Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Institutional Development Healthcare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB approves new BJC medical building and adjacent renovations at 400 North Rock Hill and 330 North Gore Avenue
Summary
After extended review of materials, mechanical screening, stone selection and fencing, the board approved the proposed new hospital building at 400 North Rock Hill and related work at 330 North Gore Avenue, with discussion focused on EIFS color, stone pattern, mechanical screening visibility, sign placement and a fence height question.
The Webster Groves Architectural Review Board voted to approve BJC’s proposed new medical building at 400 North Rock Hill Road and related renovations at 330 North Gore Avenue after reviewing additional views, material samples and details of mechanical screening and fencing.
Greg Ratcher of BJC and an expanded design and construction team described revisions the project team provided after the board’s prior meeting: additional perimeter views showing limited street‑level visibility of rooftop mechanical units, a colored site plan and a rendering that clarified where different fence types would be located, and physical material samples for brick, manufactured stone and metal panels. The design team said the building is a prototype previously completed elsewhere and that some proportions (canopy height and mechanical equipment placement) reflect operational requirements, including clearance for emergency and delivery vehicles.
Board discussion focused on several aesthetic and technical items: the color and use of EIFS (a darker EIFS band is proposed above windows and a lighter band at the roofline), whether the manufacturing stone pattern should match the campus’ existing native limestone (the design team said they are using an ashlar manufactured stone to complement the campus), the visual impact and clustering of rooftop mechanical screens (the team provided multiple view angles and noted tree cover and grade make the screens minimally visible from public rights‑of‑way), and signage placement (board suggested keeping major signage below a prominent stone band so it does not obscure the architectural element). A board member also raised a fence height question: standard institutional maximums were cited at 10 feet, while the project team described a 12‑foot fence requested for internal security needs; the board said the fence is largely interior and not visible to the public but agreed to verify applicable code or permit requirements with staff.
After those clarifications and with materials on the table, the board approved both addresses “as submitted.” The approval included the design details presented, and the board indicated it expects finalized shop drawings and any separate sign permits to follow the standard permitting process.
