May 4, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MAY 4, 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 Ron Reim Sally Cohn Josh Corson
Absent: Jim Liberman
Also Present: Susan M. Istenes, Director of Planning & Development Services Louis Clayton, Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted the full agenda this evening and asked that everyone addressing the Commission this evening to step up to the podium and that the green light must be lit on the microphone for proper recording. He stated that in the interest of time, comments from the audience will be limited to 3 minutes and asked that comments not be repeated. He announced that the meeting will go no later than 9 p.m. and any unfinished business at that time will be continued. He added that about halfway through the meeting, any member can request a 10 minute recess. He also asked that all cell phone ringers be muted and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
The minutes of the April 20, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. Chairman Lichtenfeld asked that the following correction be made to the minutes: Change “Chairman Lichtenfeld” to “Acting Chairman Liberman” on Page 4. Sally Cohn noted a misspelling of “Meritz” on Page 5; it should be spelled “Maritz.” The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.
2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – MIXED-USE PROJECT – VANGUARD CLAYTON – 8500 MARYLAND AVENUE (CONTINUED)
Due to a conflict of interest, Mark Winings recused himself. He left the member table and did not participate in any discussion or vote with regard to this project.
David Braswell, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this request was first presented on April 4, 2015, and was continued at the request of the Architectural Review Board. On April 4, 2014, the Plan Commission voted to recommend approval of the Rezoning, Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat to the Board of Aldermen. At the same meeting, the Architectural Review Board voted to continue consideration of the architectural components of the project. Based on comments received at the previous meeting, the applicant has reduced the corner overhangs, changed the primary and accent brick colors to a brown tone, and added an additional gray stucco color. The revised plans also show a raised landscape bed and rail at the northwest corner of the building. All other aspects of the plans remain the same. The 2.4-acre site is located along the western city limits at the southwest corner of Maryland Avenue and Gay Avenue. The western +/-30 feet of the property is located in the city of Ladue. The property has a zoning designation of Service District (S-1) and is located in the Maryland Gateway Overlay District. The property is improved with a 61,778-square foot, two-story office building built in 1975 and most recently occupied by Brown Shoe Company. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 273,500 square foot, five-story building located on top of a two-level, partially below grade parking structure. The building contains 4,526 square feet of ground floor retail and live/work units, 229 residential units (141 one-bedroom units, 74 two- bedroom units, and 14 three-bedroom units), and 352 parking spaces. The proposed building is located entirely within the City of Clayton. The Ladue portion of the property will be developed with a 10-foot multi-use path and linear garden connecting Maryland Avenue and the Centennial Greenway. Three access points are proposed along Gay Avenue to serve the development. A motor court off Gay Avenue provides an area for pick up/drop off and six parking spaces. Two garage entrances along Gay Avenue will serve the majority of the traffic to the site. The applicant proposes to install 38 bicycle racks (parking for 76 bicycles) to be located in the parking structure, motor court, retail entrances on Maryland Avenue and along the new multi-use path. Two secure bicycle storage rooms in the parking structure will provide space to park an additional 100 bicycles. City Streetscape will be installed along Maryland and Gay Avenues. The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along its street frontage. The primary building materials are brown brick veneer, stone veneer, and stucco (white and three shades of gray). Each building façade expresses both horizontal and vertical articulation through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms. The parking structure is integrated into the design of the building and will be clad in brick and stone to match the rest of the building. Storefront architecture is used on the ground floor retail spaces facing Maryland Avenue including stone building material, large storefront windows with clear glazing, building piers, canvas awnings, and four entrances. The
3 proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along the majority of its street frontage. The proposed building occupies the majority of the Maryland Avenue frontage. The Maryland Avenue ground floor façade features pedestrian-scale storefront architecture. Stone is used at the Maryland Avenue storefronts to distinguish it from the design of the rest of the building. Large storefront windows, building piers, and canvas awnings are also used. Clear glazing will be used at the storefronts, and four entrances are proposed. Canvas awnings are proposed on the Maryland Avenue façade. Façade relief is incorporated into all building elevations through the use of accent materials, projecting and recessed balconies, building recesses and variations in roof forms. Windows are incorporated into all building elevations. The building measures 5 stories at Maryland Avenue and 7 stories on Gay Avenue. Heightened parapets are used along the building’s length to help divide and organize exterior elements. The proposed roof forms provide much more articulation and visual interest than the level roof forms found on adjacent structures to the east and west. The two-level parking structure is located entirely below grade at Maryland Avenue. Due to changes in grade, the parking structure is entirely above grade along Gay Avenue. The parking structure is integrated into the design of the building, will be clad in brick and stone to match the rest of the building, and will have window openings along its length. The proposed building is similar in scale and materials to surrounding buildings along Maryland Avenue, and will maintain continuity with adjacent structures. To complement the urban character of the building, three raised planters and four benches are proposed adjacent to the retail storefronts fronting Maryland Avenue. The planters will contain appropriate evergreen and seasonal plantings. The western most planter and benches are located in the right-of-way and must be removed and/or relocated onto private property. The landscape bed at the northeast corner of the building is intended for a monument sign, to be considered at a later time. Along the west side of the building (in Ladue), a publicly accessible10-foot multi-use path and linear park are proposed. The path will run from Maryland Avenue along the western edge of the property and connect to the Centennial Greenway Trail at the southern corner of the site. Landscaping is proposed along the path as well as benches, bicycle racks, and a water bottle filling station. Landscaping is proposed along the east side of the building, between the building and the streetscape. A private fenced patio and dog park for residents are proposed on the south side of the building. The project as proposed is in conformance with the architectural review guidelines of the Maryland Gateway Overlay District, and meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The proposed site design, building form and materials are urban in character, and will contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment. Staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby structures and recommends approval as submitted.
Mr. Braswell began a PowerPoint presentation; the first slide depicted the site plan. Subsequent slides depicted various elevation renderings (in color and black and white) of the proposed building. He indicated that the brick pallet has been changed to a more brown tone (specifically Smokey Mountain); a color rendering was presented. He added that an additional stucco color has been incorporated as well. He informed the members that they recently came up with another idea (color pallet) which includes Santa Rosa (red tone) brick as the dominant brick
4 color with Brook Haven as an infill color (samples presented). He indicated that each choice is two different looks; one more red and the other more brown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if all elevations would contain the Santa Rosa and Brook Haven if that is the pallet chosen.
Mr. Braswell replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn asked why two different colors.
Mr. Braswell indicated the two colors, along with the balconies, help break-up the building.
Sally Cohn stated that the light color stucco across the top of the building is the dominant feature; not the brick. She asked about the imprints on the brick.
Mr. Braswell indicated that he’s not against using one brick color if that’s what’s preferred. He stated it is difficult to get the renderings to accurately reflect the true colors.
Sally Cohn indicated she may be okay with the building if the top color was a bit darker. She stated she prefers one brick color; brown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he likes these bricks better than the ones previously proposed and that he agrees that the color of the top should be toned down. He stated he is okay with the utilization of two brick colors, although he has some concern with their weathering as they may not blend as well over time. He added that he likes the Santa Rosa brick.
Ron Reim concurred about lightening up the top so the contrast is not so sharp. He stated that he, too, is okay with utilizing two brick colors; he likes the brown better.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if other changes were made.
Mr. Braswell indicated that they pulled in the extended caps, added raised planter beds and moved the entrance down 1 ½ feet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it appears as though the line at the top is level, referring to the west elevation rendering, but that it goes up and down on the east elevation.
Sally Cohn mentioned the discussion about the rain garden and landscaping that previously took place.
Mr. Braswell informed Sally that they are still working with staff on those issues.
Josh Corson stated that he likes the red brick and the imprints.
5
Sue Fisher, 6405 San Bonita Avenue, commented that she agreed the top of the building should be darkened up.
Mr. Braswell informed the members that staff was aware of the brown (Brook Haven) brick; the red (Santa Rosa) is new.
Being no further questions or comments from the members or the audience members, Ron Reim made a motion to approve with the use of Brook Haven and Santa Rosa bricks and that the top of the building be a toned down color to be approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Craig Owens and unanimously approved by the members.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – ADDITION/ALTERATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 6364 SAN BONITA AVENUE
Jay Sparks, project architect, and William Spees, owner, were in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is request for conceptual review only. The 9,710-square- foot site is located on the south/east side of San Bonita Avenue near the intersection with DeMun Avenue, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The existing two- story home measures 1,815 square feet, and the proposed project consists of the construction of an attached, front entry, two-car garage on the east side of the home, a new driveway, and a rear two- story addition. The garage addition will be constructed of brick to match the home and will feature two carriage style garage doors. The rear addition will be brick and stucco to match the home. The applicant is requesting conceptual review of the proposed design, specifically, the front-entry garage. The R-2 Zoning District and the Architectural Review Guidelines do not prohibit front entry garages and the property is not located in an Urban Design District. The homes in this neighborhood are served by rear alleys and most have detached or rear loading garages. Staff is not aware of any examples of front-entry garages in the neighborhood. The new curb cut for the driveway is subject to approval by the Public Works Department. The approach as proposed will require the removal and relocation of an existing street light at the homeowner’s expense. Susan noted that 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 developer or the Board/Commission members, are not binding. Susan added that the City has received 7 e-mail messages in opposition to the project; no messages in support.
Mr. Sparks indicated that he has support letters. He noted that the property is unique in that it is a double lot and the house, which was built in the 1920s, sits on the property line. He noted that San Bonita is a one-way street and without the garage, a vehicle must be driven to the east end of the block and then down the alley to enter a rear facing garage. He indicated that in the 6300 block of San Bonita, 1 property has a front entry garage and 11 have front entry garages located at the back of the lot. He stated the proposed garage is a modest, 2-car garage and the 2-story
6 addition will provide much needed space for the owner. He stated that the owner would have to fund the relocation of the street light, per the City’s Public Works Department.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that although the design fits in the neighborhood, he has concerns with the proposed front entry garage, as that does not fit in the neighborhood, even though there are several driveways off San Bonita leading to a rear garage.
Mr. Sparks stated that a rear garage would interrupt the yard where the children play and that he doubts that those garages that are in the rear of those other properties are being used; he believes those people most likely park in the street.
Chairman Lichtenfeld reiterated that the design is okay, it’s the entrance that is a problem. He asked if a front driveway but rear entry garage was considered
Mr. Sparks indicated that it is certainly possible; however, he is working with the owner to keep price at a certain amount. He reiterated that a rear garage would result in loss of yard area.
Ron Reim stated that he understands the property is unique; however, he would also prefer that the garage be entered from the alley and that is the intention of the subdivision.
Sally Cohn agreed.
Mr. Sparks asked if the members are okay with the garage placement if the door were facing the alley (rear).
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes, but conceptually only”. He added that the overall design is fine with him.
Mark Winings referred to the numerous e-mails received this afternoon. He asked if the City staff is okay with the driveway.
Louis Clayton replied “conceptually, yes.”
Mark Winings asked where the streetlight is located.
Louis Clayton indicated that it is in the driveway.
Mr. Sparks stated that they may be relocating the driveway.
Mr. Spees commented that it sounds like a conceptual decision has been made. He referred to seven letters of support he has received (provided to City staff). He indicated that he wants to be sensitive to the character of the neighborhood; he bought the property in 2011 and has spent a lot of time making improvements. He noted that the home is currently a 4 bedroom, 1 bathroom home
7 with no off-street parking, which is a safety concern. He stated that he is not aware of anyone who uses their rear garages and believes that 9 out of 10 people would prefer an attached garage.
Chris Carstensen, San Bonita resident, commented that Alamo Avenue is also a one-way street, so they would have to go around the block anyway.
Mr. Spees disagreed.
Lori Hirst, 6300 San Bonita, stated that they bought their home in 1992 because of the nature of the neighborhood, but that the safety of children is a concern due to the blind curve. She stated she prefers a rear entry garage and that she sees people using their rear entry garages; she is one of them.
John (?), 6435 San Bonita, indicated that he drives off the street to access his property and that his bigger concern revolves around houses being heavily modified. He stated the owner’s plan fits.
No more comments were received.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – PARKING LOT – 210 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD
Carolyn Gaidis, Washington University Professor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes noted that this is a request for conceptual review of a project at 210 South Hanley Road. The vacant site is located at the northeast corner of Hanley Road and Forest Park Parkway. The 16,566-square-foot property has a zoning designation of HDC High Density Commercial, and is located in the Clayton Plaza Overlay District. The site is surrounded by retail and office uses to the north and west, and Forest Park Parkway to the south. On December 1, 2014, Washington University’s Integrated Planting Design class presented potential temporary design solutions for the site. Since then, the class professor has worked with the property owner to refine the conceptual designs to create a feasible plan that would also meet the site’s parking needs. The applicant proposes a 24-space parking lot which will be integrated with native landscaping, stormwater best management practices (BMPs), and public seating. The parking lot will be accessible by car from the existing parking structure serving the building at 200 South Hanley Road, and to pedestrians from the adjacent sidewalk. According to the applicant, when the site is not used for parking, it will be used for a variety of special events. New streetscape will be required along the property’s Hanley Road frontage and the project will require Site Plan Review approval by the Plan Commission. Susan stated that 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 developer or by the Board/Commission members, are not binding.
8 Professor Gaidis reminded the members of the presentation she made back in December of various student ideas for the property. She informed the members that the students’ work was discussed with the property owner and that three of the students’ schemes included parking (schemes shown). She indicated that she met with Public Works and Laurel Harrington (City’s contracted architect) as well. She noted that all materials are permeable and that there is no striping; no asphalt; no eyesore.
A slide depicting a before picture and rendering after was shown.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is very intriguing. He asked how cars access the lot.
Professor Gaidis stated that the 24 space lot is accessed through the building garage; it is not intended for public parking. She stated that Columnar Maples are used because they grow “up” and Cypress used to suck up water.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is very interesting and that the students deserve an “A”.
Ron Reim indicated that it is a great solution.
Sally Cohn stated she was excited back in December and asked Professor Gaidis if she knew the design would be that of her students.
Professor Gaidis replied “no”; adding that it was a happy accident. She stated that she is also very excited about this project.
Louis Clayton indicated that the next step is to apply for site plan review for initial review by staff.
Sally Cohn commented that the combination of plants are maintainable.
Professor Gaidis indicated that she has a lot of experience with rain gardens.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when the project will be completed.
Professor Gaidis stated that they hope to start within the month, but would hold off until the fall if they can’t plant before July.
Josh Corson asked about lighting.
Professor Gaidis stated the plan does not include additional lighting; but that they could do solar.
9
There was no further discussion regarding this issue.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE MODIFICATION – 142 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
Robert Warren, Baker Pool & Spa, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes noted that the 8,000-square-foot property is located on the east side of North Central Avenue between Pershing Avenue and Maryland Avenue and has a zoning designation of R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District and contains a 2-story single-family home with a below grade, front entry garage. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing masonry wall and fountain in the rear yard, and the construction of a new in ground pool, spa, and patio. The existing impervious coverage on site is 55.2 percent and the proposed impervious coverage is 58.3 percent, which exceeds the allowable 55 percent. In instances where an applicant can demonstrate just cause, the Plan Commission has the authority to approve a modification of up to an additional 5 percent of the impervious coverage requirements. The applicant is requesting a modification of 3.3 percent. According to the applicant, efforts were made to design a pool which will meet the client’s needs, as well as provide enough adjacent patio space to accommodate swimming/pool side activities. The new pool patio is constructed of segmented permeable pavers, and is only located on the south side of the pool. The applicant also proposes to remove 58.5 caliper inches of trees in the rear yard and to plant 60 caliper inches of new trees including Columnar Hornbeam and Cleveland Select Pear. Because this project does not require Site Plan Review, tree replacement is not required nor is review by the City’s contracted landscape architect. The property currently exceeds the allowable impervious coverage amount of 55 percent. The applicant intends to improve the property with a new pool, spa, and patio, and has made efforts to minimize the amount of new impervious coverage on site. The project will exceed the allowable impervious coverage amount by 3.3 percent, which is a relatively small amount. Staff is of the opinion that the requested modification is reasonable and recommends approval.
Mr. Warren informed the members that they did their best to design a pool/spa combination to meet the client’s desires and the City’s requirements and that they chose permeable pavers for the patio surface.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how much higher the grade is at the pool surround.
Mr. Warren replied “less than 6-inches.” He noted it’s the same as the existing planter wall and that the site slopes to the rear and sides, noting the impact is insignificant.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about runoff.
Mr. Warren indicated that the drainage pattern won’t change; runoff will drain to the side and rear as it does currently.
10 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where water will go that falls on the new pool/spa/patio.
Mr. Warren indicated that the pool and spa can accommodate up to a 3-inch rain event (over 3-inches can be contained in the pool).
Mark Winings asked how pools figure into the equation when determining coverage.
Louis Clayton stated that the pool water area is counted as half impervious coverage.
Mark Winings asked if that is standard.
Louis Clayton stated that’s the City’s standard.
Mr. Warren indicated that he believes Clayton is the only municipality who counts water towards coverage.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there are any water complaints from neighbors.
Mr. Warren stated that he believes his clients are relatively new to the area and that he spoke with the neighbor to the north who is aware of the plans and that nothing was mentioned about water issues.
Ron Reim asked about the 60-inches of trees being removed.
Louis Clayton stated that 58.5-inches of trees are being removed and replaced with 60- inches.
Mr. Warren indicated that it is very expensive to plant those trees and that the owner would prefer a scaled down version but if they are required to plant all those trees, that’s what they will do.
Sally Cohn commented that she would love to see how many are left in 5 years. She stated that they could pay into the City’s Forestry Fund in lieu of planting.
Louis Clayton stated that this project does not require tree replacement as it is not a site plan review project; tree replacement is at the owner’s discretion.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the pool and spa are beautiful. He asked if the equipment, shown on the east side of the property, could be hidden and placed somewhere so as not to take up yard space. He stated he is concerned that they are so close to 60% coverage.
Mr. Warren indicated that typically equipment is dedicated to each; one for the pool and one for the spa; however, in this case the equipment is shared. The pump serves both units; as there is
11 one filter and one heater, which reduces the amount of equipment by half. He stated that in his opinion, this is the best location. He stated that they could use permeable pavers for the equipment pad if that would help.
Louis Clayton reminded everyone that permeable pavers count towards impervious coverage so that would not make a difference.
Sally Cohn asked the size of the pool.
Mr. Warren indicated it is 18 X 32 (at its widest and longest).
Ron Reim stated that he shares the concern about pushing the limit of coverage.
Sally Cohn stated that it may set a precedent as well.
Mr. Warren reiterated that water is not counted towards coverage in any other city that he is aware of.
Craig Owens asked if there is a Plan B and if not, what will go away if this is denied.
Mr. Warren stated that they will lose part of the patio; there’s no room for a patio table;just two lounge chairs on each side.
Sally Cohn made reference to an existing upper brick patio.
Mr. Warren stated that is a covered porch.
Mark Wueller, 141 North Bemiston Avenue, indicated that they received no notice of this meeting.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve the request for a 3.3-percent modification to the allowed 55-percent coverage, for a total of 58.3- percent. The motion was seconded by Mark Winings and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Mark Winings and Josh Corson. Nays: Chairman Lichtenfeld, Ron Reim and Sally Cohn. Motion fails. Request is denied.
DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 7608 CARSWOLD DRIVE
Steve Leyton, attorney representing owner, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were the homeowners.
Susan Istenes explained that the subject property is located on the south side of Carswold Drive in the Wydown Forest Subdivision, and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family
12 Dwelling District. The site contains a 1.5-story single family home. The applicant recently removed and replaced an existing asphalt driveway in the same location with asphalt. The City informed the applicant that new and replaced driveways must be constructed with approved material (exposed aggregate, brick paver, or stamped concrete). The applicant has chosen to request approval of the asphalt driveway from the Architectural Review Board. With respect to driveways, the City’s Architectural Guidelines read as follows: “To eliminate the appearance of "a sea of concrete", the driveway should be exposed aggregate, brick pavers or stamped concrete. Aprons are to be constructed to the Department of Public Works standards.” Asphalt is not a permissible material for driveways; consequently the previous asphalt driveway and the newly replaced driveway do not conform to the current Architectural Review Guidelines. Since the adoption of the Architectural Review Guidelines in 1996, the city has required new driveways to be constructed of exposed aggregate, brick pavers, or stamped concrete. However, in the not so recent past, the Planning Department has permitted asphalt and other non-conforming driveways to be replaced with the same material as long as the driveway was not being relocated or increased in size. Approximately 3 years ago after reviewing the driveway/retaining wall replacement practice, it was determined that driveways and retaining walls that were non- conforming to the Architectural Review Guidelines, upon reconstruction, widening or extension, could only be replaced in conformance with the current architectural standards in place at the time. This requirement is consistent with the non-conforming provisions of the Zoning Regulations which serve to eliminate non-conforming situations over time, taking advantage of the opportunity to bring them up to adopted standards when they are changed to a significant degree. To allow the continuous replacement of a non-conforming driveway would only serve to perpetuate the existence of an undesirable single family residential driveway surface theoretically forever, or until a property owner voluntarily brings the surface up to current standards. Existing non-conforming driveways may be repaired and maintained without being required to upgrade to an approved material. To preserve and enhance the visual appeal of the City’s residential neighborhoods, staff is of the opinion that when replaced, non-conforming asphalt driveways should be constructed with an approved material and therefore, recommends denial of the request.
Mr. Leyton indicated that the DeBenedetti’s are also friends of his who take meticulous care of their property and that they’ve even kept up the area in the common island. He noted that there are numerous properties, 41 actually, in Wydown Forest that contain asphalt driveways. He stated that their most compelling argument is that his clients acted in good faith by visiting City Hall and asking about this project and the City representative they spoke with told them that what they wanted to do was fine. At this time, Mr. Leyton presented two photographs of the DeBenedetti’s property at which time he noted that the City would be pleased if everybody kept up their property as well as the DeBenedetti’s do. He noted that the ARB Guidelines to which is referred do not mention asphalt. He stated that they would have patched the driveway had they known an upgraded material was needed, in which case, the City may have an undesired outcome if everyone were to patch versus replace. He reiterated that they acted in good faith and believes it would be harsh to require them to rip it out. He asked that they be allowed to keep the asphalt driveway.
Ron Reim stated that to his knowledge, driveways don’t require a permit.
13
Susan Istenes confirmed that a permit is not required to pour a driveway.
Ron Reim stated that he suspects many driveways have been replaced with a non- conforming material and that enforcement is not consistent.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if verbal responses are common.
Susan Istenes explained that City staff gets hundreds of questions for all types of situations, that all properties are different and that the City doesn’t like hypotheticals. She indicated that the individual who the DeBenedetti’s talked to was located and she is not a Public Works employee; she was substituting that day at the front desk and that she does not give out information regarding other departments.
Chairman Lichtenfeld concurred with the statement about other asphalt driveways being in the neighborhood and wants to be careful not to set a precedent here; he suggested having a discussion at some point about how to prevent changes that are against Code.
Mark Winings stated that the applicant’s presentation was persuasive; that the house looks great and he would be in favor of the work that’s already been done.
Ron Reim questioned if the Board of Aldermen should look at this.
Craig Owens agreed that a policy discussion should take place.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if this should be continued.
Craig Owens suggested it not be continued as discussions could take a long time.
Jeff Nornberg, 328 North Bemiston Avenue, stated that he does not see asphalt as a problem and finds them aesthetically acceptable.
Saleem Rangwala, Clayton resident/architect, echoed the sentiments made by the attorney that the DeBenedetti’s are excellent owners and that maybe some consideration should be given to requiring permits for driveways.
Josh Corson stated that they did approach the City.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion, as there were no more questions or comments from the members or audience.
Craig Owens made a motion to approve the asphalt driveway. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
14
ADDITION/ALTERATION – SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 51 RIDGEMOOR
Bob LaRossa, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the design and materials associated with the proposed construction of an addition and alteration to the existing home. The 11,347-square-foot site is located on the west side of Ridgemoor Drive in the Claverach Park Subdivision and has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District. The existing two-story home measures 2,824 square feet, and the applicants propose the following improvements:
1. On the front elevation, relocate the existing front door to the north under a new hip roof entryway. Infill the existing front door opening with brick in a decorative pattern. 2. On the north (side) elevation, remove the existing porte-cochere and infill with new brick and windows. 3. On the south (side) elevation, partially fill in one window completely fill in another window. 4. On the rear elevation, remove a non-functioning wood frame chimney, replace the rear entry deck and stairs, construct a +/- 1,344-square-foot, 2-story addition, and re-open one original window on the second story.
In addition, the existing roof, windows and wood siding will be replaced. Subdivision Trustee approval has been submitted. The primary building materials for the proposed addition and alterations is brick with gray/brown Hardie Board lap siding accents. The proposed roof of the existing home and addition will be clad in brown/gray architectural asphalt shingles, and gray/brown casement windows are proposed throughout. The amount of lap siding on each elevation will not exceed 25 percent except for the rear elevation where 29 percent lap siding is proposed. The Architectural Review Guidelines limit the amount of accent materials to no more than 25 percent of any elevation; however, the ARB has the authority to approve up to 30 percent siding per elevation. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the home and is not visible from the street. The lower level of the new addition consists of a two-car garage with two gray/brown garage doors and the upper level is unfinished. The massing of the proposed addition is articulated with windows, accent materials, and variations in roof forms, and is compatible with the height and massing of the existing home. Exterior lighting is proposed at the entry doors and garage addition, and will not exceed 75 watts. An existing +/- 39-square-foot trash enclosure is located under the rear porch and not visible from the public right-of-way. HVAC units are located at the south side of the garage addition and will be screened by an existing privacy fence. 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 is consistent with existing materials on the home and on other homes in the neighborhood and recommends approval as submitted.
15 Mr. LaRossa informed the members that he is from upstate New York and purchased this home which was built in 1928. He stated that home is in bad condition and needs a lot of work.
Mr. LaRossa began a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide depicted a photo of the front elevation of the home; the second slide provided an explanation of the scope of work. Subsequent slides depicted the existing porta cochere and site plan.
*Note: Ron Reim left the meeting (7:25 p.m.)
Samples of the proposed window and Hardie Board fiber cement siding were presented.
Sally Cohn asked if they will remain within the coverage limits.
Mr. LaRossa indicated that after the improvements, coverage will be at about 42%.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it looks nice. He stated that the siding is okay with him as it won’t be seen from the street.
Mr. LaRossa confirmed.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that there is no site plan review required for this project.
Louis Clayton confirmed, noting that the size is below the threshold.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about the brick.
Mr. LaRossa stated that they are still searching for a match.
Sally Cohn asked if he checked Richards Brick.
Mr. LaRossa replied “yes”, noting that they didn’t have any.
Sally Cohn commented that she will miss the front entry, but that it’s not that big of a deal.
Mr. LaRossa stated that he didn’t think the curve was right.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested staff look at and approve the brick.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve as submitted with the condition that staff review and approve the brick. The motion was seconded by Sally Cohn and unanimously approved by the Board.
16
*Note: the Chairman called for a 10 minute recess at 7:35 p.m.
At 7:43 p.m. the meeting re-convened.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – 8300 MARYLAND AVENUE
Adrien Allen, representing Brown Shoe, was in attendance at the meeting.
Louis Clayton indicated that the subject building is located on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Gay Avenue and Topton Way and contains a large two-story brick and concrete building. In 1999, the Architectural Review Board approved a sign modification to permit the installation of the 86-square-foot wall sign on the front façade of the building facing the corner of Maryland Avenue and Topton Way. The applicant proposes to remove the existing “Brown Shoe” sign located at the corner of the building and replace it with a new 30-square-foot sign with the company’s new name, “Caleres” in 3-foot tall limestone letters. A 3.5-square-foot wall sign reading “*5*” will be located underneath the primary sign and will be constructed of stainless steel. The signs will back lit with LED lights. The Sign Regulations permit a 25-square-foot wall sign on each building elevation with street frontage for single tenant office buildings. The proposed sign exceeds the allowable size and therefore a sign modification is requested. The proposed sign is made of high quality materials and is consistent with the location, design, and materials of the existing signs on site; however, it does not meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. According to the Sign Ordinance, modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. This building is permitted a 25 square foot sign on both the Maryland Avenue and Topton Way elevations. The modification will result in a larger sign than permitted; however, the proposed sign is less than the 50 square foot combined signage permitted. The proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign and appropriately sized given the large size of the building. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed placement, size, design and materials of the sign is appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the building and site, and staff supports granting the requested sign modification and recommends approval with the condition that the applicant apply for and receive a sign permit prior to installation.
Mr. Allen indicated that the letters are 2-feet tall (not 3-feet as indicated in the staff report).
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the plans show 2-foot tall letters.
Mr. Allen stated that the polyester/resin letters will have the texture and color of limestone and that they will be back-lit with LED lights.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how the old sign will be eliminated.
Mr. Allen stated that the Brown Shoe sign is already gone.
17 Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he likes the sign.
Being no further questions or comments from the members or the audience, Sally Cohn made a motion to approve per staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
REZONING - 111 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
Joe Downs, Ernesto Ruiz Garcia & Ryan Carlie (Opus Group), Jeremy Roach (Cole & Associates) and Josh Barcus (Stock & Associates) were in attendance at the meeting.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mark Winings recused himself. He left the member table and did not participate in any discussion and/or vote with regard to the proposal (includes 25 North Central PUD project as well).
Susan Istenes explained that the rezoning requests (both properties) and PUD application are combined in the staff report, although will be voted on independently. She read the report as follows:
This is a public hearing to solicit input regarding the rezoning of property located at 25 North Central Avenue from HDC High Density Commercial District and CBD Core Overlay District to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, to consider the terms and conditions of the PUD if the property is rezoned, and rezoning the property located at 111 North Central Avenue from R-3 One & Two Family Dwelling District to C-2 General Commercial District to permit the construction of a 30-space surface parking lot. The rezonings and PUD are being considered together in this memo because of the interconnectivity between the three reviews; however, they are separated on the agenda and must be voted on separately. In addition to approval of the rezonings and PUD, this project also requires approval of a Subdivision Plat and approval by the Architectural Review Board. This project was first presented to the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board on December 15, 2014 for conceptual review.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
25 North Central is located at the southwest corner of Central and Maryland Avenues, and is bordered by a public alley to the south, and an existing hotel and office buildings to the west. The 0.75-acre property has a zoning designation of High Density Commercial District (HDC) and is located in the CBD Core Overlay District. The property is improved with a 1-story commercial building, a 2-5 story commercial building, a surface parking lot and a 2-story parking structure. 111 North Central Avenue is located on the west side of North Central Avenue, just north of Maryland Avenue. The 0.28-acre property has a zoning designation of R-3: One and Two-Family Dwelling District. The property is improved with a two level parking structure (one level below, and one level at grade) and is surrounded by parking lots, and institutional uses.
18
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing structures at 25 North Central Avenue, and the construction of a 123,806-square-foot, 6-story (+/- 69 feet) building located on top of a 2 level below grade parking structure. The building will contain 13,297 square feet of ground floor retail, 121 residential units (9 studio units, 30 alcove units, 38 one-bedroom units, 43 two- bedroom units, and 1 guest suite), and 145 parking spaces. The existing parking structure at 111 North Central Avenue will be demolished and replaced with a 30-space surface parking lot.
One access point is proposed along the southern alley to serve the below grade parking structure, visitor parking lot, and loading/service spaces. City streetscape will be installed along the project limits on Maryland Avenue and South Central Avenue. To accommodate the streetscape along Maryland Avenue, the applicant proposes the removal of three on-street parking spaces. This project will implement the first phase of a “road diet” on North Central Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Bonhomme Avenue. The road will be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction and a center turn lane will be installed. The cost of streetscape at 111 North Central Avenue will be escrowed and installed at a later date. 111 North Central has a zoning designation of R-3 One and Two Family Dwelling District and is improved with a two level parking structure (one level below, and one at grade) constructed in 1962. The applicant proposes to demolish the parking structure and replace it with a 30-space parking lot to be used by future residents of 25 North Central Avenue. Two 14-foot deep landscape beds with new trees, shrubs and ground cover are proposed between the parking lot and the public sidewalk. Parking lots and parking structures are not permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district and therefore the applicant requests to rezone the property to C-2 General Commercial District. The subject lot was rezoned to C-2 in 2008 as part of a larger redevelopment project that included the properties at 25 and 119 North Central Avenue; however, the project’s approvals expired in 2012 and the property reverted back to its original zoning designation. The decision to rezone property is a legislative judgment of the Board of Aldermen, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Plan Commission and the general guidance of the city's comprehensive plan. There are no pre-established criteria which the Board or the Plan Commission when rendering a recommendation, must utilize in assessing a proposed rezoning. The site is located in the North Central District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision of the district is to “grow at a human scale along key pedestrian streets, with fine-grained development, active streets and walkable commercial areas.” North Central Avenue is identified in the plan as a pedestrian priority corridor. The Plan notes that service areas and parking lots should be located to minimize their impact on the street edge.
19 Staff is of the opinion that the C-2 zoning designation is more appropriate for this property than R-3 due to the historic use of the property as a parking lot, the site’s proximity to Downtown, and compatibility with the zoning designations of adjacent properties. Approval of the rezoning will allow the property to continue being used for parking as it has since 1962, and will allow the property owner to make necessary site improvements. While the construction of a parking lot in itself does not realize the vision of the Downtown Master Plan, rezoning the property to C-2 may facilitate the future redevelopment of the site as envisioned in the Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - 111 N CENTRAL
To recommend approval of the rezoning of 111 North Central Avenue to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That this rezoning request be contingent upon approval of the Planned Unit Development by the Board of Aldermen. If approval of the Planned Unit Development expires, becomes invalid or the project is not constructed, the subject properties will revert back to R-3 “One and Two Family Dwelling District”. 2. That the rezoning only becomes effective if the existing parking structure is removed.
REZONING & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – 25 NORTH CENTRAL
Properties in the CBD Core Overlay Zoning District are eligible for consideration of a PUD if the development incorporates ground floor retail or a ground floor public restaurant and one of the following four categories of use: office, residential, public parking, or hotel; exceeds 50,000 square feet in size and is unable to meet the established zoning criteria. The proposed building meets these criteria. Because the project is mixed-use, it is classified as a PUD. PUDs are intended to encourage the efficient use of land and resources, promote greater efficiency in public and utility services, and encourage innovation in the planning and building of all types of development. The purpose of the PUD process is to foster appropriate use of existing buildings and enable compatible redevelopment which provides public benefits (as itemized in Section 405.1380), and achieve the following objectives:
1) Creation of a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of other City land use regulations; 2) Promotion of a creative approach to the use of land and related physical facilities resulting in better design and development, including aesthetic amenities; 3) Combination and coordination of architectural styles, building forms and building relationships; 4) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, vegetation and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 5) Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City; 6) Use of design, landscape or architectural features to create a pleasing environment;
20 7) Inclusion of special features; 8) Elimination of deteriorated structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation; and 9) Facilitate implementation of the recommendations of the business district's master plan.
The Zoning Regulations stipulate that PUDs are a distinct zoning district and therefore require approval of a rezoning concurrently with approval of the PUD. The following table summarizes the applicable zoning requirements and whether the proposed development complies with each standard. The PUD process gives the Board of Aldermen the authority to approve waivers from specific zoning requirements in exchange for public benefits. Once approved, the PUD becomes the specific zoning regulations governing the use and development of the property at 25 North Central Avenue.
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Waiver Required Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.5 (maximum) 3.88 Yes Setback (Front) None 0’ (Maryland & N. Central Avenues) No Setback (Side) None 2-10’ No Setback (Rear) 15’ (minimum) 0-10’ No Height 4 Stories or 45’ (maximum) 6 stories (+/- 69’) Yes Building Stepback 15’ stepback (upper story building setback), beginning at the 3rd story, along all building elevations with street frontage, except alleys. 14-17.5’ stepback at the 2nd story for 60’ (30%) of the North Central Avenue frontage. No stepback provided on Maryland Avenue. Yes Unit size 750 sq.ft. (minimum) 65 units (54%) are less than 750 sq.ft. Yes Ground Floor Uses Retail, personal care, or similar Retail No Parking (Automobile) 287 spaces (minimum) 175 spaces (145 at 25 N. Central, 30 at 111 N. Central) Yes Parking (Bicycle) 9 racks (minimum) 9 racks No
21 According to the applicant, the following public benefits to the City are intended to be derived from the approval of the PUD: 1) Extraordinary landscaping and greenspace provisions; >> With the installation of streetscape along North Central and Maryland Avenues, there will be a net gain in the number of street trees. Additionally, an approximately 3,800 square foot green roof is proposed at the rear of the building.
2) Garage entryways by virtue of their location, materials and design blend with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood; >> The entrance to the parking structure is located off the alley and not visible from the public right-of-way.
3) Architectural distinction and significance that would make the development noteworthy; >> The building sits between the taller buildings to the west, the mid-rise buildings along North Central Avenue, and the residential neighborhood to the north. As a transitional building, it displays significant mass at the corner of North Central and Maryland, defining the street edge and covering the existing parking to the west. The elevations are articulated by interior balconies that break the mass down into residential scaled volumes, with proportions and openings that relate to historic and residential buildings in the context. According to the applicant, “the aesthetic is timeless, with unique and exciting elements, yet restrained and respectful of context.”
4) Extensive use of high quality building materials that would add to the assessed valuation of the structure. >> The use of brick on the North Central and Maryland Avenue elevations acknowledge the history of the heart of downtown, while the modern detailing and use of complementary materials make for an attractive, well-appointed contemporary building. The extensive use of glass makes the building open and inviting, provides more "eyes on the street", and will enhance the visible activity level of the neighborhood.
5) Provision of new public infrastructure including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, sidewalks, sanitary sewers, stormwater sewers, lighting and public parking; >> Overhead utilities will be relocated underground. The alley will be widened 4 feet in conformance with city standards. City standard streetscape will be installed along the project limits on Maryland and North Central Avenues. The cost for streetscape at 111 North Central Avenue will be escrowed for future development.
6) Provisions for reduced sale or rental for a percentage of the units to encourage the goal of affordable housing;
22 >> Approximately 30 percent of residences are reduced in size (475 to 650 square feet) to offer lower monthly rent options. Although not considered "affordable housing”, it is an attempt to offer product at the lower end of market rents.
7) Sustainable building design and construction including, but not limited to, sustainable site development, green roofs, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. >> Sustainable building design and construction including, but not limited to sustainable site development, green roofs, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. See attached Sustainable Initiatives document.
8) Inclusion of below grade public parking facility located underneath the proposed development; >> Secure and tempered residential parking, bike storage, and residential storage will be located beneath the building.
9) Inclusion of special access features or provisions to existing or planned public transit facilities; >> The public bicycle racks are located on the sidewalk on North Central Avenue. An additional six bicycle racks are located in the parking structure for residents use. The property is located three blocks from the Metro transit center and Metrolink station.
The Plan Commission shall recommend to the Board of Aldermen approval, approval with conditions or denial of the development plan. In considering and acting upon development plans, landscape plans and other applicable plans, the Plan Commission shall take the following objectives into consideration through the PUD process:
Downtown Master Plan
1) The proposed development is in harmony with general purposes and intent of Chapter 405 of the Municipal Code and is compatible with and implements the planning goals and objectives of the City; >> The site is located in the North Central District as identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision of the district is to “grow at a human scale along key pedestrian streets, with fine-grained development, active streets and walkable commercial areas.” North Central Avenue is identified in the plan as a pedestrian priority corridor. The proposed development will be appropriately scaled, urban in character, will maintain a consistent street wall along the majority of its street frontage, and will have pedestrian oriented storefront architecture. The proposed uses and design will increase residential density, pedestrian activity, and will contribute positively to downtown as a whole. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan.
23
Design & Materials
2) Footprint geometry should be square and true with the roadway to the extent possible. Odd shapes and building orientation which compete with the total urban setting should be avoided. >> The proposed building is oriented towards Maryland and North Central Avenues.
3) The proposed development preserves architectural and environmental features of the property. >> The existing buildings will be demolished.
4) The proposed materials, design and uses are compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development or the City as a whole. Architecture and building materials are consistent with the design of the development and compatible with the adjacent neighborhood; >> The site is located in the historic center of Downtown, with buildings at a significantly smaller scale than other areas of Downtown. The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along its street frontage. The proposed building is constructed primarily of brick and architectural panels. Vision glass will be used at the street level retail spaces and awnings are proposed along North Central Avenue. An outdoor amenity deck is located in a building stepback on the second floor, and recessed balconies are proposed along the building’s street frontage. The proposed project is consistent with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Landscaping
5) Appropriate buffering is provided to protect adjacent land uses from light, noise and visual impacts; and, new developments should be screened from adjacent properties by use of high caliper tree plantings. A landscape plan depicting all new plantings on the site must be submitted as part of the plan. >> Due to the urban context of the site and the surrounding compatible land uses, buffering between adjacent properties isn’t required.
6) Landscaping is appropriate with the scale of the development and consistent with any applicable City codes, ordinances and standards. >> To complement the urban character of the proposed building, six raised planters are proposed adjacent to the retail storefronts fronting North Central Avenue. The planters will contain appropriate seasonal plantings. An approximately 3,800 square foot green roof is proposed on the second level courtyard at the rear of the building. Canadian Hemlock, Hick Yew, and multiple varieties of Sedum are proposed. The
24 city’s contracted landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plan and finds it acceptable.
7) The preservation of mature trees is encouraged. The developer/architect will be required to submit a plan showing trees and other significant plant material as they currently exist and how they will be preserved. Tree preservation must comply with the provisions of the Architectural Review Board guidelines, landscape ordinance and any other applicable City codes and standards. Landscape plan requirements shall be in conformance with the City's adopted landscape ordinance. >> There are no existing trees on site. Seven street trees will be removed and replaced with 13 street trees along North Central and Maryland Avenues. The final selection of street species will be determined by the City at a later time.
Grading and Drainage
8) Every attempt shall be made to preserve the topography of the property. If the topography must be altered to accommodate construction, the plan must contain specific information regarding the proposed topography change and its impact on the flow of drainage on adjacent properties. >> The existing stormwater runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 2.93 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 2.89 CFS, which represents a decrease of 0.04 CFS, and therefore stormwater mitigation is not required. Stormwater runoff from the site will be piped directly to the public storm sewer system. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the stormwater plan acceptable. The project has received conceptual approval from the Metropolitan Sewer District.
Traffic & Parking
9) Streets or other means of access to the proposed development meet City of Clayton standards and are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and will not overload the adjacent streets; >> One access point is proposed along the southern alley to serve the below grade parking structure, visitor parking lot, and loading/service spaces. The City’s contracted traffic engineer analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development and the adjacent intersections. According to the traffic study, the surrounding intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service during morning and afternoon peak hours. The project is expected to generate 85 new vehicular trips during the a.m. peak hour and 160 new vehicular trips during the p.m. peak hour. The traffic study took into consideration the proposed “road diet” which will reduce North Central Avenue from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction and a center turn lane between Maryland Avenue and Bonhomme Avenue. The study finds that acceptable levels of service can be
25 maintained at the surrounding intersections after the project is developed without additional road improvements.
10) The internal circulation system of the proposed development encourages safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians; >> The layout of the parking structure meets the City’s requirements for circulation and access. One loading space for the building will be located off the rear alley in accordance with the city’s loading space requirements.
11) Parking should be located within the City block interior and deeper into parcels; and, surface parking, drive aisles or vehicular access ways should not abut any sidewalk. >> The City’s parking regulations require 287 off-street parking spaces for the proposed project and the applicant proposes 175 parking spaces. 140 parking spaces will be located in the below grade parking structure at 25 North Central, including 8 visitor parking spaces. 30 parking spaces will be located at a new surface parking lot at 111 North Central Avenue. According to the applicant, up to 35 percent of the total parking spaces at both sites may be reserved, including ADA spaces. A reduction in the amount of required parking spaces can be approved through the PUD process. The City’s contracted traffic engineer conducted a parking study based on field data and standard parking models. The parking study estimates that the 175 parking spaces proposed by the development is sufficient to meet the needs of the project as long as the number of reserved spaces (including ADA) does not exceed 35 percent of the total number of parking spaces. >> To accommodate new streetscape along Maryland Avenue, the applicant proposes the removal of three on-street parking spaces. Removal of the parking spaces will result in loss of revenue to the city, and the development will increase the demand for on street parking in this area. For these reasons, the Public Works Department does not support the removal of the on street parking spaces. The Board of Aldermen has ultimate authority regarding the preservation or elimination of on-street parking spaces. >> Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed development is required to provide nine bicycle racks. The applicant proposes to install six bicycle racks in a secure room in the parking structure. Three additional bicycle racks will be located on the public sidewalk along North Central Avenue. The proposed bicycle racks are in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations.
Utilities
12) Existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development; >> All connections to public utilities are shown on the plans to be installed in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. Other
26 13) The proposed development complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances >> Staff is of the opinion that the project complies with all other applicable codes and ordinances.
This site is located at a highly visible gateway to Downtown and has the potential to define future redevelopment in the nearby area. The addition of street-level retail and 121 residential units will add new energy to the area and may act as a catalyst for future redevelopment. The proposed development will be urban in character, appropriately scaled, will maintain a consistent street wall along its street frontage, and will have pedestrian oriented storefront architecture. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed public benefits are acceptable relative to the requested zoning waivers, that the development is consistent with the current zoning code requirements for PUDs, and that the project meets the provisions of the land use policies contained in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. Susan stated that staff’s recommendation is to recommend approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development of 25 North Central Avenue to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the plans be revised to show the preservation of the three existing on-street parking spaces and the installation of city standard streetscape along Maryland Avenue. 2. That no more than 35 percent of the 175 parking spaces may be reserved, including ADA spaces. 3. That the approved development plan and Planned Unit Development Ordinance be recorded with St. Louis County and proof of recording be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that only the requested rezoning of 111 North Central Avenue is being considered now.
Mr. Downs indicated that the rezoning request is to allow the construction of a 30 space surface parking lot.
Mr. Barcus stated that the existing garage is in the same location as the proposed surface lot.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is any change to City property in conjunction with this lot.
Mr. Downs replied “no”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about lighting.
Mr. Roach stated that lighting will be located in front of the lot behind the public sidewalk.
Sally Cohn asked if there were any pictures of the lot.
27
Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to Page L2.1 of the plan set.
Sally Cohn asked how many spaces the garage has.
Mr. Roach replied “50 – 55 spaces”.
Sally Cohn stated that it is a shame to lose parking. She questions when the time will come where Clayton is overbuilt and underparked.
Mr. Roach indicated that they would love to keep the existing garage but it is in poor shape.
Sally Cohn indicated that she is a bit confused about the parking under the building.
Mr. Roach stated there are 2 full parking levels under the building for use by the building residents.
Sally Cohn indicated that she realizes only consideration of rezoning 111 North Central is being discussed at this time she asked the number of spaces under the building.
Mr. Roach replied 145.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if that’s a 1.2 space/unit ratio.
Mr. Roach replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn asked the parking ratio for their building at Union & Euclid.
Mr. Roach replied “1.2”.
Jim Liberman asked the parking ratio for their building on Laclede.
Mr. Roach replied 2.1 spaces per unit; noting those are condos not apartments.
Sally Cohn asked how wide the area is where the English Oaks are.
Mr. Bacus replied “350 square foot each”.
Ernest Maddox, 134A North Central Avenue, stated that he is okay with the rezoning and the parking, but has an issue with the project itself as there’s no parking in Clayton and that they can’t even park on their streets. He stated that this project takes away the opportunity for the City to rectify the situation. He believes the City should hold out for something more to help alleviate
28 the current [parking] situation. He stated that he believes the project will draw more traffic and demand more parking than is being proposed.
Jeannine Kalkwarf, 168 North Central Avenue, asked if resident parking stickers will be required to park in the neighborhood.
Craig Owens indicated that their area is out of the zone; so stickers are not issued/required.
Louis Clayton reminded everyone that the rezoning is contingent on the approval (and construction) of the building.
Sally Cohn asked if the Commission is only voting at this time on the rezoning.
Chairman Lichtenfeld replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn stated that she would like to see more parking.
Louis Clayton stated that the parking lot is not part of the PUD.
Jim Liberman asked what the property is being used for now; who parks there now.
Jason Casey, Graybar Electric, indicated that nobody parks there now.
Being provided the opportunity to speak and hearing no public comments, Craig Owens made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of 111 North Central Avenue to the Board of Aldermen per staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
REZONING – PUD - 25 NORTH CENTRAL (MIXED-USE PROJECT) OPUS GROUP
Susan Istenes explained that the project deviates from the zoning regulations with regard to FAR, height, step-back, unit size and parking. She stated that the public benefits are streetscape, green roof, entrance off an alley, architectural distinction, high quality building materials, sustainability, and below grade parking.
Sally Cohn made a motion to open the public hearing for the rezoning and PUD. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
Mr. Downs reminded the members that they first presented this project in conceptual form back in December and since then they have collaborated with staff and now wish formal approval. He stated that everyone is very excited about the project He clarified that they are proposing 145 parking spaces under the building; not 140 as stated on Page 13 of staff’s report.
29
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the audience had any comments about the rezoning request.
Jeff Nornberg asked how the number of parking spaces can be justified when the number implies that no one has two vehicles.
Mr. Downs stated that a total of 175 spaces are being provided; 145 under the building nad an additional 30 across the street. He stated that 65% of the units are 1 bedroom, studio or alcove units and their target market are those who like to walk or use public transit (noting the property is only 3 blocks from a MetroLink Station). He stated that they feel confident in the amount of parking they are proposing.
Suzie Forsyth, 159 North Central Avenue, stated that she is thrilled something will be done on the corner and relies on the people to do the best they can. She voiced her support of the rezoning.
Kent Kalkwarf, 168 North Central Avenue, questioned the occupancy of Clayton on the Park. He then noted that The Crossing development will be coming to town soon as well as apartments across Brown Shoe, for a total of between 600-700 new residential units in downtown. He asked if Clayton has a target number of units they want to add to the City.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that there is no set number and that an increase in residential units means an increase in street life and retail.
Craig Owens commented that while there is no established number, an independent study was conducted and that within a 5 mile radius, 4,000 units would be the demand and that the City is well within that at this time.
Mr. Kalkwarf stated that 4 years ago he didn’t move his business to Clayton because of the parking problems.
Rita Nornberg, 328 North Bemiston Avenue, thinks it’s nice that this project will bring in young people, but those young people have friends and those friends have cars.
Ms. Kalkwarf asked if the developer is asking for tax abatements.
Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that is not something this Commission considers.
Ms. Kalkwarf asked what the rental fees will be.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that she can ask the developer that question, but that, too, is something not pertinent to this discussion.
Sally Cohn questioned if the green roof was Graybar’s idea.
30
Mr. Downs stated that they thought the west facing green roof would be special.
Sally Cohn stated that’s why the storm water run-off numbers are down. She added that the green roof may be a public benefit, but not the parking.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that not all the public benefits listed have to be provided.
Sally Cohn voiced her concern regarding parking. She stated that she would hate a missed opportunity at the 111 site to provide more parking.
Jim Curley, 139 North Central Avenue, informed the members that the parking at 111 is tied to the 25 North Central Avenue building.
Sally Cohn questioned if that matters.
Mr. Curley indicated that it’s never been public parking.
Mr. Downs commented that parking is typically a concern and a point of discussion and asked that the City consider the parking study which states that the project will meet the parking demand and that their project is not being asked to resolve a greater issue.
Hank Winkleman, 7405 Maryland Avenue, asked that the needs of the community be considered and how this project affects everyone is critical.
Lee Cannon, Crawford, Bunte & Brammeier, traffic engineer, (preparer of the parking study) stated that he looked at the industry standard, the City’s parking regulations, the current project, COTP and the public when preparing the study. He stated that they believe the 175 parking spaces provided is more than adequate. He reminded everyone that they (applicant/developer) own the property and have to be able to rent out those units. He stated that they would be comfortable with any number over 165 and they are providing 175.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Mr. Cannon had any comments regarding traffic.
Mr. Cannon stated that Clayton is on a grid with connections to major interstates. He stated that they preferred access from the alley, which is being improved to 24-feet, which basically results in a 2-way street, noting that over time, the City wants to narrow Central Avenue. He stated that residential opportunities with retail are needed to reduce traffic.
Sally Cohn commented that COTP is different due to its location; this project isn’t close to the Central Business District and downtown retail. She added that she would love to get cars off the road to utilize mass transit.
31 Mr. Cannon indicated that he’s never come to Clayton and been unable to find a place to park; he noted that everyone can’t park at the front door. He added that he believes the project will be self-sufficient and not create a negative impact, reminding everyone that this is only 3 blocks from MetroLink.
Keith Kramer, 8016 Pershing Avenue, voiced his support of the project and believes that some residents will work in Clayton.
Hearing no additional questions or comments from the members or the audience, Josh Corson made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Sally Cohn and unanimously approved by the members.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the applicant if they are okay with the conditions contained in the staff report.
Mr. Downs stated that he will comply with conditions 2 and 3, but as much as they’ve tried, they cannot comply with the first one which revolves around the retention of the three on-street parking spaces without moving the building by 5-feet and the project at that time becomes economically unviable.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the building is being brought out to where Il Vicino’s outdoor dining area used to be.
Mr. Downs replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn asked the reason for the City wanting to retain those spaces.
John Wulf, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the reason is to retain those spaces for retail parking.
Sally Cohn asked how many on-street parking spaces were lost due to The Crossing project.
John Wulf indicated that more on-street spaces were created due to The Crossing.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion, barring any additional questions or comments.
Craig Owens made a motion to recommend the rezonings and PUD to the Board of Aldermen pursuant to staff recommendations 2 and 3. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and received the following vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Ron Reim and Josh Corson. Nays: Sally Cohn. Motion carries.
SUBDIVISION PLAT – 25 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
32
Susan Istenes explained that the plat consolidates five existing lots (Lots 10-12 and parts of Lots 13 & 14, Block 5 in the Town (now City) of Clayton) that have historically been under common ownership and addressed as 25 North Central Avenue and also provides for an 800 square foot right-of-way dedication to the City along the southern alley to allow it to be widened to meet city standards. The consolidated lot will measure 31,942 square feet. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement and 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 after Board of Aldermen approval;
2. That the applicant files the plat with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds office and submit proof of filing to the City within 60 days of Board of Aldermen approval.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he believes this is the right way to go and is consistent with the Master Plan.
Mr. Downs asked for more time to file the plat.
It was decided that could be discussed at a later time.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to recommend approval of the Plat to the Board of Aldermen per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes indicated that the proposed building is constructed primarily of red brick and fiber cement panels in blue and two shades of gray. The building is located between taller buildings to the west, mid-rise buildings along North Central Avenue, and a residential neighborhood to the north. Each elevation is articulated through the use of recessed balconies, windows and accent materials. Large storefront windows with vision glass will be used at the street level retail spaces and awnings are proposed along South Central Avenue. Susan noted that staff’s recommendation is to approve as submitted.
Ryan Carlie, Opus, began a PowerPoint presentation.
An aerial slide depicting the subject properties was shown. Slides depicting floor plans were also presented.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the green roof is accessible.
33
Mr. Carlie replied “no”.
Mr. Ruiz Garcia referred to the second floor slide, noting that activity will take place on this level. He stated that they are very excited about this project.
A slide depicting a color rendering of the project was shown. Mr. RuizGarcia noted that they re-looked at the distribution of units at the corners and now the building has solid, strong corners with the retail entrance off the alley.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted the cap on the building.
Mr. Ruiz Garcia stated that it’s small; not overpowering and used to create a shadow line. He noted that brick now turns all 4 corners of the building and that the lobby is now more exposed. A sample of the brick, included on a sample board, was presented.
Josh Corson asked about the yellow.
Mr. Ruiz Garcia indicated that the yellow is for the awnings.
Slides depicting street elevations and a close up of the lobby area were shown.
Josh Corson commented that it looks great.
Sally Cohn concurred.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he is happy with the corner.
Craig Owens asked if the balconies will be transparent.
Mr. Ruiz Garcia stated that hasn’t yet been determined.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any other comments from the members or the audience.
None were received.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.
Josh Corson 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 will start seeing the cranes.
34
Mr. Downs indicated that they are already out there.
The Board congratulated them.
*******************************************************************************
Craig Owens indicated that the issue of parking is being worked on from an economic development perspective; parking’s been talked about for a while.
Being no further business this evening, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
______________________________ Recording Secretary