July 16, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JULY 16, 2018
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:
Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman Richard Lintz, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim William Liebermann Brian Maguire
Absent:
Carolyn Gaidis
Also in Attendance: Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed newcomer Alderman Richard Lintz to the Board (replacing Alderman Joanne Boulton); he also welcomed back Planning Technician Kathy Scott (who had been absent for the past 2 months). He also verbally thanked Scott Wilson for his prior service on this Board. Chairman Lichtenfeld then asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
None.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – REVISION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS - FRONT YARD FENCE – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8101 EDINBURGH
2 Laura Ittmann, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the applicants obtained approval for an aluminum front yard fence on May 7, 2018 and are now applying for an amendment to add three brick pillars to the front yard fence. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 4-foot tall aluminum fence along the eastern and northern property lines. The proposed fence will be setback approximately 8 feet from Francis Place and will not extend beyond the front wall of the house along Edinburgh Drive. Three brick pillars measuring approximately 4.75 feet tall are proposed at the corners of the fence to match two existing pillars located at the southeast corner of the house. 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 addition of brick pillars will tie the new fence in with the style of the existing house. Staff is of the opinion that the northwest brick pillar will make the transition from the wood fence to the aluminum fence more aesthetically pleasing. The location of the pillars should maintain the 8 foot setback along Francis Place that was previously approved. Director Istenes indicated that staff recommends approval as requested.
Ms. Ittmann informed the members that there will be a 2-inch gap at the bottom of the fence so the actual height from grade is 50-inches.
Anna Krane indicated that is fine.
Richard Lintz asked about the existing short wood fence.
Ms. Ittmann indicated that the white vinyl fence will be removed.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Brian Maguire made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT – 222 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE
Michael DelPietro, restaurant owner/prospective tenant, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the property contains a mixed-use building including office, parking and retail/restaurant space. The restaurant space measures 3,760 square feet and will have approximately 106 seats. An outdoor dining area is proposed in front of the building along South Bemiston Avenue. The restaurant space is the same space previously occupied by Remy’s Wine Bar. The applicant describes the character of the restaurant as “a full service sit down restaurant.” The restaurant will be open for lunch Monday through Friday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and for dinner Monday through Sunday from 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. A liquor license will be required. Delivery service from the restaurant is not proposed. Deliveries to the restaurant will be made in the mornings between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. to the rear doors in the existing parking garage. Trash will be stored in dumpsters located in the rear of the building. The applicant intends to participate in a recycling program. The applicant has secured 13 parking spaces as part of the lease-
3 two spaces will be reserved for employees and 11 spaces will be reserved for patrons. Valet parking is not proposed. Because the restaurant is greater than 3,000 square feet, off-street parking for patrons must be provided at a rate of 3 parking spaces for every 5 seats on a pro-rated percentage for the square footage in excess of 3,000-square-feet. Based on the 3,780 square foot restaurant with 106 seats, 13 parking spaces must be provided. The applicant has secured 13 parking spaces in the attached garage. There is also street parking along Bemiston Avenue. Staff believes there is sufficient parking to meet demand. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The restaurant space is compatible in size to other restaurants and adequate public parking will be available along the street. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other restaurants in this area. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant will be compatible with surrounding uses and therefore, recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that there shall be no outdoor music or speakers to amplify music or similar audio.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about signage.
Mr. DelPietro stated it will likely be similar to what Remy’s had.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Mr. DelPietro if he understood that signage had to be approved by the ARB prior to installation.
Mr. Del Pietro replied “yes”.
Ron Reim asked about the similarities between this restaurant and Remy’s.
Mr. Del Pietro indicated that the use will be similar; however, his restaurant will have fewer seats.
Anna Krane explained that because Remy’s had been in business for so long, the City had no record of a Conditional Use Permit for it.
Ron Reim asked the applicant if he was okay with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Del Pietro replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – COMMERCIAL – 135 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE (MIDWEST BANK)
4 Terry Dawdy, architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is requesting a ground sign and two directional signs. The proposed ground sign is 24 square feet in area and displays the name of the bank and bank logo in silver, white, blue and taupe. The proposed wall is aluminum with plastic letter faces and will be internally illuminated. The sign is located along South Meramec Avenue in front of the building. The proposed directional signs are 5 square feet in area and display the bank logo and either “enter” or “exit.” The applicant is proposing to reface the existing directional signs in blue, white and taupe. One sign is proposed south of the drive and one is located north of the drive. The proposed ground sign will depict only the building owner name. The sign is proposed in the lawn area and not in a landscaped area as required by the Sign Ordinance. The sign is supported by two diamond braces that resemble the bank logo. Staff is of the opinion that the unique design will be compatible with the building and provide a point of visual interest. Staff recommends that a planting area for seasonal flowers and shorter plants is added around the northern end of the sign base to will allow the sign to conform with requirements without screening the logo support element. Directional signs are considered accessory signs, which are allowed by the sign code when they specifically benefit the public. Historically, directional signs have not been permitted to include commercial advertising because it can clutter the intended message. The bank logo should be removed from the directional signs. The subject property has one large curb cut for both the entrance and exit. Because the one-way drives do not have separate curb cuts, the directional signs will provide additional clarity to vehicles. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed directional signs are appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context and recommends approval of the proposed signage with the following conditions:
1. A landscape bed shall be added around the northern end of the ground sign. 2. The bank logo shall be removed from the directional signs.
Mr. Dawdy indicated that he has no issue with the recommendation for the landscape bed; however, he would like to discuss the emblem (logo) on the directional signs.
A sample directional sign depicting the requested logo was presented. He asked that the logo on these directional signs remain so those seeing them will know the parking is for the bank and not public parking.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to two other bank signs; one facing north and one facing south. He asked the need for a third east facing sign.
Mr. Dawdy indicated that the additional sign will add character and interest to the newly renovated building.
Richard Lintz asked if the wall signs will remain.
Mr. Dawdy stated that the original intention is for them to go.
5
Richard Lintz stated that he likes the new sign and asked if consideration has been given to moving it 90-degrees so it’s visible on both sides.
Mr. Dawdy replied “yes”; however, they are now trying to avoid removing the wall signs.
Anna Krane commented that historically, wall and ground signs (25 sq. ft. each side) have been allowed.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the illumination.
Mr. Dawdy stated that the rendering is not very good; only the logo and word will be illuminated.
Brian Maguire stated that he’s okay with the logo on the directional signs.
Richard Lintz agreed that the logo will be beneficial.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he respects staff’s position; however, he believes the logo is needed.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as requested with staff recommendation number 1 (addition of landscape bed). The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SOUTH 40 CAMPUS (CONTINUED)
Gary Feder, attorney representing Washington University, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Cheryl Adelstein, AssistantVice-Chancellor for Community Relations and Local Governmental Affairs/Washington University.
Susan Istenes indicated that she was not going to read the entire staff report and would only note changes that have been made since the last presentation/proposal as follows: The original request was for 3,800 beds; however, the University has revised the request to 3,413 beds with the intention of returning in the future to request the additional beds based on the campus master plan. The University is requesting to increase the maximum bed count by 113 to 3,413 beds. The revised request for bed count is based on the number of existing rooms on campus that are left vacant. The University would like to use all available beds at this time and return in the future for the increased bed count based on the master plan build out. Based on the proposed bed count of 3,413, the University would be required to provide 1,138 spaces. The University is proposing to provide 901 parking spaces on the South 40 campus resulting in a waiver request of 237 spaces. The University has provided a parking study prepared by CBB transportation engineers and planners, to support the waiver request. The 3,413 beds represent the total number of existing beds on the South 40
6 Campus. The University is proposing to renovate buildings and use vacant rooms, which would result in the immediate addition of 113 beds. Staff is of the opinion that the additional beds are reasonable in relation to the campus plan and appropriate given the location and design of the buildings. Director Istenes noted that staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the bed count be limited to 3,413 on the South 40 campus;
2. That the University provide and maintain a minimum of 901 parking spaces on the South 40 campus;
3. A maximum of 811 parking permits can be issued for the South 40 campus; and,
4. That the University shall conduct a parking study prior to any changes in the parking policies and provide results of said study to the Planning and Development Services Department.
Mr. Feder addressed the Commission and introduced the representatives from Wash U as well, noting that the University is asking to amend their existing Conditional Use Permit to allow an increase in beds from 3,300 to 3,413 and to affirm the 901 parking spaces. He noted that there are a maximum number of parking permits of 811. He stated that on June 18th the University presented their long-term master plan which includes up to 3,800 beds over the next 15-20 years. He reminded everyone that no vote was taken on the 18th to allow time to speak with the neighbors of Skinker Heights and although a final agreement has not yet been reached, progress is being made and he believes there will be an agreement in the future. He stated that his client would simply like to use the 113 existing beds. He added that he believes that third party negotiations must be viewed as distinct and irrelevant to the City’s consideration of this application and asked the Commission for a favorable vote this evening as staff recommends now and as they did back on June 18th. He reminded everyone that no new construction is being proposed in conjunction with this request, that CBB (traffic engineering firm) supports this request, that Wash U has added an enhanced fire lane off Big Bend and that the conditions contained in staff’s recommendation will be complied with by the University.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked who gets to use the 90 spaces that are not used by a Permit.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that there are always swing spaces available.
Ron Reim indicated that the neighborhood claims that motorists associated with Wash U park in their neighborhood.
Ms. Adelstein stated that their staff may occasionally, but generally not students and the reason for this is the desire not to pay to park. She referred to the low cost of $25/year to park in the West Campus garage and take the shuttle to the South 40 campus.
7
She noted that she did not have data in front of her right now; the $25 permit cost is for employees who receive compensation below $45K/year; the permit increases to $104 for those employees who make more than $45K/year.
Richard Lintz asked how many staff members work on the South 40 campus.
Ms. Adelstein replied 200-250, which includes the police department staff, housekeeping staff and food service staff.
Richard Lintz asked if additional staff will be necessary for these extra beds.
Ms. Adelstein replied, “by only one housekeeper”.
Richard Lintz asked who has access to the $25 parking permits.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that any staff member who works on the South 40 may purchase one of these permits.
Richard Lintz asked what the cost is to park on the South 40.
Ms. Adelstein replied $600/year (data not readily available).
William Liebermann commented that maybe it’s too much of a financial impact for the permit.
Richard Lintz stated that he appreciates the fact that Freshmen and Sophomores are not allowed to bring cars to campus. He added that he knows that some Wash U staff park in the neighborhood.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited audience comments.
Eric Liederman, 6453 Cecil (President of Skinker Heights Assoc.) informed the members that they had a very productive meeting a week ago with Wash U reps; but there are still outstanding issues and the neighborhood does not support an increase in beds until an agreement has been reached. He voiced his disappointment of Mr. Feder’s comment that an agreement is irrelevant.
Mr. Feder stated that with all due respect to the neighborhood, with or without an agreement, it’s not legally relevant and that the University will come back in the future to request more beds pursuant to their Master Plan. He emphasized that the University is only asking for 113 more beds at this time and that the agreement drafted by the residents contains overreaching conditions. He again asked for a favorable vote this evening.
Mr. Liedermann stated that reaching an agreement will take time and that many residents are opposed to the addition of one more bed…they are trying to preserve their neighborhood.
8
Ms. Adelstein informed the members that she was at the meeting which was cordial and at which some progress was made. She added that the University is working in good faith and asked that they be allowed to use the 113 beds this fall.
Ron Reim asked if the University will be coming back within a year for the full request.
Ms. Adelstein replied “yes”.
Ron Reim asked the reason for the increase in beds.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that the increase will allow their freshmen and sophomores in one community.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the request: Karen Stren (6409 Ellenwood), Sally Cohn (6464 Ellenwood),
Richard Lintz spoke to condition No. 16 Adverse Impacts…he wonders how a zoned parking permit system keeps cars from parking in the neighborhood.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the number of beds and parking are the two major components of the Conditional Use Permit and that he won’t support a bed increase until there is an agreement in place.
Mr. Feder agreed to a new parking study being conducted after this increase of 113 beds.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he’s less concerned with the parking than he is the additional population.
Ms. Adelstein noted that in 2010 the University introduced a long-term plan and she is committed to working towards an agreement.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he’s looking forward to it.
Craig Owens asked for further discussion regarding employee parking for the South 40.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that the peak demand use is at Noon where 459 spaces were used; the lowest demand use is at Midnight where 268 spaces were used. The number of permits issued is roughly 250/260 and the rest of the permits are for employees. She noted that the University also issues Metro passes. She informed the members that she does not have a survey indicating where employees park.
9 Brian Maguire asked if the cost of the permits have ever been addressed.
Susan Istenes noted that cost is a private matter.
Chairman Lichtenfeld emphasized that this request is to allow a bed increase of 113 and to allow the 901 spaces to remain, noting no new construction is proposed in conjunction with this request.
Richard Lintz stated that he appreciates that the University has 113 beds that they’d like to use and that they have plenty of parking; the issue is that parking is not being used, but rather the neighborhood streets, which results in adverse impacts on the and costs to the City.
Stephanie Karr noted that Page 4 of the staff report addresses public safety.
Richard Lintz stated that an increase in population means an increase in use of service.
Stephanie Karr indicated that it’s not a significant increase and reminded the members of the new fire lane.
Ron Reim commented that this Commission’s role does not include enforcement of neighborhood indentures.
Stephanie Karr concurred.
Ron Reim commented that no matter the vote of this Commission, the request will move on to the Board of Aldermen.
Stephanie Karr informed the members that they need to provide a basis for their decision.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations. The motion received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Ron Reim, William Liebermann and Brian Maguire. Nays: Richard Lintz and Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld. Motion carries.
The Chairman called for a 10 minute break at 6:50 p.m.
Due to technical difficulties with the audio/visual system, consideration of the next agenda item did not begin until 7:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONINGS/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION PLAT/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – MIXED-USE PROJECT – 7601-7651 CLAYTON ROAD (CLARENDALE PROJECT)
10 David Erickson/Ryan Companies, Ted Spade/SWT, Brett Bunke, project architect, and Gary Feder, attorney representing the applicant, were in attendance at the meeting.
Ron Reim made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
Susan Istenes announced that public hearings are applicable for each of the rezoning requests and for the Planned Unit Development application. She noted that one staff report has been prepared to cover the requested rezonings and Planned Unit Development; however, each one must be voted on independently. She indicated that this evening is the first time the Plat and architectural aspects of the proposal will be considered; the rezonings and PUD were first considered on June 18th and as such, she will only reference changes that have been made since that presentation, a conclusion and staff recommendations as contained in the staff report:
1. The building setback along Clayton Road has been increased. 2. An additional floor was added to the tower portion. 3. The top two floors of the tower were shifted east to create a rooftop patio at the west end. 4. The façade material for the top two floors of the tower was changed to a light cast stone, previously dark cast stone. 5. A roofline feature was added to the southwest corner of the tower. 6. Trash enclosure marked as brick to match building façade. 7. The lower level of the parking garage was revised to include 173 parking spaces, previously 171 parking spaces. 8. The upper level of the parking garage was revised to include 33 parking spaces, previously 36 parking spaces. 9. Additional tree protection details added along north property line. 10. Landscape plan and sidewalks revised along Clayton Road. 11. Sign and stone wall at southwest corner revised. 12. Monument sign at northeast corner removed. 13. Size of the proposed lot was revised based on right-of-way dedication to be 3.27 acres, previously 3.07 acres. 14. Southeast curb-cut revised to full access in, right out only.
The addition of street-level retail and senior living units will add new energy to the area and will redevelop an existing vacant site and building that has long been a community “eyesore.” Staff is of the opinion that the development is consistent with the current zoning code requirements for Planned Unit Developments and meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Clayton Master Plan. There are a few outstanding review comments with respect to landscaping and stormwater pollution protection. Most comments will be addressed with detailed construction documents during Building Permit review. Final approval from St. Louis County will be required for ingress and egress items. Director Istenes noted that staff recommendation is to recommend approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
11
1. The applicant shall address all outstanding landscape review comments prior to issuing of a Building Permit. 2. The applicant shall address all outstanding stormwater pollution protection plan comments prior to the issuing of a Building Permit. 3. Shields shall be installed on all driveway lights along the northern property line. 4. The northwest driveway access should be revised to a right-in/right-out only. 5. The applicant shall provide proof of final approval from St. Louis County prior to issuing of a Building Permit. 6. A minimum of 4 bicycle racks shall be provided.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that change no. 1 as noted (above) should read “setback along Hanley Road has been increased”; not “Clayton Road”. Director Istenes concurred.
Mr. Feder noted that this is the third time this project has been presented; originally a conceptual presentation, last month and this evening and he believes it is now ready for a vote. He reminded everyone that the site has been vacant for 15 years and he believes this proposed project is ideal for the site.
Mr. Erickson began a Powerpoint presentation, noting that the basic components of the project remain the same: 281 suites, 1,500 square feet of retail along Hanley Road, and public space within the building including a bistro. He noted that Life Care Services is the third largest senior operator in the country and that they are not seeking incentives. The building is 15 stories at the Hanley Road side and 3-4 stories along the east elevation. He stated that they were asked to increase the setback from Hanley Road which they have done; the setback is now 77-feet from Hanley Road, which results in a better pedestrian experience and better view of Hanley Towers.
Slides depicting an aerial view of the subject property/surrounding properties and various color renderings were presented.
Mr. Erickson stated that they recognize that this is the main portal traveling south to north and that they want the corner to be welcoming. Slides depicting renderings of the corner plaza area (includes landscaping, custom bench and fountain) were shown. He stated that he is excited about the enhanced design of this area.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the rooftop looks better than the previous proposal.
Additional renderings were shown. Mr. Erickson stated that they agree about the right in right out off Hanley Road (northwest drive). He added that they’ve removed the northeast monument sign. He stated that they’ve met with Clayton representatives and residents and this has been a good 6 month process and believes they are presenting a feasible plan. He thanked the City for the feedback and asked for a positive vote this evening so they can move forward.
12 A brief discussion regarding the three access points (Hanley Road right in, right out; Westwood full access; southeast corner [off Clayton Road] full in, right out) ensued.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they looked at the potential of motorists going through the Moorlands to gain access to Wydown.
Mr. Erickson indicated that they did a traffic study and determined that the majority of motorists will not use Westwood and those who do will travel east on Clayton Road. He reminded the members that their use generates low traffic volume.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how they will direct people internal to the site.
Mr. Erickson indicated signage will provide that information.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he appreciates the increase in greenspace along Clayton and Hanley Roads and asked what people will see traveling north on Hanley Road.
The aerial photo was shown.
A brief discussion regarding material samples ensued.
Ron Reim thanked the applicants for listening to the previous suggestion of moving the building further off Hanley Road. He noted that the corner is a vast improvement over the previous proposal.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited public comments.
Richard Goldberg, 900 South Hanley Road, stated that the changes they’ve made since the previous proposal are appreciated.
Jill Schmultz, 900 South Hanley Road, stated that she’s not sure that the mere 2.7% commercial aspect of the project constitutes mixed-use and that its density is out of line, referencing the 281 residential units. She added that she would like to see costs related to emergency services as she expects the need for those services will increase. She stated that this project will adversely impact the neighbors. She asked that the 3-story portion of the project be moved to the west end and asked that more time be required to propose an alternate design.
Margorie Talcoff, 900 South Hanley Road, voiced concern regarding Hanley Road traffic.
Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Ms. Talcoff that both Hanley and Clayton Roads are County Roads and controlled by the County.
13 Lenny Meers, Grimes Consulting (representing the applicant) indicated that there are no changes proposed on other properties.
Anna Krane announced that the right in, right out off Hanley Road is contained in the staff report and reminded everyone that the adopting Planned Unit Development Ordinance will govern use of the property and any changes would have to come back for City review.
Hearing no further questions or comments regarding the rezonings and/or PUD, Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that they would now move on to the request for the Subdivision Plat.
Director Istenes explained that the proposed plat consolidates the two lots and adjusts two property boundary lines to dedicate public right-of-way along Clayton Road to St. Louis County. The right- of-way dedication will allow for the future installation of a westbound right turn lane. The plat also creates a permanent maintenance easement for the City of Clayton to control the public sidewalk along Hanley Road and Clayton Road. The proposed plat results in a 3.27 acre lot. Director Istenes stated that staff recommendation is to approve the Plat as proposed with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provide a Mylar for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval;
2. That the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds office and submit proof of filing to the City within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.
Mr. Erickson indicated that they do not yet own the property, so the 30 days may be an issue for them.
After a discussion, it was determined that the 30 days could begin from date of closing (needs to be noted in the motion).
Hearing no further comments or questions from the public, Ron Reim made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
Hearing no further comments or questions, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the rezonings of the C1 and R6 zoned properties to C2 to the Board of Aldermen as requested. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
Hearing no further comments or questions, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the subject properties from C2 to a PUD to the Board of Aldermen as requested. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
Hearing no further comments or questions from the public, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan per staff recommendations to the
14 Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
Hearing no further comments or questions regarding the Plat, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision plat per staff recommendations No. 1 as written and to modify staff recommendation No. 2 to make the approval date 30 days from closing. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the project was originally proposed to the Architectural Review Board on June 18, 2018. The applicant has since made changes to the development plan. The staff report has been updated based on the changes described below.
1. The building setback along Clayton Road has been increased. 2. An additional floor was added to the tower portion. 3. The top two floors of the tower were shifted east to create a rooftop patio at the west end. 4. The façade material for the top two floors of the tower was changed to a light cast stone, previously dark cast stone. 5. A roofline feature was added to the southwest corner of the tower. 6. Trash enclosure marked as brick to match building façade. 7. The lower level of the parking garage was revised to include 173 parking spaces, previously 171 parking spaces. 8. The upper level of the parking garage was revised to include 33 parking spaces, previously 36 parking spaces. 9. Additional tree protection details added along north property line. 10. Landscape plan and sidewalks revised along Clayton Road. 11. Sign and stone wall at southwest corner revised. 12. Monument sign at northeast corner removed. 13. Size of lot revised based on plat. 14. Southeast curb-cut revised to full access in, right out only.
The applicant is proposing three monument signs and one wall sign. The wall sign for a future retail tenant will be located at the northwest corner of the building, facing Hanley Road. One monument sign is proposed at two of the driveway entrances: the northwest corner and the southeast corner of the site. An additional monument sign is proposed at the southwest corner of the site facing the intersection of Hanley Road and Clayton Road. Director Istenes continued by stating that the subject property is located at a unique intersection of building styles and uses. Single family residential neighborhoods are located south and west of the property. There is a row of one and two story small commercial buildings to the west. Three and four story multi-family buildings are located northwest, northeast and east of the site and tower style multi-family buildings are located directly to the north. Many of the different density neighborhoods feature
15 traditional style buildings with some art deco styles to the northeast. The proposed structure integrates two building forms and styles to blend the adjoining neighborhood characteristics. The tower at the west end resembles the massing of multi-family buildings extending north, along the east side of Hanley Road. The tower will be urban in character with regularly spaced windows and recessed balconies. A large portion of the first floor of the tower will be parking. The first floor exterior features window openings on the west facade, but will be solid cast stone on the south facade facing Clayton Road. A row of medium sized evergreens is proposed to screen the solid wall. Staff is of the opinion that the evergreen shrubs will provide a visual break in the facade that will further highlight the corner. The southwest corner of the tower curves to mirror the intersection. A rooftop patio is proposed at both the west end and the east end of the tower. The curved façade at the corner features additional design elements and a beveled cast stone cap. The weight of the cast stone materials at the corner along with the detail elements will create an attractive entrance to the City. Aluminum canopies are proposed to highlight the building entrances. The proposed tower will be a significant change from the existing conditions in terms of visual impact to the adjacent property. The increased setback of the tower from the northern property will mitigate impacts of the proposed development. The shorter four story building at the east end resembles the smaller multi-family building in the Moorlands Neighborhood. The massing features multiple facade relief elements to reduce the visual scale. The slight setbacks in the facade divide the elevations in to three sections. This architectural detail can be seen on other buildings in the Westwood Corridor. Uniform and frequent window placement is also featured on the eastern building. Stone headers are proposed for the windows, which complies with the Westwood Corridor Urban Design District standard for accent window treatments. The hip roof is similar to roof structures seen on smaller multi-family buildings and will contrast the tower structure. The contrast will help to break up the mass and create visual interest along Clayton Road. The four story building will be taller than the adjacent three story multi-family building to the north. The applicant proposes to maintain and enhance the existing landscape buffer along the northern property line. The building will also be setback from the northern property line for the two-way driveway. An open courtyard is proposed on the third floor facing Clayton Road, which will create additional variation in the rectangular massing. There is a three story section connecting the tower and the four story building. The shorter building connection will break-up the large building mass and help separate the styles at either end. The north elevation of the three story section will feature the loading dock entrance and service area. The south elevation will lead to an exterior patio along Clayton Road. The primary building material is tan-brown brick with accent materials of buff cast stone and grey fiber cement board siding. Fiber cement board will account for three percent of the south facade, seven percent of the north facade, eight percent of the east facade and will not be featured on the west facade. Grey asphalt shingles are proposed for the eastern portion of the building. Surrounding buildings are constructed of brick and stone with minimal use of secondary materials and color variety. The cast stone base will anchor the building and will be a compatible color to the white accent color featured on the Hanley Tower building directly north. The tan- brown brick and darker cast stone at the roofline will provide contrast and interest along the skyline of Hanley Road. The Westwood Corridor features multi-story buildings with similar color pallets. The grey fiber cement board is not a common material in the Corridor; however, staff believes that the moderate amount proposed along with the landscaped setbacks and building orientation will
16 mitigate the impact of its appearance. The proposed building materials are compatible with adjacent buildings and regulations of the Westwood Corridor Urban Design District. Proposed retaining walls will be clad in light grey limestone with a cast stone cap to complement the building facade. The retaining walls will range in height. Retaining walls are proposed adjacent to the trash enclosure located in the middle of the northern elevation and to support the patio located in the middle of the southern elevation. The patio retaining wall is located in the front yard setback along Clayton Road. Landscaping is proposed between the retaining wall and sidewalk. Staff is of the opinion that the retaining walls are compatible with the site design. The trash enclosure is proposed to match the brick facade of the building in this location, so that the enclosure fades into the background. Metal screening is proposed for the rooftop equipment. The applicant proposes to replace the metal fence along the top of the retaining wall along the west half of the north property line with a new metal fence.
Based on the City’s Sign Code, the retail tenant would be permitted one wall sign 15 square feet or five percent of the front wall area up to a maximum of 50 square feet. One 20 square foot wall sign is proposed for the retail tenant, which conforms to the City’s Sign Code based on the size of the retail space. The applicant is proposing the option of a tenant panel measuring approximately 1 square foot on the monument signs located at the driveways. Because the proposed retail wall sign conforms to the City’s Sign Code, it does not require a modification from the Architectural Review Board, so the design and materials will be reviewed under a Sign Permit application.
The proposed signage is more than traditionally permitted under the City’s Sign Code for the senior living use. The City’s Sign Code states the following regarding monument signs:
A ground sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area depicting the name of the building or names of not more than five (5) major tenants, each of which occupies a significant portion of the building, may be erected in lieu of any permitted wall sign, provided the ground sign is designed as a compatible and integral part of a landscaped area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials are approved by the Architectural Review Board.
The applicant is requesting a Sign Modification from the Architectural Review Board to allow the installation of three monument signs as opposed to just one monument sign as allowed by the code. The two monument signs proposed at driveways measure 4 feet tall, a total of 25 square feet each including the frame and have a 9.7 square foot sign panel to depict the building name, address and potentially the retail tenant name. The monument sign at the intersection is located on a long, curved stone wall, wrapping the corner. The wall is 44 feet long and ranges in height from 2.5 feet tall to 4 feet tall. The sign measures approximately 35 square feet. The monument corner sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code and requires approval of a Sign Modification. The monument signs will be constructed with natural limestone veneer and cast stone caps and bases. The sign panel will be cast stone to match the building with black letters. Up lights are proposed for the signs. The sign proposed at the northwest driveway will notify vehicles and pedestrians of the property entrance. The sign is located close to the sight distance triangle and it should be verified
17 that it will not impede sight distance. Staff also supports the location of the monument sign adjacent to the southeast driveway. This sign marks an access point for vehicles on Clayton Road. Staff does not support the curved monument sign at the intersection. The sign location is not adjacent to an entrance and the signage detracts from the architecture of the building. The curved wall is proposed at five feet tall with just under six feet tall columns, staff is of the opinion that this wall is not compatible with pedestrian oriented development and will cut off activity of the retail/restaurant bay from the street. Staff recommends removing the signage from the wall and reducing the wall height to three feet. The proposed site design, building form and materials are urban in character, with traditional elements and will contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment in the area. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height and design with existing nearby structures. Staff recommends approval with the following condition:
1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the monument sign at the southwest corner to a maximum of 25 square feet.
Mr. Erickson respectfully asked for approval of the modification request to allow the 35-square foot “wall” sign at the intersection; they have already removed the signs at the driveways per staffs’ request.
Ron Reim and Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that reducing the sign on the wall would result in too small of a sign.
Susan Istenes noted that this property is a gateway entrance into the City of Clayton; not to Clarendale.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is a “welcome to Clayton” sign there.
An unidentified woman in the audience indicated that there is.
Ron Reim commented that he’s happy with the change in materials.
Material samples were shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the color of the mortar.
Mr. Bunke replied “gray”.
Richard Lintz stated that he’s struggling with the use of gray cement board on a brown brick building.
Mr. Bunke indicated that the use of gray will be limited.
18
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the plane of the brick is different than the plane of the cement board.
Mr. Bunke replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he’s comfortable with the materials and colors as proposed. He noted that the roof of the 900 South Hanley Road building is also recessed on the east and west elevations.
Ron Reim asked if there are two cast stone colors.
Mr. Bunke replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the architectural aspects of the project as proposed with the condition that staff review and approve the warm gray color. The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the Board.
Mr. Erickson thanked the City’s representatives.
*******************************************************************************
William Lieberman announced that he will not be in attendance at the August 6th meeting.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary