March 5, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

MARCH 5, 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 Craig Owens, City Manager Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Ron Reim William Liebermann Scott Wilson Brian Maguire

Absent:

None

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

The minutes of the February 20, 2018 meeting were presented for approval. Joanna Boulton asked that a correction be made to the last paragraph of Page 4 so as to read: “A discussion regarding construction hours and when the lot would be used ensued. It was determined that the lot could be used beginning at 6:30 a.m. as long as the trucks were not idling at all.” The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.

2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – WALK UP ATM – 8100 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Robert Lieb, representing the general contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes reminded the members that this project was first presented to them on November 6, 2017 and was continued to a future meeting. The applicant has since revised the location and design of the walk-up ATM machine. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. The property contains a two-story bank building with a drive-through. The existing drive-through ATM and teller machines are legal non- conforming uses and therefore additional machines or lanes cannot be added. The proposed walk- up ATM is considered an accessory to the bank use, which is permitted in the C-1 zoning district and therefore, does not impact the legal non-conforming status of the drive-through. The applicant proposes to locate the walk-up ATM in an existing courtyard south of the building at the intersection between Forsyth Boulevard and Parkside Drive. A new concrete pad for the machine will be installed off of the existing concrete walkway. The applicant also proposes new landscaping around the machine and walkway and the removal of three existing trees. The ATM machine will appear similar to the existing drive-through ATM machine located northwest of the building. Plans submitted by the applicant show the machine in two color schemes. The first color scheme matched the machine previously proposed with red sides, a white front and back and a grey overhang. The second color scheme has beige sides, a white front and back and a grey overhang. Both options have two recessed lights located in the machine overhang. An approximately 2.7 square foot sign is located on the front of the machine, facing Forsyth Boulevard, and on the rear of the machine, facing Parkside Drive. The sign depicts the name of the bank and the logo and will not be illuminated. An existing retaining wall located along the front of the building will be extended to wrap the southeast corner of the building and create a level space for the ATM machine. The extended portion of the wall will use the same material as the existing wall. The applicant is proposing three new exterior lights along with the ATM. One light is proposed mounted to the southern wall of the building, approximately 7.5 feet above grade. One single light pole is proposed along the walkway between the sidewalk and the machine. One double light pole is proposed southwest of the machine. The proposed pole lights are 15 feet tall. The proposed walk-up ATM will be highly visible due to the location. The same concerns of the previous proposal remain with respect to the potential visual impact at the corner. Staff does not feel the addition of a walk-up ATM will enhance the site, but rather would have a negative visual impact. The proposed machine will distract from the unique features of the bank building and will not add to the landscape transition zone at this intersection. Staff does not support the removal of trees. The existing tree located just south of the proposed ATM machine is one of the most mature trees on site. This tree contributes to the transition zone between the park and residential area to the south and west and the commercial area to the east. It appears this tree is being removed due to the proposed double light pole. Staff believes that the tree should be saved and the proposed pole is not necessary. The existing tree just east of the building is not located adjacent to any proposed construction. Staff does not understand the reasoning for removing this tree. The third tree to be removed is located within the walkway circle and staff recognizes the need for site distance around

3 the proposed machine for safety reasons; however, staff feels the machine would be more appropriately located elsewhere. Two pole lights and a wall light are proposed on the site. An existing pole light is located just south of the proposed single light pole. The ATM machine also has recessed lighting in the canopy. Staff feels that the lighting proposed is excessive and that the additional pole lights will negatively contribute to the character of this corner. Director Istenes noted that staff does not support the proposed walk-up ATM as proposed. At the previous meeting, the Architectural Review Board discussed the location of a previous ATM machine near the northwest corner of the building. Staff would support the location of the beige colored ATM in that area. The existing lighting for the drive-through and parking area could support the new ATM and additional lighting would not be required. The alternate location would also result in saving the trees and maintaining the existing character of the corner. With that in mind, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall relocate the machine to the northwest corner of the building. 2. The applicant shall use the beige color scheme for the machine.

Mr. Lieb informed the members that he will tell the architect to relocate the machine and keep the beige color. He asked how to proceed from this point.

Ron Reim indicated that he agrees with staff recommendation.

Scott Wilson commented that this was discussed at the last meeting.

Mr. Lieb stated he didn’t know why the architect did not follow the instructions from the previous meeting.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that most people drive, not walk, to that bank.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE (MODIFICATION TO SIGN REGULATIONS) – 100 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD

Daniel Kirchhoff, sign contractor (Engraphix), was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is proposing to install an aluminum wall sign on the west elevation to depict the name of the building owner, who is also a tenant, “Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate,” in bronze letters. The proposed sign is 24.97 square feet in area and will be halo-lit from behind. The proposed sign will be located approximately 21 feet above grade and bracket-mounted to the brick facade. The proposed location is above the first floor windows.

4 Based on the tenant’s location within a multi-tenant office building, the following sign is be permitted by the Sign Code: “Ground floor office tenants with a substantial glass wall or window area and street frontage may erect a wall sign 12 square feet in area, but not more than 2 such signs shall be permitted for each building frontage.” The proposed sign is the only wall sign on the west elevation; however, the proposed sign is 24.97 square feet and therefore requires a sign modification. While the proposed sign is larger than allowed by the Sign Code, the sign will appear compatible in terms of scale with the building. An existing wall sign located around the corner from the proposed sign is similar in size and style to the proposed sign. The building is located on a corner, and therefore can have wall signs on both street frontages. The proposed sign is also higher off of the ground due to the change in grade and the location of the first floor. The proposed sign is constructed of a high quality material. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign is compatible with surrounding buildings and wall signs in terms of design, material and size and recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Kirchhoff stated that they believe the sign to be tasteful and size appropriate. He added that staff’s report was accurate and asked if there were any questions.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the former Bancorp sign is gone.

Scott Wilson commented that the proposed sign is nice looking.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the sign/modification as requested. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD WALL - 8045 WATKINS

Lakmipthi Rayalacheruvu, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of a retaining wall along the southwest corner of the house; the wall ranges in height from 6 inches to 1.5 feet and is constructed of a modular stone system. The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet as required by the Architectural Review Guidelines; however, only one size of stone was used. The location of the wall is perpendicular to the public sidewalk and setback from the sidewalk. Additionally, the new wall supports existing planting beds in the front yard. Staff is of the opinion that the wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house and recommends approval with the condition that three different size blocks be incorporated into the wall system.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu stated that he did not know approval by the City was needed and that at its highest point, the wall is only 18-inches.

5

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed the owner that the three different size blocks does not include the cap.

Joanne Boulton asked if the reason for the varying size blocks is for aesthetics.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton asked if the wall is a dry stack wall.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu replied “yes”.

William Liebermann suggested allowing him to keep the bottom layer.

Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed.

Mr. Rayalacheruvu asked how much time he can have to change out the wall.

Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “one month”. He asked if it will have to be inspected.

Anna Krane replied “yes”.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendations (utilization of 3 different sized blocks); allowing the base layer (below grass line) to remain as installed. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW VET CLINICS AS CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS

Ron Reim made a motion open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

Susan Istenes explained that currently, veterinary services are not defined or listed as permitted uses in any zoning districts; however, there is an existing veterinary clinic within the City. Because veterinary services are not listed in the regulations, any new animal hospitals or changes to the existing hospital would not be allowed. The existing animal hospital would like to expand the practice, which has triggered the code amendment process. The ideal location for veterinary services is in proximity to residential neighborhoods; however, operational characteristics of the businesses are more compatible with commercial districts than residential. Hours of operation, noise generation and traffic impacts of veterinary service businesses would likely align with other

6 commercial businesses. Under regulations of a Conditional Use Permit, additional impacts based on the details of the specific business and location can be mitigated on a case by case basis.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is a comprehensive list of definitions for different industries that is commonly referenced by zoning ordinances as a source of business definitions. The 2012 publishing of NAICS lists the following definition for veterinary services:

“The industry comprises establishments of licensed veterinary practitioners primarily engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for animals; and establishments primarily engaged in providing testing services for licensed veterinary practitioners.”

Staff proposes the addition a definition to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify a veterinary hospital/clinic as opposed to other animal service type facilities such as kennels, grooming or training facilities. The proposed definition was developed based on the NAICS definition along with research into definitions used by other cities. The definition serves to outline business characteristics, but not to regulate business operations (proposed definition: “Facilities primarily for the practice of veterinary medicine, dentistry or surgery for animals which can include accessory accommodations for overnight patients”). Staff also recommends the addition of veterinary hospital/clinic to be listed as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-1, C- 2 and HDC Zoning Districts. By allowing the use with a Conditional Use Permit, the City can regulate specifics of the business operations. Veterinary hospitals provide a service desired by many residents; however, the operation is a business and therefore should be located in commercial districts only. Adding a definition of veterinary hospital/clinic to the Zoning Regulations and as an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit will bring the existing clinic into conformance and allow for the addition of other clinics. Veterinary hospital/clinics are not know to group locations, as you may see for retail clothing stores or hardware stores. As a result, it is not likely that one area of town will be over concentrated with veterinary hospitals/clinics. Staff also does not anticipate a large influx of veterinary hospitals/clinics after the code amendment. Staff recommends listing this use as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit so that each business proposed can be analyzed individually and appropriate conditions can be imposed. Staff does not anticipate negative impacts associated with the proposed text amendments. Director Istenes noted that the proposed changes will bring an existing business into conformance and allow similar businesses that provide services desired by residents to locate within the City. Veterinary hospitals/clinics can have operations that are unusual compared to other general commercial uses and therefore, staff recommends listing veterinary hospitals/clinics as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.

Joanne Boulton informed the members that she asked a resident of Clayton who is a non- practicing veterinarian to review the proposed changes and had some suggestions; Joanne referred to a vet business that’s located adjacent to a Chinese restaurant on Forest Park Parkway.

7 Ron Reim mentioned large versus small animals and the possibility of having a weight limit of the animals that are serviced; suggesting 300 pounds.

Scott Wilson asked if adding the word “small” would cover it.

William Liebermann asked the largest animal Dr. Fraser (CUP Applicant) taken care of.

Dr. Fraser, veterinarian, replied that he has a 180 pound Great Dane as a patient.

Joanne Boulton asked about animals that have died.

Dr. Fraser indicated that they have a service pick up animal remains (deceased animals).

Joanne Boulton asked where they are stored until then.

Dr. Fraser indicated that there is a freezer on-site.

Joanne Boulton asked about waste disposal.

Dr. Fraser indicated that medical waste is also picked up.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if disposal is regulated by the state.

Dr. Fraser replied that medical waste is, yes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Dr. Fraser that the information he is providing helps the Commission understand the operational aspect of the business for the text amendment.

A brief discussion regarding proximity of veterinary clinics and restaurants ensued. Planner

Krane informed the members that the cities of Richmond Heights, University City and Creve Coeur allow veterinary clinics with a CUP.

It was decided to keep the language in the zoning regulations simple and further regulations could be handled through the CUP process.

Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing nothing from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the members. Ron Reim then made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendments to the Board of Aldermen with the addition of the words “small/ companion” to the definition. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – VETERINARY CLINIC – 132 & 136 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Dr. Dan Fraser was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the Animal Clinic of Clayton currently operates at 136 North Meramec Avenue and has since 1948, prior to the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit. The existing clinic is considered a legal non-conforming use. The clinic would like to expand into the adjacent building at 132 North Meramec Avenue, which would nullify the legal non-conforming status and require the clinic to come into conformance. The expansion of the existing clinic is contingent on the approval of a code amendment to add veterinary hospitals/clinics as allowed uses with a Conditional Use Permit in commercial zoning districts. The existing clinic operates with 1,200 square feet of space in the current building. The applicant intends to continue operating the existing space, while expanding into the adjacent building. The new building will provide an additional 2,266 square feet of clinic space and 978 square feet of general office space. The proposed clinic will use a total of 4,444 square feet. The applicant is proposing 17 onsite parking spaces located at the rear of the two properties. The proposed hours of operation are 9:00am to 8:00pm Monday through Thursday, 9:00am to 6:00pm on Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on Saturday and 9:00am to 1:00pm on Sunday. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed expansion of the veterinary clinic meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses, is compatible with the surrounding area and will not be disruptive to the surrounding properties and therefore, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions: 1. No animals shall be boarded or sheltered outside. 2. Animals may only be boarded overnight as necessary for medical procedures. 3. The approval of the clinic expansion is contingent on the approval of a code amendment by the Board of Aldermen to add veterinary clinics as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in commercial districts.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Dr. Fraser if he had anything to add.

Dr. Fraser replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how he was going to operate in two buildings.

Dr. Fraser indicated that the new larger building will primarily serve as the vet practice and the smaller building can be used for grooming and a sales boutique.

Joanne Boulton asked about the grooming aspect of the business.

Dr. Fraser stated that he assumed they could provide grooming services; as they currently do.

9 Joanne Boulton indicated that she’s just trying to understand their operation.

Ron Reim commented that he understands that the basis is veterinary care and the rest of the operations are ancillary uses.

Dr. Fraser agreed. He asked about the time frame for the applicant process.

Dr. Fraser was informed that his application is scheduled for the March 13th Board of Aldermen meeting.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Brian Maguire and unanimously approved by the members.

*****************************************************************************

Ron Reim asked staff about the Plans Examiner position.

Director Istenes indicated that the application deadline was this past Friday and she will soon be reviewing the applications. She informed the members that the Building Official position has been filled and interviews for the Administrative Assistant are underway.

Planner Krane informed the members that a conceptual proposal for the Clayton/Hanley Road site has been submitted and she will post it to the web tomorrow; it will be presented at the March 19th meeting.

Director Istenes informed the members that she won’t be in attendance at the March 19th meeting.

It was decided that due to the short agenda for the 19th meeting, two Articles from the Land Use Code would be put on the agenda and discussed at that meeting.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. _______________________________ Recording Secretary