July 19, 2021

Machine-generated transcript — may contain errors.

Oh, it is. Carolyn's on vacation. She let us know at the last meeting that she wouldn't be here. Oh, thank you.

I forgot. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Planned Commission ARB meeting for July 19th.

Anyone in the attendees list in the audience, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. You'll be allowed in. And we would like you to identify yourself with name and spelling of the last name. So with that, let's start with the roll call.

Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld. Here. David Gipson, City Manager. Here.

Robert Denlo. Here. Karen Hollweg, I want to say here, George had it here. Karen Hollweg, All dramatic representative Ira Berkowitz.

Karen Hollweg , carolyn gated. PB John Gerstle, Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on July 6 are there any changes or corrections or questions that have not been recorded. No, I don't see any hands or anything else. Do we have a motion?

I'll move to approve the minutes as distributed. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thumbs up.

The first order of business. Susan, do you need to take that or am I in? allowed to talk about the election? Actually, you can.

I can? Okay. As normal, usually in July of every year, we elect the chair and the vice chair for both the plan commission and the ARB. With that said, do we have any motion for those two positions?

Yes, I move that we elect Steve Lichtenfeld as chair and Carolyn Gaddis as vice chair. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Thank you, Helen. Congratulations.

Yes. We'll give it a try. Let's be sure to let Carolyn know. Okay, we'll move on.

We'll go to old business. And that first item is 8000 Forsyth Boulevard. And Anissa, I think we're ready for you. Okay.

Good evening. Anissa Comerow, Principal Planner with the City of Clayton. This is the review of the design materials and location of the public art component at the East Tower of Forsyth Point. The Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board previously met on July 6, 2021 to consider the public art proposal.

The proposed public art is a piece entitled Two Forms Divided Circle by Barbara Huffworth. At that meeting, the board motioned to have the applicant return at a future meeting date to ensure that the selection of the art conforms to the requirements stipulated in the planned unit development ordinance. The ordinance for the subject site states the following. The buildings will include public art at both of the towers, outdoors and accessible to the public at the corners or in a location otherwise approved by the Public Art Advisory Commission and the Architectural Review Board.

The developer shall hire an art consultant to assist with the selection of an artist and the proposed locations of the public art the developer has committed to in PUD. Robin Trafton, Fine Art Curator with Commerce Bank, assisted with the selection of the proposed art piece for the East Tower of Forsyth Point. Her background includes over 20 years of experience as a curator and art advisor, in addition to numerous roles in the public art realm. Ms.

Trafton's resume was included in your packets for your reference. Staff is of the opinion that her experience as well as the approval of the proposed art piece by the Public Art Advisory Committee fulfills the PUD public art requirements for the Eastern Tower. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Okay, thank you.

Let's see. Denny Holzer, I believe you're in the audience. Oh, okay. You'll have to unmute yourself.

There we are. Okay, do you have anything to add to it? No, thank you for laying that out so well. I mean, as you could tell from Robin's resume, which I'm just in awe about because this is the first time I've seen it as well.

Her career in the art realm and at Commerce Bank has just been incredible, as you can see. Being a public art administrator, community educator, project manager, curator, gallery director, and has published writings is just incredible. So I didn't know if anyone had any questions for myself or for Robin. No question, apparently the art conforms to all the requirements that are in there.

But I would like to comment that I think We have to thank Commerce Bank and Robin Trafton, and certainly honor the work of Barbara Hepworth, who is world renowned in this field. And it looks great. We're eager to have it installed so that the entire city can take a look at it. Any other comments?

I have a comment. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Ira.

My comment is that the Board of Aldermen worked very hard to craft some kind of an acceptable provision that would allow for an art piece. Can I say that I don't like the art piece? I can't say that. But I can say that I don' t like the process.

I don't like I don't like that this was specifically indicated that they were to hire a consultant. That did not mean to hire an employee. It meant to hire a consultant that would be a third party. This is not a third party's opinion.

This is not consultant. It does not qualify, does not comply with the spirit or the wording of the PUD. And I am PB John Gerstle, Yes, I know I just I can't I can't go ahead and approve and say yes, when the board of all the men has spoken about how it is. PB John Gerstel, What it is the process that they were requiring in order for them to qualify for the pod now so the members of this of this Commission understands the pod we have certain numbers that have to be met.

for the granting of the PUD. That means there has to be a public benefit. And there was a tremendous discussion at the Board of Aldermen regarding whether or not there would be a minimum value placed on this art piece. And in a compromise with Commerce Bank, we ended up with an agreement and they agreed to this process, which would include the hiring of a consultant.

I do not believe that this follows the letter of the PUD. And so I cannot support it. Ira, what was the value that the city, that the alderman put on it? Bob, that's a good question.

I don't think we ever actually put the value on it. I think the discussion ended up deciding, well, you know what, a value on it would maybe not be all that appropriate. Instead, the process was more important. And so that's what we all ended up agreeing to.

So I can't tell you a number. I think Joanne floated a few numbers, but they were never accepted. Well, the only thing I would say, Ira, plus it's good to see you. I just want to say that to you.

Great to see you, Bob. Is that this Robin Trafton has quite a resume and somewhere I read that they valued this piece at $2 million, which is quite a substantial value in my opinion. And I'm not questioning her credentials at all. I mean, I've read her credentials.

She seems very qualified, but she's still an employee, which was not the idea we had when we decided to come up with the process. If they wanted to have an employee, they could have told us about that. That wasn't part of the negotiation and it certainly wasn't what was agreed upon. Any other comments?

Well, Ira, I certainly respect your concern about following the process. We should always be in tune with the process that has been discussed and approved upon. Would it have made any difference had it been a third party person except for being, for adhering very strictly to the process that the Board of Aldermen discussed? You're asking me to hypothetical.

I'm supposed to know the answer to a hypothetical when the process wasn't followed and I don't know the answer as to how or whether it would have been different. Well, then we'll just go on without a comment. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Well, I've already said I think it's good to follow the process, but I also think at times there just might be an exception. We have a... a corporate citizen that has a very large, extensive and valuable art collection. And I think if it meets all the other parameters that we have set up, that we should be willing to go ahead with it.

I am in favor of moving forward as the staff recommendation recommends approval. Ira? No, I just moved my chair and it ended up showing me like I was going to say something and I wasn't. Sorry.

Yeah, I saw the light go on. I know. I did too. um anyway that's my comment if anyone else has a comment uh stephanie if you uh have any legal insight uh as counsel um we'd certainly entertain it yes so um There really isn't a legal issue here because the process really isn't written into the ordinance, as I understand it.

And so there's really no clear requirement as far as, you know, whether the consultant or who the consultant has to be and whether the consultant has to Be a third party. Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the members? I would just like to differ with that opinion.

First of all, it is in the ordinance. It's specifically cited in our agenda. And second of all, when you say that the developers shall hire an art consultant to assist, that I think clearly does not mean that you will go ahead and use an already existing employee. I don't know that I have a hard time deciding that those are the same two things.

So I, you know, I beg to differ with your opinion, although I, Stephanie, I think you're wonderful. So I really appreciate you being here. But I beg to differ that little point. Okay, thanks, Syrah.

I'll post it one more time. Any other comments? Helen, George, Bob, David, thumb up or thumb down. If I could just point out that the art being chosen is by a well-respected sculpture.

And like Steve said, Commerce Bank has a large art collection and that can't be underestimated. So they're serious about this business. And that Robert Trafton is not... a minor league player, I don't think.

And so when you put all these things together and the value of the art is substantial, I think if you look at the substance of what Commerce Bank has brought to the table, even though it may not have technically crossed the T and dot the I on that point, I think overall, I think they've put together a good proposal. And as... Clayton, you know, representing the city of Clayton. If they've really come 99% of the way in my estimation, our job is to decide and move on and let them complete their project, especially when they have really honored I think what we were looking for that is to get a significant piece of art as part of this project.

And I think they delivered, even though it's not my cup of tea necessarily, but that's what art's all about. But I think it is a significant piece and I think it will make heads turn when they walk by it. Okay. Thanks, Bob.

Any other comments? David, do we have anyone with their hand raised in the audience? Thank you. Okay, no one else wishes to speak.

We do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the proposal submitted by Commerce Bank for the Barbara Hepworth sculpture where they also proposed to locate it. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? I oppose.

Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks everyone and thanks Denny for coming back and we look forward to seeing it. Yes, thank you very much. Okay.

Now we have, we'll move into new business and we'll go to 6611 Clayton Road and we'll start out with the conditional use permit. Anissa? This is a request for a conditional use permit to allow a multifamily residential development. The property is located on the north side of Clayton Road between St.

Rita Avenue and Concordia Lane. The 13,000 square foot site has a zoning designation of C2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District. It is currently developed with a 19,232 square foot multi-tenant office building and four surface parking spaces. The property is surrounded by residential van uses to the north and east and commercial uses to the south and west.

The applicant proposes to renovate the interior of the existing building to construct a rear entry garage located on the first floor of the building, and to make exterior alterations including minor changes to landscaping and the elevations of the building. The proposed residential development will consist of 10 units with two of the units being located on the first four and eight on the second floor. It will consist of a mix of one to three bedroom units ranging in size from 740 to 1140 square feet. The remainder of the space on the first floor will be utilized for garage parking.

The four existing parking spaces located off of the alley to the rear of the building will remain, and a new garage entrance will be constructed on the rear elevation to allow access to the proposed spaces. Included in the staff report are the criteria for review for conditional use permits. I won't go into specifics on each item, but I will point out a few criteria of note. First, regarding the appearance of the building in relation to the neighborhood, the proposed use will occupy an existing building.

Staff is of the opinion that the design and materials proposed are compatible with the existing neighborhood character and the design of the alterations will be further considered by the architectural view board. The trash and recycling area is proposed to be located on the rear elevation of the building next to the proposed garage door. While there is no trash enclosure proposed, the parking spaces will provide some screening from St. Rita Avenue.

The majority of the trash containers along the alley are not screened and the proposed location of the trash containers is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In terms of traffic and parking, the zoning code typically requires two parking spaces for each dwelling unit in multifamily buildings. With a total of 10 units proposed, 20 parking spaces are required. With the renovation of the first floor to primarily serve as a parking garage, 15 spaces are proposed in addition to the existing four spaces located off of the rear alley for a total of 19 spaces.

Due to the smaller size of the parking spaces located off of The Alley, the City's Public Works Department has authorized those spaces as compact spaces only. For the zoning code, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced at the ratio of one parking space for one bicycle rack. The applicant has proposed a bicycle rack in lieu of one parking space and has also provided an additional bike rack to meet the zoning code requirements. Staff does not anticipate any potential impacts with regards to noise, odors or intensity of lighting.

And there does not appear to be adverse impacts associated with a proposed use. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed multifamily residential use meets requirements contained in the regulations governing conditional uses. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses, which include commercial, single-family, and multifamily, and the building size is comparable to nearby buildings. The proposed garage parking, in combination with the existing alley spaces, provides sufficient parking to meet demand.

Staff does not believe that this use will be disruptive to the surrounding properties and is of the opinion that the proposed project meets the criteria for conditional use permit approval. Our recommendation is to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen as submitted. Okay, thank you. I see Amanda, Tyler, and Julian have signed on.

Do any one of you or all of you have any comments on the staff report? So Steve, I'll take that. This is Tyler Stevens from Core 10 Architecture. We're here representing the owners or the new what will be the new owners which is Period Restoration who's purchasing the building.

I have a presentation we can get into if you want to, or I can just talk. But the rest of it mostly goes through the architectural review. The one comment I would make with regards to the continued use permit is that we have a little bit of an anomaly on Clayton Road here because if you all remember there's the Clayton Road Urban Design District standards that were put in some years ago And they mostly kind of guide towards mixed use. That seems to be the destination that was set for the north side of Clayton Road.

This particular building currently is mixed use in that it was retail on the first floor and office on the second floor. However, retail on the north side of Clayton right in this particular area has not proven to be successful. This building has been vacant for many years. It's a building that everybody likes.

We get comments about it all the time and I know a number of people have tried to do things with it. So in looking at it, what we thought would be best and what the client is really after in order to preserve the building and save the character is to use it all as residential. There are other buildings, in fact, every other building on this block is purely residential. So the existing buildings that are there don't even meet the current zoning code.

So I think that's why we're trying to do what's there next door. And that's why we need a conditional use permit because they're just outside of the current zoning for mixed use. Using the first floor as a parking garage is a simple way to make the building viable into the future. It does not have any parking right now.

So you couldn't put anything in the building as it currently stands, but you can access that first floor off the alley pretty easily. So we can turn that into a parking garage. and put units on the second floor and preserve the look of the building, even adding two units up front on the first floor so the street remains the facade that's there today. So that's what we were proposing to do.

Okay, thank you. And that all relates to the conditional use permit and you've brought in the design standards for the area. And I tend to agree with you that virtually all the other properties on that block, except the one at the far west end, are residential currently. So it definitely does fit in.

Do we have other comments from the Planning Commission? Okay. Can I just ask a question? Immediately to the east of the building is a four-family apartment building, it looks like.

But I have faint memories of it being used for commercial purposes. Am I wrong at some point? It was commercial? I believe you're right, Bob, that we had an applicant who wanted to put commercial in there.

I believe it was office, but I don't think it ever occurred. Now I have memories of going in there to meet with an appraiser. That's why this would go back several years, but I just assumed that it would have continued as commercial. Julian would, I don't know if Julian would know or he's familiar with the area.

Do you know if it's a residential or commercial? That's really my question at the present time. Tyler, do you know? Presently, Bob, it is a residential building.

Residential? Okay. Yeah, and you are correct. Previously, it was some hybrid, you know, live work or work, whatever.

It was used like as office space, but the present owners bought it a couple years ago, renovated it, and it is now totally residential. Okay. Okay. And do I recall correctly, it was Katie's Pizza that was in that building?

No, no, no. Katie's Pizza was in the 6611 building. Okay. And this has been empty for how many years, would you say?

At least three years. Okay. Thank you. Sure.

The other thing that I bring up, Tyler, you addressed the parking problem. And I think you've resolved it because in previous applications for this property, there was another non-adjacent property that satisfied the parking. However, that property has now been separated from this one. And there are four or five, I think four condos that will be constructed on the other property.

So I think your parking solution works for this property now and certainly fits into the CUP requirement. I have just one minor question, Mr. Chairman. Is that okay?

Oh, absolutely, Ira. Okay. Yeah, no, just one question. I was a little bit confused in reading through the idea of the bicycle rack.

And I understood it to mean that there would be two bicycle racks. But I didn't see that in the actual plan. And if somebody could point it out to me, I'd feel better. But it seemed a little ambiguous, clearly, in what I had read.

I order or Amanda. If you have the drawings in front of you without me all that or I can share the screen if I need to, but it's in the in the parking garage right next to the entrance off of the alley. There there's a spot just as you come in. We can't do a parking spot on that wall, so there are two bicycle racks basically on the north wall against the alley.

I rather parallel to each other. And Ira, if you have the drawings, it's sheet A001. So is that what's determinative? Oh, gosh, look what just happened.

Somebody just shared their screen with a whole bunch of stuff. No, there's no screen sharing right now. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Would it be helpful if I brought up the presentation. PB Harmon Zuckerson, Yeah, if we could see 001 I think it'll help PB Harmon Zuckerton, Okay, hold on one second here.

PB Harmon Zuckerberg, When I hear PB Harmon Zuckerberger, So I'm looking at. I've got the application. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Do you see the screenshot. Now I do.

Thank you. PB David Ensign, This is the first floor plan showing the garage on the alley is here on the top of the page to the north. PB David Ensigne, And will be opening a hole right here to get to the alley. There is a great change of a little bit.

So we have a slight ramp coming up into the building. And just to the left of that ramp, right here is a spot where we can't park any cars. So we're gonna have bike racks right along this area. So it's easy to get in and out and then that's all connected to the rest of the building.

What I'm looking at, are those symbols of bike racks? Is that what I'm seeing? Yes. It's like a plan of a bicycle if you were looking at it from above.

Well, yeah, so all right. That's great. So this is what commits the two bike racks because the application did not make that clear. So if the drawings is what controls, then I'm fine.

I just want to make sure they were too. Tyler, thank you. Are you going? Have you done your presentation or are we still going to have...

I'm saving it for the architecture review portion. Okay, that's fine. I didn't want to push you into it now. That's great.

Okay. Well, we'll stay on the CUP discussion right now. Ira, did that answer your question? Yeah, and I agree with you, Steve.

I think that the parking appears to be adequate And I have no problem with the CUP. Okay. Any other comment from the commission members? I think it's a good idea.

I like it. Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience, David, besides the three who have already signed in? Barb Nauert.

One hand up. Here we go. Yeah. Barb?

Yes. My sister and I are owners of 6607 Clayton Road, and we think this plan is brilliant. We really like it. And the 6609 building that one of the gentlemen was thinking about was a commercial zoning and it was turned with a CUP to residential.

So we're very used to that. That's no problem. And we're very pleased with the plan. Okay, thank you, Barb.

Any other comments? No. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve the CUP and send it on to the Board of Aldermen Do we have a motion? I recommend I move to approve the CUP to the Board of Aldermen as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Anissa, let's move on to the ARB. This is the ARB report for 6611-6619 Clayton Road. As stated previously, the property has a zoning designation of C2 General Commercial District and is located in the Clayton Road Urban Design District.

The existing building will remain mostly as it appears. The exterior alteration materials include brick, dark gray metal rooftop screening panels, and metal accents, with brick being the primary building materials. The street frontage south elevation features gold tone bricks with art deco design elements in red and tan brick. The north, east, and west elevations feature red brick.

The building elevations feature frequent and uniformly spaced windows and a flat roof. All existing windows will either be replaced or infilled. The existing window frames are white and will be replaced with aluminum clad wood windows in a charcoal gray color. Several windows on the side elevations will be in filled with brick while other openings will be in filled glass block.

The existing metal awning will be wrapped with new metal and dark gray. The existing front elevation contains four glazed storefront system windows under the existing canopy. These windows will be removed and the opening in the brick facade will be in filled, with an in-plane large format window with fixed side panes and a central casement window. The rear elevation entrances towards the center of the elevation will be removed and a garage entrance is proposed slightly to the right of these former entrances.

The new metal garage door will be dark gray with a wood grain texture. The existing exterior stairs on the rear elevation will be removed. The gutters and downspouts will be replaced in a dark gray color to match the proposed exterior doors. The trash and recycling containers will be located on the rear elevation adjacent to the garage entrance.

In terms of landscaping and impervious coverage, the existing impervious coverage for the lot is 21.3%. The applicant is proposing to remove the paver patios within the front yard and replace with turf, while also widening the patios by the doors slightly to increase their width. These changes result in a net loss of 450 square feet of impervious area for a total coverage of 19.3%. The front yard impervious coverage is being reduced from 68.4% to 57.8%.

Although the Clayton Road Urban Design District stipulates that a maximum of 30% of the front yard may be covered by impervious coverage for residential and mixed-use developments, given the former use of the building as commercial and the reduction of the impervious coverage both on the site and in the front yard, staff finds the impervious coverage appropriate. The applicant is also proposing some minor landscaping changes. The existing shrubs near the storefront windows are proposed to be removed and new wintergreen boxwood shrubs will be planted along the southern property line at the front of the subject site. Staff is of the opinion that the mass design and materials of the proposed project are compatible with existing and nearby structures, as well as the Clayton Road Urban Design District.

The renovation will update the Art Deco building while maintaining its unique character. Staff's recommendation is to approve as submitted. Okay, thank you. Tyler?

Okay, I'll bring this up once again and go to the beginning. So you all know where the building is. And yes, it was the old Katie's Pizza location. As I said, it's a pretty prominent building.

Most people do know it and most people like it as from what we have found. It sits right in the middle of the block there. The front of it looks like this in case you are not aware or had forgotten, or you were thinking of a different building maybe. We're largely proposing to keep the architecture the same.

The building has a pretty clean design to it, it's short and long. It's actually two buildings in case you didn't know that they were built about a year apart and there's a wall in between. So part of what we will be doing is combining these two buildings together. They have slightly different details that most people miss but the brick is just slightly different on one side than the other.

Mostly what we will be doing in terms of a change will be to these retail windows on the bottom, which are kind of a glass box display case. And I'll show you that here in a minute. The back of the building is a pretty standard alley facade utilitarian. We will be adding a lot of windows to the back since we'll be turning this into residential and we need to get our light primarily to the north and south, the front and backs of the building.

The sides of the building sit very close to the property lines and under modern building codes when we put introduced windows on property lines that are that close, we have a lot of stipulations with regards to fire. So we'll be doing most of our windows in the front and the back. And then opening that garage, the plan that you saw earlier, the garage door will be right about here. If you can see where my cursor is on the back of the building was take out a couple of windows and put an opening in.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, This gives you an idea of the character. These are the other residential buildings that we were talking about. We all we already discussed that that these are they're all residential down the block. PB Harmon Zuckerton, The general site plan layout and conform confirmation of the building here you see the parking garage in the back.

We are putting two new units on the front so that the front facade will have residential life and not look like a parking garage. And then the front yard, we're primarily taking out, there's a pretty heavy row of bushes right along the front. Some of those are dead and they're in kind of bad shape and they've grown large right up against the building. So we'll be taking those out and putting a similar row in boxwood out closer to the property line.

This creates some little private yards for these residences And then we'll take out those display windows, bay windows, and put in a simple patio door that leads to an outdoor front patio. So this will make a nice space for people to sit out in those first floor units. Even though they're on the street, they'll be protected. They're set back pretty far, and they'll have this row of bushes out in front.

I think it'll be a nice area. Then the main entrances to the building PB Harmon Zuckerman, And all these doors that you see in this plan are current and they lead to various places within the building upstairs downstairs around because it had many uses but though all of those entrances will remain PB Harmon Zuckerton, One will will serve each of these units. Others will go directly into the parking garage or go upstairs to the other units. So they all do have uses PB Harmon Zuckerman, You saw the first floor plan for the second floor plan as you can see how these there are eight units up here for in the front four in the back and they primarily face out the north and south sides.

PB Harmon Zuckerton, Each they're not all three bedroom units their combination of well there's even a one bedroom unit up here in the front. So a combination of one, twos and threes just as the building yielded. We do need to combine these two buildings together so we'll be poking a hole in between. There's a series of windows that are existing in the building that don't go anywhere in that front wall.

I'm not sure exactly what we'll do with those but something creative. So if you take the existing front as it stands today, and this is our post elevation. As I said, the change will be taking the glass boxes off and introducing a large patio window, and then replacing some of that panel up above its old vitro light that's come off. So we're gonna do a metal panel up above in charcoal gray, same color.

As before, we are changing the color of the awning. This dark line you see here is a pretty strong awning that goes all the way across the building if you see there in the photo. It's currently an anodized aluminum. that doesn't look very good.

As most anodized aluminum looks from this era, it's pretty pitted and outmoded. So we are kind of changing the color scheme a little bit, picking up on the existing dark charcoal doors that are on the first floor, carrying those into a charcoal canopy, and then completing it with new windows on the second floor that will be in a dark charcoal color as well. So this will unify the building together. I think it'll actually look better than it does currently, and it's the same design intent that the original architect had.

Other than that, nothing changes. The brick doesn't change. These lower doors don't change. Just basically cleaning them up.

The rear elevation, you can see we're just introducing a number of larger windows in the second floor. These will go to the living rooms so that you can get some good light in. And then here is that garage door and you can see with a little bit of ramping up in the alley. So that concludes my presentation in terms of what we're doing with the building.

I welcome any questions. Okay. Tyler, I understand why you're taking the boxed glazed windows out. But I think that takes a little bit of the distinction away from the building.

As you drive down Clayton Road, it gave a little more relief as opposed to being very flat. I understand what you're doing, but I'll be sorry to see those boxed windows removed. I can understand why you would say that. And I architecturally, I agree with you in terms of a commercial use the glass box is a very traditional commercial display case kind of thing.

And it is yes, very much a character of a building but it also says commercial use. And so I think part of this is changing it to residential use which you want a little bit of a language of that I don't know if this helps or not, but the columns that support that canopy are in the corners of those boxes and you can see them right here. Those will remain because they're holding up the canopy. So as you drive down the road, what you see instead of glass boxes are a series of columns that define the corners of the old glass boxes.

So I still think it'll be broken up and it won't be a flat facade, which is why we're keeping the canopy to begin with. We like the canopy and don't really want to take it off. It's more like a residential porch. Yes, I was unaware that the eight support columns would still be there.

but that's helpful. The two one bedroom units on the first floor, they have a lot of glass in there. They also have a lot of doorways. If we're reading it correctly within each one of those glass bays is a door, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. What is not correct in this drawing what we're intending is to take the bush line and cover it across so that it becomes connected as that would be one unit, and then this would be one unit without the gap in the bushes to provide a little bit more relief. That was my next question. How will people know which doors are more or less public or private?

Right. Okay. And do they also have a door, an internal entrance door adjacent to one of the stairways or the walkways to the garage so they can get directly to the garage? Yes, that is correct.

And they can come out and go directly into the garage as well. Okay. Then if you could pull the second floor up I notice many of the bedrooms have no windows. That is correct.

And I didn't talk about how we're dealing with that. But first off, a lot of people don't know this, but everybody thinks that you have to have a window in a bedroom by code. That's actually not true for a sprinkler building, which this will be a fully sprinkled building. So it's not a problem in terms of fire.

But in terms of daylight, it is nice to have daylight. And the one thing that we have advantage here is this building is only two stories. So all of these units on the second floor have a roof above them that's quite large and we're planning on putting skylights in those bedrooms to the roof which is actually quite nice in a bedroom. You get all the lights and the benefit of that but you get privacy if not having to worry about seeing in your window.

Okay. I guess we did not see that on the roof plan on sheet 102. Are they not shown on the roof plan? No, we have the condensing units.

Well, my apologies on that. They should be. Amanda, if you're on the line, maybe you can talk to that a little bit. I was trying to get that pulled up to see I thought they were shown, but perhaps we missed them.

Typically, I think we're replacing them in most if not all of the bedrooms and then potentially in some of the living areas as well. I'm going to see if I can track down a version here. So the design intent at least for light is through skylights as opposed to windows. OK.

Well, I understand the code portion of it. So I think introducing light one way or another will be very beneficial. Oh, let's see. Anyone else have questions?

George? No, I don't think I have any questions. You've hit on most of what I would comment on. So thank you.

Okay. Ellen? No, my questions have been answered. The one thing I do see is that there is no access to the roof or is there access to the roof?

If you're talking about, I mean, there'll be access for maintenance and to get to the rooftop equipment. But if you're talking about roof access as in patios or for the people in the building, that's not intended at this point now. Okay. No, that would be a concern with skylights.

If you did have general population access, you know, the tenants in the building, they'd the skylights that you go to great expense to put in would need to be covered because you really have lost your privacy. No, I think I like it. I think you've done a great job. Thank you.

Bob? I think the overall plan is good. I think I have to applaud you and the developer for trying to do something with the building. What does disturb me is the idea that there are no windows in a bedroom.

You know, that just... rubs me the wrong way I don't I just assume that these bedrooms are not necessarily very large and you're and these people go in a box to sleep and this is Clayton much less any place in the city and so my first question to you Tyler is why did you punch holes in the wall and put windows in Harmon Zuckerman, Well, I take it down the screen share at this point. But if you look at that second floor plan those interior for the side units, you could Harmon Zuckerman , However, with the side units, that you'd have to put fire shutters over those windows in terms of meeting the fire code so that introduces a problem. but it doesn't solve the interior units.

There's no way to have an exterior wall back in there. So because it's a deep, like if we were designing a residential building from scratch, we would never make it this, this is 90 by 90 square or even 100, it's something like that. We just would never make a building that deep because you end up with this problem. But that's the building that we have.

So the solution is to do it with skylights The other thing I would point out to you though, and I say this, we design a lot of condominiums, especially in Clayton, high-end, very expensive condominiums. And I can tell you a number of them that have bedrooms with no windows. In fact, one right just down the street at 830 Demund, or not 830 Demund. Sorry, the Demund Point kind of is just on the other side of the old CBC.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, Has the same PB Harmon Zuckerson, Bed. There's a bedroom up front that has a window and there's a bedroom in the back that does not PB Harmon Zuckerton, I assume that's for the gas. PB Harmon Zuckeron, It's yeah it's it's really not uncommon. PB Harmon Zuckerberg, And can be quite, quite nice.

PB Harmon Zuckleberg, Well, Now you're pushing your luck, Tyler. Yeah, I know. As soon as I said that out of my mouth, I was like, I don't mean it's better than having a window because obviously having a window would be better and we would do it if we could. Okay.

I assume when he talked about the exterior units and there's a firewall issue, is that what you said? Yes. When I say the exterior units, what I mean are the ones that are on the far east and west, right on the exterior wall, on the sidewalls of the building. And those walls are located right on the property line.

And by building code, when you have a wall on a property line, you're not allowed to put a window in it unless it is fire-protected because fire could jaunt the property. I'll give you points for that. With regard to the roofs, I mean, are these big windows? Are they one foot by one foot?

The skylights? Yeah, the skylight. Well, not one foot by one foot. No, there are, I guess it's a fair question.

There are different kinds of skylights. There are the light tubes, which are maybe what you're thinking of, the one foot by one foot, which is essentially a tube that goes down and just brings light, but there's no visibility. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a skylight, like a traditional Velux skylight.

They're usually, well, they'd be different sizes, but we're probably in the realm of 30 by 60 They can be operable even with vents, although I don't think that's necessary here. But it's a window on your ceiling. So fairly large, you can see through it, clear glass. Okay.

I used to have some in my master bathroom in my old house and they were wonderful. You know, when you have to go to your old house and talk about your bathroom, I assume you're pushing your luck there too somehow. Thank you, Tyler. Ira?

Yeah, I mean, I have a concern about it. I mean, obviously ambient light is preferred, certainly for all sorts of reasons. I also wonder about the ventilation that exists in a room where you can't open a window. I mean, it just seems to be a quality issue that doesn't exist for that kind of a room.

You know, I don't even go to hotels anymore where I can't open the damn window. I mean, I want to get the fresh air in there. So I really think you, I think you should rethink that whole thing. Your comment about not thinking you'll need like a vent of some kind, I think is short-sighted as well.

I mean, I think if the skylight can open, I would feel way better about it than if it's just sealed and you can't even open the darn thing, you know? So, I mean, it gives me the heebie-jeebies to think that this is what you guys are doing. with these rules. Let me get on, let me go into something else, though, Tyler, let me ask you something.

Because a little bit, I was trying to figure out that the imperviousness of the front of this thing, we don't have our our landscape expert here tonight, who generally will ask these kinds of questions. But as far as your landscaping the front of the building and I noticed the buildings close by seem to have large and attractive lawns that go with those buildings. Yours does not and I just try to figure out why and what makes it so hard to reach the 30% threshold? Actually, I would disagree with you if it will not have a large attractive lawn.

That's why we're removing those patios that are there today. And I'm glad you are. I appreciate that. So we're putting in a lawn that's not currently there.

The reason why it's over is just simply because when you combine some patio space for those first floor units, and they are long and narrow, I mean, sorry, wide across the face, when you combine that with the number of John Gerstle, entrances that will remain with this. They have these sidewalks that go up to them. Currently it's part of the aesthetic of the building we just like keeping it John Gerstle , We end up at a larger percentage but but I think the overall look will be that lawn that you're you're looking for, just like the rest of them. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Okay, I had, I had trouble envisioning and I didn't see it.

I couldn't see it from the picture now. But I'll take your word for it. And I think what you're talking about is the patios that end up taking up that space for that. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, patios and the sidewalks. OK. All right, thanks. David, do we have anyone else in the audience?

Let's see. Oh, Barb? Yes. Are you back?

I just need a couple of things Tyler clarified. When you were talking about who is going to be the owners, is it 6611 Clayton Partners LLC that is going to own the building or are they selling it to someone else? I'm not sure who 6611 Clayton Partners is, but Julian on the call here today. I guess maybe that's part of who he is, is the current owner and he's selling it to another party.

Yes. Okay. And then, um, The sidewalk on the east side of the building, the building on the east side has a sidewalk right next to the building. So you're saying that the building wall itself is the end of the property you're developing or is the sidewalk part of your building?

I'm going to let Amanda answer that. I'm pretty sure it's the end. Yeah, the sidewalk is on the other property. So the wall itself is defining our property line on both sides.

So we're right on it. And then there is a drop-off, Tyler, in the back of the building that you're going to be rehabbing and 66... 09 Clayton Road. There's like a drop off and it's pretty unsightly.

Are you going to do anything to buffer that drop off with any kind of concrete wall or a little VersaLock or something to make it look cleaner and neater because it is kind of sloppy right there? Well, part of what we're doing is using those parking spaces in the back and the existing asphalt back there is not in great shape and has a little... If I'm thinking about the same place that you are, there's sort of a rise in the asphalt and like a lump or something. So, I mean, I would think that...

Amanda, do you know, is there a plan for a retaining wall there as what she was describing? We hadn't planned on it, but to be honest, the grading needs to be analyzed a little bit closer to see if we might end up with a short one because we do have an egress path coming out of the door there. So we'll need to make sure that obviously we have a safe access point out of that door. And then I have one final question having to do with the construction at St.

Rita and Alamo. When is that going to start versus when you're going to start this construction? Because we're thinking about trucks and the alley and access for our tenants getting in and out of the alley and then St. Rita.

So I was just curious how you're going to time the construction of the condos versus the rehab of 6611. Well, with regard to the timing, we don't have a lot of control over that because it's two different owners, two different contractors working on two different projects. So they're not really tied together. I will tell you that the The construction time for the project at St.

Rita is much longer. That will probably be under construction for close to a year. This building construction will be much shorter than that but will happen during that same period at some point. Do you know when they're going to start the condominiums at St.

Rita and Alamo? Because they had said they were going to start in June. Yeah, I do not. Thank you.

Thanks, Barb. Any other individual, David, in the audience? No? Okay.

Thank you. Any further questions from the ARB? Tyler or Amanda or Julian, any further comments from you? None for me.

Okay. Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Is there a motion to that? George, you're muted.

I was just testing you guys. Make sure you're listening. That's all. I move that we approve the application submitted to the architectural review board as submitted.

And I'll second that now that I'm not muted. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay. Thank you, Tyler, Julian and Amanda. When will this work start? Well, I imagine as soon as we get the drawings done.

And I think they're pretty anxious to get going. Good. Look forward to all that. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Good luck to you guys. Thank you.

Okay, still under new business. Let's move on to 8500 Maryland Avenue. And that's the Barton and Anissa. This is the review of 8500 Maryland Avenue.

It is the review of the design and materials regarding the modification of a signage sub-district for the subject property. The property is located at the southwest corner of Gay Avenue and Maryland Avenue and has a zoning designation of PUD Planned Unit Development. In May 2015, the Planning Commission and ARB voted to approve the construction of a 273,500 square foot mixed-use development, including retail, residential, and parking uses. In an effort to accommodate signage needs for future tenants and maintain visual conformity, the applicant previously submitted a signage subdistrict for the development, which was approved by the ARB in November of 2017.

City sign regulations allow for the establishment of signage sub-districts and state that a district or sub-district may develop a uniform series of coordinated signs, but the plan must be approved by the Architectural Review Board. The existing approved signage sub-district is detailed in the staff report in a table on page two. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing 23 and a half square foot wall sign and replace it with a 24 and a quarter square foot blade sign. I would like to note that there is a typo on page one of the staff report which notes that the existing wall sign is 43 square feet.

This is an error. The existing wall sign is 23 and a half square feet as noted in the table on page two. The sign design, the sign is satin black and gray in color with white acrylic lettering and mounts to the wall via steel plate anchors that are flush with the brick. The proposed sign is located between the second and third floor ceiling heights, which exceeds the height limit for the city sign code.

However, staff does recognize that the location of the retail tenant awnings makes the placement of a first floor building identification sign practically difficult. It should also be noted that the existing 23 and a half square foot wall sign is located at the second floor level. The placement of the existing wall sign flush with the north elevation does not allow for easy visibility by pedestrians, rather the sign is largely aimed towards vehicles. By contrast, the perpendicular nature of the proposed plain side allows pedestrians traversing the sidewalk to view the sign more readily without strain.

The proposed materials of the sign are high quality and compatible with the building design. The color of the proposed plate sign compliments the existing canopy overhangs on the northwest corner of the building, as well as the fascia and balcony railings. The proposed amendment to the signage sub-district provides uniform signage at the intersection of a main entrance into the city of Clayton. The proposed plate sign is compatible with the formerly approved signs in the sub-district and is comprised of high quality materials that are compatible with the overall design.

Staff's recommendation is to approve as submitted. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here, Murphy Webster? Yes, I am.

Okay, welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Commission. Do you have any further comments?

No, just in representing the owner. They came to me, gosh, COVID was going on in thick at the time. And when the ownership group went through, they actually had a hard time finding their own building when they first went to look for it. I think that planted a seed for them to try to get as much or better visibility if they could, certainly if they could.

We had ventured doing this sign previously as an additional sign. And then with staff's recommendation, we went back and with the removal of the existing sign, we remained within the allotted square footage. So as we go with this, this is a second attempt. And again, seeking something that's just a little bit more urban flair has in my opinion, much better visual impact and certainly helps them with their visual impact and marketing capabilities.

Well, Murphy, there are two sconces near the top and the bottom of this proposed sign. Yes, sir. Are there any other elements to light the blade sign? It is internally illuminated.

We're actually using the power that's brought from the old sign. Those were illuminated as well as channel letters. So We're doing push through acrylic with a lens on it, so to speak, a mask. So it's not to blow up the units, but it's pretty low impact lighting, halo effect, if you will.

Will that be the words, the Barton, as well as the signature B logo at the top and the word apartments? Will those all be lit or just the Barton? No, it's everything. It's all the language.

The apartments, the B, the Barton. And the... directional fish bones at the bottom? Yeah, there's actually a, on page three, there is a lit variation of that.

Well, I don't know what your submittal looks like. So it's page three of mine. Oh, I see. Okay.

It's yeah. It's a entry sign. It's my. Oh, I say, okay.

I missed that before you in a night view. Yes, sir. Okay. The what I'm reading is directional.

Is it pointing toward the building on each side? Yes, sir. Well, I do think that's a better identification for the building than what was on there before, which you really could not see. Unless you were across the street.

Right. But I think most people are driving by or walking by. So yeah, this will help. Let's see.

Any comments, George? No, I have no comments. Okay. Ellen?

No comments. Bob? No comments. David?

No. Okay. Well, I think it looks good. I think it'll be an improvement.

And sometimes you have to have a second crack at it to make it work right. Indeed. I do a lot of cracking, evidently. Second cracking, that is.

Well, we do have a staff recommendation to approve as submitted. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the signage application made as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Opposed? Okay. Okay.

Thank you, Murphy. We look forward to seeing you. I appreciate the opportunity to present and appreciate the response. Thank you very much.

When will it be installed? I'm shooting for somewhere around the 1st of September, if possible. Okay. Thank you.

Good luck. Appreciate you. I'll take care. Okay.

Okay. We've come to the continuation of the public hearing from two weeks ago. And, um, That is on the proposed amendments to Chapter 410 zoning regulations. And Susan, I see it still says Chapter 405.

Where do you see that, Mr. Chairman? On the request for city plan commission review under the project type. The yellow sheet?

On the front page of the staff report. Oh, thank you. I'm so sorry. I thought I caught all of that.

Yeah, and there's one more in the first paragraph under the dates. Oh, okay. Thank you. Got it.

All right. So we didn't really get much of a chance to talk last time. John Hull is here. Tim Bryhan is not here tonight, but John's here to answer any questions.

I thought I would just give a just a really brief overview of the process we went through and I mean just a very high summary because one of the points I wanted to make was what's before you tonight isn't something that just came out of a lot of meetings A lot of these standards were decided within committees and groups and at public meetings. And this went over for a period of time. So I just wanted to remind the board and the public that this project really started off with H3 Design Studios Once we got them under contract, they started out with one-on-one interviews with the mayor and the board of aldermen and the plan commission and ARB members. Then they had interviews with stakeholders.

They had two visioning work sessions, both with the board of alderman and the plan commission. They had four steering committee member work sessions. So a steering committee was formed of... A VARIETY OF MEMBERS FROM BOTH FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY TO THE NORTH.

BUT A BULK OF THIS PROPOSED OVERLAY. THERE WERE THREE JOINT BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND PLAN COMMISSION ARB WORK SESSIONS. WE HAD PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND ALL THIS OCCURRED WITHIN THE PROCESS.

ultimately ended up in H3 doing an existing conditions analysis. And that included reviewing the downtown master plan and reviewing projects that were recently approved. So once all that data was collected and the interviews started through the process, really what is before you now as a culmination of all of those meetings, all of that discussion And, um, key decision points that were made along the way during these meetings. So I thought it might be important just to remind the board that this is stuff you've heard before.

And this really, um, was a culmination of, um, the outcomes of those, all of those meetings and those interviews and, um, group discussions. So, um, with that, Mr. Chairman, I, I don't know if you just want to go ahead and start, um, asking if there's questions of the board members john is here i'm here um hopefully everybody had a chance to read through i did give you the ordinance format this time and the editing is correct and i'm here to answer any questions as is john okay I have a couple comments first. Thank you for having it in the ordinance format, Susan and John.

It was really much, much easier to read and understand. But that doesn't mean that we won't have a few questions. The second comment, oh, hi, John, is this will be the first public hearing and we will have a second public hearing on August 2nd. And I believe at that time is when we will actually make a recommendation for approval to the Board of Aldermen, if that's what we decide to do.

Is that correct, Susan? That's correct. On the first page of your staff report, I did put the schedule. Tonight is the July 19th meeting, obviously the first public hearing in front of you.

technically, and then I'll have the first public hearing in front of the Board of Aldermen on July 27. So I will pass on your discussion tonight, however far you get, and whatever you think you want to share with them. And then we'll come back with the PC ARB on August 2. And I'm hoping that you will be ready to vote.

And you will be voting and making a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen who will then hopefully be ready to vote on August 10. Obviously, if you're not ready with those timelines and need to extend it, we can do that as well. But hopefully, we're on the right track and we have a good schedule here that will accommodate everybody. Okay.

Well, the schedule looks fine. We'll see if we get through it. I think having gone through it now, it might be good just to go through it. I don't know if we need to go page by page.

I know I have certain items that I've pulled out that I'd like to ask either John or Susan or if anyone else was involved in it. PB Harmon Zuckerman, And Susan. Would it be appropriate just to go like that page by page because I think we know the general overall feel of it having a had it. PB Harmon Zuckerton, Spoken to us by Tim and john a couple meetings ago.

Karen Hollweg, Sure, if you just want to lead it lead us all through that way and then stop when you have questions. What I'd like the other commission members to do is, I actually, my first question is on page three. Instead of us going back and forth, if there's something that people want to bring up at a specific page, let's do it at that time so we can be more or less in sync. in a sequence order going through it.

There are 40 pages, I believe. I don't have 40 questions, but someone else may have a few more. So with that, I'll start out on page three. At the very top, the first three lines, I was very confused about the boundary and Let me see, I have to reread it.

Then westerly along the south. It seemed to me that there was confusion about the western boundary and the eastern boundary of the subject area that we're talking about. And John or Susan, Does it make sense? I did rewrite some of that because it didn't explain where, especially on the eastern boundary, how far south it went.

So I added some verbiage about that. I would have to read back through it and if you think there might be an error somewhere, or I can read back through it and see if I picked up an error. Is that what you're concerned about? Yeah, I think it needs to be reviewed.

I think all of us know where the boundaries are, and we see it on the map, and we could probably walk it ourselves. I got lost in the verbiage in there. And that can be left for staff review because I'm not sure that we would have an answer right now. Did anyone else have an issue with the location?

No. It just needs to be reviewed. We could see what it was. Yeah, we'll have another chance at it in early August.

So Susan, if that could be reviewed and make sure that legally we've got it correct? Sure. The description should match that figure one below the boundaries. So I'll make sure that it does.

Steve, I think you might be referring to, it talks about southerly along the east property line of 7750 Maryland twice. Is that what you're referring to? I think that's it. I think that's what it is.

I believe it is. At the very top there, we describe the same path twice in a row. Right. Got it.

Thank you. Thank you, David. Okay. Please, everyone step in if you see anything on pages four or five or the description details because my next question was on page eight.

Anything before that? Oh, and here we are back in the notes. in section two in the notes directly above figure five, when it says west of the westernmost district boundary. Is that correct or should it be west of the easternmost district boundary?

Which page or figure did you say you were on? Page eight, directly above figure five. For parcels located east of North Merrimack Avenue, west of the westernmost district boundary, it probably should read east. Eastern most.

Yeah, I will check. That's what it'd be. The area behind is G, which is in purple. So that is correct.

Yes. Okay. That revision is correct. So the revision should be east of the westernmost district boundary.

Yeah. Okay. Got it. Yeah.

Otherwise you'd be out of the boundary if you were west. Thank you. Okay. On page nine, let's see.

We have step backs that we're talking about in figure six and there are a few areas that I don't see any color that I couldn't quite figure out what's happening. And that is on North Brentwood, parts of Maryland Avenue I'm sorry, Merrimack and Beamiston, where I believe there are step backs labeled under I, but there's no color to it. John, are there step backs on all main streets? No, no.

Okay. The if you remember Steve, there was the discussion. Let's just take Maryland Avenue, given the existing buildings that don't have any step backs, keeping that facade and as you move towards the residential area, you're then moving to the step back position. So so that was the case on Maryland.

There was is a division along Maryland. also the height comes down. And then on Brentwood and Merrimack, Merrimack's already essentially a no step back given the projects that are under construction. So there was some subtlety there based upon approved projects and existing buildings that are suspected not to be changed.

Okay, what about on Bemisden south of Forsyth? Let me just check that. That is, let me make sure, that is reflecting, if I'm correct on this, the old I'm going to call it the old Bank of America building that doesn't have that step back. Oh, okay.

And then there's a parking lot directly south of it. Correct. And that's opposite the jail that also doesn't have the step back. So the step back coming down Bemisden was sort of reflective of addressing City Hall in that location.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, And and the smaller buildings that were there. But as a transition over foresight because of the buildings and remember you step up into the zoning there at that point, your current zoning. It was the we adjusted it at that point. PB Harmon Zuckerson, Okay, thank you.

I, I follow it now. PB Harmon Zuckerberg, Um, did everyone PB Harmon Zuckerberger, Get that detail. Okay. On page 10, items G, H, and I, those are capitals.

Oh, I'm sorry. The lowercase L, M, N, O, and P. Where do they show up graphically? I couldn't find them.

I couldn't either, Steve. That was one of my comments. Okay. Didn't mean to take it away from you, George.

We'll need to check that again. Might be a mistake on number six. Number six. Oh.

I think it's six. Yes. I would... I would think so.

So if it, if it belongs on figure six, I think it could easily be added on. Yes. Okay. Okay.

Then George, did you have anything else in that area? Okay. If you look further down on page 10 under A building facades one B no item two where it starts facades longer than 70 feet. And then it goes on in the second line.

It says, with building setbacks, recesses, projections above the ground floor with comprising the base. Would that be with or without? Without. And is it comprising or compromising?

Compromising. Compromising. Okay. Okay.

And then item C, a little bit further, where it says changes in wall plane for two feet minimum depth, at least every 70 feet. Under item F on the next page, it seems to say utilize minor wall offsets up to two feet. So are they related? And if so, are they in conflict?

You're on page 13. No, I'm on pages 10 and 11. Steve, I wouldn't see them in conflict. The first one is trying to deal with the broader mass of the building.

um so you know on on figure seven you would sort of see that right so you and then on the one that you're talking about uh it's a it's a i would say it's a secondary level so there can be some subtleties but the first one's trying to deal with the overall mass of the building And then even within that 70 feet of plane, we're still encouraging people to have some subtlety in depth of the facade. So I don't see those as conflicting. Well, good. I don't want a conflict.

Right. Okay, I understand your explanation about essentially two different things, but they were under the same building articulation section A. Right, and so the first two feet one that you're referring to is explicitly with facades longer than 70 feet. The second 2 feet 1, which is number 4F, a building could be 50 feet and would still be encouraging those offsets.

So number 2 referencing C is explicitly to deal with those facades longer than 70 feet. OK. Okay. Thank you, John.

Susan, did you follow that? I did. Good. Yeah, I did.

Thank you. Thank you. Still on page 11, the last item, item six, whenever possible, develop with smaller lot increments. Okay.

Is there any other definition or description that we need to go along with smaller lot increments, like how small? It seems like it's sort of an open-ended comment. It is open-ended and you're right about that. And there's no, designate, there's no definition provided on what smaller lots are, how they define.

But it's relative to the broader building articulation. I mean, we've spoken before, the newer buildings you're getting in are equivalent to a full block size or a half block size of your downtown. in this particular area with that sensitivity, you have a whole series of smaller buildings that make up a greater texture of your community. So we try to sort of encourage, keep going with that smaller lot redevelopment if possible.

We can put a definition in, if that would make it clearer for you. And we would then immediately go to your current lot configuration, particularly where the smaller building's in and sort of define it as relative to your historical pattern that has been developed. So I'm happy to add some definition on that, but it would be related quite frankly to your current subdivision pattern that's there of the smaller lots. I don't know if that would satisfy me or not, but maybe we should take a look at it on our second reading.

Okay. Okay. Other members of the commission, feel free to jump in. Let's see, where was I next?

My next one went to... Well, there's a typo on page 14 in the second line it should read calculated by multiplying instead of my. Thank you. And then on 15, did I have there?

Oh, I was questioning when I read it over the weekend under section 410.120, Paragraph A, allow access to sky view while improving the quality of the building's interior environment. I think I understand that. I would take that off. Okay.

I'm up to page 19 right now with questions. At the very top, lowercase a, multiple dwelling units must provide one parking space for each dwelling unit. We just had a project tonight which had two parking spaces per dwelling unit and I can remember at times in the past that we have gone below two but I don't think we've gone to one. And Susan, you may have better recollection on that.

I don't think on to one or below unless we were in the TOD overlay which allowed for that because of the proximity to public transportation and the assumption that residents would use public transportation instead of owning a car. So yeah, I believe you are correct, Mr. Chairman. Those have been the only places, I think.

So maybe that needs to be reworded. I don't know if it should be one or two or something allowing a little variation. I think, and John, I think one of the reasons why we were looking for a reduction in parking was provide some incentive for redevelopment and kind of limiting parking garages, and being able to do corner to corner redevelopment. Those are the the three things that come to my mind when we were talking about parking, but that was a bit a while ago.

So I don't know, John, if you have any insight on that. Yes. I mean, parking is always a difficult one, particularly for the smaller lot redevelopment. So just tied to your previous question.

And if you provide, if you keep going up in terms of number of parking spaces per dwelling unit, you essentially limit the sort of the opportunity. It's inherently limiting. And in the broader national discussion of parking, which there is a lot of at the moment, parking is an additional cost and there's always questions relative to should these parking requirements be appropriate in a downtown? Many cities, many cities around the country are removing their parking requirements in their downtowns and leaving it up to the developers to select.

There are some cities that have moved like Buffalo and recently Minneapolis to remove parking requirements from these zoning ordinances completely. So in this particular case, Our discussion was directed at how could we facilitate redevelopment of your smaller lots? And parking is a huge implication for that. And we had early in the discussion shown implications of different parking ratios.

So this was coming down in this particular area where you're trying to create an entertainment district where you're trying to essentially meet the ground for sort of entertainment uses, parking is problematic. And we heard this from a number of developers for the smaller ones. Obviously when you develop a half block, as you well know, it's very easy to insert parking within that and still maintain street level activity. Very difficult to do it on the smaller lots.

So that was the context. So then since this is related to multiple dwelling units, it seems like it's either a large lot or small lot that it could refer to. Should it say at least one? Or I'm not sure how we can be flexible enough not to burden the site or the developer?

Correct. We could make it read that the minimum is one, the maximum be as many as the developer wants. Would that work for small locks also? If you keep it at a minimum parking Rupert Clayton, Space one per dwelling that sufficient and then that allows the developer to build as much as they want beyond that, depending on the apartment type and the.

Rupert Clayson, demographic and that they going off to. I'd be more comfortable with that, saying a minimum of one. Susan or anyone else on the commission, David, you might have a comment on it. I would agree with you, Steve.

A minimum of one. That doesn't, though, give you the power then to require more. What you might want to consider is setting it at a standard that you think is appropriate if that's two per dwelling with the provision that they can lower that number to a minimum of one per dwelling if they make a certain showing of things. Sorry, repeat your last word, Stephanie.

If they make a showing to the commission of a certain thing. So if you want to see certain proof of certain items, and I can't think of an example right now that would allow them to go down to one, then at that point in time it could go down to one. Well, Stephanie, I like that. description, however we can get the wording in there.

But then you're moving the question to what are you requiring them to prove to get to one? And I'm not sure what you would state. What would you state that requires them to get to one Well, when we do parking studies, I mean, the point of doing a parking study is to determine whether or not the code required parking is necessary based on the characteristics of the use. So in mixed-use developments, for example, where there's shared parking and whatnot, and users are using it at different times, there's an opportunity to reduce the amount of parking for residential through a study.

So I think if we just reference you know, doing a parking study like we already do and require if people are asking for reduced parking. I think that should cover it. Stephanie, is that something you're thinking? That's exactly what I was thinking.

Okay. I'm wondering if we're going back to what we already have in our ordinance with this conversation. And I'm thinking the intent on this was to truly relieve parking on the small lot developments. And the parking studies, to me, were done primarily or mixed-use developments, meaning office and residential combined or offices combined.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, You know something with residential. This is referred to solely dwelling units and in my opinion it is fine as it's written HAB-Jacque Juilland, That the intent is to bring down parking in residential HAB-Jacqe Juilland, As opposed to cost. HAB-Masyn Moyer, Yes, in this within this overlay district. So it's not citywide just in this HAB-Marsyn Moyer, Here.

Yeah. Yeah. PB Harmon Zuckerman, Thank you for that was the intent. Yes.

PB Harmon Zuckerson, Other comments on what George was just saying and john agreed. PB Harmon Zuckerberg, Seems like we've come full circle now that maybe leaving it at one per dwelling unit is the right PB Harmon Zuckerberger, Way to go. PB Harmon Zuckleberg, Thank you, George. Stephanie, are you okay with that?

I'm perfectly fine with that because that's the policy issue. It was just that I made that suggestion because you kind of acted like you would want the opportunity to increase that number over the one and the way that it was being discussed, you wouldn't have been able then to do that if you just set the minimum at one. Okay. So how does everyone feel?

Should it remain as provide one parking space or a minimum of one parking space? Again, I think the market is going to drive the developers in the big picture of this, that if one is not reasonable for the development, they're going to want two. So by saying it's one space per dwelling unit, I read that as a minimum and not a maximum or anything else along that line. Okay.

I would agree with that. I think the developer will make the decision and one would be the minimum and Okay. Can we just add the words at least just to make sure there's no ambiguity going forward? Yeah.

Yes. Thank you, David. Got that, Susan. I do.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. You know, when we get into the building types that I pretty well understood until I get to page 31 and then under section D, the bay windows and Oriole windows.

And I can wait till everyone gets to 31. Okay. Excuse me. I have a question on page 30.

Okay. The under balconies, the wording says they may be occupied with a porch or exterior patio space. John, what did you mean by that? I'm just, I'm trying to find it.

It's on page 30. Page 30 and under balconies and it's the fourth line down on the paragraph starting a frontage type which occurs forward of the bill to line. And then the fourth line says balconies may be occupied with a porch or exterior patio space. And I wasn't quite sure what you were describing.

It was just trying to refer to an occupiable space. Those words could be omitted on there. It would just leave it neutral. Okay.

You okay with that, Helen? Pardon? Are you okay with deleting that wordage? Yeah, yeah.

I just found it confusing. And our next questions are on page 31. So Steve, you may already have the same question. Well, why don't you go ahead?

Oh, okay. With the bay windows and Oriole windows, I like that they're limited to six feet in depth and a length of eight feet. In that, have you considered that you could stack these windows and you could basically do an eight foot wide bay and then say two feet, another eight foot wide bay. So the building would basically be bay windows and extending six feet into the right of way.

And with what you're saying was sort of two feet back, Eight feet out, two feet back, eight feet out. Is that what you're suggesting? Yes, yes. I can see that.

So we, and maybe I can clarify this. So for instance, in balconies, given your previous questions on could they be all around the building and in this length, right? We've ended up with, on balconies, that they can have a maximum coverage of 40% of the building facade. Yep.

So I think this could be a very applicable role for these as well, that there's a percentage of, maximum percentage of the facade that these could be on. But you do get, you can get quite graceful buildings that have these extensions, but they don't cover the entirety of the building and your point's very valid. So would you be comfortable if we had a look at that and added something similar to how we dealt with balconies? I think a percentage coverage would handle it well.

Okay, that was it for me on page 31. Okay. I think mine was similar. I was concerned about the bay windows on the ground floor encroaching the property line into the public rights of life, if approved.

But I think the if approved is the main wording in there. So I'm okay with that. Okay. Let's see.

Okay, now I have one other item on page 38 and that was toward the bottom where it's section 410.020. Is that part of article four That wasn't the answer. Sorry, I'm getting my bearings here. So everything that struck out is part of Article 4 and it looks like Okay.

No, I don't think so. This is actually when I took, I think what I should have just identified. I don't believe that's part of Article 4. It is...

Yeah, I couldn't find where it is. Okay. It might be Article 1, actually. It says the beginning.

And I didn't put these in order. Thank you, Stephanie. I didn't put this in order. So this is actually, I believe it's Article 1.

So I will identify what article it's in. But all that is doing is removing references to the CBD core overlay and the downtown overlay district, which are going away, obviously, and then adding what I've Named the Northeast downtown overlay zoning district. We never really gave it a name. So I just assigned one to it, but I'm certainly open to changing that.

But that's all that's doing. So this is actually at the beginning and I believe it's article one. Okay. That helps me.

I'll make sure that's clear. And same with the other items that follow that. We'll make sure it's clear what PB Harmon Zuckerman, Okay. Well, with PB Harmon Zuckerson, All my minor questions.

PB Harmon Zuckerton, I really think it's in pretty good shape. Now I think we have just a few things that may need to be handled at this point. But let's see if there are any other comments from any of the other commission members. If there isn't, I need to go back to your comment on page 31 to make sure I didn't miss something.

But you talked about the bay windows encroaching. Okay, I found it. Bay windows on the ground floor may encroach the property line into public rights of way if approved. And bay windows projecting from the second floor or higher may encroach within public rights of way by right.

So your only concern is the ground floor bay windows, if approved. Is that correct? And no concern over the second floor? Correct.

I was only concerned with the ground floor. But I think if approved is the control mechanism. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I just wanted to be sure because... Karen Hollweg, I didn't know if you had the same concern with the windows that were off of the ground floor and higher. No.

Okay. Okay. Harmon Zuckerman, Let's see, George. Any other comments.

No, no more comments. Okay. HarmonZuckerman, No comments for tonight. Harmon Zuckermann, Ellen We don't hear you.

Sorry about that. I do have a comment within the design guidelines, but no more within the zoning. Well, while we're still in the zoning, David, any other comment? No, sir.

Thank you. Shall we move into the design guidelines now? Susan, is that proper? Yes, go right ahead.

Okay. Helen, would you like to lead off? Okay. On page 18, under paragraph C, it says balconies are encouraged on street facades but not required.

And it goes a maximum 40% of frontage. facades may be covered with balconies. And then notes, false balconies are prohibited. And I'm wondering if they're prohibited across the board or just on a street facade?

And if they're prohibited, across the board, why? Which type of balconies did you say? the false balcony yes you know because they false in in in the sense a non-functional balconies um so that's different to um where you can have a for instance a a handrail and your doors can open sort of like a little Juliet balcony, but false balconies are. Can you show us great examples of false balconies?

I mean, or refer us to something that you're thinking of? No, I've used them a number of times where A balcony would have added an expense or just would not have worked, but the ability to open doors and have a railing maybe six, eight inches from the face of the building, added a decorative element from looking at the building. And then from the interior of the building, it provided... you know, a feeling of a balcony without actually having a true balcony.

And they all... Talking about the same things, I don't see any problem with that. In other words, it's essentially a window with a sliding door, effectively, with a handrail on the bottom line of it. Okay, but you wouldn't call that a false balcony?

I wouldn't have, no. The false balconies are the ones that, you know, they kind of project out like sort of 12 to 18 inches in a non-occupiable space. Yeah. But I think, I mean, that's...

We can look at this term and it sounds like it's a definitional term because I wouldn't be... objecting to how what you described, if we're talking the same thing and maybe I can just look at that a little bit more and I think that would be fine. Okay, I think a definition would help because I know sometimes they're called Juliet balconies, and without a definition, I can see us getting, you know, the Or be getting into a discussion about what is allowed and what isn't. So I think some clarification there would be good.

Yes, I think that's, we should absolutely. And we'll do that because the ability to have doors that open in an apartment at the upper level is quite interesting and good. Okay. That's good.

My only comment. Helen, following that up, I believe there's an example of false balconies that are used for air conditioning condensing units on a condominium building near your house on Kingsbury, just west of Hanley Road. And I've never quite figured out how you would get out to service those because they look as if they have no accessible opening from the units that they're servicing. Would that be a false balcony if it's only for a mechanical equipment piece?

Yeah, that would be a false balcony to me. A balcony is something that is for human beings to enjoy in openness, kind of in its broadest sense. And to put equipment on it, and I'll have to take a look. I hadn't really noticed it.

Or maybe I looked past it. No, I can see prohibiting that. Yeah. But I'm thinking of something, as John mentioned, with a railing and you can open doors inward.

And it really gives a nice feel to things. And then if you wanted to put plants or something on the edge, flowers, it softens and adds interest to the facade. But not mechanical units, no. Well, it's better than hanging the unit on the side of the building.

Yeah. Okay. Other comments, George? And this is in the design guidelines.

Bob? I have nothing. Okay. David?

Okay, I felt quite comfortable with the design guidelines. And of course they are guidelines and they will not be in an ordinance. So I don't wanna say that they are less important. They have their own importance, but I was okay with it now.

But I do have a question. Susan, that I neglected to say at the very beginning. Have the members of the original steering committee received this information where they could look at it? Because I don't think I've noticed any of them in our meeting tonight.

Cathy Beeline, I thought was on that. Oh, she is there now. Yes. Well, yeah.

The drafts are posted and I'll correct, make the changes that we've been talking about tonight and repost those. And they are under pending application, sorry. I was just looking at that. My comment is the steering committee was very important to have because they were primarily citizens or interested people.

And I'd like to pull them in and see if they have any comments at our next meeting. Otherwise, I feel pretty good where we got so far tonight. I think, John, thank you for all your help on this. And I think the Board of Aldermen will have fun with it in 10 days or whatever.

And then we'll have more to discuss at our next meeting. So are there any other comments on the amendments to chapter 410? No. Okay.

Well then, thank you, John. Mr. Chair, I would just state that this was a posted public hearing. We should at least, if you don't mind, solicit and see if there's any comments from the four people that we have in attendance here.

Thank you. Hopefully everyone in attendance heard the city manager's comment. If anyone would like to comment, let's see, Hank, Kathy, Terry, and Peter, raise your hand and you'll be let in. Hank?

Okay. Peter? Okay. Hank, you'll have to, you're in.

Okay, you're on Hank. I've tried to participate in understanding the ideas for massing that somehow build off the wonderful architecture in Clayton. And the wonderful experiences of being able to walk the sidewalks, see engaged buildings on the corner, to have a little bit of relief as you're walking along sometimes are very narrow, steep streets. And I have found it very difficult to understand the graphics that you've developed to be able to visualize what the city might look like.

And I've spent a great deal of time building SketchUp models off your fundamental plans and extruding them up. Yes, John, extruding them up so that we now have a continuous wall that's alongside our present narrow streets and narrow sidewalks that's extending up 80 feet where there are a variety of different setbacks and who knows how they're gonna be used as the towers extend up further. I don't think the graphic depiction of this future urban environment is attractive and sensitive and building off our heritage. I'm ready to learn.

David, I would love an opportunity to share with you the material I've done and see if it's a little bit askew or incorrect. I was very concerned with, let's call it the minute of the meeting on the 21st, Susan, which was dealing with let's call it, we're not going to have any open space. We're not going to allow our herbes to develop. We're not gonna create a more gracious open corner.

I have real reservations and I'm ready to share my, let's call it exploration in SketchUp, which I've then put into a number of PowerPoint documents in which I've tried to take photographs of meaningful buildings that engage our streets, but have a little bit of setback and relief. And they have balconies, but the balconies are extending over the area that the building has set back. So envisioning this new world, I think it's your responsibility to give it a little bit of clarity. Well, Hank, I'd be happy to reach out to you offline here and set up a time and take a look.

Perfect. Thank you. And Helen, I've been enjoying many times your understanding of balconies and how far out and how many of them, right? The balconies disappeared off the building for let's call it Commerce Bank and down.

But maybe those balconies could have jetted out with this new ordinance. You know what I'm talking about, the fingernails. Yes. So there's a lack of consistency and thinking.

Thank you for your presence and your interest. Thank you, Hank. Peter, are you... Peter, did you have your hand raised?

Yes. Peter unmute yourself. Sorry about that. I was just curious, is the staff report that was referenced available for review?

Yes, it's on the website. Isn't that correct, Susan? I'm not sure if Susan dropped off there or not. It should be on the website, and then after pending applications.

It's not there. I was having a very hard time following what was being discussed. There's a proposed design standards, proposed development standards, and a final report that are on the website. Okay.

It says updated June 18th, 2021. Okay. Yeah, sorry about that. Oh, this isn't, okay.

Sorry. So the reports that are on there for the development standards and the design standards are the same that we discussed tonight. The formatting's just a little bit different because it's in an ordinance format. And there is a link to the ordinance format.

And I've I actually updated it today, but I don't think that link is working very well. But if you're interested in the content of these two documents, I'm happy to email them to you. We've got three more public hearings to go before they're finalized. But what you see on the, it's called pending applications in the planning department's webpage.

The documents for the standards are, have been posted there since June 18th. Right. And I'm looking at those. And my question is, is the staff report that was referenced?

Sorry. It's not. Yeah. I thought you were interested in the standards.

The report is basically an outline of the process and the public hearing schedule. But the bulk of what we're talking about really is in those two standards, the standards and the design guidelines. Well, why isn't the staff report available? It probably didn't get posted to the website.

Can it be? It was posted somewhere else. Sure. I can email it to you.

I sent you a note a while ago saying I would be happy to email it to you Oh, I didn't see a note, but That'd be great, and I think it should all be posted. The document you referenced that's in ordinance format, I don't see that either. And if there was a link, it's not there anymore. Did that answer your question, Peter?

Well, I hope so. I hope it all is put out on the website or sent to me, but I think everyone should have access to it. all of these documents. Okay.

We'll make sure it's all up and posted tomorrow. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Did we have anyone else in the attendees? No, it looks like no one else. Okay.

I think we can then close the public hearing. on this issue and look forward to the next time we get together on this. However, we do have one other item on the agenda and it's a discussion regarding staff presentations. And Susan, do you want to lead that?

I know Ira is not here. and I think he would be a part of it. Yes. Over time, we've tried to summarize the staff reports, but I think we may still be going into a bit more detail than is preferred by members.

So really the discussion, I think Ira had some concern over having to kind of read the reports verbatim, which we really try not to do into the record. But I brought this up to Steve thinking if this board would like to see further summary or something different, we'd be happy to accommodate you. I think the important thing to put into the record would be The title of the item as it reads on the agenda or in the staff report. Either way, it doesn't matter, as long as the address is put on the record and what the item is.

So in other words, architectural review board consideration for ulterior extirpations at 10 North Amiston Avenue. That should be put into the record. And I think a brief summary of the project should also be put into the records. Karen Grove- And then what I had talked to Anissa possibly about doing and I'll just run it by this board.

Like I said, we can do whatever you want is if there are Karen Grove- Items in a report that are at conflict with the code and staff so staff analysis would would state that And they would describe why, and it would describe our recommendation or our analysis, our technical analysis of the proposal versus what the code requires. Then we would also read that into the record. I think that's important to make sure that gets into the record as well. And then finally, we would read the staff recommendation and any conditions associated therewith.

Technically, the staff report is part of the record. And so we don't really have to read any of it, I suppose. But for those people that are interested in listening, even though the reports are put out on the website most of the time, I still don't think people access them. And so I do feel that the people in the audience, when we have large audiences, listen very carefully to what's being read on the record.

I could be wrong, but that's just my sense. So I would just throw those out as considerations and leave it up to the board how you would like us to present the reports to you. Well, the summary you just gave, Susan, I feel pretty comfortable with. I think that we could shorten the verbiage of the staff report given at our meetings as long as all the items that may have conflict or code or regulation requirements that those are brought up.

But some items at times, and it may be different for every single application that we deal with, but items like lighting or trash enclosures, They may be just simply lumped together and dealt with as they meet all requirements instead of going into greater detail, leaving the detail for items of importance, which, as you described, were basically code items. Other comments? I'm pretty happy with the status quo. You could always shorten it, but I like the one-stop shopping for me.

It's right there. I can read it, cram it if I need to. It works for me, but if people want to And you don't have to read it verbatim, because I've already read it coming into the meeting. But to highlight some of the points, that works for me.

It'll be a judgment process, Bob, I think, to determine what the highlight points are. But that's why we have the prose here. Right. That's why I think they can pretty well make that decision of what is really critical to highlight and what could just be...

um alluded to in some ways and um if the whole thing is posted on the website uh i feel comfortable with it because sometimes we get bogged down in a very long detailed staff report and i'm not making light of because everything in there is very important to discuss but they're probably uh some parts that could have less discussion. I have to tell you, Steve, when the staff reads the reports, I'm always impressed by the developers or architects who say, oh, they got it right. I don't have anything more to say. I mean, that's a real compliment.

It is. It is. And I think our staff does an excellent job in putting it together. Were there other comments?

No, I would agree with you, Steve and Bob. What Susan presented I think works. Hit the highlights and summarize. You're right.

Good. George, any comment? I am always one to say hit the highlights quick and move it through quick. Okay.

David, I see you shaking your head yes. So we won't make you talk. And well, Susan, does that give you direction? Yes, it does.

I would suggest if we'll just, we'll go with that. And Anissa is really the one doing the majority of the staff reports now. So if she has any questions, I open it up to her. But if you see that we're going astray on an example, you know, on a report or two, feel free to just let us know that we didn't need too much information was given for a report.

But we will, we're happy to summarize. We know you read the report, so I don't want to Would an affirmation that it has hit the city website be of use to all of us as far as any comments that may come in from the public or lack thereof? I didn't understand the question. Sorry.

It probably wasn't directed at me anyway. I'm sorry. It is directed a little bit there, but I'm wondering if we should have an affirmation from city staff that the staff report has been posted onto the website. as a part of the conversation first.

And if it has been, I am really for a very short, simple presentation. I think that statement could certainly be made at the beginning of every session agenda item. And I think we would hope that the public sitting in the audience would pick up that they have a little homework to do at times before they come to the meeting. Exactly, exactly.

The owners should not be on staff. The owners should be on the public to pull what's out there. Right. And actually our agenda currently says where the applications and plans are available at the top of the agenda.

So it gives the web page, the pending applications web page. Yes. It's the staff recommendations that I'm more concerned about or as concerned about are those getting up there in time. Everything is loaded.

Basically, Anissa, we She may have changed the process to suit her, but generally everything is loaded. When we send you an email, it's either loaded at that time or shortly thereafter. Well, let's give the process a try. I think we can always modify it if necessary.

And I think making it available to our public is really very important also. So hopefully they will listen in and read before they come so they're familiar with it. And I see Mr. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Burkowski still in the audience, once we close the meeting all load I just checked the website and there wasn't a link that was working on there so i'll load everything up tonight.

HAB-Massyn Moyer- This is, you know, we have a second meeting here, and then we also have a meeting in front of the board to meet the for the board, so there still is plenty of time to read through and then we'll once I get updates of the ordinance. Based on your comments tonight, we'll post that too. Okay. In the chat box, there was a request for a copy of the staff report, but that should be, as you were saying, Susan, updated onto the website, correct?

Yeah, I'll post the report and the ordinance on the website tonight as soon as we get off. And then as the ordinance is updated based on your comments tonight, that'll be posted as well. OK. This follows the hearing track, which is why it's kind of outside of the box that the normal application and plans are located in.

OK, well. Any other comments? I think we're nearing the end, as you can hear my dog. Helen, any further comment?

No, nothing further. Okay. George? No comments.

Always delightful to see everybody. We're glad you're back. David? Anissa?

Nothing for me. Okay, Susan? No, thank you. Okay, well thanks everyone and thanks to Susan and Anissa for a lot of good hard work and we'll see you in two weeks.

Okay, take care. Bye-bye.

1

MINUTES CITY PLAN COMMISSION/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD JULY 19, 2021 ZOOM MEETING

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

Present: Chairman Steve Lichtenfeld David Gipson, City Manager Ira Berkowitz, Aldermanic Representative Bob Denlow Helen DiFate George Hettich Absent: Carolyn Gaidis

Also in Attendance: Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Annisa Kumerow, Principal Planner Stephanie Karr, City Attorney

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed everyone to the meeting. MINUTES The minutes of July 6, 2021 were approved. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Helen Di Fate moved to elect Steve Lichtenfeld as the Chairman and Carolyn Gaidis, Vice Chairman. George Hettich seconded the motion. Unanimous approval for Steve Lichtenfeld, Chairman and Carolyn Gaidis, Vice Chairman. OLD BUSINESS 8000 FORSYTH BLVD- ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PUBLIC ART Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. DENNIS HOLEZER Applicant and representative of Commerce Bank was present

2

ROBIN TRAFTON, Applicant, was present Steve Lichtenfeld stated his support for the proposed art. Ira Berkowitz – doesn’t like the process for approval that this art piece has gone through to date and felt that the Board of Aldermen specifically indicated that the applicant was to hire a consultant that would be a 3rd party to the developer. He feels this applicant is not qualified and nor does the process used by the developer is consistent with the spirit or wording of the PUD. In previous discussions with the Board of Aldermen and Commerce bank, both parties agreed with the process to hire a consultant. Doesn’t support the art piece. Bob Denlow – noted the estimated value of the art is $2 million. Steve Lichtenfeld – noted it’s good to follow the process but also feels like at times there may be exceptions. This is a corporate citizen with a large, extensive, and valuable art collection and if it meets all other parameters set up, we should move ahead. In favor of moving forward per staff recommendation. Stephanie Karr – stated there isn’t a legal issue here; the selection process is not written into ordinance. There is no clear requirement that the consultant has to be a 3rd party. Ira Berkowitz – differs with Stephanie’s opinion, it is in the ordinance, noted that the ordinance says “developer shall hire an art consultant to assist,” that clearly does not mean you hire an existing employee. Bob Denlow – noted art chosen is by a renowned artist, Commerce Bank has a large art collection, Robin Trafton is well qualified, and the value of the art is significant. If you look at the substance of which Commerce bank has brought to the table, overall, they’ve put together a good proposal. They have honored what the City was looking for – a significant piece of art for this project – that’s the requirement and they’ve met it. Bob Denlow made a motion to approve as submitted; George Hettich seconded the motion. Motion carries 5 in favor 1 opposed. NEW BUSINESS 6611 CLAYTON ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY

Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Amanda Norris, Core 10 Architecture, representing the applicant, was in attendance Tyler Stephens, Core 10 Architecture, representing Period Restoration who is purchasing the building, was in attendance. Julian Hess, representing the applicant, was in attendance Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Tyler Stephens gave a brief presentation and history of building and outlined the proposed project.

3

Bob Denlow – asked about building immediately to the east, was it ever used for commercial purposes? SL – believes office was proposed but never occurred. Julian Hess – noted at one time it was commercial. Has been empty for at least 3 years. IB – questioned the location of bike racks. Didn’t see in the original plan. Tyler Stephens – shared his screen and noted location of bike racks in rear of property, on north wall against the alley. Discussion regarding location of bike racks on drawings. IB – noted he had no problem with the CUP and parking seems to be adequate. George Hettich – no comments Hele DiFate – no comments David Gipson – no comments Public Speakers: Barb Nauert, property owner, 6607 Clayton Road spoke in favor of the plan. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen, per staff’s recommendation; Ira Berkowitz – seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR MINOR REVISIONS TO THE BUILDING AND SITE LOCATED AT 6611 CLAYTON ROAD Tyler Stephens, Architect, Core 10 Architecture, representing applicant, was present Amanda Norris, Architect, Core 10 Architecture, representing the applicant, was present Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report. Tyler Stephens gave a presentation on the project. Steve Lichtenfeld (SL) commented on the proposed removal of the box windows and questioned the interior building circulation. Also questioned the lack of windows in many of the bedrooms. Tyler Stephens responded and answered questions regarding the box windows and internal building circulation. He also noted that the lack of windows in the bedrooms were mitigated by skylight installations in those rooms to allow natural light into the bedrooms. SL noted the plans do not show skylights. George Hettich had no questions. Helen DiFate questioned if there is roof access.

4

Tyler Stephens – commented that access to roof is for maintenance; not for public access. Bob Denlow – commented that overall plan is good. Is bothered that there are no windows in the bedrooms and questioned why holes in the walls to insert windows wasn’t considered? Tyler Stephens – noted you could put windows in for the side units with fire shutters but there is no way to add windows to the interior units. He also noted that windowless bedrooms are not uncommon. Ira Berkowitz – does not agree without having windows for air circulation/venting issues. Also noted there is not a lawn in front of their building. Tyler Stephens – noted they were putting in a lawn by removing patios and replacing with grass within the combined patio space. Commented that the existing number of entrances will remain with the existing sidewalks that go up to them. The overall look will be a lawn, similar to the rest of the building. Patios and sidewalks take up impervious coverage areas. Public Speakers: Barb Nauert, neighbor, questioned the ownership interest and whether or not the sidewalk was part of the property and questioned a drop off at the rear of the property and the potential necessity for a retaining wall. Tyler and Amanda – clarified ownership interest, noted sidewalk was on adjoining property and noted no plan for retaining wall but grading needs to be analyzed so there may be a retaining wall needed. Barb Nauert asked about the St. Rita/Alamo construction timeline. Tyler Stephens noted that the St. Rita construction timeline is much longer (approximately 1 year). During some point that project and this project will be on the same schedule. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; George Hettich seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. Architectural Review Board – Request for approval of an amendment to a sign subdistrict for property located at 8500 Maryland Avenue. Annisa Kumerow summarized the staff report.

Murphy Webster, on behalf of the applicant/owner, was present.

Murphy Webster summarized the reasons for the requested sign district amendment and noted that the proposed sign is within the allotted square footage for the project. Steve Lichtenfeld – questioned if sign would be lighted and which parts of the sign would be lit. Murphy Webster noted the sign will be internally illuminated and described the lighting type and material. He clarified that all elements of the proposed sign will be illuminated, including the directional fish bones at the bottom, and noted that page 3 of the submittal shows that illustrated graphically.

5

Steve Lichtenfeld noted the proposed sign is a better identification for the building then what exists now. George Hettich – no comments. Helen Di Fate – no comments. Bob Denlow – no comments. David Gipson – no comments. Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board and hearing no additional comments from the audience, Bob Denlow moved to approve as submitted per staff’s recommendation; Helen DiFate seconded the motion, the motion was unanimously approved by the Commission. Public Hearing PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 410, ZONING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III AND IV AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF DESIGN STANDARDS Susan Istenes, AICP, Planning Director summarized the staff report. Steve Lichtenfeld - questioned page 3 at top – confused about boundary as drafted. Written portion does not reflect the boundaries as shown on the map. David Gipson noted “southerly along east property line” is written twice. Same path is described twice. Susan Istenes - noted the correction needed. Steve Lichtenfeld – page 8 notes on Figure 5, directly above figure 5 – “west of western most district boundary,” is that correct? Susan Istenes - should read “ east of the western most district boundary” Steve Lichtenfeld – page 9 – does not see color on north Brentwood, parts of Maryland Avenue, Bemiston, Meramec – where stepbacks labeled under “I” but there is no color to it. Are there stepbacks on all main streets? John Hoal – no stepbacks on all main streets. Discussion moved to division along Maryland as height comes down and on Brentwood and Meramec. SL – what about on Bemiston, south of Forsyth? John Hoal – that is reflecting the whole bank of America building that doesn’t have a stepback. Stepback coming down Bemiston was reflective of city hall as a transition coming across Forsyth. They were adjusted at that point. SL – items l,m.n, o, p – where do they show up graphically on page 10? If they belong on figure 6 it could be easily added on. *** Staff confirmed with consultant that these items are not part of figure 6. George Hettich – had the same questions. John Hoal – will need to check. May be the same on number 6.

6

SL – further down on page 10, A building facades, item 2 …. Facades longer then 70 feet…. In second line says “with building setbacks, recesses projections with comprising the base” should that read “with” or should it read “without” should it read “ Comprising or compromising.” John Hoal – without, compromising Steve Lichtenfeld – Item c, changes in wall plane for two feet minimum depth, under item f on next page, utilize minor wall offsets up to 2 feet. Are they related and if so, are they in conflict? pages 10 and 11. John Hoal - Doesn’t believe they are in conflict. First one is dealing with overall mass of building, on figure 7 you would see that. Then on the on one you are talking about I would say its (inaudible). Encouraging people to have some subtilties. Steve Lichtenfeld – under same building articulation section A. John Hoal – first one – facades longer than 70 feet; second one, building could be 50 feet so we would still be encouraging offsets. Number 2 facades longer than 70 feet. Steve Lichtenfeld – page 11, last item, item 6 “whenever possible development with smaller lot increments.” Is there any other description/definition we need to go along with this statement? It is open ended. John Hoal – agreed the term smaller lot is open ended. It’s relative to building articulation. In this area you have small areas of buildings – try to encourage smaller lot development if possible. We can put a definition in the document and define it as relative to historical mass that has been developed. Steve Lichtenfeld – maybe we should take a look at it on our second reading. Typo on page 14 second line should read calculated “by” instead of “my.” On 15, questioning under 410.120 paragraph A. Allow access to sky view while improving the quality of buildings interior. Page 19, at the very top lowercase, a, must provide one parking space per each dwelling unit. We just had a project that had 2 spaces earlier tonight, but I don’t think we’ve ever gone to 1. Susan Istenes – limiting parking garages and being able to do corner to corner development was intended with the limit on parking. John Hoal – noted parking is always difficult particularly for smaller lots. If you keep going up in terms of number of spaces per unit you inherently limit development. In broader concept, parking is an additional cost. Many cities reducing parking downtown and leave it up to developer. In this case our discussion was directed as to how could we facilitate redevelopment of smaller lots and parking is a huge implication to that. We had earlier discussion on parking ratios. In this area – entertainment uses on ground floor parking was challenging with smaller lots. With larger ½ blocks it is easier to insert parking; very difficult to do on smaller lot. SL – so since this is related to multiple dwelling units. Should it say “at least one” – how can we be flexible enough not to burden. John Hoal – noted we could make it read “minimum is 1” SL – would that work for small lots?

7

John Hoal – minimum of one per dwelling, allows developer to go beyond that depending upon the demographic. SL- more comfortable with minimum of 1. Helen DiFate – agrees with minimum of 1. Stephanie Karr – if they make a showing of a certain things – proof of certain items – that would allow them to go down to one, then at that point in time they could go down to one. SL – likes description JH – asked what are you requiring them to prove? What do you expect? Susan Istenes – parking studies determine what parking requirements are necessary for the characteristics associated with the use. I think if we reference the requirement as a result of a parking study that will cover the issue. George Hettich – are we going back to the content of our existing regulations? Parking studies were done for mixed use. This refers to solely dwelling units. It’s fine as written. Intent in this area is to bring down parking requirements. JH – agreed. SL – looks like leaving it as one per dwelling unit is the way to go. Stephanie Karr - I’m ok with that suggestion. SL – polled board. DG – can’t we just add the words “at least” to make sure there is no ambiguity going forward? SL – agreed. SL – Building types, on page 31, section D Bay and Oriel windows. Concern is ground floor windows but I think “if approved” is the control mechanism. HD – question on page 30. The under balcony’s wording says they may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space. John what did you mean by that? “A frontage type …. Balconies may be occupied by porch or exterior patio space.” John Hoal – refers to an occupiable space. (inaudible) HD – page 31, with bay and oriel windows – like that they are limited to 6 feet in depth and length of 8 feet. Have you considered windows could be stacked and could do an 8 foot wide bay then 2 feet, another 8 foot wide bay, building would be bay windows extending 6 feet into the right of way? JH – noting a percentage of maximum areas of façade would you be comfortable if we looked at that? HD – Agreed a percentage coverage maximum would handle the issue.

8

SL – page 38, toward bottom, section 410.020. Is that part of Article IV? SI – Everything struck out in that section is part of Article 1 – it is at the beginning. It removes references to CBD and Downtown Overlay and adds the Northeast Downtown Overlay. SL- moving into Design Guidelines. HD – page 18, paragraph C. Balconies encourage on street facades but now required. Notes “false” balconies are prohibited. Prohibited across the board or just on a street façade? If across the board, then why? John Hoal – “yes” because they are false. Different then where you can have a hand rail or Juliette balcony. Can you show us examples of false balconies that represents what you are thinking about? HD – no, but ability to open doors, 6-8 inches from face, added decorative element from exterior, and from interior provided a felling of a balcony. John Hoal – I don’t see the difference. I wouldn’t call what you are talking about, a false balcony. I define it as 12-18 inches non-occupiable space. HD – I think a definition would help for false balconies. John Hoal – we will provide clarification. SL – Have the members of the original steering committee received the information where they can look at it? Susan Istenes – drafts are posted under “Pending Applications” on web site. SL – would like to pull in steering committee at next meeting to see if they have comments. Otherwise, I feel pretty good as to where we got tonight. Public Speakers: Hank Winkleman – the ideas for massing that somehow build off architecture and walk sidewalks and to have a little bit of relief as you are walking along narrow streets. I’ve had difficulty understanding what the streets would look like per your graphics. Extruding them up with a variety of setbacks, as towers extend up further and I don’t think graphic depiction is attractive, sensitive and building off our heritage. Very concerned with minutes on the June 21 – it seems like we are not going to have any open space. Has reservations and ready to share exploration sketch up which are put into power point presentation. Envisioning this I think it is your responsibility to give it a little bit of clarity. Lack of consistency and thinking. David Gipson – happy to set up a time to meet with you Hank after this meeting. Peter Barkowski – is staff report referenced available for review? Having a hard time following what was discussed.

9

Susan Istenes – noted that the reports that are on the web are the same that the Commission received. Formatting is different because it is an ordinance, updated today. Seeing no other speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing on this issue. Discussion regarding staff presentations. Susan Istenes gave a summary of the staff report presentations. Discussion centered around shortening the verbiage, items that have conflict or code requirements should be brought up, but items like lighting or trash enclosures may be noted that they meet all requirements, leaving the detail for items of importance as you described which are code items. Bob Denlow – happy with status quo. You don’t have to read it verbatim, but to highlight some of the points works for me. SL – it will be a judgement process to determine what the highlights are – the staff can make that decision as to what is critical to highlight vs what could be alluded to. Probably some parts that could have less discussion. HD – hit the highlights and summarize GH – hit highlight quick and move it through quick. GH – Should an affirmation from staff that its posted to the web site given first, then I am for a very short report reading. SL – could make that statement, but they (the public) have homework to do before the come to the meeting. Susan Istenes – everything is loaded on the web site at the same time we send this Commission an email notifying you of the availability of staff reports. SL – lets give process a try and making it available to public is very important, also. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.