October 16, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 16, 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
Absent: Scott Wilson Brian Maguire
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 October 2nd meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved after having been previously sent to each member.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – COMMERCIAL - 135 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE (MIDWEST REGIONAL BANK)
Terry Dawdy, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project includes adding a door to the northeast corner of the building, installing a walkway leading to the North Meramec Avenue sidewalk and installing a
2 retaining wall to support the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a concrete walkway and versa- lok retaining wall. The proposed changes will provide an access point to the building from the northeast corner of the site. A retaining wall is required due to the difference in finished floor height inside the building and grade of the sidewalk. The proposed wall varies in height with the highest point being 2.5 feet above grade. The applicant has not provided details on the proposed versa-lock wall. Modular stone or versa-lok is an allowed retaining wall material if it includes three different size blocks, a varying color pattern and tumbled or rolled edges. Staff believes that a retaining wall in this location is compatible with the existing building and surrounding properties. The applicant is also removing a tree to make room for the concrete walkway. The proposed project does not require Site Plan Review, and therefore, the applicant is not required to replace the tree. Staff recommendation is to approve with the condition that the versa-lok retaining wall contain three different size blocks, a varying color pattern and tumbled or rolled edges.
Mr. Dawdy presented a block sample to the members.
A discussion regarding the tree removal ensued. Mr. Dawdy stated that they will come back with a landscape plan.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the block wall being proposed is laid/installed dry.
Mr. Dawdy replied “yes”.
Slides depicting sites that contain the wall they are proposing to use were shown.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendation and that the tree to be removed as part of this project is to be replaced or otherwise compensated per staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION (REPLACEMENT FRONT YARD WALL) – 7653 CARSWOLD DRIVE
Amber Jordan, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the installation of a new walkway leading from the driveway to the existing front walkway and installing retaining walls along both sides of the new walkway and existing front patio. The project was constructed without a permit or review from the Architectural Review Board and therefore, the applicant has been asked to retroactively apply. The retaining walls replaced existing deteriorated walls. The retaining walls range in height from 3 inches to 3 feet. The walls are constructed of Anchor Highland Stone System. Director Istenes noted that the City’s Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. She added that the proposed design and materials of the retaining walls are consistent with the
3 Architectural Review Board’s preference for masonry walls in front yards. The modular block wall includes three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. Anchor Highland Stone is listed as an example of an accepted modular block system in the Architectural Review Guidelines for retaining walls. 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. Director Istenes continued by informing the members that staff is of the opinion that the wall is compatible with neighborhood character and the existing house and recommends approval as installed.
Ms. Jordan apologized for not realizing she needed review by this Board. She then distributed photographs of the property depicting the subject wall.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what was there before.
Ms. Jordan indicated that there was a failing brick wall before.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the new wall has color variations.
Ms. Jordan replied “yes” noting dark and light grays.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the house is buff and red. He asked if the wall matches.
Ms. Jordan stated that the wall matches well with the roof on the house; she added that she also plans to install gray shutters on the house.
Ron Reim commented that this is the second after-the-fact install in a short time; suggesting there must be confusion between homeowners and contractors. He asked how this confusion can be addressed and suggested the possibility of requiring a permit.
Ms. Jordan referred to incorrect information in the City’s brochure about retaining walls.
Joanne Boulton noted the importance of getting the right information out there to the public; adding that she likes Ron’s idea of a requiring a permit.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as installed. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – COMMERCIAL – 230 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE
Bob Winters, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
4 Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of removing a portion of the brick veneer along the southern elevation of the parking garage façade and replacing the area with concrete walls to match the façade treatment of the garage further east. The existing brick veneer has begun to buckle and is no longer structurally sound. The western wall of the garage fronts South Bemiston Avenue and is clad in brick veneer with landscape screening between the wall and the public side walk. The brick veneer currently wraps the southwest corner of the building and covers a portion of the southern wall, which fronts Shaw Park Drive. The proposed project will only remove the brick veneer from the southern elevation. The proposed concrete wall treatment will match the remainder of the southern elevation of the garage; however, there will not be landscaping and trees to provide additional screening of the garage as there is along other portions of the elevation. Due to sight distance requirements, trees cannot be added along this portion of the elevation to provide screening of the concrete garage. Shaw Park Drive runs parallel to Forest Park Parkway. There is a residential neighborhood on the south side of Forest Park Parkway. The residential neighborhood is screened from the subject building by mature trees and a concrete wall, so the proposed garage elevation will not be directly visible. Most of the buildings fronting Shaw Park Drive are parking garages with various forms of screening. Director Istenes stated that staff believes the proposed concrete screening is compatible with the existing character of Shaw Park Drive and will adequately shield car headlights from the south and therefore, recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Winters noted that the brick veneer is buckling.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the concrete will be flush with the existing material.
Mr. Winters replied “yes”.
Ron Reim asked about the brick on the west façade.
Mr. Winters stated that changes to the west façade is a future project.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – OUTDOOR HEATERS (RESTAURANT) – DEMUN OYSTER BAR – 740 DEMUN AVENUE
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that the City has received a request that this item be continued.
Robert Seipp, attorney for Steve Barron, property owner, asked that consideration of this application be continued or that the request be denied for these reasons: application deficiencies including incorrect property owner information, lack of property owner signature and because the owner just received notice of this request on Friday.
5 Alan Richman, business owner, indicated that he thought he was applying for outdoor heaters for both restaurants, DeMun Oyster Bar and Sasha’s. He stated that his goal is to improve the function of the outdoor area and improve the image. He noted that he has had traditional outdoor heaters at both establishments (since 2003 at Sasha’s and since 2010 at DeMun Oyster Bar). He stated that he thinks these new heaters are better looking.
Joanne Boulton asked why the owner is requesting a continuance.
Mr. Seipp stated that his client did not get a chance to review the submittal nor did he sign the application as the owner.
Kevin O’Keefe explained that notice is not required for projects that only require architectural review; notice is provided as a courtesy. He added that because these heaters are not permanent fixtures to the building or property and would be personal property of the tenant, staff determined that property owner signature on the application was not necessary.
The subject of the lease came up. City Attorney O’Keefe indicated that the City does not have any dealings with private leases. He then informed the Board that it is at their discretion whether or not to continue consideration of this application.
Joanne Boulton commented that this is the season for outdoor heaters and she’s not sure there’s a need to continue this.
Mr. Barron stated that the lease requires his approval.
Mr. Richman stated that the owner was not consulted regarding the outdoor furniture.
Kevin O’Keefe reiterated that this Board is not equipped to handle tenant/landlord disputes.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would prefer voting on these heaters tonight.
Joanne Boulton asked if this Board is only being asked about these heaters for aesthetic purposes.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”.
Mr. Barron stated that a form can’t change after it’s used.
A discussion regarding the heaters ensued between the Board members and Mr. Richman. Mr. Richman explained that the lights are not multi-colored; they are one color at a time and the light color for the Oyster Bar is blue.
Ron Reim asked if these heaters have already been purchased.
6 Mr. Richman replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the shade seems out of place/out of scale.
Mr. Richman stated that for him, the lamp shade is the attraction. He added that the heaters are more effective with the shades as they concentrate the heat downwards.
Ron Reim referred to the pleated and smooth shades as shown on the submittal.
Photographs of the heaters in outdoor dining areas were shown.
Joanne Boulton asked how many of these heaters he wants to use.
Mr. Richman replied “6”.
Joanne Boulton asked how the City will handle requests from other restaurants for similar heaters.
Susan Istenes stated that it is staff’s intent to accept a standard.
Joanne Boulton stated that she suspects similar requests will come in.
Chairman Lichtenfeld made reference to the Oyster Bar making the Top Ten Neighborhood Gem’s list in “Open Table”. He then stated that the heaters will be fine; he likes that they are trendy.
Susan Istenes commented that staff can make a reasonable judgement for Sasha’s and other restaurants.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve heaters (white, black or sandstone) with blue lights for DeMun Oyster Bar; similar heaters allowable at other Clayton restaurants with staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS – OPUS PROJECT – 25 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
Joe Downs, Vice-president of Real Estate Development/Opus Group, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the property known as 25 North Central Avenue contains a six story building with retail on the first floor and multi-family residential on the upper floors. The property known as 111 North Central Avenue is proposed as a surface parking lot and currently serves as the construction staging area. The project was approved in 2015 and is currently under construction. The applicant has applied for multiple amendments under the Building Permit, some
7 of which require architectural review. Based on the number of requested changes and the timing of the amendment applications, staff determined the Architectural Review Board should consider the amendment requests that impact the appearance of the development. Some of the requested amendments also require either administrative approval from the City Manager or approval from the Board of Aldermen. The Architectural Review Board is being asked to review proposed amendments that include changes to building openings, materials, walls or elevations and the general appearance of the development. The City Manager has the authority to approve minor amendments including adjustment of final grades and alterations to landscaping elements and their arrangement. The multiple revisions requested by the applicant are being presented as one amendment package because the aesthetic changes proposed are directly connected to the minor amendments proposed that require further approval. Based on the discussion and outcome of the Architectural Review Board meeting, the City Manager may decide to either exercise administrative approval authority for the amendments beyond the scope of the Architectural Review Board or send the proposed amendments to the Board of Aldermen for review. The applicant is proposing two amendments that impact the building located at 25 North Central Avenue and one amendment impacting the surface parking lot located at 111 North Central Avenue. The proposed amendments include a reduction in the clearance height for the service entrance, re-organization of the amenity terrace and alterations to the surface parking lot. The service dock entrance is located at the southwest corner of the building with access off of the east-west alley connecting North Central Avenue and North Meramec Avenue. The applicant is proposing a reduction in the clearance height of the service entrance from 14 feet to 13.6 feet. The amendment will not impact the organization or location of the service/loading dock. The change will be visible only in the size of the opening along the alley. The amenity terrace is located in the interior of the site along the western property line with access provided from the second floor of the building. The original plan for the terrace included a green roof for the entire area and did not provide any gathering space. The applicant is proposing reducing the green roof area in order to provide a seating area for residents. The gathering area includes a fireplace and two trellis structures. The surface parking lot is located north of the building, across Maryland Avenue at 111 North Central Avenue. The applicant is proposing to raise the grade of the surface lot to match the grade of the existing surface lot south of the subject property. The applicant is also proposing to remove existing block walls located along the south and west property lines. The walls are no longer needed if the grade is raised. A planter bed with concrete curbs will be located along the southern property line to separate the two surface parking lots. A short concrete wall is proposed along the western property line with a landscape bed in front to provide screening of the adjacent property. The existing brick veneer wall along the north property line will remain with a landscape bed in front. The parking lot will still include 30 parking spaces (including two accessible spaces) as the original plan required. The proposed amendment to the service entrance clearance height will not have a significant visible impact. The opening is remaining in the same location. The applicant does not believe the reduced clearance height will impact delivery trucks and the City does not have a required minimum clearance for this use. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is compatible with the originally approved plan. With regard to the amenity terrace, the proposed amendment is not visible from the public right of way, but is visible from adjacent properties. The proposed changes will create a more useful space for residents of the building. The
8 applicant has met MSD requirements in other ways, and therefore, was able to reduce the green roof area and create the new gathering space. There is a reduction in the overall green roof area; however, green roof trays have been added to some areas that were left bare by the original plan. The applicant is proposing to maintain the raised planter beds from the original plan. A condition of the PUD approval is the inclusion of a green roof. Staff believes the revised design still meets the intent of the condition. The proposed revisions also include the addition of a fire place and two seating areas, each under a trellis. The proposed trellises are constructed of steel and aluminum. The proposed trellises are compatible with the materials and colors of the building. Staff believes the proposed revisions will give the space a more active purpose and benefit residents of the building. The general layout and site circulation of the surface parking lot is not changed by the proposed revisions. The lot will still be accessed from North Central Avenue. The same number of parking spaces will be provided. The proposed light pole locations and design remains the same. The main revision being proposed is raising the grade of the parking lot to match the grade of the existing lot to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed revision is compatible with the surrounding area. The change will allow the proposed landscaping to be visible from Maryland Avenue and North Central Avenue. The original plan included walls that would have screened the plantings from Maryland Avenue. The original plan called for maintaining the existing brick veneer walls along the south and west property lines; however, by raising the grade of the site, there is no longer a need for the walls. The revised plan includes additional landscaping to provide the buffer and screening that was formerly achieved by the wall. There is a detached garage and dumpsters located just west of the subject property on the adjacent church property. This area is currently screened by the existing brick wall. The applicant is proposing to remove that wall and replace it with a concrete wall. The proposed concrete wall will measure approximately 2 inches above grade at the southwest corner of the property and raise up to approximately 30 inches above grade at the northwest corner. The adjacent church property to the west is at a higher finished grade than the subject property. The proposed wall will maintain a minimum 6 inch curb height above grade of the adjacent property. The applicant is proposing a row of 4 foot to 5 foot tall Hicks Yew along the western property line to provide screening in lieu of a taller wall. The City’s contracted landscape architect has reviewed the proposed landscape revisions and finds the planting plan acceptable and that sufficient screening of the concrete wall and dumpsters is provided. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed parking lot amendments are compatible with the intent of the original plan and will positively impact the public right of way along North Central Avenue. Director Istenes concluded by stating that the proposed changes will not negatively impact surrounding properties or the public right of way. Sufficient screening is provided and the landscape plan is not significantly altered. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendments conform to the approved Planned Unit Development plan and ordinance and recommend approval as submitted.
Mr. Downs began by stating that they hope to welcome their first residents by November 1st. He then informed the members that the entire project team is available this evening to answer questions if needed. He noted that the changes are positive and the parking lot will be safer.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that this is an improvement.
9 Ron Reim commented that he hopes it will be obvious that one not walk out onto the roof.
Joanne Boulton thanked the applicant for a very thorough and good submittal; making for an easy review of the request.
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE/REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE – 212 SOUTH MERAMEC
Kyle Wilson, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the property contains a multi-family apartment building with a restaurant space located on the first floor. The applicant is proposing a series of 12 permanent banners to be spaced along the first floor of the north, west and south building elevations. The proposed signs do not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance and therefore require approval of sign modifications. The Sign Ordinance states “regulations shall permit one wall sign per ground floor tenant space with street entrances.” The Sign Ordinance also states that, “residential buildings with 20 or more units shall be permitted one wall sign not exceeding 8 square feet in area.” The proposed signs are for the residential use of the building and do not relate to the restaurant tenant. The proposed banner signs are 10.3 square feet each, which would exceed the 8 square feet area maximum and the property would exceed the one wall sign maximum for multi-family residential buildings. The applicant is proposing banners that say “Rent Today,” “Luxury Apartments” or “212clayton.com.” The applicant has noted a desire to switch out the banners periodically with new colors or phrases. Any change to the face or appearance of a sign requires a new sign permit. The proposed signs add up to substantially more signage on the property than the Sign Ordinance allows. In total, the modification request amounts to a signage surplus of approximately 115.6 square feet. According to the Sign Ordinance, modifications should only be granted “due to unusual conditions, such as façades that are angled or curved to the front street or streets or land uses which involve substantial accessory uses both inside and outside of buildings and requiring identification or substantial open space or street frontage or a similar unusual condition.” The orientation of the building is square to the intersection of Bonhomme Avenue and South Meramec Avenue and does not include any unusual conditions or façades. The purpose of size restrictions for signs is to maintain the proper proportions of signs in relation to their surrounding context. The Sign Ordinance allows tenants “one perpendicular sign with the name of the business 6 inches by 24 inches.” The perpendicular signs allowed by the ordinance promote ground floor tenant signage oriented toward pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk. The proposed banners will be oriented toward pedestrian traffic; however, the 10.3 square foot signs are significantly larger than the 1 square foot signs that are allowed. The location of the proposed signs is approximately 15.5 feet above grade and the building is approximately 280 feet tall. In the context of the building and location proposed, staff believes the size of the individual banners is compatible with the intent of the code, but the number of banners displaying signage is not.
10
Staff believes that the perpendicular banner signs will add depth and color to the façade and interact with pedestrian traffic; however, the 12 banners at the size proposed is excessive for the building and corner. Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to warrant such great deviation from the Sign Ordinance. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the proposed size and design of the banner signs are not appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context. Staff does not support granting the sign modification as requested. Staff does recognize the uniqueness of the proposed banners and suggests a revision to the proposal. To reduce the appearance of over-signage, the banners that display advertising should be limited to either side of building entrance doors that provide access to the residential use. The remaining banners would be solid colors. Based on the elevations presented by the applicant in the submission packet, 4 banners would depict signage and 8 banners would be a solid color. Revising the banners would result in a signage surplus of 33.2 square feet rather than the signage surplus of 115.6 square feet being requested by the applicant. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval of the request for sign modification with the following conditions:
1. Only banners directly adjacent to a building entrance door providing access to the residential use may depict signage and all other banners must be a solid color. 2. A Sign Permit must be obtained each time the design or appearance of the banners is changed or altered.
A discussion regarding the proposed banners and their proximity to entry doors ensued.
Note: City Attorney O’Keefe left the meeting (6:45 p.m.).
Joanne Boulton asked if these banners are already up.
Mr. Wilson replied “yes”. He indicated that the leasing company engaged the sign company for these, which were initially shown on their development plans but without design and/or lettering.
Joanne Boulton asked if the banners were approved back then.
Anna Krane, indicating that she was not working for Clayton during the initial development proposal or approval; however, signs are considered separately from those reviews.
Ron Reim commented that Planned Unit Developments typically go through a sign district approval process which coverage signage for the entire development and as such, he is inclined to have the applicant come back with a signage district package for this Board to consider.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed, stating that a comprehensive sign package should be presented and approved at the same time.
11
Anna Krane informed the members that the applicants were given that option and the applicant chose to ask for a sign modification which requires review by this Board.
Joanne Boulton stated that she, too, agrees with Ron and that it makes it difficult to consider without seeing all signs together.
A lengthy discussion about possible future signs (wall signs, restaurant signs, etc.) ensued. Joanne Boulton stated that she was shocked to see the signs (banners) already up.
Susan Istenes commented that she does not believe there was any ill-intent when the banners were put up; she believes it was a misunderstanding.
Joanne Boulton stated that she has a problem with the “rent today” banners.
Mr. Wilson indicated that the banners create more depth and add an aesthetic quality to the building. He added that if the Board believes there is a better opportunity to have these approved under a signage sub-district, then he will consult that with his client.
Joanne Boulton stated that she has less objection to the non-sign banners as the building needs color. She asked for more clarification.
William Liebermann asked if staff can approve these on a temporary basis.
Susan Istenes indicated that as long as the applicant is diligent in proceeding with the proper approval process, staff can work with them to keep the signs up; she added that other signs will follow on other buildings and noted the change in the sign code to allow for temporary signs.
Joanne Boulton asked for that information. She then asked about a time frame for this applicant.
Susan Istenes suggested 120 days.
Mr. Wilson indicated that he is confident he can take care of this within 120 days.
Craig Owens referred to the City’s program regarding event signs/banners on the City’s light poles, which is handled by the City’s Public Works Department.
Mr. Wilson stated that these signs will change seasonally; he’s trying to understand the process.
Craig Owens indicated that there’s a difference between signage and architectural features.
Ron Reim stated that signage is a means of identification versus a means to promote; he stated that this Board needs a clear understanding of what is wanted.
12
Mr. Wilson asked if banners can change.
Joanne Boulton informed Mr. Wilson that specifics are needed.
Mr. Wilson stated that they want to change them for the different seasons and other factors.
A discussion on how to proceed ensued and a suggestion was made that this should be continued.
Craig Owens made a motion to table this for 120 days. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESTAURANT – 25 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE (OPUS BUILDING) - SMOOTHIE KING
Chase Mathis, franchisee, was in attendance at the meeting
Susan Istenes explained that the 11 seat restaurant space measures 1,380-square-feet and plans to be open Monday through Friday from 6:30am till 9:00pm, Saturday from 8:00am till 9:00pm and Sunday from 10:00am till 7:00pm. A liquor license will not be required and delivery service from the restaurant is not proposed. Deliveries to the restaurant will be made once a week through the front door. Delivery trucks will have a designated parking area within the on-site parking garage. Trash will be stored in dumpsters located in the rear of the building. The applicant does not intend to participate in a recycling program. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that there shall be no outdoor music or speakers to amplify music or similar audio.
Mr. Mathis complemented his landlord and indicated that his signs follow the approvals.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted he’s fine with the deliveries being made early a.m. through the front door as there is a center lane, but he’s curious about why deliveries can’t be made through the rear door.
Mr. Mathis stated that there is no longer a rear door.
Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS – USE OF 6409 & 6411 CLAYTON ROAD AS MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
13 Michael and Joe Wotka, owners, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes noted that these are two identical requests for buildings next to each other that are located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District, which requires a conditional use permit for a multi-family use. Each of the properties contain a two-story, 3,864-square-foot building constructed in the 20s that have been vacant for a number of years. A four-space surface parking lot is located behind each building with access from the rear alley. The applicant proposes to restore the four approximately 800-square-foot residential units in each building. No exterior building alterations, site improvements or landscaping are proposed at this time. The Zoning Code requires two parking spaces for each dwelling unit in multi-family buildings. For each of these buildings, eight parking spaces are required, and four parking spaces are provided in the surface parking lot behind each building. Under the Conditional Use Permit process, the Board of Aldermen has the ability to approve a parking waiver when conditions warrant a reduction. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required on-site parking spaces to four spaces for each building. There is public parking available along Clayton Road. Most of the multi-family buildings in the neighborhood do not provide two parking spaces per unit and the proposed residential units are one-bedroom units. It is of the opinion of staff that there is sufficient public parking available to support demand. Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed building is required to provide one bicycle rack; however, one has not been shown on the plans. Staff recommends that the applicant submit a site plan showing the location of the required bicycle rack in conformance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Director Istenes concluded by stating that the building sizes and proposed use is comparable to other nearby buildings. The applicant is requesting a four space waiver from the City’s parking requirements. No exterior building alterations, site improvements or landscaping are proposed at this time. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project meets the criteria for conditional use permit approval and recommends approval with the condition that a site plan be submitted for each building showing the location of the required bicycle rack in conformance with the Bicycle Parking Regulations, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Wotka (Michael) informed the members that these family buildings have been vacant for some time and they would like to bring it back as residential.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the plans show the potential for a second bedroom (sunroom).
Mr. Wotka (Michael) indicated that they believe there were murphy beds in those rooms but because they face Clayton Road sound would be an issue, so they intend to keep them as 1 bedroom units.
Anna Krane informed the members that they could make a condition of approval that they be one bedroom units and re-evaluate it if at some point the owners want to use them as 2 bedroom units.
14 Joanne Boulton voiced her concern that college students would be happy to use that other room as a bedroom and then there could be a parking issue. She asked the owners to consider allowing their tenants to use the commercial parking lot when the business tenants are closed.
Mr. Wotka (Michael) indicated that they could do that, they just don’t want parking tied into their conditional use permits.
Joanne Boulton stated that she’d be more comfortable putting a requirement into the conditional use permits. She noted that Clayton Road is metered and Alamo is a difficult regarding parking, too.
Mr. (Michael) Wotka stated that he’s sensitive to the concern.
Joanne Boulton asked the owners to do something with the overgrown buses in the front yards of these properties.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permits for both 6409 and 6411 Clayton Road to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations (installing a bicycle rack per staff approval) and the recommended conditions that the owners allow the residential tenants use of the adjacent commercial parking lots (that they own) for overflow parking and that the units remain one bedroom units. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
Mr. Wotka (Joe) informed the members that their parking lot is used for overflow parking during the evenings already.
*******************************************************************************
Ron Reim asked about the ice rink project.
Craig Owens indicated that they are looking at other design options.
Ron Reim stated that he is stumped as to why no permit is needed for short retaining walls.
Anna Krane explained that staff uses an Administrative ARB “Permit” for walls that don’t require building permits; new walls in the front yard require formal ARB review. Other projects that staff uses the Administrative Permit for include driveways and changes to impervious coverage.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary