May 18, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MAY 18, 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 Jim Liberman Sally Cohn Josh Corson
Absent: Mark Winings, Aldermanic Representative Ron Reim
Also Present: Susan M. Istenes, Director of Planning & Development Services Louis Clayton, Planner
Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that all cell phone ringers be muted and that conversations take place outside the meeting room. He asked that everyone speaking this evening to be sure the green light on the microphone is on for proper recording.
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 4, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved after having been previously distributed to each member.
SUBDIVISION PLAT – 123/125 GAY AVENUE
Robert Slavin, owner/developer, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this same request was approved by the Board of Aldermen on January 14, 2014; however, because the plat was not filed with St. Louis County, approval subsequently expired. The subject property is located on the west side of Gay Avenue, just north of the Colonial Marketplace shopping center, and contains a newly constructed single-family home.
2 The property has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The proposed plat consolidates two existing lots (Lot 80 and a vacated private alley named “15 Foot Strip of Land”) and will be addressed as 123 Gay Avenue. Lot 80 measures 7,441 square feet and is currently addressed 125 Gay Avenue. The “15 Foot Strip of Land” measures 1,962 square feet and is addressed 123 Gay Avenue. This lot is a former paper alley that was vacated in 2001. The lot is located entirely within an easement to Union Electric Company, and contains three AT&T panel boxes on concrete pads. The newly consolidated lot will measure 9,403 square feet and will have 65 feet of frontage along Gay Avenue. The consolidated lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area and it meets the minimum size and frontage requirements of the R-4 Zoning District. The proposed lot consolidation plat is the same as was approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2014. Susan noted that staff recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provide a Mylar for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the Subdivision Ordinance requirements;
2. That the applicant file the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds office and submit proof of filing to the City within 30 days of Board of Aldermen approval.
Mr. Slavin apologized for not getting the plat filed previously. He stated he will comply with staff’s recommendation.
Sally Cohn stated that she received a call and a letter about a change in topography and a drainage issue. She asked if that situation has been rectified.
Mr. Slavin stated that the grade was raised because he was told to do so by the City’s previous Building Official, Steve Larson. He stated that everything that has been asked of him he’s done and that the project has been unfairly delayed. He indicated that have a closing set for June 1st.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that only the Plat is under review. He suggested that Sally confer with Clayton staff on the other issue.
Kelly Christner, 8534 Colonial Lane (her parents’ home), stated that the original site plan showed a paper alley. She stated that she spoke with Louis Clayton and was assured that there was no change to the grade, yet the grade was raised 1.5 feet to 2 feet. She informed the members that Mr. Runyan ripped out her bushes last year and now her parents’ property is taking on more water. She indicated that there was no storm water protection plan in place and that they had no right to build without the plat being approved. She added that there was a lack of supervision on this project and that the easements are now blocked.
3 On a motion made by Jim Liberman pursuant to 610.022 of the RSMo, seconded by Sally Cohn and a unanimous roll call vote, the members held a closed meeting at 5:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 5:47 p.m.
Jim Liberman made a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision plat to the Board of Aldermen per staff’s recommendations. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (2) – 8121 & 8125 STRATFORD
Kevin Goffstein, co-owner/co-developer, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that she will combine the two reports as the homes are mirrors of each other, but that each property needs an independent vote. Susan stated that the 12,000- square-foot subject property is located on the north side of Stratford Drive between Brentwood and Forsyth Boulevards and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The property consists of two individually platted lots (6,000 square feet each), and an existing single-family home. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing home and the construction of two 3,840-square-foot single-family homes (excluding the basements) with attached, rear-entry, at-grade garages. Because the lots are individually platted, a subdivision plat is not required. The eastern lot will be addressed 8121, and the western lot will be addressed 8125. The height of the proposed homes is 29-feet 11-inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The rear portion of the property is located within the jurisdiction of University City. Staff has made University City officials aware of the project and as proposed, they will not require review, approval, or permits for the project. The plans show the HVAC units located at the rear of each home and screened by a 6-foot privacy fence. Trash will be stored in a +/- 16.5-square-foot trash enclosure located underneath the rear decks. Based on the size of the homes, the Architectural Review Guidelines require a 40 square foot trash enclosure for each home. The trash enclosures will be screened by a 4-foot painted 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 at-grade, rear-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 25.1 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 53 percent for each lot, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff for the entire site, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.62 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.78 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.16 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts from the rear of the homes will be piped to two separate French drains, and downspouts from the front of the homes will be piped to two stacked dry wells in the front yards. The pop up emitter in the front yard should be relocated at least 10 feet from any property line. Otherwise, the Public
4 Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. Five trees totaling 59 caliper inches will be removed from 8121, all of which require replacement. One existing street tree totaling 28 caliper inches will be impacted by construction. The landscape plan proposes 15 new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees (60 caliper inches) including Red Oak, Foster Holly, Columnar English Oak, Columnar Hornbeam, Yoshino Cherry, Indian Magic Crab, Columnar Red Maple. One tree totaling six caliper inches will be removed from 8125 which requires replacement. Two existing street trees totaling 64 caliper inches will be impacted by construction. The landscape plan proposes seven new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees (16 caliper inches) including Forest Pansy Redbud, Red Maple, River Birch and Columnar Red Maple. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed landscape designs provide a variety of understory trees, ornamental grasses and shrubs that are appropriate for the size of the site and character of the neighborhood and offers the following recommendations:
i. To provide a harmonious appearance across the front façade of the two homes, coordinate the bed lines and plantings of the front planting beds with the planting bed between the homes. Provide two Foster Holly or River Birch to create a linkage, extend Daylily and Liriope across the space between the two homes to provide a more uniform look, and allow access to the step stones. ii. Coordinate the tree protection fence locations between the Landscape and Civil Plans.
The existing driveway will be removed and two, 10-foot wide exposed aggregate driveways will be installed on the eastern and western ends of each property. The driveway apron for 8125 Stratford Drive will be combined with the existing apron to the west due to their close proximity. The adjacent property owner has been made aware of this and supports the design. Gas lanterns are proposed at the front and rear doors. The plans note that all lighting will be in conformance with the City’s requirements. Susan noted that the proposed homes are compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plans provide for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover suitable for this region. 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. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the French drain and stacked dry wells, the applicant shall record the approved site plan for each property with St. Louis County, and submit proof of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit, which coordinates the bed lines and plantings of the front planting beds with the planting bed between the homes, provides two Foster Holly or River Birch to create a linkage, extends Daylily and Liriope across the space between the two homes to provide a more uniform look, and allows access to the step stones.
5 3. That the site plan be revised to depict the following, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit a. Accurately depict the tree protection fence locations shown on the landscape plan. b. Relocate the pop up emitter in the front yard of 8121 Stratford at least 10 feet from the property lines c. Show a minimum 40 square foot trash enclosure for each home.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if a total of four votes (two for each proposed home) will be necessary.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”.
Mr. Goffstein indicated that currently there is a single home on these two lots, which they plan to level and build two new homes, each approximately 3,880 square feet in size. He indicated that they would comply with staff recommendations.
Sally Cohn thanked him for bringing in the setbacks.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the two subject houses will be ten feet apart.
Mr. Goffstein replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that windows face each other, but that he would bring that up during architectural review.
Being no further questions or comments regarding the 8121 Stratford proposed site plan, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve it per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
Being no further questions or comments regarding the 8125 Stratford proposed site plan, Josh Corson made a motion to approve it per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the projects were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that the homes located east of Forsyth Boulevard in Clayton Gardens are predominately two-stories in height, making the integration of new development somewhat easier. The basic massing of the proposed two-story homes is articulated on all sides with windows, accent materials, recesses, and variations in roof forms. The 1.5-story home to the west (8131 Stratford Drive) was built in 1941 and is +/- 8-feet 10-inches shorter than the proposed home, as measured from the mid-point of each roof. The 1.5 story home to the east (8119 Stratford Drive) was built in 1941 and is +/- 9-feet 3-inches shorter than the proposed home as measured from the mid-point of each roof. To provide a transition in height and scale between the proposed
6 and existing homes, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District regulations list multiple height mitigation techniques including increasing the side yard setback one foot for every five feet of height the structure exceeds the height of the adjacent structure at the side yard. The applicant proposes to increase the side yard setbacks between the proposed and existing homes from 5 feet to 13 feet in accordance with this requirement. 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 each home is brick painted white. The proposed roofs are clad in asphalt shingles, slate in color. Black wood clad windows are proposed. Two 10-foot wide exposed aggregate driveways are proposed on the eastern and western ends of each property. The driveways will lead to rear-entry, at-grade attached garages with raised panel garage doors painted black. Modular retaining walls ranging between 3 and 4 feet tall are proposed along each driveway and will conform to the City’s design and material requirements. Each rear yard will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall cedar privacy fence. 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. Susan stated that to ensure that the homes are distinguishable as individual structures while still blending in with existing homes on the street staff recommends that the homes use two distinct color schemes. Otherwise, staff is of the opinion that the homes are compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval with the following recommendation:
1. That the applicant revise the plans to show distinct color schemes for each home, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Samples of the proposed brick (white for 8125 & red/golden for 8121), roof and limestone were presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where the projected bay is on the second floor.
Mr. Goffstein indicated that there is only a small, 2-foot projection on the side of 8125.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that while this is not a 2-family neighborhood, maybe duplexes can be considered in the future for this area.
Jim Liberman stated that 8125 is much superior, but that he thinks the two homes are too much alike and asked that the rooflines differ. He referred to homes in University City on Forsyth Boulevard that all differ.
Mr. Goffstein commented that this is a side-by-side issue here and that they worked hard to make them different. He added that only so much can be done on a 50 X 120 lot and that the square footage needs to be marketable. He stated that they could possibly louver the front of the roof.
7 Sally Cohn stated she is glad to see that they are adding to Clayton’s housing stock, but that these homes have a shotgun effect the way the three rooms are lined up. She questioned the need for a 23 X 32 foot room, noting that is an enormous size room.
Mr. Goffstein indicated that this is a common layout for a 50-foot wide lot and that a 70- foot wide lot is necessary to get a center hallway.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that while this Board only considers exterior elements (not floor plans), the way the rooms are labeled may not work. He asked if he would comply with staff recommendations.
Mr. Goffstein replied “yes”.
Being no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve 8125 Stratford as presented (brick color/sample shown). The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
Josh Corson made a motion to approve 8121 Stratford (brick color/sample shown) as presented. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and received the following vote: Ayes: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Craig Owens, Sally Cohn and Josh Corson. Nays: Jim Liberman.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when construction is expected to begin.
Mr. Goffstein stated he hopes to begin construction of 8125 in 6-8 weeks.
ADDITION/ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE - #2 FOREST RIGDGE
Paul Fendler, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that on February 21, 2012, the Architectural Review Board approved plans for the construction of a two-story addition and a three-car garage addition at the subject property. Building permits were not issued within one year of approval and therefore the approvals expired. The applicant now proposes a project similar to what was previously approved. The 2.6-acre property is has a zoning designation of R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District and currently contains an existing 7,044-square-foot home and 1,475-square-foot detached garage. The project consists of two additions to the existing home totaling 2,538 square feet. On the southwest side of the home, a two-story addition with an at-grade, four-car garage is proposed, and on the northwest side of the home, a second story addition is proposed. Because the additions are less than 50 percent of the square footage of the existing residence, site plan review is not required. Susan noted that Forest Ridge Subdivision Trustee approval was received since the staff report was written. The additions are compatible with the height and massing of the existing home. The basic massing of the proposed additions is articulated with windows, accent materials, and variations in roof forms. The height of the additions is 27.5 feet from grade to the mid-point of the
8 roof. The existing residence is red brick with stone trim. The proposed addition will be brick to match the house. The roofing material of the addition will be slate, grey green in color to match the material of the existing house. The windows will be double-hung, white in color. The garage doors will be carriage-style black in color. The proposed materials of the additions will match the materials on the existing home. The existing detached garage will be converted into a pool house and the existing garage doors will be replaced with windows. According to the applicant, the pool house will not be used as a second living unit. A new pool is also proposed. The existing asphalt driveway will be expanded in the front of the property to create a circular drive, and on the side of the property to allow access to the garage from Forest Ridge Place and to connect the driveway to the service alley located on the west side of the property. The plans show a new trash enclosure located on the north side of the home, accessible from the driveway and screened with a painted wood fence. The HVAC units are located next to the trash enclosure and are not shown as being screened; however, due to the size of this property staff does not believe that the units will be visible from adjoining properties or Wydown Boulevard. With the exception of the new asphalt driveway, the project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-1 Large Lot Single Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design of the additions is consistent with existing materials on the home and on other homes in the neighborhood. While asphalt is not an approved driveway material, it was previously approved for this project in 2012 and staff recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Fendler indicated that this project is smaller than the project proposed in 2012. He stated that the materials will match existing, there will be no addition to the carriage house and that all 5 homes in Forest Ridge Subdivision have asphalt driveways and the existing driveway is asphalt.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is an addition to the dining room.
Mr. Fendler indicated that there is a small bump-out addition to the dining room.
Jim Liberman told Mr. Fendler that he likes his work, but it seems he keeps coming back to this Board.
Mr. Fendler indicated that the first bid came in a little high and the owners had triplets so they postponed the project.
Sally Cohn asked if they will be reusing the balustrade.
Mr. Fendler stated that he didn’t know if it will be reused, but it will be salvaged for sure.
Sally Cohn stated that she has a problem with the use of asphalt and that it’s not the City’s fault the work wasn’t done before. She stated this is an opportunity to get rid of asphalt and use an upgraded material.
9 Jim Liberman asked how much of the driveway will be new.
Mr. Fendler indicated that a little less than 50% will be new. He stated that he and his clients discussed a cobblestone apron and using a cobblestone border. He reminded everyone that all the homes have asphalt.
Sally Cohn commented that there are only 6 houses in the neighborhood.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they would border the existing asphalt as well.
Mr. Fendler replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that in theory, he agrees with Sally but there is nothing but asphalt in this neighborhood.
Louis Clayton referred to the ARB Guidelines.
Sally Cohn questioned why staff wanted an asphalt driveway on Carswold replaced with a different material, but in this case asphalt is allowed, even as an additional 50% is being added.
Susan Istenes indicated that staff considers these requests on a case-by-case basis.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion, barring any further questions or comments.
Jim Liberman made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and received the following vote: Ayes: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Craig Owens, Jim Liberman & Josh Corson. Nays: Sally Cohn.
SIGNAGE – COMMERCIAL – 112 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD
Mike Christian, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject building is located at the southeast corner of Hanley Road and Carondelet Plaza and contains a 17,940-square-foot, two-story building located on top of a one-level parking structure. The multi-tenant office building was constructed in 1964 and also contains a 19-space parking lot on the north side of the building. The applicant, on behalf of Scottrade, proposes to remove the existing wall sign facing Carondelet Plaza and replace it with a 9.25-square-foot channel letter and “swoosh” logo sign. The sign will be constructed of white acrylic letters and internally lit by LEDs. An identical sign is proposed on the Hanley Road elevation. Section 425.040.5 of the Sign Regulations sets the permitted sign size and location based on usage and building type. For multi-tenant office buildings, the Sign Regulations permit ground floor office tenants with windows and street frontage to have a 12-square foot wall sign, but no
10 more than two such signs are permitted on each building frontage. Ground floor banks, retail stores, restaurants, and other similar uses on corner lots are permitted signage on each street frontage; however, office uses are not. All signs must be attached to front walls at or near the first floor ceiling level. The proposed sign facing Carondelet Plaza complies with the Sign Regulations. The sign facing Hanley Road complies with the size requirement; however, because Scottrade is an office tenant, the sign is not permitted on the Hanley Road frontage nor is it allowed above the first floor level. Therefore, a sign modification is being requested. According to the Sign Regulations, modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. According to the applicant, most of Scottrade’s clients arrive to the site from the south on Hanley Road and because there is no signage on the front of the building, clients often pass by the building completely. Staff does not believe the applicant has identified any unusual conditions with the building or site that would warrant an exception to the ordinance to allow an additional sign. Ground floor bank, retail and restaurant tenants with two street frontages are permitted signs on each frontage; however, Scottrade is an office tenant and therefore is only permitted one wall sign at or near their entrance, which they currently have. If approved, this would be the third wall sign on the building’s Hanley Road elevation and staff has concerns that approval of a sign modification may set a precedent for other ground floor office tenants in multi-tenant office buildings and therefore, recommends denial of the requested sign [modification] for the proposed sign on the Hanley Road elevation and approval of the proposed sign on the Carondelet Plaza elevation.
Mr. Christian informed the members that his clients are concerned about visiting customers from Hanley Road, as their visibility from Carondelet Plaza is better than that from Hanley Road. He stated that they are willing to eliminate the Carondelet Plaza sign if that means they get approval for the Hanley Road sign.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how the door is identified.
Mr. Christian indicated that their name is on the door.
Jim Liberman stated that he’s not sure about the sign on the south (Hanley Road) elevation.
Mr. Christian stated that clients get lost trying to locate the building.
Jim Liberman stated that he thinks the sign is in a confusing location.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about a monument sign.
Louis Clayton indicated that there is a monument sign, but that Scottrade is not on it.
Susan Istenes commented that she understands that the monument sign is owned by the attorneys’ whose names are on it and they have no desire to add other tenant names. She added
11 that the name of the building is on the building at the intersection and that there is a traffic signal, both of which should help people locate their space.
Jim Liberman added that the address is visible also.
Being no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve per staff recommendations (approve Carondelet Plaza sign as proposed and deny Hanley Road sign). The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
SIGN SUB-DISTRICT – COMMERCIAL – 7800 FORSYTH BOULEVARD
Tyler Stephens, architect representing the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance was Kevin Aholt, representing the owner.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Forsyth Boulevard and Bemiston Avenue, has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial District, and is located in the CBD Core Overlay District. The site is improved with an 8-story, 100,487-square-foot office building constructed in 1985. An existing granite monument sign with dimensional aluminum lettering is located in a raised planter bed at the northeast corner of the building, and a +/- 53-square-foot wall sign (Bank of America) is located on the northeast building elevation. This sign was approved by the Architectural Review Board in 1999, and required a modification to the Sign Ordinance. Historically, the building has been occupied primarily by Bank of America. The building owners are now trying to attract additional tenants and feel it is necessary to offer additional tenant signage on the building. In an effort to accommodate signage needs for future tenants and maintain visual conformity, the applicant is proposing to establish a signage sub-district for the building. Section 425.050.8(c) of the City’s Sign Regulations allow for the establishment of signage sub-districts:
“A district or sub-district may develop a uniform series of coordinated signs but the plan must be approved by the Architectural Review Board.”
If adopted, the signage sub-district standards will govern signage for the building, not the City’s Sign Regulations. All signs must receive a Sign Permit from the City prior to installation. The following signage is proposed to be installed over time as the individual tenant spaces are leased. Five walls signs are proposed along the second floor on the east, northeast, and north elevations. The signs will be constructed of individual channel letters and will not exceed 30 inches in height and will be illuminated by LEDs. The channel letter materials, colors, and design are not restricted. The sign length will not exceed the total width of the bay inside the columns. The plans do not state a maximum size for the proposed wall signs; however, staff estimates that the potential signage could measure up to 57.5 square feet on the east elevation, and 47.5 to 52.5 square feet on the northeast and east elevations. According to the applicant, the existing Bank of America sign on the northeast elevation will be relocated in accordance with these standards. Each ground floor retail tenant on the south, east, northeast, and north elevations
12 may install a black awning with white vinyl letters at each storefront bay. One printed storefront ID sign is allowed per awning, centered on the window, and may not exceed 30 percent of the total awning area. Applied vinyl lettering or logos may be applied to the first floor glass within an 8 inch band 3 to 4 feet above the ground. The signage will be repeated in every window and centered between mullions. An existing granite monument sign with dimensional aluminum lettering is located in a raised planter bed at the northeast corner of the building. No changes are proposed for this sign. Susan stated that the purpose of forming a signage sub-district is to allow a sign package which fosters creativity and cohesiveness for larger developments. Typically, signage sub-districts are approved with new developments and over the past 10 years have been approved for Centene, The Crescent and DeMun Pointe. The adoption of a signage sub-district is beneficial to the building owner and the City because it ensures predictability. Without the adoption of a sub-district, each tenant requesting a sign not in accordance with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance would have to seek approval from the Architectural Review Board on a case by case basis. Staff estimates that the proposed signage sub-district would permit more and larger signs than currently permitted under the Sign Ordinance; but exactly how much more depends on a number of variables including the type of tenant (office, retail, or bank), and their location in the building (first floor, upper floor, street frontage, etc.). Under the Sign Ordinance, multi-tenant office buildings are permitted the following:
1. A 15-square-foot wall sign depicting the name of the building. 2. Ground floor tenants with windows and street frontage are permitted a 12 to 50 square foot wall sign (depending on the type business and amount of frontage) to be located at or below the first floor. No more than two such signs are permitted for each building street frontage. 3. Tenants located above the first floor are permitted a 6 to 12 square foot wall sign at the building entrance (one per building). 4. Awnings on the ground floor street facing elevations. Signage on awnings may not exceed 15 percent of total awning square footage.
The Downtown Master plan does not specifically address signage; however, it does acknowledge the small-scale, pedestrian-friendly nature of this part of Downtown and identifies Forsyth Boulevard as a pedestrian priority street. Because of the building’s location in the heart of Downtown and adjacency to smaller scale buildings, the proposed signage should be located at or near the first floor level, appropriately sized, and be consistent in design, materials, color and/or finish. The proposed awnings achieve this goal by defining the street level and lowering the perceived height of the building; however, staff has concerns with the number, size, location, and material of the proposed wall signs and recommends continuing consideration of this request to a later meeting, after the applicant has made the following revisions to the proposed signage sub- district:
1. The total number of building tenant wall signs shall not exceed four. 2. The building tenant signs shall not exceed 50 square feet each. 3. The building tenant signs shall be located at or near the first floor level.
13 4. The building tenant signs shall be made of a consistent, high quality material, color and/or finish.
Mr. Stephens began a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated that they got bumped off the last meeting’s agenda and that they accept staff’s recommendations. He stated that the existing Bank of America sign, which they propose to relocate, is a little over 50 square feet and that the building is commonly known as the “Bank of America building”.
Slides depicting the front and south elevations were shown. Mr. Stephens noted that many buildings in downtown Clayton have numerous signs. Slides depicting various examples were shown. He stated that they believe their request is in keeping with other downtown buildings.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the other buildings shown as examples have street level entrances to retail space (Centene, The Crescent).
Mr. Stephens agreed for the time being, adding that the east building side would be an area prime for outdoor seating at which time doors would be added.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he likes the awnings as they help break up the building’s stark contrast, adding that they allow the building to become more pedestrian friendly, but that he’s not sure about the 3rd level tenant signs; he thinks those are too much.
Mr. Stephens stated that he was surprised to learn that there are only three sign sub- districts and that exceptions had to have been granted over the years. He stated that they are willing to go down to four tenant signs.
Jim Liberman asked who the tenants are.
Mr. Stephens indicated that one is Bank of America, but they want to attract other large- scale tenants.
Jim Liberman asked about the monument sign.
Mr. Stephens stated that it will remain.
Jim Liberman commented that the property seems cluttered with signage.
Mr. Aholt stated that the owners have lost large tenants due to the lack of signage; one recently who was interested in occupying 40,000 square feet. He stated that they don’t want their building to be known as the “Bank of America building”.
14 Jim Liberman stated that he likes the idea of a sign district and the awnings, but that he’s not crazy about the tenant signs; suggesting one per elevation. He asked what number they would be happy with.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he’d be okay with 3 total.
Jim Liberman indicated he’d be okay with 2 total.
Craig Owens stated he’d be okay with 1 per building face.
Chairman Lichtenfeld agreed. He stated that he can’t imagine moving the Bank of America sign to one of these locations.
Mr. Aholt informed the members that Bank of America wants their own revolving door; the other one would be used for the main entrance to the building.
A discussion between the members ensued regarding the tenant signage.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that staff’s recommendation makes sense and would agree except for the northeast corner.
Susan Istenes indicated that installing signage is a challenge when a building doesn’t have the right surface to anchor signage to.
More discussion and opinions regarding the tenant signage took place.
Sally Cohn asked if they considered re-doing the monument sign.
Mr. Aholt stated that the monument sign is more of a walk-up sign; the plantings around it keep motorists from really seeing it.
Jim Liberman asked who their biggest tenant is.
Mr. Aholt indicated that is yet to be determined.
Being no further questions or comments, Josh Corson made a motion to approve per staff recommendations (except add to recommendation No. 3 “except the northeast elevation”). The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the Board.
Being no further business this evening, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
15 ______________________________ Recording Secretary