Nays: Sherry Eisenberg. Motion carries.

22 Susan Istenes stated that the site plan will now be reviewed; noting that staff recommends approval with the conditions contained in the SDD amendment report and that approval would be contingent upon approval of the amended SDD by the Board of Aldermen.

Mr. Clawson commented that some items relate to architectural issues.

Chairman Lichtenfeld indicated that some do relate to one another. He asked about the potential bank drive-through.

Mr. Clawson presented various options with regard to a drive-through facility.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that it seems very difficult.

Mr. Clawson stated that the amount of traffic would be minimal.

Ron Reim commented that it seems to be a key component of the site plan.

Mr. Novelly voiced his concern as there are five banks who are currently interested.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if the loading dock area has sufficient turn-around.

Mr. Clawson replied “for 53 foot trucks, yes”. He stated that their loading dock area is similar to other buildings.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if they would go left out of the site to head east on Forsyth.

Mr. Clawson replied “yes”; noting that a right turn would be difficult.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if there would be a conflict with the generator.

Mr. Clawson indicated that their engineering department is working on that with Ameren.

Ron Reim commented that elevating the first floor drives the ramp and the fountain used to screen the drive-through works against the Master Plan.

Mr. Clawson indicated that they had a struggle with the sloping grade issue and that due to what’s underground, the building had to be elevated.

Mr. Novelly stated that it is in keeping with their other buildings, which are not conducive to a pedestrian view.

Mr. Clawson presented a slide depicting three site plan options on how to accommodate the required bicycle racks and how to achieve the recommendations made by the City’s contracted

Mr. Clawson presented a slide depicting three site plan options on how to accommodate the required bicycle racks and how to achieve the recommendations made by the City’s contracted

23 architect. He stated that Apogee wants to lease one side of the first floor to one large tenant, likely a restaurant. He asked that they be allowed to stay with the design as presented.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked where the valet will be if there is a single tenant restaurant.

Mr. Clawson indicated that they will work with the restaurant and the City.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that he likes the idea of the landscaping in front, but a restaurant tenant will want that area for outdoor dining.

Mr. Novelly stated that they would have to provide an exhaust system and that because of that, a restaurant requiring a hood system may be prohibited.’’

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that there may be a need for a series of doors along the building front.

Mr. Novelly indicated that he would be okay with that; he assumed there would be one tenant.

Ron Reim noted that a restaurant of that size traditionally needs a hood system.

Mr. Novelly stated that 3,700 square feet is hardly large by Clayton’s standards.

A discussion regarding bicycle racks ensued. Louis Clayton informed the members that bicycle racks adjacent to an alley is not ideal and it is preferred they be located within 50 feet, in a visible location. He reminded the members that the bicycle rack requirement can be waived. A discussion about providing some bicycle racks in the garage ensued.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Mark Winings made a motion to approve per staff recommendations and that the location of bicycle racks be approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.

The architectural aspects of the project were now up for review.

Ron Reim asked about the sun canopy; noting that it is not shown on the site plan. He asked if any of it projects over the property line.

Mr. Clawson noted that this is a zero lot line property and the canopy projects 10 feet from the building. He stated that it is 215-feet above grade and that the alley is owned by the same person, so they can initiate an air rights easement to themselves. He indicated that the lower canopy over the steps does not project over the property line.

Susan Istenes asked for clarification that the canopy is within the boundaries of the property.