August 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

AUGUST 28, 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 Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Ron Reim William Liebermann Scott Wilson Brian Maguire

Absent: None

Also in Attendance: Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services 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 August 7, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously forwarded to each member.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF A VINYL FENCE – 918 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Victor Vergara, homeowner, was in attendance at the meeting.

2 Susan Istenes explained that this request was originally on the July 17, 2017 meeting agenda, but was continued until the applicant could be present. The applicant has not made any changes to the original request or submission. The subject property is located on the east side of South Meramec Avenue between Watkins Drive and Clayton Road. A Fence Permit was applied for by the applicant back on May 11, 2017 and was notified on May 23, 2017 that the proposed project did not receive Administrative Architectural Review approval. The applicant was given the option to revise the fence material or apply to the Architectural Review Board. The proposed project consists of the construction of a fence along the north and east property lines with a gate across the driveway. The proposed gate is 6 feet tall, black metal, attached to the northwest corner of the house on one end and attached to a 6 foot tall brick pillar located north of the driveway on the other end. Stemming east from the brick pillar is approximately 30 linear feet of 4 foot tall black metal fencing. The project proposes 6 foot tall white vinyl fencing connected to the metal fence running the remainder of the northern property line and the length of the eastern property line. The proposed metal gate, brick pillar and section of metal fence are compatible with neighborhood character and the appearance of the house. Metal and brick are preferred materials and staff believes this section of the proposal would have a positive visual impact. White vinyl fencing is not a common material in the Davis Place neighborhood. Vinyl is also not a preferred material per the Architectural Review Board Guidelines. Vinyl as a building material requires full Architectural Review Board approval, regardless of the amount proposed. Staff believes a metal or wood fence would be more compatible with the neighborhood character. The proposed metal fencing and brick pillar would positively contribute to the neighborhood character, while the proposed white vinyl fencing is not compatible with the neighborhood character and therefore, staff recommends that the fence be constructed of wood or metal.

Mr. Vergara thanked the Board for the opportunity to make his presentation this evening; he noted that he’s lived in the St. Louis area for 5 years, but that he’s originally from Chile hence the accent. He stated that a vinyl fence in the back yard would have minimal impact. He then presented an aerial photo of Davis Place, highlighting all the vinyl fences that already exist (19 of them).

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the brick pier at the front fencing is his property.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if he is looking for a solid fence because of the pool.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if other materials were considered.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes” and noted that because of durability and maintenance, he chose vinyl. He added that his understanding is that water accelerates the deterioration of wood and that vinyl actually costs more than wood.

3 Joanne Boulton asked what is on the south side.

Mr. Vergara indicated that the wood fence on the south is his neighbor’s.

Scott Wilson asked if staff approved the existing vinyl fences.

Anna Krane indicated that staff needs to review the properties to make that determination but that it’s staff’s preference that vinyl not be used.

Joanne Boulton asked if the Code does not permit vinyl fences.

Anna Krane stated that the Code does not prohibit them but that they do require ARB approval.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he believes prior requests for vinyl were denied.

William Liebermann asked if the Davis Place Trustees allow vinyl fences.

Mr. Vergara stated that the Trustees have seen his proposal.

Brian Maguire asked if his neighbor has seen his request and approves of it.

Mr. Vergara replied “yes”; adding that he’s glad to see the old chain link fence come down.

Joanne Boulton informed Mr. Vergara that they could get privacy with a wood fence.

Mr. Vergara asked why he could not have a vinyl fence when almost 20 other properties in his neighborhood have them.

Craig Owens explained to Mr. Vergara that he, too, lives in Davis Place and that in his 9.5 years as City Manager, he’s not approved a vinyl fence and assumes the fences that exist pre-date him or were constructed without proper permits and/or approval. He added that he would certainly approve a wood fence if his request for a vinyl one were denied.

Ron Reim commented that vinyl comes in other colors.

Scott Wilson stated that no matter the color, vinyl is vinyl.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the fence per staff recommendations (wood or metal only; vinyl not approved). The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE MODIFICATION – REGIONS BANK – 8321 MARYLAND AVENUE

Allison Higgins with PlastiLite (contractor) and David Coggins with CBRE were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the development plan for this property was approved by the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board on March 6, 2017. The project consists of a freestanding bank (Regions Bank), a remote drive-through associated with the bank, a freestanding retail building and a surface parking lot. The 2,743-square-foot bank building is located at the southwest corner of the site and the 3,457-square-foot retail building is located at the southeast corner of the site. Regions Bank, owner of the property, is proposing a wall sign located on the western elevation of the bank building. The proposed sign is 8 square feet in area and displays the name of the bank, “Regions,” in white letters and the bank logo in green. The proposed sign face is acrylic and will be internally illuminated. The proposed sign location is approximately 20 feet above grade, bracket- mounted to an architectural tower feature extending above the roof of the one story building. The proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, which states that wall signs should be located at or near the first floor ceiling level, and therefore requires approval of a sign modification. The applicant has also applied for a 39.9 square foot wall sign along the Maryland Avenue frontage and an 8 square foot wall sign located at the rear building entrance on the northern elevation. Both of these wall signs conform to the Sign Ordinance and therefore do not require review or approval from the Architectural Review Board. 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 Architectural Review Board shall have the authority to determine the appropriate location, size or number of signs, provided the intent of these regulations is met. The Architectural Review Board shall also have authority to allow signs for ground floor tenants to be located above the first floor ceiling height when such ground floor tenant space is obstructed from view by a transit shelter erected on a public right-of-way.” The purpose of the location restriction for signs is to orient signage toward the pedestrian/ground level environment and create a cohesive signage appearance throughout the City. The proposed location is facing the western street frontage; however, the sign is placed on the tower feature, which is set back from Crandon Drive in a way that the sign would only be visible to vehicle traffic heading east on Maryland Avenue. The building does not have any unusual conditions or façade angles that prohibit a sign from being located at the first floor ceiling height. Regions Bank is the only use to be located in the building and additional signage that does conform to the Sign Ordinance has been proposed. There is not a transit shelter located in the public right-of-way causing an obstructed view. Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to warrant deviation from the Sign Ordinance. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the proposed location of the wall sign is not appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context and therefore, staff does not support granting the requested sign modification.

5 Ms. Higgins stated that she’s discussed the requested sign with the project architect and that the project, which includes a half million dollars in streetscape, has been going on for quite a while. She stated that they are asking for this variance from the sign code so that the sign will be visible even after the street trees grow.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the sign would be visible by motorists once the trees have grown.

Ms. Higgins indicated that they hope it will.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how high up the sign is from grade.

Ms. Higgins replied “22 feet”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that a visual rendering/elevation drawing is needed. He noted that the lower parapet in front of the sign will block it and a motorist driving east won’t see it. He commented that there’s a lot of signage going on here and suggested re-thinking this sign.

Joanne Boulton suggested that the applicant withdraw this request and redesign the sign for the west side.

Mr. Coggins verbally withdrew the application.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SCULPTURE – 21 NORTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Marta Toczylowski with Twin Springs Investment, property owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the property owner is proposing to place a statue adjacent to the building entrance along North Meramec Avenue. The proposed bronze statue called ‘The Constable,’ measures 5-feet 8-inches in height and weighs just under 1,000 pounds. The statue is mounted on a square 3-foot 3 3/8-inch base and will not be anchored into the sidewalk. The proposed location of the statue will encroach into the public right-of-way. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and approves the location Because the proposed statue is located at a private office building and not associated with a public art development requirement, the statue was not sent to the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC). Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the location and design of the proposed statue will complement the building’s entrance and add a point of visual interest to the street wall and recommends approval as requested.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for confirmation that the statue won’t encroach into the clearance per ADA requirements.

Ms. Toczylowski stated that there is more than 5 feet of clearance.

Craig Owens asked if there is any concern about the statue tipping over.

Ms. Toczylowski replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the statue was nearby.

Ms. Toczylowski indicated that it is in the warehouse ready for shipment to the site.

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 Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.

PLAN COMMISSION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESTAURANT – PEEL WOOD FIRED PIZZA – 212 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Brandon Case and Patrick Theirion, restaurant owners, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the subject property contains a mixed-use building that includes apartments, parking and retail/restaurant space. The restaurant space measures 7,455-square-feet and will have approximately 199 seats. An outdoor dining area is proposed in front of the building along the South Meramec Avenue frontage. The applicant describes the character of the restaurant as “a full service restaurant with an emphasis on wood fired pizza and a high end atmosphere that is family friendly.” The restaurant will be open seven days a week, 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and 11:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday. A liquor license will be required. Delivery service from the restaurant is not proposed. Deliveries to the restaurant will be made in the mornings between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. to the loading area located at the rear of the building and accessed from the east-west alley off of South Meramec Avenue. Trash will be stored in dumpsters located in the rear of the building. The applicant intends to participate in a recycling program. The applicant was unable to secure on-site parking spaces. Public parking is available on South Meramec and in nearby public garages. The applicant is proposing outdoor dining. Outdoor dining is common for restaurants in the downtown area and staff does not anticipate adverse impacts. The applicant will need to obtain an Outdoor Dining Permit prior to operating. Because the restaurant is greater than 3,000-square- feet, off-street parking for patrons must be provided at a rate of 3 parking spaces for every 5 seats on a pro-rated percentage for the square footage in excess of 3,000-square-feet. Based on the 7,455-square-foot restaurant with 199 seats, 71 parking spaces must be provided. The applicant is requesting approval of a parking waiver. The proposed restaurant is located in a Transit Oriented Development District. The mixed-use development was approved through the Planned Unit Development process with reduced parking on site because of the proximity to public transportation and results of a parking demand study. The property owner has chosen to preserve the parking spaces in the on-site garage for apartment tenants and not to provide the restaurant with dedicated parking spaces. Public street parking is provided along North Central Avenue and

7 multiple public parking lots are located in close proximity to the site. The site is also located within walking distance of the Clayton MetroLink stop. It is staff’s opinion that existing parking provided in the area is sufficient to support demand of the restaurant. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The inclusion of a restaurant will add vitality to a corner that has been under construction for a year. The restaurant space is compatible in size to other restaurants and adequate public parking will be available along the street. The proposed hours of operation and method of deliveries are consistent with other restaurants in this area. Based on the information regarding the operation of the restaurant as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the proposed restaurant will be compatible with surrounding uses and recommends approval of the CUP and parking waiver to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that no outdoor music or speakers to amplify music or similar audio are permitted. Mr. Case informed the Board members of their concern about parking but that they found parking at the Shaw Park and the Bonhomme garages. He added that they believe their restaurant will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Joanne Boulton asked if they will have valet parking. Mr. Case replied “yes”. Scott Wilson commented that many of their patrons will have to seek structured parking. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that during the daytime most of their patrons will be pedestrians. Rick Bliss, Clayton resident, asked about parking for carry out orders. Mr. Case indicated that they are not that far along in the process; however, because the developer is not providing them any spaces on-site, there will be street parking available. Mr. Case asked about the staff recommendation regarding outdoor speakers. Mr. Case was informed that this is a common stipulation especially for the restaurants in closer proximity to residential areas. Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and parking waiver to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they hope to open. Mr. Case replied “mid-2018”.

8 PLAN COMMISSION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – DAY CARE/UNIVERSITY USE – 7501 MARYLAND AVENUE, 7500-7520 WESTMORELAND AVENUE (FORMER MARYLAND SCHOOL) Bob Clark, CEO of Clayco and Lance Cage, HOK(architect), were in attendance at the meeting. Susan Istenes read a portion of staff’s report and explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a daycare and a corporate education facility, Centene University. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Daycare facilities and colleges or universities are conditionally permitted uses in the R-2 Zoning District. The 2.8-acre site currently contains a vacant building, surface parking lot and greenspace. The applicant is proposing to renovate the site for use as a daycare and corporate education facility. At this time, the applicant has only applied for the Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed uses. The site plan submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application is for reference purposes only. Any renovations to the exterior of the building and/or site will be subject to site plan review and architectural review at a later date. The application has been completed with the anticipated square footages for the use. Any expansion of the use after approval a Conditional Use Permit would require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The proposed total square footage of the building is 59,335 square feet. The proposed early childhood development center use will provide programs for infants through pre-kindergarten and have capacity for approximately 130 children plus staff. The early childhood center will occupy the first floor of the building or approximately 20,450 square feet and will operate from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. The proposed corporate education use, Centene University, will provide education, leadership development and collaboration programs to Centene employees. Centene University will have a staff of 1 to 5 people on a daily basis with up to 20 additional staff members for special events. Typical hours of operation are proposed from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.; however, some training may begin at 7:30 a.m. with dinners from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Centene University will occupy approximately 36,750 square feet of the building. The remaining square footage of the building will be used for circulation, storage and mechanical. Parking for the building is provided in the surface parking lot with access from Jackson Avenue. The proposed surface lot provides 101 parking spaces. The subject property is located at the eastern end of a single-family block, in a transitional area between Downtown and a primarily single-family neighborhood. The adjacent uses include single-family homes to the west, east and north; and a school, parking lot and mixed-use parking structure to the south. Historically, the subject property has been used as a public school and private school. Since the building has been vacant, the northern portion of the site has been used by the public as open green space. The proposed early education center and Centene University will operate comparably to a private school in terms of hours of operation, site configuration and traffic generation. The proposed uses will serve as a buffer between the Downtown area to the south and the single-family residential neighborhood. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed building is 59,335 square feet. While the building will be substantially larger than adjacent single-family homes, staff believes the proposed building is compatible in size, floor area and mass with buildings of similar uses. The applicant is not proposing additional structures on the property and staff believes the proposed square footage is reasonable in relation to the surrounding area. The R-2 Zoning District states that colleges and

9 universities are allowed as conditional uses “provided that buildings shall not occupy more than 1/3 of the area site.” Staff believes that Centene University is classified as a post-secondary education facility. In order to comply with this requirement, the applicant shall consolidate the subject properties into one lot. The proposed use will occupy an existing building. The existing building is located at the southwest corner of the site, fronting Maryland Avenue. Across the street, on the south side of Maryland Avenue, is another school and surface parking lot. While the applicant is proposing to increase the square footage of the building, most of the additions proposed are within the existing building footprint. The Architectural Review Board will consider the design of building alterations when the applicant applies. While the applicant is proposing to extend the surface parking lot north on the site into an area that is currently green space, the existing site does contain other areas of pavement that will be reconfigured. Mitigation of water runoff will be handled under Site Plan Review. Any changes to impervious coverage on the site will be subject to the coverage requirements for the R-2 Zoning District, which limits overall site coverage to 55 percent. The applicant is proposing screen walls along the western property lines to provide screening and a noise barrier to directly adjacent properties. Because the building has been vacant for many years, any use will generate more noise than is currently generated on the site. Because the site has historically been used as a school, staff believes that noise generation due to the playground for the early childhood center will not be substantially more than that of previous school activities. The proposed use does not involve single-purpose structures or temporary components. The applicant is proposing alterations and renovations to an existing building. Staff is of the opinion that the use complies with the Zoning Code. The R-2 Zoning District Code lists “daycare, nursery and pre-kindergarten” as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit and no specific conditions listed. Colleges and universities are listed as allowed with a Conditional Use Permit and the following specific conditions: buildings shall not occupy more than 1/3 of the area site; and buildings shall be erected to a height not exceeding 110 feet, if the building is set back from each yard line at least 1 foot for each foot of additional height above the height limit otherwise permitted in the district. Any additions or site alterations proposed by the applicant are subject to these restrictions and will be reviewed for compliance during the Site Plan Review and Architectural Review Board application process. A detailed planting schedule was not provided as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. The proposed site plan does show where the applicant intends to provide landscaped areas and buffers. An adequate landscape buffer is important to maintain the existing atmosphere along all street frontages. The existing surface parking lot is setback from Maryland Avenue approximately 25 feet and setback from Jackson Avenue approximately 10 feet. Staff is of the opinion that any alterations to or expansions of the surface parking lot should maintain a minimum 25-foot landscaped buffer along Maryland Avenue and a minimum 10 foot landscaped buffer along Jackson Avenue. The site plan depicts an extension of the surface parking lot north, toward Westmoreland Avenue and into existing green space. Westmoreland Avenue is a single- family street with uniform front yard setbacks. Extending surface parking into the front yard setback along Westmoreland Avenue would have a negative impact on the character of the street. Staff is off the opinion that the front yard setback should be maintained as a landscaped buffer. The front yard setback along Westmoreland Avenue is determined by the average setback of the block. A landscaped berm is noted on the west, east and north sides of the

10 expanded surface parking lot. The berm will serve to shield car headlights from adjacent properties. The proposed site plan shows the existing curb cut on Jackson Avenue being maintained to provide vehicle access to the surface parking lot and childcare drop-off lane. A new curb cut along Maryland Avenue is proposed as the exit from the parking lot and childcare drop-off lane. Staff believes this will channel most of the traffic south toward the Downtown area, not north toward the residential neighborhood. The early education center only provides services to Centene employees and with the Centene Clayton Campus located south of the subject property; traffic to and from the site will likely not negatively impact the residential area to the north. The applicant describes Centene University as serving employees who will primarily be shuttled to the building from nearby hotels. The applicant states that shuttle traffic will not go north of Maryland Avenue. A second new curb cut along Maryland Avenue is proposed to provide access to the service area for food deliveries and trash removal. Staff does not believe that a second curb cut along Maryland Avenue will have negative impacts on traffic flow or pedestrian safety. The proposed use will generate more traffic than currently generated by the empty building; however, based on the use proposed, the trips generated will likely not negatively impact the residential neighborhood. To ensure that trips are not directed toward the single-family neighborhood to the north, no curb cuts should be permitted along Westmoreland Avenue and only one curb cut should be permitted along Jackson Avenue. Per the Zoning Code, 12 on-site parking spaces should be provided for the proposed early childhood education center based on the rate of one parking space per classroom. For Centene University, 92 on-site parking spaces should be provided based on the rate of one parking space per 400 gross square feet. The applicant is proposing to provide 101 of the total required 104 parking spaces on site. If parking demand exceeds the spaces provided on site, off-site parking is available in one of the multiple garages on Forsyth Boulevard that the applicant is currently constructing. Based on the nature of the proposed use, staff believes that the 101 on-site parking spaces are sufficient to meet demand. Most of the trips related to the early education center will be pick up and drop off and most of the attendees for Centene University will be shuttled to and from the site. The proposed use is not likely to affect transit movements north of Maryland Avenue. Based on the proposed use and site layout, trips to the site will mostly come from south of the property and will be directed from the site south toward Forsyth Boulevard. The proposed lighting plan for the site has not been submitted for staff review. Specific lighting locations and design will be reviewed under Site Plan Review; however, staff recommends re-enforcing the condition that exterior lights shall be shielded so as to focus light on the subject property. Director Istenes stated that staff is of the opinion that the proposed early education center and Centene University meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Staff does not believe that this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties. The Conditional Use Permit process allows the Board of Aldermen to modify the number of parking spaces required if conditions warrant such a variance. Staff believes that the on-site parking provided in the garage will be sufficient to meet demand and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall consolidate the seven subject lots into one lot prior to the issuing of any building permits.

2. Screen walls, subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board, shall be installed and maintained along property lines shared with single family residential homes.

3. A minimum 10-foot wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained from the east property line along Jackson Avenue.

4. A minimum 25-foot wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained along Maryland Avenue between the public right-of-way and any surface parking.

5. A landscaped buffer a minimum depth of the front yard setback shall be maintained along Westmoreland Avenue. The front yard setback shall be the average existing front yard setback as determined by a block face study performed by the applicant.

6. A landscaped berm shall be installed and maintained between any expanded surface parking area and the public right of way, at a height to shield car headlights.

7. Landscape buffers must be maintained per an approved landscape plan. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission – Architectural Review Board at the time of site plan-architectural review to ensure adequate buffering of the use.

8. No drive curb cuts are permitted along Westmoreland Avenue.

9. Only one drive curb cut is permitted along Jackson Avenue.

10. Shuttle traffic shall not be permitted north of Maryland Avenue.

11. Approval of a parking waiver for 3 on-site parking spaces.

12. Exterior lights shall be directed/shielded so as not to spill light onto adjacent properties.

Mr. Clark began a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that Centene is committed to the community and is rapidly growing. He explained that Centene University will provide training to Centene executive employees and that fully licensed Bright Horizons (daycare) will provide child care to 130 children and will operate on the first floor, separate from the University, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. He added that there will be no interior connection to the two uses and that there will be separate entrances as well. He stated that classes would run from 8 to 5; breakfast will be served at 7:30 a.m. and on occasion, dinners will be held from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. He noted that there would be an expansion to the building on the south side and a second floor addition above the existing gymnasium space.

Mr. Cage presented a slide depicting an aerial photo of the site and surrounding areas as well as existing site photos. A slide depicting the proposed site plan as shown; Mr. Cage noted that the site plan will change based on staff’s recommendations [noted above]. Mr. Clark emphasized that they are only asking for a recommendation on the conditional use this evening. Mr. Cage agreed, noting that they simply wanted to show the envelope of their work. A slide depicting the proposed traffic circulation was shown. Mr. Cage added that they would be providing shuttle service to the site. Chairman Lichtenfeld noted the 8 to 10 foot grade difference between the first floor of the school and Maryland Avenue. Joanne Boulton asked if they had pictures/renderings available this evening. Mr. Cage replied “no”. He added that they plan to submit those on September 5th. Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that they are not looking at the building at all this evening; just the use. Mr. Cage indicated that the day care facility will utilize the existing first floor and the University will utilize the new first floor and the entire second floor. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it was mentioned that the two functions would be separate. He asked how the basement and second floors would be connected for the University’s use. Mr. Cage stated that the elevators would be for University use only. Joanne Boulton asked if there might use the open first floor as maybe a conservatory. Mr. Cage replied “yes” that is a possibility. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if State law requires natural light in the first floor classrooms. Mr. Cage replied “no”. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that the focus go back to the use. He asked about the parking and commented that 101 on-site spaces, it seems to be over-parked. Mr. Cage stated that their latest plan just presented this evening depicts 99 spaces. Joanne Boulton asked why so much parking on-site.

13 Mr. Clark stated that they would like to keep it as close to 99 as possible; there will be 35 staff members for the day care use; they would like 25 spaces for parents (some covered spaces) and the University will have up to 25 workers. Joanne Boulton asked if parking is part of the conditional use permit. Staff indicated that parking was part of the CUP process. Mr. Clark commented that he does not believe 99 spaces are too many and they want to keep cars off Jackson Avenue. Joanne Boulton asked if a parking study was conducted. Mr. Clark replied “no”; they just talked to a consultant. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they considered moving site access further south. Mr. Cage replied “yes”, noting that the grade gets worse. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the day care pick-up and drop-off would be staggered. Mr. Cage replied “yes”. Mr. Clark stated that the users will be primarily be Centene employees and there will be some stacking. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they could provide more greenspace and less coverage on the site. Joanne Boulton asked about use of the property by the public. Mr. Clark spoke to security concerns; especially related to the day care. Joanne Boulton stated that they could leave some green space outside the fence for use by the public. She noted that Ward 1 has more educational uses than residential and that all the Universities allow the public to use their green space. Mr. Clark noted that although he realizes how the subject property has been used, Centene is a private corporation and an owner who is security sensitive. Joanne Boulton stated that although she agrees, Centene could still offer some green space up for public use. Mr. Clark stated that they propose to fence their property. Joanne Boulton commented that public use is important. Mr. Clark stated that they need security and that this topic needs to be discussed later; that today he is not comfortable with agreeing to it.

14 Joanne Boulton asked if public accessibility would be part of the conditional use permit. Susan Istenes replied “yes”. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that Centene be a good neighbor, give back to the community and provide some public green space. Mr. Clark disagreed. He stated that the topic of public use is not appropriate here and that Centene is making a substantial investment of a property that’s been vacant for 16 years. He added that it is unfair to make them open their property. Joanne Boulton stated that this has to be part of the conditional use permit and suggested that maybe this should be postponed. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that site, circulation, buffering and use/operational aspects all fall within the conditional use permit provisions. Mr. Clark stated that it is unreasonable for us to be asked to give up part of their property. Scott Wilson commented that they need protection for those 130 kids. Mr. Clark stated that Centene is a major corporation in this community and they have legitimate safety concerns; it is know that Centene protects its perimeters. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that Centene give something back to the community without compromising security; something that can’t be forced in the conditional use permit. Joanne Boulton stated that she’s having trouble calling this a “university”. Mr. Clark reiterated that this is a giant financial investment and a great use of the property. Ron Reim stated that calling it a “university” is a stretch of the definition. Will Liebermann asked when the time is appropriate to discuss public benefit. Joanne Boulton commented that this is not a planned unit development. She then commented on the short time frame for which this vote is being sought. She noted that multiple approvals are needed for this project. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that staff’s recommendations need to be addressed. Mr. Clark reiterated that this is a great use of the property and emphasized that it is private property. Joanne Boulton stated that the public should be able to use it after hours and on weekends. Craig Owens reminded everyone that the proposal will require site plan and architectural reviews at a later date.

15 Ron Reim commented that he does not disagree that this is good use of the property and that the public has grown used to having it available for their use. He asked that Centene consider allowing public use of some of the property {green space}; he would like to see that achieved. At this time, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for audience comments. He reminded everyone that comments need to relate to the use of the property {conditional use permit}. Vernon Allen, 7535 Maryland Avenue, voiced concerns regarding noise because the pavement between his house and the building as the trash and service bay area in its current location will mean that back up signal noise from commercial trucks will be heard anytime from 6:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Rick Bliss, 7515 Westmoreland Avenue, stated that this is primarily a positive use of the property but that the devil is in the details. He voiced concern regarding the number of parking spaces being provided and that he estimates only 50 spaces are needed. He asked that the Plan Commission recommend to the Board of Aldermen that no more than 50 on-site spaces be provided. Jeff Morrissey, 7611 Westmoreland Avenue, applauded Centene for this project. He added that he is not clear how the site plan ties into the conditional use approval with regard to trash, massing, exposed areas, etc. He asked if parking is part of the conditional use process. Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes” and that site access is as well. Mr. Morrissey agreed that there are too many parking spaces now and that the trash area being on the west side of the site is inappropriate. Susan Istenes announced that the conditional use permit carries a lot of weight and minor modifications are not a problem; however, land uses, traffic, circulation and parking are. Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed and noted that they are already seeing changes from the previous proposal. Scott Wilson asked staff what their thoughts were regarding parking. Susan Istenes stated that the staff typically strives to meet what’s required by the Code and that it is unusual for an applicant to ask for more parking than what is believed is needed. She stated that less parking means less environmental impacts and that is a good thing as long as the parking supports the corresponding uses. Joanne Boulton asked if parking 600 feet away is considered. Susan Istenes replied “yes” as is hours of operation and buffering. Mr. Clark stated that they do not believe they will have empty parking spaces. He reminded everyone that this is a 59,000 square foot building and that people will be parking on the streets if

16 there’s not enough on-site parking. He suggested limiting the operating hours of the dock and reminded everyone that a day care facility does not produce a lot of trash. Joanne Boulton asked where trash would be stored. Mr. Clark replied “in the back”. Cheryl Allen, 7535 Maryland Avenue, informed the members that their property would be impacted on both the front and sides by this use. Mr. Clark again suggested limiting the dock’s operating hours. Joanne Boulton commented that it seems egregious to throw onto one house all the service vehicles and that heavy traffic should remain on Maryland Avenue. Mr. Clark stated that it is a necessary evil. He added that they could build a solid wall to help reduce noise. He added that he realizes this impacts the neighbor to the west but that this plan makes the most sense. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they considered locating the dock area off of Maryland Avenue away from the west end of the site. Mr. Clark replied “yes”. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that there’s a functional difference between the two wings. Mr. Clark stated that they still believe the dock is in the right location, but they will study relocation. Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested relocating it to the east because likely trash pick-up and deliveries will take place early morning. Mr. Cage informed the members that they would study it; however, relocating it would result in the need for more pavement surface. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that several options are available to them, including relocating it to the lower level of the building. He stated that the City has seen service docks negatively impact neighbors. Mr. Clark reiterated that they could reduce its operating hours. Joanne Boulton indicated that a reduction in operating hours may not be necessary if it was relocated. She stated that the matters of parking and access still need to be addressed. Joe Wagner, 7390 Westmoreland Avenue, stated that he supports the day care use and the need for a fence as it’s the law. He asked that they discuss the corporate training facility which sounds more like a business school than a university and business schools are not allowed in the R-2 residential

17 district or the C-1 commercial district. He stated that he agrees that Centene is a good asset to the community and the current plan [Centene Clayton Campus project] already includes training floors; six of them leasable to outside entities. He asked why the contortion of zoning regulations. Mr. Clark stated that there’s a distinction between campus training that is for all employees and this high-level leadership training for which the subject property will be used. Joanne Boulton asked the location of their current day care facility. Mr. Clark indicated that it is currently in Hanley Industrial Court. Will Liebermann asked how much square footage is being added to this building. Mr. Clark replied “20,000 square feet”. Kevin Williams, 7394 Westmoreland Avenue and John Serafin, 7419 Westmoreland Avenue asked which site plan goes with the conditional use permit. Chairman Lichtenfeld replied the one presented this evening. Mr. Serafin stated that the curb cut should be off Maryland Avenue as there will be stacking. He asked if Centene is charging tuition fees. Mr. Williams referred to parking and ingress/egress, noting that 130 kids means 260 trips per day. He stated that a curb cut is needed on Maryland Avenue and it needs to be addressed tonight as part of the conditional use permit. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Mr. Williams if he is suggesting site access from only Maryland Avenue. Mr. Williams and Mr. Serafin replied “yes”. Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the grade change and noted that could push parking toward the north. Mr. Williams commented that it can be done and that they could pick-up a couple of parking spots as well. Mr. Clark commented that he does not think that’s possible. Scott Wilson asked how they should proceed with the conditional use permit request. Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested the applicant go back and address parking, circulation, access, coverage and green space issues. Brian Maguire questioned if this use is legitimate; noting that if there’s no accreditation attached then it’s not a “university”.

18 Joanne Boulton stated she questions that as well. Scott Wilson commented that he would not get hung up on it. Mr. Clark stated that he thinks it is a university; that’s what they are calling it. He reminded everyone that they are not here this evening to get a plan approved and that before a significant investment is made to do so, they want to be sure the use is allowed. He also reminded everyone that the use [conditional use permit] still has to go before the Board of Aldermen. He added that they would address staff’s recommendations. Joanne Boulton stated that she’s still stuck on the issue of site access. Mr. Clark commented that he’s still concerned about the use. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that another example is Enterprise. Mr. Wagner announced that Enterprise is in a commercial area. He added that this is black and white and that either a zoning change is necessary, a change in use is necessary or they can continue this charade as this proposed use is not a university. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that this Commission could make additional recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. Susan Istenes agreed. Brian Maguire stated that we owe it to them to address the use. Susan Istenes informed the members that they could deny the application and/or refuse to process it. Joanne Boulton asked staff for their logic in determining that this use is acceptable. Susan Istenes explained that staff constantly makes determinations regarding use and one tool that she uses is the North American Industry Classification System (NAIC), which lists every possible use and categorizes them. Joanne Boulton asked the difference between this and technical training. Susan Istenes indicated that the use could fit in that category as well but she believes this use is close to a university and that she also considered compatibility. Steven Rosenblum, 7501 Westmoreland Avenue, asked if this is an appropriate use for the R-2 district; using parking for commercial purposes. A discussion regarding parking ensued. Director Istenes noted that the code requires parking at a rate of 1:400 square feet for the university use only.

19 Joanne Boulton stated that it feels like a high number for the proposed use. Susan Istenes stated that this Commission could make a recommendation to evaluate the parking. Mr. Clark stated that they don’t want people parking on the street. Joanne Boulton agreed and asked for a more in-depth parking analysis. She stated that in addition, the use should be further discussed. Brian Maguire stated that it seems to be a matter of interpretation and that a case could be made either way. The majority of the Commission seemed to agree with staff’s interpretation. Various issues regarding the use/site were discussed. Mr. Clark commented that if the dock is left in its former location, they would need a curb-cut on Jackson Avenue. Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall consolidate the seven subject lots into one lot prior to the issuing of any building permits.

2. Screen walls, subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board, shall be installed and maintained along property lines shared with single family residential homes.

3. A minimum 10 foot wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained from the east property line along Jackson Avenue.

4. A minimum 25 foot wide landscaped buffer shall be maintained along Maryland Avenue between the public right-of-way and any surface parking.

6. A landscaped berm shall be installed and maintained between any expanded surface parking area and the public right of way, at a height to shield car headlights.

20 8. No drive curb cuts are permitted along Westmoreland Avenue.

9. Shuttle traffic shall not be permitted north of Maryland Avenue.

10. Reduce the number of on-site parking spaces (based on site plan that depicted 99 on-site spaces as presented at the August 28, 2017, PC Meeting), which will result in additional on- site greenspace.

11. Exterior lights shall be directed/shielded so as not to spill light onto adjacent properties.

12. Relocate current site access curb-cut from Jackson Avenue to Maryland Avenue.

13. Re-orient internal site circulation to accommodate stacking due to curb-cut relocation.

14. Relocate/reconfigure loading dock/service area away from residential properties.

15. Provide green space area for public use during non-business hours (evenings & weekends).

The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the members. ******************************************************************************* Brian Maguire asked about the vinyl fence situation and the number of ones that exist. Susan Istenes stated that it’s tough to go back retroactively and enforce code without proper records and/or documentation. She noted that the inspectors cannot trespass onto private property. Joanne Boulton stated that she would prefer doing a code change if that’s what the City wants to do. Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that there are some wood fences that don’t look good and after a while, become a maintenance issue. Ron Reim commented that vinyl fences are durable, so he understands why people want them. Scott Wilson commented that some vinyl looks good. Will Liebermann stated he does not like white vinyl. Joanne Boulton stated that she appreciates staff’s clarifications and comments and that she finds them very helpful. Ron Reim agreed.

21 Craig Owens reminded the other members that it’s not their job to plan; that under these circumstances the use is okay, but he would have preferred to kick it back. Susan Istenes informed the members that they are under a time restraint and that the use itself is not really determined by the Plan Commission; she determines it as Planning Director and the decision is appealable to the Board of Adjustment.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary

Document

August 28, 2017 — Meeting Minutes