June 18, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JUNE 18, 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 Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim William Liebermann Scott Wilson
Absent:
Brian Maguire
Also in Attendance: Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
There were no minutes presented for approval.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - SIGNAGE SUB-DISTRICT – 7620 FORSYTH BOULEVARD [CENTENE CAMPUS] (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING)
Deanna Kuhlmann-Leavitt, designer, and Tim Gaidis, HOK, were in attendance at the meeting.
2
Susan Istenes provided the following information from staff’s report: the proposed sign sub- district was first presented to the Architectural Review Board at the June 4, 2018 meeting. During the meeting there was a lengthy discussion about visualizing the proposed signage on the approved and future buildings. The request was continued to allow the applicant time to prepare additional plans and renderings of the proposed signage. The applicant has not made any changes to the content of the sign sub-district plan; however, some pages were re-ordered and items were clarified based on previous staff recommendations. The staff report is mostly the same as the previous report {refer to the meeting minutes of 6/4 for a copy of the full staff report}. Blade signs are no longer listed as an option for tenants, which removes the sign option perpendicular to facades. This change was not previously recommended by staff and tenant blade signs were a supported option. Pedestrian oriented signage is being promoted in the Downtown area and staff recommends adding a blade sign as a retail option. The interior graphic was originally included as an option for the specific corner tenant only but is not a potential option for other tenant spaces. Staff recognizes that this option could result in creative advertising, but with such vague regulations it is hard to predict was the results will be. Staff recommends that all interior graphic signs require Architectural Review Board approval prior to a Sign Permit. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Add a note on the summary page that a Sign Permit must be obtained for all new or replacement signs prior to installation.
2. Reduce the maximum height of monument signs to 10 feet.
3. Add a blade sign option for retail tenants.
4. Add a note that Architectural Review Board approval is required for Interior Wall Graphic signage prior to application for a Sign Permit.
Mr. Gaidis indicated that this proposal is an overview of what they want regarding signage; they are not asking for specific sign approval at this time; however, they would like general approval for the monument signs which they will discuss further at the end of their presentation. He added that all existing signs are grandfathered in and when changed out will need ARB approval and will need to conform to this sub-district plan. He explained the procedure from tenant sign selection to landlord approval to City approval. He informed the Board that with regard to staff recommendations, they would only like to continue the discussions regarding the height of the monument signs; the other recommendations (including the two new ones marked 3 and 4, above) they will comply with.
Mr. Gaidis began a PowerPoint presentation. He informed the members that additional slides have been added to offer more clarity and specifics. Mr. Gaidis began going through the slides, one by one, first identifying each of the Sub-districts on a map. He noted that for the purposes of this
3 document, Subdistricts 3 and 4 are being represented based on future design. He then referenced the submittal, page by page/slide by slide.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt began by explaining that the Helvetica is the type-face that’s used for Centene Plaza and is also in keeping with the Centene Corporate brand to be used for all wayfinding signs. She explained that there will be some variety allowed for individual tenant logos and such, but this typeface will be used for plaza identity; colors being Navy, silver, white and gray. A color pallet will be used for identification of the sub-districts with the only exception being tenant colors. She explained the material selections and presented samples: most of the signs will be powder coated aluminum; monument signs will have a stone base; powder coated metal letters, cut vinyl letters applied to glass and metal; fabric panels similar to those on Centene Plaza. LED lighting will be on the monument signs, with some up-lighting. LED halo lighting will illuminate the campus ID signs. Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt noted that they’ve decided to not illuminate internal tenant signage.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt referred to the two map slides; one depicting the campus/non-retail (non- parking) buildings. She discussed the auditorium signage which will be unique to the campus because the use is unique, and the information is vague at this time because the building has not yet been named.
A discussion began regarding the proposed monument signs. Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt explained that each tower property will feature a monument sign {containing a specific building ID letter that will be internally lit (i.e. A, B, C, etc.)}at the entries; they will be up-lit from the ground and will feature side accent lights…the tenant names are interchangeable the addresses are not. It was noted that the accent lights will be a different color for each tower. It was noted that these signs for Sub- district 2 (a, b and c) will require ARB review.
The remaining aspects of the sign package were presented and discussed.
A brief discussion was held regarding the residential tower and the need to add signage for the retail space in that building. Mr. Gaidis agreed to add it.
Chairman Lichtenfeld requested that they not light the area ID signs that do not face a street and do not face another Centene building (those facing an alley/facing non-Centene property).
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt reviewed the locations of the proposed signage.
Slides depicting renderings with signage were presented. Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt indicated that the renderings are not to scale.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the monument signs will each contain an address.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt indicated that each will contain a number but not the street name.
4 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what happens for buildings with multiple addresses (for example, SD1).
Mr. Gaidis indicated that they will likely use 7676 Forsyth even though it is on Carondelet to let people know it’s a Forsyth address {vehicle drop-off side is on the Carondelet side, but it’s for the 7676 Forsyth address}.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there are any provisions for moving/flashing signs.
It was noted that it is believed that moving/flashing signs are prohibited.
A discussion ensued about retail signage. Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt stated that there are two types of retail; tower and parking. She presented slides depicting proposed retail signage. She noted that the tower metal signage will not be illuminated, even though the plans indicate that they will be. She reiterated that the primary signage for the parking retail will be the awning signs (all awnings will be navy) and wall signs again, won’t be illuminated. In addition, the parking retail tenants will have the opportunity for window graphics (limited to 15% of glass area).
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if all window graphics will be vinyl and no etching in the glass.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt replied “yes” emphasizing that there will be no etching in the glass. She informed the members that any tenant who would like to use internal signage would have to receive Centene and City approval before installation.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt presented a map highlighting just the retail signage locations. She stated that they will add retail signage for SD2c to the plan.
Rendering slides were shown. Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt announced that Straub’s is not a real tenant for this project.
Craig Owens asked if there will be retail for SD2c, as it is not shown.
Mr. Gaidis replied yes.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt began presenting the monument signs and presented a slide. She stated they are 12-feet tall by 10-inches deep; constructed of fabricated metal with recessed areas on the side and LED lighting on the perimeter edge on both sides that will correspond to the building color which will help for wayfinding in the evening. She stated that the letter on each sign will correspond with the letter of the building and each will be up-lit from the ground. She then presented a slide depicting the existing 14-foot size at Centene Plaza. For comparison purposes, a slide depicting a 10-foot tall monument sign (as staff is requesting) was shown. She again asked that the ARB approve the signs as requested at 12 feet in height.
5 Tim Gaidis stated that having the extra 2 feet allows people to see the information better and the tenant names don’t then appear “squished” on the sign face.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there will always be room for nine tenant names.
Mr. Gaidis replied “yes”; indicating that they would begin filling in tenant names from the top.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt commented that she believes that SD1 contains nine major tenant spaces and that’s the reason for the nine tenant spaces on the sign.
Susan Istenes reminded the members that the City’s Sign Regulations only allow for five tenant spaces per monument sign, so if this Board is inclined to allow more than five, it should be noted as such.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he finds the 10-foot sign {per the rendering/slide} to be “squatty” and believes the 12-foot sign has the best solid-to-void ratio. He added that the new tower is taller than the existing tower and that he likes the proportion of the 12-foot sign better.
Joanne Boulton agreed with the Chairman regarding the tower; however, with regard to the monument sign for the auditorium on the Carondelet side, she has concern and doesn’t think it works.
Mr. Gaidis stated that it could be augmented when that particular sign comes up for specific review, as it may scale differently on the Carondelet side.
Joanne Boulton asked if the only lighting for the monument signs include the identification letters and the sign sides.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt reminded Joanne that the monument signs will be up-lit from the ground as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he agrees with Joanne’s comment that a 12-foot sign is probably too big for the auditorium on the Carondelet side.
It was agreed that the ground/monument sign for the auditorium will be determined at a later date and that nine tenant panels would be acceptable.
Joanne Boulton commented that she does not like the idea of nine tenant panels.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited audience comments.
None were received.
6 Joanne Boulton made note of the following conditions discussed during the presentation as follows: 1) no illumination on the signs facing the alley or Centene Center; add retail to SD2c and SD3, and that the monument signs can be 12-feet as requested; however, the monument signs for the auditorium will be designed and approved separately.
Susan Istenes reminded the members that they need to include the allowance of up to nine tenant panels if that is what the Board wants.
Anna Krane reminded the members of staff recommendation regarding the blade signs for the retail tenants, asking if the Board is okay with what was presented by the applicant.
Joanne Boulton asked if what was presented this evening is the same as what was presented at the last meeting.
Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt informed the Board that the proposed blade signs are no greater than 3 square feet.
Joanne Boulton referenced the remaining two staff recommendations as follows: 1) add a note on the summary page that a Sign Permit must be obtained for all new or replacement signs prior to installation and 2) add a note that Architectural Review Board approval is required for Interior Wall Graphic signage prior to application for a Sign Permit.
Mr. Gaidis asked for clarification:
Anna Krane read the following conditions as she understands them to be: include staff recommendations except remove the 10-foot maximum [thereby allowing the 12-foot tall as requested]; add no lit signs along alleys or interior of site; add retail option of blade signs maximum of 3-square feet; additional option of retail signs to SD2c; add clarification that the monument sign for the auditorium requires ARB approval; allow up to 9 tenant panels on the monument signs.
Joanne Boulton voiced the need to include the addition of an option of retail signs to SD3 in the motion as well.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per the revised conditions as outlined above. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SOUTH 40 CAMPUS – 6500 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
7 Rob Wild, Dean of Students and J.D. Long, Associate Vice-Chancellor/Facilities Planning & Management, were in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Cheryl Adelstein, Wash U government community relations.
Susan Istenes explained that in 2010, a CUP was approved to govern the South 40 campus. Conditions of the CUP included a maximum number of beds of 3,300 and a temporary parking waiver of 195 parking spaces to allow a total of 905 parking spaces. The temporary parking waiver was based on the parking requirement for 3,000 beds and the CUP required that the waiver was revisited once a population of 3,300 students was reached. Washington University is now requesting an amendment to the existing CUP to increase the number of beds allowed and to solidify the parking waiver. The University is requesting to increase the maximum bed count by 500 to 3,800. The University states that this increase in bed count is needed due to the desire to have all freshman and sophomore students reside on campus. The increased number of beds would be added over the course of the next 20 years with the phased re-development of the South 40 campus. Some existing rooms that are left vacant will be occupied and additional rooms will be added as residence halls are redeveloped. Since the last CUP was granted in 2010, the South 40 campus has reached maximum occupancy of 3,300 beds, which triggers the CUP condition to revisit the temporary parking waiver. The University has also changed the parking policy. Freshmen and sophomores are no longer able to have cars on campus. The University has also implemented a zone permit parking system. Only yellow and red permitted cars are allowed to park on the South 40 Campus. Yellow permits are for undergraduate students, junior standing or higher, that live in University owned housing. Red permits are for employees. The new University parking policy means the vehicles parked on South 40 campus are no longer directly connected to the number of beds on South 40 campus. For dormitory buildings, the Zoning Regulations require 1 parking space for each 3 beds. Based on the proposed bed count of 3,800, the University would be required to provide 1,267 spaces. The University is proposing to provide 901 parking spaces on the South 40 campus resulting in a waiver request of 366 spaces. The University is asking that this waiver be permanent and has provided a parking study prepared by CBB transportation engineers and planners, to support this request. The parking study indicates that there are currently 901 parking spaces on the South 40 campus available for use. The study found that peak parking demand occurred at 12:00 p.m. with 459 spaces occupied or 51 percent. The study concluded that the current peak parking demand ratio is approximately 0.139 parked vehicles per bed (based on the 3,300 existing beds). A parking supply ratio of 0.155 to 0.164 parking spaces per bed is recommended by CBB to maintain a supply cushion. CBB also recommends that the parking conditions should be re-evaluated if any University parking policies change. The University is proposing the option of a two-story parking structure to provide an additional 100 parking spaces for a total of 1,001 parking spaces on the South 40 campus. The University would replace the existing surface parking lot located at the southeast corner, adjacent to the First Congregational Church, with a two-story parking structure. If the structure is required, the parking waiver would be lowered to 266 parking spaces. The University provided proposed design plans for the parking structure; however, architectural review would be required prior to construction, so the plans provided are conceptual. The request to increase the maximum number of beds will increase the density of the student housing use on the South 40 campus. Many of the additional 500 beds would
8 be located in existing buildings and the creation of new beds would take place along with development of replacement buildings. The 3,800 beds represent the total number projected after completion of the phased development of the South 40 over the next 20 years. The University is proposing to first 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. No new buildings are proposed at this time. The University has proposed an additional parking deck as an option for the parking waiver; however, details of the project will be reviewed should it be deemed necessary. The increase in beds is not expected to cause an increase in vehicle trips because the beds will be for freshmen and sophomores, who are not allowed to have cars on campus. The University zone permit parking system also limits the number of cars parking on the South 40 campus. The City’s parking requirements for the South 40 campus are one parking space for every three beds. Based on the proposed 3,800 beds, a total of 1,267 parking spaces would be required on site. The Board of Aldermen have the authority to grant parking waivers in conjunction with a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a parking waiver for 366 spaces to maintain 901 parking spaced on the South 40 campus. The University’s parking policy does not allow freshmen and sophomores to have cars on campus. The policy also outlines a zone parking permit system, which only allows employees assigned to the South 40 campus and upperclassmen living in University housing to park on the South 40 campus. CBB completed a parking study of the area and determined that there is sufficient supply to meet current demand. The study still compares adequate supply and a recommended cushion to the number of beds on campus, as the City code reads; however, the number of cars parking on South 40 is no longer related to the number of beds. The CBB study finds that the number of parking spaces on the South 40 is also sufficient in relation to the demand for parking based on the number of parking permits issued for that zone. Staff supports the request for a parking waiver given the current University parking policy but recommends limiting the number of zone 4 permits issued for parking on the South 40 campus. CBB recommends that a 10 to 15 percent supply cushion is provided in parking areas to allow adequate function. If a 10 percent supply cushion was subtracted from the proposed parking supply, it would result in the maximum demand. Because the University will no longer be allocating parking permits based on the student population of the South 40 campus, staff proposes to regulate permits based on the existing supply. If a maximum of 811 parking permits are allowed for the South 40 campus, then the 901 parking spaces would provide adequate supply with the cushion as recommended by CBB. Staff also recommends that any change in the parking policy should require a new parking study. Staff is of the opinion that the increased number of beds will not impact transit movements on abutting streets because the increased student density will not also result in an increased number of vehicles. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments will not significantly increase demand on fire and police protection services. The University has already begun work on a new fire lane to provide additional access to buildings on the South 40 campus per requirements by the Fire Department. The University has described a policy of notifying neighbors in advance of campus activities that may generate additional noise. This policy should continue. The increase in maximum number of beds could result in an increase of noise levels on campus; however, the existing buffers around the campus will remain. Staff is not aware of recent or on-going nuisance related complaints of adjacent neighbors in relation to the South 40
9 campus. Staff is of the opinion that if the campus function in a similar manner to the existing conditions and if new construction does not result in increased density focused along property lines, then the additional noise will be minimal and not negatively impact the surrounding area. The proposed amendments do include additional lighting. Any light associated with construction projects or renovations will require review at that time. Staff is of the opinion that the University policy for neighborhood notification and the zone parking permit system will mitigate potential impacts of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will result in building construction in the future. The renovation of existing structures and new structures will have to comply with the site coverage and height restrictions. Director Istenes concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the bed count be limited to 3,800 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. Wild indicated that their presentation is divided into two parts; the why and the what. He began with a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that Wash U is and has been in the top ranking of best colleges residence halls, best run colleges; they were voted in one survey as the best college campus in America. He noted that he came to Wash U as a Freshman in 1989 from New York; he came back in 1999, and now serves in his current role. He presented a chart depicting the number of applications received over the past 13 years and the number of students that are and have been enrolled over the past 20 years. He stated that even with this growth trend, they are at the lower spectrum in enrollment numbers, but that is on purpose. He stated that in order for Wash U to remain competitive, they need to look toward the future and how they remain a great place to live and study. In 2016 they launched an internal planning exercise with regard to housing over the next 20 years and that the University wants their first and second year students residing on the South 40; currently all Freshmen live on the South 40 and as many Sophomores as they can fit live there as well. Allowing them the 3,800 beds on the South 40 would allow all their Sophomores to reside there. Mr. Wild then referred to their master plan which began in 1995 but has been tweaked over the years as needed.
Joanne Boulton asked at what point the 2010 master plan will be completed.
Mr. Wild indicated that he didn’t know the answer to that question.
10 Ms. Adelstein presented a slide depicting the various phases of the master plan which was adopted in 1995. She noted that Phase 6 was the 2010 phase of that plan.
Joanne Boulton noted that during the 2010 phase, Wash U was aware of the remaining phases and the time-frame for those phases.
Ms. Adelstein explained that she did not believe that there were specific years tied in with the remaining phases.
Joanne Boulton asked for confirmation that the phases outlined in the 2010 plan called out for 3,300 beds.
Ms. Adelstein confirmed.
Mr. Wild presented an aerial photo of the campus as it appeared in 1995. Mr. Wild focused on the areas of Phase 6 (2010 Phase which is completed), 7 (Lee & Beaumont Halls), 8 (Shanedling, Rutledge & Daunten Halls), and 9 (Hitzeman, Hurd & Meyers Halls). He reiterated Cheryl’s earlier comment that they don’t have definite plans for the remaining phases as of this date, but that they want to get to 3,800 beds. He pointed out that as far as site density goes, they are at 20.9% which is well under the 33%.
Joanne Boulton asked if that percentage includes the ballfields.
Mr. Wild replied “yes, it does”.
Joanne Boulton asked the density of the site from Shepley Drive south to Wydown.
Ms. Adelstein informed Joanne that she could make that information available to her; but it was not available now.
Mr. Wild indicated that they currently have 3,382 beds on the South 40 that they would like to use now as there is a demand for them; however, they cannot use all of them due to the restrictions of the CUP.
Mr. Long introduced himself and began by stating that he joined the University in 2016 but was familiar with the University prior to them.
He reiterated that Phase 6 has completed and that over the summer began on Phase 6b which includes the shell of 31 beds that were held in the Umrath house; this addition of 31 beds which will be completed by the end of Fall would bring their bed number up by 113 beds. The next phase to be contemplated is Phase 7 which is new construction from the original master plan and includes a residential life hall (photo sim shown) that they hope to begin in the Fall of 2019 to be completed by Fall of 2021 resulting in an additional 172 beds. He emphasized that as beds are put on-line,
11 beds will be taken off-line. Then the beds for Phase 8a off-line, so the net increase 3,413 (this August) then 3,437 total beds; 8a gets constructed comes on-line, 8b will go off-line. By Fall of 2022 8b would be done, so 152 beds will be added taking them to 3,600 beds by the Fall of 2022; then Phases 9 and 10 are being contemplated until 2036-38.
A slide depicting access and utilities for the work currently being performed and future work was shown. Mr. Long stated that they will also be adding a fire lane; something that’s been requested for some time now.
Mr. Long addressed parking, noting that they have modified their parking policies. They’ve gone to a zoned parking approach (permits issued and policed accordingly) and no longer allow Freshmen or Sophomores to bring cars to campus. They’ve issued 540 permits with 901 spaces being available. 330 juniors/seniors not at South 40 and 210 for faculty/staff. A slide depicting their zoned parking approach was shown. Mr. Long noted that no one currently parks in Zone 1; however, by next May 790 spaces will be available there which will free-up parking elsewhere. A slide showing a study that was initially done in 2016 showed a peak demand of 532 spaces; after the parking policy change (implementing zones and not allowing Freshmen/Sophomores to bring cars to campus), in 2017, the same study was conducted and the peak decreased to 459 (around Noontime) and at 8 p.m., the count was at 310; well below the 901 space capacity. He stated that it’s their belief that they can go from 3,300 beds to 3,800 beds with the same number of available parking spaces (901). He stated that if they were required to provide additional parking, they could incorporate additional parking along Wydown, although they don’t want to do that.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about Freshmen and Sophomore parking.
Mr. Long stated that with the implementation of the new parking strategy, Freshmen and Sophomores are not allowed to bring cars to the South 40 campus; parking permits are not issued for these first and second year students. All Freshmen reside on the South 40 and as many Sophomores as they can fit also reside on the South 40.
Mr. Wild stated that the Juniors/Seniors who don’t reside on the South 40 do park on the South 40.
Joanne Boulton asked about the earlier comment made by Mr. Long alluding to the fact that Freshmen and Sophomores who bring vehicles to Wash U don’t park in Clayton or within Wash U’s campus.
Ms. Adelstein asked to address that issue. She informed the members that Freshmen have not been allowed to bring cars to campus for many years; the addition of not allowing Sophomores to bring cars (because they are not offering parking permits to Sophomores) was part of this new parking strategy. The last time they counted the number of Sophomores bringing cars on the South 40, the count was 250. She stated that there has been a huge reduction in on-campus parking demand. She noted that the University offers, for $25, a parking pass to park on the west campus garage, so many students use that option.
12
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that if the City were to approve and increase in beds by 500 to 3,800, those now Freshmen and Sophomores would become Juniors and Seniors and then have cars {due to a general increase in student population}.
Ms. Adelstein informed the members that in order to park at the University, one has to live at the University.
Joanne Boulton complemented the University for reducing on-campus parking and on-campus smoking; however, the University, she stated, has not reduced the amount of spill-over parking; it has remained the same since she moved into the Skinker Heights neighborhood since 2004; and that in fact, overflow parking has increased in Hillcrest. She stated that she believes the University doesn’t hear about it because for years, people have complained and nothing changes parking on Skinker, which is outside Clayton’s city limits, is almost dangerous and the number of construction workers’ vehicles parked on Skinker is very high. She indicated that additionally, Uber drivers hang around in the residential neighborhoods waiting for their students to request service.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the 2010 agreement, which we understood to be in effect until 2025.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that they have not varied from the 1995 master plan; when they came in in 2010, that was their first request for an increase in occupancy. They were asked to maintain that level. In 2016 they did a housing study, and this was the recommendation. As an institution they like to plan and grow with the City as they have always done. Most of this increase is much further out. In 2010 we were asked to inform the City what they planned to do in the future. They are updating a 25-year-old master plan and stretch out to a 30-year plan (to 2038).
Joanne Boulton commented that Art Ackermann, a former representative of Wash U, since retired, stated specifically in 2010 that they felt that due to the study, that the maximum number of students on the South 40 would be 3,300; this started as (reminding them this property is zoned R-2) as an agreement/compromise between the residents and the University.
Ms. Adelstein stated that she believes occupancy is an artificial constraint; the constraint is density. She referred to the chart on the slide that shows the density in 2038, even after the construction of a new building, as 25.3, well below the density levels as outline by Clayton code.
Joanne Boulton stated that if those ballfields were excluded from that calculation, the number would be higher. She then referred to population density - at 3,300 student population, the population density is 42,000 people/square mile [comparable to Brooklyn/Manhattan], which is what the census bureau uses. The neighboring residential areas are 2,000 to 4,000 people/square mile density. The densest area of Clayton is the Moorlands and that population density is at 22,000 people/square mile. She asked the applicant what they believe to be the highest population density they want to achieve.
13 Ms. Adelstein indicated that the University offers services to their students on the South 40 and those services need to be made available to the students who use them. …they can’t add too many more students with making substantial changes and coming back in 2040 with a totally new master plan; they have to be able to serve the students they have.
Joanne Boulton made reference to the housing outside the South 40.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that there are 1,000 units on the north side of the campus, primarily for upper classmen and several off-campus units.
Joanne Boulton asked what they will do with the Sophomores if this request is denied.
Ms. Adelstein indicated that they would continue to do what they do now; live north of the South 40 or live off-campus.
Mr. Wild stated that Washington University guarantees housing all four years, so now they are master leasing beds that don’t belong to residential life. Again, he realizes that this has to do with density; however, he believes that for an undergraduate, the South 40 is one of the best places to live in this country as a college student.
Joanne Boulton asked for clarification that all their Freshmen and Sophomores could be housed on the Hilltop campus if this request is denied.
Mr. Wild indicated that Ms. Boulton is correct.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is true that the City likes having Washington University’s strong influence here, but he’s noticed that the University has been purchasing properties in the immediate area of the campus and asked the applicant to address this issue.
Ms. Adelstein stated that she does not have the specific information with her today; however, she believes that the last time the University purchased a piece of property was in 2010 and the reason properties adjacent to the South 40 were purchased was to provide a buffer. She referred to a property that was purchased by the University for their law school Dean several years ago that caused quite a ruckus in the neighborhood and when he left the University, they sold that property. They’ve commented to the Mayor that they don’t intend to buy any more homes, and, in fact, they were asked by the Skinker Heights Neighborhood Association to sign an agreement that the University won’t purchase any more homes in their neighborhood in the next 20 years and they have agreed to do so.
Joanne Boulton asked if this agreement has been signed.
14 Ms. Adelstein indicated that it has not yet been signed, but a verbal agreement/memorandum of understanding has been made to that effect and that the properties in that neighborhood that they do own will remain single family residential.
Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked Ms. Adelstein for the transparency; he commented the brought it up because several neighborhood citizens brought it to his attention.
Ms. Adelstein stated that she understood and that it was suggested by the University that the memorandum of understanding be included in/made a part of this Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited audience comments.
Eric Liedermann, Skinker Heights Neighborhood Association President, referenced a letter he sent to this Board awhile back. He began by stating that the neighborhood has agreed to cease opposition of this request with the understanding that the University give the neighborhood things that they’ve wanted for many years, primarily the University not purchasing any more homes as Ms. Adelstein just voiced their willingness to agree to this, or requesting any conditional use permits for the University’s use of any of the homes in their neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood remembers the 2010 agreement which they believed would be in place until 2025; and was quite unhappy when this request was presented to them at their annual neighborhood meeting of May 6th of this year, which request was then presented to the City the next day (May 7th), giving them little chance to respond. The neighborhood believed that the 2010 agreement would remain in effect until 2025, yet they are here now. He noted that they do still have issues with spill-over parking, but the main issue is that the University wants to renege on an agreement that was made in 2010. He concluded by stating that he and Cheryl are working towards an agreement.
Tom Currier, 23 Wydown Terrace, read a letter of opposition regarding this request, which was submitted to the City earlier. He referenced two different parcels, only one of which described in this new request. If only Parcel 2 coverage was illustrated, the calculations would be quite different. He voiced opposition to the University’s request.
Ms. Adelstein stated that the South 40 is and has been 40 acres for a very long time; the parcel issue was a clerical issue in the previous CUP Amendment, nothing more, and that they’ve asked that it be corrected. The boundaries of the South 40 have not changed, and the same legal description has been used for the South 40 since 1995, with the exception of that administrative error.
Joanne Boulton stated that the South 40 is actually 45 acres and some change.
Sally Cohn, 6464 Ellenwood Avenue, asked that consideration of this application be continued until the neighborhood has ironed everything out with the University.
15 Joanne Boulton asked Ms. Cohn to speak to the parking issues.
Ms. Cohn stated that on a daily basis there are anywhere between six to ten cars parked on Ellenwood that are for the University. She noted that cars for the University are parked on Ellenwood during evenings and weekends as well.
Joanne Boulton stated that with an increase in student population of over 25% {from 3,000 to 3,800}, one would expect a similar increase in the number of vehicles.
Ms. Cohn agreed. She added that there’s also been an increase in the number of service vehicles.
Scott Wilson stated that if they get approval to go to 3,800 beds, what would prevent them from adding more space.
Ms. Adelstein stated that the University offers free parking to student visitors; they can address the issue of staff parking on the residential streets. She referred to the 82 swing beds that they have that they need in the event that regular beds cannot be used.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referenced the 2010 neighborhood opposition to the increase, which was ultimately dropped as a result of an agreement between the City and the University. He stated that a new agreement may be the best route to go for this.
Joanne Boulton indicated that she served on the Neighborhood Association in 2010 when the University asked for a 300-bed increase (to go from 3,000 to 3,300 beds) and the agreement was made by Mr. Ackerman during the presentation to the City, that the 300 additional beds would serve them for 15 years. She reiterated that this new request is problematic from that agreement’s perspective and from a density perspective, as she earlier referred to.
Scott Wilson asked if the current negotiation is nearly complete.
Mr. Liedermann indicated that it is in the hands of the neighborhood’s attorney at this time. They want to be sure this agreement has some “teeth” so they are not back in another eight years doing this again.
Joanne Boulton commented that 3,800 seems high; this increase affects areas other than Skinker Heights (i.e. Wydown Forest, Hillcrest).
Ron Reim referred to the issue of predictability and the need for it for the future; however, there are a number of hurdles to get over to get there.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted the first hurdle being an agreement between the University and the neighborhood.
16 Craig Owens made reference to the Conditional Use Permit Criteria as outlined in the Code; one of them being land use and parking and this is what’s compelling to him as he hears the presentation and the comments being made this evening.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any more comments from the audience.
Walter Whittenburg, 6434 Cecil Avenue, agreed that the University has grown and now is the most intense use in the City. He stated that the University’s problem is that they are land-locked and their only recourse is to impede on the Cities of Clayton, University City and the City of St. Louis. He referred to the City’s many responses by emergency vehicles to the University. He asked that the best interests of the City be represented, not simply the University’s.
Karen Stern, 6409 Ellenwood, stated that her past experience with Wash U has been good; noting that the three houses behind her that are owned by Wash U have been used for residential purposes. She stated that she hopes their properties remain residential.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Joanne Boulton made a motion to table this item until the meeting of July 16th. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that there will now be a 5-10-minute break, before the next agenda item is considered.
NEW CONSTRUCTION – MIXED-USE PROJECT (THE CLARENDALE) – 7651 & 7601 CLAYTON ROAD (FORMER SCHNUCKS SITE)
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that due to miscommunication within the City office {public hearing notice sign not posted at least 7 days prior to the hearing date}, there will be no vote on the rezonings or PUD this evening. He added that the applicant was made aware of this issue and that the presentation of the project will take place this evening.
Due to a conflict of interest, Scott Wilson recused himself and left the member table. He did not participate in any discussion and/or vote with regard to this project.
Gary Feder, attorney representing the applicant, and David Erickson with Ryan Companies, developer, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes announced that she informed the applicant of the advertising error, but that they could proceed with a presentation this evening. She then asked the Chairman if comments from the members and audience will be heard this evening even though this is not officially the public hearing.
Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that comments and questions will be heard this evening.
17
Mr. Feder reminded everyone that the 15-year vacant site located at Hanley and Clayton Roads has seen a few development proposals over the years that, for one reason or another, have not yet come to fruition. He noted that the site consists of two zoning districts at this time, that need to be combined for a project to be successful. He stated that his clients are proposing a Planned Unit Development Project (mixed-use). He referred to the conceptual presentation made back in March and have since made some changes resulted from comments received from both this commission and the neighborhood about the proposal. He stated that he believes the off-peak hours of traffic and access to and from the project is the property’s best use. He hopes the result is approval of the proposal ending the 15-year vacancy of the site. He introduced Mr. Erickson to the members.
Mr. Erickson began a PowerPoint presentation. He reminded everyone that they were here with a conceptual presentation back in March.
A slide depicting a rendering looking south was shown. He referred to the amount of greenspace area between Hanley Road and their building, noting that they pushed the building further east by 23 feet and added 1,500 square feet of retail at the corner. He noted that they did add an electrical charging station for electric cars. He mentioned that there is a need for this project; their investors are ready to move forward as there are zero assisted living beds in Clayton. 281 market rate suites for seniors, public space, 1,500 square feet of retail along Hanley; there is a salon and bistro available to the public during the day as well as meeting space. He stated that Ryan companies will be the developer, co-owner and builder; Lifecare Services (4rd largest in the Country) will be the other co-owner and will be the operator. He stated that this is a $95 million investment and no public incentives are being requested. The project ranges from 3-4 stories to 14 stories in height. He announced that Ryan Companies does a lot of senior living as well as residential projects. He reminded everyone that the majority of the traffic generated by this project will be off-peak. The site is about 3.3 acres with some towers already in the area. He stated that they’ve met with the Moorlands Association, Westwood Terrace Association representatives and Hanley Towers representatives. They’ve also reached out the Presbyterian Church and representatives of Davis Place as well.
A slide depicting the site plan was shown. Mr. Erickson noted that there are three access points; right out only at the southeast one. They are proposing to remove the two curb cuts closest to the intersection. Clayton Road will be a right out only/full access in and the third access is along Westwood Drive. The County’s comments are reasonable and they feel can be easily addressed. A discussion ensued regarding the access points and the restrictions. It was mentioned that the only way a motorist could travel east would be to use the ingress/egress at Westwood Drive. The building as proposed is 14 stories on the west side; 3-4 stories on the east side. A slide depicting the loading area was shown (not large trucks); they will clad the trash enclosure as previously requested. There will be an outdoor patio off their main dining-room along Clayton Road for the building’s use and an outdoor area along the west side along the retail that can be used by the public. A slide depicting the parking was shown. Mr. Erickson noted that there will be 23 surface parking stalls out front to serve the retail space and visitors (and electric charging station); the first-
18 floor garage entry for access to about 30 parking stalls on the first floor of the garage was shown; and the remaining underground parking area on the east side was depicted for all the residents and staff.
A slide showing that the building now aligns with the tower to the north was shown. Mr. Erickson explained the area of land that will be dedicated for a future new dedicated right-turn lane.
Mr. Erickson reminded everyone that currently, sidewalk is right against both Hanley and Clayton Roads and their goal is to make this area more pedestrian friendly as well as safe.
Floor plans were presented.
Ted Spade with SWT Design presented the landscape plan-there are 38 existing trees; some not in good condition…24 are proposed to be removed, 19 of which are Pear trees and now on the invasive species. Most of the saved trees are along the north. He stated that they will be able to plant trees along Clayton Road, which they are happy about and will help create a better pedestrian experience. The plan shows 172 trees proposed for the site. A sketch of the intersection depicting the outdoor dining terrace and associated 4-season landscaping including two benches was shown. He stated that they plan to commission an artist to design “art” benches and a water fountain.
Joanne Boulton stated that a water bowl for pets may be better on the east side. She stated that she likes a park-like idea on the east side.
Mr. Spade noted that there would be a bicycle area as well.
A slide depicting the roof gardens and outdoor dining terrace was presented. Mr. Spade indicated that final design is not yet complete on these.
Joanne Boulton asked where the water feature will be.
Mr. Spade stated that they have discussed it; however, it needs to be further studied. He stated he is concerned about maintenance.
Mr. Spade briefly explained proposed signage, including 25 square foot monument signs.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for more landscaping at the Hanley Road intersection. He asked for a further movement of the building towards the east.
Mr. Erickson stated that due to the healthy triangle of landscaping on the east side, they really can’t push the building further east.
Brett Bunke, project architect, presented slides depicting various renderings of the building, noting that the height of the building on the west is in line with the height of the Hanley Towers building.
19 Proposed materials (brick-various shades of brown, cast stone-buff color, windows-black or dark bronze) were presented.
Mr. Erickson noted that the formerly presented {during the conceptual presentation} “C” shape tower is now more of an “L” shape.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they’ve considered adding another floor and cutting off the bay on the west end of the building. He asked about the design intent about the top two floors.
Mr. Erickson stated that they want the building to show as three pieces; the base, the middle and the top. He reminded the members that this is still in concept and can be changed.
Mr. Lichtenfeld stated that it seems as though the top is unfinished and needs something {more detail} to incorporate in in with the rest of the building.
Joanne Boulton agreed that it’s important to know that there’s something beyond Hanley Road towards the north besides this building/wall.
Chairman Lichtenfeld emphasized that we have this one chance to make this right; something inspirational. He added for more development of the rounded corner; something more striking/more contemporary.
Mr. Erickson made note of the need to rezone this property to get to the Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he believes this is the first proposal that recognizes both areas and he commended them for this.
Mr. Erickson noted that development of this project will provide public benefits including 600 union construction jobs; after opening, 86 permanent jobs (nurses, sales, marketing, housekeeping, management, etc.). The project will generate increased property taxes with no impact to the schools. A demand will be met by this project. Their vision is to be community oriented. They want to enhance pedestrian experience for walkers and for dogs and provide space for the public within the building. From Clayton’s Code, the project will provide extraordinary landscaping, public art (2 benches along Hanley Road that will be commissioned by an artist similar to Carol Fleming), architectural intinction, high quality materials, public infrastructure improvements, etc. He made mention of the site challenges. He informed the members that they are ready to move forward as proposed. He noted that this is a sustainable design, they are providing green roofs, increased site coverage, bicycle racks and an electric charging station.
Joanne Boulton asked if they are going to go for Green Globe.
Mr. Erickson replied “no”; the money it would take to apply will go for site improvements.
20
Joanne Boulton commented that it’s not that expensive.
Mr. Erickson reiterated that this is a $95 million investment that won’t require any public incentives. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the retail/public use portion of the building only encompasses 1 to 1 ½ percent of the total; that’s not seen as a public benefit.
Mr. Erickson stated that the more retail introduced to the site will mean more traffic.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the north side greenery will be consistent on both edges.
Mr. Spade stated that more greenspace will be added to the area behind the Schnucks building; further to the east the conifers will remain and add more needle like evergreens.
William Liebermann asked if the large wall will remain.
Mr. Erickson replied “yes”; the fence atop will be replaced with a more attractive material.
William Liebermann asked about the 1,500 square feet of retail.
Mr. Erickson indicated that that number does not include the bistro or other inside areas of public available space.
Joanne Boulton asked how this will shade the swimming pool for the 900 building.
Mr. Erickson referred to the sun study, one of which conducted in March and the other conducted using this new footprint and there is significantly less shade with this proposed new footprint Hanley Towers has been made aware of the study.
Joanne Boulton asked about trucks.
Mr. Erickson showed where the trucks will access/exit the site; he stated that it is their experience that the trucks using the site will be box trucks; not semi-trucks.
The issue of parking came up. Mr. Erickson stated that the parking study called for 209 spaces; they are providing 230.
Joanne Boulton commented that the traffic study states that only 65 cars per day will access the site. Chairman Lichtenfeld as about the roofing material on the east end of the building.
21 Mr. Bunke stated that it is architectural asphalt shingles; noting that the homes in the Moorlands contain a variety of roof types.
Audience comments were solicited.
JD Saul, new resident to Clayton (Westwood Terrace apartments), referred to the jobs mentioned that this project would generate…he referred to the limited amount of parking available in the Moorlands and the concern for spill-over of parking from this project. He also asked for better landscaping for the project.
Mike Flood, 1200 Hampton Park Drive (Richmond Heights), referred to the storm sewer that runs under the property and voiced concern that drainage from the site not cause a problem for neighbors. He asked for assurance that Hampton Park is on the National Registry for Historic Places and asked for a water detention vault.
Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Mr. Flood that MSD has authority over storm water issues.
Lenny Meers, Grimes Consulting (project’s civil engineer) indicated that they are not getting credit for the green roofs included in their plan; that MSD has provided conceptual review and approval of their project. They’ve incorporated pervious pavements into the plan. The plan significantly decreases runoff from the site.
Dan Hayes, 7562 York Drive, stated that he doesn’t want the building moved further east and that no site exit is needed along Westwood Drive as they don’t need more traffic and more cars there.
A representative from CBB (Crawford, Bunte & Brammeier) was not in attendance at the meeting to address Mr. Hayes’ comments.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the Westwood access/egress could be a right out only.
Mr. Erickson indicated that has not been discussed.
Anna Krane stated that CBB’s analysis did not indicate an impact on Westwood as a result of this proposal; the civil engineer would be the one to address whether or not that full access is needed or not.
Another resident of Hampton Park asked about impact on their subdivision exit (they cannot travel east on Clayton Road from their properties).
Mr. Meers indicated that traffic study confirmed no impact of this project on Hampton Park (Westwood is needed to go eastbound onto Clayton Road).
22 Jill Schmultz, 900 South Hanley Road, stated that there has been less discussion about the request for change in zoning. Her opinion is that a senior living facility is not needed. It was their expectation when they purchased their condo is that this property would only allow for a 3-story building; not 14. She reminded the members that this will change the cityscape travelling from the south. She asked for the building to be pushed back further and for more greenspace; she has concerns about the northwest entrance/exit.
Mr. Meers confirmed that the only comments from the County was the suggestion to dedicate a right of way for the future turn lane. He noted that there was no comment regarding the proximity of this building to the 900 S Hanley building.
Richard Goldberg, Hanley Towers resident, stated that the residents of his building are the most impacted by this project. He stated that this proposal is a lot better than it was back in March. He asked that a minimum 6-foot in height fence be required to replace the existing fence to reduce the visual impact. He stated he’s happy the developers added the extra 23 feet between Hanley and the building, but he would like to see even more setback from Hanley. Photos of existing trees were shown to the members. He voiced concern about the possible loss of some of these trees and asked that the developer agree to replace those trees if they are destroyed by construction. He voiced opposition to left turns from or onto Hanley Road.
Joanne Boulton asked if left turns are made to enter and access their property.
Mr. Goldberg replied “yes”; it’s their only access point.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that Hanley is a County owned road {as is Clayton Road}.
Mr. Goldberg asked that lighting not cause a problem for his building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that the Board of Aldermen will be reviewing this project as well and after that, the building division will be reviewing plans for permitting.
Dr. Anderson, Hampton Park resident, stated that she understands the concerns she has heard. She, too, has concerns about drainage and tree loss. She indicated that she does not want a high rise here.
Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that they are charged with what goes on within Clayton’s boundaries; however, he appreciates the comments from outside. He reminded everyone that this is an urban environment.
Joanne Boulton indicated that this project should actually help with the water issues as MSD is requiring on-site retention beginning as if this was an all-grass site; typically, only additional run- off is required to be retained on-site.
23 Joanne Boulton thanked the applicant for incorporating many things that were for during the conceptual presentation. She added that she believes this proposal fits in very well with the context of both neighborhoods.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he’s looking forward to this project coming back for a vote.
******************************************************************************
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that this evening is Joanne’s last meeting as Aldermanic Representative; she has served her 2-year term and will be replaced with another Alderman to serve on this Commission and will be attending the next meeting. He thanked her for her service.
Joanne stated that’s it has been her privilege to serve.
Hearing no further questions or comments, and having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary