November 20, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
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 Brian Maguire Scott Wilson
Absent:
Also in Attendance: Kevin O’Keefe, 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 November 6th meeting were presented for approval. Joanne Boulton asked that an email message she had written regarding the proposed project at 7501 Maryland Avenue (Centene University & Early Childhood Education Center) be entered into the record/included in the minutes. The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.
Director Istenes announced that Items C & D under “New Business” {on the agenda} will be heard after Items A & B under “Public Hearing” regarding the same project.
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – FRONT YARD WALL – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 483 EDGEWOOD
Chris Rhodes, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the removal and replacement of an existing railroad tie retaining wall with a versa-lok mosaic block wall. The retaining wall is located along the southern property line, along Wydown Boulevard. The proposed wall will be the same height and location as the existing wall. The proposed design and materials of the retaining wall are consistent with the Architectural Review Board guidelines for retaining wall materials. The modular block wall includes three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The location of the wall is parallel to the public sidewalk and is not setback from the sidewalk. The applicant has stated a desire to locate the new wall in the same place as the existing wall in order to maintain the existing fence located just interior on the site to the wall. The wall will be approximately 2 feet tall. It has been the preference of the Architectural Review Board to setback walls and fences from the property line to provide space for a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and wall. The railroad tie wall is in disrepair and requires replacement; however, the existing fence next to the wall does not require replacement. Requiring the wall to be moved further from the sidewalk would result in the demolition of the existing fence as well. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed wall will be an upgrade to the existing conditions and will not negatively impact the public right-of-way and recommends approval as requested.
Mr. Rhodes informed the members that they’ve already removed the railroad tie wall.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the new wall comes in individual blocks or if it comes in panels.
Mr. Rhodes indicated that it comes in individual varying size blocks (3 sizes).
Scott Wilson commented that he is familiar with the former wall and this upgrade is a good thing.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he agrees with staff regarding the location.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.
Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE SUB-DISTRICT PLAN – 8500 MARYLAND AVENUE (THE BARTON)
Paul Langton, Vice-president of Real Estate, Covington Realty Partners, was in attendance at the meeting.
3
Susan Istenes explained that the applicant is proposing five building identification wall signs and one pole sign. One wall sign measuring 45.64 square feet depicting the name of the building (“The Barton”) is proposed along Maryland Avenue. The wall sign is constructed of bronze channel letters with white acrylic faces. The sign will be internally illuminated. Three “B” medallion signs measuring 27.53 square feet each are proposed on the north, east and west elevations. The medallion signs are constructed of a bronze frame with a white acrylic face and will be internally illuminated. One wall sign measuring 23.9 square feet, depicting “Leasing Center” is proposed in the motor court off of Gay Avenue. The wall sign is constructed of a bronze aluminum face with white acrylic letters. The proposed leasing office sign is internally illuminated. A one-sided directional pole sign depicting “The Barton” and “Leasing Center” is proposed at the entrance to the motor court off of Gay Avenue. The proposed pole sign measures 5.4 square feet and is constructed of black aluminum face with white vinyl graphics. A total of 152.13 square feet of signage is proposed relating to the residential use of the building. Under the City’s Sign Code, a total of 22 square feet of signage would be allowed. Additionally, six awning signs are proposed along the north, east and west elevations. The property contains four tenant spaces. Two awning signs are proposed for the corner tenants and one awning sign is proposed for each middle tenant. Each sign will measure a maximum of 25 square feet and are not illuminated. The proposed awnings are black and the individual tenant logo colors are not restricted. A total of 150 square feet of signage is proposed relating to the retail/commercial uses of the building. Director Istenes continued by stating that the purpose of forming a sign sub-district is to allow a sign package which fosters creativity and cohesiveness for larger developments. Typically, sign sub-districts are approved with new developments, and over the past 10 years have been approved for projects including Centene, The Crescent, DeMun Pointe and Ceylon. The adoption of a sign sub-district is beneficial to the building owner and the City because it ensures predictability. Without the adoption of a sub-district, each tenant requesting a sign not in accordance with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance would have to seek approval from the Architectural Review Board on a case by case basis. Staff estimates that the proposed sign sub-district would permit more signage for the residential use of the building and less signage for the retail uses than currently permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Under the Sign Ordinance, the building would be permitted the following:
1. Residential buildings with 20 or more units are allowed one wall sign up to 8-square-feet in area. 2. Each ground floor tenant would be allowed one perpendicular sign measuring 6-inches by 24-inches or 1-square-foot. 3. Each ground floor store or tenant space with display windows and a separate street entrance would also be allowed one wall sign 15-square-feet or 5 percent of the front wall area up to 50-square-feet. The corner tenant would be allowed one sign on each street frontage. 4. Signs are permitted on awnings measuring up to 15 percent of the awning face.
4 The Downtown Master Plan does not specifically address signage; however, it does acknowledge the Maryland Gateway as being an important transition zone into the heart of Downtown Clayton. The Master Plan encourages the redevelopment of buildings along Maryland Avenue to focus on the human-scale and create an urban character streetscape through active ground floor uses. The plan outlines a vision of Maryland Avenue transitioning from a car oriented street to a pedestrian oriented street. The subject property is the first major redevelopment in this area of Maryland Avenue since the Master Plan was adopted. The multi- family residential development will provide the pedestrian traffic needed to activate the street and support the retail uses. Signage for the subject building should also be in-line with the development goals of the Master Plan and act as part of the architecture of the building. The signage should be located at the first floor level and oriented toward pedestrians rather than vehicles, appropriately sized and be consistent in design, materials, color and/or finish. The proposed building identification signs are significantly larger than the sign code allows. The residential entrance is located off of the motor court. The leasing office identification is located on the motor court; however, the building name identification signs are located along Maryland Avenue. Staff believes that a building name sign along Maryland Avenue is appropriate when in scale with the block. The proposed “The Barton” wall sign located on the northern elevation measures 45.64 square feet and is significantly larger than residential building signs permitted by the City’s code. The building name sign is also larger than the maximum 25 square foot building name sign permitted for multi-tenant office buildings. The larger proposed sign is not pedestrian scale. The proposed sign is located at the second floor ceiling height, which is higher than the City’s Sign Code allows. The purpose of requiring wall signs to be located at first floor ceiling height is to direct signage toward pedestrians and traffic along the sidewalk. By raising the sign location above the first floor ceiling height, the sign is aimed toward vehicle traffic and is no longer compatible with goals of the Maryland Gateway District. Staff does recognize that the location of the tenant awnings will make a wall sign a first floor height along Maryland Avenue difficult. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed sign commercializes the residential use, is not geared toward pedestrian activity and does not enhance the building architecture. The office building to the east, across Gay Avenue, does not have a wall sign adjacent to Gay Avenue, meaning signage on The Barton would not be competing with signage to the east. The building directly to the west has a ground sign and a wall sign. The wall sign is significantly smaller than the proposed signage and the adjacent building is set back from Maryland Avenue further than The Barton, meaning signage again would not compete. The proposed “The Barton” wall sign should be reduced to 25 square feet in area. The reduction in size will result in a wall sign more compatible with other wall signs along Maryland Avenue and will still be visible from a distance. The proposed materials of the wall sign are high quality and compatible with the building design. The proposed “B” medallion signs further commercialize the residential use and resemble the marketing strategy of a hotel. Each medallion is 27.53 square feet and located just below the roofline of the building on the north, east and west elevations. The sign code states that signs can be located on street frontages. The western elevation of the building is not a street frontage and therefore, signs cannot not be located on the west façade. The medallion signs are directed at vehicle traffic from afar. The building is set closer to Maryland Avenue than the existing buildings to either side, meaning the building is already highly visible from the
5 east and west. The City’s Sign Code states that wall signs should be located at or near first floor ceiling height. Applicants can request variation from the City’s Sign Code through the Sign Sub- district process, which encourages creative approaches to signage that align with neighborhood goals. Staff does not believe the proposed medallion signs achieve goals outlined in the Master Plan or enhance the architecture of the building. The proposed location of the signs, along with the proposed illumination, will also make the signs highly visible from the residential neighborhoods to the north. Staff recommends denying the proposed medallion signs. The proposed directional pole sign and “leasing center” wall sign will provide a public benefit and clarity to drivers visiting the site. The proposed pole sign is a similar size and design to directional signs seen throughout the City. The proposed wall sign is along a street frontage, but set back from the road. The proposed size is appropriate given the location and purpose of the sign. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed materials are high quality and compatible with the building design. The proposed tenant awning signs are compatible with existing retail signage seen along Maryland Avenue. The City’s Sign Code limits awning signs to 15 percent of the awning face. The proposed awning signs are larger than the City’s Sign Code would allow based on the size of the proposed awnings; however, the tenants will not have wall signs in addition to the awnings. Staff believes the awning signs are compatible with the architecture of the building and will contribute positively to the street environment. The applicant has proposed two awning signs for the retail tenant space at the northwest corner of the building. The western elevation of the subject building is not a street frontage and therefore, signs cannot be located on the west elevation. Staff believes that the materials proposed are of high quality and compatible with the building and adjacent properties. The applicant’s narrative provided four examples of existing building signage in the Downtown area as support for the Sign Subdistrict proposal. The example signs have different contexts and histories than the subject property. The first three examples are bank buildings. Per the City’s Sign Code, banks are allowed one wall sign (per street frontage) 15 square feet or five percent of the front wall area up to a maximum of 50 square feet. The first example is the Bank of America building located at 8100 Forsyth Boulevard. The location and size of the signs seen on the building were originally approved when the property was occupied by Boatmen’s Bank. In 1999, Bank of America obtained a Sign Permit to replace the 26.84 square foot signs as seen today. The second example is the PNC Bank building located at 7801 Forsyth Boulevard. The size and location of the PNC Bank sign located near the roofline was originally approved through a sign modification by the Architectural Review Board in 1995. In 2009, PNC Bank replaced the 26.09 square foot sign as seen today. The third example is the Commerce Bank building located at 8000 Forsyth Boulevard. In 2015, Commerce Bank obtained sign permits to install the 41.34 square foot wall signs at the ceiling height of the atrium entrance. The last example is the address numbers on the multi-tenant office building located at 200 South Hanley Road. The City does not have any records of the sign being approved or considered for review. The proposed Sign Sub-district would provide uniform signage at the intersection of a main entrance into the City of Clayton. The proposed residential/building name signage over commercializes the building and is not compatible with the surrounding area. The use of tenant awning signs is comparable to existing retail and restaurant signage along Maryland Avenue. The proposed signs seem to be of high
6 quality materials and with some modifications, the Sign Sub-district will complement the building façades and staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reduce the size of “The Barton” wall sign to 25 square feet.
2. The applicant shall remove the proposed medallion signs from the Sign Sub-district Plan.
3. The applicant shall remove the proposed tenant awning sign on the west elevation from the Sign Sub-district Plan.
Mr. Langton stated that he agrees with most of staff’s recommendations. He added that it’s important for the building to have identity.
Mr. Langdon began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting the Maryland Avenue façade were shown. He explained that the topography does play a role here and that their building is a long way from downtown activity so they are trying to get people’s attention. He indicated that they are open to modification of the signs and will reduce the 46 square foot sign down to 25 square feet; noting this sign is an important part of their identification.
Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that it is his opinion that the medallion signs are too large and the east façade is too crowded. He stated he’d be okay with the sign on the east if it was smaller.
Scott Wilson asked Chairman Lichtenfeld if he did not like the medallion on the front.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”; adding that it is overkill. He noted that the three lights on the second, third and fourth levels of the east façade “connect” the medallions.
Mr. Langton agreed.
Scott Wilson commented that normally, he supports staff’s recommendations; however, in this case, he’s willing to support the proposal if the applicant reduces the signs. He stated that although he realizes there is a code issue here, he is okay with the two medallion signs if they are smaller as he believes they are appropriate.
Ron Reim stated that he’d be okay with the medallion sign on the east façade; but the other two should be eliminated. He added that he’s fine with the “The Barton” sign if it’s reduced as staff recommends.
Joanne Boulton asked about an appropriate size for the medallion sign.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated it should be reduced to 5-feet.
7 Craig Owens stated that he does not see the necessity for all the proposed signage and that he supports staff’s recommendations.
Joanne Boulton stated that she could also support staff recommendations.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any more comments from the members or the audience.
Joanne Boulton stated that her concern is setting a precedent.
No other comments were heard.
Ron Reim made a motion to approve the signage sub-district plan with the following conditions:
1) The Barton sign shall be reduced to 25 square feet; 2) There shall be no medallion signs on the north or west building elevations; 3) The medallion sign on the east elevation shall be no larger than 5-feet in diameter; 4) There shall be no tenant awning sign on the west elevation; 5) Provide staff with an updated plan set to reflect these conditions of approval.
The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and received the following vote: Ayes: Ron Reim, Scott Wilson, Chairman Lichtenfeld, William Liebermann and Brian Maguire. Nays: Joanne Boulton and Craig Owens.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – MIXED-USE PROJECT – 8049 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (SHAW PARK TOWER APARTMENTS)
Brandon Bogan/Flaherty and Collins (developer) and Chuck Hull, project architect, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes announced that due to an error in notification, there will be no vote on these matters for this project at this meeting and will be continued to the meeting of December 18th; however, the applicant will proceed with their presentation this evening and discussion will follow. Director Istenes noted that this project will also require approval by the Architectural Review Board and approval of a subdivision plat by the Board of Aldermen. She continued by reading the majority of the staff report as follows: The subject property is 37,545 square feet and is located at the northeast corner of Brentwood Boulevard and Forsyth Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of High Density Commercial (HDC) and is located in the Downtown Core Overlay District. The site is currently developed as a surface parking lot and surrounded by office and retail uses. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a 22 story, 457,575 square foot mixed-use building containing 7,852 square feet of first floor retail, 228 residential units and 324 structured parking spaces. The north-south and east-west alleys adjacent to the property will also be widened to 24 feet through a right-of-way dedication. The adjusted lot will measure 36,089 square feet. The proposed development will be urban in character and will
8 maintain a consistent street wall along the street frontage. Four at-grade building entrances are proposed along Brentwood Boulevard and one entrance is proposed along Forsyth Boulevard. City standard streetscape will be installed along the project limits. Garage access is proposed along the northern elevation, off of the east-west alley. The total building square footage and the retail square footage listed on the applications does not match the sizes listed on the plan set. The staff reports are based on the highest square footage as found on the plans, rather than information listed on applications. The applicant will need to revise and verify the correct square footages. Projects within the Downtown Core Overlay District are eligible to be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) when they exceed the maximum height or maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) and incorporate two of the following five uses: office, retail, residential, public parking and hotel. The Zoning Regulations stipulate that PUD’s are a distinct zoning district and therefore require approval of a rezoning concurrently with the development plan. Mixed-use buildings containing residential units and first floor retail are eligible for consideration of a PUD provided the project exceeds 50,000 square feet in size and is unable to meet the established zoning criteria. The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed height and FAR, includes retail and residential uses, is greater than 50,000 square feet and fails to meet the following zoning criteria:
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Waiver Required Height 7 stories or 90 feet (maximum) 22 stories or 253.58 feet Yes Building Stepback 10 feet at 3rd story or 30 feet above grade, along elevations with street frontage, excluding alleys 5 feet at the 2nd story Yes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3 (maximum) 12.67 Yes Setback (rear) 15 feet (minimum) 0 feet Yes Setback (front) none 0-10 feet No Setback (side) none 0-13.75 feet No Ground Floor Uses Retail, personal care, or similar Retail No Unit Size 750 square feet (minimum) 68 units < 750 square feet, 29.8 percent Yes Parking (automobile) 319 spaces (minimum) with 132 spaces available for public use 324 spaces with 132 available for public use No Parking (bicycle) 12 racks (minimum) 11 exterior racks and 530 square foot interior storage room No
This project seeks relief from requirements of the Downtown Core Overlay District and the HDC Zoning District. According to the applicant, the following public benefits to the City are intended to be derived from the approval of the planned unit development:
9 1) Architectural distinction and significance that would make the development noteworthy; >> The design relates to the adjacent buildings in that the retail base of the tower is differentiated in relation to the street via setback, height and materials from the residential portion of the tower. This creates a base that relates to the adjacent one and two story buildings, as well as the office tower across the street. 2) Extensive use of high quality building materials that would add significant value to the property and benefit the adjacent properties; >> The building will utilize high performing insulated glazing in a full height window wall system on half of the building façade and opaque panels with punched windows on the other half. 3) Provision of new public infrastructure including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, sidewalks, sanitary sewers, stormwater sewers, lighting and public parking; >> City standard streetscape will be installed along the boundary of the project, resulting in increased sidewalk width along both Brentwood Boulevard and Forsyth Boulevard. >> Both the alley to the north of the site and the alley to the east of the site will be widened to 24 feet in conformance with the City’s standards. 4) Sustainable building design and construction including, but not limited to, sustainable site development, green roofs, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. >> “Smart green” practices will be utilized to achieve certification from the National Green Building Standard (or similar) sustainability certification program. 5) Inclusion of special access features or provisions to existing or planned public transit facilities; >> The development will replace the existing public parking as well as provide bicycle parking. 6) Inclusion of a mixed use development plan where no single use exceeds eighty percent (80%) of the total floor area; >> The apartments, common areas and rooftop amenity level make up 69.66 percent of the development, parking makes up 28.63 percent and the remaining 1.72 percent is designated as retail space. Director Istenes noted that the applicant also adds that the proposed project will provide much needed residential density in the core of Clayton, which will add to the vibrancy of the City, further
10 enhancing the existing fabric of the community and stimulating the local economy. Furthermore, based upon proved research, this added luxury “for rent” residential product will help attract and retain the “best and brightest” to Clayton. The approval criteria are set forth in Section 405.1400 and are designed to achieve the goals as set forth in Section 405.1360 of the Zoning Code. In considering and acting upon development plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration through the planned unit development process: 1) The proposed development is in harmony with general purposes and intent of Chapter 405 of the Municipal Code and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City;
>> The site is located in the Park View District, as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision for the Park View District is to “create a neighborhood along the park that takes advantage of the valuable views of Shaw Park and transforms the urban edge of the park into an active street life environment with sports, culture and entertainment venues.” >> The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along the street frontage. The proposed uses and design will increase residential density and activate the corner with new retail establishments. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan. 1) The proposed development preserves architectural and environmental features of the property; >> The existing site is a surface parking lot and there are not any significant architectural or environmental features to preserve. 2) The proposed materials, design and uses are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development or the City as a whole; and, 3) All ground floor uses must be retail in nature but may include, personal care services, dry cleaning facilities, food and beverage services uses, consumer services offices or governmental offices within the Downtown Overlay District; >> This area of downtown is dominated by office and retail uses. The area contains primarily low-rise and mid-rise buildings with high-rises located west of Brentwood Boulevard and to the east along North Meramec Avenue. The proposed development includes first floor retail space and will connect existing retail nodes north and east of the site. The proposed project is consistent with the vision of the Downtown Overlay District and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
11 4) Architecture and building materials are consistent with the design of the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood; and, 5) Footprint geometry should be square and true with the roadway to the extent possible. Odd shapes and building orientation which competes with the total urban setting should be avoided; and, 6) Buildings and uses must incorporate street frontage windows creating interest at the street level. Furthermore, buildings should be sited in a manner so as to achieve a pedestrian friendly appearance and feel; >> The proposed development will be urban in character and generally compatible with the adjacent urban neighborhood. The project is oriented to the street grid and will maintain a consistent street wall along the majority of its street frontage. Façade relief is incorporated into the tower portion of the building, but is lacking along the garage façade. The building consists of the following components: i. Street-level storefront architecture is featured along Brentwood Boulevard and Forsyth Boulevard. Highly transparent glass with recessed building entries will activate the corner and bring interior activity to the street. A dark metal panel overhang will act as a cap to the first floor space. The cap will also help to create a pedestrian scale at the sidewalk and reduce the effects of the 20 story tower extending above. ii. The residential tower extends 20 stories above the retail level. The tower is predominately window wall on the north, south and west facades. The east façade features columns of window wall as well as columns of EIFS panels. Protruding balconies are features on all elevations to provide façade relief. The tower roof features an amenity deck with a pool and entertaining area. iii. The eight story parking structure extends from the northeast portion of the residential tower. The parking structure is fully enclosed with EIFS panels proposed as the façade treatment. A series of horizontal accent panels are proposed on all three sides. Mechanical ventilation openings provide the only façade relief along the south and east elevations. Some horizontal openings are proposed on the north elevation. The garage is surrounded by one and two story buildings and therefore, the façades are highly visible from the north, south and east. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed garage treatment does not meet design guidelines. Further discussion of the architecture and recommendations are included in the architectural review staff report.
>> Signage is not being considered at this time. 7) Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts;
12 >> Adjacent land uses are commercial. A fully enclosed parking structure is proposed in the northeast corner of the lot. The solid walls of the parking structure will shield lights from adjacent properties; however, the garage walls are highly visible and extremely blank. The development will effectively shield adjacent land uses from light and noise.
8) New developments should be screened from adjacent properties by use of high caliper tree plantings. A landscape plan depicting all new plantings on the site must be submitted as part of the plan; and, 9) Landscaping is appropriate with the scale of the development and consistent with any applicable City codes, ordinances and standards; and, 10) The preservation of mature trees is encouraged. The developer/architect will be required to submit a plan showing trees and other significant plant material as they currently exist and how they will be preserved. Tree preservation must comply with the provisions of the Architectural Review Board guidelines, landscape ordinance and any other applicable City codes and standards. Landscape plan requirements shall be in conformance with the City's adopted landscape ordinance;
>> Planters are proposed flanking all building entrances along Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard. The proposed building is built up to property lines and landscape buffers are not proposed or appropriate given the location and adjacent land uses. Alleyways run adjacent to the north and eastern most property lines. Staff is of the opinion that landscape screening along the alleyways is not necessary. >> A small courtyard is proposed along the southwest elevation of the building, perpendicular to Forsyth Boulevard. The courtyard will contain planters and a seating area. A fenced area with artificial turf is also proposed. The proposed courtyard will also serve as a buffer between the proposed tower and the adjacent two-story office buildings. >> There are three existing trees located along Forsyth Boulevard. The three trees total 28 caliper inches and are to be removed. While no new trees are proposed on site, three new street trees are proposed on Forsyth Boulevard and eight new street trees are proposed on Brentwood Boulevard. By removing the existing trees, the applicant is able to install City Standard Streetscape with street trees located accurately. The proposed trees will align with the existing trees along Forsyth Boulevard and create a uniform appearance at the corner.
11) Every attempt shall be made to preserve the topography of the property. If the topography must be altered to accommodate construction, the plan must contain specific information regarding the proposed topography change and its impact on the flow of
13 drainage on adjacent properties.
>> The plans provide details regarding the proposed grading of the site and proposed stormwater management. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 3.29 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 3.78 CFS, which represents an increase of 0.49 CFS. To mitigate the increase in stormwater runoff, an onsite stormwater detention basin is proposed with a trench drain located in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the building. The stormwater plan has been reviewed and deemed acceptable.
12) Streets or other means of access to the proposed development meet City of Clayton standards and are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not overload the adjacent streets;
>> A traffic study conducted by Crawford Bunte Brammeier (CBB) analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development. According to the study, the surrounding intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during both morning and afternoon peak hours. >> Two existing curb cuts along Brentwood Boulevard will be eliminated. The proposed parking structure will be accessed from the north-south and east-west alleys. Along the subject property, both alleys will be widened to 24 feet in conformance with the City’s standards. >> The traffic study was completed when 310 apartments were proposed, so the reduction in number of units to 228 units will slightly decrease the impacts and number of trips predicted. The proposed apartments and retail uses were estimated to generate 175 new trips during AM peak hours and 255 new trips during PM peak hours. The proposed development will have limited impacts on adjacent intersections. The traffic analysis found that acceptable levels can be maintained at study intersections without additional roadway improvements. >> The traffic study recommended a few alterations to the building and site to mitigate sight distance concerns along the alley. Recommendations that impact the subject property have been implemented.
13) The internal circulation system of the proposed development encourages safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians; and,
14) Parking should be located within the City block interior; and,
15) Surface parking should not abut any sidewalk;
>> The parking garage will be accessed from two openings along the east-west alley. Based on the traffic study, the location of the proposed access is adequate. The
14 layout of the parking structure meets the City’s requirements for circulation and access. >> Three loading spaces, including the trash pick-up access, will be located within the parking structure access off of the east-west alley. >> For mixed-use developments, a parking study performed by a registered traffic engineer may be used to determine the off-street parking requirements. A parking study conducted by CBB, based on field data and standard parking models, determined the proposed development should provide parking spaces at a minimum ratio of 1.4 spaces per unit. It was also determined that a minimum of 132 parking spaces be made available for public use. The proposed development includes 324 parking spaces. A parking control gate is shown on Level 2, which can be used to restrict access to upper floors. The existing surface lot consists of metered spaces and leased/permitted spaces. The required public parking spaces within the proposed garage may be allocated in a similar manner to that of the existing public lot. The Public Works Department has requested that dimensions for the parking spaces are added to the plans and the number of spaces restricted to compact cars is provided. >> Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations, the proposed development is required to provide 12 racks. The proposed site plan shows 11 racks spaced along Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard for public use. There is also an approximately 530 square foot bicycle storage room located in the residential tower for use by residents. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed bicycle racks are in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations.
16) Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development;
>> All connections to public utilities are shown on the plans to be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department.
17) The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
>> Staff is of the opinion that the project complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Director Istenes concluded by stating that the proposed development will activate the corner of Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard and connect to the existing restaurant node at the corner of Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue. The addition of street-level retail and 228 residential units fulfills goals of the Downtown Master Plan and will capitalize on views of Shaw Park and the recently completed Chapman Plaza. 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 Downtown Clayton Master Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses and approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
15 1. The applicant shall revise all applications and/or the plans to accurately list the building and use square footages prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Public access shall be provided to a minimum of 132 parking spaces in the garage. 3. The applicant shall include the parking space dimensions on the plans and provide the number of spaces restricted as compact car parking. 4. The approved development plan and Planned Unit Development Ordinance shall be recorded with St. Louis County and proof of recording submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 5. The applicant shall provide a plan for construction and continued maintenance access for walls built directly on property lines prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Mr. Hull began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting photos of the site (parking lot) were shown. Mr. Hull indicated that this proposal is a result of a Request for Proposal conducted by the City to develop this property in conformance with the goals of the City’s Master Plan, which he believes this proposal does. Mr. Hull referred to staff’s recommendations, first noting the discrepancies contained in the applications versus the plans. He referred to conditioned versus unconditioned space and explained that the plans will be revised for accuracy. He noted the correct square footage of the retail space along Brentwood Boulevard is 7,852 and the amenities’ square footage is 17,000+. He noted that they will comply with the public parking and that all spaces will be to City standards. He stated that the adjacent property will be developed and in that case, their wall would not be visible; however, if the adjacent property is not developed and the owners of that property provides them access, they will address the walls. He stated that the sidewalks will comply with City standards.
Slides depicting floor plans and the landscape plan were presented. Mr. Hull noted that there are 3 service bays; one for trash and the other two for service trucks.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where vehicles will enter to gain access to public parking.
Mr. Hull indicated that access will be the same as the access for the residents of the building; although there will be some parking reserved for the residents.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about reserved parking.
Mr. Hull reiterated that they are committed to providing 132 public parking spaces at all times; however, all the parking specifics have not been sorted out yet.
Joanne Boulton asked how many spaces will be reserved for the residents.
Mr. Hull responded that they have not yet determined that. He added that each level of parking will be accessible by the residents and that no parking is exposed to the streets.
16 A slide depicting a typical resident floor plan was shown. Mr. Hull indicated that there will be a pool and pool deck overlooking the park.
A slide depicting a building elevation was shown. Mr. Hull stated that the tower is mostly glass and that there are random openings in the garage.
William Liebermann asked if any parking will be below grade.
Mr. Hull stated that there will be some. Slides depicting various views of the building were shown.
Joanne Boulton asked how many bicycles a 530 square foot area will accommodate.
Mr. Bogan replied “at least 40”. He indicated that there will be a washer in that room as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the rule of thumb is 30” X 72” per bike.
Joanne Boulton asked how many racks are required.
Anna Krane replied that 12 total are required; the plan proposes 11 racks for public use (along streetscape) and the interior room for resident use.
Additional slides depicting various views of the building were shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reminded everyone that only the rezoning and Planned Unit Development aspects of the project were being considered at this moment; the rest of the reviews, including architectural review and the plat, will be considered later. He noted that the garage, as proposed, occupies more than 50% of the site.
Mr. Hull stated that he was not certain of that, but believes that is correct.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that is odd for Clayton.
Mr. Hull referred to the site challenges and believed it is better to have the residential units along both street frontages.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the use of the land seems odd and questioned if there are too many units as that’s what is driving the amount of parking.
Mr. Hull stated he disagrees from a feasibility standpoint.
Ron Reim asked about scaling the project down.
17 Mr. Hull stated that they already dropped a level and that 225 units is the minimum number of units they need to be comfortable with the project.
Joanne Boulton asked the applicant if they plan to meet Green Globe or National Green Building standards.
Mr. Hull stated that they don’t know yet; but there will be many things green.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the applicant to have more information about this when they resubmit for the December 18th meeting.
William Liebermann asked if they considered underground parking.
Mr. Hull indicated that the geology makes that economically prohibitive.
Ron Reim asked for more information about the possible redevelopment of the property to the south.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that more may be heard this evening about that topic.
Anna Krane informed the members that there is a 3D animation available this evening.
Joanne Boulton asked how many parking spaces are parallel spaces.
Mr. Hull indicated that there are 5 per level; about 30. The 3D animation began. Mr. Hull noted that this animation may be more useful for the architectural aspects of the project.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that in front of the south face of the proposed garage is where a new development could be built.
Ron Reim commented that the north façade of the garage is pretty visible.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that is an architectural issue.
Ron Reim asked about the parking deck to the north.
Bill Loomis indicated that it is 2 levels.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the proposed garage is 80 feet tall.
Ron Reim questioned if public art will be incorporated into the project.
18 At this time, Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited public comments. He asked that the comments be limited to the topics of rezoning and the planned unit development and that they be no longer than 3 minutes.
Gary Feder, attorney representing the owner (KP) of the property to the south (8025 Forsyth Boulevard), indicated that Lochmueller prepared a report that was submitted to the City this morning that focuses on the inadequacy of the parking that’s proposed for this project (noting the City’s requirement of 2 parking spaces/unit; noting the 132 public spaces mixed in; noting the approximate 39 parallel spaces). He added that the project is not functional and not safe; referring to KP’s office building connecting to this property and a meeting that was held a month ago where a single garage to accommodate both projects was discussed. He stated that a Planned Unit Development is meant to deal with an entire block and that people are relying on those 132 public spaces being replaced. He asked that no action be taken until a parking study is completed.
Andrew Delacatto, 8025 Maryland Avenue, asked Director Istenes about the inadequate notification.
Susan Istenes indicated that there are several forms of notice required; one of which failed to meet the deadline (the notice of public hearing is to be mailed to owners within 200 feet of the subject property 10 days prior to the hearing date; the notice for this hearing was mailed out 7 days prior).
Mr. Delacatto referred to an article from July in the St. Louis Business Journal requesting a 2-year moratorium on development, noting that no one knows the effect this project will have and questioned how Clayton will absorb all these units. He asked that the citizens of Clayton be surveyed before taking action on this proposal.
Rob Sterling, 8025 Maryland Avenue, stated he concurs with Gary Feder; the parking for this project is grossly mischaracterized. He stated that residents, in addition to owners, should be noticed regarding these proposals and that the neighborhood relies on this parking lot.
Ray Gallardo, owner of the Mary Brent Building on Brentwood Boulevard, voiced concern regarding parking and the restaurants’ being dependent on parking for their patrons. He stated that 40% of the customers come from outside Clayton. He asked that parking be further considered before voting on this project.
Barry Molinder, 8025 Maryland Avenue, stated that his concern is that this project will target millennials who are mobile and who do not want to own property, resulting in a high turn-over rate. He questioned if a variance would be needed to allow for units less than 750 square feet and if rent will be subsidized, which could be a problem.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this Commission does not deal with financial issues.
19 Richard Smith, 8025 Maryland Avenue, voiced concern regarding parking. He noted that the retail tenants will need parking, too.
Tom Schwetye, 8025 Maryland Avenue, stated that he is a lifelong citizen and former member of this Commission and that studies were done and that high density developments are encouraged and that he believes that the parking can be worked out; he believes that Clayton is too obsessed with parking.
Alan Silverburg, Clayton resident, voiced concern regarding pedestrian safety. He added that the parking garage looks more like a warehouse.
Darren Kittner, Flaherty & Collins, announced that he wanted to clarify that they will work with the City to make the project prettier and that their goal is to make the project sustainable and economical. He added that he believes that there will be between 50 and 100 open parking spaces daily and that providing 1.4 spaces per unit plus 132 public spaces would result in 200 empty spaces at all times. He stated that 1.4 spaces per unit is more than what is provided at Two Twelve and Clayton on the Park and that while they are open to removing one garage level, they need to work with the City and CBB. He reminded everyone that they were selected by the City 18 months ago to do a project on this site.
Hearing no further questions regarding the rezoning or PUD at this time, Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the public hearing remains open and will be continued to the meeting of December 18th.
Ron Reim asked Flaherty & Collins to address the relationship between themselves and KP Development.
Mr. Kittner indicated that KP informed them about a year ago that they were not interested in doing a joint project. He added that they (F & C) spent a lot of time and money on a shared solution to no avail.
Ron Reim asked what the problem was.
Mr. Kittner stated that is a difficult question to answer.
Ron Reim asked if it’s safe to say it was a parking issue.
Mr. Kittner replied “not really”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it was recommended that the two get together to develop the whole block.
Mr. Kittner indicated that they tried to do just that up to just a month ago.
20 Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that this public hearing will remain open until December 18th. He called for a 10 minute break (7:40 p.m.); noting that after the break the architectural aspects and the plat will be addressed.
The meeting resumed at 7:50 p.m.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for discussion. Susan Istenes explained that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a 22 story, 457,575 square foot mixed-use building containing 7,852 square feet of first floor retail, 228 residential units and 324 structured parking spaces. The north-south and east-west alleys adjacent to the property will also be widened to 24 feet through a right-of-way dedication. The adjusted lot will measure 36,089 square feet. The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along the street frontage. Four at-grade entrances are proposed along Brentwood Boulevard and one entrance is proposed along Forsyth Boulevard. City standard streetscape will be installed along the project limits. Garage access is proposed along the northern elevation, off of the east-west alley. The total building square footage and the retail square footage listed on the applications does not match the sizes listed on the plan set. The staff reports are based on the highest square footage as found on the plans, rather than information listed on applications. The applicant will need to revise and verify the correct square footages. Director Istenes referred to review criteria as found in Section 410.190 of the City Code. The 22-story building will be visible from considerable distances. The proposed building materials and design will differentiate it from other high-rises in the skyline. The residential tower portion features a stepped building skyline with an enclosed one-story club room on the eastern portion of the roof and an amenity roof deck with a glass and aluminum railing system. The glass railing system will allow activity on the roof to be visible and create additional interest at the roofline. The 8-story garage structure features a flat open parking deck on the top level. While the garage structure does not directly abut any streets, it is substantially taller than the surrounding one and two-story buildings and therefore, will be highly visible from the north, south and east. There is no articulation to the roofline of the garage structure. The ground level portion of the building is inset into the façade with the metal overhang providing shelter relief for pedestrians while also creating a horizontal balcony above. The large storefront window systems with highly transparent glass allow the interior structural pillars to be seen from the exterior. Generous entrances are inset into the storefront window system, providing further façade relief on the longer Brentwood Boulevard elevation. The 22-story tower features vertically-stacked protruding balconies and vertical aluminum trellis screens on the west facade. Protruding balconies and wall offsets are also featured on the north, south and east tower elevations. The tower has strong vertical lines and patterns that reduce the impact of the longer façade along Brentwood Boulevard. The 8-story garage structure features limited façade relief. The garage elevations are clad in grey EIFS panels with some horizontally oriented panels of a darker grey color. Punched openings are featured on the north and east façades of the garage; however, due to fire rating requirements, punched openings are not provided on the south elevation. The darker accent panels and punched openings are provided in a random pattern and differing sizes. The horizontal panels do not seem to align with floors or relate to the design of the tower. The large amount of EIFS as a wall treatment is also not a material commonly found on
21 neighboring buildings. The garage façade should be revised in order to comply with the architectural guidelines. It is the recommendation of the City’s contracted architect that the garage façade “utilize a regular, geometric offset panel system, executed in either perforated metal, fritted glass, a screen system to support vegetation, or some combination thereof. The scale and orientation of this panel system should relate to and express the floor plates of the residential tower on the face of the garage block.” Window openings are features on all elevations of the proposed tower. The tower elevations are broken-up by columns of balconies, windows and EIFS panels, which provide texture variation and visual interest. The garage structure features some punched openings on the north and east elevations, along with ventilation grilles on the northeast corner and southwest corner. The number of unprotected openings is limited on the garage due to fire rating requirements. As proposed, the garage is primarily blank walls with long horizontal and oddly shaped openings. Revisions should be made to the garage façade treatment to create a more compatible façade with the proposed tower portion and surrounding properties. Pedestrian-scale storefront architecture with large show windows is proposed along Forsyth Boulevard and Brentwood Boulevard. The building pier structures are visible through the highly transparent glass at regular intervals. Three generous retail entrances are provided along Brentwood Boulevard and the residential entrance is located on Forsyth Boulevard. The ground floor space is designed to activate the sidewalk area and support retail, restaurant and entertainment uses. To further weigh down the building and solidify the base of the structure, the metal panel ground floor treatment should be continued along the base of the garage structure. The 8-story garage structure is located along the northern property line. The garage structure does not directly abut a street; however, the structure is significantly taller than the surrounding one and two-story buildings and will be highly visible from the public right-of-way. The proposed garage façade treatment is not compatible with the existing character of the area or the tower portion of the building. As previously recommended, the garage façade should be redesigned to be more cohesive with the modern design of the tower. Due to the constraints of the site and existing conditions, screening of the proposed garage structure is difficult and therefore, façade treatment needs to provide texture and visual interest. Director Istenes continued by stating that the project as proposed is in conformance with the architectural review guidelines of the Downtown Overlay Zoning District, and meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan, with the exception of the garage structure. The proposed tower building form and materials are urban in character, and will contribute to a pedestrian-friendly environment. Staff is of the opinion that the tower design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures. The façade treatment of the garage should be revised as recommended to reduce or mitigate the visual impact of the massing; staff recommends continuing the request to a future meeting to allow the applicant to revise plans based on the following recommendations from the City’s contracted architect’s review letter dated November 15, 2017:
1. The applicant shall revise all applications and/or the plans to accurately list the building and use square footages prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Revise the garage façade to utilize a regular geometric offset panel system, executed in either perforated metal, fritted glass, a screen system to support vegetation, or some
22 combination thereof. The scale and orientation of this panel system should relate to and express the floor plates of the residential tower on the face of the garage block. 3. Extend the metal panel ground floor treatment along the northern garage façade.
Mr. Hull stated that they received staff comments Friday afternoon and are comfortable with the recommendations, after having internally discussed an alternative design for the garage, such as incorporating a vertical element similar to that at Two Twelve; however, they need more time to redesign and re-present it. He noted that there is still the question of what to do with the south side of the parking structure, as there is only 6-inches to one foot from the structure to the property line; they would need the cooperation of the owner if that property it is not redeveloped. He thanked the City for their time and comments this evening.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this site is pivotal and having a building of this size on this lot fits well; however, he’s not sure the garage fits in with the overall context of the area. He questioned the use of EIFS and the colors, as other area buildings are a reddish masonry. He noted that it will be helpful to see the material samples. He noted that he likes the glass, but he’d like to see the corner treated differently and that the garage looks like a large coffin. He concluded by stating that the EIFS and color is inconsistent with the area and that he’d love to see the garage underground.
Ron Reim voiced concern that the building does not turn the corner and that although he understands the complications, the garage needs work, especially the south façade, referring to a garage wall in Clayton that is not what the City wanted, which he doesn’t want to happen again. He stated that he’s concerned about the small parcel being left-over.
William Lieberman stated he concurs with the concerns about the parking garage and that he would prefer part of it being underground. He added that he does like the glass component.
Joanne Boulton commented that she will anxiously await the 18th meeting to see the revision.
Ron Strobing, 8025 Maryland Avenue, voiced his concern regarding the garage and that it would be a shame to not address the garage’s south façade.
Barb Shapiro, 8025 Maryland Avenue, stated that the mass transit here is bad and parking is a serious issue. She asked that the development provide more parking spaces.
Linda Smith, Clayton resident, asked about the building setback.
Anna Krane indicated that there is no minimum front setback required.
Ms. Smith commented that not providing a setback reduces walkability and open space.
23 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked staff about the waivers the applicant is requesting.
Anna Krane explained that the step-back (recess) requirement above the 3rd story helps reduce the towering effect; a waiver from that requirement can be approved by the Board of Aldermen through the PUD process.
Ms. Smith noted how prominent this corner property is and how important it is to have a gracious and welcoming corner.
Richard Smith, 8025 Maryland Avenue, noted that 60 to 65 of the units in their building (Maryland Walk) face south and as such, this building will have an enormous impact on them.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that this public hearing will be continued until December 18th.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed plat adjusts two property boundary lines to dedicate 1,456 square feet to public right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication will widen the existing east- west and north-south alleys from 20 feet wide to the City standard 24 feet wide. The adjusted lot will measure 36,089 square feet. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval of the plat to the Board of Aldermen 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.
Craig Owens recommended that all the items for this project be continued to December 18th.
Scott Wilson asked if the plat would be affected if a joint project were to be done with KP (adjoining property).
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the plat will be continued to the 18th as well.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to continue all four items for this project until the December 18th, 2017 meeting. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.
******************************************************************************* A brief discussion took place regarding the possibility of cancelling the regularly scheduled meeting of December 4th; staff informed the members that a decision would be made and the members would be informed if the meeting is cancelled.
24 Director Istenes reminded the members about the upcoming Lunch & Learn being held on December 12th.
Chairman Lichtenfeld, referring to the 8049 Forsyth site, commented that the only other “L” shaped lot in the area is the Carrolton Bank lot and that he is not sure that the properties that currently contain the small buildings to the east and west are developable. He asked staff if the City can require larger areas to be developed, as he believes that the City will be harming itself if not.
Craig Owens indicated that the process getting this {city-owned} property to this point of having a development proposal has been a long one.
Ron Reim noted that there is clear tension between the parties involved and the neighbors.
Scott Wilson asked how many RFP (request for proposals) responses the City received.
Craig Owens replied “4”.
Scott Wilson asked if the RFP was for the entire block.
Craig Owens indicated that the City encouraged neighbors to work together toward a development proposal.
Ron Reim voiced concern about leftover parcels being impossible to develop; he noted parking is tough. He questioned if KP owns all those parcels.
William Liebermann referred to the issue of economics.
Joanne Boulton complimented staff on their hard work regarding this project.
Chairman Lichtenfeld concurred.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary