June 6, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
JUNE 6, 2016
The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met upon the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:
Present: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager Josh Corson Sherry Eisenberg Pepe Finn * (left meeting at 6:25 p.m.)
Absent: Ron Reim
Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney
Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld asked that all cell phone ringers be turned off, that conversations take place outside the meeting room and that those who wish to speak approach the podium and to be sure the green light on the microphone is on for proper recording of this meeting.
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 16, 2016 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – 101 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD (CAPITAL GRILLE) – TABLED AT A PREVIOUS MEETING
Art McIntosh, Capital Grille’s Brand Design Manager, and Shawn Smith, sign contractor, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that on May 2, 2016, the Architectural Review Board approved the design and materials associated with the construction of an addition for a new restaurant tenant, and tabled the request for signage. A revised sign package has been submitted by the applicant that shows an overall reduction in the square footage of signage. The proposed signs (listed in the following
2 chart) exceed the allowable size permitted by the Sign Regulations and will require approval of a sign modification. The wall signs are constructed of silver/nickel channel letters and are halo- illuminated.
Location/ Facade Type Permitted signage Size (5/2) Difference (5/2) Size (6/6) Difference (6/6) Carondelet Ave.-Front Wall & Front Entrance Stone Plinths Wall Sign, Wall Plaques (2) 25 sf (total for façade) 77.3 sf (wall sign), 4 sf (wall plaques) +56.3 sf (225%) 32.5 sf (wall sign), 4 sf (wall plaques) +11.4 sf (46%) Front door- Carondelet Ave. Decal 3 sf 4.59 sf +1.59 sf (53%) 4.59 sf +1.59 sf (53%) Front Wall- Hanley Rd. Wall Sign 25 sf 98 sf +73 sf (292%) 44.88 sf +19.88 sf (79%) Parking Structure- Hanley Rd. Wall Sign 25 sf 51.52 sf +26.52 sf (106%) 27.84 sf +2.84 sf (11%)
The front wall signs for the previous tenant measure 45 square feet combined.
The proposed signs feature high quality design and materials. With the exception of the tenant panel on the existing monument sign, the signs exceed the allowable size permitted and the regulations state that modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. The applicant has provided their justification for the requested sign modifications in writing and is included with the packet. The following are points paraphrased from the applicant’s submittal:
• “The Capital Grille” brand name is comprised of three words which makes adhering to a small allotment of square footage difficult. • The signage size is calculated using a single rectangle around the entire sign which is deceiving because the signs are comprised of capital and lower case letters. Dead-space (non-signage area) is included in the total sign size. • The wall sign facing Carondelet Avenue does not exceed 5% of the front wall area. • The east elevation facing Hanley Road is unique due to its separation from the corner as well as changes in grade. • The parking structure wall is currently void of identification and the sign is intended to aesthetically dress the wall and assist motorists in locating the parking. • The site overall is unique due to the grade change along Hanley Road.
3
In staff’s opinion, the applicant has identified unusual conditions primarily with the design of the signs themselves, not with the building or site. The building is highly visible from Hanley Road and Carondelet Avenue, and staff is of the opinion that the number and size of the proposed signs is not compatible with the character of the surrounding area and therefore, recommends denial of the requested sign modifications.
Mr. Smith stated that they are back again with modified plans; noting that they have considerably reduced the signage they are requesting. He stated that Sign E has been relocated to the parking structure entry along South Hanley and is now only 2.84 square feet over the allowable size of 25 square feet; (Signs A-D face Carondelet Avenue)-Sign A has been reduced to be comparable in size to Sign D (24” channel letters each); Sign C (vinyl door decal) and Sign B they consider ancillary signs [Sign F (tenant panel sign} is a non-issue. He stated that they are 56 square feet over what’s allowed by Code; however, if the ancillary signs are excluded for that calculation, that overage would be reduced by 11.4 square feet. He advised the members that this amount of signage is less than used for this market and that their locations in Kansas City & Chicago have far more signage. He added that if this were a stand-alone building, he feels this new proposal is a good compromise and respectfully asked for approval.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he believes that Sign E is still in the wrong place; it is not where the restaurant’s customers will park.
Mr. Smith agreed, noting however that this sign gives people advance notice to get into the left turn lane.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where their customers will enter the parking area.
Mr. Smith replied “ideally off Hanley”; noting that valet will take place on Carondelet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned if the building owner is okay with entering off Hanley.
Mr. McIntosh asked if Chairman Lichtenfeld is proposing moving Sign E further south.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “no”; adding that he does not believe it belongs on Hanley Road at all.
Mr. McIntosh asked if he thinks it belongs along Bonhomme Avenue.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it should be where patrons enter.
Mr. Smith agreed that if Hanley is not the entrance, then he agrees it should be moved.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he believes this to be over-signed; there are too many signs.
4
Mr. McIntosh asked about moving Sign E to the south side entrance.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that could be considered. He referred to staff’s report in that the signs are oversized. He noted that Bonhomme Avenue is a slow moving street compared to Hanley Road.
Mark Winings stated that he does not understand the Hanley Road signs.
Sherry Eisenberg commented that Sign A seems to fit in with the elevation but that Sign D seems oversized.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Sign D is curved.
Mr. McIntosh replied “yes”. He referred to Page 12 of the submittal; noting that this is a key sign for them. He reminded everyone that “The Grill” letters are smaller.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed that this is the most prominent sign; however, there is more glass above and below than what appears on Page 6.
Mr. Smith informed the members that the line drawing is not an accurate representation.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the goal is to have letters that “float”.
Mr. Smith replied “yes”.
Sherry Eisenberg stated that she would like consistency between Signs A and D.
Mr. Smith assured the members that if it doesn’t look good, it will come down. He added that the intention is that the glass “disappear”, especially at night.
Pepe Finn voiced her concern regarding a reflection off the glass.
After a lengthy discussion back and forth regarding the various proposed signs, it was noted that the sign on the door is translucent and that the requested signage is still over the sign allotment.
Mark Winings made a motion to approve the signs with the condition that the staff review and approve Signs C (confirm translucency) & E (relocation to south side and resize). The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the Board.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 639 LANGTON
5 Lauren Strutman, project architect and David Volz, project civil engineer, were in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were the homeowners.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for consideration of a site plan associated with the proposed construction of a 1-story, 2,420-square-foot (excluding the basement) single-family residence with an attached, rear-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 19 feet 1/8 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located at the rear of the home and screened by a wood fence. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located adjacent to the driveway and will be screened by a wood fence and gate. The Clayshire 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 attached, at-grade, rear-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 41.7 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 46.2 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculations, is 0.68 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.7 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.01 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, two downspouts on the rear of the home will be piped to a drywell in the rear yard. All other downspouts will be piped to two pop up bubblers in the front and rear yards. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials and ground covers that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape plan shows the removal of 112 caliper inches of deciduous trees, of which 106 caliper inches requires replacement, and proposes 106 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The site plan states that all driveways, sidewalks, curbs and gutters are to be installed in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Public Works Department. Exterior lights are proposed above the garage and exterior doors and will not exceed 75 watts. Susan noted that the height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayshire Subdivision Urban Design District. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan features a variety of plant material that is appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the condition that to ensure the future maintenance and operation of the rain garden, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County, and submit proof of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Strutman presented the proposed site plan to the members. She explained that this is a new one story home in Clayshire on a level lot that will feature a rear entry garage and one AC unit on the south side of the home.
Mr. Volz presented a color rendering map of the existing drainage and the proposed drainage. He noted that there are 3 pop-ups; 2 in the rear.
6
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that his color renderings/maps are very helpful. He added that they haven’t seen a single-story home here.
Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited additional comments.
None were received.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if staff’s recommendation of approval was acceptable.
Ms. Strutman replied “yes”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve the site plan with staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Pepe Finn and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the basic massing of the proposed home is articulated on all sides with windows, doors, accent materials, and variations in roof forms. The home to the south (645 Langton) was constructed in 1951 and is +/- 7 feet 5 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The home to the north (633 Langton) was constructed in 1949 and is +/- 6 feet 6 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). As required by Section 410.385 of the Clayshire Subdivision 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. According to the applicant, the proposed design increases 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 southern side yard setback has been increased an additional 1 feet 6 inches, and the northern side yard setback has been increased an additional 2 feet 6 inches. Clayshire Subdivision has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is light tan brick with stone accents. The proposed roof is clad in slate grey colored architectural asphalt shingles. White casement and double-hung windows are proposed. A 9.5-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the east side of the home that leads to a rear-entry, at-grade attached garage with a white garage door. No new fencing or retailing walls are proposed at this time. Susan noted that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayshire Subdivision Urban Design District, that 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.
Ms. Strutman presented a color rendering of the proposed home to the members. Material samples were also presented.
7 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the driveway is on the north side.
Ms. Strutman replied “yes”. She noted that the home is a traditional style home with a slate colored roof and white windows. A context elevation drawing was presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the home fits very well in the area.
Josh Corson agreed and added that it blends well with the 2-story next door as well.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Pepe Finn and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed the owners to the neighborhood.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 327 NORTH FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Note: Pepe Finn left the meeting (6:25 p.m.).
Lauren Strutman, project architect and David Volz, project civil engineer, were in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Scott Mehlman, developer.
Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing one- story home and the construction of a 2-story, 4,058-square-foot (excluding the basement) single- family residence with an attached, rear-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29 feet 10 5/8 inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located at the north side of the home and screened by a wood fence. Trash will be stored in a 40-square-foot trash enclosure located adjacent to the driveway and will also be screened by a wood fence and gate. 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 attached, at-grade, rear-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 55.5 percent. The new plans decrease the impervious coverage to 51 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.5 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.49 CFS, which represents a decrease in 0.01 CFS; therefore, storm water mitigation is not required. All downspouts will be piped to two pop up bubblers in the front and rear yards. The Public Works Department finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of plant material that is appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape plan shows the removal of 3 caliper inches of deciduous trees which require replacement, and proposes 11.5 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. Existing trees that may be
8 impacted are shown to be protected and preserved in accordance with the City’s guidelines. Exterior lights are proposed above the garage and exterior doors and will not exceed 75 watts. Susan stated that 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 a variety of plant material that is 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 as submitted.
Ms. Strutman explained that they are following existing grades and that the home features a rear entry, tuck-under garage, the AC units are on the north side of the house and that they are fitting the driveway in in-between two street trees. A site plan was shown.
Mr. Volz presented a color rendering/map depicting existing storm water drainage and proposed storm water drainage; noting that there are 2 pop-ups; one in the front yard and one in the rear yard. He stated that the plan results in a decrease of run-off and reduced flow onto neighboring property.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if shade trees are being removed or planted.
Ms. Strutman replied “no”.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Sherry Eisenberg and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the home to the south (323 Forsyth) was constructed in 2006 and is +/- 1 foot shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). The home to the north (333 Forsyth) was constructed in 1947 and is +/- 8 feet 4 inches shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). 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. According to the applicant, the proposed design increases 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 northern side yard setback has been increased an additional 4 feet 6 inches, and the side yard setback on the south side has been increased an additional 10 feet 2 inches. Clayton Gardens has traditionally been dominated by the use of standard size brick in a variety of red tones, although the original brick has been painted in some instances. The primary building material for the proposed home is brick painted white with stone accents. The proposed roof is clad in “charcoal blend” colored architectural asphalt shingles. Black casement windows are proposed. A 9-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a rear-entry, at-grade attached garage with a tan garage door. A new fence is not proposed at this time. A low Belgard
9 Celtic retaining wall is proposed along the south side of the driveway. Susan concluded by stating that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. 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.
A color rendering and material samples were presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is a buyer for the property.
Scott Mehlman replied “not as of now”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it fits in very good to the changing area; he noted the abundance of windows.
Ms. Strutman stated that they don’t like blank walls if possible.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when the plan to begin construction.
Ms. Strutman replied “this summer”.
CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION – CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS – 101- 105 CARONDELET PLAZA, 7440-7528, 7600-7606, 7630-7642 FORSYTH BOULEVARD, 14-20 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD, 10 SOUTH LYLE AVENUE
Bob Clark, construction manager (Clayco) was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance representing Centene were Bill Richmuth, Chris Reutershan (Cushman & Wakefield; project manager), Gyo Obata (HOK; lead architect), and Larry Chapman.
Susan Istenes stated that the subject properties are located east of Hanley Road and South of Forsyth Boulevard and total 6.5 acres. 7440 Forsyth Boulevard is located in University City. All properties are vacant with the exception of 7600-7606 Forsyth Boulevard which is occupied by a 2- story office building. At this time the applicant has not submitted any plans to the City and plans will be presented at the meeting. The application states that the mixed-use project includes office space, a corporate multipurpose training center, a corporate lodging facility, a corporate auditorium, a corporate fitness center, ground level retail, residential housing, and parking structures.
10 Current Zoning
Current Zoning. Subject properties outlined in red.
The following list of development standards is not exhaustive and may be subject to change. Development standards may be modified or waived through the Special Development District (SDD) process.
7454 7510- 7518 Forsyth, 101-105 Carondelet 7520-7528 7634 Forsyth, 10 S Lyle 7600-7606 Forsyth 7630-7642 Forsyth 12-20 S Hanley Base Zoning District HDC C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 Overlay Zoning District Forsyth TOD (east of Lyle) Forsyth TOD (east of Lyle) Forsyth TOD (west of Lyle) Forsyth TOD (west of Lyle) Clayton Plaza Ground Floor Use Restriction Buildings fronting Forsyth or Hanley must contain first floor retail. Parking lots Buildings fronting Forsyth or Hanley must contain first floor retail. Parking lots Buildings fronting Forsyth or Hanley must contain first floor retail. Parking lots Buildings fronting Forsyth or Hanley must contain first floor retail. Parking lots None
11 and garages without ground floor retail are permitted only by conditional use permit. and garages without ground floor retail are permitted only by conditional use permit. and garages without ground floor retail are permitted only by conditional use permit. and garages without ground floor retail are permitted only by conditional use permit. Maximum Height No maximum No maximum 7 stories or 90' (lesser). For buildings permitted to exceed the maximum height, a 15’ foot stepback (upper story building setback) shall be provided beginning at the third story level or 30 feet above grade (lesser). 7 stories or 90' (lesser). For buildings permitted to exceed the maximum height, a 15’ foot stepback (upper story building setback) shall be provided beginning at the third story level or 30 feet above grade (lesser). No maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) To encourage density, the minimum FAR is 3, and there is no maximum. Parking structures do not count towards FAR. To encourage density, the minimum FAR is 3, and there is no maximum. Parking structures do not count towards FAR. 1.5 maximum 1.5 maximum 3 maximum Setbacks- front Average of existing structures on the street frontage, 10' minimum. Average of existing structures on the street frontage, 10' minimum. Average of existing structures on the street frontage, 10' minimum. Average of existing structures on the street frontage, 10' minimum Average of existing structures on the street frontage (no
12 minimum). Setbacks- side None None None None None Setbacks- rear None 10% of lot depth or 10' (greater) 10% of lot depth or 10' (greater) 10% of lot depth or 10' (greater) 10% of lot depth or 10' (greater)
7454 7510- 7518 Forsyth, 101-105 Carondelet 7520-7528 7634 Forsyth, 10 S Lyle 7600-7606 Forsyth 7630-7642 Forsyth 12-20 S Hanley Parking No minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements are at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen based upon a parking study. No minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements are at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen based upon a parking study. No minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements are at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen based upon a parking study. No minimum parking requirements. Parking requirements are at the discretion of the Board of Aldermen based upon a parking study. Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations Loading Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations Required pursuant to Off-Street Parking & Loading Regulations
Forsyth Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District The Forsyth Station TOD Overlay District t is intended to foster development emphasizing public transit and enhanced pedestrian accessibility, and presents a unique opportunity for the City to leverage the benefits of its proximity to MetroLink with future mid to high density residential and mixed-use development. To achieve these goals, the district incentivizes development by reducing on-site parking thereby affording more economically productive use of available land. In evaluating whether proposed developments achieve the objectives of the overlay district, the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board shall assess compliance with the following standards:
13 1. Linkage between the development and the Forsyth MetroLink Station, if one does not currently exist. 2. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification from the U.S. Green Building Council at a minimum "Certified" level including applicable regional priorities or an equivalent certification from a nationally recognized third party verified organization as determined by the Plan Commission. 3. City streetscape consistent with the City of Clayton's streetscape standards. 4. Greenspace/urban gathering areas open to the street and proportionate to the development size and scope.
Clayton Plaza Overlay District Clayton Plaza Overlay District is intended to encourage mixed-use development on one more contiguous parcels, using flexible standards to enable creative land use layout and site design.
The following guidelines shall be applied by the City's Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board for development proposals located in the HDC zoning district. There are no guidelines for properties zoned C-2.
1. Footprint geometry should be square and true with the roadway to the extent possible. Odd shapes and building orientation which competes with the total urban setting should be avoided. 2. Parking should be located within the City block interior. 3. Surface parking should not abut any sidewalk. 4. Party wall development should be encouraged to ensure a continuous building facade. 5. Building skylines should provide interest through introduction of compatible shapes and roof forms. Long uninterrupted cornices should be avoided. 6. Facade relief should be incorporated into all building elevations. Long uninterrupted elevations should be avoided. 7. Window openings should be incorporated into all building elevations. Blank walls, long horizontal openings, odd shapes and glass walls should be avoided. 8. Street level (ground floor) elevation facing the street should be storefront architecture with large show windows interrupted at regular intervals with building piers and generous entrances. Blank walls, long uninterrupted show windows, odd shaped and small show windows should be avoided. 9. Parking structures abutting the street should have ground level retail, commercial service and food establishments facing the sidewalk. The upper story should be of design, material and color compatible with the urban setting.
The project will be development as a Special Development District (SDD). SDD is a distinct zoning classification which provides the flexibility needed to encourage efficient use of land, public and utility services while encouraging innovation in the planning and building of a large-
14 scale development which involves a multi-phased, multi-year timeframe. A SDD is governed by a Special Development Plan and Subdistrict Plans, each of which require approval by the Board of Aldermen. The Special Development Plan provides the general development standards for the proposed development including the location of project phases and schedules, location and use of each proposed building, the maximum height and size of each building, the location of open space and landscape buffers, general traffic circulation and the location of parking. The Subdistrict Plan provides detailed information related to each specific phase of the development.
In exchange for waivers of certain zoning development standards, public benefit shall be provided as determined by the Plan Commission and Board of Aldermen. For projects Downtown, the public benefits specific to the Central Business District that are intended to be derived from the approval of Special Development Districts may include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Inclusion of below grade public parking facility located underneath the proposed development; 2. Inclusion of public parking spaces in excess of what is required by Chapter 405, Article XXV, "Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations" of the Municipal Code; 3. Inclusion of street level landscape garden, plaza or park available for public use; 4. Inclusion of special access features or provisions to existing or planned public transit facilities; 5. Inclusion of a mixed use development plan where no single use exceeds eighty percent (80%) of the total floor area; 6. Public art; 7. Architectural distinction and significance that would make the building(s) noteworthy; and 8. Extensive use of high quality building materials that would add to the assessed valuation of the structure(s).
The site is located in the Forsyth Village District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision of the district is to “create a dense, walkable, mixed-use district including a significant new urban residential development oriented around the Forsyth MetroLink Station with appropriate connections to the existing development at Carondelet Plaza and the adjacent neighborhoods”. The plan identifies both Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Plaza as pedestrian priority zones. Key recommendations for this area include:
1. Provide density bonuses and reduced parking requirements to facilitate transit-oriented development. 2. Reinforce the street edge and sidewalk by building to the right-of-way with a generous sidewalk zone. 3. Discourage blank walls on key pedestrian streets. 4. Create a small park on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard near Lyle Avenue. 5. Modify Forsyth Boulevard from four lanes to three from the eastern city limits to Brentwood Boulevard, except for the block between Bemiston Avenue and Hanley Road.
15 This change would allow wider sidewalks and outdoor seating without compromising traffic capacity.
Susan stated that the 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.
Mr. Richmuth stated that Centene is the largest Missouri based company in revenue with 28,000 employees and was the 4th fastest growing company in 2015 with 40 billion dollars in annual revenue and11.5 million members served by us or a subsidiary. He stated that the current building has been a tremendous success for all. He introduced Cushman & Wakefield as the lead project manager, Gyo Obata as the lead architect and Bob Clark as the construction manager.
Mr. Clark stated that this team also developed the first project and the plan is to develop a socially responsible and sustainable workplace environment. He reminded everyone that this is conceptual only and not in final design; he stated that they are here to listen and answer questions and hear concerns. An aerial view diagram was shown. Mr. Clark noted that they will be asking for a Special Development District for the 4 sites; 4 projects. He stated the Hanley Tower (Track 1) will consist of 660,000 square feet of office space and over 200 underground parking spaces and an additional 500 podium spaces (total of 700 spaces). Track 2 is Forsyth garage and a future residential project; Track 3 is a theater/office building/corporate lodging (120 rooms) and Track 4 is office tower/parking garage. He noted that the current 7711 Carondelet building is to be demolished. He stated that the traffic study was kicked-off today. He stated that the building at Carondelet and Hanley was pushed toward the west to incorporate greenspace and some retail space. He stated that they plan to keep in Clayton’s standards and that they will again propose bollards for extra security. He stated that the Track 1 building will contain a lot of glass; noting the 19-foot drop-off from Forsyth to Carondelet. He added that headlights facing east will be blocked.
Reminding everyone that these are not final design drawings, he showed a view of the building from Capital Grille. He stated that they hope to construct a bridge at the third story connecting the two towers. He stated that they will use The Crescent for architectural design for the garage as well so it does not look like a garage. He stated that Track 3 will contain a 16 story, 400,000 square foot office building and 5 stories of corporate lodging facilities constructed of stainless steel or aluminum and glass. Track 4 will replace the 7711 Carondelet building and will consist of 500,000 square feet of office space and parking for 2,000 vehicles and will be designed to complement the current building.
16 He noted that there will be an opportunity for public art (could be the bridge; east of Carondelet and Forsyth and with the public space associated with Track 3) and they anticipate a LEED gold certification. He stated that they plan to work with staff and the community and that it is their goal to present the project to the PC/ARB in mid-summer; once the traffic report is complete.
Chairman Lichtenfeld thanked them for their presentation. He mentioned the “void” between Track 1 and 2.
Mr. Clark indicated that the area he is speaking of is Wellbridge; there is no plan in place for them to purchase that property.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the Track 1 building covers the west end of The Crescent building and towers over it.
Mr. Clark indicated that they don’t have a final solution as of yet; they have met with representatives of The Crescent and the project. He noted that they pulled the building back toward the north as far as possible.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the project has to relate to what’s there.
Mr. Clark stated that the garage will be an open air garage and that the east base of the building will be closed (solid façade) to keep light from trespassing. He stated a reflection study will be done.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if a shadow study will be done as well.
Mr. Clark replied “absolutely”. He stated that the 28 stories includes the parking garage; it will be slightly lower than the Plaza in Clayton building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the entrance to the Track 1 building will be near Hanley and Forsyth.
Mr. Clark replied “yes”; noting the pedestrian entry will be off Forsyth, the south façade will contain a round-about to provide drop-off area. He reminded everyone that they will have to address the 19-foot drop. He stated that 1,900 cars access the existing garage (between Niche and Lola & Penelope).
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the 200 cars below grade will come off of Carondelet.
Mr. Clark replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Lyle Avenue is still there.
17 Mr. Clark indicated that it is moved to the west and a signal added to serve the Crescent.
Josh Corson asked the number of stories for the second building (apartments).
Mr. Clark replied “7 to 8; likely 7” (120 units). He stated that they are still studying the ingress and egress for that building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the distance between the north side of The Crescent and the south side of the new garage.
Mr. Clark stated that he didn’t know.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that this and Track 1 needs to be studied to see how they will affect The Crescent.
Mr. Clark stated the site is confined at only 120-feet deep; that the Master Plan calls for mid-to high rise here. He stated they will work with the Plan Commission/ARB on the heights and elevations.
Josh Corson asked about retail.
Mr. Clark indicated there will be retain facing south across from Kaldi’s, the base of the Forsyth garage, facing Carondelet under the residential tower, and maybe a restaurant (not retail) in the Track 3 building.
Chairman Lichtenfeld encouraged retail at Hanley and Forsyth; without that, the southeast quadrant may appear “dead”.
Mr. Clark indicated that is a tough corner for retail with the 65-foot garage. He referred to the 4,500 new jobs and 120 new residential units associated with the project.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that what he is predominately hearing about that intersection (Hanley and Forsyth) is cars.
Mr. Clark agreed; noting there will be some traffic along Carondelet as well.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he doesn’t see an enclosed connection between the garage and the other office buildings.
Mr. Clark indicated that they are still studying that.
Mark Winings asked Mr. Clark to describe the auditorium and corporate lodging.
18 Mr. Clark stated that they hired a consultant for the lodging; it will be high end and the auditorium will be used for Centene training and for corporate use. He stated that there will be flexibility for use for other community events.
Josh Corson asked if the lodging will only be used by Centene.
Mr. Clark indicated that will be available for use by the public as well.
Sherry Eisenberg asked how cars will exit the facility.
Mr. Clark stated the exit will be at the Clayton/University City line and that they will need to work closely with the Ritz for an easement.
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the impending traffic study; he asked how many more cars will be in and out of our City during rush hour.
Mr. Clark indicated that tremendous thought has been given to this and that they have been meeting with traffic engineers for months; although the study will be needed to obtain all the facts, it’s anticipated that they will be adding 20% more traffic at peak times, but believes it will be manageable.
Sherry Eisenberg asked about their timeline.
Mr. Clark stated that they hope to begin the planning process in the summer and begin the Hanley garage in the fall and have both buildings complete in 2019; they hope to begin construction on Track 3 in 2018 and complete it in 2020. He noted that Track 4 is longer range.
At this time, Chairman Lichtenfeld entertained public comments. He asked that they be kept brief and concise and that comments not be repeated.
Barbara Abbott, Chairman of The Crescent Condo Association, noted that many residents of The Crescent are here tonight and she thanked the Commission for the opportunity to comment. She stated that this project is huge beyond belief and not representative of what they were shown late last week and so large in scale, height and feel that it will be a virtual encapsulation of The Crescent. She noted the mere 25-30 feet of alley separation. She noted that this project will transform that part of Clayton. She voiced concerns regarding to things beyond traffic and safety, noting 2,000 more cars into the City everyday which would result in a 15 minute wait or longer at the Hanley and Forsyth intersection. She noted that the proposal seems to encourage more cars versus MetroLink. She added that she wanted it to be known that The Crescent is not opposed to development, but they want good and respectful development; one in harmony with the interests of all involved. She noted that the first tower is disrespectful to The Crescent; it should be relocated to the northern end of the site. She noted that of all the concerns (safety, traffic, access, alley, heights, design, greenspace) addressed during meetings with city staff and
19 representatives of Centene, only some have been addressed. She stated that they will continue open communication and referred to a news release the previous week regarding the sale of the city-owned lot to Centene. She asked that all citizens be represented and she looks forward to working with everyone involved.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that this is not a public hearing.
Jeff Leonard, Clayton citizen, commented about the project’s amazing impact and growth. He noted that it was a long time before pedestrians were mentioned and that Clayton is place where people walk. He questioned the dramatic footprint of the Forsyth garage; noting that the current garage was well done. He also questioned if this is the best use of land east of Hanley Road, asking if this is a suburban town or an urban one.
Mr. Clark stated that he understands this is a large, complex project and that they will be available 100% and that comments are taken seriously. He thanked the city for the opportunity to present this tonight. He announced that for press information, to contact Marcella Hawn at 314-725-4477.
Chairman Lichtenfeld voiced appreciation for the presentation and stated he looks forward to the next step.
Being no further question or comments, this meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
________________________________ Recording Secretary