March 6, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 6, 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 Joanne M. Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Josh Corson William Liebermann Scott Wilson
Absent: Ron Reim
Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney (left at 7 p.m.)
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting. He then asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
The minutes of the February 21, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved after having been previously forwarded to each member.
SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 1 TUSCANY PARK (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING)
Lauren Strutman, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were David Volz, civil engineer and Derek Sun, property owner.
2 Susan Istenes explained that consideration of this project [site plan and architectural review] was continued from the previous meeting of February 21, 2017. Based on comments from the Board and from staff, the applicant made the following revisions pertaining to site plan review:
1. The A/C units were relocated to the west elevation of the house, just north of the trash enclosure. 2. The driveway was relocated to the western portion of the front yard. 3. Multiple revisions were made to the Landscape Plan and Tree Protection plan. See the Landscaping section below for further explanation and staff’s review of the proposed plan.
A site plan depicting those changes was presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if pattern of water flow has changed since the last proposal.
Mr. Volz replied “no”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about landscaping.
Mr. Volz stated that Bill from Baxter Gardens made changes per the City’s contracted landscape architect (Laurel Harrington) and the minor remaining items will be complied with as well.
Joanne Boulton asked if the three trees in the front are the same.
Ms. Strutman indicated that they are the same species.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes noted that windows have been added to the east elevation and the driveway relocated as noted in the review of the revised site plan. She stated that staff’s recommendation is to approve as revised.
Ms. Strutman presented a color rendering to the members, referencing the 4 additional windows on the east side lower level. She stated that some stucco has been incorporated at the front door; otherwise, the house is all brick. She indicated that the property slopes, so the house is a 2-story in front and a 1-story in back.
Samples of the tan brick, architectural shingle roof (charcoal), stucco and cast stone were presented.
3 Joanne Boulton asked what color the grout will be.
Ms. Strutman replied “tan”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the applicants when they plan to begin construction.
Mr. Sun replied “one month”.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – DETACHED GARAGE – 8131 WESTMORELAND AVENUE
Tim Shotz, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Anthony Webb, owner.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of an 800-square- foot, 1.5 story detached garage in the rear yard, demolition of the rear brick stair and extension of the concrete driveway. The proposed detached garage will be constructed of building materials matching the existing primary structure on the property. The primary building material will be brick with the secondary building material being Hardie-plank lap siding. The applicant is requesting that the board approve the use of siding above the limit of 25 percent per elevation in order to match the construction of the primary structure. Dark grey asphalt shingles, an over- head black paneled garage door and black casement windows are proposed to match the house. The proposed area above the garage is under a sloped roof, meeting the requirements of a half- story. The proposed project includes removing the exterior rear brick staircase that currently runs from a second story door down to grade. The existing metal guard rail will be salvaged and used to turn the second story doorway into a Juliet balcony. Matching brick will be used to infill any exposure in the rear façade created by the removal of the stairs. The project also includes additional concrete drive pavement and relocation of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is proposed on the east side of the house and will be accessed by a paved path from the driveway. Currently, impervious coverage on the site is 66.2 percent, which is above the 55 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. The proposed plans reduce the impervious coverage on site to 60 percent. Director Istenes noted that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines, with the exception of the building material percentage. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the detached garage and exterior renovation are compatible with the home and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Shotz asked the Board if they had any questions. He noted one correction to staff’s report; the garage is only 400 square feet.
4 Susan Istenes informed the Board that the second floor was included in the square footage.
Joanne Boulton asked if the second floor contained living quarters.
Susan Istenes replied “no, not now”.
Mr. Shotz indicated that there will be a pull down stair to provide access to the second story which will be used for storage.
A sample of the brick that will match existing was presented.
Joanne Boulton asked what color the Hardie Board will be.
Mr. Shotz indicated that the Hardie Board will be brown to match existing.
Joanne Boulton asked when the house was built.
Mr. Webb replied “1941.”
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the existing garage will remain.
Mr. Webb indicated that it will be converted to a family room.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Will Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – DETACHED GARAGE – 34 RIDGEMOOR
Matt Pevehouse, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 910-square-foot, 1.5 story detached garage in the rear yard. The existing 413 square foot detached garage will be demolished as part of the project. The area above the garage is under a sloped roof, meeting the requirements of a half-story. The space will be finished as an office/family room and includes a half bath. Because there are no provisions for cooking or sleeping, it is not considered a second unit. The project also includes additional concrete driveway pavement. The proposed plans increase impervious coverage on the lot to 51 percent, which is still below the maximum 55 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. The garage will be constructed of building materials that match the existing primary structure. The primary building material is brick with the secondary building material being stucco with battens. The applicant is requesting that the Board approve the use of stucco above the limit of 25 percent per elevation in order to match the construction of the primary structure. Asphalt shingles, an over-head paneled garage door and
5 white casement windows are also proposed to match the house. Director Istenes stated that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines, with the exception of material percentage. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the detached garage are compatible with the home and recommends approval as submitted.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about material samples.
Mr. Pevehouse stated that he did not bring material samples; however, the brick will match that of the existing front façade of the house and that the stucco will be duplicated. He added that the existing brick on the existing garage will be salvaged.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Will Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – INSTITUTIONAL/RETAIL – 8321 MARYLAND AVENUE
Mark Naylor, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is approximately 0.8 acres in size and is located on the north side of Maryland Avenue, between Crandon Drive and Lancaster Drive. The lot is currently used as a surface parking lot and has a zoning designation of C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and is located in the Maryland Gateway Overlay District. In 2013, a similar project including a drive-through was proposed by 5/3 Bank and was approved. 5/3 Bank never pulled permits or built on the site and sold the property to Regions Bank. The applicant is proposing a redevelopment of the entire site to include a freestanding 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 proposed at the southwest corner of the site, and the 3,457-square-foot retail building is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. The bank and retail buildings will measure 21-feet 6-inches to the top of the parapet. The buildings are built up to the front and side property lines. Over 80 percent of the Maryland Avenue frontage is improved with buildings, and three entrances are proposed along Maryland Avenue. An approximately 1,300-square-foot pedestrian corridor is proposed between the two buildings. City standard streetscape will be installed along Maryland Avenue, Lancaster Drive and Crandon Drive. The 24-space parking lot is located behind the buildings and can be accessed from both Crandon Drive and Lancaster Drive. Vehicles will enter the drive-through via a one-way entrance located in the northeast corner of the parking lot and exit the drive-through at the northwest corner of the parking lot. There are two 9-foot wide drive- through lanes and a 12-foot wide bypass lane that runs parallel to Maryland Avenue. The drive- through will measure approximately 13-feet 8.38-inches to the top of the flat roof and is separated from the site’s parking and drive aisles by a raised curb and landscaped area. According to the applicant, the HVAC will be rooftop mounted with integrated screening. The parapet height will block most sight lines as the equipment will be centralized on the flat roof. Trash will be stored in
6 an approximately 144-square-foot brick trash enclosure located in the northwest corner of the site. The trash gate will be painted steel. Brick color will match the brick used for the primary structures. The proposed building footprints for the most part align with the existing lot lines. The buildings are oriented to Maryland Avenue and the retail building will have an entrance oriented to the corner of Maryland Avenue and Lancaster Drive. The proposed buildings incorporate storefront windows along the Maryland Avenue frontage. The buildings are located adjacent to the public sidewalk and are human-scale. The existing impervious coverage on site is 92 percent. The new plans decrease impervious coverage to 83 percent. There are no limits for impervious coverage in commercial districts. The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation is 2.72 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 2.07 CFS, which represents a decrease of 0.65 CFS. All downspouts will be piped to the public storm sewer. One inlet drain will be located within the pedestrian corridor. Another inlet drain will be located in the parking area and a third drain will be located off of the drive-through lane. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the stormwater plan acceptable. A 12-foot wide landscape buffer between the site and adjacent single-family properties is proposed along the length of the northern property line, widening at the northwest and northeast corners. A landscape bed at northwest corner of the property is proposed with trees and shrubs that will provide screening of the trash enclosure and the drive-through from Crandon Drive. An 8-foot tall screening fence with brick pillars is proposed 5-feet south of the northern property line, just outside of the 5-foot public utility easement. Hardie-cement board siding with cedar trim is proposed between the brick pillars. The brick pillars will match the color and style of brick used for the two buildings. The cement board siding will be painted to match the building. Turf (sod) is proposed between the northern property line and the fence. A landscape bed is proposed between the fence and the drive-through lanes. The landscape bed continues along the curved portion of the driveway in the northeast corner and along Lancaster Drive. A planting island is proposed separating the drive-through from the parking area with a mixture of trees, shrubs and other plantings. The planting island will be raised above the parking area and protected by a curb. Landscape beds and planters are proposed along the east, south and west elevations of the two proposed buildings. Additional planting beds are also proposed in the pedestrian corridor. Director Istenes noted that the proposed Landscape Plan provides sufficient screening and an appropriate range of species and plantings and that the plan meets requirements for canopy coverage as well as percent of Native species; however, revisions are needed to the Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan that are outlined in a letter dated March 2, 2017 prepared by the City’s contracted landscape architect and include providing spacing dimensions for plantings, adjusting tree locations and minor revisions to the digital Tree Chart. The proposed Landscape Plan provides 6-caliper inches less than the requirement. Payment into the City’s Forestry Fund can be made to supplement the deficiency. An approximately 1,300-square foot courtyard is proposed mid-block between the bank and retail buildings that features grey-brick pavers, four black aluminum benches, a bicycle rack and landscape planters. The applicant will also being making right-of-way improvements according to City standards. Lighting on the drive-through structure itself is limited to four LED down lighting fixtures located underneath the drive-through canopy. Six pole lights are proposed in the parking lot and adjacent to the drive-through. The fixtures will be mounted onto 15-foot poles for an overall fixture height of 17.5-feet. All proposed lights are LED with internal shields.
7 Director Istenes continued by stating that a traffic study was conducted in 2013 for the original 5/3 Bank proposal. A new study was not required for potential traffic impacts of the proposal by Regions Bank because the similarity of this proposal would not likely change the results. The 2013 study analyzed potential traffic impacts of the proposed development of the site (including the bank, drive-though and retail building). According to the study, existing traffic operations do not appear to be problematic at the intersections in the study area. All proposed site access points and the unsignalized study intersections are projected to operate similar to the existing operating conditions. The traffic study does not recommend any physical improvements to address the addition of site related trips. The bank and retail buildings total 6,200 square feet and require 21 parking spaces (1 per each 300 square feet of gross floor area). Twenty-four parking spaces are proposed behind the two buildings, including three handicap accessible spaces. Two bike racks are proposed, one in the pedestrian corridor and one along Maryland Avenue in front of the retail building. The proposed bike racks conform to the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations. The site is located in the Maryland Gateway District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision for the Maryland Gateway District is a walkable, pedestrian scale, human-focused corridor that provides an iconic gateway into Downtown. New development should address the street appropriately and transition in height on properties that abut residential. The proposed development will be built up to the front and side property lines and will be urban in character. The proposed uses and design will encourage pedestrian activity and will contribute positively to the Maryland Avenue corridor and downtown as a whole. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan and compatible with existing development along Maryland Avenue and the surrounding single-family homes to the north. The site is well designed and will provide an urban, pedestrian friendly streetscape along Maryland Avenue with parking located in the rear. Stormwater will be adequately managed and the landscape plan provides for appropriate landscape buffers. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the C-1 Zoning District as well as the Maryland Gateway Overlay District and the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and staff recommends approval as submitted, contingent upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the drive- through, and with the condition that the applicant address outstanding comments from the City’s contracted landscape architect. Revisions should be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Mr. Naylor indicated that a conceptual presentation of their project went before this Board back in the fall (October/November). He began a PowerPoint presentation.
A slide depicting an aerial photo of the area was shown. The existing site plan (depicting 92% coverage) was depicted on the second slide.
Mr. Naylor stated that in conjunction with this project, they are installing streetscape on the three adjacent streets to conform to City specifications. He noted that there is very little greenspace on the lot currently. A slide depicting site photos and a slide depicting the proposed site plan was shown. He advised the members that the project includes parking for 24 vehicles, which is over the number of spaces required by the City. He noted that the coverage will be reduced to 83%,
8 adding that they will be installing a 12-foot wide strip of landscape and a fence along the rear of the property.
A slide depicting the pedestrian corridor, which includes pots and benches, was presented. A slide depicting the bicycle racks and their proposed location (one in the corridor and the other at the retail building) was shown.
A sample of the Hardie board plank fencing material was presented to the members.
Scott Wilson asked if this material will take place of the existing wall.
Mr. Naylor replied “yes”. He indicated that the parking lot will be LED lit by 15-foot pole lights.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the light will cut-off before crossing over the rear property line.
Mr. Naylor replied “yes”.
A slide depicting the proposed landscape plan was shown; noting the three tree varieties and the 6- 8-foot tall evergreens proposed for along the fence-line.
Joanne Boulton asked if the planters will contain seasonal plants.
Mr. Naylor replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton asked about the corridor.
Mr. Naylor indicated that there will be evergreens in the corridor to provide year round greenery.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he likes the entrance off Lancaster.
David Lazarus, 114 Lancaster, stated that the applicant did a great job meeting with the neighbors. He stated that there is still a concern regarding the rear of the building and the traffic. He stated that he hopes the City will not allow left turns onto Lancaster and no right turns onto Crandon to help reduce traffic on these residential streets.
Chairman Lichtenfeld notified Mr. Lazarus that they will review the back of the building during the architectural review of this project and that street patterns are governed by the City.
Joanne Boulton asked if the retail space could contain a restaurant.
Mr. Naylor indicated that he has no idea; however; he knows that the bank does not want late night activity for security reasons.
9 Joanne Boulton asked about outdoor dining.
Mr. Naylor indicated that it is a possibility.
Joanne Boulton stated that outdoor dining could be located in the corridor where the planters are shown.
Mr. Naylor indicated that there are other areas on the site that could accommodate outdoor dining.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve the site plan per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
The application for conditional use permit (for the drive-through) was now up for consideration.
Susan Istenes explained that as part of this bank project, the applicant is proposing a remote drive- through facility, which requires a Conditional Use Permit and are subject to the design guidelines for drive-through facilities. In 2013, a similar project including a drive-through was proposed by 5/3 Bank and was approved. 5/3 Bank never pulled permits or built on the site and sold the property to Regions Bank. The proposed remote drive-through is located at the northwest corner of the lot, approximately 49 feet north of the proposed bank building, and approximately 40 feet south of the nearest residential structure. Vehicle access to the parking area will be provided off of Crandon Drive and Lancaster Drive; vehicles will enter the drive-through via a one-way driveway entrance located in the northeast corner of the parking lot and exit the drive-through into the northwest corner of the parking lot. There are two 9-foot wide drive-through lanes and a 12-foot wide bypass lane running parallel to Maryland Avenue. The drive-through is separated from the site’s parking and drive aisles by a raised curb and landscaped area. The drive-through structure measures approximately 13 feet 8.38 inches to the top of the flat roof. Proposed building materials include brick and ACM panels to match the architecture of the proposed bank. The drive-through would operate during normal bank hours, Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. An ATM will also be located in the drive-through, and will be accessible at all times. Landscape buffers are proposed along the northern property line and along the side streets. An 8 foot tall screening fence with brick pillars is also proposed north of the drive-through lane. A 12-foot wide landscape buffer between the site and adjacent single-family properties is proposed along the length of the northern property line, widening at the northwest and northeast corners. A landscape bed at northwest corner of the property is proposed with trees and shrubs that will provide screening of the trash enclosure and the drive-through from Crandon Drive. An 8-foot tall screening fence with brick pillars is proposed 5-feet south of the northern property line, just outside of the 5-foot public utility easement. Hardie-board cement siding with cedar trim is proposed between the brick pillars. The brick pillars will match the color and style of brick used for the two buildings. The cement board siding will be painted to match the building. Turf (sod) is proposed between the northern property line and the fence. A landscape bed is proposed between the fence and the
10 drive-through lanes and continues along the curved portion of the driveway in the northeast corner and along Lancaster Drive. A planting island is proposed separating the drive-through from the parking area with a mixture of trees, shrubs and other plantings. The planting island will be raised above the parking area and protected by a curb. A traffic study was conducted in 2013 for the original 5/3 Bank proposal. A new study was not required for potential traffic impacts of the proposal by Regions Bank because the similarity of this proposal would not likely change the results. The traffic study analyzed potential traffic impacts of the proposed development of the site (including the bank, drive-though, and retail building). According to the study, existing traffic operations do not appear to be problematic at the intersections in the study area. The proposed access point for the drive-through is located deep in the lot, away from the intersection with Maryland Avenue. Stacking lanes are straight with minimal curves, and provide an escape/bypass lane. According to the study, the traffic impacts associated with the drive-through itself are minimal, and there is adequate stacking distance to prevent cars from backing up on Lancaster Drive. The Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations require establishments with two or more drive-through windows or lanes to provide a minimum of five stacked parking spaces per window; in this case, two drive through lanes are proposed, and therefore 10 stacked spaces are required. The proposed drive-through has space for 12 stacked parking spaces. A noise study was conducted in 2013 for the original 5/3 Bank proposal to assess the acoustical impact of the proposed drive-through speakers used by the bank and auto traffic moving in and out of the facility. A new study was not required for potential noise impacts of the proposal by Regions Bank because the similarity of this proposal would not likely change the results. The 2013 study notes that that the normal operation of the drive-through speaker would result in sound levels of 70 dBA (worst case) at 3 feet from the speaker. Normal conversation is in the range of 60 to 70 dBA. At the closest property line, this would produce a sound level of 49 dBA. Since the traffic noise and the noise from the speaker are different types of noise sources, the sound from the speaker will rarely be heard. In situations where two sound levels differ by more than 10 dB, the quieter sound source in most cases is masked by the louder sound source. The study concluded that the bank drive-through does not exceed the St. Louis County day and night time noise levels in the residential area north of the development. Staff feels the conclusion of the 2013 report is also applicable to this proposal. The drive-through lanes are oriented parallel to Maryland Avenue, which will direct vehicular headlights away from adjacent residential properties. Lighting on the drive-through structure itself is limited to four LED down lighting fixtures located underneath the drive-through canopy. Five pole lights are proposed adjacent to the drive-through. The fixtures will be mounted onto 15-foot poles for an overall fixture height of 17.5-feet. All proposed lights are LED with internal shields, channeling the light toward the drive-through and parking areas, not the residential lots to the north. Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the drive-through meets the requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses and the design guidelines for drive-through facilities. According to the noise and traffic studies, noise from the drive-through will not exceed the St. Louis County day and night time noise levels, traffic impacts associated with the drive-through itself are minimal, and there is adequate stacking distance to prevent cars from backing up on Lancaster Drive. Based on the information regarding the operation of the drive-through as provided by the applicant, staff is of the opinion that the proposed use will be
11 compatible with surrounding uses and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen pursuant to any conditions contained in the Site Plan Review memo.
Mr. Naylor informed the members that 5/3’s plan included vacuum tubes in the drive-through; they are not. He added that they will not have speakers in their drive-through.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen as requested. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed buildings will cover 80 percent of the Maryland Avenue frontage with a space between for the pedestrian corridor. The buildings are placed in the southeast and southwest corners of the property along the right-of-way to create a strong building presence at each intersection. Façade relief is incorporated into all building elevations through projections and material changes. The pedestrian corridor provides additional relief mid-block. Windows are incorporated into all building elevations. The retail building has larger window openings than the proposed bank building, which creates compatible designs without two identical buildings. The retail building closely follows the design guideline for large show windows interrupted with building piers. While the proposed bank building does not include the same window design, the tall glass entry does provide an open and inviting pedestrian entrance compatible with the proposed retail building. Both buildings are designed with overhangs above the entrances as well as building setbacks to provide a widened sidewalk area near the entrances. The proposed buildings are constructed of dark grey brick, grey EIFS panels, black or grey aluminum-composite-panels and aluminum-trimmed storefront window systems. An 8-foot tall screening fence with brick pillars is proposed 5-feet south of the northern property line, just outside of the 5-foot public utility easement. Hardie-cement board siding with cedar trim is proposed between the brick pillars. The brick pillars will match the color and style of brick used for the proposed buildings. The cement board siding will be painted to match the buildings. Director Istenes indicated that staff is not familiar with this application of cement board siding requested to view samples of the material before determining its visual impact. The height and scale of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding buildings. The placement of the buildings along Maryland Avenue allows for an appropriate transition from the commercial uses on site to the northern residential area. Director Istenes indicated that staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant provides a sample of the proposed fence to be reviewed by staff for potential visual impacts and final approval.
Mr. Naylor presented a slide depicting the proposed floor plans. He stated that they are limited on what they can do on the rear elevation as the restrooms and safe room are located back there.
Samples of the brick, metal (black), glass and EIFS (accent material-2 variations of gray) were shown.
12 A slide depicting the retail building elevations was shown. Mr. Naylor stated that it is designed to complement the bank building, not duplicate it.
Street elevation slides were shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he likes the mass and materials and that it bridges well to the east and west.
Mr. Naylor stated that they are committed to the City to screen the rooftop HVAC units.
Scott Wilson asked if the colors are standard Regions colors.
Mr. Naylor stated that this is the first of Regions’ branches.
Joanne Boulton stated that she appreciates them listening to the City’s comments.
Mr. Lazarus asked if the ATM vestibule will be open 24 hours.
Mr. Naylor replied “yes”; but it will only open to those with a swipe card.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.
REZONING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW MIXED-USE PROJECT – 7601 – 7651 CLAYTON ROAD
Ben Owenell, co-developer, was in attendance at the meeting.
Due to a conflict of interest, Scott Wilson recused himself. He did not participate in any discussion or vote with regard to this project.
Susan Istenes explained that she was only going to go over the highlights of the rezoning, Planned Unit Development and site plan, rather than reading most or all of the lengthy staff reports. She advised the members that staff just received comments from St. Louis County (noting that both Hanley Road and Clayton Road are St. Louis County roads) and that the County is asking for additional studies which take a 3-4 week timeframe. She noted that there are still outstanding landscape and Storm Water Pollution & Prevention Plan (SWPPP) issues which could change if traffic patterns change. She informed the members that overall, staff approves the design and recommends approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
13 1. The applicant shall address, to the staff’s satisfaction, all outstanding Landscape Review Comments, dated January 14, 2017, Review 2.
2. The applicant shall address all outstanding Intuition & Logic comments, dated January 8, 2017.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Lot Consolidation Plat.
4. All appropriate Plans shall be revised pursuant to St. Louis County’s future recommendations regarding turning movements and traffic improvements. Should those revisions require re-review by the Architectural Review Board and/or Plan Commission, the applicant shall apply for the appropriate amendments, as determined by staff.
Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned how they are to proceed without St. Louis County’s recommendations as stated in staff recommendation No. 4.
Susan Istenes referred to the email dated today from the County which reads, in part “Your sight line calculations are based on drivers exiting onto Hanley Road looking over cars approximately 4’ tall; a 4’ tall vehicle is not a reasonable assumption. Likewise, it is evident that your proposed “Green T” will not fit along Clayton Road and thus your team altered the design; but, they simply introduced a single longitudinal median on Clayton Road on the south side of a two way travel lane. The submittal of a single longitudinal median configured as you have it, does not offer proper channelization nor dedicated lanes and directs left turning traffic (EB) head on into traffic traveling WB. There are solutions to your issues that will allow for safe access and allow you to develop your site: 1) For right in/out movements onto Hanley, modify the layout of your parking field to achieve sight distance requirements. 2) If you cannot modify your parking field, we will still allow you to have right in only access from Hanley Road. 3) For full access onto Clayton Road, move the entrance to the east according to the diagram below. 4) If you will not modify the location of your entrance, we will allow you to have access onto Clayton Road with a right-in/out limitation. 5) If you will not modify the location of your entrance, and are concerned about limiting access to right in/out only, make the eastern half of the back alley wide enough for two way traffic. The left turn onto Clayton Road would then be made from Westwood.”
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this email was received late today.
Susan Istenes agreed, adding that there are alternatives that the applicant needs to consider and that it is up to you (the members) how you wish to proceed.
14
Joanne Boulton commented that some of the recommendations will significantly alter the site plan.
Mr. Owenell indicated that it’s his understanding after discussions with Director Istenes and Economic Development Director Gary Carter that this Board could approve subject to full satisfaction of the County. He indicated that they have updated the landscape plan and that they have addressed the storm water plan which has been approved by the City’s Public Works Department. He stated that with regard to the County’s email, the most contentious issue is Clayton Road which he does not feel affects this evening’s review. He added that they accept the first three staff recommendations and that Crawford Bunte & Brammeier (CBB) is working on updating the traffic report which should be complete in the next few weeks.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that St. Louis County controls the streets on the south and west (Clayton and Hanley Roads) and Clayton controls the north and east. He then referred to Sheet C31 which shows an additional lane on Clayton Road westbound.
Mr. Owenell confirmed that a right turn only lane westbound Clayton Road onto Hanley Road has been added.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about truck (delivery) traffic.
Mr. Owenell stated that delivery trucks will enter the site (via the one way drive lane along the north property line) from Westwood Avenue to the loading dock and then proceed to Hanley Road and turn right onto Hanley Road.
Joanne Boulton mentioned that this is a sharp turn for trucks and questions if it can be done.
Mr. Owenell indicated that Westwood will be widened.
William Lieberman stated that there is a wide apron.
Mr. Owenell stated that Westwood Drive is lower than Hanley Road.
Chairman Lichtenfeld wanted confirmation that a truck could not exit heading south or east.
Mr. Owenell confirmed that the one-way drive lane will only allow trucks to drive west and turn right (north) onto Hanley Road.
Joanne Boulton commented that it’s the opposite way to the interstate and that will force these trucks all the way to Forsyth Boulevard before they can turn around to head south or west.
Mr. Owenell stated that the trucks need to be kept away from the residential areas.
15
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the trucks driving south on Hanley Road can go west (right) on Clayton Road.
Mr. Owenell stated that their plan is a result of feedback and reiterated that staff said this project can move forward this evening.
William Liebermann asked if the previous store (Schnuck’s) had the same delivery pattern.
An unidentified woman in the audience replied “no”; adding that there was no access to the site from Westwood Drive.
Joanne Boulton indicated that she had landscape questions.
Laurel Herrington, the City’s contracted landscape architect, provided some information regarding the landscaping as follows: The site and landscape plans do not provide an adequate level of planting and pedestrian accommodation. It is anticipated that the design will evolve and integrate more detail with the development of the project. All the trees will be removed from the site and include four (4) street trees, twenty-five (25) deciduous trees and ten (10) evergreen trees for a total of 364 caliper inches of deciduous trees. This project is a PUD and landscape will be evaluated based on form, function, aesthetics and ordinances. Native trees should be provided at 33% of the total new tree inventory. Street trees should be provided on Hanley and Clayton Roads as directed by the City.
Joanne Boulton asked how one will access the grocery store from Clayton Road.
Mr. Owenell indicated that grocery store access is from inside the garage. He then commented on the landscaping issues, noting that 64 trees have been added along Clayton Road and 10 along Westwood. He noted that paving goes all the way up to the northern property line.
Joanne Boulton stating she wanted to talk about pedestrian access to the grocery store. She stated that the pedestrian route does not seem particularly safe.
Mr. Owenell stated that access is from the interior.
Joanne Boulton commented that based on the County’s remarks, the entrance from Clayton Road may shift.
Mr. Owenell stated that one of the County’s solutions is to move the curb-cut further toward the east towards Westwood Drive.
Joanne Boulton stated that if they want to maintain full access, the curb-cut will need to be relocated (according to the County).
16
Mr. Owenell indicated that this issue will be discussed with the County. He added that he is okay with a right-in, right-out, but that may present a sight distance issue; the preference is 400 feet and they are at 300 feet. If they move it another 100 feet, due to grading, entry would be at the basement level, which would influence customers as a right out of Westwood and a left out of their site would be messy.
Joanne Boulton stated that they should work out these issues with the County.
Mr. Owenell stated that this Commission’s vote can be subject to working out the issues with the County. He noted that timing is an issue for them.
Joanne Boulton stated that she is uncomfortable doing that (voting before the County issues are worked out).
Mr. Owenell stated that there is a significant chance they will get County approval and if they don’t, they will come back to this Commission.
Joanne Boulton asked about public benefits, specifically sustainability. She noted that the applicant’s response indicates that it [sustainability] is being considered.
Mr. Owenell stated he is working with Matthew Zirkelbach with RunBrook, an environmental consulting firm. He stated that he would get the specific information to the City.
William Liebermann asked if the residential units will be rental apartments.
Mr. Owenell replied yes, they will be rented out monthly; not short-term.
Patrick Berry, Westwood Condominium Association, (40 unit building to the north of the proposed site) voiced concerns about traffic, parking, water run-off and noise. He stated that this is being rushed through and asked for more time to review. He added that there is also concern about buffering between their building and this development.
Collette Isaacs, Clayton resident, voiced her concern about Westwood traffic, noting it is a narrow street. She stated that people won’t walk to the store, they will drive.
Dan Hayes, President of the York Condos (property to the east-York & Westwood), stated that it’s likely that Westwood will need to be widened even more and that traffic is bottlenecked now during rush hour. He suggested an access road along the north. He voiced concern about noise and fumes.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the existing trees along the east side along Westwood will remain.
17
Ms. Herrington replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton asked if a noise study was conducted.
Susan Istenes replied “no”.
Carol Marcely, Hampton Park Resident (City of Richmond Heights), asked for assurances that their subdivision, which consists of 76 homes, won’t be impacted by this development and voiced concerns regarding traffic increase and water run-off.
Joanne Boulton asked about the downstream defender structure.
Mr. Owenell stated that the City and MSD says it is needed.
Spencer Litteken, Clayton’s civil engineer, informed the members that this is a MSD comment; not a City comment, but he assumes it is an on-site basin or cistern to capture and retain overflow.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that this structure should capture roof drainage as well.
Spencer Litteken agreed; noting that all water would be directed to the system before going to the MSD main.
Louise Heinzel, 827 Westwood Drive (her unit faces south), asked that the project be done right. She stated that she does not like the fact that delivery trucks will be driving above the windows of the south facing condo units and therefore, the wheels of those trucks will be visible from those units’ windows. She added that what Clayton needs is more condos, not more apartments.
Richard Goldberg, 900 South Hanley Road, stated that he would like to see this project’s review process slow down, noting that four new documents have just recently been added to the on-line (website) project information. He stated that traffic on Hanley Road is bad already during rush hour and that another concern is delivery trucks exiting onto Hanley Road being so close to the entrance to their building. He then asked for another week to allow people ample time to review this project; reiterating that it is moving much too fast. He then questioned if the rooftop HVAC units proposed for this project will be visible to the residents who live in the upper floors of their building.
Mike Genaro, investor and Clayton property owner, commented that this property has been an eye-sore for 15 years and a solution is needed. He noted that this is a huge investment and that his property values will increase and the quality of life enhanced. He stated that noise has to be expected; this is a busy intersection and he would hate to see this site empty for another 15 years.
18
Mr. Owenell informed the members that they’ve held four neighborhood meetings and this current plan has been in place since mid-December; however, the original plan for the property has not changed since January, 2016. He noted that the updates/revisions to the plans have been based on meetings and comments from City staff as well has with residents of 900 South Hanley and Westwood Drive and these residents asked that Westwood Drive be widened, which they are doing. He noted that the grocery store won’t operate 24 hours a day, runoff will be contained on-site and that the market demands apartments. He noted that this is the fourth review of the project, that they’ve been involved with the City for 17 months now and that the plans have always been public [made available on web-site]. He asked for a positive outcome tonight.
Joanne Boulton asked when trucks make deliveries.
Mr. Owenell replied “after hours”. He informed the members that they have a lease agreement with an organic grocery store; the store would close at 10 p.m. and deliveries to the store would be made after closing.
Susan Istenes commented that conditional use permits govern hours.
Mr. Owenell stated that this grocery store will operate the same way Schnuck’s did.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that to his recollection, the Schnuck’s store/building was smaller.
Joanne Boulton reiterated that because the sustainability issue is still unknown and because the County’s issues are still outstanding, she is uncomfortable voting on this project this evening.
Joanne Boulton made a motion to table consideration of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Owenell reminded the members of the timing issue and again asked for a vote to recommend approval subject to agreeing to all 4 points; he reiterated that the updated City traffic report will be complete in the next few weeks. He emphasized that they are running out of time.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the applicant would have to come back to them (Plan Commission/ARB) for review/approval of revisions if the PUD receives a positive recommendation/approval tonight.
Susan Istenes stated that depends on what changes are made.
Mr. Owenell commented that if changes are made to the access points, that they will come back; yet he is confident that the current site plan will be approved by the County.
19
Joanne Boulton pointed out that there are certain obligations that a PUD needs to fulfill, which she referred to at the last meeting as well.
Joanne Boulton made a motion to table review of this project. Chairman Lichtenfeld seconded the motion which received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Joanne Boulton and Chairman Lichtenfeld. Nays: Craig Owens, Josh Corson and William Liebermann. Motion failed.
Craig Owens made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Josh Corson and William Lieberman. Nays: Joanne Boulton and Chairman Lichtenfeld. Motion carries.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that revisions to the architectural plans presented on February 21, 2017 have been made and described by the applicant as follows:
1. The semicircular tower feature at the southwest corner has been revised to be a rectilinear tower similar to the Board’s provided sketch. Art deco detailing inspired by the buildings in the Moorlands’ neighborhood has also been incorporated.
2. Accent materials have been reduced to two brick colors, cast limestone veneer and one stucco textured panel color.
3. One stucco textured panel color has been removed and a second brick color has been added. The Hanley elevation has been revised to a stucco band at the top level only with Juliet balconies. Stucco textured panel balcony surrounds have been reduced in height to express a continuous stucco band across the top story.
4. Regarding the existing concrete retaining wall at the rear of the property. Because the wall is largely hidden from pedestrian/retail patron views, the applicant will omit the direct applied stucco texture to leave the existing wall exposed concrete or painted concrete if desired, but brick veneer is not feasible with the tight truck clearances along the service drive.
5. Ground floor glazing will be totally transparent as requested. Where this is not possible due to the grocery floor plan and not wanting shelving up against the glass (not nice to look at) we will provide either brick panel or display windows with transparent glass.
6. A tower element that will help provide an architectural transition between the high rise buildings along Hanley Road and the 3-story buildings in the Moorlands neighborhood
20 while complementing the new “iconic “art piece on the corner at the ground floor level.
7. The applicant is using stucco fiber cement panels to break up what could become a monotonous brick facade on large site. The intent is to be respectful of the traditional architectural character of the Westwood district, while allowing for the building to be transitional in design to the more contemporary style of the newer buildings in the Clayton Downtown. Therefore, they’ve proposed a mix of exterior materials that are predominantly brick and stone coupled with contemporary stucco textured vertical and horizontal accents. The roof design has been reworked to provide greater depth and a transition in height between the Moorlands neighborhood and high rises along Hanley.
The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 755,000 square foot, seven-story mixed use building. A parking garage will be located on the first three floors of the east side of the building, partially underground. On the west side of the property, the ground floor is shared between grocery, restaurant and retail space. The residential component comprises the top five floors of the development and totals 359,000 square feet. The highest point from existing grade to the top of the roof will be 88 feet. The residential structures feature 296 rental apartments (153 one-bedroom units, 143 two-bedroom unit apartments), four outdoor courtyards and a pool with a fitness room and clubroom located adjacently. The commercial component of the project contains 40,181 square feet of ground floor area; 754 parking spaces serve the entire project. The proposed project is located at the gateway intersection of two major arterial (County–owned) roadways, entirely within the City of Clayton. Three access points are proposed to serve the development: one from Hanley Road, one from Clayton Road and one from Westwood Avenue. Proposed turning movements and road improvements along Clayton and Hanley Roads are still under discussion with St. Louis County transportation officials. Two garage entrances, one along Clayton Road and one along Westwood Drive will serve the majority of the traffic to the site. There is a 20-space surface parking lot fronting Hanley Road in front of the ground level retail. The applicant proposes to install 28 bicycle racks (parking for 56 bicycles) to be located in the parking structure and at retail entrances on Clayton/Hanley Roads. The City standard streetscape is not required on projects that are located outside of downtown Clayton. Per comments from St. Louis County Highways and Traffic Department, a minimum 6- foot clear zone from the face of the curb to trees/tree grates is required. Due to this requirement, there is no room in the County Right-of-way on certain areas of the site for streetscape improvements however; Public Works Department approved street trees will be installed along portions of Clayton and Hanley Roads where the clear zone can be obtained. Additional on-site landscaping is also proposed (staff’s analysis of which is located in the PUD/Site Plan staff report. Director Istenes noted that surrounding buildings are constructed of brick and stone with minimal use of secondary materials and color variety. The proposed design adds some urban character to this part of the City by way of its design and use of color and secondary materials. The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along its street frontages to maintain an active urban feel. The primary building materials are comprised of red brick veneer, gray brick veneer and a cast limestone veneer. Secondary materials include stucco textured Hardie paneling. Each building façade expresses both horizontal and vertical articulation
21 through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms. The 4 outdoor courtyards also add architectural interest. The parking structure is integrated into the design of the building and will be clad in cast limestone veneer with regular intervals of window openings. Storefront architecture is used on the ground floor retail spaces facing Hanley Road and Clayton Road, and includes stone building material, large storefront windows with clear glazing and metal canopies. A rectilinear tower feature is proposed at the southwest corner of the building and a public art piece will be located at the same corner to increase the buildings’ presence and grandeur at this important gateway intersection to downtown. The tower feature, at the corner of Hanley Road and Clayton Road is pierced with windows and art deco detailing. While intended to provide a signature gateway entrance to Clayton, it lacks style and interest. The Hanley Road and Clayton Road ground floor façade features pedestrian- scale storefront architecture. The applicant proposes vision glazing in all storefronts except where grocer equipment must be located up against it. Where equipment occurs, the glazing will be spandrel glazing at pedestrian height with vision glass clerestory above. Spandrel glass is not typically a pedestrian friendly type of material and it does not promote or provide a visual transparency and a sense of interior activity to enliven the street. Furthermore, these storefront windows will be highly visible from Clayton Road due to the buildings’ close proximity to the street in this location. Loading docks and mechanical areas are provided to the rear of the building and are not visible from the street and have been adequately screened. Façade relief is incorporated into all building elevations through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms which are nominal. Director Istenes continued by stating that the proposed site design, building form and materials are urban in character, with traditional elements and will contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment in the area; that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures provided the northwest corner tower element is redesigned to incorporate additional glazing or similar features to allow it to be harmonious with but clearly distinctive from the building’s architecture.
Mr. Owenell informed the members that they have reduced the number of materials and the tower element was copied from the last meeting.
Samples of the brick (red and darker red), fiber cement and stone were presented. Mr. Owenell stated that they increased the stone by 200%; the roofline has been redesigned and the stucco on the balconies has been replaced with brick.
A color rendering that emphasized the revised corner tower was presented. Mr. Owenell stated that they’ve added punched windows and increased its size. He noted that the corner units are bedrooms and full glass is not desired for those rooms. He reminded the members that there will be a piece of art at the corner as well. Photos of some of the artwork the artist has done were shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the simplicity of the colors and materials have made quite a difference; however, he’s not sure the corner element is a signature corner yet. He
22 indicated he would like to see more glass and a taller corner tower; he would also like to see more height along Hanley Road and less height on the Westwood side.
Mr. Owenell indicated that they removed a level from the Westwood side; they added external roof decking, stepped back the apartments on the Clayton Road side, increased the step back on the top and added punched windows.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the number of bedrooms changed.
Mr. Owenell replied “yes”; the number of apartment units went from 299 to 296.
William Liebermann asked if the balconies are open and what material they are made of.
Mr. Owenell indicated that they will be open and constructed of aluminum or metal.
Josh Corson stated that the corner needs more glass and more height.
Mr. Owenell informed the members that if the building goes to 8-12 levels, they have to move to concrete construction and that is not feasible. He stated that the building is currently wood.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the podium includes the grocery store and restaurant.
Mr. Owenell replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton asked to see a Hanley Road contextual drawing.
Mr. Owenell indicated that he didn’t have it this time; it was shown at the last meeting.
Joanne Boulton stated that the City needs a great plan for this intersection and that although she appreciates the effort, the project, although better, is just “not there yet”.
Mr. Owenell thanked Joanne for noticing the amount of work that was put into this project. He stated that he can make the corner glass, but people will see different colors of shades/blinds because those are bedrooms there.
Joanne Boulton informed Mr. Owenell that this Board is not here to design the project.
Mr. LeCesse stated that the architect designed this building in a manner which they felt was best and right for this location and that they do see this as a transition project; the changes that were made were based on comments they received.
Mr. Owenell stated that they think this is a great looking building.
23 Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked the applicant for defending the architectural profession and that the mass, colors and materials of the building are greatly improved from the previous proposal, but he doesn’t see any context with it.
Joanne Boulton stated that a context elevation/rendering would help.
Mr. Owenell informed the members that there should be a context drawing in their packet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if 894 Westwood is above the alley.
Mr. Owenell indicated that he believes it is.
Joanne Boulton stated that as this building is currently designed, it will have a significant impact on the Westwood condominium building and that some type of buffering is needed between the one-way drive and that condo building.
Mr. Owenell stated he is open to discussion.
Craig Owens stated that he likes the new caps on the tops and asked why caps were not incorporated into all the rooflines.
Mr. Owenell stated that the caps were used only on the gaps to enhance the stepbacks.
Craig Owens stated that he is interested in seeing a view from above, questioning how the rooftop HVAC units will be screened.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he imagines these will be screened similar to how the Vanguard and Opus buildings are screened. He asked if each individual apartment will have its own unit.
Mr. Owenell replied “yes”. He informed the members that in Australia, lattice is installed surrounding the units. He noted that the units will need to be accessible for maintenance.
A brief discussion regarding the courtyards took place.
Craig Owens suggested tabling this until the next meeting. He noted that due to Spring break the week of the 20th, that the meeting of the 20th be rescheduled to the 27th.
Mr. Owenell asked for a vote tonight.
Craig Owens referred to items such as the alley, roof treatment and tower revisions that are still outstanding.
24 Mr. Owenell stated that he feels they have done what was asked of them and that they are open to looking at the northern barrier issue. He reminded the members that they are content with staff’s recommendations.
Joanne Boulton informed Mr. Owenell that if this gets voted down, it can’t come back for 12 months.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that if the next meeting is held on the 27th, the applicant would have some time to tweak the plans and re-present.
It was determined that there would not be a quorum on the 20th. Craig Owens made a motion, seconded by Josh Corson to table this item until the next meeting, which was decided to be held on the 27th.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the updated traffic study and County’s comments could be ready for review by then.
Note: Scott Wilson had already left the building and was not present for the remainder of the meeting.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – MIXED-USE PROJECT – 8015-27 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Chris Cedergreen, architect with Forum Studio, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the 19,435-square-foot site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Meramec Avenue. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District and is within the Downtown Core Overlay District. The site is currently made up of four parcels improved with two story buildings and surface parking. Adjacent land uses include a Special Development District with commercial to the west and office or retail uses to the north, east and south. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing parking lot and structures and the construction of a 140,630-square-foot, 9-story mixed-use building containing 7,500-square-feet of ground floor retail space, 51,000- square-feet of office space and 160 parking spaces. The applicant also stated the potential for residential units to replace the penthouse office space. The proposed building will be constructed of glazing-unit assembly, masonry wall, concrete panels and metal panels. Access to the parking structure on site is proposed from the existing north-south alley off of Forsyth Boulevard. 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 Downtown Core Overlay with a base zoning of High Density Commercial District. The Downton Core Overlay seeks to maintain a retail center development pattern and foster a pedestrian friendly environment. A project in this zoning district is eligible for rezoning to a PUD when the development includes two of five listed use categories and exceeds the maximum height permitted or the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) permitted. This project qualifies by proposing retail and
25 office along with a proposed height of 9-storeis and a FAR of 7.24. The proposed commercial building also surpasses the minimum 50,000-square-foot building space requirement for a PUD. The property is located in the Park View District as identified in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The vision of the Park View District is “high and mid-rise buildings along the eastern and northern edges of Shaw Park that capitalize on the exceptional views of and adjacency to the park.” The applicant has stated that the proposed development and design seeks to create an active street environment along Forsyth Boulevard. Director Istenes noted that a project of this scale requires a thorough staff review prior to a public hearing and is subject to comments by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments, and also the City’s contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, stormwater 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. By using the middle floors of the building for parking spaces, the office space and roof decks are lifted above the existing surrounding buildings and able to capitalize on views of Shaw Park to the southeast. 2. Use architectural features to break up the length of the building façade along Forsyth Boulevard, creating pedestrian scale and an intriguing street wall. 3. Consider providing areas for outdoor seating and dining for the first floor retail tenants. 4. The relationship and connection between this proposed development and the proposed building to the northwest should be considered to create a cohesive and complementary street environment along Forsyth Boulevard.
Building and Fire
1. The proposed building will be classified as a high rise. 2. With the proposed development to the northwest, openings and windows along abutting elevations will need to meet fire ratings.
Public Works
1. The developer will be responsible for submitting payment to the City for a Traffic Impact & Parking Study, to be managed by the Public Works Department. 2. There are some line of sight issues for cars exiting the alley onto Forsyth Boulevard. 3. The developer shall dedicate property to the City, increasing the width of the public alley to the east in order to meet the 24-foot width standard. 4. The developer shall restore and update the streetscape frontage along Forsyth Boulevard per the City standards.
26 Mr. Cedergreen commented that this is a great site with views to the park. A slide depicting an aerial view of the properties was shown. He noted that ingress/egress will be via the alley which continues under the 8100 Maryland Avenue building.
A slide depicting shadows was shown.
Mr. Cedergreen informed the members that it’s their goal to increase pedestrian activity along the street.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted the two garage entry points; the one for this project and the one for the Flaherty & Collins project. He suggested a joint entrance.
Mr. Cedergreen indicated that hasn’t been discussed yet.
Josh Corson commented that it makes sense to share a garage.
Mr. Cedergreen stated that there are 8 levels/ramps in the Flaherty & Collins garage.
A slide referencing the Vanguard, Opus, 212 North Meramec and Flaherty & Collins projects was shown.
Mr. Cedergreen informed the members that they are providing parking at a ratio of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
A slide depicting the first floor plan was shown. Slides depicting the parking level and top floor (outdoor garden area),
Mr. Cedergreen indicated that the 3 floors of office use plus the penthouse floor each contain 17,000 square foot. He added that they may add 2 more parking levels and 2 more office levels for a total of 13 levels.
Slides depicting renderings of the building were shown.
Mr. Cedergreen commented that he believes the Flaherty & Collins’ garage is unfriendly and will be challenging to those who will use it.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the garage is enclosed.
Mr. Cedergreen replied “yes”, adding that it is mechanically ventilated.
Someone commented that the building is almost museum-like.
Mr. Cedergreen stated that he believes the building has presence.
27
Joanne Boulton commented that she likes that it is angled, that it fits in and is special. She encouraged Mr. Cedergreen to work with Flaherty & Collins.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the building is a little gem; very nice.
Craig Owens encouraged the applicant to add more mass to the building to see how it would fit in.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that adding more levels would be proportionately better; however, he does like its current design.
William Liebermann stated he likes it, also.
Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked Mr. Cedergreen for waiting this evening and stated that he would like to see this project move forward.
On motion by Craig Owens and seconded by Joanne Boulton, the members voted unanimously to reschedule the next meeting from the 20th to the 27th.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary