February 21, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FEBRUARY 21, 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 Ron Reim Josh Corson Scott Wilson
Absent: William Liebermann
Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Anna Krane, Planner
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 6, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved after having been previously forwarded to each member.
SIGNAGE – 8201 MARYLAND AVENUE
Bill Behrens, sign contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this one story commercial building was previously occupied by Psychological Associates and that permits have been secured for interior remodeling to accommodate two new tenants; one being First Bank. First Bank is requesting approval to install a new ground sign in the southeast corner of the property to replace the existing
2 ground/monument sign. The proposed First Bank sign is double-sided measuring 23-square-feet per face. The sign will consist of an aluminum base with a vinyl die-cut face and lettering in blue, red, dark bronze and white. The face and lettering will be illuminated by LED modules mounted inside the cabinet. The Sign Regulations allow for a ground sign, a maximum area of 25-square- feet in area, subject to ARB review and approval of the size, location, design and construction materials. The regulations state that the sign may depict the name of the building or names of up to five major tenants. It is also required that ground signs are part of a landscaped area or plaza. Interior renovations of the building are creating space for two tenants; First Bank and a second retail tenant that has not been named. It should be noted that the proposed monument sign does not include a second tenant name. The visual impacts of the proposed sign are somewhat lowered since there is an existing ground sign in the approximate location of the proposed sign; however, the existing sign features less color, is made of a higher quality material and is not internally illuminated. The proposed sign is also not located within a landscaped area, as required by the code. Existing monument signs located along Maryland Avenue near this property are made of stone, include multiple tenant panels and are illuminated by ground mounted lights. In 2014, an internally illuminated monument sign was approved further west at 8455 Maryland Avenue; however, this sign included multiple tenant panels, was located within a landscape bed, constructed of materials that complemented the building and light could only pass through the sign letters, not the entire sign face. Staff is of the opinion that a colored, internally illuminated sign of the proposed materials does not fit the character of the area and recommends denial as submitted.
Mr. Beherns informed the members and staff that a landscape architect has prepared a landscape plan (copy distributed) and their willingness to use routed aluminum for the sign face.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the sign will be lit at night.
Mr. Beherns stated that only the white characters will be lit. He indicated First Bank’s desire to keep base aluminum as the existing sign has an aluminum base as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the sign can accommodate multiple tenant names.
Mr. Beherns stated that the sign is only for First Bank; the other tenant won’t be included.
Joanne Boulton stated that she likes the landscape plan; however, she is not sure of the difference in landscaping and would like the City’s landscape architect to review the plan. She asked about signage for the second tenant.
Susan Istenes stated that the other tenant could have building/window signage.
Josh Corson asked if staff is comfortable with the new proposal.
Anna Krane stated that it is still not consistent with other ground signs in the area and that the red and blue colors will still have the same visual impact.
3
Scott Wilson asked if staff wanted a brick or stone sign.
Anna Krane replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton reiterated that she would like the City’s landscape architect to review the proposal.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed.
Me. Behrens agreed to incorporate a brick base. He stated that they would like to receive approval tonight.
Scott Wilson asked if incorporating a brick base would satisfy staff’s concerns.
Susan Istenes stated that a brick base would help, but the sign is still less aesthetically pleasing than other ground signs. She reminded the members that the decision is theirs to make; however, staff likes to see higher quality materials.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if brick [on the base] could match the brick on the building.
Mr. Behrens replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve with the conditions that the sign face be constructed of routed aluminum; that the base of the sign be brick to match the building and that staff approve the landscape plan prior to issuance of a sign permit. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and received the following vote: Yay: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Craig Owens, Ron Reim, Josh Corson, Scott Wilson. Nays: Joanne Boulton. Motion carries.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS – 12 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE (THE DIAMOND SHOP)
Steve Anton, project architect, and Jeff Pernikoff, contractor, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that for the first story, the applicant proposes painting the existing brick pilasters black and replacing the existing wood paneling with ebony stained, oak-hardwood paneling. The project also includes the addition of black stacked-stone below the display windows. For the upper story, the applicant plans to paint the existing brick a light grey color and paint the existing window trim white. A new wood and glass door is proposed for the main store entrance (southern door) and the existing northern door will be painted. No changes are proposed to the sizes or locations of the existing windows and doors. The project also includes replacing the five existing black awnings on the first floor with three red-canvas awnings. The applicant plans to
4 replace the existing second floor awnings with new grey-canvas awnings. Signage shown on the plan is for illustration only and is not being considered at this time. The proposed changes will significantly change the building’s appearance. The proposed rendering does not match either the samples of proposed materials or the written descriptions provided by the project contractor. The application did not specify details of the construction materials; however the project contractor provided additional material details upon staff’s request. A revised rendering more accurately depicting the proposed materials was also requested by staff, but was not provided prior to the distribution of this report. Samples of the proposed wood and stacked stone (brought to the meeting) were previously submitted to staff and appear to be quality materials, consistent with other existing applications Downtown. The color schemes and appearances of the façades along this block of North Central vary, but have subtle similarities in window sizes and door placements. The proposed stacked stone is not found along this street; however there are several examples of black accented façades along North Central. Based on the sample materials provided, staff is of the opinion that the proposed colors and materials are compatible with existing structures. As an alternative, staff recommends considering an adjustment of the awning proportions. The existing awnings are below the cornice. The proposed plans include painting the cornice and adding wood trim details between the cornice and display windows. Staff is of the opinion that this proposed architectural detail will enhance the façade; however the proposed awnings will cover this detail work. Adjusting the proposed awnings to a similar location/height to that of the existing awnings would expose the woodwork. The change would also provide an area for a wall mounted sign that would be compatible with other wall mounted signs along North Central Avenue. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant adjust the height and scale of the awnings to expose the cornice and architectural detail above the display windows, to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Anton stated that it would be difficult to install the awnings so as to not cover the cornice and they have to be above the 2nd floor window sill; he stated that he can, however, reduce their height down from 6 feet; raise the bottom up and keep the top where they are.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the existing awning is below the cornice and questioned why the new ones can’t be below the cornice also.
Mr. Anton stated that the cornice will be visible between the awnings and on the ends. He reminded the members that lighting is being added.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would like to be able to continue to see all of the cornice and other architectural details of the building.
Joanne Boulton agreed.
Josh Corson asked to see the proposed materials.
5 A sample of the red canvas (for the awnings) and black stain were presented. Mr. Anton stated that the door will be painted black.
Joanne Boulton commented that it looks like too much awning in comparison to the size of the building; it looks disproportionate.
Ron Reim stated that he likes the lighting but that he, too, wants to see all of the cornice.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it would be a shame to cover up the cornice. He stated that the awnings are overpowering.
A brief discussion regarding signage took place.
Susan Istenes indicated that there could be up to 25 square feet of building signage and awnings can contain up to 15% of “signage” on their face/front.
It was decided that the awnings and signage be discussed at a later time.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the changes to the façade, with the condition that the colors/materials are those presented this evening; the awnings and signs are excluded from this approval. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 28 SOUTHMOOR
Fred Lang, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Robert Rousch, project architect.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for approval for the construction of a 965-square- foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing home including a family room, kitchen and laundry room renovation. The addition will fill in a gap between the existing 595-square-foot detached garage and house, but will not include any interior connections between the garage and addition. The property also includes a 490-square-foot carport to the north of the garage. The existing home has a primary building material of grey stucco and a secondary material of grey wood siding. The home features white, double-hung casement windows and grey/black slate roof shingles. The proposed addition will incorporate the same design and materials to match the existing home, with the exception of the roof. The proposed roof is a shed roof that slants down from east to west. However, the roof slant will be hidden by a decorative fascia board, so the roof will appear to be flat. Since the addition is being constructed between two existing structures and only a small portion will be visible from the public right-of-way, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed roof is acceptable and will not negatively impact the neighborhood character. The proposed location of the mechanical equipment is on the roof of the addition. The
6 equipment will be screened from the north by the existing garage roof line and from the south by the second story of the existing home. The applicant proposes using a fence to screen the equipment from the east and the west, but did not specify the material of the proposed fencing. When asked about the material, the application suggested either wood or vinyl. Director Istenes continued by stating that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R- 1 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines, that staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the addition are compatible with the home and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Lang stated the addition will infill between the house and garage.
Joanne Boulton asked if a sample of the fencing material was available.
Mr. Lang replied “no”; he noted that the property currently has a wood stockade fence.
Joanne Boulton commented that wood stockade sounds terrible.
Ron Reim commented that he’s not sure it will be able to be seen.
Joanne Boulton asked if the window (viewed from the front) can contain a lintel to match the other windows.
Mr. Lang replied “yes”.
A brief discussion regarding the screening of the HVAC units ensued; noting that the screening needs to be located between 18-24-inches from the units and the need for a 4-inch gap below. A discussion regarding the visibility of the screening also ensued. A mutual decision was made to allow staff to approve the material.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the project with the condition that the screening material be approved by staff and that lintels be added to the front facing window of the addition. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 336 NORTH FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Mike Boerding, civil engineer and Barry Glantz, project architect, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 4,125-square- foot single-family residence with a 240-square-foot detached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 11.94 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of
7 the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located just behind the southeast corner of the house with a fence providing screening to the south and landscaping providing screening to the east and the north. A 6-foot tall sight-proof fence is also proposed along the north, east and south property lines, which will provide additional screening from adjacent properties. Trash will be stored in a 31-square-foot trash enclosure located south of the detached garage with paved access provided off of the driveway. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence and the detached garage. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 55 percent for the inclusion of an at-grade, detached garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 40.9 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 54.7 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 20 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.35 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.39 CFS, which represents a 0.04 CFS increase. All downspouts and the sump-pump discharge will be piped to the proposed infiltration trench in the rear yard. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. There are 4,409-square-feet of existing canopy coverage on site in addition to one street tree. The landscape plan provides 2,750-square-feet of canopy coverage with 44.4 percent native trees. The design meets the native tree requirement, but has a deficit of 10-square-feet of canopy coverage. The canopy coverage deficit can be addressed with the addition of another tree or payment to the City of Clayton Forestry Fund. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The Landscape Plan and the Tree Protection Plan need some additional revisions, including verifying the edge of concrete work in relation to trees, shifting the concrete washout station away from the critical root zone of a tree and substituting plants based on the size or species comments. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that outstanding comments can be reviewed for compliance when building permits are applied for. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. The height, setbacks and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design 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 the applicant addresses outstanding Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan comments as outlined in the February 3, 2017 letter prepared by the City’s contracted landscape architect; revised plans are to be reviewed for compliance by staff and the City’s contracted landscape architect prior to the issuance of building permits.
Mr. Boerding informed the members that they have received MSD approval of their plan. He asked if there were any questions.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the steep drop off toward the east; he asked about run-off.
Mr. Boerding indicated that they will be mitigating additional flow with an infiltration trench.
8 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there will be a pop-up emitter.
Mr. Boerding replied “yes”.
Joanne Boulton asked the width of the driveway.
Mr. Boerding replied “just under 10 feet”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the width of the garage door.
Mr. Boerding replied “8 feet”.
Ron Reim commented that it seems challenging.
Joanne Boulton commented that the corner downspout might have a short lifespan due to car backing issues. She asked about the temporary sediment trap.
Mr. Boerding stated that it will only be there during construction. A discussion regarding drainage ensued.
Ben Uchitelle, Clayton resident, questioned the capability of a large vehicle, such as an SUV, accessing the garage.
Mr. Boerding stated that he believes the garage can be accessed without hitting something.
Chairman Lichtenfeld recommended widening the driveway; noting the coverage limitations.
Joanne Boulton commented that it’s a lot of house for the lot size.
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 architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes stated the home to the north (340 North Forsyth Boulevard) was constructed in 1949 and is +/- 8.95 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The existing home to the south (330 North Forsyth Boulevard) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 9.69 feet shorter than proposed home. As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, to avoid tall, blocky building forms, new structures shall incorporate a transition in height and scale through one of six possible techniques. The applicant has implemented one of the permitted strategies to mitigate the height difference to the south and is requesting Alternative Compliance for mitigating the height difference to the north. According to
9 the applicant, the following permitted technique is used to mitigate the height difference to the south: “Increasing the side yard setback one foot for every five feet the height of the structure exceeds the height of the adjacent structure at the side yard.” The required side yard setbacks are 5 feet and a minimum 6.9 foot setback on the south side would be needed to meet the mitigation technique. The proposed setback is 10 feet on the south side. The applicant is requesting that the following technique be permitted as a form of Alternative Compliance for mitigating the height difference between the proposed house and the existing home to the north: a hip roof. The applicant has provided the following rationale for the requested mitigation strategy: “While our 2 story home design is approximately 9 feet taller than the immediate adjacent properties, there are new 2 story houses that have also been constructed in the neighborhood that are similar in height and massing to the home we are proposing. We have kept the height less than 30 feet (as required) and utilized a 6:12 (hipped) roof pitch – which is similar to the roof pitch (and overhangs) of adjacent homes. In addition, extensive brick design and detailing minimizes the appearance of all façades, and specifically reduces the massing on the front façade to a more human scale. The one (1) story protected entry into the home further enhances the importance of this scale – and is consistent with adjacent properties.” Staff is of the opinion that the hip roof does reduce the impact of the proposed two story house by eliminating the gables under the roof line that often add to the perceived height of homes. Evergreen plantings are also proposed along the northern elevation, which will provide a buffer between the homes. Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones. The primary building material for the proposed home is red brick (Bordeaux-acme). The roof will be clad in asphalt shingles, charcoal grey in color and dark brown casement windows are proposed. A 9.5-foot wide paved driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a detached garage located in the southeast corner of the rear yard. The garage will be constructed of red brick (Bordeaux-acme) and charcoal grey roof shingles to match the primary structure with a sandstone-colored paneled garage door. A 6-foot tall wood (cedar) sight-proof fence is proposed enclosing the rear yard. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Glantz asked if there were any questions.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it’s a good-looking house and agrees that the hip roof helps with the mass. He added that the City will see more 2-story houses in the neighborhood.
Ron Reim agreed that the hip roof is a good solution.
Scott Wilson asked if the 3 story deck on the rear is cedar.
Mr. Glantz replied “yes”.
10 Scott Wilson asked if they considered an alternate material for the deck; that it’s a gorgeous house with a bunch of wood on the back.
Joanne Boulton asked the color of the grout.
Mr. Glantz replied “natural/gray”.
Samples of the brick and roofing material were presented.
Josh Corson commented that the plans show only one exterior light; above the front door.
Mr. Glantz stated that they will add more exterior lighting where necessary.
Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Mr. Glantz to check with staff before installing.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they plan to begin construction.
Mr. Glantz indicated that they plan to start as soon as possible.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 1 TUSCANY PARK
Lauren Strutman, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were David Volz, civil engineer and Derrick Sun, owner.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the construction of a 4,107-square- foot single-family residence not including the 793-square-foot attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 28 feet 6.75 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The surrounding properties contain single-family homes. The project meets the setback, height, and impervious coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. The proposed path of the driveway connects to Tuscany Park in the southeast corner of the property and heads north through the front yard toward the front door of the proposed house. Then the driveway turns west and runs parallel to the house before again turning north and widening into a large turn- around pad in front of the 3-car attached garage along the western elevation of the proposed house. The proposed path of the driveway will result in the removal of multiple existing trees. The driveway path will also enable front yard parking, which is not permissible without a conditional use permit. Staff is of the opinion that a more direct driveway path connecting to Tuscany Park in the western portion of the property and heading north to a narrowed turn-around pad would result in a front yard design more fitting of the neighborhood character and would allow multiple existing trees to be preserved. The plans show the HVAC units located along the east elevation of the
11 proposed house. The units will be screened by a 4-foot tall fence to the north, east and south. Trash will be stored in a 42-square-foot trash enclosure located just north of the driveway, along the western elevation of the proposed house. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence along the north, south and west sides, with a gate provided from the driveway. Impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent of the total lot area and 45 percent of the front yard in the R-2 zoning district. The existing total lot impervious coverage on site is 46.2 percent. The new plans decrease the total lot impervious coverage to 37.7 percent. The proposed plan will cover 25.3 percent of the front yard. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute storm calculation is 0.97 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.91 CFS, which represents a 0.06 CFS decrease. All downspouts and the sump-pump discharge will be piped to the proposed pop-up emitter in the front yard. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable, but notes that the applicant is responsible for mitigating any discharge from the pop-up emitter that creates a public nuisance after construction. Multiple existing trees on the property have already been removed from the site. The applicant is proposing removing three additional trees that are listed in good condition. The existing Pin Oak located in the front yard is proposed to be removed due to the proposed driveway placement. The existing tree is 24 caliper inches and provides 2,827-square-feet of canopy coverage. Although this tree is not a street tree, it does contribute to the street tree environment and the character of the front yard. As proposed, the Landscape Plan only provides one tree in front of the house, located at the southwestern corner of the lot. The City’s contracted landscape architect also has concerns that the proposed driveway will negatively impact the structural root zones of existing volunteer trees (including a street tree along Big Bend Boulevard), which are marked to remain. Due to their interconnected root systems, removal of one or more of these trees to accommodate the proposed design will require them all to be removed. The additional removals will result in the canopy coverage on site falling below the requirements and will require the replacement of the lost street tree. It is the opinion of the City’s contracted landscape architect that most of the significant/good existing trees on the site are being removed or have already been removed and additional tree protection should be provided. Revising the route and location of the proposed driveway would allow the existing trees in question to remain and canopy coverage requirements to be met. Relocating the driveway connection to Tuscany Park west of the Pin Oak Tree would allow for the preservation of this landmark tree and a more direct path to the garage, which is also more consistent with the neighborhood character. Narrowing the turn-around pad in front of the garage would limit work in the structural root zones of existing trees allowing for preservation of street trees along Big Bend Boulevard. Revisions to the Landscaping Plan and Tree Protection Plan are required beyond the issues outlined previously. Revisions based on comments from the City’s contracted landscape architect include corrections to the Tree Chart, adjustments to the location of tree protection fencing and identifying/correcting structural root zones. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that these outstanding issues can be addressed and reviewed for compliance during the building permit process. Exterior lighting is proposed at all exterior doors and at the garage. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. 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, but the Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan need revision. The
12 proposed driveway and front yard do not fit the exiting character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval with conditions to make the design more compatible with the neighborhood and recommends as follows: to approve with the following conditions, to be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit:
1. That the applicant relocates the driveway to the west of the existing Pin Oak Tree resulting in a design more compatible with the neighborhood character and the preservation of the existing tree labeled EX1. 2. That the applicant revises the driveway footprint, removing the paved portion within the structural root zones of the existing trees along Big Bend Boulevard in order to preserve and protect the existing trees labeled EX5, EX6 and EX7. 3. That the applicant addresses outstanding Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan comments outlined in the February 13, 2017 letter prepared by the City’s contracted landscape architect; revised plans are to be reviewed for compliance by the City’s contracted landscape architect prior to the issuance of building permits.
Ms. Strutman presented the site plan to the members. She referred to a recent recommendation they received to relocate the HVAC units to the west side of the house, which she feels is a good idea and so the units will be moved. She noted that the total lot coverage is being decreased and that they have subdivision trustee approval.
Mr. Volz presented maps depicting existing and proposed drainage.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is a pop-up emitter in the southeast corner of the property.
Mr. Volz replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that pop-ups are generally more centrally located.
Mr. Volz indicated that it is 10-feet from the property line.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that if the driveway moves, the pop-up could be relocated as well.
Bill Weishaar, Jr., (Landscape Architect; Baxter Gardens), stated that he thinks the Pin Oak tree will die anyway due to construction.
Joanne Boulton commented that Tuscany Park has a specific look and this much driveway is not part of that look. She reminded everyone that Tuscany Park is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Volz commented that the garage is where it needs to be on the site.
13 A long discussion ensued about the location of the driveway and the trees; including the trees along Big Bend Boulevard, which are not City trees.
Mr. Weishaar, Jr., stated that their landscape plan meets the City’s requirements.
Chairman Lichtenfeld informed the applicant that the driveway will need to be moved.
Discussion continued regarding landscaping.
Susan Istenes stated that staff is happy to work with the applicant, but designing “on the fly” is not desirable. She added that there is an issue of canopy coverage as well since existing trees were used in the coverage calculations.
Joanne Boulton asked if it would be preferable to table this item.
Susan Istenes stated that she likes that idea.
Mr.Weishaar, Jr., commented that they still exceed the canopy coverage requirement.
Joanne Boulton stated that time is needed to address these issues before voting.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Joanne Boulton made a motion to table this item (site plan review). The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
Joanne Boulton then made a motion to table the architectural aspects of the proposal. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
CONCEPTUAL/PRELIMINARY PRESENTATION – 7601-7651 CLAYTON ROAD MIXED- USE PROJECT
Jim Fredericks, attorney representing the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Laurel Stone (5G Studio) project architect, Sal LeCesse and Ben Owenell, developers.
Susan Istenes stated that the 3.3-acre site is located along the southern city limits at the southeast corner of Clayton Road and Hanley Road. The property has an existing zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Medium Density Multiple family (R-6). The R-6 portion of property (eastern half) is also governed by the Westwood Corridor Overlay District. The property is improved with a 33,000 square foot single story building and a parking lot. The building was most recently used as a Schnuck’s grocery store until 2003 when it was vacated, and has been vacant since that time. The property will be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), wherein development standards will be adopted that are specific to the project. She explained that
14 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 and retail space. The residential component sits on 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 298 rental apartments (154 one-bedroom units, 144 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 retail (retail/restaurant/grocery); 754 parking spaces serve the entire project.
She reminded everyone that this is conceptual review only and that nothing that is said is binding.
[The following information/details regarding the project were not provided during the meeting; however, in an effort to provide more specifics, the following information was included in staff’s report and is being included in these minutes: 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 Avenue 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 the Clayton downtown. 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, the 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 which will be considered at the March 6, 2017 meeting). Surrounding properties are constructed with 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, however, staff believes the proposed use of 6 different colors and multiple building materials it is excessive, given the more traditional design of surrounding properties (see examples provided). 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 both red brick veneer and a cast limestone veneer. Secondary materials include: Wood grained cement board, stucco textured Hardie paneling with metal trim, and a variety of colors of stucco textured Hardie panels and metal roofing. Each building façade expresses both horizontal and vertical articulation through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms.
15 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, building piers, and metal canopies. A semicircular tower feature is proposed at the southwest corner of the building and a proposed public art piece will be located at the same corner to increase the buildings’ presence and grandeur at the important gateway intersection to downtown. The semicircular tower feature, pierced with balcony openings, on the southwest corner of the building (Clayton Road and Hanley Road), while intended to provide a signature gateway entrance to Clayton, is disharmonious with the rest of the proposed project and with the prevailing architectural character of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. The Hanley Road and Clayton Road ground floor façade features pedestrian-scale storefront architecture. The applicant proposes vision glazing in all storefronts except in instances where the grocery store’s 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. Insufficient detail of the southeast corner of the project (Clayton Road and Westwood Drive) is provided. This is an important area pertaining to a compatible and contextual relationship to existing buildings. A full architectural review of this project cannot be completed until a 3D rendering of this corner is provided. 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.]
Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures provided the following changes are incorporated. Staff recommends further consideration be given to this project at the March 6, 2017 meeting, after the recommended changes have been made:
1. All ground floor glazing shall be visually transparent storefronts with clear glass windows and doors that are not blocked by storage, racks, or shelving against the glass.
2. Provide a 3D perspective rendering of the corner of Westwood Drive and Clayton Road, clearly illustrating the design, character, and materiality of the project and its relationship to the neighboring multi-family residential buildings on Westwood Drive.
3. Revise elevations and renderings where the protruding balcony bays currently designated as “Stucco Textured Dark Grey Hardie Panel with Aluminum Trim” and reclassify as Brick Veneer. A complimentary lighter- or darker-colored brick would be appropriate to provide visual variety in the façade.
16
4. Revise plans, elevations, and rendering showing a new tower element design at the southwest corner of the project at Hanley Road and Clayton Road, similar to what is illustrated in Figure 1.1. per the recommendations of H3 (attached). Figure 1.1 illustrates a brick- and stone-clad, rectilinear tower with window openings that correspond with adjacent building fenestration. An alternative and more contemporary approach that could also provide a harmonious tower element would be a rectilinear corner tower (as illustrated in Figure 1.1), but clad in a glass curtain wall. This would provide an impactful, signature entrance and could provide opportunities for unique signage and lighting opportunities for the building.
5. Stucco panels should be limited to the top story of the building only. Stucco panels and stucco finish should not be used on other building elements, including retaining walls.
6. The proposed Cordova stone (or similar) shall be predominantly Chisel or Rock faced in style.
7. Limit the number of colors of all building material to no more than four (4).
Mr. Fredericks stated that the property has been vacant since 2002 and that this may be the 8th development proposal the City has seen since then. He stated that the timing is perfect; real estate is hot right now and interest rates are down. He stated that their proposed project is for the construction of a 7-story, mixed-use building including a restaurant, 41,000 square feet of commercial and 298 residential units; 154 of which will be 1 bedroom and 154 will be 2 bedroom. The project also consists of a 3-story, 734 parking space garage and 20 spaces along Hanley Road. He informed the members that he lives on Westmoreland and has talked to neighbors about this project. He stated that he believes the City generally supports this project and reminded the members of the public benefits being offered, including the demolition of a blighted building, providing a grocery store, high quality construction, a project that blends-in with its surroundings, an energy efficient building, substantial landscaping and a public art piece by Albert Paley for which $150,000 has been allocated.
Ms. Stone asked if there were any questions.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the site is iconic and a main artery into Clayton. He stated that he feels the project needs a complimentary transition between the Westwood neighborhood and Hanley Road and doesn’t see this as an iconic piece of architecture to enhance this corner.
Ms. Stone referred to the corner tower element, stating it will bring height and prominence to the corner, which will include an area for outdoor dining and a place for artwork.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how this project relates to the Hanley Road District.
17 Ms. Stone referred to the limestone, brick and height of 7 stories, as well as raising the corner to give it an end-post to the intersection. She informed the members that they just received staff’s report on Friday and the suggestion made by the City to make the corner more rectangular can be accommodated.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that it would be an improvement over the circular element.
Susan Istenes informed the members that Tim Breihan of H3 (City’s contracted architectural firm) is here to answer questions as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned how motorists will get in and out of the site safely especially during rush hour; referring to when Schnuck’s was operational. He asked about the County’s comments as both Hanley Road and Clayton Road are County (not the City of Clayton) streets/roads. He noted that it seems as though a lot of traffic ends up on Westwood.
Ms. Stone indicated that they are working with St. Louis County.
Mr. LeCesse stated that last Thursday, a meeting was held with City staff and Crawford, Bunte & Brammeier (CBB) representatives and many issues were resolved.
Joanne Boulton asked about the public benefits being offered in conjunction with this project. She asked if LEED certification will be sought.
Ms. Stone indicated that they are not planning on pursuing LEED certification. She referred to a reduction in heat levels by way of landscaping and cool roofing.
Mr. LeCesse referred to Green Building Council and stated that energy studies are being done.
Joanne Boulton asked what measure/level they hope to achieve.
Mr. LeCesse indicated that he does not know at this time.
Joanne Boulton informed Mr. LeCesse that a measure/level will be needed if this is to be considered a public benefit. She then informed Mr. Le Cesse that the public art piece will also need to go before the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) and this Board for approval.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the structure is concrete or wood frame.
Mr. LeCesse stated that it is a wood frame above a concrete podium.
At this time, staff’s recommendations were addressed:
18 Mr. LeCesse stated that there will be equipment in the grocery store that will want to be screened from view; they will have a 3D presentation at the March 6th meeting; brick is not a good choice for the balconies as they cantilever out-he asked that they remain stucco/fiber cement as proposed- stucco panels are needed for contrast; they don’t want to limit stucco to only the top as they believe that would be too monolithic; they will reduce the number of materials to four; a sample of the proposed stone was shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if staff has an issue with the texture or size of the stone panels.
Susan Istenes stated that staff’s concern is that when the stone panels are added to brick, the building becomes very flat and monolithic; staff wants a building with more depth and character, not institutional.
Ron Reim emphasized how important the details of the building are and it seems as though this proposal leans more towards lower cost and maintenance. He stated he’s not sure the proposed design is where it needs to be for this corner; he envisioned a much taller building at the corner/intersection.
Mr. LeCesse stated that initially, the building was 15-18 stories, but was reduced in height for the residents in Hanley Towers (900 South Hanley). He asked what the City is looking for and stated his desire to incorporate whatever design features the City collectively wants. He stated that the development also has to be financially feasible.
Ron Reim commented that brick and stone are long lasting materials and suggested the possibility of changing the cement to another brick color.
Mr. LeCesse stated that the number of materials was driven by the length of the building. He added that they would like to retain the cement, but could change the wood panels to another brick color.
Ron Reim asked what material is proposed for the round element.
Ms. Stone indicated that it’s currently a metal panel, but that will go away.
Ron Reim commented that the tops of the building look like huts and he’d like those elements to be improved. He stated that he would be in favor of a taller building.
Mr. LeCesse asked what the members thought about a clock tower.
Josh Corson replied that could be interesting.
Joanne Boulton stated that the artwork should be the prominent feature.
19 Josh Corson asked about parking for the grocery store.
Mr. LeCesse stated that a grocery store is needed for this project. He stated that resident only access will be off Westwood; there will be no access to retail parking from Westwood. He added that they believe the project is well-parked.
Ron Reim asked about truck access. He noted that trucks enter the alley off Westwood and drive around the back of the building.
Craig Owens commented that the tops/caps are not there yet (with regard to design). He made reference to The Crescent, which contains less than 5 materials and doesn’t seem so “cut-up”. He suggested using a real roof on this project.
Mr. LeCesse stated that they want to avoid a flat façade with punched openings.
Chairman Lichtenfeld informed the applicant that the City is very interested in developing this property; however, he still sees problems with the proposal, such as its trendy and contemporary design which doesn’t fit here. He noted that in addition, the proposal seems to be financially driven which the City cannot consider when reviewing proposals. He added that the building doesn’t have any relation to either the low rise buildings in the Moorlands or the area high rise buildings. He suggested by lowering the building at the east end and raising it on the west, it would make a better statement and contextually fit in better. He noted that this is the highest point in the City; with views to 270 and to the Arch. He stated he feels there is a missing opportunity here and looks forward to the next presentation/proposal.
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION – MIXED-USE PROJECT - 8049 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Brandon Bogan, developer (Flaherty & Collins) and Chuck Hall, project architect (Stewart & Stewart), were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for conceptual review of a mixed-use project. The 0.86-acre site is bounded by North Brentwood Boulevard to the west, Forsyth Boulevard to the south, and a public alley to both the north and the east. The property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District and is within the Downtown Core Overlay District. The site is currently improved with a surface parking lot. 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 property is currently owned by the City of Clayton. In April of 2015, the City released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for development of this site. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing parking lot and the construction of a 474,285-square-foot, 24-story mixed-use building containing 7,800-square-feet of ground floor retail space, 264 residential units and a 373-space parking structure. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of stucco, metal panels and concrete with the ground floor being a window-wall assembly. Access to the parking structure on site is proposed from the existing north-south alley off of Forsyth Boulevard
20 and from the existing east-west alley off of Brentwood 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. This project qualifies by proposing retail, residential and parking uses. The property is also 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.” 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. The Partial Residential Level R1 and the Premium Residential Levels R21-R22 do not show the detail of floor plans that the other residential levels do. Are all the units being rented or are some available for purchase and customization? 2. Consider using the front façade along Brentwood Boulevard to foster a comfortable pedestrian environment by providing areas of refuge and architectural features to break up the length of the building wall. 3. Provide areas for outdoor seating and dining areas for the first floor commercial tenants.
Public Works
1. There are some line of sight issues for cars exiting the alleys onto Brentwood Boulevard and Forsyth Boulevard.
Mr. Bogan stated that they are excited to be here and look forward to this opportunity.
A PowerPoint presentation began. A rendering of the proposed building was shown. Mr. Bogan indicated that the site (at the intersection of Forsyth and Brentwood Boulevards) is challenging. He added that the project includes 7,800 square feet of ground floor retail, 7 levels of parking and 1 and 2 bedroom apartment units. He stated it is their intention to build-out all apartment units. He added that the top floor will contain amenity space including a pool and fitness center.
21 Slides depicting various building elevations were shown. Mr. Bogan noted that the parking levels are pre-cast concrete. He reminded everyone that there is 7,800 square feet of retail, 264 apartment units and 373 parking spaces. Slides depicting a rendering of the building as viewed from the intersection and a rendering at the street level retail was also shown. Mr. Bogan indicated that the 5-foot setback would have to be eliminated to provide an area for outdoor dining.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested providing a covering on the south and west elevations to provide protection from the sun.
Mr. Bogan stated that they are very open to that and that outdoor dining is a huge amenity.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that this is almost an iconic building; it’s clean and positively reflects its context, it makes good use of materials and has views of the park and makes good use of the alleys. He asked about the neighboring site.
Mr. Bogan stated that they looked to engage but could not come to terms.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the balconies on the east side could face an 8 to 9 story building.
Joanne Boulton asked what the Chairman was referring to.
Craig Owens informed the members that today the City received conceptual plans for a project on the adjacent property (8015-27 Forsyth Boulevard).
Josh Corson asked if the residential units will be apartments or condos.
Mr. Bogan replied “apartments”.
Josh Corson asked about drop-offs.
Mr. Bogan stated that they may look at striping off an area along Forsyth for Uber or a taxi or the like.
Note: Josh Corson left the meeting (8:45 p.m.).
Joanne Boulton asked about sustainability, i.e. LEED.
Mr. Bogan indicated that has not yet been discussed.
Joanne Boulton suggested that they do discuss sustainability.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there are mechanical units on the west façade between the balconies.
22
Mr. Bogan replied “yes”. He noted that there is a privacy divider wall between the apartments that will easily hide the 18-inch wide by 2-foot tall units.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the HVAC units will drain back inside the building.
Mr. Bogan replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the depth of the balconies.
Mr. Bogan indicated that they are 5.5-feet deep.
Ron Reim stated that they did a good job with this project; the use of glass is good.
Scott Wilson asked if Centene is similar.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “no”, noting that Centene is curtain wall.
It was mentioned that the Skyhouse in Dallas is of similar material.
Mr. Bogan stated that this one is a bit cleaner as it has fewer vertical lines.
Joanne Boulton stated that she likes it.
Gary Feder, attorney with Husch Blackwell, representing KP Development, owners of 8027 Forsyth Boulevard , confirmed that conceptual plans were submitted to the City today that would fill in the block and that he believes that these two projects can be compatible and they look forward to making their conceptual presentation as well [at the March 6th meeting].
Marilyn O’day, manager of 34 North Brentwood Boulevard, voiced concerns regarding parking. She indicated that she was led to believe that the 120 spaces (number of spaces on the City parking lot currently) would be incorporated into this project.
Mr. Bogan stated that a preliminary parking study was conducted by CBB and that overall, there is only a small reduction in parking and that they would not be served by not providing parking.
Craig Owens asked if they will be replacing the public parking.
Mr. Bogan replied “yes”.
Linda Smith, resident of Maryland Walk (8025 Maryland Avenue), voiced her concerns regarding traffic and parking, noting her interest in the impact traffic will have on the area and hopes that other new construction projects are considered when doing these studies.
23
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the CBB report will be made available and that they (CBB) do almost all of these type studies for Clayton, so they are aware of development projects and do the studies in context with them.
Craig Owens stated that CBB will analyze the totality of all projects and that the City hires CBB to do these studies, so CBB is working for the City, not the developer, although the developers do reimburse the City for the cost of these studies.
Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
_______________________________ Recording Secretary