He reminded the members that the Centene garage wall (west façade) is not what the City wanted and the out of town developer is not familiar with Clayton. Lee Cannon was asked to explain the relationship between CBB and the City.

14 Mr. Cannon explained that CBB works under contract with the City on an on-call basis to perform traffic and parking studies and do what’s best for Clayton. He noted that that they were provided a copy of Lochmueller’s report. He stated that 1.4 vehicles/unit is adequate in this case. He noted that parking peaks in the middle of the night and the 1.4 spaces per unit allows for a surplus and that 2.0 spaces per unit is heavy especially in the downtown core. He stated that they were not originally asked to look at the sizes of the parking spaces but 8 X 22 is a legal parallel size and 9 X 19 is a legal 90-degree space. He added that alleys are supposed to be used for access.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about restaurant parking.

Mr. Cannon stated that it depends on how the spaces are being used and the time of day; he noted that the lot currently contains 29 metered spaces and that the leased spaces are up for grabs during the evenings.

Joanne Boulton commented that the 29 existing spaces are not normal size.

Mr. Cannon stated that parking is a premium in Clayton.

Joanne Boulton stated that she read in the parking study produced for the City by Walker that typically, 66% of the public spaces are occupied; leaving 34% available.

Mr. Cannon concurred and added that it’s a myth that there’s no available parking. He emphasized that he believes this project is “spot-on” with regard to parking (1.2 spaces per unit needed; 1.4 spaces per unit provided).

Joanne Boulton referred to the Walker & Lochmueller Parking Studies, which were broken down by block and noted that the amount of parking available across the street was abundant.

Mr. Cannon stated that the parking Clayton has required is not full.

Joanne Boulton commented that she wants enough parking but not too much.

Mr. Cannon commented that he often disagrees with applicants with regard to traffic, but it’s in the applicant’s best interest to provide ample parking.

Brian Maguire asked how long the City’s parking regulations have required 2 spaces per apartment unit.

Director Istenes stated she would have to research that, but it’s been quite a while. She added that a benefit of a PUD is that specifics of the project are analyzed and experts relied upon.

Director Istenes stated she would have to research that, but it’s been quite a while. She added that a benefit of a PUD is that specifics of the project are analyzed and experts relied upon.

15 Mr. Cannon stated that he believes some day the parking per unit ratio will fall below 1 space per unit; however, that’s not appropriate for Clayton today.

Ron Reim asked about Cincinnati.

Mr. Cannon stated he didn’t know; he’d have to do a study. He noted he’s been in this area for 23 years.

Mr. Kittner informed the members that the suburb of Cleveland (not high-rise) is at 1 space per unit; Cincinnati high-rise is 1.1 space per unit.

Gary Feder pointed out that CBB works for the City with fees being reimbursed by the developer and that Lochmueller is the City’s alternate {to CBB} firm. He asked for an operational parking plan and a commitment for those 132 public spaces. He stated again that 324 spaces is underbuilt and reminded everyone that this is not a plan for the entire block.

Ron Reim asked if KP is ready to move forward with a development plan.

Gary Feder informed the members that KP tried to meet with representatives of the City and that they are ready to work with the City; he stated there’s no reason for urgency.

Ron Reim stated that he does not believe this was rushed; this project began 1 ½ years ago with a conceptual presentation held back in February and a meeting back in October. He stated that the City asked for more information which was not received.

Joanne Boulton asked the City’s Economic Developer, Gary Carter, to summarize the April, 2015 Request For Proposal (RFP).

Gary Carter explained that in early 2015, the City issued a RFP for the entire block (beyond the City lot); 4 responses were received and the City felt this proposal (Flaherty & Collins) was in the best interest of the City. Afterwards, Koman Properties approached the City asked that Flaherty & Collins reconsider their position and work the whole block.

Mr. Kittner indicated that their firm (F & C) was selected in May of 2016 and that they were asked to work with KP on a shared development project; at the end of the day they were asked to purchase their property. In April their concerns were shared; in October, a meeting between them and the City and KP was held and they were asked to hold off on the project; the last he’s heard KP has not responded.

Joanne Boulton asked Mr. Kittner if Flaherty & Collins feel they put forth a good effort.

Mr. Kittner replied “yes”.

The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

9:00 p.m. Chairman Lichtenfeld called for a break.

17 The meeting resumed at 9:18 p.m.

PLAT – 8049 FORSYTH BOULEVARD

Susan Istenes explained that the proposed plat adjusts two property boundary lines to dedicate 1,456 square feet to public right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication will widen the existing east- west and north-south alleys from 20 feet wide to the City standard 24 feet wide. The adjusted lot will measure 36,089 square feet. Staff is of the opinion that the lot is consistent with the lots located in the immediate area with regard to size, frontage and arrangement and recommends approval to the Board of Aldermen with the following conditions:

Subdivision Ordinance requirements after Board of Aldermen approval;