June 15, 2015 — Meeting Minutes

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

JUNE 15, 2015

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 Craig Owens, City Manager Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Sally Cohn

Absent: Vacant Seat (formerly served by Jim Liberman) Ron Reim Josh Corson

Also Present: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Louis Clayton, Planner Helmut Starr, Acting City Attorney

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed Helmut Starr to this evening’s meeting; he is filling in for Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney.

MINUTES

The transcription of the May 11, 2015 special meeting was presented for approval. The transcription was approved as prepared, after having been previously distributed to each member.

AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS – LANDSCAPE SCREEN – 7701 FORSYTH BOULEVARD (PIERRE LACLEDE BUILDING)

Jamie Koritz, CBRE (building manager) was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located at the Pierre Laclede Center on the west side of Hanley Road south of Maryland Avenue. An existing 8.5-foot wide landscape screen is located between the public sidewalk on Hanley Road and the parking lot for the Pierre Laclede Center. On June 12, 2012, the Board of Aldermen approved a Conditional Use Permit

2 amendment to allow a landscape screen to replace a brick wall, which was a requirement contained in the Conditional Use Permit that was originally issued in 1961. The plan was also approved by the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2012. The approved landscape screen is comprised of a row of Northern Bayberry planted on top of an 18-inch berm, among six existing mature Ornamental Pear trees. The property owner’s intent was that as the plants matured, they would be trimmed in a manner that would allow them to grow together and create a solid landscaped hedge. The Conditional Use Permit amendment was approved with the following conditions meant to ensure the viability of the landscape screen:

1. That the proposed linear planting scheme shall be planted in a staggered row. 2. That a two (2) foot wide strip of sod shall be planted along the edge of the sidewalk in order to contain the mulch bed, subject to modification as may be recommended by the City’s Landscape Architect in the exercise of professional judgment and best practices. 3. The plant material shall be comprised of Northern Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) or Fosters Holly (Ilex x attenuata ‘Fosteri”) or other material approved by the City’s Planning Director in consultation with the City’s Landscape Architect. 4. Northern Bayberry shall be planted three (3) feet on center at a minimum height of four (4) feet at time of planting and grown and maintained to a mature height of at least six (6) feet. 5. If Fosters Holly is used or an approved similar substitute, it shall be planted five (5) feet on center at six (6) feet in height at the time of planting. It shall be trimmed to maintain a maximum height of eight (8) feet to serve as a continuous screen. 6. The plant material shall achieve 100 percent opacity and shall be maintained at a minimum height of 6 feet to 8 feet (depending on plant material used), no later than 18 months after planting. 7. A tree protection plan shall be submitted before planting occurs showing a graphic depiction of the accurate drip line canopy of all existing trees and indicating the extent of the critical root zone. 8. Tree protection mechanisms per City Code shall be installed around the existing Flowering Pear trees in accordance with an approved tree protection plan and prior to planting. 9. The approval of this conditional use amendment is subject to reconsideration or revocation upon due notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the restoration of a brick wall in substantially the location and dimensions originally approved on January 28, 2010, shall be required in lieu of the plantings approved hereby if, in the professional judgment of the Planning Director, the plant material fails for any reason to operate as an effective opaque buffer within and forever after 18 months of original planting. 10. All plant material shall be planted no later than 30 days after removal of the existing brick wall. 11. That berming of the planting bed shall be permitted in a manner consistent with good landscaping practices in the professional judgment of the City’s Landscape Architect.

The landscape screen installed in 2013 has failed to reach the required height and opacity stipulated in condition six above. According to the applicant, the shade created by the existing Ornamental Pear trees makes it impossible for any hardy dense plantings to grow in that area. There is also a

3 significant shadow from the Pierre Laclede building that shades the area in the afternoon. The applicant now proposes a revised landscape plan which provides for the removal of the six existing Ornamental Pear trees and the installation of a new landscape screen consisting of pyramidal Junipers (7-8 feet tall and installed on 5-foot centers), ornamental and shade trees, and a variety of perennials. Susan noted that the purpose of the screening requirement is to provide a visual barrier between the parking lot on the Pierre Laclede property and the adjacent sidewalk, street and single- family structures on the east side of Hanley Road. The screen also serves as a noise and visual buffer from the parking lot and activity on the Pierre Laclede site, although the noise generated by Hanley Road vehicular traffic likely supersedes noise that could potentially be created on the subject site during certain hours of the day. According to the City’s contracted landscape architect, the proposed Juniper varieties are very pyramidal in nature which will create triangular-shaped gaps in the screen between each plant. The inclusion of ornamental and shade trees in the landscape screen creates additional gaps in screening. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that as proposed, the landscape screen will not provide a sustainable opaque screen within 18 months and recommends that the plan be revised as follows:

1. Install canopy trees on 25-foot centers. 2. Install large shade tolerant shrubs like Densiformis Yew or Leatherleaf Viburnum (3-foot tall, 3-foot on center) between the canopy trees. The shrubs should be maintained in continuous hedge around the trunks of the trees by pruning or shearing. 3. A colorful band of perennials (as proposed) should be provided in front of the shrubs to provide visual interest.

By planting the trees and evergreen screen at the same time, they will have the opportunity to mature together and over time, provide a dense, opaque 4-5 foot landscape screen. Additional screening of the parking lot will be provided by the canopy trees. The current Conditional Use Permit contains specific language pertaining to the previously approved landscape plan and therefore must be updated. These changes are minor and may be approved administratively. Susan stated that staff’s recommendation is to approve with the following conditions:

1. That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan incorporating the following revisions, to be approved by staff: a. Install canopy trees on 25-foot centers. b. Install large shade tolerant shrubs like Densiformis Yew or Leatherleaf Viburnum (3- foot tall, 3-foot on center) between the canopy trees. The shrubs should be maintained in continuous hedge around the trunks of the trees by pruning or shearing. c. A colorful band of perennials (as proposed) should be provided in front of the shrubs to provide visual interest. 2. That the applicant apply for and receive approval of an amendment to their current Conditional Use Permit to reflect the changes from the previously approved landscape plan.

4 Susan Istenes stated that Laurel Harrington was in attendance at the meeting this evening should she need to address any issues or answer any questions.

Ms. Koritz indicated that she understood that what was proposed (Junipers) would be at full height at installation.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that there is a difference of opinion.

Ms. Koritz asked if it is the recommendation to work with Ms. Harrington directly.

Susan Istenes stated that revisions are being suggested is to revise the plan to eliminate the gaps over time.

Ms. Koritz asked about amending the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Susan Istenes informed Ms. Koritz that amending the CUP can be done administratively and she should contact Louis Clayton about that.

Sally Cohn recommended that if the goal is to have mature height at 8 feet, Leatherleaf Viburnum should be the plant, not the Densiformis Yew, as Densiformis Yews don’t grow to 8 feet.

Louis Clayton stated that the current CUP references 8 feet.

Ms. Koritz commented that what they are proposing is a dwarf variety so as not to grow as large as the Bradford Pears.

A brief discussion between Ms. Koritz and Ms. Harrington took place.

Mark Winings questioned the height.

Ms. Koritz stated that the four feet in height was the original Northern Bayberry.

A brief discussion regarding the various plantings took place. Louis Clayton stated that the CUP currently requires 100% opacity, 6-8 feet in height; however, based on the history of failure to reach that, another option is being offered here.

Mark Winings asked if the Board votes to approve per staff recommendation, would they be approving 5 feet or 8 foot screening.

Susan Istenes stated that at 6 feet, there has to be an opaque screen in 18 months. She added the main contributors to that are the shrubs. The trees are mainly for streetscape.

5 Ms. Koritz indicated that she understood staff’s recommendations.

Sally Cohn asked how many canopy trees are in the plan. She asked for seven.

A discussion regarding the length took place. Louis Clayton indicated that based on a previous plan, the length is 160-feet.

Susan Istenes indicated that probably 6 trees planted on 25-foot centers could be planted.

Being no further comments or questions, Sally Cohn made a motion to approve the revised landscape plan per staff recommendations, using canopy trees such as Maples and the use of Leatherleaf Viburnums for the next “layer”. Mark Winings seconded the motion which carried unanimously.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when planting will begin.

Ms. Koritz indicated that her plan is to begin within 30 days.

SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION AND DETACHED GARAGE – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 6363 ALEXANDER

Thomas Wall, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Douglas Delong, project landscape architect.

Susan Istenes explained that the 10,500-square-foot site is located on the west side of Alexander Drive in the Ellenwood Subdivision and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and contains an existing 2.5-story home measuring 4,568 square feet; the proposed project consists of the construction of a 2,194-square-foot addition to the rear of the home and a 529-square-foot detached garage. Subdivision trustee approval has been submitted. No new HVAC units are proposed. Two existing HVAC units are located at the northeast corner of the home 2 feet from the northern (side) property line, and 3 feet from the front building line. The units are screened on the east side only with landscaping. Due to the close proximity of the adjacent property and the front building line, staff recommends that additional screening by a fence or evergreen shrubs be provided around the east and north sides of the units. Trash will continue to be stored in an existing 56-square-foot trash enclosure at the rear of the home. Existing and proposed impervious coverage on site is 53 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 0.767 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.77 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.003 CFS. To mitigate the small increase in storm water runoff, downspouts from the addition and detached garage will be piped to a dry well in the rear yard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of understory trees, ornamental grasses and shrubs that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood. The landscape

6 plan shows the removal of 44.5 caliper inches of deciduous trees, of which 28.5 caliper inches require replacement. Seven Ornamental Pear trees planted along the southern property line, three of which are located on the adjacent property, will be removed to accommodate the new driveway. Therefore staff requests that the applicant submit in writing approval from the adjacent property owner regarding the removal of the trees on their property. The landscape plan proposes 25-caliper- inches of new deciduous trees, resulting in a 3.5-caliper-inch deficiency which requires a payment of $420 into the City’s Forestry Fund. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site and the existing trees to remain are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. Exterior lighting is proposed on the front and rear of the home, and on the detached garage. The plans should note that all exterior lights in excess of 75 watts will be fully shielded. Susan stated that the proposed addition and detached garage are compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan provides for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover that is suitable for the area. The height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and that staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions (all conditions must be met and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit):

1. That the dry well shall be maintained in good operational condition at all times and inspected every three years by a qualified design professional to ensure it is functioning as designed and proof of inspection and certification of good operational condition and function as designed shall be submitted to the City. 2. Condition number one shall be added to the site plan and that plan recorded with St. Louis County. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the City. 3. That additional screening by a fence or evergreen shrubs be provided around the east and north sides of the existing HVAC units. 4. That the applicant submit in writing approval from the adjacent property owner regarding the removal of the trees on their property. 5. That the landscape plan be revised to show location of piped downspouts and the dry well. 6. That the applicant make a payment of $420 to the City’s Forestry Fund. 7. That the applicant submit approval from MSD to connect the driveway inlets to the sewer line. 8. That the plans note that all exterior lights in excess of 75 watts will be fully shielded.

Mr. Wall presented a site plan. He noted that the rear addition includes removing a back patio and porch area. He stated that the existing driveway will be expanded somewhat, but that some of the hardscape on the north side of the house will be removed to compensate. He noted that a new 2 car garage will be at the southwest corner of the property. He stated that they are happy to shield the existing AC units as staff recommends.

Mr. Delong addressed the members by explaining the landscape plan and showing the location of new and existing trees/shrubs.

7

Sally Cohn referenced evergreens around the AC units; noting that there is not ample room. She recommended using an “L” shaped fence rather than landscaping.

Mr. Wall asked to plant shrubs on the east side (front) and fence the side.

Sally Cohn agreed. She noted that there is no canopy tree in the plan. She asked if one could be planted.

Mr. Delong indicated that there is no place to put one.

Sally Cohn asked if the proposed Cherokee Chief Dogwood could be replaced with a small, 35-40 foot tree, i.e. Black Gum (right next to the terrace).

Mr. Delong stated he wouldn’t want to put a canopy tree there and the owners want more of an open lawn area.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the terrace is covered.

Mr. Delong indicated that it is not.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Sally Cohn made a motion to approve as submitted per staff recommendations with the following revision to recommendation No. 3: to require a fence rather than landscaping on the front side of the AC unit and one or more evergreens at the north edge of the fence (around the AC units). The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and unanimously approved by the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed addition is located at the rear of the home and is not visible from the street. The primary building materials for the proposed addition are brick with minor white Hardie Board siding accents. The height of the addition is +/- 28.3 feet from average existing grade to the mid-point of the roof. The proposed roof of the addition will be clad in gray slate, and white double-hung windows are proposed. The proposed detached garage is located at the southwest corner of the property and is +/- 14 feet tall as measured from grade to the mid-point of the roof. The building materials will match those on the home. A single garage door painted white is proposed. The existing driveway will be removed and replaced with exposed aggregate. The existing vinyl, wood, and metal fences will remain. A 3-4-foot tall modular-block retaining wall featuring various sized blocks, tumbled edges and various colors is proposed at the rear of the home. Susan noted that the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design of the addition and detached garage is consistent with existing design

8 and materials on the home and on other homes in the neighborhood and recommends approval as requested.

Mr. Wall stated that they will match existing materials. They want the addition to closely match the existing structure.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if a brick sample is needed. He stated that he believes it can be easily matched and suggested allowing staff to approve the brick before permit issuance.

Mr. Wall stated that they are only waiting for MSD approval.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Mark Winings made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sally Cohn and unanimously approved by the Board.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when they hope to break ground.

Mr. Wall replied “as soon as possible”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld wished them luck.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – COMMERCIAL ALTERATION – 226 SOUTH MERAMEC AVENUE

Michael Bauer, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the property has a zoning designation of High Density Commercial District (HDC) and Central Station Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, and is located on the east side of South Meramec Avenue between Bonhomme Avenue and Shaw Park Drive. The lot measures 9,010 square feet (.207 acres) and is improved with a 3-story, 11,040 square foot commercial building built in 1961. The applicant proposes a complete interior and exterior renovation of the building. On March 5, 2015, the Board of Adjustment approved variances for the addition of the following to the front façade: new entrance canopy, building skin, overhead coiling grill unit, architectural columns, architectural cornice, and a decorative canopy. The applicant has reduced the scope of alterations and currently proposes to cover the existing brick on the west (front) and south (side) elevations with tan colored granite panels in both polished and honed (matte) finishes. The parapet wall will be raised +/- 5 feet. The building will also receive a new aluminum entrance canopy, and wall mounted light fixtures. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the proposed exterior alterations feature high-quality materials and will give a contemporary update to this traditional commercial building and recommends approval as submitted.

9

Mr. Bauer explained the project and presented a sample of the granite material (composite thin granite panel; honeycomb skin) to go over the existing building. He noted that there is not a lot of structural work associated with the project.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if any of the existing skin will be removed.

Mr. Bauer replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the parapet needs to be redone.

Mr. Bauer stated that it is being raised.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the light and dark granite samples represent the light and dark on the building.

Mr. Bauer replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the building directly to the north will remain.

Sally Cohn asked if a green roof was considered.

Mr. Bauer stated that it is a possibility in the future.

Sally Cohn noted that she was thinking of a green roof for storm water, not necessarily for people to use.

Being no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Craig Owens made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Sally Cohn and unanimously approved by the Board.

*******************************************************************************

Sally Cohn referenced the trees planted by the City in front of Starbucks along Wydown; noting that they are columnar trees, not canopy trees, so they won’t create shade. She mentioned that the City will lose a lot of canopy in the next few years.

Craig Owens noted trees like that are planted when there are sight distance issues or near o outdoor dining. He stated that trees are selected to try and fit the environment.

Sally Cohn stated that she would think shade trees would be desired for outdoor dining areas. She stated that Minneapolis made it happen; maybe they have larger tree wells.

10

A discussion regarding City landscaping took place. Craig Owens stated that the City has worked with state officials over the last few years; he added that the City did not get the grant from the state, so the City will have to work without it.

A brief discussion regarding the Ash trees in the City took place.

__________________________ Recording Secretary