March 2, 2015 — Meeting Minutes
MINUTES
CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MARCH 2, 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 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 January 20, 2015 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved, after having been previously distributed to each member.
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE – 233 LANCASTER
Gabe DeBois, project designer, and Lori Fumagalli, project architect, were in attendance at the meeting.
2 Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for review of the site plan associated with the proposed construction of a new 4,564-square-foot single-family residence (excluding the basement) with an attached, rear-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29- feet 7.75-inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The plans show the HVAC units located at the north of the home and screened by evergreen shrubs. Trash will be stored in a 53-square-foot trash enclosure located at the rear of the property adjacent to the garage. The trash enclosure will be screened by a wood fence and gate. The Clayton Gardens Urban Design District limits impervious coverage to 40 percent of the total lot area and allows an increase in impervious coverage based on the garage placement. For this project, the allowable impervious coverage may be increased to 55 percent for the inclusion of an at-grade, rear-loading garage. The existing impervious coverage on site is 26.8 percent. The new plans increase the impervious coverage to 40.7 percent, which is below the maximum allowable impervious coverage of 55 percent. The existing storm water runoff, according to the MSD 15 year, 20 minute calculation, is 0.6 cubic feet per second (CFS). The proposed runoff is 0.67 CFS, which represents an increase in 0.07 CFS. To mitigate the increase in storm water runoff, downspouts will be piped to an at-grade bio-retention facility in the rear yard. The Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan and finds the storm water plan acceptable. The proposed landscape design features a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover suited for this region. Seven trees totaling 93 caliper inches will be removed, and 85 caliper inches require replacement. Two existing street trees totaling 84 caliper inches will be impacted by construction and are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. The proposed excavation for the bio-retention facility will impact two trees in the rear yard, and the tree chart should be revised accordingly. Additionally, planting should be indicated on the plan to determine how this area will be appropriately covered with vegetation. The landscape plan proposes 92 caliper inches of new deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees on site including Red Maple, American Holly, Bracken Brown Magnolia, Pink Dogwood, Columnar Armstrong Maple, Sugartyme Crabapple, Kousa Dogwood, Columnar English Oak, and Centennial Holly. The City’s contracted landscape architect is of the opinion that the proposed trees are suitable for the site and that the existing trees to remain are shown to be protected and preserved per City guidelines. Exterior lighting is proposed at the front and rear of the home. All exterior lights will be 75 watts or less. Susan stated that the proposed home is compatible with surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Storm water will be adequately managed on site, and the landscape plan provides for a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover suitable for this region. The height, setbacks, and impervious coverage as proposed are in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. Staff is of the opinion that the project meets the criteria for site plan approval and recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. To ensure the future maintenance and operation of the bio-retention basin, the applicant shall record the approved site plan with St. Louis County, and submit proof of recording to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3 2. That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan accurately depicting the two impacted trees in the rear yard and the proposed planting for the bio-retention facility, to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. DeBois presented the proposed site plan to the members. He stated he was in attendance at this meeting representing Manlin Mehlman.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where water flows; noting that the property slopes to the south.
Mr. DeBois concurred. He stated that water will be captured in the bio-retention area behind the house.
Sally Cohn asked how deep the retention area is and what it consists of.
Mr. DeBois stated that it is a layered system with 2-inches of mulch, 24-inches of bio- media, 6-inches of sand and 6-inches of gravel.
Sally Cohn asked the length and width of the depressed area.
Mr. DeBois stated that there is a ponding depth of 1 foot; it is 65 feet long and 12 feet wide.
Sally Cohn commented that currently it contains no plants and is a large mulched basin.
Mr. DeBois stated that it can be planted; plants would be added toward the end of the review process.
Jim Liberman asked the difference between this (bio-retention area) and a rain garden.
Mr. DeBois stated that a rain garden has more sand and plants. He noted that a bio- retention basin is acceptable per MSD.
Jim Liberman asked about maintenance.
Mr. DeBois stated that they do require maintenance and that MSD typically requires that they get recorded with the County.
Jim Liberman asked what happens if they are not properly maintained.
Mr. DeBois indicated that a bio-retention basin would work less and less over time until it eventually stops working completely. He stated that they are good for several years.
4 Jim Liberman asked if he checks the system at the end of construction.
Mr. DeBois stated that he would not; most likely the contractor would do that.
Ron Reim asked where the discharge goes.
Mr. DeBois indicated that it flows to the rear left corner of the property ten feet from the property line.
Sally Cohn commented that this is a fairly large pool of water and is unattractive if not properly planted.
Mr. DeBois stated that they’ve agreed to staff’s recommendations; one of them being to provide plantings.
Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that staff would be reviewing and approving those plantings.
Sally Cohn stated that we (this Commission) need to look at these projects more in depth as there is a lot of discharge going on here and that she does not believe this to be sustainable in the future. She stated that she would like to see all the plantings.
Jim Liberman asked about overflow.
Mr. DeBois stated that this basin can handle a 2-year storm event.
Jim Liberman asked in one year, how many times this could overflow.
Mr. DeBois replied that it could overflow once every two years. He reminded everyone that site (surface) water bypasses the basin.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where driveway water goes.
Mr. DeBois stated that it sheet flows to the south and west as it did before.
Ron Reim asked if it flows onto the neighbor’s property.
Mr. DeBois replied “yes”. He added that there is 8 to 10 foot of drive there and that a silt fence will be in place during construction. He stated that the majority of the cfs increase is house footprint.
Sally Cohn commented that the bio-retention basin takes up space where outdoor family fun could otherwise take place and that she sees this getting filled in. She noted that some plantings, two in particular (Holly right outside Master bedroom window & Columnar Maple) may
5 eventually get taken down as they would block sunlight. She stated that they (the landscape architect) did manage to get the replacement caliper inches in. She asked if the home is sold.
Mr. DeBois stated that he did not believe it was sold. He indicated that he would pass along the concerns about those two trees.
Ron Reim asked who inspects the bio-retention basin.
Susan Istenes stated that the owner has to have it inspected and a report provided to the City.
Ron Reim asked if a discussion took place with the neighbors.
Mr. DeBois stated that he has not talked with the neighbors; maybe Mr. Manlin has.
Mark Winings commented that it seems as though the replacement caliper inches are made up of several small trees. He asked for confirmation that the plan meets the City’s regulations.
Louis Clayton stated that the information noted on the application is subject to change once reviewed and that he is correct in that several small trees are replacing a few large trees that are being removed to accommodate construction.
Ron Reim commented that once they get too big, the owner removes them.
Sally Cohn agreed and added that trees suffocate each other and die off.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the applicant if he was okay with the two conditions in staff’s memorandum.
Mr. DeBois replied “yes”.
Being no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve the site plan 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 explained that this is a request for the proposed construction of a 4,564- square-foot single-family residence (excluding the basement) with an attached, rear-entry, at-grade garage. The height of the proposed residence is 29-feet 7.75-inches as measured from the average existing grade to the mean height of the roof. The home to the south (227 Lancaster Drive) is an original one-story ranch that is +/- 21.3 feet shorter than the proposed home (as measured from the mid-point of each roof). On December 14, 2014, the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board
6 approved plans for a new home at 227 Lancaster Drive that will be +/- 6.5 feet shorter than the proposed home on the subject property. The home to the north (8318 Kingsbury Boulevard) was constructed in 2001 and is +/- 2.3 feet shorter (as measured from the mid-point of each roof) than the proposed home. According to the applicant, to provide a transition in height and scale between the proposed home and adjacent homes, the following techniques were used:
1. The home has a smaller width at the front and concentrates the mass towards the rear of the lot. 2. Each side of the home steps down to engage the height of the adjacent structures. 3. Along the southern property line, the home is set back an additional 10.8 feet beyond the required 8.2-foot side yard setback. 4. The roof configuration and pitch is similar to the proposed home to the south and the existing home to the north.
Susan stated that a 10-foot wide exposed aggregate driveway is proposed on the south side of the home that leads to a rear-entry, at-grade attached garage with a raised panel garage door painted to match the trim. A low, brick veneer retaining wall is proposed adjacent to the driveway in the front yard and at the trash enclosure. No permanent fences are proposed. The project as proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the R-2 Single Family Dwelling District, the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District, and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Susan stated that staff is of the opinion that the design is compatible in terms of mass, height, and design with existing nearby homes and recommends approval as submitted.
Ms. Fumagalli presented the following material samples to the members: brick (Brook Haven; brown tone), stone trim, roofing material and window sample. Ms. Fumagalli noted that although the window sample is black, the windows they propose are bronze in color.
Ron Reim asked about the new construction at 227 Lancaster.
Louis Clayton informed the members that the City has received the application for building permit. He stated that he asked for information on both existing and proposed for comparison for purpose of this review.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the north side of 227 (new) has a one story portion which was most likely in reaction to this home; now that this home is being demolished, does the new home at 227 still need to provide that step-down?
Louis Clayton indicated that if they choose to revise their plans, they would have to come back to this Board.
Jim Liberman commented that there are a lot of professionals involved in this project. He asked about the trash enclosure.
7 Ms. Fumagalli stated that the garage which is below the master bedroom has a side door leading to the trash area.
Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that it is a nice-looking home.
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.
Being no further questions or comments, Ron Reim made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – MODIFICATION TO SIGN ORDINANCE (SIGNAGE) – 172 CARONDELET PLAZA
Due to a conflict of interest, Josh Corson recused himself. He left the member table and did not participate in the discussion or vote regarding this application.
Ryan Daniels, Bates & Associates Architects, was in attendance at the meeting.
Susan Istenes explained that this is a request for a modification to the City’s sign regulations. A new restaurant proposes to occupy the vacant tenant space, and on February 9, 2014, the applicant submitted a Sign Permit Application for a 168-square-foot temporary sign that would be placed in the storefront window while the tenant space is renovated. The sign is a white canvas banner with an ink printed rendering, logos and letters. The banner would hang from the interior bulkhead of the window. Upon review of the Sign Permit Application, staff determined that the proposed sign would be classified as a construction sign. Pursuant to Section 425.140 of the Sign Regulations, building alteration projects in which no construction fence is required may have a temporary sign not to exceed 32 square feet in area erected behind the building line. Such signs may announce the type of building or development under construction, the names of those associated with the project, leasing information, and shall be removed upon completion of the work and prior to occupancy of the building. The proposed sign exceeds the allowable size and therefore a sign modification is being requested. Pursuant to Section 425.180 of Sign Regulations, modifications should only be granted due to unusual conditions of the building or site. According to the applicant, their intent is to draw attention to and generate excitement for the future restaurant tenant. They argue that the existing mullion storefront system makes providing a conforming sign difficult, and that the rendering portion of the sign should not be considered signage. Signage modification requests for temporary signs are extremely rare. For this project, the Sign Regulations permit a 32-square-foot sign and a 168-square-foot sign is proposed. The rendering portion of the sign meets the following definition of a sign:
“Any identification, description, illustration or device, illuminated or non-illuminated, which is visible from any public place or is located on private property and exposed to the
8 public and which directs attention to a product, service, place, activity, person, institution, business or solicitation, including any emblem, painting, numbers exceeding twelve (12) inches in height, placard or temporary sign designed to advertise, identify or convey information, with the exception of window displays and national flags.”
Susan noted that while staff acknowledges the creative approach taken by the applicant in providing visual interest to passersby during the time of construction, staff is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to demonstrate where practical difficulties exist in the application of the Sign Regulations and that a temporary construction sign could be feasibly constructed in conformance with the Sign Regulations and therefore, recommends denial as submitted.
Mark Winings asked what would be in the window during construction if this proposal is denied.
Louis Clayton indicated that either plain white butcher paper or the City provided decorative paper is acceptable.
Mr. Daniels commented that they are looking to generate “buzz” during construction.
Jim Liberman asked when they plan to open the new restaurant.
Mr. Daniels stated that they hope to open in August.
Sally Cohn asked what would constitute 32 square feet.
Mr. Daniels indicated the panes are 30” X either 53” (side) or 78” (middle).
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they could use the City provided paper and 32 square feet of “signage”.
Louis Clayton replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if that’s the case, what’s wrong with this sign.
Louis Clayton stated that the City provided paper is made available to all owners.
Susan Istenes stated that the intent is to tell people what’s coming; that in January, 2014, the Board approved “special event” signage to help business owners announce special events such as grand openings, special sales, etc. She stated that this proposed signage blends an opening sign with other information.
Jim Liberman stated that he likes the rendering, but including the architect and contractor makes it huge. He suggested putting all three names on one “panel”.
9
Mark Winings commented that this is far in excess of what’s allowed; however, aesthetically, this is preferable over the City provided paper or plain white paper.
Mr. Daniels commented that all previous businesses failed in this location.
Louis Clayton stated that each of the side panes is 10 square feet and each middle pane is 15 square feet.
A brief discussion regarding various options took place.
Mr. Daniels informed the members that the sign has already been made.
Kevin O’Keefe asked what the Board thought of confining only the text to 32 square feet.
Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he would be fine with that.
Susan Istenes stated that the entire thing is considered signage.
Craig Owens asked if the City’s code was amended to include the use of City provided paper along with white plain paper for vacant storefronts.
Susan Istenes replied “no”.
Craig Owens questioned if this Board couldn’t classify this as an alternative to the butcher paper.
Susan Istenes stated that she fears that if we don’t apply the regulations, the City is opening the door for all sorts of requests and graphic designs.
Kevin O’Keefe stated that this promotes a Clayton restaurant and begs the question of “is this art or is this signage”? He asked where the line is drawn.
Craig Owens stated that he really likes this sign and that if it is a true reflection of what’s to come, then he thinks it should be permitted.
Jim Liberman asked if that’s the case, what’s to say there wouldn’t be a row of different renderings along the street.
Sally Cohn noted that each would have to be approved by this Board. She added that the City could use some creativity.
10 Being no further questions or comments, Craig Owens made a motion to approve the sign; discounting the mural area towards the square footage (allow it to remain) and applying only the text and logs towards the permitted 32 square feet to the three panels on the right side as the applicant sees fit per staff review and approval. The motion was seconded by Jim Liberman and unanimously approved by the Board.
Mr. Daniels commented that they will probably simply cut off the top of the sign.
CITY BUSINESS – 2014 ANNUAL REPORT
Louis Clayton stated that he hoped everyone had a chance to review the report; noting that last year was a busy year. He there were fewer smaller projects and more large projects. He stated that The Crossing was the first transit oriented development (TOD) project approved; that conceptual review of four mixed use projects totaling over 700 residential units also took place in 2014. In addition, the Plan Commission reviewed and the Board of Aldermen approved new bicycle regulations and outdoor dining regulations.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked the status of the lawsuit involving The Crossing.
Kevin O’Keefe stated that it is in the pre-trial process right now; there is no hearing schedule at this time. He stated the lawsuit is in an effort to have a referendum of the three ordinances approving the project.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the owner can proceed with demolition.
Kevin O’Keefe replied “yes”.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there were any questions or comments about the report.
Jim Liberman asked if anything was denied in 2014.
Louis Clayton stated that signage requests submitted by Central Presbyterian Church and Brown Shoe were denied.
Chairman Lichtenfeld asked when the report would go before the Board; he asked that he be advised when it’s placed on the agenda.
Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that it’s time for election of officers. He asked if there were any nominations.
Jim Liberman nominated Steve Lichtenfeld as Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Josh Corson and unanimously approved.
11 Chairman Lichtenfeld nominated Jim Liberman to serve as Vice-chairman. The nomination was seconded by Mark Winings and unanimously approved.
Susan Istenes reminded the members of their joint meeting with the Board of Aldermen on the 24th at 6:15 p.m.
Being no further business this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
______________________________ Recording Secretary