June 4, 2018

MINUTES

CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

JUNE 4, 2018

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The City Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board of the City of Clayton, Missouri, met on the above date at 5:30 p.m. Upon roll call, the following responded:

Present: Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman Joanne Boulton, Aldermanic Representative Craig Owens, City Manager* William Liebermann Scott Wilson

Absent:

Ron Reim Brian Maguire

Also in Attendance: Stephanie Karr, Acting City Attorney Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director* Anna Krane, Planner

*left the meeting before its conclusion

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked that all cell phones be turned off and that conversations take place outside the meeting room.

MINUTES

There were no minutes presented for approval.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR RENOVATION – CLAYTON HIGH SCHOOL – 1 MARK TWAIN CIRCLE (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING)

2

Jennifer Carlson, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed project was originally presented to the Architectural Review Board on May 21, 2018. There was a discussion surrounding the mixture of brick colors for the dugouts and press box and the large areas of concrete. The project was continued to the next meeting date to allow the applicant time to revise plans based on comments. The applicant has since made some changes to the proposed project. The light maple brick proposed has been replaced with a maroon and dusty red color brick. The concrete paving area has not changed, but 1- foot wide strips of stained concrete have been added to break up the pavement. The applicant has also added a dashed line to the renderings which represents the location of aluminum bleachers, which were omitted from the rendering for clarity. A dark grey color is proposed for the safety padding along the backstop. All other elements of the project have remained the same as previously proposed. The 195,000 square foot site is located southwest of Clayton High School, adjacent to Shaw Park. A portion of the project area is on City of Clayton property. Discussions are ongoing for an agreement regarding use of City property. The proposed project has remained on the agenda because this request is for review of the design and materials of the project; however, an agreement will need to be in place prior to the issuing of any construction permits. The property is zoned R-2 Single Family Dwelling District and the site is currently made up of a grass baseball field with metal viewing bleachers. The existing and proposed land use is considered an accessory to the existing school and park. The proposed project consists of the installation of a synthetic turf field in the same location as the existing baseball field, new fence enclosure, new dugout structures and the construction of a 913 square foot, 2-story concession stand/press box. The height of the proposed building is 27 feet above existing average grade. The new scoreboard will be designed by others and reviewed at a future date. Standard black, chain link fencing will be used to enclose most of the field. A 2.5-foot tall red Cordova stone CMU wall with safety netting measuring 32 feet tall will wrap home plate, between the dugouts. The dugouts and concession stand/press box will be constructed of red and beige brick, cast stone, Cordova stone and a metal roof. The applicant also proposes to replace the field lights. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the orientation of the existing baseball field or access points. Two trees will be removed and replaced on site. The proposed design and building materials for the baseball field renovations include elements of design compatible with the newer and the older building styles found is the surrounding area. This area has a concentration of civic and community buildings and uses including the Center of Clayton, Clayton High School, School District of Clayton administrative building and Shaw Park facilities. Structures in this area have been constructed and remodeled over generations, with evidence of the design trends throughout the years remaining to create a unique blend of styles. Brick is a dominant feature of most existing structures and the proposed design will include different colors of brick, as see across the existing buildings. More modern design patterns for the bricks are proposed, which staff believes will be compatible while still providing an accent element. Metal roofs are proposed, which is also compatible the newer structures throughout the park. The Enterprise Pavilion located east of the site feature complementary shapes and similar building materials. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed design is a creative way to blend traditional and modern styles. The existing service drive located along the north and west boundary

3 of the project area will be resurfaced with asphalt and slightly reconfigured but will generally remain as it appears. The area wrapping southwest of the dugouts and press box will be concrete. The concrete will match the City standard mix. Accent strips of 1-foot wide colored concrete to match the red brick color are proposed to break up the large pavement areas. The project proposes collecting runoff from the turf field and connecting to an existing storm sewer. This will require approval from MSD and the applicant has begun that process. An 8-foot tall black chain link fence is proposed to enclose the baseball field. The metal fence design is similar to the fencing along the two baseball fields located east of the subject field. Safety netting ranging in height from 16 feet to 32 feet is proposed along the southeast and west sides of the field. The safety netting is specifically designed for athletic fields. Red Cordova stone CMU walls approximately 2.5 feet tall are proposed along the southeast and west sides of the baseball field to act as the backstop behind home plate. The interior side of the walls facing the field will be lined with grey padding and the exterior face will be the red stone. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed fences and walls are compatible with the proposed site design and surrounding area. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing field light poles. The new lights will go in the same locations but will feature upgraded lights with shields. The spillover of light onto adjacent properties will be reduced from the existing conditions. Director Istenes concluded by stating that it is staff’s opinion that the design and materials of the proposed baseball field are compatible in terms of height, mass and design with nearby structures. The use of red brick as the primary building material is compatible with adjacent buildings, while the proposed roof and secondary building materials introduce modern design elements and staff’s recommendation is to approve with the condition that the applicant shall provide proof of approval from MSD for the storm sewer connection prior to issuing of any Building Permits.

Ms. Carlson provided details regarding the changes made to the proposal based on the comments received at the last meeting. She then presented renderings/materials to the members. She noted that the existing bleachers will be used.

Joanne Boulton stated that she thinks it will look very nice.

Ms. Carlson presented the floor plan of the press box to the members; the first floor contains restrooms.

Gabriella Farkas, resident, spoke about the turf material; noting that it may not be the most environmentally safe and suggested that an environmental study be conducted.

Chairman Lichtenfeld explained to Ms. Farkas that this Board is not specifically reviewing the turf, but they could ask the applicant/school district to address her concern.

Ms. Carlson stated that the school district takes these concerns seriously and that there are studies that show no immediate or long-term effects of artificial turf; however, the landscape architect could better speak to this issue. She added that the exact material still has not been determined.

4

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR RENOVATION – SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 60 ARUNDEL PLACE

San San Smith, project architect, and Scot Hickman, owner, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the project consists of the replacement and enlargement of the front porch. The proposed porch is concrete, clad in brick with brick pillars and a decorative metal railing. The proposed porch will extend further laterally across the front of the house than the existing porch. Uncovered porches are allowed to encroach up to 10 feet into a front yard setback and the proposed porch only extends 8 feet from the front of the house. Some evergreen shrubs will be removed to make room for the new porch; however, the two existing trees at either corner of the house will remain. In the R-2 Zoning District, total lot impervious coverage is limited to 55 percent and front yard impervious coverage is limited to 45 percent. The proposed total lot coverage is 40 percent and the proposed front yard coverage is 18 percent. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The code section above requires walls and fences in the front yard to obtain approval from the Architectural Review Board. The code section does not specifically address the use of masonry walls and fences in conjunction with porches or patios in the front yard. The proposed porch will be red brick to match the primary structure with limestone caps, which is also an accent material of the primary structure. The proposed porch is consistent with other uncovered porches on similar style homes in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials are compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and recommends approval as submitted.

Ms. Smith explained that the Sheet A.1 shows the rendering. The existing concrete porch is 64- square feet; the new concrete porch (exposed aggregate finish) is 222 -square feet. The face of the new porch will match the house (red brick and charcoal mortar). The porch height remains unchanged, at approximately 20-inches from grade. The new steps will be 6-feet wide, which is one foot wider than the existing steps. The sidewalk will be the same width and also of exposed aggregate. The pilasters will be solid concrete interior with reinforced steel faced with brick. Ms. Smith then referred to the last page of the submittal and noted that there are approximately 10 other porches that contain pilasters, so they believe it will be compatible with the neighborhood.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about landscaping.

Ms. Smith stated that the two trees will not be affected by the construction, but some of the hedges need to be removed for this new porch. She noted that the owners do plan to install some landscaping.

5

Mr. Hickman informed the members that they do plan to do some landscaping; specifics not yet determined…possible Azealia’s or boxwoods. He noted that they also plan on installing a sprinkler system.

Chairman Lichtenfeld encouraged the use of landscaping. He then referred to Sheet A.6, noting the slope and voiced concerned about the porch settlement against the north face of the house.

Joanne Boulton commented that she really likes the design.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – EXTERIOR ALTERATION – FRONT YARD RETAINING WALL – RESIDENTIAL - 147 NORTH HANLEY ROAD

Rebecca Eisele, landscape designer, was in attendance at the meeting.

Director Istenes explained that the project consists of replacing the existing deteriorated wood tie wall along the east property line with a stone retaining wall system, ranging in height from 1 foot to 3 feet. Section 405.1900 of the Zoning Regulations requires that all walls located in the front yard in single-family zoning districts be approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to installation. The Architectural Review Board prefers the use of masonry walls in front yards; however, modular block walls are allowed if they include three different block sizes, color variation and tumbled edges. The proposed design and material of the retaining wall does feature a varying color pallet and at least three different sizes of stone. The existing wall is located against the public sidewalk and supports lawn area. The replacement wall will be in the same place but will be supporting a new landscaped area. Multiple nearby houses have front yard retaining walls and fences constructed directly against the sidewalk. Staff’s opinion is that the proposed location of the wall is consistent with neighborhood character and recommends approval as requested.

Ms. Eisele referred to the submittal and explained that they plan to replace the existing railroad tie wall with a stone wall system (Rosetta Belvedere) to be located in the same place and at the same height as the existing wall. She stated that she believes the proposed wall meets the City’s requirements for modular block. She stated that the homeowners wanted a more environmentally friendly wall and selected this one (the Rosetta Belvedere) to better match the home.

Joanne Boulton asked if the wall is stacked.

Ms. Eisele replied “yes”.

6 The colors of the wall were discussed. Ms. Eisele explained that the colors are subtle, but they do include white, gray and a bit of beige stones.

A discussion about the location of the wall and its close proximity to the sidewalk ensued. Ms. Eisele noted that the Oak trees would be impacted (per an arborist) if the wall were to be moved further from the sidewalk (new wall to be in same footprint as existing wall).

Chairman Lichtenfeld referenced the small wall on the north side of the wall (gray wall). He asked if it is to be replaced as well.

Ms. Eisele indicated that the owners just put that wall back together; they don’t plan on replacing that wall.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Scott Wilson made a motion to approve as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – SIGNAGE – WALGREEN’S – 6733 CLAYTON ROAD

Dan Larue, sign contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes explained that the building currently features a 50 square foot wall sign on the southern elevation, facing Clayton Road, an engraved logo sign above the entrance, facing southwest, and a 20 square foot ground sign located at the intersection. The applicant is proposing to replace the engraved logo sign with an updated logo sign. The new logo will be red, burgundy, white and tan, constructed of aluminum and will measure 68.1 square feet. The Walgreen’s building and wall signage was approved by the Architectural Review Board in December of 2002 and the ground sign was approved in July of 2003. Signage was a significant point of discussion during the meetings, with the Architectural Review Board members striving to raise the design standards at the corner. The existing engraved tile logo above the building entrance was proposed as an architectural design feature for the building. The logo is engraved in tan panels and illuminated from a row of up-lights located just below the sign. The proposed logo replacement is colored aluminum and the existing up-lights are to remain. The existing sign is much more subtle and understated, while the proposed sign will be highly visible and appear more obviously as a sign, not an architectural design feature. Staff recommends replacing the engraved panels with new engraved panels depicting the updated logo. This will maintain the character of the building, while still providing the proper advertising. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the condition that the replacement sign be constructed of engraved panels to match the style and appearance of the existing sign.

Mr. Larue presented color renderings & photos of the existing building and other Walgreen’s locations to the members.

7 A discussion ensued regarding the logo. Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he believes it is Walgreen’s new corporate logo, as it can be seen on other locations and their brand products.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to staff’s recommendation, which, if he understands correctly, would allow the “W” in lieu of the mortar & pestle.

Anna Krane noted that staff recommends allowing the new logo in place of the existing logo in the same format, minus the color.

Scott Wilson commented that staff’s recommendation is far different from what the applicant is requesting.

Joanne Boulton stated that she remembers the battle of the sign when they originally opened.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the other Walgreen’s signs on the property.

Mr. Larue informed the Board that they don’t plan to replace the other existing signs.

Joanne Boulton and Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that they agree with staff recommendation. Chairman Lichtenfeld added that allowing the red would drastically change the building and would be a beacon at night.

Mr. Larue stated that Walgreen’s wants the red.

The Board stated that the City does not.

Hearing no further questions or comments, William Liebermann made a motion to approve with staff recommendation (no color allowed). The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the Board.

SIGNAGE SUB-DISTRICT – CENTENE CLAYTON CAMPUS – 7620 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Deanna Kuhlmann-Leavitt, designer, and Tim Gaidis, HOK, were in attendance at the meeting.

Susan Istenes read staff’s report as follows: the subject properties are located between Forsyth Boulevard and Carondelet Avenue, east of Bemiston Avenue and zoned Special Development District. The Centene Clayton Campus is comprised of multiple subdistricts to be constructed overtime. Subdistrict A includes the existing Centene office tower, retail spaces and parking garage. Subdistrict 1 is currently under construction and includes a tower and parking garage with retail, office and parking uses. Subdistrict 2A is also under construction and includes retail and parking uses. Subdistrict 2B has been approved for a corporate and civic auditorium. Subdistrict 2C is zoned for residential, retail and parking. Subdistrict 3 is zoned for office, hospitality, parking and

8 retail. Subdistrict 4 is zoned for office, retail and parking. In an effort to accommodate signage needs for future tenants and maintain visual conformity, the applicant is proposing a signage sub district for the entire Special Development District. per Section 425.050.8(c) of the City’s Sign Regulations. If adopted, the signage sub-district standards will govern signage for the buildings, not the City’s Sign Regulations. All signs must receive a Sign Permit from the City prior to installation. The following signage is proposed to be installed over time as the buildings are constructed and occupied. (In 2010, the Architectural Review Board approved a signage sub- district for Subdistrict A, the existing office tower and parking garage. The proposed signage sub-district would replace the existing regulations).

Campus Identification Signs Campus identification signs are proposed in multiple forms including wall signs, tower monument signs and window signs. Campus identification signs are geared toward identification of the multiple properties as part of the overall “Centene Centre” and to provide wayfinding within the campus.

I. Primary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs constructed of metal channel letters, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 25 square feet in area. A total of 15 primary ID wall signs are proposed. II. Secondary Campus ID: “Centene Centre” wall signs located above main building entrances, constructed of metal channel letters and measuring a maximum of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight secondary ID signs are proposed. III. Monument: metal cabinets with side LED lighting, listing the campus ID and up to eight tenant names and measuring 12 feet tall by 46 inches wide and 10 inches deep. A total of eight monument signs are proposed. IV. Tower main Entry ID: adjacent to main entrance doors will the list campus ID, tenants and addresses, cut vinyl letters and measuring a total of 20 square feet in area. A total of eight main entry ID signs are proposed. V. General Info: located at tenant entry doors, listing hours of operation and other building policies, cut vinyl letters and measuring five square feet in area. VI. Single User ID: facade (window) sign, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 100 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2B building (auditorium) and a maximum of 25 square feet in area for the Subdistrict 2C building. A total of two single user signs are proposed. VII. Primary Area ID: directional wall sign identifying secondary entrances and functions including parking and loading docks, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed. VIII. Secondary Area ID: directional blade sign identifying secondary entrances and functions, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 5 square feet in area. A total of 13 area ID signs are proposed.

Tenant Identification Signs Tenant identification signs, in addition to those included in the campus signs above, are proposed

9 for specific commercial tenant spaces. Tenant sign options are separated based on location of the tenant space in either a tower or a parking structure. Tenant signage includes wall signs, window graphics, awning signs and blade signs.

I. Tower Tenant Primary ID: wall sign located along a street frontage, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet in area. II. Parking Tenant Primary ID: awning sign located at the tenant entry, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 15 square feet in area. III. Tower and Parking Tenant Secondary ID: blade sign, one per tenant, illuminated and measuring a maximum of 5 square feet in area. IV. Parking Tenant Graphics: window graphic, constructed of cut vinyl, measuring a maximum of eight feet tall and covering a maximum of 15 percent of tenant glazing area. V. Forsyth and Hanley Interior Graphic: interior wall graphic, specific to single tenant space with the size and design subject to property owner.

Materials proposed are not specific to individual proposed signs, rather the type of sign chosen. Signs can be constructed of metal channel letters, cut vinyl or acrylic face. Lighting is proposed for signs using either LED through metal, up lights, halo lighting or internal illumination. The materials listed in the sub-district are coordinated with the building material found throughout the Special Development District. The purpose of forming a signage sub-district is to allow a sign package which fosters creativity and cohesiveness for larger developments. The adoption of a signage sub-district is beneficial to the building owner and the City because it ensures predictability. Without the adoption of a sub-district, each tenant requesting a sign not in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance would have to seek approval from the Architectural Review Board on a case by case basis. Staff estimates that the proposed signage sub-district would allow slightly more signage than what is currently permitted under the Sign Ordinance. Staff did not prepare a side-by-side comparison of the City’s Sign Ordinance and the proposed sign package because of the unique development context and size. Many of the proposed signs are similar to the signage seen on the existing tower and parking garage. Some slight modifications are proposed, but the proposed district will not create non- conforming signs on the existing buildings. Overall, staff believes the proposed signage sub- district will result in coordinated signage that will ease pedestrian and vehicle navigation of the urban campus. The sign materials proposed seem to be of high quality and compatible with the building materials and urban context. The proposed signage sub-district plan does not specify a maximum vertical location for the campus identification signs. The City’s Sign Ordinance specifies that wall signs should be located at or near first floor height and does not allow signs located near roof lines. The existing tower “Centene Plaza” signs at the intersection of Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard measure 15 square feet and are located near second floor ceiling height. Staff is supportive of this location due to the design of the building. Staff recommends that a restriction is added to the signage sub-district stating that walls signs should be located at or below second floor ceiling height. The majority of the identification signs are proposed at entrances or building corners, adjacent to intersections. Staff is supportive of most primary identification sign locations, with the exception of the Primary Campus ID proposed on the west

10 facade of Subdistrict 3, the Primary Campus ID proposed on the south facade of Subdistrict 3 and the Primary Campus ID proposed on the west facade of Subdistrict 4. The west Subdistrict 3 sign is facing directly into the parking garage of the Ritz Carlton and not toward a street frontage. Staff recognizes that the exact design of the building for Subdistrict 3 has not been finalized or approved yet; however, staff still does not believe this is an appropriate location for a sign. The south Subdistrict 3 sign is oriented toward Forest Park Parkway and the residential neighborhood to the south. Other buildings located along Forest Park Parkway do not feature signage oriented in this direction, and therefore, staff does not believe the sign would be compatible with neighborhood context. An Area ID sign is also proposed along the south facade of Subdistrict 3. Staff supports this location of an Area ID, because there is a service drive adjacent to Forest Park Parkway that will likely provide vehicle access to the future building. The Subdistrict 4 sign is facing directly into an existing office building and not oriented toward a street frontage. Staff recommends removing the option of placing a Primary Campus ID in these three locations. Staff supports the proposed sizes and locations for the main entry, general info and area ID signs, with the exception of the signs proposed along the west facade of Subdistrict 3. Staff recommends moving the main entry sign and general info sign area from the west facade to the north facade of Subdistrict 3. Again, staff recognizes that the building design has not been finalized but does not believe the building entrance will be facing into the parking garage of the Ritz Carlton. The proposed monument signs are similar in style to the existing monument sign located between the existing Centene tower and parking garage. The proposed monument sign is 12 feet tall. For reference average interior floor height for office buildings is 8 to 9 feet. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed height of the monument signs is tall and out of scale with the surrounding area. Staff recommends reducing the height to a maximum of 10 feet. The color, lighting and number of monument signs will still make the wayfinding visible at the shorter height. The exact location of the monument signs will be reviewed under the Sign Permit to ensure proper sight distance and sidewalk widths are maintained. The proposed Single User ID is a unique sign opportunity due to the design of the Subdistrict 2B auditorium. The details of the Single User ID are not finalized, and staff is of the opinion that this sign could have a large impact on the appearance of the auditorium. The Single User ID sign is also proposed for the Subdistrict 2C building, which has not been designed yet. Staff recommends that a requirement is added to the signage sub-district plan stating that a Single User ID requires approval from the Architectural Review Board prior to issuing a Sign Permit or installation. The proposed tenant identification signs are similar to the existing tenant signs seen along Forsyth Boulevard for the existing Centene tower and garage. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed tenant signage will provide appropriate advertising for businesses as well as wayfinding for vehicles and pedestrians. Tenant signage is oriented toward streets and provides sign options both parallel to facades and perpendicular. Staff would like a clarification on the Parking Tenant Primary ID. The images show the sign located on an awning, but it is not specified that the sign must be on an awning. If the parking retail primary ID sign can only be located on an awning, staff recommends adding a requirement in the signage sub-district to that effect. The Forsyth and Hanley Interior Graphic is a sign option for the specific corner tenant. The graphic will be oriented toward the window wall and highly visible from the street, therefore acting as signage. The signage sub-district does not propose details for this sign option because it is specific to a tenant and subject to negotiation between the

11 property owner and tenant. The sign will still require a Sign Permit prior to installation. Staff is supportive of this proposal because of the unique context for this sign. Staff requests a clarification of the maximum size allowed for the Tower and Parking Retail Secondary ID signs. Exhibit B on page 2.8 notes a parking retail secondary sign as 9 square feet, but the summary on page 2.9 notes the secondary ID sign with a maximum of 5 square feet. Staff supports the 5 square foot maximum because it will be more cohesive with other perpendicular signs. In conclusion, the proposed sign sub-district would provide uniform signage throughout the urban campus and link the multiple Subdistricts together, while still being compatible with adjacent buildings. The sign options provide a mixture of wayfinding oriented toward both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic. The proposed signs seem to be of high quality materials and will complement the building façade. Staff recommendation is to approve with the following conditions:

1. Add a note on the summary page that a Sign Permit must be obtained for all new or replacement signs prior to installation.

2. Add a note to the Campus ID wall sign regulations stating that wall signs must be located at or below second floor ceiling height.

3. Remove the Campus ID sign location from the west facade of Subdistrict 3, the south facade of Subdistrict 3 and the west facade of Subdistrict 4.

4. Move the location of the main entry and general info sign location from the west facade of Subdistrict 3 to the north facade of Subdistrict 3.

5. Reduce the maximum height of monument signs to 10 feet.

6. Add a note to the Single User ID signs that Architectural Review Board approval must be obtained prior to application for a Sign Permit.

7. Revise the Parking Retail Primary ID description to note that the sign must be located on an awning.

8. Revise Exhibit B on page 2.8 to note the Parking Retail Secondary ID as five square feet.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt explained that they were here eight years ago and are back with a much larger plan. She thanked staff for all their help during this process. She stated that they accept seven of the eight recommendations made by staff. She asked how the Board would like to proceed.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that it will be difficult to review signage for buildings that are not yet built (Sheet 2.4 was especially difficult to ascertain).

12 Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt began a PowerPoint presentation. She noted that there are basically five pieces of property related to this campus; some original/already constructed, some under construction and some not yet built.

A discussion ensued about existing buildings and signage. Director Istenes explained that when existing signs/buildings are removed, the new signs must conform to the approved signage sub- district.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked which condition as recommended by staff the applicant would like not to comply with.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt asked to discuss staff’s recommendation regarding the height of the monument signs (condition 5 in staff recommendation). She indicated that the existing monument sign in the plaza (by Cantina Laredo) is and was approved at 14-feet in height; they are asking for the new monument signs to be 12-feet in height so as to allow several tenant names. They believe this size will better relate to the larger buildings. She stated that the Pierre Laclede sign is 9-foot, 3-inches.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt indicated that she’s happy to discuss the materials and/or answer any questions.

Scott Wilson asked if the existing plaza sign contains LED lights similar to that being asked for in this proposal.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt replied “no”. She then noted that a different color pallet is being proposed per building to help identify the individual buildings.

A lengthy discussion regarding the monument signs took place. Scott Wilson asked why staff wants a reduction in height for the monument signs.

Anna Krane explained that due to the lighter metal color and the side LED lighting of these proposed new monument signs [as compared to the existing] and their proximity to the pedestrian sidewalk, they will be more visible and appear taller to a to a pedestrian; reducing the height by 2- feet will basically eliminate the “empty” space on the signs.

Joanne Boulton voiced concerns about the single-tenant monument signs.

Mr. Gaidis stated that the signs could identify different users (multi-function auditorium). He added that their desire is to not duplicate signs.

Joanne Boulton asked that if this is approved, that a minimum print be required so as not to have huge blank faces.

13 Anna Krane stated that this allows the applicant the opportunity for signage without having to come back to this Board each time; however, each sign needs to be reviewed and permitted by staff before installation based on the approved sign sub-district. Joanne Boulton stated she sees no need to have a single-user sign next to the tower/tenant sign.

Discussion continued about the proposed signage; Chairman Lichtenfeld that it’s difficult to ascertain signage for buildings that are not yet approved and/or constructed. (Sub-districts 2a and 2b have already been approved to-date).

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this is a very complex signage plan and that more detail is needed as to what signs will be going where, how the signs relate to other signs, and how the signs relate to building facades and footprints before this Board can vote.

Joanne Boulton stated that she does believe the signs are well-done and attractive.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this sign package includes all signage possibilities, whether they materialize or not.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt concurred.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the staff report was excellent.

Joanne Boulton asked if this will affect Sub-district A.

Anna Krane indicated that most of the signage on the building, especially for the retail tenants, conform. The corner wall signs could get slightly larger (the Centene Plaza sign above the UMB sign); however, she does not believe that change will be noticeable.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the size of the letters on the monument signs would have to be reduced if the height of the monument signs were reduced to 10-feet as staff recommends.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt replied “possibly”; that would have to be further studied to make a final determination.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated he likes the white space on the sign, no matter the size.

Joanne Boulton, asked about the window graphics, referring to Page 2.8.

Ms. Kuhlmann-Leavitt indicated that those graphics would provide all the tenants the opportunity to identify their space (for example, the graphics on Pastaria’s windows), with their primary signage being the awning signage; the secondary signage the blade signs.

14 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there was a possibility to do a visual (not physical) 3D model, especially along Forsyth, Hanley & Carondelet. It was noted that the model would serve as an aid/exhibit for review rather than a regulatory piece.

Anna Krane asked the applicant to have any changes to the plan (size changes, location changes, color changes, etc.) that they be submitted no later than next Tuesday, as she will have to revise the staff report by that date.

If it’s just a matter of adding more visuals (supplemental materials), those can be submitted at a later date.

At this time, Chairman Lichtenfeld solicited comments from the audience.

Jeff Morrissey, 7611 Maryland Avenue, stated he agrees the signs are subtle and handsome. He voiced concern about what appears to be the beginning of the corporate branding of these buildings and the bright blue LED light illuminating from the existing tower and the possibility of more lighting atop the new tower.

Joanne Boulton asked about the lighting Mr. Morrissey referred to.

Anna Krane stated that because Craig Owens, City Manager and Susan Istenes, Planning Director, are handling the lighting issue, she would prefer Susan address it.

Tim Gaidis informed the Board that the blue was done as an autism initiative, and pink for breast cancer awareness. That was the point for the potential for multi-colored lights. He stated Centene wants to recognize some of these events throughout the year.

Kammie White, 7606 Maryland Avenue, voiced concern about the process of asking for forgiveness rather than asking for permission for the blue light as well as for the rather sizable parking lot in her back yard. She asked who is responsible for making those decisions and asked for transparency when it comes to their residences.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the City Manager and Planning Director, as Planner Krane mentioned earlier.

Rosemary Hardy, 7603 Maryland Avenue, commented that the blue light has been on since the beginning of April and it’s now June. She asked if the tops of the buildings will be lit to correspond with the lighting on the monument signs in this proposal.

Chairman Lichtenfeld and Joanne Boulton commented that this Board has not approved that; Chairman Lichtenfeld again referred the lighting matter to the City Manager and Planning Director.

15 Hank Winkelman, 7405 Maryland Avenue, stated that this appears to be part of a larger identity program which is changed by the lighting on top. He asked if the blue light will be turned off. He asked for assurances that this be done right and the importance of this.

Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board, Scott Wilson made a motion to table this until the meeting of June 18th. The motion was seconded by William Liebermann and unanimously approved by the Board.

Having no further business before the Commission this evening, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

_______________________________ Recording Secretary