April 6, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
APRIL 6, 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 Jim Liberman Ron Reim Sally Cohn Josh Corson
Absent: None
Also Present: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Louis Clayton, Planner Kevin O’Keefe, City Attorney
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that there are a number of reviews associated with the projects on this agenda, so time will be limited. He indicated that the applicants will first present their proposals and noted that conceptual review of the Vanguard proposal previously took place. He asked that everyone who wishes to address the Commission to step up to the podium and speak loudly and clearly and to be sure that the green light on the microphone is on for proper recording. He also asked that all cell phone ringers be muted and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.
MINUTES
The minutes of the March 2, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. Sally Cohn asked for the following changes/clarifications be made: Page 3, change sentence (middle of page) to read: “Sally Cohn commented that currently it contains no plants and is a large mulched basin” and Page 7 change sentence (toward top of page) to read: “Sally Cohn mentioned the 17’ X 17’ outdoor space. She noted the Maple Trees appear to be planted on 4-foot centers, but these trees, if given a chance, would be 15-foot wide.” The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.
2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – MONUMENT SIGN – 7700 DAVIS DRIVE (CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH)
Tyler Stephens, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.
Louis Clayton indicated that the applicant proposes to replace an existing V-shaped monument sign located near the intersection of Hanley Road and Davis Drive with a two sided, 18- square-foot ground sign to be located on the west side of the sidewalk, oriented perpendicular to Hanley Road attached to a six-foot tall stone wall base. A three-foot stone wall of the same design is proposed on the east side of the sidewalk on private property. The proposed sign panel is made of black aluminum and will contain the name of the church in white, internally illuminated cut out letters. A mulched landscape bed is proposed in the area around the sign and will include Boxwood and Variegated Iris plantings. Section 425.060 of the Sign Regulations addresses ground signs as follows:
A ground sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area depicting the name of the building or names of not more than five (5) major tenants, each of which occupies a significant portion of the building, may be erected in lieu of any permitted wall sign, provided the ground sign is designed as a compatible and integral part of a landscaped area or plaza and the size, location, design and construction materials are approved by the Architectural Review Board.
Louis noted that the size of the proposed ground sign is below the permitted size for ground signs and is proportional to the building. The proposed stone wall base incorporates architectural elements from the building and the sign panel is constructed of high quality materials. The sign is located in a landscaped area as required. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign meets the requirements of the Sign Regulations as it pertains to ground signs. The three-foot stone wall on the east side of the sidewalk is permitted with the approval of the Architectural Review Board. This design will complement the adjacent entry feature found on Davis Drive. Louis stated that staff’s recommendation is to approve as submitted.
Mr. Stephens began a PowerPoint presentation. A site plan was presented showing the location of the existing sign which would be replaced by the new sign. Mr. Stephens noted that the proposed sign is more updated and in keeping with the work recently completed on the property. Slides depicting elevation drawings were presented. He noted that the actual lettering font may differ from that shown on the slide, but the size is accurate.
A slide depicting the landscape plan associated with the sign was shown.
Mr. Stephens noted that the sidewalk is entirely on private (church) property.
3
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the internally lit sign will be seen from the north and south.
Mr. Stephens replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the sign will contain sermon information.
Mr. Stephens replied “no”.
Mark Winings asked how large the existing sign is.
Mr. Stephens indicated that the square footage meets the ordinance regulations at 4 X 6.5 feet.
Mark Winings asked the size of the structure.
Mr. Stephens replied that it is well over his head; close to 7 feet. He emphasized that the sign panel is the 25 square feet; the structure itself is larger.
Jim Liberman stated that he would like staff to approve logo (font) and language changes.
Mr. Stephens stated that there are no 3D effects or spinning letters or anything like that.
Sally Cohn asked how wide the strip is between the sidewalk and curb.
Mr. Stephens replied “about 10 feet”.
Sally Cohn asked about the size of the planting bed.
Mr. Stephens stated it is 7 X 10 or 8 X 10 thereabouts.
Sally Cohn commented that there will be a lot of mulch there in the winter.
Mr. Stephens agreed.
Sally Cohn asked if they would consider adding monkey grass or liriope.
Mr. Stephens indicated that he is sure the church would be willing to do that.
Craig Owens stated that the sign looks good and that he is excited about its setback from Hanley Road. He asked the purpose of the wall on the east side of the sidewalk; noting that it may “catch” somebody using the sidewalk.
4 Mr. Stephens stated that he’s not concerned about a conflict for joggers and/or people going to church and that the idea was that the existing sign is more automobile-oriented and they wanted this to be more of a campus feel. He noted that the same width exists at the garage entrance.
Mark Winings asked how signage square footage is determined.
Louis Clayton explained that for ground signs, the panel is measured; for wall signs that are not on a panel, the area around the lettering is measured.
Mark Winings asked if the structure itself is regulated.
Louis Clayton replied “no” because it is associated with a sign; however, all of it is subject to review and approval by this Board.
Ms. Elizabeth (last name withheld) voiced concern about safety and children not being seen behind the wall.
Bob Kuehn, Davis Place resident, indicated that he had a PowerPoint presentation.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that typically non-applicants are not permitted to make a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Kuehn objected; adding that it’s not okay and that residents need to be able to voice their concerns.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that PowerPoint presentations are allowed for presenting proposals.
Mr. Kuehn began by stating that he is disappointed that they are here again and that the letter of the law is being ignored. He provided a handout to the members (copy of PowerPoint), noting that this is an oversized monument and that the ordinance states that if there are multiple signs, they cannot equal more than 25 square foot total. He stated that this sign (double faced) is in fact two 18-square foot signs and are dwarfed by the monument which is over 6-feet tall and 23-feet long. Mr. Kuehn referred to various signs throughout the City (St. Joe, St. Michael/St. George, Wash U) noting that none of them are this large. He stated that he is surprised that this structure would be allowed in the right-of-way and that the church already has a sign on the building. He stated that this would be the tallest ground sign in Clayton, again referring to other City signs including signs for the Ritz Carlton, Enterprise and Fontbonne. He reiterated that this violates City ordinance and is unnecessary for the effective operation of the church. He asked that the sign be denied.
5 Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Mr. Kuehn that this is subject to this Board’s review and is a judgment process. He noted that the main things that are looked at when reviewing signage are its compatibility with the property and the building’s colors and materials.
Sally Cohn asked how this sign compares to the sign requested by Brown Shoe that was recently denied.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the Brown Shoe sign was proposed at a parking lot.
Mark Winings asked staff to comment about the two-sided sign.
Louis Clayton stated that only one side is counted when determining square footage and that two sided ground signs are typical so they can be seen from two directions.
Jennifer Jeffrey, 7733 West Biltmore, stated that it is a nice looking sign but that it is a little too big and asked that it be reduced to meet current code.
Ms. Elizabeth commented that she is disappointed in the Board for entertaining the thought of allowing a sign so large and against ordinance. She stated that the sign welcomes people to their (the church’s) area but that their area is Clayton and if this sign is approved it will set a dangerous precedent.
Josh Corson asked if the applicant is asking for a variance.
Susan Istenes replied “no”; reiterating that only one side is counted towards the square footage.
Mr. Kuehn stated that he is stunned by the math.
Mr. Stephens commented that never has the church wanted separation from Clayton; the church loves Clayton. He reminded everyone of the visual improvements heading south along Hanley Road and that they have received many wonderful compliments about the work they’ve done.
Jim Liberman asked if the existing sign will remain if this sign is denied.
Mr. Stephens replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn asked if other sign possibilities were considered.
Mr. Stephens stated that this is the shortest of the three signs considered. He stated that he regrets that he did not draw/incorporate a person into the rendering to provide a perspective.
6 Sally Cohn asked how tall the wall (monument) is.
Mr. Stephens replied “6-feet”; noting the grade slopes slightly to the west.
Mark Winings commented that the work the church has done is nice and that although the sign/monument is of high quality material, he thinks it is too big, that he doesn’t care for the other side (wall on east side of sidewalk) and that he plans to vote against it.
Mr. Stephens commented that there are guidelines with regard to the size of lettering so the sign can be ready while driving.
Ron Reim commented that he’s okay with the monument, but he does have an issue with the piece (tail) proposed for the other side of the sidewalk, although it’s better than what exists now.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that although the monument could be a little lower, he has no objection to the height as proposed; he feels the freestanding portion across the sidewalk is too close to Hanley Road and asked Mr. Stephens if the church would be amenable to removing it.
Mr. Stephens asked if it would be a condition of approval.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it’s just a question at this moment.
Mr. Stephens replied “yes”, the church would be amenable to eliminating it.
Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion; barring any further questions or comments.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Jim Liberman made a motion to approve the sign minus the freestanding wall on the east side of the sidewalk and that staff review and approve any changes to the font and/or text. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and received the following vote: Ayes: Craig Owens, Chairman Lichtenfeld, Jim Liberman, Ron Reim and Josh Corson. Nays: Mark Winings and Sally Cohn. Motion carries.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION PLAT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION – MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT – VANGUARD CLAYTON - 8500 MARYLAND AVENUE
David Braswell, Covington Realty Partners, owner under contract/developer, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were Mike Burkhart, Joe Grimes (Civil Engineer) and Doug DeLong (Landscape Architect).
7
Susan Istenes indicated that she would summarize staff’s written report. She explained that this is a public hearing to solicit input regarding a rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a proposed mixed-use development at 8500 Maryland Avenue. The rezoning and PUD are being considered together in this memo because of interconnectivity between the two reviews; however, they are separated on the agenda and must be voted on separately. In addition to approval of a rezoning and PUD, this project will also require a Subdivision Plat and approval by the Architectural Review Board. 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 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 variations in the code requirements that are being requested are ground floor uses and parking. The applicant is proposing only 8.2% of the ground floor uses to be retail whereas a minimum of 50% is required and only 352 parking spaces are proposed whereas 474 are required. Properties in the Maryland Gateway Overlay 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 measures 273,500 square feet with 4,526 square feet of ground floor retail and live/work units and 229 residential units. Live/work units appear as traditional retail storefronts from the street and include attached living space behind for the business owner. Because the project is mixed-use, it is classified as a commercial planned unit development (PUD). Commercial 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;
8 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; 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.
According to the applicant, the following public benefits to the City are intended to be derived from the approval of the PUD: 1) the proposed 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. Parking for visitors and retail customers will be provided during normal business hours; 2) a publicly accessible10-foot path and linear park are proposed on the west portion of the property. This 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; 3) The applicant is currently working with a sculptor to develop ideas for a public art piece to be located at the corner of Maryland Avenue and Gay Avenue; 4) The proposed building will use high quality building materials including brick, stone and stucco. The motor court surface will be covered with brick pavers and the pool courtyard will consist of travertine stone pavers; 5) the applicant intends on constructing the proposed building to the National Home Builders "Green Building Standards". This program includes efficient building insulation systems, energy efficient lighting fixtures (LED), low flow plumbing fixtures, high efficiency heating and cooling systems, and insulated glazing systems; 6) Standard streetscape will be installed along Maryland Avenue and Gay Avenue. The applicant will escrow the funds for the cost of future streetscape improvements along the southern portion of the Gay Avenue right-of-way in the event that Gay Avenue is extended past it current termination point. To accommodate the installation of streetscape, 5,227 square feet of private property along Maryland and Gay Avenues will be dedicated to the City. The proposed plan will reduce the amount of storm water runoff as compared to the existing building and parking lot which covers the majority of the site. Water quality standards will be implemented according to MSD requirements, including the installation of a water quality basin.
The Plan Commission shall make a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen to approve, approve with conditions or deny 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: The site is located in the
9 Maryland Gateway Overlay District, which is identified in the Downtown Master Plan. The vision for the Maryland Gateway District is a walkable, pedestrian scale, human-focused corridor that provides an iconic gateway into Downtown. The proposed development will be urban in character, will maintain a consistent street wall along the majority of its street frontage, and will have storefront architecture along Maryland Avenue. 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. The proposed building is oriented towards Maryland and Gay Avenues. The existing building will be demolished and all exiting trees will be removed from the site. This area of downtown is dominated by office, retail, and institutional uses. The area to the west (City of Ladue) contains buildings with large setbacks from the street and parking in front. Properties to the east are more urban in character and setback closer to the street. The proposed development will be urban in character and will maintain a consistent street wall along its street frontage. The primary building materials are red brick veneer, stone veneer, and tan, gray and white stucco. 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 at-grade entrances. The proposed project is consistent with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The western property line will be planted with 21 trees to provide a landscape buffer between the two properties. Building mounted lights are proposed at all building entrances with concentrations at the retail storefronts and motor court. Bollard lights are proposed along the multi-use trail, motor court, and the private patio, and 10-foot pole lights are proposed at the private patio. All proposed lights are LED. The photometric plan submitted by the applicant shows minimal light trespass onto adjacent properties. To complement the urban character of the proposed 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 shown to be 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 accessible 10-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. The path will be maintained by the property owner. 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 city’s contracted landscape architect has reviewed the landscape plan and is of the opinion that the proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover suited for this region. The landscape plan shows all existing on-site trees (totaling 121.5 caliper inches) to be removed, all of which require on-site replacement. The landscape plan proposes 132-caliper inches of new trees including Foster Holly, Merlot Redbud, River Birch, and
10 Redmund Linden to be located primarily along the west and south sides of the building. Eight street trees are being removed that will be replaced by 21 new street trees, the species of which will be determined by the City at a later time. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 9.48 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 9.27 CFS, which represents a decrease of 0.21 CFS, and therefore storm water mitigation is not required. The project will disturb 2.69 acres of land, and therefore is subject to MSD’s water quality requirements. The applicant proposes a water quality basin at the southernmost point of the property which will be planted with a variety of native plants. Storm water will be collected and pass through a “downstream filter” that will remove sediment, oil and floatables from the storm water. Water will then discharge to the basin where it will be temporarily stored and slowly filter through the plant material and soil. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The project has received conceptual approval from the Metropolitan Sewer District. Three access points are proposed along Gay Avenue to serve the development. One drive will access the motor court and contains six parking spaces. North and south garage entrances will serve the majority of traffic to the site. 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 peak hours (with the exception of the northbound I- 170 approach at Ladue Road), and afternoon peak hours (with the exception of the northbound Hunter Avenue approach at Ladue Road and the north and southbound approaches of Gay Avenue at Maryland Avenue). The closely spaced signals and lack of consistent left-turn lanes on Maryland Avenue creates queues mainly during the p.m. peak hour for westbound Maryland Avenue. Based on the traffic study, the locations of the proposed access points are adequate. The project is expected to generate 130 new vehicular trips during the a.m. peak hour and 165 new vehicular trips during the p.m. peak hour. In order to mitigate potential impacts associated with the increase in vehicular trips, the traffic study recommends altering the existing lane configuration on the north and south approaches on Gay Avenue at Maryland Avenue to accommodate dedicated left turn lanes and combination through/right turn lanes. It is also recommended that the city acquire right-of-way along the project’s Maryland Avenue frontage for a future eastbound right-turn lane at Gay Avenue and a center turn lane on Maryland Avenue between Hunter and Gay Avenues. The applicant has agreed to implement the recommended lane alterations on Gay Avenue, to dedicate right-of-way along Maryland, and to install an eastbound right-turn lane on Maryland Avenue at Gay Avenue. The proposed improvements are shown on the site plan. 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 Gay Avenue in accordance with the city’s loading space requirements. The City’s parking regulations require 474 off-street parking spaces for the proposed project and the applicant proposes 352 parking 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 proposed development should supply 320 parking spaces if the garage is open parking (no reserved spaces), which is 33 percent less than required by zoning. The applicant exceeds the recommended number of parking spaces by 32
11 spaces. According to the applicant, the parking structure will be publicly accessible between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., and will have restricted access between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. Parking for building residents will not be reserved and/or assigned. Designated spaces for visitors and retail customers will be provided in the parking structure between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., and will be available for resident parking during non-business hours. Based on the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations the proposed development is required to provide 12 bicycle racks. 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. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed bicycle racks are in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Parking Regulations. Susan noted that this site is located at a highly visible gateway to Downtown Clayton and has the potential to define future redevelopment in the nearby area. The addition of street-level retail and 229 residential units will add new energy to the area and may act as a catalyst for future redevelopment. The project meets all zoning requirements with the following exceptions:
1) In no case shall retail, restaurant or personal service uses constitute less than 50% of the total ground floor area of a structure; and, residential dwellings shall be located on the second floor or higher >> Staff is of the opinion that the intent of this requirement is met because 100 percent of the Maryland frontage (+/- 128 feet) will be retail uses and storefront architecture. The building has the majority of its frontage on Gay Avenue (+/- 661 feet), a relatively large first floor, and substantial changes in grade which makes it impractical to exclude residential uses from the first floor and require that 50 percent of the entire first floor be retail, restaurant, or personal care uses.
2) Automobile Parking: 474 parking spaces required, 352 parking spaces proposed >> The parking study estimates that the proposed development should supply 320 parking spaces if the garage is open parking (no reserved spaces), which is 33 percent less than required by zoning. The applicant exceeds the recommended number of parking spaces by 32 spaces.
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 and therefore, recommends approval of the rezoning and Planned Unit Development to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the parking spaces be leased independently from the dwelling units and that all parking spaces be unassigned.
2. That the ground level live/work units be engineered to allow feasible conversion to retail space as needed.
12 3. That the applicant revise the plans to show the western most landscape bed and benches on Maryland Avenue relocated outside of the public right-of-way, and the proposed streetscape curb line on Maryland Avenue be adjusted to run parallel to the front property line, to be approved by staff prior to consideration by the Board of Aldermen.
4. That the approved development plan and Planned Unit Development Ordinance be recorded with St. Louis County and proof a recording be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mark Winings recused himself and did not participate in any discussion and/or vote with regard to this proposal. He exited the member table.
Chairman Lichtenfeld questioned staff recommendation No. 1 with regard to apartment tenant parking. He asked if staff recommends that parking be excluded from the apartment lease.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”; emphasizing that parking should be unassigned; parking spaces should be free and open for anyone’s use.
Mr. Braswell began a PowerPoint presentation; the first slide depicted an aerial photo of the site and the second, the proposed site plan. He noted the bike path (in Ladue) with a connection to Centennial Greenway Trail; he reiterated that no building will be within the City of Ladue. He noted that each garage access provides entry to only the lower level or first level of the garage; the levels are not interconnected. The locations of the proposed dog park and bicycle racks were shown as well as floor plans for the ground and first floors, including the proposed live/work units. The locations of the exercise facility and pool area with cabanas and fire pits were also shown.
Slides depicting several color renderings and elevations were presented. Mr. Braswell noted that the proposed materials include cast limestone, red brick and stucco. He noted that the garage will be locked and inaccessible to the public from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. He noted that the site slopes approximately 25 feet from north to south, which allows them to provide most of the parking below the building. He emphasized that the two parking levels are not connected.
Additional elevation drawings were presented. Mr. Braswell noted that they introduced brick and stone elements as well as some windows on the garage levels to replicate the building and make it more unified.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that at this time, the PUD aspect of the project is being considered and the architectural elements will be discussed at a later time. He asked about the connection to the trail.
13 Mr. Braswell noted it is all in Ladue.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Ladue’s approval is necessary.
Mr. Braswell stated that Ladue is supportive; they want to see a landscape plan and they will need to secure a grading permit from them.
Jim Liberman made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
Mr. Braswell noted that the 30 foot path will provide a connection to the Great Rivers Greenway which will be maintained by the owner via a maintenance and use agreement.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that although the public benefit this path is providing is not in Clayton, it will benefit both cities.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked why they are not building in Ladue.
Mr. Braswell indicated that Ladue does not allow multi-family structures.
A brief discussion regarding grades and the proposed basin took place with the project’s Civil Engineer Joe Grimes.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the City will review the landscape plan.
Susan Istenes replied “yes”.
Jim Liberman commented that the two {basins} at Centene are not attractive.
Sally Cohn commented that the basin is more of a bio-retention area and that no mitigation is necessary for this project as there is no runoff increase.
A brief discussion regarding landscaping began. Sally Cohn commented that the basin will be dry during certain times of the year.
Ron Reim commented that Bald Cypress’s do good in wet or dry conditions.
Sally Cohn emphasized that the City is looking for canopy trees and that the basin won’t be attractive in the winter.
Mr. Braswell stated that they are willing to revisit the plantings, but the thought MSD had control.
14 Jim Liberman stated that underground storage tanks can be a nightmare.
Mr. Grimes stated that this system filters out pollutants.
Ron Reim asked if it meets MSD guidelines.
Mr. Grimes replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn commented that most of the proposed new trees are Red Buds and that the City is looking for canopy trees; the only canopy tree being proposed is a Tilia Linden, which tend to be attacked by Japanese beetles. She asked if they would consider changing out a Red Bud for a canopy tree, noting the west side of the property and that people utilizing the swimming pool would appreciate a little relief from the sun. She added that there is space and the ability to incorporate canopy trees.
Mr. DeLong stated that River Birch are canopy trees.
Sally Cohn replied “sort of”. She asked for more diversity and canopy, including replacing Foster Hollies with American Hollies. She asked how big/tall the planters are along Maryland Avenue.
Louis Clayton referred to staff’s recommendation No. 3.
Sally Cohn asked that the planters along Gay Avenue be raised so they are not exposed to dogs and salt in the winter.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if all existing on-site trees are to be removed.
Mr. DeLong replied “yes”.
Jim Liberman asked about public art.
Mr. Braswell indicated that they are working with a lady from Kansas City and that he would be happy to share information.
Jim Liberman asked about a monument sign at the corner.
Mr. Braswell indicated because there’s not much room, it will be a vertical sign.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the garage windows are simply for ventilation.
Mr. Braswell replied “no”, adding that they are actual windows.
15 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the roll up grills will remain open during the day.
Mr. Braswell replied “yes”, adding that tenants will access the garage with a card after hours.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the transportation engineer was in attendance.
Lee Cannon, traffic engineer with Crawford, Bunte & Brammeier, was in attendance. He informed the members that he was engaged by the City to perform a traffic and parking study with regard to this proposal. He indicated that City code would require well over 400 spaces for this development; however, in urban environments with shopping close by, parking requirements are down. He stated that they looked at a variety of standards as well as their experience to come up with their recommendation and that they looked at Clayton on the Park after the County moved out of 121 South Meramec. He noted that between 4 – 5 a.m. is the highest demand at 1.2 cars/unit and that leases rotate as well. He stated that 320 is the minimum comfortable number of spaces for 229 units which is 1.4 spaces/unit and that the developer is proposing 352 spaces which is a 1.55/unit ratio.
Ron Reim noted that the two parking levels are not connected.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that The Crossing project provides back up parking; however, here there is none. He asked the potential for outsiders to park in this garage.
Mr. Cannon stated that they do not believe back up parking is warranted for this project.
Josh Corson noted that there will be more spaces available during the day than at night.
Mr. Cannon agreed.
Jim Liberman asked Mr. Cannon to discuss the traffic issues.
Mr. Cannon noted that Maryland Avenue is a busy road as it provides access to the City from I-170.
Jim Liberman indicated that there is a lot of traffic westbound Maryland in the evening hours.
Mr. Cannon stated that it is their recommendation to add an eastbound Maryland Avenue right turn lane at Gay Avenue and that the existing traffic signal may need an adjustment.
Ron Reim asked about the right-of-way.
Louis Clayton indicated that the right-of-way dedication is shown on the subdivision plat.
16
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if Maryland Avenue is City owned.
Louis Clayton replied “yes”; to the west City limits (Ladue).
John Wulf, Assistant Public Works Director, informed the members that he contacted MODOT and Ladue’s Public Works Director to discuss a signal at Gay and Hunter Avenues (in Ladue) and that all have agreed to engage to ensure coordination.
Louis Clayton commented that because this is a residential project, there will be less of a traffic impact.
John Wulf stated that 5 drive lanes are being suggested for every evening to help alleviate evening delays.
Mr. Cannon indicated that that could be beneficial in the future.
Sally Cohn voiced concern about the live/work units in that the City is looking for pedestrian activity and those uses don’t bring people to the area and that leeway is already being given along Gay Avenue. She added that she doesn’t want to sell ourselves short, especially regarding the retail space on the corner.
Mr. Braswell commented that if the potential was there, all the first level could be retail; they do not believe there is a demand for retail at this location.
Josh Corson stated that the live/work units he’s familiar with in Nashville are neat.
Mr. Braswell emphasized that the storefront is retail with living quarters behind.
Sally Cohn stated that she is glad the storefront is retail; she didn’t realize that.
Mr. Braswell presented a slide depicting the live/work floor plan.
Sally Cohn asked how many units have living space with no windows.
Mr. Braswell replied about 20. A discussion ensued.
Chairman Lichtenfeld, referring to the Downtown Master Plan, commented that although he agrees this is an urban environment, this location is vastly different than the Clayton on the Park and The Crossing properties where people can easily walk downtown. He stated that this is more of a suburban environment and that people will rely more on their vehicles, adding that there is no Metro Link toward the west. He indicated that he has concerns about this fitting in
17 the Master Plan and questions if Clayton’s “downtown” actually goes this far west. He stated that he also has concerns about parking, traffic and walkability.
Mr. Braswell indicated that within two blocks there is a Starbucks and a Schnucks and that they believe there is great connectivity between this development and downtown. He stated that he also thinks people will use their bicycles to get around.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it’s not that he doesn’t like the project, but when discussions regarding both pedestrian and automobile traffic, very few people walk to coffee shops and maybe this will give way to more pedestrian scale.
Ron Reim mentioned the shopping center across the street that people drive to but one could easily walk to from here.
Josh Corson asked if most of their renters are single.
Mr. Braswell stated that they market to the 25-40 crowd; mostly singles and married couples with some seniors/empty nesters.
Jim Liberman asked about rent ranges.
Mr. Braswell indicated that the 1 bedrooms will range from $1,550 to $1,825/month; 2 bedrooms from $2,275 to $2,575/month; 3 bedrooms from $3,400 to $3,500/month and square footages from 658 up to 1,640.
Jim Liberman referred to a letter that was received from Robert Wood, a resident of the already built Vanguard, stating concerns about the dumpster and trash system.
Mr. Braswell stated that they offer valet trash/recycling disposal; they provide the container(s), come daily to the tenants’ doors and pick up trash/recycling.
Sally Cohn asked how long they own their buildings.
Mr. Braswell stated that they usually own their buildings from the onset of construction to up for 48 months; he noted they sold their U-City property in February.
Josh Corson asked about parking.
Mr. Braswell stated that it is their intent not to assign spaces and that parking will be paid for in the monthly rents, not rented separately.
Louis Clayton added that parking spaces won’t be tied to specific units.
18 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any public comments.
None were received.
Hearing no public comments or questions, Ron Reim made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the members.
Jim Liberman asked how to proceed from here.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the rezoning and PUD need separate votes.
Sally Cohn stated that public benefits seem to be missing from this project. She asked what green level they hope to achieve as it seems like it is the lowest level.
Mr. Braswell asked what benefits she would like to see.
Sally Cohn noted that this is the gateway to the City and that the building has no architectural interest; she loves what they are doing, but the building itself is underwhelming and the proposed design used a lot. She reiterated that this is an important corner; an important location.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that design and materials are architectural issues and that the PUD and rezoning are the aspects being considered now. He stated that he does have some concerns but that it does fit into the City’s Master Plan.
Ron Reim stated that he agrees with the landscaping changes suggested earlier by Sally. He stated that he, too, would like to see design changes and details such as public art.
Susan Istenes indicated that although art may not be able to be considered now, consideration should be given to the 5,227 square foot of land being dedicated to the City, the addition of streetscape and connectivity to the Great Rivers Greenway Trail.
Mr. Braswell stated that the art piece will have to receive City approval.
Susan Istenes concurred; the piece will be considered by the City’s Public Art Advisory Committee and the City’s Architectural Review Board.
Jim Liberman commented that it is not a particularly wonderful building; it is simply “okay”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld again referred to the ARB’s review of the proposed design and materials.
19
Josh Corson made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Board of Aldermen subject to the following condition: That the property will revert back to its current S-1 zoning designation if the project is not constructed/completed. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.
Josh Corson made a motion to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
1. That the parking spaces be unreserved. 2. That the ground level live/work units be engineered to allow feasible conversion to retail space as needed. 3. That the applicant revise the plans to show the western most landscape bed and benches on Maryland Avenue relocated outside of the public right-of-way, and the proposed streetscape curb line on Maryland Avenue be adjusted to run parallel to the front property line, to be approved by staff prior to consideration by the Board of Aldermen. * 4. That the approved development plan and Planned Unit Development Ordinance be recorded with St. Louis County and proof a recording be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
5. Substitute American Holly for Foster Holly.
6. Diversify the shrub species (there were too many of the two predominant species).
7. Use raised landscape beds along the eastern elevation
8. Consider revising the plant species in the water quality basin including the addition of trees such as Cypress.
9. Diversify the tree species and add canopy trees along the western property line.
Jim Liberman seconded the motion which received unanimous approval of the members. Jim Liberman noted that this PUD which includes the site plan, is specific to this development.
Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision plat to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant provide a Mylar of the Plat for the appropriate City of Clayton signatures per the Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen
20 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.
The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the members.
The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the design and materials associated with the proposed construction of a 273,500 square foot, five-story building to be 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 red brick veneer, stone veneer, and tan, gray and white stucco. 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 at-grade entrances. The 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 at-grade 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 proposed 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
21 the level roof forms found on adjacent structures to the east and west. The proposed 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. Signage will be considered at a later time. Susan stated that 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 presented color renderings; explaining that it is a wood frame building with masonry, stone and stucco. He stated they tried to articulate vertical and horizontal elements as it is a big building and they didn’t want it to look like one big mass. He added that they paid particular attention to the parking structure.
Jim Liberman asked to see material samples.
Mr. Braswell presented a sample board to the members that included samples of 3 stucco colors, red brick (color and size), cast stone and limestone. He noted that the retail portion is a cast stone product, 12” X 14” and the vinyl windows will be single hung, beige in color. A sample of the dark bronze and lighter brown color aluminum to be used on the storefront along Maryland was also presented.
Ron Reim asked if the brick is smooth.
Mr. Braswell replied “yes”.
Sally Cohn asked if the brick is all one color.
22
Mr. Braswell replied “yes”.
Ron Reim asked what’s in the two end elements.
Mr. Braswell replied “lofts”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the stucco is true stucco or a dry’vit material.
Mr. Braswell indicated that it is dry’vit or similar product. He stated that he can incorporate an insulation board to improve the “R” value.
Craig Owens asked if they are required to use a light material on the upper floors as brick wouldn’t be supported.
Mr. Braswell replied “pretty much”.
Craig Owens asked if there was a real alternative.
Mr. Braswell replied “not really”.
Jim Liberman commented that the flat “hats” are the tritest elements of the building and asked if they considered the building without them.
Ron Reim commented that the awning looks like an eyebrow.
Chairman Lichtenfeld voiced his opinion that the building looks like a series of boxes with an applied decoration. He indicated that he understands the masonry height limitation, but that the building feels very institutional to him, noting especially the view from the Center of Clayton. He added that the building looks too heavy; too flat.
Ron Reim referenced the motor court on the front and that from that point down it looks like one big, tall wall.
Craig Owens reminded everyone of the street trees that will be in place.
Mr. Braswell asked if adding another brick color may help.
Sally Cohn stated that a different brick color would be better. She referred to the brown brick on the West Pine Lofts being better.
Ron Reim stated that the blank stucco is an issue as well.
23 Sally Cohn asked if any thought was given to a green roof on the lower portion of the building.
Mr. Braswell stated that the problem with that is that that area is assembly and there’s a code issue.
Jim Liberman asked that they massage the plans a bit and come back.
Chairman Lichtenfeld summarized the comments and asked them to reconsider the brick color, how everything relates and the overall exterior appearance of the building.
Ron Reim agreed that it needs to be refined.
Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to continue this matter until the next meeting of April 20th. The motion was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved by the Board.
*****************************************************************************
Josh Corson stated that more guidance may be needed for the City’s landscape architect.
Sally Cohn stated that she knows Laurel (Harrington). She stated that she doesn’t understand why trees that will grow big are being planted on 4 to 5 foot centers.
Chairman Lichtenfeld suggested discussing that with Ms. Harrington.
Craig Owens informed the Mr. Braswell that it is not just his project they are discussing here with regard to landscaping issues.
Ron Reim stated that maybe it’s time to re-think the pending landscape ordinance.
Jim Liberman reminded everyone that tomorrow is Election Day.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that he won’t be in attendance at the April 20th meeting.
Susan Istenes stated that she would not be attending that meeting either.
Being no further business this evening, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
______________________________ Recording Secretary