July 17, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JULY 17, 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: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Craig Owens, City Manager Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Ron Reim William Liebermann Brian Maguire
Absent: Scott Wilson
Also in Attendance: 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. He noted that the agenda for this evening is long and asked that presentations be quick and that comments not be repeated
MINUTES / TRANSCRIPTION
The minutes and transcription of the June 19, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes and transcription were approved, after having been previously forwarded to each member.
ROOFTOP ANTENNA INSTALLATION – 230 SOUTH BEMISTON AVENUE
Trina Pruitt, representing AT&T, was in attendance at the meeting.
Anna Krane explained that this is a request for the installation of a new telecommunications antenna on the roof of the subject building. The applicant will also be upgrading some existing
2 AT&T antennas and equipment. The 230 South Bemiston building currently contains several antennas from multiple carriers. There are three antennas operated by AT&T located on sled mounts positioned at the western portion of the roof. There are three additional antennas located in the northeast corner of the roof and three antennas located in the southeast corner of the roof. The proposed antenna is located in the southeast corner of the roof, adjacent to the three existing antennas. The antenna will be mounted on the outside of the existing screen wall and the safety barrier will be extended to enclose the proposed antenna. Anna continued by stating that the proposed location and design of the additional antenna is consistent with existing antennas and its location is setback from the edge of the roof, which screens the antenna from view at street level and therefore, staff recommends approval as requested.
Ms. Pruitt stated that the new antenna is on the left if driving along Forest Park Parkway.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if it faces south.
Ms. Pruitt replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the members 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.
LOT CONSOLIDATION PLAT - 7510, 7518, 7520, 7528 & 7634 FORSYTH BOULEVARD; 10 SOUTH LYLE AVENUE; 101 & 105 CARONDELET PLAZE; VACATED ALLEY
Josh Barcus, engineer with Stock & Associates, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the the proposed plat consolidates lots addressed 7528, 7634, 7520, 7518, 7510 Forsyth Boulevard; 10 South Lyle Avenue; 101, 105 Carondelet Plaza and a vacated alley. The consolidated lots will measure 48,791 square feet and 58,165 square feet. Director Istenes noted that staff believes the new lots are consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement and recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provides 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.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked why Lot 2 is such an odd shape.
Mr. Barcus indicated that they tried to make the lot relative to the Sub-district 2a garage.
3 Elizabeth Green, Clayton resident, asked to view the proposed plat.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the members and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen as submitted. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS & SIGNAGE – 7777 BONHOMME AVENUE
Derek Don, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes read a majority of the staff report as follows: the proposed project consists of alterations to the existing hardscape and landscape along the Bonhomme Avenue frontage. All work proposed is located on private property. The proposed plan includes installing a new concrete paver walkway with a seating area to the west and a planting area to the east, both lined with concrete and wood seat walls. All existing trees are to be removed and a new planting design is proposed. An updated planting plan is also proposed in the existing driveway median located at the garage entrance. The plan also proposes a new ground sign located just west of the walkway and replacing the wall sign located above the building entrance. The proposed design will upgrade the appearance of the property and bring new life to the street frontage. The proposed new walkway will allow for more landscape area adjacent to the public sidewalk, creating a more inviting environment for pedestrians. The layering of groundcover and multiple species of trees will highlight the building and provide new visual interest. The addition of seat walls and tables will bring activity from the building outside. The proposed walkway and seating areas will be constructed of concrete pavers and decomposed granite are compatible with the existing building and preferred materials per the Architectural Review Guidelines. The landscape plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcovers is proposed. The existing caliper inches on site are 140 with 140 caliper inches being removed. For commercial property, replacement of all caliper inches removed is required. The proposed plan includes tree replacement totaling 84 caliper inches. The landscape plan meets the requirement for native trees at 81.8 percent native. Under site plan review, the Plan Commission has the ability to reduce caliper inch replacement requirements by up to 20 percent for projects that meet the following conditions:
i. There are mitigating circumstances affecting the site which do not generally apply to sites developed for the same use and in the same district. ii. A good faith effort has been made to retain and/or replant as many trees as feasibly possible. iii. Additional understory plantings and groundcover is provided to mitigate the tree deficiency.
While the proposed project does not require site plan review, review of the landscape plan and tree replacement is required and staff believes application of reduction authority is appropriate. It is not usual for properties zoned HDC to have such extensive landscaped areas or 18 existing trees on the private property. It is the opinion of staff that the site could not support the planting of additional
4 trees and that the understory plantings and groundcover proposed will mitigate some of the tree deficiency. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project qualifies for a 20 percent reduction in caliper inch replacement required (from 140 inches to 112 inches). The City’s Sign Ordinance allows for a ground sign, a maximum of 25-square-feet, to be located within a landscape bed and displaying the building name and up to five tenant names. The proposed ground sign is approximately 24-square-feet. The sign will be grey metal panels with a black metal base. The proposed sign is located within a landscape bed and will display the building name, address and five tenant panels. For multi-tenant office buildings, the City’s Sign Ordinance allows for a sign a maximum of 15 square feet in area, depicting the building name, to be located near the building entrance. The proposed building entrance sign is 14.25 square feet and constructed of stainless steel. The proposed sign is halo lit from behind. The proposed address numbers located on the landscape wall do not qualify as a sign. The City’s Sign Ordinance states that numbers less than 12 inches in height are not considered signs and do not require a Sign Permit. The proposed stainless steel address numbers are 11.9 inches tall. Staff has concluded that the proposed exterior alterations will upgrade the appearance of the Bonhomme Avenue frontage. The landscape plan provides a variety of plants and trees. The proposed signs meet the City’s regulations and are compatible with the existing building. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval of the project with the 20-percent reduction in required caliper inch replacement (from 140 to 112) and that the applicant pay $7,000 into the City’s Forestry Fund as compensation for caliper inch replacement deficiency before building permit issuance.
Mr. Don began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting a site plan, site photos, landscaping plan, color renderings and the proposed signs were shown.
A sample of the proposed pavers was presented.
Joanne Boulton asked about shade for the seating area.
Mr. Don stated that there will be 3 large umbrellas in addition to the trees to provide shade.
Sally Cohn, Clayton resident, asked about the canopy trees.
The proposed landscape plan was shown to Ms. Cohn.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the members and hearing nothing more from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the proposal per staff recommendation (outlined above). The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they plan to start the project.
Mr. Don replied “ASAP”.
5 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION - 217 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (CLAYTON ICE RINK-SHAW PARK)
Patty DeForrest, Director of Parks & Recreation and Anselmo Testa, project engineer, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the 116,280 square-foot site is located in Shaw Park, just east of the intersection between South Brentwood Boulevard and Bonhomme Avenue. The site currently contains an ice rink and associated building. Adjacent land uses include tennis courts and an outdoor pool. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing ice rink and building and the construction of a 18,200 square-foot, 1-story multi-purpose building and an NHL- regulation size ice rink. The proposed building includes support space for both the proposed ice rink and the existing tennis courts. The building will be constructed of red brick, stone veneer, glazed aluminum curtain wall and metal panels. The project also proposes to eliminate the existing drop-off circle located at intersection of South Brentwood Boulevard and Bonhomme Avenue. A new drop-off area is proposed on Brentwood Boulevard, just south of the existing area to serve the ice rink and tennis courts. A drop off area will also be added north of the intersection to serve the pool. The project will be developed as an accessory to the existing park and will require approval from the Plan Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The property has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. The project will be reviewed and is subject to comments by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments, and the City’s contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, storm water management, traffic and parking. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board consider the proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only and therefore any comments made in this report or at the meeting, either by the applicant, staff, or the Board/Commission members, are not binding. Director Istenes stated that staff offers the following comments based on the conceptual plans presented:
Planning Department
1. Provide additional information about the number of accessible spaces provided in the drop- off area and the number of spaces reserved for drop-off and pick up.
Fire Department
1. Provide additional information on the proposed location of the mechanical equipment (refrigeration systems) for the ice rink.
Public Works Department
1. The City’s traffic consultant will perform a traffic impact study to evaluate the proposed changes to the Brentwood Boulevard curb line.
6 Ms. DeForrest stated she is excited about the project.
Mr. Testa began a PowerPoint presentation. Slides depicting a concept site plan, concept floor plans, Shaw Park photos, concept exterior elevations (various views) and concept building elevations were shown. Mr. Testa indicated that they are awaiting a traffic study regarding the Brentwood Boulevard parking spaces.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the facility is in need of an upgrade.
A brief discussion regarding vehicle direction on Brentwood Boulevard ensued and the drop-off area being very close to the traffic signal and its conflict with pedestrians. Joanne Boulton indicated that just today she drove north from the drop-off with the light.
Ron Reim asked about increasing the number of vehicles on Brentwood Boulevard.
Mr. Testa stated that they could add 7 more parking spaces, but that may be an issue; they need the traffic study back to make that determination.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if ice skaters will be visible as the rink is lower than the grade.
Mr. Testa stated that the elevation will be the same as it is now, even though the rink will be relocated northwest. He added that there will be a better view of the rink from Bonhomme heading south as it’s a higher grade there.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the building is huge and close to the street and that he’s not sure the front door will be used as a front door as people come from the north. He stated that the building is rather “blah” and would like to see it have some “flavor”.
Ron Reim stated that it’s not so big to him except for the two roofs and that he likes the amount of glass facing the street as he hopes to see activity at the rink and warming room. He stated he likes the simple flow and would like to see an attempt to use it for tennis, also. He asked about the rink turf.
Mr. Testa explained that the material is palletized, which is a newer, cleaner product, that would be stored on the west side of the building and brought out with a forklift for use for soccer, field hockey and the like.
Joanne Boulton asked about other uses.
Mr. Testa stated that the area could be used in the evenings for a movie night or a music event.
Joanne Boulton stated that a green roof would be nice. She asked about landscaping.
7 Mr. Testa stated that SWT is developing the landscaping.
Joanne Boulton urged them to include a pergola. She asked that they make sure there is electric service at the south end of the rink.
Mr. Testa stated that he absolutely would.
Will Liebermann commented that the tennis courts are down a bit; he asked if the ice rink is higher.
Mr. Testa stated that they looked at a 1 story versus a 2 story and if it were to be elevated, the cost would be problematic and the trees would not be able to be preserved.
Ron Reim asked Chairman Lichtenfeld if the footprint or height is a concern.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that both are a concern. He thinks the building is too close to Brentwood Boulevard and the slope of the roof contributes to the building’s mass. He noted that the north and south building elevations are 50% blank and not “friendly” looking. He asked about the reflectivity of the roof onto the condo building to the east.
Mr. Testa stated that will be studied.
Ron Reim commented that the brick doesn’t match the acquatic center.
Mr. Testa stated that it will match.
Ron Reim asked about public art.
Mr. Testa stated that they are looking at that.
Joanne Boulton commented that she likes the lawn addition.
Chairman Lichtenfeld and Ron Reim agreed.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked what terminates the rink on the west.
Mr. Testa replied that there will be a fence around the entire rink deck. He stated that team seating will be on the west side of the rink and the public seating will be on the east side of the rink.
Craig Owens asked about bicycle racks.
Mr. Testa stated that there will be bicycle racks.
Ron Reim commented that this is a good first pass.
8
Director DeForrest informed the members that the public asked that the building be brought closer to the street so the children could be seen entering the building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reminded everyone that this is only conceptual review tonight.
Kathleen (did not provide her last name), suggested getting input from tennis pros and asked that the bathrooms be easily accessible.
Director DeForrest stated that an operational study is to be conducted.
Kathleen stated that the building is too non-traditional; too different.
Tom Schwetye, Clayton resident/architect, stated that the building is handsome.
Elizabeth Green, Clayton resident, questioned the narrowing of Brentwood Boulevard, noting that Brentwood Boulevard is a high traffic road. She stated that she does not like the new building’s architecture either.
Jeff Leonard, Clayton resident, agreed that it may be a good thing to narrow Brentwood Boulevard so as to slow down traffic. He stated that he likes the look of the building and loves the glass. He questioned if the tennis courts are elevated enough and suggested making the entrance more “grand”.
Sally Cohn, Clayton resident, asked how much green is being lost.
Director DeForrest indicated that has not yet been calculated.
Ms. Cohn commented that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of trees. She asked if LEED Certification, Silver Level, is what they plan to achieve here. She asked why not go for gold as there are a lot of things not being done here. She asked for a more inspiring building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that this is only conceptual review this evening.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – VINYL FENCE – 918 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE
Because no one was in attendance to present this application, this item was continued to the next meeting via a unanimous vote after a motion by Ron Reim and seconded by Craig Owens.
Craig Owens informed the remaining members that he did not administratively approve this application.
9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – MID-COUNTY LIBRARY – 7821 MARYLAND AVENUE
Kristen Sorth, Director of the St. Louis County Library District, was in attendance. She stated that she is proud to be here and that in 1977, the Library moved from City Hall to its current location. She informed the members that so far, 12 branches have been completed and it is now Clayton’s turn.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection between Maryland Avenue and North Central Avenue and has a zoning designation of C-2 General Commercial. The 31,985 square foot property, owned by the St. Louis County Library System, currently contains a library building. As part of the proposed project, the existing building will be demolished and new 18,852 square foot library building with a 20,644 square foot underground parking structure will be constructed on the site. The main building entrance is proposed on North Central Avenue. Along North Central Avenue, the building will appear to be one story, measuring 27 feet 10 inches in height. Grade slopes down to Maryland Avenue, where the proposed building will appear to have two stories. The lower level is the parking structure with the existing drive entrance off of Maryland Avenue being maintained. Because the subject property is a corner lot, a front yard setback determined by the block average is required along both street frontages. The proposed building is setback along both North Central Avenue and Maryland Avenue to align with the average setback for each street. Per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for corner lots the rear yard setback is off of the property line opposite of the street with the shortest frontage. On July 6, 2017, the Board of Adjustment approved a 3 foot rear yard setback variance for the subject property. The variance approval reduces the required rear yard setback off of the northern property line from 20 feet to 17 feet as depicted on the proposed plans. The proposed plans include installation of pieces of the City’s standard streetscape along North Central Avenue; however, the applicant does not propose to install all components of the City standard streetscape. The existing sidewalk along Maryland Avenue is proposed to remain as is.Missouri Statute 89.380 outlines the powers of a municipality to make recommendations and enforce zoning restrictions pertaining to public facilities along with conditions under which a public entity could overrule a municipality decision. The St. Louis County Library System has been open with City staff about the proposed design. Staff was made aware prior to the most recent submission of plan deficiencies that remain in relation to the City’s Ordinances. This staff report analyzes the proposed development based on the same regulations applied to all commercial developments within the City; however, staff recognizes that the property owner is a public entity. According to the applicant, the HVAC will be rooftop mounted with metal wall panel screening. Trash will be stored in an approximately 180-square-foot trash room set within the building footprint. The trash room will be accessible from the service area located at the northwest corner of the building. Receptacles will be placed at the street edge on collection days. The existing impervious coverage on site is 84.6 percent. The new plans decrease impervious coverage to 73.7 percent. There are no limits for impervious coverage in commercial districts. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 2.64 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 2.52 CFS, which represents a decrease of 0.12 CFS. All downspouts will be piped to the
10 public storm sewer. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. A landscape bed, approximately 30.48 feet wide, is proposed along the North Central Avenue frontage and a 26.65 foot wide landscape bed along Maryland Avenue. The landscape beds include a variety of groundcover plants, shrubs and trees, creating a point of interest at the intersection. The proposed Landscape Plan provides sufficient screening and an appropriate range of species and plantings. There are 83.5 caliper inches on the existing site with 83.5 caliper inches being removed. The proposed plan is deficient 41.5 caliper inches. Payment into the City’s Forestry Fund can be made to supplement the deficiency. The plan meets requirements for percent of Native species with 100 percent native provided. The applicant is not proposing to install any City standard streetscape street trees. One existing street tree along North Central Avenue will remain. The City’s Code requires developers in the Downtown area to bring the public right-of- way up to City standard streetscape when completing a new development. City standard streetscape in the Downtown area is 12 feet 2 inches from the back of curb in order to provide ample space for the public right-of-way. In the Downtown area, streetscape includes street trees, street lights, bicycle racks and space for pedestrian access. The wider sidewalks are required to maintain accessibility and enhance public safety by separating pedestrians from cars and providing spacing for pedestrians to pass in different directions. The existing right-of way along Maryland Avenue is only 5 feet wide, the City is requiring an 8 foot easement from the back of the sidewalk for streetscape expansion. The City is not requesting a right-of-way dedication so that building setbacks are not impacted and the proposed development can align with existing buildings along Maryland Avenue. The existing sidewalk width along North Central Avenue varies as the existing landscape beds encroach into the public right-of-way at different points along the street. The property line along North Central Avenue is 14 feet from the curb line. The proposed plans remove all landscape beds and existing encroachments from the public right-of-way and install components of City standard streetscape. The following table outlines the components of City standard streetscape compared to the proposed plan. City Standard Streetscape Details: Standard Maryland Avenue North Central Avenue Minimum 12 foot 2 inch paved width from face of curb Criteria met Criteria not met Carriage strip and tree trench with pavers (brick band) Criteria not met Criteria not met Tree well with tree grate Criteria not met Criteria not met Accessible curb ramp Criteria met Criteria met Street lights Criteria not met Criteria not met
11 Electrical line/conduit (for lights) Criteria not met Criteria not met Irrigation line/conduit/valves (for street trees) Criteria not met Criteria not met
The applicant is not proposing to relocate the electric and communications lines on the east side of the building underground. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and understanding the limitations of the site in that area, accepts the overhead utilities shown. Lighting is proposed at each exterior door, walkways and the garage entrance. Lights will be angled or shielded so as not to spillover onto adjacent properties. Vehicle access to and from the site will not change from existing, with garage access provided off of Maryland Avenue. The proposed garage design will improve on-site vehicle circulation. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed building will have substantially different traffic impacts from the existing library conditions. The applicant is required to provide off-street parking at 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area for a total of 58 parking spaces. The proposed parking structure provides 49 parking spaces and racks for 8 bicycles. With the bicycle racks provided, the required parking is reduced to 53 spaces. The proposed project is still deficient 4 parking spaces. Staff is of the opinion that parking provided on site will be sufficient to meet demand. The site is located in the North Central District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision for the North Central District is “to grow at a human scale along key pedestrian streets, with fine-grained development, active streets and walkable commercial areas.” New development should address the street appropriately and maintain the pedestrian scale. The proposed development will enhance the pedestrian environment with the extensive landscape area. The proposed entrance on North Central Avenue create a more accessible and visible entrance. The lack of City standard streetscape along both streets will separate the proposed development from street improvements being implemented south of the property. The narrow sidewalk along Maryland Avenue does not reflect a pedestrian oriented street. With the exception of streetscape, staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan. Director Istenes noted that the proposed development is compatible with existing surrounding development. The site is well designed, storm water will be adequately managed and the landscape plan provides for appropriate landscape buffers. With the exception of City standard streetscape, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the C-2 Zoning District and the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and therefore, staff recommends approval of the CUP and the site plan, contingent upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay $10,375 to the City Forestry Fund for caliper inch replacement deficiency prior to the issuing of building permits. 2. The site plan shall be revised to include City standard streetscape along both North Central Avenue and Maryland Avenue.
12 3. The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide easement to the City of Clayton, from the back of sidewalk along Maryland Avenue, for streetscape installation and maintenance.
Robin Ringwald and Melissa Harlan, project architects (with Christner, Inc.), were also in attendance at the meeting. He stated that they are excited about the project.
Mr. Ringwald began a PowerPoint presentation.
Ron Reim asked what motivated the new building.
Mr. Ringwald indicated that this is a County-wide effort to bring the buildings to current standards.
Ms. Sorth indicated that the recommendation was to replace the building to another location; however, she would like to remain in Clayton.
William Liebermann asked if a renovation was considered.
Ms. Sorth replied “no”, noting there are too many limitations.
A slide depicting the proposed site plan was shown. Additional slides included building elevations.
Samples of the proposed brick (dark & light) and glass were shown.
Floor plan and garage plan slides were shown. Mr. Ringwald commented that the parking is 90- degree for simple in and out. He noted that garage will be closed and locked at night.
Joanne Boulton asked why it will be locked and unusable by others as it would provide some parking for Central Business District visitors.
Ms. Sorth explained that this is an insurance issue. She indicated that tokens will be provided by Library staff to allow their visitors to exit the garage.
Joanne Boulton stated that she advocates parking for public use.
Mr. Ringwald presented a slide of the mechanical equipment area. He noted that 60 decibels at the property line is the maximum allowed which won’t be exceeded.
Chairman Lichtenefld asked to go back to the use.
Brian Maguire stated that public parking is beneficial.
William Liebermann stated that the parking should be able to be used by the public.
13 Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that conditional use permits only address number of spaces but a recommendation can be made to the Board regarding its use.
A brief discussion regarding estimated cost of construction took place. Ms. Sorth indicated that it is approximately $7 million.
A discussion continued regarding parking. Ms. Sorth stated that there are a lot of accidents in the parking garage as well as incidents of homeless people and people using the garage that aren’t using the Library. She added that there are also incidents of valets using their garage for parking who are not supposed to.
William Lieberman asked about the structural integrity of the current building.
Ms. Sorth stated that the concrete is deteriorating.
Jane Matozi, 119 North Bemiston Avenue, stated that she’s happy about the project but is concerned about light shining into her bedroom and possible noise from the new mechanical equipment.
Stephen Duda, professional engineer, indicated that he measured the current noise levels and during the day (full use) at the red brick wall the decibel level is 67 and at the northeast corner where the wood fence was read 61 decibels. He stated that the maximum decibel reading at night is 60 and the new equipment reading at the wood fence will drop to 60.
Hearing no further questions or comments regarding the requested Conditional Use Permit, Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the members.
The proposed site plan was now brought up for review. Director Istenes explained that there are 83.5 caliper inches on the existing site with 83.5 caliper inches being removed. The proposed plan is deficient 41.5 caliper inches. Payment into the City’s Forestry Fund can be made to supplement the deficiency. The plan meets requirements for percent of Native species with 100 percent native provided. The applicant is not proposing to install any City standard streetscape street trees. One existing street tree along North Central Avenue will remain. The City’s Code requires developers in the Downtown area to bring the public right-of-way up to City standard streetscape when completing a new development. City standard streetscape in the Downtown area is 12 feet 2 inches from the back of curb in order to provide ample space for the public right-of-way. In the Downtown area, streetscape includes street trees, street lights, bicycle racks and space for pedestrian access. The wider sidewalks are required to maintain accessibility and enhance public safety by separating pedestrians from cars and providing spacing for pedestrians to pass in different directions. The existing right-of way along Maryland Avenue is only 5 feet wide, the City is requiring an 8 foot easement from the back of the sidewalk for streetscape expansion. The City is not requesting a right-of-way dedication so that building setbacks are not impacted and the
14 proposed development can align with existing buildings along Maryland Avenue. The existing sidewalk width along North Central Avenue varies as the existing landscape beds encroach into the public right-of-way at different points along the street. The property line along North Central Avenue is 14 feet from the curb line. The proposed plans remove all landscape beds and existing encroachments from the public right-of-way and install components of City standard streetscape. She stated that staff recommendation is to approve the site plan with the following conditions:
1. Approval by the Board of Aldermen of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. The applicant shall pay $10,375 to the City Forestry Fund for caliper inch replacement deficiency prior to the issuing of building permits. 3. The site plan shall be revised to include City standard streetscape along both North Central Avenue and Maryland Avenue. 4. The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide easement to the City of Clayton, from the back of sidewalk along Maryland Avenue, for streetscape installation and maintenance.
Mr. Ringwald introduced Steve Wheeler, landscape architect, to the members.
Mr. Wheeler presented a slide depicting the proposed hardscape/landscape plan.
Joanne Boulton asked why they are not doing City streetscape.
Mr. Wheeler indicated that it is a cost issue and widening seems out of place.
Ron Reim asked City staff about the progress of the Kol Rinah church project (just up the street on Maryland Avenue).
Susan Istenes indicated that staff anticipates the project coming back for reconsideration.
Ron Reim asked if streetscape was part of their project.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”.
Mr. Wheeler announced that their property line goes all the way up to the sidewalk.
Joanne Boulton replied “hence the easement”.
Mr. Wheeler stated that they moved the entrance further up Central Avenue, they moved the ADA parking spaces further up as well, they are providing bicycle racks and that the sidewalk is 6-foot wide along Central Avenue.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the public sidewalk is only 5-feet wide.
15 Mr. Wheeler indicated that the trash will remain inside, there is no requirement for BMPs and that they are adding greenspace.
More slides depicting the proposed building were shown. Mr. Wheeler stated that there are eight on-site trees that are being removed; however, the 19-inch Bradford Pear is to remain. Slides depicting proposed landscaping were shown. Mr. Wheeler noted that they are compliant with the native species requirement.
Slides depicting the proposed fencing, bicycle racks, benches, flagpole and lighting were shown. Mr. Wheeler noted that there will be no light spillage of the LED lights.
A discussion regarding what parts of City streetscape are missing and what is being proposed as part of this project ensued.
Ron Reim asked the applicant if they object to the City installing trees.
Ms. Sorth replied “no”.
Ms. Harlan stated that if they do the easement, it takes a public sidewalk onto private property and then there would then be a need for a retaining wall which would change the appearance.
Joanne Boulton disagreed; she suggested eliminating four parking spaces. She added that doing that would also preclude the use of the sidewalk by bicyclists.
Ms. Sorth stated that implementing the City streetscape would cost them an additional half million dollars. She added that there are serious dollar issues here and that they’ve made a commitment to doing this building, but they have limitations.
Ms. Harlan stated that they feel they are in line with what is on the street now and what will be on the street in the future.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the new church to the east has set the tone.
Ms. Sorth commented that they are political subdivision of the State of Missouri and that the City can only make recommendations here.
Joanne Boulton stated that she is having a hard time supporting this project.
Ron Reim stated that this can be denied and the applicant can decide themselves how they wish to proceed.
Ms. Sorth stated that she realizes the importance of the City’s process and that this is simply a matter of dollars. She added that they have been up front and honest throughout the entire process.
16
Joanne Boulton stated that she does not understand the issue they have with the easement.
Ms. Sorth referred to their budget, their debt and their commitments. She stated that although it’s not in their plans now (City streetscape), they are hopeful to find a donor, which they are seeking.
Craig Owens suggested that it would be preferable to approve this project with staff recommendations rather than to deny it; the applicant would then have to take City’s approval conditions to their governing body.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the members and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendations (outlined above). The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and received the following vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Ron Reim, William Liebermann and Brian Maguire. Nays: Joanne Boulton. Motion carries.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes stated that the primary building material for the proposed building is grey brick with an accent material of teal brick. The building features a flat roof with brick parapet walls and metal coping. Structural glazed storefront windows are proposed. A 6 foot tall composite wood fence is proposed in the northeast corner of the site to screen the service area from adjacent properties. The existing concrete retaining wall at the southeast corner of the property, adjacent to the driveway, will remain and a new guardrail added. Two colored concrete retaining walls are proposed along the Maryland Avenue frontage, perpendicular to the street. One is located at the southwest corner of the building, which will allow for a more natural slope along North Central Avenue and create the proposed tree lawn along Maryland Avenue. The second wall is located just west of the driveway. The applicant is proposing to re-use the existing library ground sign. The existing ground sign was approved by the Architectural Review Board on January 22, 2013. After receiving approval for the design, a Sign Permit was never obtained. A Sign Permit will be required for re-installation of the ground sign. Two wall signs are proposed, one for each street frontage. The proposed wall signs each measure 13.33 square feet in area and are constructed of aluminum. The wall signs will be illuminated by mounted strip lights. The applicant is requesting that the Architectural Review Board approve sign modifications to allow wall signs in addition to the ground sign as well as wall signs larger than the maximum area allowed. The proposed wall sign facing North Central Avenue is located near the building entrance and the wall sign facing Maryland Avenue is located near the parking garage entrance. Both proposed signs are also larger than the allowed 12 square feet. Because the main entrance and the garage entrance are located off different streets, staff supports the request for two wall signs. Because nearby commercial and retail tenants are allowed wall signs of at least 15 square feet in area, staff believes the size of the proposed wall signs is compatible with the surrounding context. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
17 1. That the applicant shall obtain Sign Permits for the proposed ground sign and wall signs prior to installation. 2. When applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide verification showing that the north side of the building complies with Table 705.8 of the 2015 International Building Code.
Anna Krane informed the members that the second recommendation, a Code issue, came from the City’s Building Official, Bart Alspaugh.
A slide depicting the floor plan was presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the meeting room can be used independently of the Library.
Ms. Sorth replied “yes”, adding that the meeting room does have to be entered through the Library, though.
Ms. Harlan noted the three brick types and the non-reflective glass. She stated that the goal is for the Library to be open to the street. She stated that the clear window will allow more natural light into the children’s area.
Ron Reim asked about environmental certifications.
Ms. Harlan indicated that they are not seeking any certifications as that is also an expense issue; however, they are incorporating environmental aspects into the project that the Code requires.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they plan to begin.
Ms. Harlan replied “the fall”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for an approximate 10-minute break (8:05 p.m.).
The meeting resumed at 8:20 p.m.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW APARTMENT BUILDING – 43-55 TOPTON WAY
Randall Comfort, consulting architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for conceptual review of a 40 unit apartment building.
18 MW Development Enterprises LLC has applied for conceptual review of the proposed project with permission from the property owner; however, the developer is not under contract to purchase the property. The 35,283 square foot site is located on the east side of Topton Way between Maryland Avenue and Parkside Drive. The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District and is within the Topton-Brighton Urban Design District. The project site is currently four separate lots, each with a multi-family residential building. Adjacent land uses include Clayton High School and commercial to the west, a surface parking lot to the north and multi-family residential to the east and south. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing buildings, consolidation of the four lots and the construction of a 69,358-square-foot, 3.5-story residential building containing 40 units and a 67 space underground parking structure. A drive off Topton Way at the northwest corner of the site is proposed leading to the underground parking structure. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of red brick with a light stone accent material. The project will be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will require public hearings before the Plan Commission and the Board of Aldermen. The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District. A project in this zoning district is eligible for rezoning to a PUD under the following conditions: “Residential planned unit development is appropriate where a residential development project is proposed on a lot at least 30,000 square feet in size and is unable to meet the established zoning criteria due to unusual circumstances in size, configuration or particular design features. The planned unit development process provides the flexibility needed to encourage innovative medium and large- scale residential development that is consistent to neighborhood character.” The property is also located in the Topton-Brighton Urban Design Overlay District. The vision of the Topton-Brighton UDD is “to ensure that further redevelopment within the Topton-Brighton neighborhood responds to and is compatible with the established architectural character and scale of the neighborhood.” A project of this scale requires a thorough staff review prior to a public hearing. The project will be reviewed and is subject to comments by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments and also the City’s contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, storm water management, traffic and parking. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board consider the proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only and therefore any comments made in this report or at the meeting, either by the applicant, staff, or the Board/Commission members, are not binding. Staff offers the following comments based on the conceptual plans presented.
Planning
1. Elevations provided by the applicant note proposed height to the top of the roof. Height is measured from existing average grade to the mean of the sloped roof. Revise on subsequent submissions.
Building
2. Based on the building setbacks proposed additional details showing compliance with Table 705.8 of the 2015 International Building Code will be required.
19 Mr. Comfort began a PowerPoint presentation. Several slides were presented including an aerial view of the site and its surrounds, renderings of the proposed building and an underground parking plan. Mr. Comfort, noting the curve of the street, stated that sidewalks will be introduced, the entrance will be prominent and that the brown brick and light color stone 3-story building is 250 feet in length,
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Mr. Comfort to address the mass of the building in comparison to existing area buildings.
Mr. Comfort indicated that in its immediate context, the adjacent buildings are 2-story, but that there are other 3-story buildings in the area (referring to Brighton Way).
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that all the surrounding buildings are considerably smaller than this one. He stated he feels the building is too big and that the project should be comprised of two buildings to better fit the neighborhood.
Mr. Comfort indicated that they used architectural elements to help break up the mass of the building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the building is 83% the length of a football field and 1/3 longer than existing newer buildings.
Ron Reim stated the building is daunting; it needs a break. He added that he’s okay with it being larger than the adjacent buildings, but that it is too massive.
Mr. Comfort stated that a building on Parkside and another on Topton extends the length of a block.
Joanne Boulton asked if these units will be condos or apartments.
Mr. Comfort replied “apartments”.
Ron Reim stated that inset balconies helps break-up the monolithic appearance.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that solid, then void, then solid, then void helps mitigate mass.
Mr. Comfort informed the members that they attempted to mitigate mass by use of materials. He asked if it would help if the building’s center was lowered.
Ron Reim replied “it might”. He stated that parts of the deign are fine, it’s the length that concerns him.
Joanne Boulton asked the material proposed for the back of the building.
20
Mr. Comfort replied “brick and fiber cement siding”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the construction method.
Mr. Comfort stated that the garage is concrete and wood frame and 5A above.
Chairman Lichtenfeld, referring to Sheet A1, noted the rear setbacks of 13-feet, 1-inch to 14-feet, 4-inches. He noted other buildings have more open land in the rear yard and interior terraces. He reiterated that the footprint of this building is too big.
Joanne Boulton stated she agrees.
Mr. Comfort continued his presentation by showing floor plan slides. He noted that the units are 2 and 3 bedroom units; the third floor contain townhouses.
Ron Reim asked if cars will be double-stacked.
Mr. Comfort replied “yes”.
Ron Reim asked how the parking spaces will be distributed.
Mr. Comfort indicated that the tandem spaces will be used by one unit.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that 40 spaces are usable; 20 are blocked.
Mr. Comfort added the blocked-in cars will be blocked in by their own unit’s vehicle.
Elevation slides were shown. Mr. Comfort stated that they have not completed the design of the rear façade yet.
Ron Reim stated that the glass and solid areas seem reasonable.
Mr. Comfort stated that they want to get natural light into the units.
Mr. Comfort indicated that he will work on that.
April Hammill, Clayton resident, voiced her concerns that the building is too large, the back is flat and the building is too close to the rear property line. She stated that she is also concerned about parking as parking is only permitted on one side of the street.
Mark Zorensky, 8251 Parkside (since 2009), stated that he supports development, but that he has concerns especially about parking, as the parking ratio for this project is only .7 spaces per
21 bedroom or 1.7 per unit; whereas his building provides 2.15 spaces per unit and that’s not enough parking. He added that tandem parking encourages street parking. He stated that these units will attract singles with roommates and parents with school age children and this is an efficient way to get children into Clayton’s schools. He asked that the City require the developer provide 2 parking spaces per unit.
John Tyler, 23 Topton Way, stated that he echoes comments already made and that this is a condo neighborhood; not an apartment neighborhood. He added that this will change the neighborhood character and asked that it be denied.
Kathleen (last name not provided), Shaw Park Villas, agreed that the building is too large.
Josh Jennings, Parkside resident, voiced his concerns regarding parking and traffic.
Jim Jenkins, 60 Brighton Way, stated the building is too large and does not provide enough parking.
Dick Murray, 31 Topton Way, asked further consideration to the proposal be given before moving forward.
Tony Baumstark, 15 Topton Way, asked to see a picture of the brown brick. He then commented that the building looks like a prison with watch towers and he believes it will cause traffic problems and problems with emergency vehicle access.
Adam Schneider, Claverach Park resident, commented that young people like to rent and opportunities to rent are needed.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted again that this is conceptual review and that there are 600 to 700 new apartments that will become available within the next year. He thanked everyone for their input and announced that the next agenda item will now be considered.
REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS – 200 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (PARK TOWER)
Dan Phillips, President of the Park Tower Condo Association, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Bill Beherns, sign contractor (Warren Sign Company).
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection between Bonhomme Avenue and South Brentwood Boulevard. The property contains a multi-family condominium building with a public restaurant, Dominic’s Trattoria, located on the first floor. Park Tower Condominiums, owner of the property, is proposing to add a ground sign adjacent to the driveway off Bonhomme Avenue and an accessory sign onto the driveway canopy. The proposed ground sign and accessory sign do not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance
22 and therefore require approval of sign modifications. It should be noted that some the calculations and areas shown on the plans submitted by the applicant do not match the staff’s calculations. Based on the Sign Ordinance and policy, staff calculates sign area as a rectangle and does not subtract areas between words, letters or lines. The following staff report references sign areas based on staff calculations, not the applicant’s submittals. There is an existing ground sign located in northwest corner of the property adjacent to the intersection, which displays the building name, Park Tower, and the name of the restaurant, Dominic’s Trattoria. The existing Park Tower sign measures 15.25 square feet with a 4.3 square foot Dominic’s sign on top. The applicant is proposing the addition of a second ground sign to the screen wall located in the northeast corner of the property. The proposed ground sign measures 37.7 square feet and displays the building name, address and description “private residences.” The proposed sign is considered a ground sign based on the Sign Ordinance definition: “a detached sign with two or more supports or erected on a solid base or wall when landscaped and placed upon or affixed to the ground.” The Sign Ordinance also states, “residential buildings with 20 or more units shall be permitted one wall sign not exceeding 8 square feet in area, except such building may be permitted an alternate ground sign not exceeding 12 square feet in area if authorized by the Architectural Review Board.” The proposed sign would exceed the 12 square feet area maximum and the property would exceed the one ground sign maximum. The proposed accessory sign on the drive canopy is 20.4 square feet and displays the building name, Park Tower. The proposed sign is classified as an accessory sign because it is not attached directly to the building wall and signs on drive canopies are not specifically listed in the Sign Ordinance. The proposed sign was determined to have a maximum allowed area of 8 square feet based on the following section of the Sign Ordinance “an accessory sign authorized by the Director of Planning and Development Services and not listed above shall be proportioned by the Director of Planning and Development Services to the nearest listed above.” It was determined by the Director of Planning and Development Services that the nearest listed accessory sign is the rear building entrance sign, which is limited to 8 square feet. Regarding visual impact, 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 53.35 square feet. The proposed signs both display the same name, Park Tower, which is also displayed on the existing ground sign. 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 unusual with the address being 200 South Brentwood Boulevard and the main building entrance being off of Bonhomme Avenue; however, both proposed signs are located in the same area and would be visible from the same location on Bonhomme Avenue. The purpose of size restrictions for signs is to maintain the proper proportions of signs in relation to their surrounding context. The location of the proposed ground sign is close to the street and not obstructed from view, therefore staff does not believe an enlarged sign is necessary. The proposed accessory sign is located on a canopy rather than against a building wall and therefore staff believes the 8 square feet is more compatible with the context. Sightline to the existing ground sign is not obstructed by the building or any other permanent fixtures. The existing building only has two uses. Staff is of the opinion that there are not unusual conditions associated with the property to
23 warrant such great deviation from the Sign Ordinance and for these reasons, staff is of the opinion that the proposed size and design of the ground sign and accessory sign are not appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and surrounding context. Staff does not support granting the requested sign modifications and recommends denial of the request.
Joanne Boulton asked staff what is permissible.
Anna Krane stated that one, 12-square foot ground sign is allowed; there is already one, 15-square foot ground sign on the property and they could have one, 8-square foot canopy sign.
Mr. Phillips informed the members that the entrance to Park Tower is off Bonhomme Avenue and that people don’t see the existing ground sign. He stated that people drive past their entrance and that the canopy sign sits 150 feet back. He added that they would be happy to give up the existing ground sign but Dominic’s [restaurant] would likely not want that. He stated that they need signage and that’s why they want to spend $20K on these signs.
Mr. Behrens began a PowerPoint presentation. An aerial photo of the property and surrounding properties was shown.
Joanne Boulton stated that the “200 South Brentwood” letters on the Bonhomme side of the building will cause problems and confusion for those not familiar with Clayton.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed and noted that is especially true if the building next door installs a sign with the Bonhomme address on it.
Mr. Behrens stated that the City measured these signs by the area surrounding the letters.
Joanne Boulton informed Mr. Behrens that that’s the way all signs are measured here.
Mr. Behrens indicated that they would just be over the 15% allowed for an awning sign at 16.87 square feet.
At this time, a lengthy discussion between the applicant and City staff/ARB members ensued regarding possible alternatives to their submittal. The fact that the proposed ground sign long Bonhomme Avenue, as submitted, reads “Brentwood Boulevard” presented a problem. Another point of discussion were the code regulations pertaining to awning signs and wall signs.
Joanne Boulton stated that she’s not convinced that both signs are needed.
Ron Reim suggested this be tabled tonight and that the applicant work something out with their tenant.
More possible alternatives to the original submission were offered by Mr. Phillips.
24
Joanne Boulton suggested that the applicant work with staff and come back; the ARB doesn’t like changes being made to an application on the fly.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to table this until the applicant resubmits for a future meeting (next meeting August 7th). The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE – 8025 BONHOMME AVENUE (CLAYTON ON THE PARK)
Susan Istenes explained that on June 5, 2017, the Architectural Review Board approved plans for exterior alterations to the subject property including landscape, hardscape and streetscape upgrades. The current sign proposal was also discussed at the June 5th meeting, but at that time the applicant had not filed for a sign modification, therefore, it could not be acted upon. The proposed project consists of signage in the design of a large letter “C” to be placed in the new walkway at the front of the building along Bonhomme Avenue. The letter would measure 6-feet tall by 6-feet wide by 2 feet deep. As proposed, the letter is being treated as a ground sign and would need to meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance. The proposed ground sign is approximately 36-square- feet. The sign will be aluminum painted two shades of grey. The proposed sign is larger than the maximum size allowable by code. The City’s Sign Ordinance allows for a ground sign, a maximum of 25-square-feet, to be located within a landscape bed. The proposed sign is also shown as constructed with the ability to rotate if pushed by a human being. The Sign Ordinance prohibits rotating or moving signs; however, staff’s opinion is that the intent of the prohibition is to disallow signs that move via the wind or by mechanical means. According to the applicant, this sign will move only if physical force is applied to it by a human, otherwise it is stationary. The placement and design of the sign was carefully thought out to provide an interactive and creative approach to complement the human scale walkway and landscape design and therefore, staff believes it meets the intent of the sign code as it relates to movement and recommends approval with the condition that the sign shall only be movable by human force and not by mechanical means or by the wind.
Hearing no questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve the sign modification as requested. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8028 CRESCENT
Lauren Strutman, project architect and Blair Mehlman, developer, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for approval of the site plan associated with the proposed construction of a 3,499-square-foot single-family residence. The height of the proposed
25 residence is 27 feet 6 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located along the eastern elevation of the house with screening provided by a wood fence. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located at the southwest corner of the driveway. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence and will be accessed from the driveway. In the R-2 Zoning District, impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent of the total lot area. The existing impervious coverage on site is 0 percent. The proposed plans increase the impervious coverage to 54.3 percent. Front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed front yard coverage is 18.7 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.29 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.45 CFS, which represents a 0.16 CFS increase. All downspouts will be piped to a dry well in the rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive planting design of trees, shrubs, perennials and groundcover. There is one street tree and 15,256-square-feet of existing canopy coverage on site with 14,726-square-feet being removed. The plan provides a surplus of 189-square-feet of canopy coverage and meets the native tree requirement with 87.5 percent native. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. Director Istenes noted that the height, setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Storm water will be adequately managed on site and the landscape plan features plantings that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the condition that to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the dry well, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County and submit proof of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Mehlman introduced himself and stated that he believes they’ve assembled the best team for these projects; Lauren Strutman (architect) and David Volz (engineer). He informed the members that they have made the neighbors aware of their plans.
Ms. Strutman presented a site plan to the members and Mr. Volz presented a before and after drainage map to the members.
Joanne Boulton asked if this is a spec home.
Mr. Mehlman replied “yes”.
William Liebermann asked the size of the drywell.
Mr. Volz indicated that it is 120 square feet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the house looks good. He asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the members or the audience.
26 An unidentified woman asked if there will be pop up emitters.
Mr. Volz indicated that there is a pop-up emitter 10 feet from the driveway.
Joanne Boulton asked how the size of a drywell is determined.
Mr. Volz indicated that they look at the existing conditions and calculate based on the new structure and lot coverage.
Joanne Boulton asked if this is the house going on the now empty lot.
Mr. Volz replied “yes”.
Ms. Strutman informed the members that they have secured subdivision trustee and neighbor approval.
Cheryl Murray, neighbor, asked about drainage and Project Clear.
Joanne Boulton informed Ms. Murray that Project Clear takes storm/rain water out of waste water.
Anna Krane stated that the City now requires additional run-off to mitigated on-site.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review. (In interest of time, the staff reports for the remaining reviews were not read).
Ms. Strutman presented a color rendering to the members. She explained that this is an all-brick traditional home with a balcony above the front door.
Samples of the roof, stone, brick (tan), window and stucco were shown.
Ms. Strutman presented elevation drawings to the members.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the house looks very nice.
Charles Burch, representing 8022 Crescent, asked about the size of this structure.
Ms. Strutman stated that the square footage is 3,499 and that they are in compliance with the coverage limitations. She then presented a contextual drawing.
27 Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the sloped roofs help lower its appearance.
Ms. Strutman agreed and added that they also provided lower first floors and provided a greater side yard setback than is required as well.
Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 8034 CRESCENT
Director Istenes noted that staff recommendation is the same for this project; that the applicant is to file the site plan with the County and provide proof of filing to the City prior top building permit issuance.
Ms. Strutman presented the site plan to the members and Mr. Volz presented comparison drainage maps to the members.
Mr. Volz indicated that they’ve added a 72 cubic foot drywell and 2 pop-up emitters to this project; noting that drainage is slightly more than existing.
Ron Bowman, 8038 Crescent, asked if there will be a change in grading and/or if any water will flow onto their property as a result of this project.
Mr. Volz indicated that the grading is identical to what’s there and that no water will flow onto his property.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes indicated that the home is compatible with existing homes and that staff recommends approval as submitted.
Ms. Strutman presented a color rendering to the members and stated that some architectural features of this home differ from their other new one. She stated this one will be a deep red color brick with black windows and cast stone. Elevation drawings were presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the two houses are distinctive and don’t look like twins.
28
Craig Owens commented that architectural features found in the neighborhood were incorporated into these two new homes and he appreciates that.
Mr. Bowman asked if the front setback is consistent with neighboring homes.
Ms. Strutman replied “yes” and added that these new homes have greater side yard setbacks.
Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing nothing further from the audience, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIEENCE – 8110 STRATFORD
Mark Rubin, developer, was in attendance at the meeting.
Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval as submitted (both the site plan and architectural elements).
Mr. Rubin presented a color rendering to the members and stated that this is the third home of the three sites.
Mr. Volz presented a drainage map to the members and noted that drainage is consistent with the two properties to the west.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the street trees will remain.
Mr. Rubin replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he read staff’s report and the site plan looks good. He asked if there were any further questions or comments from the members or the audience.
None were received.
Hearing none, William Liebermann made a motion to approve the site plan as proposed. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review and consideration.
Director Istenes informed the members that staff recommends approval as requested.
Joanne Boulton asked if a rendering was available.
29
Mr. Rubin replied “no”. He stated that it is a classic Barry Nelson design and that it complements the two they already did and that the dormers are non-functional, but attractive.
Joanne Boulton asked if the setback requirements are being met.
Mr. Rubin replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton asked if this is a spec home.
Mr. Rubin replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments regarding the architectural elements of the project, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the Board.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary