December 20, 2021 — Meeting Transcript

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld?

Helen DiFate? Here. George Haddock?

Helen DeFate? Here. George Haddock?

Here.

Carolyn Gatiss? Here. David Gipson?

Carolyn Gatiss? Here. David Gibson?

Here.

Robert Dunlow?

Ira Berkowitz? Here.

Yep. I believe Susan is in the participants as an attendee. Okay.

Do you know where she is in that group? I don't see her name on the list.

No.

Here we go. Bringing her over now.

now. Susan, do you hear us?

I can go ahead and do the presentation.

That works.

Okay. Okay. TAB, The first public hearing is for proposed amendments to repeal and replace the CBD core overlay district standards and the downtown district standards. TAB, But the new northeast downtown overlay zoning district and to consider design guidelines resulting from the recently completed downtown overlay district study conducted by each three studio. This is the final public hearing for this item on August 16 this item was tabled by the plan Commission and sent back to the steering committee, so that the steering committee could weigh in on a proposed change to the draft build to line development standards. The requested changes refer to ground floor facade exemptions. The plan commission discussed the possibility of modifying the current draft ordinance to require a six foot setback from the front build two line as opposed to the proposed zero foot setback. The question asked by the plan commission was, shall the build two line setback requirement be modified to require a minimum setback of six feet on average to a maximum of 12 feet on average? The steering committee then met on November 12th. After discussion, the steering committee did not support the proposed changes for several reasons as listed on page two of the staff report. These concerns included but are not limited to concerns over the enforcement of the space, legal concern regarding the potential for de facto taking, inconsistency with form-based code principles, the potential for legal challenges with requiring public uses on private property, Vagueness on the uses that could occur in the space and avoiding buildings that are designed to a very specific use. However, discussion to increase the percentage of the total facade length for corner lots to allow up to 50% of the facade length ensued. And the steering committee recommended to increase the setback percentage for corner lots only up to a maximum of 50%. Additionally, there are no changes to the uses proposed in the original draft and the table in the staff report serves to identify retail uses defined as primary and secondary in the original draft. And that concludes the summary of the staff report.

Tim and John are both in the attendee list. Oh, they are. Trying to promote them, although Zoom is not wanting to cooperate here. Here we go. Here's Tim trying to get John over here as well.

Good evening, everyone.

And there's John also. Hi, John.

Sure, Steve, I'll just offer a few additional points. I think Anissa's report very concisely outlines the summary of the discussion that we had with the steering committee. I don't really have anything substantive to add in terms of the content of her comments. I will just say that we definitely appreciated the opportunity to continue to be engaged with the committee. Some of the members whom are also members of this body, we really had two key points of engagement with the committee. We met on site back in September to walk the area identify some of the, um, points of, of either question or concern that had come up, um, in the previous, uh, public hearing process, uh, by, by members of the, um. The planning commission and then, uh, following that, uh, that site walk, which I, I felt, um, I will speak for myself and saying, and I hope the other attendees felt this way as well. It was a very, a very productive, um, very productive exercise to be able to see some of these things in person on site. Following that, we had a follow-up meeting with the committee where we discussed the pros and cons of the proposed changes in detail as Anissa had outlined. And ultimately I feel as though the committee came to a very thoughtful and reasonable decision with the recommendations that are outlined in the staff report, which is to say that the direction that the committee wanted to go allows for some of the corner uses and corner outdoor uses design features and other interfaces between the built environment and the public realm. that these guidelines are intended to promote while at the same time permitting that flexibility and working within form-based code best practices. So just wanted to thank the committee for their thoughtful consideration of this. And it's been a pleasure to work through this process with them. And I think it's at a really good point for consideration

No, I just wanted to emphasize one thing that Tim had mentioned, which was the corners. There was a lot of discussion and feedback in the community, feedback on how important the corners were in terms of having the potential to open them up and create more active corners versus the first round of the recommendations. So I think that was a very thoughtful and a very nice thing to do for your downtown area and really brings, you know, there's this great history of great corners make a great city. So I think it was a very thoughtful insight and I'm pleased where the recommendation has ended up.

I actually, I think it looks great. We've gone through so many iterations on it and edited it quite a bit and taken all the suggestions. So I really don't have additional comments at this time.

George? I don't have any additional comments. I appreciate the planning group meeting back together on this one to address our concerns.

I like the end result. Nothing further.

Yeah, I mean, I would still have liked to seen a little more, but the steering committee has spoken and I am in the position to support that committee's decision. And I don't have any further comments.

I don't have anything more to add just thank you to everybody who worked on this over the last year or more it's a it's a very persistent group that we have that that carefully deliberated all these items, especially that that build to line in the setbacks so I appreciate everybody's work on it. PB John

very quickly, I just wanted to remind everyone this is a public hearing, so we do need to at least ask the public if anyone would like to speak on this matter prior to the vote.

There is a raise hand button on your screen there. If anyone wants to speak, please press that button now. I don't see many speakers, sir. Here we go. Got one. Mr. Hank Winkleman, I will bring him over. Okay. Thank you.

Well, I think many of you know that I've made incredible efforts to understand, to share with you the whole form-based approach work and I really must say the initial iterations of the work by H3, it seemed very inappropriate. And I had very much hope to participate in some of the meetings that might've been with the steering committee and share some of the graphic documentation that I had built using their language and words and statistics to present it as a three-dimensional set of forms to understand what was being proposed. So I lost awareness of the steering committee meeting in November I would have loved to have joined you on your site walk in September, could have made some really powerful points with that. So I haven't had a chance like many people with COVID and other issues, a little isolated and not following the progress with this. So I haven' been able to go to the new details instead of building this model of what it tells us, I think you've begun to embrace some very important issues about the ground level and visibility and openness. And I think this issue of the width of sidewalks is a continuing challenge for planners and Clayton to begin to address and recognize. So I know you all feel a certain confidence, and unfortunately it's difficult to leap into the belief. But you're in the driver's seat, and I hope you'll find the way to continue to let's call it be more inclusive in planning work and create opportunities. for sharing of thoughts and criticism. The Zoom capabilities that sort of go back to conversations in August make it very difficult. You've made your decisions, and I hope we'll all continue to find ways to contribute to community planning and architecture. for Clayton. And I really appreciated Ira's sensitivity that he had expressed in a meeting about the importance of architecture and he was referring to his visit to Austin, not really knowing what he was seeing and how it might inform or have been a part of this. Very interesting. But those are my thoughts. Okay.

I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the draft ordinance for the Northeast downtown overlay district to the Board of Aldermen and approve the design guidelines as proposed.

Second.

Okay. This is a public hearing to receive public input and consider tax amendments to Chapter 410 related to the expansion of the existing entertainment overlay district. The existing overlay district was adopted by the Board of Aldermen on May 28, 2019. The proposed amendment is to expand the existing district both to the west and south. The expansion to the west extends the existing district from Merrimack Avenue to Brentwood Boulevard. The expansion to south extends the existing districts from Forsyth Boulevard to Carondelet Avenue. The proposed amendment only changes the boundaries of the district and does not alter any other aspect of the entertainment district overlay. The proposed expansion will build on the existing uses. This area is still within walking distance of many residential areas and hotels. The intent of the proposed overlay district is to attract new businesses that would otherwise have difficulty locating within the central business district. The proposed expansion of the overlay would allow staff, the Plan Commission, and the Board of Aldermen through the CUP process to evaluate the entertainment component of proposed businesses and approve a reduction in requirements of a liquor license. This would allow venues such as a jazz club, which would likely not get at least 50% of its revenue from food sales, to locate in Clayton. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed regulations and the CUP process will provide sufficient mitigations of any potential negative impacts. Staff recommends the plan commission recommend approval of the tax amendment expanding the entertainment overlay zoning district to the Board of Aldermen as proposed. That concludes my presentation.

I actually had no comments again, so it's good to me.

Just briefly, Steve, this dates back to the original establishment of the entertainment district based on a strategic planning retreat of the Board of Aldermen desire for more vibrancy in downtown. This current iteration that's before you tonight comes from another I retreat the board recently held earlier this year, seeking to expand the district to provide more opportunity for those uses. Okay.

Sorry, I was muted. No, I don't. Thank you.

No comment. It looks good.

Ira? Yeah, I mean, this is a very important step for the city. So I'm very, very supportive of going in this direction. We need to provide and try and obtain more opportunities for entertainment and vibrancy in our downtown, especially after the dinner hour so that we can encourage more feet on the ground, more young people and continue to get our city back to a demographic that includes all sorts of people and all sorts of interests. So this is one step in that right direction. And the level of entertainment, quality of entertainment, the kind of entertainment is all up to what the market will be. I think it's a great step in the right direction.

Again, please use the raise hand feature if you'd like to speak during this public hearing. No speaker,

I'll make that motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Second.

We do. Deb Duda is representing the applicant, David.

Also, I have a question. There's a question in the chat about whether or not questions will be allowed from the public on the conceptual review at the end.

Mr. Chair, I would add one other public component to this. So the proposed project that we have the concept plans for, they are proposing to use planned unit development zoning or PUD zoning As a requirement of that particular rezoning process, the developer is required to hold a community conference. So this is a meeting between the developer and interested parties within the community prior to the application actually going through the process and being reviewed. So we don't have an application to review it at this point in time, but if they do decide to submit an application again, They will be required to have a community conference and the public will be able to weigh in there, ask questions of the developer. The developer would then provide a report to the city. It would be considered through the formal rezoning process, which also has public hearings about the plan commission and at the Board of Aldermen level. So there will be lots of opportunity for public input on that particular project should they move forward with a formal submittal.

This is further review of the design and materials of signage for an existing retail building. This project was continued from the December 6th meeting at the request of the applicant. The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of South Brentwood Boulevard and Clayton Road and is the site of the CVS Pharmacy. The existing signage was approved by the ARB in 2013. The existing signages on the building includes 178.92 square feet of signage per the two elevations with street frontage. Red window graphics on the western doors of the front elevation were approved administratively by staff in 2014. The applicant is proposing a total of six wall signs. Total square footage on the Clayton Road elevation will measure 143.86 square feet and total square footage on the Brentwood Boulevard elevation will measure 174.96 square feet. Similar to the existing window graphics, the applicant is also proposing red vinyl window graphics. Additionally, the existing vinyl ground sign will be resurfaced with no changes to square footage proposed. In terms of wall signage, the sign code limits wall signage to 15 square feet or 5% of the wall area up to a maximum of 250 square feet for single tenant buildings. The proposed signage for each elevation is less than 250 square feet. It should also be noted that the proposed signage is above the first floor ceiling level, as is the existing signage. Given the large distance between the building and Clayton Road, staff is of the opinion that the position of the wall signage on the building is appropriate. As noted previously, window graphics were approved administratively, provided that the total area of signage, wall signs, and window graphics combined did not exceed 250 square feet. The proposed signage on the Clayton Road elevation included in window signage exceeds 250 square feet at 371 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that the vinyl window graphics and vinyl window signs should be reduced so that only the bottom half of the windows are covered, similar to the existing window graphics on the western portion of the windows. Our recommendation is to approve with the following conditions prior to issuance of a sign permit. First, that the applicant revises the window graphics so that no more than the bottom half of windows are covered with vinyl window graphics and or vinyl window signage. Second, a planting plan for the ground sign shall be provided to staff at the time of signed permit application. This concludes my presentation.

I just wanted to make a comment regarding the window graphics. The reason for the excessive window graphics on there is to identify the minute clinic that is over on the right-hand side of the building. The other vinyl graphics that are on the building are just going to be replaced. They are half the window size. And as far as the planting plan, we would be happy to take care of that for the city or for CVS and get something aesthetically put in. However, I would like a suggestion from the council or either CVS as to what type of plants they would like, or if they would like mulch put in for something decorative in that area for the monument. And I guess that's it. And we'd be happy, we'll also update the book once we know.

Without knowing the total square feet, it's hard for me to say right now. But there are plant lists that you can look up if you want to go with native. But I'm not sure that's going to have their own design standards for the projects.

No, not, not particularly. No, it would have to be, you know, every place has got their own location and their own type of plants that go well with the climates and different things. And we'd like to put something in there that, you know, would be low lying because the monument is very low to the ground and it needs to be visible. So I can look that up and, and

there are tons of plants that would work low ground covers. Sure. But, you know, variety comes to mind, you know, purple poppy mallow is beautiful. Okay. All right. All right. I mean, I could give you a gazillion options, but we're actually, we're headed over there in about one hour to get our booster shots. Look, if you wanted to contact me through this, this, you know, planning commission, I would Yeah, I will.

I can give you a call tomorrow and we can discuss it.

Yeah, it's hard for me to tell from the drawings. Right. Thanks. I didn't have any other comments, so I agree with the staff comments.

window signs that take up much of the window, they're just red with a design on those. Are those for branding purposes or for privacy purposes as

well? Both actually.

Okay.

Yes, I do have a question, a similar question. My concern is having all of the graphics, the full graphic on the door. Is that door the entrance door or just exit?

To be honest, I think it's an entrance to the MinuteClinic. And right now they have shades that are, they use for that area that I've seen on pictures that cover up the entire door and windows.

That still concerns me. The door swing would swing out. And if I'm walking by, I could be hit in the face or if I'm going to enter, I don't know if anybody is walking, you know, coming out. So I see that as a safety hazard that generally in a commercial setting, you have some ability to see the other side. So you know if there is someone on the other side who is coming in the opposite direction. But I do agree with the staff recommendations beyond Karen Hollweg, Just that concern. Karen Hollweg, Okay that's understandable.

Hal Hallstein, Chair would it be helpful if I brought that that picture up so everyone could take a look at the same time you're rendering of the graphics.

yeah.

Yes.

My preference would be that the door itself have no graphic on it because privacy is not an issue when you've got a door that anybody can open it from either side. Privacy should not be a concern. In the other areas, I think the half would be better. It would tie in with the other side of the building, and certainly privacy would not be a concern if a commercial door is roughly seven feet high. Above that, people can't see in and people can't see out. So there is no privacy issue there. So I would prefer to have it eliminated at the door and then the same height as the other windows.

Are you referring to the minute clinic on the signage there? Just keep that in the corner?

Yes, have all of the window treatments at the same height and eliminate it at the door. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay, we can get you some new drawings on that then too.

I would say that I agree with Helen's comments on that one. That needs to be done.

Ira? Sorry, would any...

I don't have any comments. Okay.

Moyer- Carol yeah I just I wonder. HAB-Marsyn Moyer- Is is has there been any discussion about making that a sliding door, as opposed to a door that's open. HAB-Charlotte Pittsburg- That i'm aware of. HAB-Marysa Silver- Okay, because I was gonna say them that you know dissuades the issue. HAB-Danny Teodoru- yeah well before. HAB-Terry Palmos-

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we approve the staff conditions. HAB-Juliette Boone, Do I need to say anything about the. HAB-Julie Petersen, Not being covered or just yes yeah. HAB-Judy Nogg, approved with the staff recommendations amending number one to include that the door should not be covered with the graphics for pedestrian safety. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And maintaining number two. HAB-Michael Leccese, Okay. HAB-Terry

Thank you, Carolyn. I'll get in touch with you tomorrow then. Okay, thank you.

This is for the review of the design and materials associated with a 1,667 square foot addition. The 65,573 square foot lot is located mid block on the north side of Brentmore Park. The proposed project consists of a single story addition on the east side of the home. The project also includes the expansion of the concrete paper driveway, a fire pit in the rear yard, and a hot tub to the rear slash north of the proposed addition. The primary building material for the proposed addition is brick veneer painted white to match the principal structure. White casement windows are featured on each elevation of the addition with stone headers. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the proposed addition are compatible with the home and the surrounding area, as all materials are proposed to match the existing. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to extend the existing concrete paver driveway on the portion of the drive adjacent to the west side of the home. Also depicted on the plans are a proposed parking slash basketball area within the front setback. Parking spaces are not permitted within the front yard setback of residential zoning districts and staff has advised the applicant of this requirement to which they agreed to comply. The project as proposed with modification is in conformance with the requirements of the R1 large lot single family dwelling district and the architectural review guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with the home and with the neighborhood character. Our recommendation is to approve with one condition to be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit, that the proposed parking slash basketball area must be removed from the plan as it is located within the front yard setback. That concludes my presentation.

Yes.

Carolyn. We hear from the audience if there are any people who have anything they want to say.

Yeah, I agreed with the staff recommendation as well. Otherwise, I think it's a gorgeous house and it's really nice plan.

George. I have no additional comments. Helen.

No comments. I like it.

I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendation. Second.

Aye.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Steve, I'd like to make a point of order. Is it possible I could do that? Certainly. I just think it makes more sense for the public to make their comments before we make comments. Many times our comments become very conclusory. I think it's important that we hear from the public first, before we end up making our comments in any conclusory fashion.

This is for the review of the design and materials of renovations to the Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard streetscape of 8182 Maryland, the subject property is located on the south side of Maryland Avenue southeast of its intersection with Forsyth Boulevards. The property has a zoning designation of Special Development District and is located in the Maryland Gateway Overlay District. The project consists of renovations to the entry and pedestrian walkway areas. The existing stairs and walls at the entry areas are comprised of concrete and red brick. The proposed stairs will be integral color hand-rubbed concrete stairs with the wall to match. Along the wall and the stairs will be ornamental metal guardrails and handrails, similar to those found at the neighboring 8235 Forsyth Boulevard property to the immediate south. Benches will be located along the stairway entries on both street elevations. The ground sign is shown on the rendering but is not depicted within the plans or the scope of work. A separate application will be required for the ground sign. The vision for the Maryland Gateway notes that Maryland Avenue shall balance accommodating traffic with the need for greater walkability and improving the pedestrian experience. The removal of the large planters along Maryland Avenue and their replacement with seating areas enhances the pedestrian feel in this area. However, staff has several concerns with several aspects of the proposed revisions to the streetscape which are not consistent with city streetscape design. The spacing of the proposed streetlights is incompatible with city standards. The arrangement of the proposed streetlights has several lights located in close proximity to each other. In order to reduce large pockets of light and minimize glare, these lights should be as evenly positioned as possible according to the public works standard of 44 feet. Additionally, there are conflicts between the proposed street trees along Maryland and the streetlights. Furthermore, the trees along Maryland Avenue create pinch points in the pedestrian access route of the sidewalk. A permanent roadway maintenance and utility easement is therefore necessary to maintain an ADA accessible route within the PAR. Furthermore, the landscape plan references specifications for the tree wells that are different than the Clayton standards and city standards must be matched for all objects located in the right of way. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed alterations will create a more functional space. Proposed materials are compatible with the building and surrounding properties and will be a visual improvement to the existing building entrance. However, several modifications are necessary in order to bring the streetscape into compliance with city standards. Staff's recommendation is to approve with the following modifications to the proposed design to be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit. First, a separate ARB and sign permit application shall be submitted for the proposed ground sign along Forsyth Boulevard. Second, the spacing of the lights along Maryland Avenue shall be adjusted in accordance to city standards. Lighting installation shall consist of the following. Seven new lights along Maryland and extending the two-inch electrical conduit to the eastern project limits, installing lights per Clayton standard C16, one quad, two roadway, and four single head fixtures, and installing a new electric hand hole at the eastern project limits. All proposed trees along Maryland Avenue shall be shifted to avoid conflicts with the streetscape lights in accordance with city standards and all tree species planted in the right-of-way must be approved by Clayton Public Works. An irrigation system shall be provided for all the new trees in accordance with city's standards. Finally, a permanent roadway maintenance and utility easement is required to maintain a pedestrian access route throughout the project limits. This must be submitted to Clayton Public Works prior to completion of the project. That concludes my presentation.

yes sir good evening good evening mr chairman and members of the architectural review board my name is mike shadle and i represent the owner of 8182 maryland avenue office tower we appreciate the opportunity to present our plans for renovating the outdoor space surrounding this building as part of this project we would like to replace the planter boxes walkways and other perimeter spaces located on our property Most of the existing structures in these areas are failing and look tired. In addition, we believe that replacing much of this surface area will minimize possible water damage to the garage, which is located directly beneath this area. Since we're doing a lot of outside work on our property, we have also been working with city staff to include the city's streetscape design to the sidewalk area adjacent to Maryland Avenue. Currently there is no Mike Beaucheneau, City street along that area streetscape design, we are excited about this project because we believe it will enhance the pedestrian field for both our tenants and also for residents at this time i'd like to introduce Chris mertens with ACI Boland our architect for the project.

Chris Mertens, Thank you Mike. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Chris Mertens. I'm an architect with ACI Blonde Architects, 17107 Chesterfield Airport Road, 63005. As Mike said, we're working with property owners at 8182 to update their existing streetscape. along Maryland Avenue and also the corner of Forsyth Boulevard. As Mike mentioned, there are several areas along the existing planters and stairs that are failing and need repair from a leakage standpoint, damage standpoint. And the planters themselves are breaking down from years of just exposure out in the elements. Also part of this concern is the damage from the water issues leaking into the garage and the concerns of the long-term effects in the garage and in the tenant parking below. As Mike said, as part of this process, we're taking the opportunity to rebuild the exterior stairs, the streetscape, but then also to create some more outdoor pedestrian gathering areas with benches along the streetscape, both along Maryland and along Forsyth. Part of the process, too, is to try to widen the feel of the sidewalk from a very narrow, tight feel to a more spacious, easier to meander down the sidewalk along Maryland Avenue. As Anissa pointed out, we are working with staff on providing new trees and streetscape lights along Maryland, which, as Mike said, currently there are no streetscape lights along And then also as part of the process, we are providing a new accessible building entry ramp there at the corner of Maryland and Forsyth. Our plan is to use very similar benches, railings, guardrails, things of that sort, the same as the building at 8235, which has also similar ownership, to try to help create a unified look between the two buildings. That's my additional comments. I thank you for your time and consideration. And if anybody has any comments or questions, myself or Mr. Shade will be glad to answer them. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to answer that question for you. In our original design and layout of the lights and tree wells, we had arranged such that none of the lights nor the tree wells would fall in front of the three stair entrances to try to minimize the pinch point. There we go. So as you can see in the diagram, that's been brought up on the screen there. You can see that the three entry stairs, they are very clean and have a lot of free space in front of them, whether it be tree or whether it be from a light standard. After we made this submission, we were informed of the 44 foot rule or recommendation from staff to space the lights out along Maryland Avenue every 44 feet. And then tree had to be within 11 feet of the light standard themselves by doing this kind of the way it shifted out shakes out from a staffing layout, unfortunately, it does create a couple points. There is the second what i'll say this will become the second street lamp in front of the stairwell there on the plan left. creates a pinch point. And then also again, on the far right-hand set of stairs, there would be a street lamp there that could create a pinch point also in front of those stairs. So as I said, as we work through the process with staff, trying to find the best accommodation for stair locations to match what's existing there today. And then also the light layout for ease of flow from a pedestrian traffic standpoint. So we're in that process, but that's a long answer to a short question.

You're correct, that probably is probably under the current layout. That is probably the could be the tightest pinch point. In that dimension is approximately. I'm glad to give it to you. Approximately five and a half feet.

In the tree well itself or in the light standard? I'm

Along the eastern side, that seems to have plenty of room at the tree well. To the stair, that's probably 12 feet-ish.

So in front of the stare to the curb, is that what you're asking?

That's approximately seven feet today and would remain that same distance.

That's correct. along the eastern side, but we've accounted for or allowed, I should say, for a path between the tree well and the benches there on the very far eastern side. And as again, as we work our way across the plant going to the right, I would have five feet between the lamp pole and the stairwell through there. I have about five and a half feet, which is more than what's required. And then I had the seven feet in front of the stairwell on that first stair on the plan left. And then again, I've maintained my five feet. Yes, thank you for the cursor. I've maintained my 5 foot path to the next lamppost, tree well, And again, I've kept the pinch point of about six feet from the next tree well to the stair, to the middle stair. And then again, as I continue to move down the way towards Forsyth going to the right, I've maintained the five feet very easily. And then when we get back right hand or westerly stair between that and the tree well that's about seven feet from that tree well to the pylon of the stair. That's under the current arrangement of tree wells and like standards is what we have shown currently. Again as if the light standards need to be reshuffled to meet the 44 foot requirement that presents a whole nother challenges and may change the layout. And again, that creates some pinch points based on the city's recommendation of the 44 feet spacing and the light standards. Okay.

So are we. Mr. Chairman, if I don't mind, I hate to interrupt. I just want to add. So, you know, we have some challenges here because the sidewalk right away is very narrow in comparison to many other parts within the Central Business District, especially when you talk about the stair areas. And so we've tried to maintain... clear sight lines coming from the building as tenants and people come down those steps. You have a lot of things going on now that you haven't had in the last couple months. We have a bike lane now, so it creates a little more activity immediately adjacent to the sidewalk as opposed to when we had cars parked there. So we're just a little concerned about putting any items in the sightline area or the walkway area near those steps because, again, it's seven feet or less through most of that area because our property line comes all the way out pretty close to that, basically at the end of those steps. So that's a good picture right there. Thank you. It shows the narrowness and then it shows exactly what happens when you start putting those existing trees clearly aren't following the current streetscape guidelines. But as you know, once you start putting those grates in, the trees are moved farther towards our property line. It creates some challenges on the ADA. So again, we were just trying to I guess really allocate the trees and lamps in a way that it could help with pedestrian access and minimize some of the sight lines that are challenging along this area because it becomes pretty busy.

Yeah. I understand about the pinch point on the two left end of the stairs that are located there. The other one, I'm not quite sure about. One of the questions I have first though is the existing trees, they're not being saved at all? They're just being taken out?

That's correct.

They would be replaced.

The other question or suggestion I have would be, I look at the plan. It seems like if it's not going to be the exact 44 feet or 11 feet with the trees in between, I think you should center the trees on between the stairs. Ariel Ambruster, Equally, so that it makes more sense right now it's just sort of random if you look at I can't do a cursor but the second page from the left yeah that one that really just makes me a little crazy. Ariel Ambruster , Just as a landscape architect so reworking you know the painting pattern whatever you have to do to get them lined up and work with the city and. HAB-Juliette Boone, You know, even all of them need to be spaced out so that they make more sense if you're going to be able to change the actual required spacing of the city standard. HAB-Julie Petersen, And i'm jumping ahead on that, but if that is allowed, we have to deal with the idea of this sets a precedent, of course, but this is an existing building so it's not like you're proposing changing the standards, you have to work around what you have. HAB-Judy Nogg- There, you have no room to put a tree or. or even the light. The other question I would have is, or not question, another comment I have is, you know, people being able to see or walk around a six-inch trunk tree at probably their maturity when it's an urban transit condition, maybe eight-inch tree, they can see around it. I mean, that's like me going like this. I can't, I can still see you, right? So I don't think the visibility is as much of an issue. I think it's more the fact that there's no ADA room for a sidewalk through where those two staircases are. So that has to get worked out. I don't know how staff is going to handle that, but my suggestion would be it has to be handled. There's no way around it, right? So otherwise, I think it looks good.

George? I think the comments have been made and I trust staff to be able to work through the ADA issues in the sidewalk on those stairwells. And I have no further comments.

I especially like the revised corner intersection at Maryland and Forsyth where the, what I would call disappearing steps have totally been removed and you have a ramp and you've given that space, the existing shows two risers and then it disappears into almost zero. That's an extremely dangerous situation for walking. And especially when we get a little bit of ice on the ground, two risers even in good conditions, The eye doesn't perceive that change in depth and it can be a falling hazard. So while it may have looked as like a gracious entrance with the steps and just a few risers, I think what you're proposing now is far, far better. So I like it and I trust, yes, you can work with staff to work out the tree wells and the light standards.

Ira? Yeah, right. I mean, my only comment is making sure that the staff is aware and of course the applicant is aware of standards for accessibility. And as long as that can get taken care of, I'm OK with this. Okay.

David. Just so we're clear on that direction to staff, what I'm hearing is that the plan commission or ARB in this case is okay with this particular configuration that moves the tree wells and lights away from the staircase. Is that

correct?

Which is basically the elimination of condition one on any approval. I just want to make sure staff knows the parameters when working with the applicant, because the streetscape standards as they're written are basically what you see in the condition. It's very rigid as far as the placement. And so I just want to be sure that the plan commission is okay with that deviation in this case to line up the trees and the lights with these pockets, I'll call them, in between the stair areas.

Great. I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear on that. And that will help public works and planning staff as they work through it with the applicant. That's all I have.

Can I say something? I can't tell in a visual like this what kind of room there really is for a wheelchair access to go along that sidewalk with the trees, whether they're where they are or whether you move them a little bit. I would also be a little bit concerned if we're going to have trees that Would it in any way hover over a bike path with bikers riding through and perhaps branches having an issue for a bicycle rider? So I don't know how that could be rectified as well. But we are looking at two issues on this sidewalk. And wheelchair accessibility is one, and then biker accessibility being the other.

Absolutely.

That might be a situation where they specify more columnar-shaped tree as opposed to a tree that branches like this, a branch like this. So that comes down to specification of the tree type for sure. I agree with that comment 100%.

Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be up. I didn't know it was not up. Sorry.

I'll take a stab at it. I'd like to make a motion that we approve with amending staff recommendations one through three to be, the project team will work directly with the city staff to ensure that the spacing of the trees and lighting is worked out to meet ADA and standards, the city standards as best as possible. And then maintaining numbers four and five as is.

Aye.

Thank you for everybody for your time and consideration. And yes, we will definitely work on staff.

thank you.

This is for the conceptual review of the proposed design of a new residential development, including parking and condominiums. The project site includes two parcels located Southwest of the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard adjacent to this jobs building. The properties have a zoning designation of C1 neighborhood commercial district. The site is currently improved with one and two story buildings and a surface parking lot. Adjacent land uses include retail office and residential. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a four-story, 42-unit condominium building with an 86 space parking garage located in the basement of the building. The square footage of the proposed building will measure 165,020 square feet with an approximate height of 45 to 48 feet. Vehicle access to the garage is proposed on 45th Boulevard. Primary building materials were not identified in this submittal. The project is proposed as a residential planned unit development and will require public hearings before the Plan Commission and the Board of Aldermen. As noted in the application, the applicant is seeking the PUD zoning due to the narrow depth of the existing parcels and the subsequent challenge of the setback requirements, as well as an increase in the allowable height. The existing zoning designation is C1 General Commercial District. Therefore, the property must first be rezoned to a residential zoning district before it may be rezoned to residential PUD. The northern parcel of the proposed project is also located in the Maryland Gateway Overlay District as identified in the Downtown Clayton Master Plan. The vision of the Maryland Gateway is to create a memorable and representative entry to the core of the city, and to transform the area from an autofocus right-of-way to human focus corridor. The portion of the property that is located in the Maryland Gateway will have to be removed from the district through the rezoning process because the overlay district does not allow single use residential land uses. A project of this scale requires a thorough staff review prior to a public hearing The project will be reviewed and is subject to comments by multiple city departments and also the city's contracted consultants for landscaping, architecture, stormwater management, traffic, and parking. Staff recommends that the plan commission and architectural review board consider the proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only and therefore any comments made in this report either by the applicant staff or the board commission members are not binding. Comments from the Planning Department and Public Works Department are noted on page two of the staff report. This concludes the staff presentation.

Thank you, Chairman. First one, it's David. Hello, everyone. It's good to see everyone again. Thanks for allowing us back. We appreciate all your help on the residence and across the street. It's been off to a good start. Steve is shared. Our Steve will share the screen. And we're here to talk about across the street from the residence in, there's two parcels that we'd like to present some initial plans for. The two buildings have been vacant for a long time and honestly are not the greatest shape. We want to kind of share with you what we have planned. Steve, you want to go to the next slide? And so this is one of the buildings across the street. It's a two-story office building that's, again, on Forsyth on the bend there. Next, Steve. This is another angle of that two-story office building. Again, this one is built in the 50s, and it's been vacant for many years. Been in the building, and we've studied the building, and inside of the building, it's in pretty disarray. It's pretty much at the end of its lifespan from an operations standpoint. We've looked at this building hard. We like to recycle buildings, so that's something that we try to do all the time. So we looked at this building really hard to try and do that. And the more we looked at it, the more we realized that the economics just did not work with the condition of the building and the cost to bring it up to something that would make sense. You'd still, at the end of the day, just have a two-story office building. And then what really made it tough was that, go to the next slide Steve, as right next door is the old gas station. So if we kept the two-story office building and redid it, you still would have this gas station next door that would really be very difficult to develop on its own. You really kind of need both parcels put together to make something that kind of makes sense on this site. All right, next Steve. And then here's just another slide of the gas station. I think it became a dry cleaning service at one point right next to Straub's. Next. So here's just to show you what's there now. This is the survey of what's there now, you can see the two-story office building on the right and then the old gas station on the left. So we're talking about combining both parcels together. Next. Then here would be a footprint of what we're proposing. Again, we're going to be a four-story building, total of 42 condos. We've curved the building to match the Forsyth curve. So the building is, you can see it curved in the front there. Mostly two-bedroom, two-bath, three-bedroom, three-bath, 2,500 square feet to 3,500 square feet of condos. We do have an amenity space on the first level that would be on the Straub side, would be beside Straubs. And then if you look over to the right, you'll see that the garage access, uh, which would be all four sides, but it would lead to a garage level that's below in the basement and the lower level. Uh, next Steve, this is what the lower level would look like. Again, we have all our parking, um, below grade, so it would really not have any of the headlights would be interfering with any of the residents behind us. Uh, we've tried it. We've got all our parking below grade next. Mark Warren, And then this would be what the three upper floors would look like again they would be condos 2500 to 3500 square feet. Mark Warren, we've got we don't have a ton of amenities in the building because really we were in with this location, you have a lot of great amenities around you with. with Shaw Park and Center for Clayton shops, groceries, and restaurants. So we're able to do something really nice here, some nice luxury condos. And because of the location, have great amenities around us. Next. And so this is what we're proposing from a rendering standpoint. Steve, you want to kind of share what we're thinking on material-wise here? Absolutely.

I'm

sharing the wrong screen Steve. I'm trying. There

you go. Alright. Yeah, so when we looked at this site and looked at the multifamily residential that was immediately to our west, both in Brighton Way and Topham Way, we saw there was a good mix of traditional and more modern or contemporary architecture due to the project's position adjacent to the business district. And we believe that this building could transition well between those two uses of residential and commercial. Our building is proposed to have a flat roof. That achieves a couple of things. One, the floor story building which would be more stories than the buildings to the west but the lack of a pitched roof is going to mean that this building's overall height is more contemporary with those buildings to the west. The commercial buildings that are in this general area, both to the South Bank of America, as well as to North Straub's and East. To the hotel across the street mean that this property would be the only multifamily residential property that's in this stretch, and so we will be able to develop our own language. for this building and not necessarily have to reflect the residential properties that are adjacent to it. The current iteration of the architecture suggests modern materials, but they're focused on materials that have not only good value, they're buildings that are stone and precast concrete that would provide us both durability and long-lasting value for the property. What you see is rendered as gray is what we're referencing as limestone. There is both limestone in the buildings that we are replacing as well as others in the neighborhood, and we felt like that was an appropriate homage to those buildings that were replacing. The gray that is rendered is something that we are able to adjust and may warm it up to a more buff colored limestone as we go towards, you know, final selection of materials. The inset balconies would allow us to break up the facade as well and provide a little bit more activity on that ground floor as well as introducing secondary materials again for greater warmth or additional texture for the facade? Let's see. All right.

I think from a height standpoint, I mean, I know that we felt like this building, because it was only four stories, There's three and a half story buildings behind us. So there's not that much of a change from the height of our building to the residential units behind us. And it provides a nice transition between the office towers and some protection for the neighborhood behind us.

Absolutely, we have definitely looked at the city's requirements for sustainability and plan to incorporate those into this project. The elements of the facade will all take into account recycled materials or very high value long lasting materials that would provide a very nice long life cycle for this building. I think that's all the comments that I have for this.

No, we're looking forward to, I mean, obviously we understand that we need to go visit with the neighbors. We have every intention of doing that. We understand we're not doing this on an island. We want to be, we're in the neighborhood already across the street. We want to see this area redevelop too. It'll improve the curb appeal for our asset that's across the street. And we think that, you know, we've talked to the Straub's folks and they're asking us for more residential. That's really what they think is important for their business. And then while we would love to have added some retail here, we really feel like that this wasn't the right place for retail. But by adding residents, eventually the retail will come. And so that's kind of what we were trying to accomplish here. So I appreciate your guys' comments.

Yeah, I had a lot of the same comments that you made, Steve. One of the things about it not looking uniform and it doesn't have the curve, the thing that I want to go back to is I would like to see some kind of proof or research or details of why this could not be retrofitted or reused at least for the storefronts And then you build up from behind, at least that initial facade. You do something where it's actually adaptive reuse of something that's historic as opposed to just wiping it out. I also feel like the architecture for me, it seemed like it could be a project that's anywhere. It doesn't say it's in Clayton. It says that I could put this in Illinois and it would be okay. So to me, I know it's a little harsh, but it just feels it's not part of Clayton. I don't agree with that it shouldn't have retail at the base. I think that's a good opportunity to start tying things together. And you have to, Maybe you have more two-bedroom instead of three-bedroom. Those sound pretty cute. Did someone say something? Those are my comments. And we've covered everything else, so that's all I have. I think the history of that building is important as well, and I will reiterate that. I was a big vocal person on the Shanley Building, and I I really don't feel like this building should go away.

Yes, I'm sorry. I have to stay off video for a moment here. One, I'm going to say one. I moved to St. Louis Clayton back in 2001, and this building piqued my interest in 2001. To my knowledge, since 2001, I don't believe there's been a tenant in this building. There's a common term that's used, but it has historic preservation, and that's demolition by neglect. And I'm afraid that's what the historic building of 8230 Forsyth has seen, demolition by neglect, and the neglect includes vacant. I'm appreciative that MIDAS is coming forward today to try to bring something to reactivate these two lots that have just sat there desolate for a number of years, too many years. Is the plan what I want? Not yet. Steve, I think you covered most of the parts there. I think the height's a little bit off. Carolyn, your comment on saving the facade, I really don't know what to say other than I am saddened to see us come to this point in the city of Clayton where we're losing so much of our history and our architectural, and I'm disappointed. Thank you. Thank you,

Well, I think those before me have covered a number of my concerns. I guess another thing is the screen that we're looking at now says garage entry retail lobby level. But from what I have heard, there is no retail. Am I correct or is

this? There's no retail. The garage is on the corner there.

Okay. So it should really be garage entry, first level residential lobby level.

It's misleading. I agree with you. Mm-hmm.

I think given we have Forsyth Point, which is moving well from what I can see, there are going to be more people at the corner of Brentwood and Forsyth. I think this is a natural area for some retail. And The residential, I don't know at this point the form, the whole thing is it could go any place is part of my concern. It doesn't appear to be really site specific and then the materials being kind of amorphous, it just needs more definition work? What will the front really look like in plan view? What will the back look like in plan you? Will the back be five stories rising out of grade or will the grade be raised a bit? You know, there's a lot of questions that I think need to be answered. So those are just my thoughts right now.

Unmute. Yeah, the history of architecture and history of development in the city of Clayton, especially when you're talking about near a neighborhood where you're going to have some vocal opposition, you better have some architecture that's going to knock the socks off of an ARB and a Board of Aldermen. And you haven't done it. I just get your feedback on that. You haven't done it I agree with a lot of the comments that we've had here today. You know, this whole thing about we can't do anything to save the building. I just don't think is really a fair statement because, yeah, I know that, and as George said, this property has been vacant for many years and it was purposely left vacant so that it could be developed in what we're seeing today. And that just bothers the hell out of me. I mean, it's unfathomable that that that kind of a formula that would work among a bunch of very smart people sitting on our boards. So, I mean, there's a lot of issues here. You've got, you know, because of your footprint being so different than the footprint of the existing buildings, that is only going to get the ire of a neighborhood behind there that, you know, when you're going to ask for all sorts of zoning changes. David Sikorski, Height changes, etc, etc. I just, I think you're going to have real, real hard way to go to get all this David Sikorsky, Out of what you're showing us tonight. HAB-Jacques

Juilland, Understood. Thank you. HAB-Michael Leccese, David.

Teodoru, I don't have anything to add a lot of good comments. Okay,

No, I mean, we weren't trying to make them mad. The, I mean, you know, the building is deeper because we were trying to park it, right? And so the parking was underneath. And so that's really what what drove that depth, okay, was to be able to get the parking on the site. We really did try to keep it at a height that we thought was reasonable. And, you know, in order to make the economics work, I mean, the office building, we would love to save it. It's probably not something we can do from an economic standpoint. So we'll have to decide what we want to do next with this. But I mean, we really thought that putting residential there would be a good thing for the city. And so we'll have to go back and evaluate and see what we can do, but we may not be able to accomplish what you guys want. So there may not be a way that it may just have to sit vacant for a while. Well, let us get back to you, okay?

Okay. We're still recording. This is not just us ending the meeting.

Okay. No, I don't have any further comments.

Okay. George? No, I have nothing further. Okay. Helen?

No, just a happy new year. Thinking ahead. Go

ahead. Ira? Yeah, happy new year. Good holiday to everybody. And Steve, thanks for doing the wonderful job you do this year. Thank you very much.

Nothing further. Happy holidays.

am, and I don't have anything further this evening.

I think it will be another busy meeting. One thing that I would like to note is Steve, I know that we had talked about you doing your presentation at the next meeting. We will be bringing a discussion item before the plan commission about how height is measured on buildings, particularly in the Clayton Gardens UDD. We've had a lot of development on Kingsbury lately and a lot of feedback from residents. So just would like to bring that to your attention. So just be thinking about that before the next meeting, but we'll have a report ready for you.

It'll be the second January

to push you twice. I know that you're really looking forward to presenting, but things keep coming