer between the homes and the street creating an inviting, unified appearance. Paving and other hard materials,

10 in excess, can detract from this appearance and should be limited to the narrow driveways and walkways as traditionally found 3. Driveways shall narrow to a maximum of ten feet in width at the street edge or per the City of Clayton standards.

The applicant has submitted a letter dated September 17, 2018 (attached to the application) to outline the reasoning for the alternative design. Staff agrees with statements in the letter describing the driveway character along North Brentwood Boulevard. There are many existing driveways that are a similar width to the 21 feet proposed. Also, due to the width of the subject lot, there is not much room between the garage door and the property line to maneuver a car. The proposed development does not include any pavement in the Stratford Drive front yard, which is considered the primary front yard based on the City’s definition. The larger landscaped front yard described in the front lot coverage code (above) is a character of Stratford Drive and not as prevalent on North Brentwood Boulevard. Based on the existing character of North Brentwood Boulevard, staff supports the request for Alternative Compliance.

UTILITIES

15) 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 water, gas and sanitary sewer lines are located in the Stratford Drive front yard. The underground electric line is located in the southeast corner of the rear yard.

LIGHTING

16) 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.

PLAN COMMISSION CONSIDERATION

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

9) Creation of a desirable environment. 10) Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities. 11) Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships. 12) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.

11 13) Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City. 14) Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment. 15) Inclusion of special features. 16) Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The landscape plan features a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover appropriate for the size of the site. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.”

SCOTT KREJCI (SK) – ARCHITECT DAVE VOLZ (DV) – CIVIL ENGINEER

SK – Gives background of proposed project – states the owners would like to tear down the existing house that they live in and build a new one.

DV – Explains site plan, front entry garage off Brentwood, driveway and hydro-excavation to protect the tree roots, installation and position of the drywell and protecting the existing trees, the drainage map and flow of water.

CAROLYN GAIDIS (CG) – The landscape plan is beautiful but objects to the Vinca because it is on the Invasive Species list it’s like a Honey Suckle its bad.

Richard Lintz – Is deck material pervious

SK – Yes

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ANY COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN REVIEW? *NONE* WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, DO WE HAVE A MOTION

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

CAROLYN GAIDIS – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

8100 STRATFORD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – RESIDENTIAL

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The 6,245 square foot site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection between Stratford Drive and North Brentwood Boulevard. The subject property is zoned R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property is currently improved with a one and a half story single family house constructed in 1950. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 1,673 square foot single-family residence with a 541 square foot detached one and a half story garage. The height of the proposed residence is 20 feet 3 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof.

Stratford Drive features mostly two story homes and has the highest concentration of new houses in the Clayton Gardens neighborhood. The height and massing of the proposed house combines the new construction trends and the existing character seen in the neighborhood. The proposed one and a half story house will replace a one and a half story house and remain a height similar to the adjacent house to the west. The majority of houses along the west side of North Brentwood Boulevard have detached garages or attached garages with the doors facing the street. The proposed house varies from the existing character in one aspect. The house includes a front door facing North Brentwood Boulevard, not Stratford Drive. The Stratford Drive elevation does feature three Juliet balconies and enhanced landscape.

The existing home to the west (8104 Stratford Drive) was constructed in 1948 and is +/- 4.8 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, to avoid tall, blocky building forms, new structures shall incorporate a transition in height and scale through one of six possible techniques. The following permitted techniques are used: “Utilizing dormers and sloping roofs to accommodate upper stories” and “Utilizing a roof pitch and overhang similar to that of the adjacent structures.”

Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is brick with white paint in the German smear style. Cream hardi- board siding is proposed as an accent material and will make up less than 25 percent of all elevations. The proposed roof is clad in charcoal blend asphalt shingles. Black casement windows are proposed. The same materials are proposed for the detached garage. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials are compatible with the existing neighborhood character.

An exposed aggregate driveway is proposed that measures 21 feet wide at the property line. A cream garage door is proposed. The two-car garage includes a half-story below the sloped roof with dormers. Access to the half-story is proposed from an exterior wood staircase on the north side of the garage. The proposed garage conforms to the setback, height and size regulations for accessory

13 structures. A Conditional Use Permit would be required to convert the space above the garage into a second living unit.

Permanent fencing is not proposed. A brick retaining wall is proposed along the south side of the driveway and to create the trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the garage. The proposed material will match the house and detached garage.

Brick pillars and an aluminum railing are proposed around the composite deck at the southeast corner of the house. The brick pillars and railing are located in the front yard. A row of boxwood shrubs is proposed between the deck and the public sidewalk. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with neighborhood character and the proposed house.

In conclusion, the project is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design 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 TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED”

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ANY COMMENTS? *NONE* I FIND THE HOUSE CHARMING AND THINK IT WILL FIT IN WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD

SCOTT KREJCI (SK) – THANK YOU IT’S DUE TO THE OWNERS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR APPROVAL

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ANY COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN REVIEW? *NONE* WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, DO WE HAVE A MOTION

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – SECOND

BOARD – UNANIMOUS YAY

*RON REIM – “I am going to recuse myself from the Centene due to business interaction between my company and their company.”

*CAROLYN GAIDIS – “I am going to recuse myself as well due to conflicts with/relationship with one the firms.”

14 *CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – “Even though we have had two recusals of members we still have a quorum tonight. We had two recusals, we still have five voting members.”

*CRAIG OWENS LEAVES FOR MEETING AT 1808 AND RETURNS ABOUT 1920

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – explains how the proceedings will go: there will be four votes two for site plan and two for architectural review but for simplification we will have the entire presentation first after we go through the staff report and then vote on the matters individually

SUSAN ISTENES (SI) – Items E and F are amendments to subdistrict 1 and subdistrict 2a and they are in one report even though there are voted on individually.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Yes

7600 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (SD1) – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT & 7528 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (SD2A) – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT – SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMENDMENT

*THESE WERE REVIEWED AT THE SAME TIME BY THE PLAN COMMISSION BUT VOTED ON SEPARATELY*

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject properties are zoned Special Development District and part of the multi-phase Centene Clayton Campus. This is a request for consideration of an amendment to the Subdistrict 1 and Subdistrict 2A plans to include a pedestrian bridge over South Lyle Avenue, connecting the parking garages of each subdistrict. The request will require Board of Aldermen review for the plan amendments as well as Architectural Review Board review of the design and materials. The requested amendments to each subdistrict are analyzed together in this report but require separate approvals of a modification to each subdistrict impacted.

Subdistrict 1 is bounded by Forsyth Boulevard to the north, Carondelet Plaza to the south, Hanley Road to the west and South Lyle Avenue to the east. Subdistrict 1 includes a 30-story tower at the west end and a 9 story attached parking garage at the east end. The design and materials were approved by the Architectural Review Board on December 19, 2017 and the subdistrict plan was approved by the Board of Aldermen on January 10, 2017.

Subdistrict 2A is located at the southeast corner of the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and South Lyle Avenue. Subdistrict 2A is 8 stories and includes the entrance for the future Subdistrict 2A auditorium and a parking garage. The design and materials were approved (amendment) by the Architectural Review Board on June 19, 2017 and the subdistrict plan was approved by the Board of Aldermen on January 10, 2017.

BACKGROUND

A Special Development District (SDD) is a distinct zoning classification for large-scale development. The purpose of the special development process is to encourage innovation in the planning and building of a large-scale development with a multi-phased, multi-year timeline. An SDD is governed by a Special Development Plan and Subdistrict Plans, each of which require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The Special Development Plan provides the general development standards for the proposed development.

The individual Subdistrict Plans provide detailed information related to each specific phase of the development. Each Subdistrict requires approval of a Subdistrict Plan (by the Board of Aldermen), Site Plan Review (by the Plan Commission) and Architectural Review (by the Architectural Review Board). The applicant is requesting consideration of the amendment for two of the six Subdistrict Plans.

On September 6, 2016, the Plan Commission reviewed the overall Special Development District rezoning request and plan. The plan proposed for that meeting included pedestrian bridges over Hanley Road and South Lyle Avenue along with a pedestrian tunnel below Carondelet Plaza to connect all subdistricts. The staff report included analysis of the proposed pedestrian connections that found the proposed connections were not consistent with the Downtown Master Plan, which calls for increasing pedestrian activity on the sidewalks. During discussion at the meeting, the Plan Commission and members of the public shared similar opinions to the staff analysis. The Plan Commission voted to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen of the Special Development District plan with conditions, including a condition that the above grade and below grade pedestrian connections proposed between subdistricts were removed from the plan (with the exception of the pedestrian bridge over Hanley Road). The pedestrian connections were removed from the revised plan that was presented to the Board of Aldermen for approval. The Board of Aldermen then voted to approve the revised Special Development District plan on September 27, 2016.

Since removing the pedestrian connections from the Special Development District plan, the applicant has received approval for both subdistrict 1 and subdistrict 2A plans without a pedestrian bridge connection between the two. The applicant is now requesting the pedestrian connection with more specific details than previously provided during the Special Development District planning stage.

The Plan Commission shall recommend to the Board of Aldermen approval, approval with conditions or denial of the amendment to the Special Development Subdistrict plans. The criteria for approval of a Subdistrict Plan are listed below. Similar criteria have been combined for this analysis. Criteria that does not apply to the scope of this amendment request have been omitted from the report.

COMPATIBILITY

1) If any City Master Plan contains recommendations that are specific to the area defined by the site plan, the Plan Commission shall review the site plan to determine its consistency with

16 all applicable recommendations.

>> Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment does not comply with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan. The Downtown Master Plan has a goal of activating the street with pedestrians through the use of multiple techniques including retail at the ground level and enhanced public sidewalks. General best planning principles also include adding pedestrians to sidewalks to help generate vibrant downtown streets. The applicant has stated that the proposed pedestrian bridge will only be accessible to Centene employees, but that population will represent the majority of people moving between the different SDD buildings.

>> South Lyle Avenue also provides an important area of relief for pedestrians and visually in general. South Lyle Avenue breaks up the lengthy massing of the Subdistrict 1 tower and garage as well as the future Subdistrict 2A and B garage and auditorium. The street breaks down the development scale. The proposed open-air design will lower the impact of the elevated walkway, but the point of relief will still be removed.

2) The proposed development is consistent with the special development plan for this site and complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.

>> The ordinance governing the overall Special Development District does not state that pedestrian bridges or tunnels are not allowed, so the proposed bridge is not in conflict with the ordinance; however, the proposed bridge does not align with previous discussion at the Plan Commission level.

TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION

3) Streets or other means of access to the proposed phase of development meet City of Clayton standards and are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic. The internal circulation system of the proposed phase encourages safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and is in compliance with the special development plan. The ability of a project's traffic circulation system to provide for the convenient and safe internal and external movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

>> The proposed pedestrian bridge will remove pedestrians from the sidewalk. Earlier in this report, staff has outlined how removing pedestrians from the sidewalk does not conform with goals of the Downtown Master Plan or good planning practices.

>> The proposed pedestrian bridge would allow safe access for emergency vehicles and delivery trucks under the bridge. The proposed bridge does appear to provide safe access for pedestrians.

17 4) 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 Clayton streetscape is provided along both sides of South Lyle Avenue. One street tree on each side would be replaced with support columns for the pedestrian bridge.

>> An aerial easement would be required over South Lyle Avenue prior to construction of the bridge. Aerial easements are handled by the Department of Public Works and require approval from the Board of Aldermen.

DESIGN & MATERIALS

5) The materials, design and uses are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development phase and the City as a whole. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the design of the special development plan, are consistent with other phases and are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.

>> The proposed bridge materials are consistent with materials used on both subdistricts. Detailed architectural review is contained in the Architectural Review Board staff report.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

6) Every attempt shall be made to preserve the topography of the property. If the topography must be altered to accommodate construction, the plan must contain specific information regarding the proposed topography change and its impact on the flow of drainage on adjacent properties. Provisions for storm surface drainage shall be in accordance with the City’s design standards. 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.

>> Drainage for the proposed bridge will be handled through a system of downspouts connected to the roof and tied into the larger stormwater management system of each subdistrict. The plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by staff. LIGHTING

7) 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. (Site Plan Review).

18 >> Lighting for the bridge is only proposed with the purpose of providing a safe passage for pedestrians. No exterior lighting is proposed to illuminate the bridge architectural features. The proposed bridge is open-air, meaning some light will be visible. The proposed lighting is recessed into the ceiling and focused down. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lighting will provided the necessary safety elements for pedestrians without having an adverse impact on vehicle traffic below or adjacent properties.

In conclusion staff is of the opinion that the proposed pedestrian bridge does not align with goals of the Downtown Master Plan or the approved Special Development District plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE REQUESTED SUBDISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER SOUTH LYLE AVENUE.”

BOB CLARK (BC) – CLAYCO CHAIRMAN AND CEO ON BEHALF OF CENTENE ELI HOISINGTON (EH) – HOK DESIGN PRINCIPAL ON BEHALF OF CENTENE

BC – Give background and goals of the Centene project

EH – Discusses how the bridge does not change the street and the secure points of access for Centene employees. If you do not have an access card you cannot access the bridge. This bridge will help the employees during inclement weather and late hours. Visitors will have to walk on the streets because they will not have card accesses. Internal Centene movement is inside what is called the “Centene Nest”. You are looking at 500 people who will not have access to the “nest” and about 772 of 1300 parking places going over the bridge. The bridge is designed to drain water internally so there will be no icicles or heavy runoff. The lights are designed to minimize disturbance to the outside, there is no light spillage onto the adjacent streets or residences.

*Shows visual to board and audience – starts at loading docks and works its way down*

it is high enough for fire vehicle clearance but low enough to not disturb surrounding residence.

BC – wants to point out how complicated it is to use the bridge, believes it will only be used at dark during the night when security is needed or in the day time in really bad weather. The bridge is not convenient for anyone to go there. It is a destination kind of situation, it’s not convenience. If you park above the bridge floor or below it, and you have to use the elevator or the stairway you’re going down to the street. That’s the fastest way to go. So if it is nice out or you want to get to work quickly this bridge is very inconvenient to use because you have to go up or down to use it, you have to go through a vestibule, across the bridge, through another vestibule to another floor to get to the lobby. It’s worth it if there is snow or a downpour but other than that it’s not.

*describes alternate designs and shows video of different designs*

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – What will keep the Centene employees from parking in the visitor parking spaces?

BC – Being afraid of their boss. The Centene people park in their assigned nested fenced secured parking. What keeps them parking is safety and security.

EH – The card access that you need to get into that nest is also tied to the space so if you park there the Centene folks swipe to get to their spots.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So the Centene people on the top level, is there a secure way for them to go from that top level to the bridge level

EH – They will take the elevator

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – A dedicated elevator or will that be shared?

BC – It’s a shared elevator

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So they can go all the way down to the street level

BC – That’s what they will have to do if there is no bridge they’ll have to go to the street

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So that means that visitors can also ride up the elevator

TOBIAS RAFAEL (TR) RAFCO PROPERTIES PROPERTY MANAGER – What we do with the nest parkers, is we have them go all the way up to the top nest. As far as the garage access and the elevators are concerned, the elevators have card readers in them, so you can only go up by swiping the badge first. The security and cameras would prevent people from tailgating. You would have trouble getting out of the nest if you did tailgate because in order to leave the nest you have to have an active badge

EH – We haven’t updated this plan prior to this discussion. What we are looking to do is have a dedicated pathway through the visitor’s nest to the core nest. That is an interior change though not a structural one to allow that pathway to come through. Obviously were not going to do that before having this meeting.

RICHARD LINTZ (RL) – Once the pedestrians go into the west garage are you saying that there is going to be a safe passageway, or will they just be walking through the middle of garage

BC – They’d just walk right through the garage like they do in their current garage. That would only be Centene employees.

20 CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – other comments on this security issue? If not let’s go back to the street level and our master plan and increasing pedestrian usage of our streets and of course we’ve been promised retail on the ground level and either BOB or ELI you said there would be no retail on Lyle Avenue, is that correct

EH – I believe this was the slide from the final presentation from the BOA meeting, so this is dated prior to staff comments. I believe there was an agreement to retail pocket in the approval of 2A.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – But it’s really focused on Forsyth. but retail is not coming down Lyle

EH – Correct. We spent our time maximizing Hanley and Forsyth

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We appreciate having it maximized for retail now we want the people down there. From day one we have based this on our downtown master plan upholding the pedestrian function and trying to service the proposed retail much more. I understand the bridge would not be for visitors but it seems like the more pedestrians we have walking on our streets the more vibrant it’ll appear and feel and also be safer in perception by other people to bring them in to use the retail and also park in the garage.

Brian Maguire (BM) – Likes that the bridges is inconvenient and that it’s set back from The Crescent. I’m worried if there will be activation on Forsyth. There is over 100,000 sqft of retail in the project, where is that exactly. Is that for all districts?

EH – In all the subdistricts 1, 2, 3, 4, and A

BC – One of the best ways to activate Forsyth is to have a major user like Centene having enough confidence that he’s going to have a secure campus that he’ll want to build in SD3 and add those 4000sqft and those additional 2000 people. That’s the best way to get street traffic of Forsyth. We will also once MetroLink solves some of their security issues have metro users traveling to our buildings creating street traffic.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – if the proposed Lyle Avenue bridge were to go through would there be a plan to create a bridge over Carondelet into SD3?

BC – There is no plan to do that at this point

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – But we’ve seen many changes come that were not planned initially.

BC – There’ve been a few, it’s a big project, not many but there have been a few but I don’t know, I don’t anticipate that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I worry about precedents being set

21 BC – Well there’s already a precedent.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – There’s a bridge going up over a street not owned by the city of Clayton

BC – But there is bridges between the rest of Centene’s buildings

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Yeah but not over a public street. Over a public alley, yes.

EH – What I would say in support of Bob is our initial plan had the bridge, but it was something we agreed to take out at the time but we’ve since studied it at length, all that nesting data and what feel is really good street activation with it coupled with security caused us to come back and reconsider. At no point in the SDD process have we shown a bridge over Carondelet.

WILL LIEBERMANN – I mean there would be a lot of people going across that street I just wonder if the critics in the room, and if that’s The Crescent, how they would feel about the tradeoff between a bridge going across and maybe that being something they didn’t want and if the bridge isn’t there, having 1300 people going across their driveway. I think it’ll be interesting.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – OPENS THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR SITE PLAN – MINIMUM TO NO REPETITION. PLEASE BE POINTED, DIRECT, AND SHORT.

DAN PHILLIPS (DP) – 200 S. BRENTWOOD – CONCERNED CITIZEN May I just clarify that I heard correctly that some of these bridges and ideas were in the original plans, they were rejected, taken out, and now we’re here tonight, is that correct?

SUSAN ISTENES (SI) – Yep

DP – Ok, that goes to one of my themes that I will be discussing tonight. The second thing is that my comments are my views on where things are currently. In no way do I want it to be taken as a criticism of this committee or the administration. Just my sense of where things are at the present. I also wrote these comments without having the benefit of tonight’s presentation so there may be some details which aren’t exact and may have been responded to, ignore those. Pay attention to the themes. The themes are the master plan and what I’m going to call the rolling out and chipping away process. So Clayton is our home, we’re all dedicated to making it a better place and may good things have been accomplished. In no small part because of this committee and Chairman, because of your admirable stewardship, it’s not an easy job. And I know there are times that we have disagreed but that’s the process. The Downtown Master Plan is a fine example of something good that was developed. Now, as I remember it, it included visions of walkability, created meeting places and green spaces for the citizens, for the people who live in Clayton as well as those who commute here so they could all enjoy the city. It was hope that this would promote the City’s financial health and at the same time – enhance its vibrancy and its livability. The bicycle lanes that have been recently approved for Maryland help support those goals. And the Downtown Master Plan was to be our mutual vision for this city’s future.

Then Centene comes along with an offer, that given the realities of cities our size, was too big to turn down. And even though many doubted a large corporate campus in the city could be reconciled with the Master Plan, we hoped it could be managed for a win win for both Centene and the city’s residences. And believe me this is a big and tough project. It is a tough balancing act and that is a hard task to come out with a win win and to balance this. And not for a second would I underestimate the difficulty of this. But little by little the promises and dreams have been chipped away. As a recent case and point, it was just addressed, I thought there was supposed to be retail space on the first-floor level of all the parking garages. But I’ve been told, and I’ve been told second- hand. I haven’t read the contracts myself, but that the fine print of the agreement only requires the space to be retail ready. In other words, if retail comes along, then they can convert the garage space into retail space. I could be wrong on that but that’s information I’ve been given. And I certainly suspect no one here knows of any plans that exist to make that happen. The point is that the walkability, the parks, the meeting spaces, the things that we were looking for and counting on as citizens and that were to be part of the plan are not here. That’s the reality on the ground. And they have been incrementally traded away or just lost in the tactical expansion and revision of the building plans.

Now we all understand the reasons to connect buildings via enclosed walkways, we don’t really need to discuss that. But in a broader sense, it’s one more…chipping away. It’s chipping away the visions that have never materialized. I encourage this committee to think in broader scope terms and about this chipping away process, some might even call it a tactic. Because I don’t think the full scope of the Centene project is known at this time. At least by the citizens. My hunch is that there are more phases of this project to be rolled out and that this chipping away process will continue. Why not. It’s worked very well for Centene so far. And I think you got a sense of that, Mr. Chairman in the response that was given to you with regards to the bridge connecting up to the next phase and how that was phrased.

I fear that the Centene employees will not be on the Clayton Streets and they will not be buying in Clayton retail shops or eating in Clayton restaurants. Instead they are going to be driving into these company garages, transported in elevated covered walkways that connect the company’s buildings and those buildings will probably also supply theirs daily needs including restaurants and gyms, within the labyrinth they are building. Come the end of the day they are going to get into their cars and leave our city.

One of my concerns is that if the Centene employees don’t need spaces, they don’t need walkability, they don’t need the urban amenities, then we the domicile citizens of Clayton aren’t going to get them either. And they are going to be lost and that vision that we had in that master plan is going to be completely lost.

Now, I supported the Centene project and I understand the inherent tension created by Clayton being simultaneously a residential and business environment. I also understand the tax money that Centene can bring in and what that money might allow the city of Clayton to do. But I fear we have traded away too much of the quality of life items without getting enough in return.

So I ask you to think back on some of those goals and visions of the master plan, I got the sense from your earlier comments that you’re inclined to do so, I hope that persists. You have a chance to continue to look at this. I urge you to think about this chipping away tactic and to take a broader scope view of this pedestrian walkway plan. I ask you think about how even at this late date

23 we can somehow add in for the good of Clayton, some of the visions of the master plan. That the citizens were looking for but have not been delivered on.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you.

ROBERT LEVIN (RL) – THE CRESCENT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENT – BRIDGE OVER LYLE

This will create further impact upon the little airspace between the two garages that are being built. Instead of having people hidden in concrete garages, we need street level commercial space in the garages for retail stores to encourage sidewalk pedestrian traffic in order to again have the pleasant, small town Clayton feeling. Also, I have a question, as I turn south on Lyle towards The Crescent garage, I noticed a third-floor, large doorway in the new garage concrete wall overlooking Forsyth. Is Centene planning a walkway bridge over Forsyth?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We’ll have to take that up later.

RL – Ok, that’s all. Thank you

LISA RING (LR) – THE CRESCENT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENT

I have a few concerns. First of all, I admire both Mr. Nidorff (sp) and Mr. Clark, I think they are very intelligent and foresightful and I have a lot of respect for what they have done but I also share a lot of Dr. Phillip’s thoughts. I think that they have a master plan in their own minds, they are very foresightful, like I said and I think they have something in their minds pictured that none of us have yet seen and I also feel just inside my own mind that they have pictured this walkway from the get-go from when they asked for the rezoning. The walkway wasn’t there, or if it was it was easily removed until they did all this and then could easily add it back in to get it done as expeditiously as possible. And I just think that’s wrong. I think they figure they would get their walkway no matter what and I don’t think it’s fair to do to the people who live here and have to live with the consequences. Yes, no matter how translucent you make that walkway, it’s still going to create a dark shadow at any time other than high noon. That’s going to plunge the alley into darkness. I also think that there has been so much discussion about how important the safety of the employees of Centene are, what about everyone else who’s using the garage. They deserve the same considerations for safety and for protection from the elements that the people who work for Centene are. Residents of Clayton are taking a big tax hit for the tax considerations that Centene is getting for all the building they are doing and they should get the same considerations for safety and protection from the elements that the people who are working at Centene get. So if there is something that is being built for safety and protection from elements, I think that the other people who are going to be using the garage should get the advantage of those considerations. I know that Centene has tremendous security at points of ingress and egress of the building, so I would think that would be enough to protect the security of Centene other than in and out of the parking lot and the other people who use the parking lot should get some consideration for whatever else is being used for security, safety,

24 protections. And so if you’re thinking of covering the walkway, what about covering the walkway for everybody to use. What about doing an underground passageway for everyone to use and being a little more egalitarian. And those are my thoughts, and I appreciate your time.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. Any other comments?

DOTTIE FISHER (DF) – THE CRESCENT CONDOMINIUM - RESIDENT

Good evening, I’m up here to say that I appreciate Dan Phillips comments, we agree with them totally. I also was grateful to read the staff comments about how making this bridge across Lyle, it basically completes that feeling of a wall on Forsyth, from Carondelet Plaza all the way through to Hanley and it’s just symbolically, visually, and in reality completes that wall. Also, we’ve talked about the retail, you read in the papers, all these larger cities than Clayton that have offered corporations incentives to move into their cities and the entrepreneurs moved in and built the shops and the restaurants and they’re all closing shop because of these large corporations enticing their employees to stay in the buildings with dining rooms and gyms, just as Centene has. I’m afraid that we’re going to create a canyon of empty spaces. Especially since it’s becoming more of a reality that there is less and less retail involved in this project. Also, visually and I know Mr. Clark talked about how the lighting is recessed andall down cast, it’ll still be a glow in the dark that will again be light pollution regardless. Anyone looking up Lyle will see that all night long. They talk about the number of people then that they are trying to get off Lyle to cross Lyle, well the simple solution, I would think, is you put a pedestrian crossing light there so that traffic has a chance to go through and then the pedestrians have their chance to go through. I don’t see where to say the number of people crossing Lyle would be detrimental to the people living in The Crescent.

Also, I have a question, I’m a member of Wellbridge, where is Wellbridge going to park. I didn’t hear any mention of that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Mrs. Fisher, we’ll deal with that at the end.

DF – Thank you for your consideration, and again, I can’t see how the city can support building a bridge across Lyle. Thank you

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any other comments?

MARY JANE KIMMIND (SP) (MJK) – THE CRESCENT CONDOMINIUM RESIDENT

As you have heard many times before, the residents of The Crescent have never been against development in Clayton. They simply want good development. I question whether this proposed elevated walkway is good development.

From the start, the Centene project was meant to bring jobs and people to Clayton. Instead, we’ve allowed Centene to virtually takeover the eastern part of our city and develop an enormous corporate campus. My friends joke that I don’t live in Clayton anymore, I live in Claytene. I wonder if some who approved this project can drive by Hanley and Forsyth without wondering what they have unleashed on our city. I attended many meetings here were Clayco and Centene representative showed us beautiful sketches of this project that included walkways, upscale retail

25 shops, pedestrians, bicycles, open space, green space and benches. Now, most of the retail has been scrapped and we are left with ugly parking garages covered with fake brick. The elevated walkway will allow workers to drive into our city, park in the garages, and remain inside the building without ever having to set foot on our streets. The workers will have no reason to walk outside, eat in out restaurants or shop in our stores. The citizens of Clayton have given up a lot to allow this massive campus to be constructed. I encourage the ARB to make sure that Clayton gets something in return if they allow the walkway to be constructed.

Something that would encourage workers to be out on the streets, helping to ensure that we have a vibrant economic community. Otherwise, I ask you please vote no on the elevated walkway.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. Any further comment? No. While we’re at it, we’ve had a couple questions posed. Either Bob or Eli, would like to respond to those.

BC – There’s a lot of comments and questions there. Do you know which ones they were?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well there were two distinct questions. One from Mr. Levin, and one from Mrs. Fisher.

BC – Ok, there’s no bridge across Forsyth. I think the, I’m not sure exactly which hole he’s referring to but there’s not… he asked if there will be a bridge across Forsyth and there will not be. That was one of the questions, um what was the other question, I have a list.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Wellbridge parking

BC - Yeah the Wellbridge parking will mostly be in the West garage in SD1. I would also point out that Wellbridge is not a Centene entity they’re just a tenant in the development and they have separate entrances on the front of the building.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – When the West garage is build, will the Wellbridge parkers be able to enter directly into Wellbridge or will they go directly to the street?

BC – They can go directly through to the lobby.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well that means that anyone going into the Centene building will be able to enter directly into the building without going onto the street if they are already in the West garage.

BC – If they are in the garage. The garage is attached to the building so yeah.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – So anybody in the public can get into the tower also without going out onto the street?

26 BC – Yes, there’s an entrance into the tower from the garage.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Separate from the Centene entrance?

BC – Yes. Front entrance. So I think the light, the drawing didn’t show it very well but there is very low light and there is no light leaving the bridge. We could actually put the light on motion activation so in the evening when people aren’t using the bridge the lights are off. I think that’s a possibility to address that issue. There is no fake brick on the project anywhere. All of the brick is just as real as the brick on The Crescent. It’s real brick so I don’t know about that comment but I want to clear that up so people are not confused. You know I don’t want to defend my integrity but I can just tell you that there is no secret project that I know of. We went through an extensive, very transparent process that we committed about the entire project and this is the master plan that we hope to build out, someday and we don’t have a secret plan to takeover Clayton. We have proposed to have about 5000 jobs in the city and all of our tenants are multi-tenant. In fact the top five floors of the first tower that we’re building are separate tenants. You know I think even more than that but we have a tenant for the five floors for the top of the building, we hope. So the buildings are already going to be multi- tenant to some point so they aren’t all Centene. And a good bit of the first tower is also not Centene. There’s multiple tenants in the Centene Tower. The bridge, just so you know, the reason that the bridge requires columns is because we did not plan for the bridge. We really didn’t have the bridge in our plan and had we really felt like we wanted it or needed it at the time we were making trades, we did lots of things, we spend about 10 million dollars in improving the Centene project by adding the brick and adding the glass and lowering the parts of the garage and doing a whole number of things that many of you remember that we did. If we would have known that Michael was emphatic about the bridge we wouldn’t have backed off of it to come back here and trick everybody. That’s not how we operate at all. It’s not be consistent with our behavior. The chipping away thing, I don’t think we’ve chipped away at all and I think we’re going to have a beautiful building and right now it’s under construction and so there’s construction fences all over the place but all of the beautiful water features that we planned, the landscaping, the streetscape, the trees are going to be beautiful. It’s going to be beautiful, a first-class development. And I think everybody can see from the building we’re building right now no corners are being cut and that the building is going to be a special place. That’s my comments to that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Anything else, Bob?

BC – Only that we really believe, Michael is right that to provide the best secure, safe environment for his employees, we need the bridge. We’re going to have over 1000 people in this garage going back and forth everyday and as I said before I believe that most of them will use the streets unless

27 it’s pouring down rain or they feel insecure and they want to stay in a safe environment, I like that’s not asking too much.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. One thing you said Bob, if my recollection is clear, I’m not sure right now. I believe the Plan Commission, ARB voted against a bridge at that part over Lyle Avenue in the, whenever it was – two years ago, or whatever,

BC – I don’t think there was a vote. We just took it out, maybe as a condition, it wasn’t voted against

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – In the recommendations, I thought it was a condition that we voted upon.

BC – Well that might be true but you didn’t vote against the bridge, I mean we took it out.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well, yes, after we said that one of the conditions was there would be no bridge.

BC – Well if Michael would have wanted it I wouldn’t have agreed to that at that time. Is all I’m saying

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I understand that, ok. Anything else, Eli? No?

WL – One quick question, did you consider any other materials other than precast concrete for the bridge? I feel like the bridge going over Hanley which spans quite a bit further, is that all steel.

BC – It’s a concrete but it’s clad and glass and…

EH – We did look at that. The concept was to be consistent with this building.

WL – one of the questions from the audience, I think it was a resident from The Crescent was if an underground tunnel would be possible, is that impossible, are we beyond that?

BC – Well there’s an impossible amount of utilities that go down Lyle. The other thing is that tunnels really make people nervous, particularly women do not like going down in tunnels. I mean all of the evidence is that you’d rather be in a light glass bridge where people can see you and you’re not down underground. So there were two reasons not to pursue a tunnel.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any other comments or questions?

Craig Owens (CO) – I have one real quick, and I’m sorry I should know this but what is the schedule for/deadline for filling the retail? It’s retail ready.

28 BC – I think we would like to activate the retail as fast as we can. I think that we have brokers that are marketing. I know that Michael has expressed a vision of some very very high end and nice tenants. I think we love what we have going on in the current garage. I think it’s great for the space. I think also there lots of evidence that a lot of the people that are in our building, Centene employees are using those restaurants and are using the other activities around in the market. I think as soon as we could lease the space out, it’s not that many parking spots, that we wouldn’t give it up and rather have the revenue so I don’t think there… we did call it retail ready, if you remember it took us like 7 years to lease out the other space, it was not…

CO – It was 2010.

BC – So yeah we hope we can do it while the economy is still strong.

CO – This will be a repeat because for me, I apologize because I was out of the room but could you please explain to me, you’re talking about private nesting and what percent of the total garage traffic of the East garage is going to be on the street compared to that that could access the bridge.

EH – One comment on the retail ready just to be clear is that it is immediately convertible. It’s not like something has to get done magically to make it a tenant space. Goes over the presentation again.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Eli, don’t go away, I just thought of one other thing. We were talking about retail ready, does that mean that the floor in the retail ready area is level/flat.

EH – Flat and designed for loading for retail. Ironically if you haven’t looked at the drawings our garages are lighter loaded so we had to provide structural accommodations, utilities, etc.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – But then in both the east and west garages there are both ramps. Is that correct?

EH – Correct

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – On the east garage that’s under construction right now, there are three drive lanes correct, which one or more are the ramped ones.

EH – The bottom two. Anything elsle?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Any other comments? I think I’ve made my comments fairly clear.

BRUCE MILLER – THE PLAZA - RESIDENT

My observation is being a business man retail doesn’t happen because it’s deemed to happen. It happens because of traffic that is drawn into the area is drawn by the retail. The point I want to make is the number of people going in and out of these garages is important but by far a

29 bigger factor is the residential area. And I would point out that 801 chophouse, 801 fish, the Capitol Grill – they are thriving because of the residential areas that have been brought in those in turn attract other residents from outside the area. So the real business in retail is not going to be coming out of those office buildings. If that were the case the existing office buildings we have throughout Clayton would be generating all kinds of retail. Well, in fact they don’t because most of that retail is a destination kind of retail that comes from surrounding communities and it only comes if it’s good retail. And that the function of the entrepreneur and the market that’s there. So I think were on the right track and I appalude Centene for making, and you guys for making it retail ready. But, build it and they shall come, it’s not quite that way you need to have the permanent people there and then the retail will take place.

The other point I wanted to make about the bridge. I’m an innocent bystander and the bridge doesn’t bother me as much as it may bother others and in terms of its distance, I believe its 2/3 of a football field in length from The Crescent. At 200 ft or something like that and like all of us when I was having issues with this project, we have to have perspective. If you pull back on the lens you see the entirety of the project, you get a much different feeling than when you’re you know standing right next to a bridge or something like that. I just encourage you all to take the persepetive of whats good for this city, what good for the neighborhood meaning The Crescent, Plaza and residentials still to come. I think the bigger issue is going to be when you do get to the residential quiesiton and that’s going to be and important addition which is all part of the Centene plan. For what it’s worth, I’d like to be a voice on the other side that says I think theres a lot of good stuff going on here and I encourage us not to get buried in whats going to happen in retail. Build it and it shall come.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Thank you. Any further citizen comments. Any further comments from the Plan Commission?

RICHARD LINTZ (RL) – I want to make a comment, I like bridges. I thought when I visited Hong Kong, if you’ve been there they’re all over the place and they are cool theya re very artistic and architecturally good. I remember years ago being in Minniappolis thinking what a great network they had. The difference is those are for the public. They’re not dedicated to a single company. They’re for people to get form one place to another and Bob, you keep saying it’s going to be so inconvenient for even the Centene people to use the bridge, I’m trying to figure out then why are we building it? Other than having it for the days when it’s raining or snowing. There is no public benefit, it’s going to be inconvenient, it’s only going to be for those people that are on the second floor, so I’m struggling why we would go back to that issue around our master plan in order to make that happen when there is no public good. That’s what I’m confused about. \

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Well I think we’ve come to the point where we’ll probably wrap this up. You’ve all heard the staff report with the conclusion and recommendation that we should deny the request subdistrict plan amendments. That’s both for SD1 and SD2a for the pedestrian bridge over south Lyle Avenue. Following up Alderman Lintz, I tend to agree that the master plan is there for the benefit of the city of Clayton and I haven’t seen a true benefit that would accrue to the city with the bridge and I definitely have a problem with it. So if there are no other

30 questions or comments, unless, Bob, you or Eli have more I think we to move on to two different vote and I guess they have to end up the same way, on SD1 and SD2a. Anyone want to take a stab at SD1, an Amendment to SD1? If not, I will make a motion to deny the SD1 Amendment for a pedestrian bridge over South Lyle Avenue. Do we have a second?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – MOTION TO DENY SD1 AMENDMENT

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

CRAIG OWENS AND BRIAN MAGUIRE – IN FAVOR OF DENYING

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN - OPPOSED

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Now we have the same recommendation for SD2A and for everyone in the audience that would be the east garage that is currently under construction, I will make a motion to deny the requested SD2A Amendment for the pedestrian bridge over South Lyle Avenue.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – MOTION TO DENY SD2A AMENDMENT

RICHARD LINTZ – SECOND

CRAIG OWENS AND BRIAN MAGUIRE – IN FAVOR OF DENYING

WILLIAM LIEBERMANN – OPPOSED

BC – So we don’t need to vote on the architecture thing?

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I believe not I…

BC – I withdraw the request, the further request to improve the wall at this time. I would rather bring that back at another time. I think we should delay that

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Ok, topic I.

BC – Yes I think we should delay that.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Ok, on the new wall cladding on the West Garage. Staff, any comment on that?

CO – Motion to Table

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Yes, is that a motion.

SI – That was my question to Stephanie, should it be withdrawn at this point or if he’s contemplating on bringing it back should we just table indefinitely

Stephanie Karr (SK) – So if he’s withdrawing it all together I don’t think we need to table it.

CO – I don’t mind tabling it.

BC – You guys decide what you want to do.

CO – I’ll make a motion to table it.

CRAIG OWENS – MOTION TO TABLE IT

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – SECOND

BRIAN MAGUIRE AND WILLIAM LIEBERMANN - YAY

7600 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (SD1) – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW COMMERCIAL ADDITION

Item not heard due to a recommendation for denial by the Plan Commission regarding the SD1 and SD2a Subdistrict Amendment

7528 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (SD2A) – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – NEW COMMERCIAL ADDITION

Item not heard due to a recommendation for denial by the Plan Commission regarding the SD1 and SD2a Subdistrict Amendment

7720 FORSYTH BOULEVARD – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ALTERATION/EXTERIOR RENOVATION

Item was WITHDRAWN by applicant, BOB CLARK.

32 DISCUSSION TOPICS ALAN RICHMAN – SASHA’S ROOFTOP DECK DISCUSSION

ALAN RICHMAN (AR) – OWNER OF SASHA’S

AR – On top of Sasha’s is a flat blacktop roof at the moment and I’ve been thinking how nice a deck would be there looking over the cars into Concordia Seminary. I would like to explore that possibility and see if the board is interested or amenable to some kind of expansion of that. I have a couple photos of what it could look like.

*shows photos of own deck that he built in the DeMun neighborhood and where he would like to put the new deck. In the apartment next door, where Jimmy’s office was*

Would like to use it as event space because Sasha’s cannot accommodate parties over 15 so they miss out on a lot of parties around 20-30 that would fit perfectly in there. I would like to make the windows into the French style doorways. Pending approval of event space. The deck would connect to that apartment and I would want to use it when the weather is nice, and the apartment would not be a part of regular business. It would be used for small parties only.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – I think it’s a great idea. I think it would increase your capacity and give you more options for serving the public with your food and beverage. one concern I would have is outdoor music

AR – if approved, and didn’t bother neighbors, if not we’d pass on it. I think it would be so pretty to sit there and look at the park instead of across at the cars. We could limit music to day time hours or whatever time. There’s nothing behind us but the alley and then there’s the apartment to the north and to the west is Concordia and some to the South but the parking lot is between them. I don’t think we’d be disturbing people but we could put some sound barriers up to keep sound from going that way or just not have music.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – We’d have to look at it in detail. But I think it, the outdoor roof deck looks very good and would be unique in that neighborhood.

RON REIM (RR) – The noise ordinance is going to be a challenge. What are our boundaries on what we can approve

SI – It would require an update to your CUP so that’s where we would do this. When we get noise complaints we have the County help us to take decimal readings to make sure they are conforming.

RR – So there is flexibility.

SI – Correct

33 AR – My personal preference is to be able to hear people talking. I don’t want the music to overpower the customers I want them to be able to talk to each other. I’m happy with just acoustic and not amplified.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Your use of the parklet is terrific it’s great!

AR – I would love to keep it if the City doesn’t have other use for it. Or build our own.

CAROLYN GAIDIS (CG) – Everybody loves a roof deck!

AR – Thank you for your time and for letting me come in.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1955 (07:55 PM)

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

October 1, 2018 — Meeting Minutes