The 2.4-acre site is located along the western city limits at the southwest corner of Maryland Avenue and Gay Avenue and has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD). On May 12, 2015, the Board of Aldermen approved plans for a 273,500 square foot, five-story building located on top of a two-level, partially below grade

2 parking structure. The building is currently under construction and will contain 4,526 square feet of ground floor retail and live/work units, 229 residential units and 352 parking spaces. The 1,457- square-foot tenant space is located at the northeast corner of the building fronting Maryland Avenue. The business will offer indoor, one-on-one and small group personal training. The maximum number of clients at one time typically does not exceed five people. In addition to personal training services, the business will sell fitness related products such as health and nutrition guides, vitamin supplements, energy bars and clothing. The proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. Conditional uses are those types of uses that are considered to be desirable, necessary or convenient to the community but which by their nature can create additional traffic volume, parking demand beyond the development's capacity, and/or a detrimental impact on adjacent or neighboring properties due to noise, pollutants or other characteristics associated with that particular use. Health clubs/fitness centers are permitted in this zoning district subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Training activities will take place indoors during normal business hours, consistent with other nearby businesses. Outdoor activities are not proposed at this time. Traffic impacts for the entire site were reviewed and approved through the Planned Unit Development process. The proposed health club will provide personal training and fitness training to individuals and small groups. Large group classes are not proposed. Due to the nature of the proposed business, staff does not anticipate a substantial increase in vehicular traffic volumes. Automobile and bicycle parking for the entire site was reviewed and approved through the Planned Unit Development process. Additional parking is not required for this use. The proposed health club will provide personal training and fitness training to individuals and small groups. Large group classes are not proposed. Due to the nature of the proposed business, staff does not believe that the noise associated with this use will be disruptive to the surrounding area. Director Istenes stated that staff is of the opinion that the proposed use meets the criteria for conditional use permit approval and recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that onsite fitness classes and training shall be limited to indoor areas only.

Mr. Eisenberg informed the members that he operates two other locations and that there are a total of forty nation-wide. He stated he is excited to bring his business to Clayton.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that the floor plan provided only shows his tenant space. He asked the applicant if his business will occupy about one-third of the first floor of the building.

Paul Langdon, Covington Realty Partners, property owner, replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there is a second way out of the space.

Mr. Eisenberg indicated that there is a rear exit door.

Ron Reim asked for confirmation that there will be no outside activity.

Mr. Eisenberg confirmed that there will never be outside activity.

Mr. Eisenberg confirmed that there will never be outside activity.

3 Hearing no further questions or comments and hearing none from the audience, Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a motion.

Ron Reim made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the Board of Aldermen with the condition that on-site fitness classes and training shall be limited to indoor areas only. The motion was seconded by Joanne Boulton and unanimously approved by the members.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about timing.

Mr. Eisenberg stated that it depends on how quickly the building is up and ready.

Chairman Lichtenfeld welcomed Mr. Eisenberg to Clayton.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW – ADDITION TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE – 6319 ALEXANDER DRIVE

Lauren Strutman, project architect, was in attendance at the meeting. Also in attendance were the owners, Scott & Elisabeth Meyland-Smith.

Susan Istenes explained that the existing two-story home measures 3,578 square feet, and the proposed project consists of the construction of a two-story, 425-square-foot rear addition and a 640-square-foot attached garage at the rear of the home. Because the combined square footage of the additions is less than 50 percent of the total square footage of the home, Site Plan Review is not required. Because the combined square footage of the additions is greater than 750 square feet, Architectural Review is required. Subdivision trustee approval has been submitted. The additions are located at the rear of the home and are not visible from the street. The primary building materials for the proposed additions are red brick with light brown fiber cement board siding. The proposed roof of the addition will be clad in gray architectural asphalt shingles, and tan casement windows are proposed. A tan colored carriage style garage is proposed. All building materials will match the existing home. The plans show the HVAC units located on the right side of the home and screened by a wood fence. Based on the number of bedrooms, a 40-square-foot trash enclosure is required; however, it is not shown on the plans. An existing concrete driveway provides access from the street to an existing rear entry garage. The applicant proposes to remove and replace the rear portion of the existing driveway with concrete. With respect to driveways, the City’s Architectural Guidelines read as follows:

To eliminate the appearance of "a sea of concrete", the driveway should be exposed aggregate, brick pavers or stamped concrete.

Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the intent of this guideline is to apply to driveways that are visible from public streets. Because the front portion of the driveway will remain in place and the driveway in the rear will be replaced with the same material to maintain visual conformity, so therefore, staff supports the use of concrete for the driveway replacement.