Mr. Wohlschlaeger stated that although they are removing larger trees, they are adding some.

8 Parks Director DeForrest commented about the area’s large trees; one is being removed because that’s where the building is going and the other along Brentwood Boulevard is where the new streetscape is being installed. She noted that they will relocate the trees that can be relocated.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that this multi-use facility is desperately needed. He asked if there were any comments from the audience.

None were received.

A brief discussion regarding the landscape plan ensued. Director DeForrest stated that there is more greenspace with this new plan than exists today.

Mr. Testo stated that the outdoor space is like an outdoor room.

Ron Reim commented that it’s a good solution.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referenced staff recommendations.

Mr. Wohlschlaeger stated he is aware of them and they are being incorporated into the project.

Hearing no further questions or comments regarding the site plan, Ron Reim made a motion to approve the site plan as proposed per staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Scott Wilson and unanimously approved by the members.

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

Susan Istenes noted that the proposed design and building materials for the new multi-purpose facility will bring modern architecture to the southeast corner of Shaw Park. The existing ice rink building is a traditional style, primarily constructed of red brick with a gable roof and white painted pillars. The existing building is a similar style to the pool building directly north of the rink. The proposed building will still be constructed of red brick; however, metal and wood panel materials are introduced. The east-west section of the proposed building features a flat roof, while the north- south sections of the building feature angled or shed roofs. The proposed building represents a significant departure from the style of the existing building; however, it does include many elements of other recent projects within Shaw Park. The Enterprise Pavilion located west of the site feature complementary shapes and similar wood and metal building materials. Chapman Plaza located north of the site uses the same stone veneer walls with wood and metal accents. Staff recommends replacing the areas of wood panel proposed on the elevations with red brick because the reduced number of façade materials will be more compatible with adjacent buildings. Shaw Park is not located within a design district and therefore buildings within the park are not subject to specific form or building material requirements. When a proposed building is not located within a design district, staff reviews the proposed development in relation to the character of surrounding development and the goals of the building design. The existing buildings east of the project site are

When a proposed building is not located within a design district, staff reviews the proposed development in relation to the character of surrounding development and the goals of the building design. The existing buildings east of the project site are

9 multi-family tower structures or multi-story office buildings and vary in building materials and style. The proposed building will serve a different purpose than the tower structures and therefore staff believes the proposed building appropriately differs is design. Goals outlined in the Downtown Master Plan seek to create vibrant and active streets through the orientation of buildings to the sidewalk and use of storefront window systems that allow inside activity to transition outside. The proposed design brings the building to the street and uses large storefront window systems with transparent glazing to increase visibility of the interior spaces. Staff believes that the design is compatible with the goals for the Downtown area. Staff recognizes, however, that the elements of the design that are compatible with the master plan goals are not directly related to the building materials proposed and that use of more traditional building design elements, such as a gable roof, would not reduce compatibility. The existing service drive located along the west boundary of the project area will be resurfaced and slightly reconfigured, but will generally remain as it appears. All proposed walkways within the site are concrete. A 5 foot tall ornamental metal fence is proposed to enclose the ice rink area. The metal fence design is commonly found throughout the City on residential and commercial properties. Stone retaining walls are proposed in multiple places within the project area. The same stone veneer is proposed as an accent material on the building and will resemble the stone seen in Chapman Plaza. The proposed walls are either setback from walkways with a landscaping and sod buffer or part of planter bed. The trash and electric panel enclosures are located in the southwest corner of the project area. The proposed enclosures are 7 feet 10 inches tall and constructed of brick with fixed louver aluminum gates. There is also equipment proposed mounted to the flat roof at the western end of the building. The equipment will be screened by a louver metal screen. Director Istenes noted that staff is of the opinion that the design and materials of the proposed ice rink and multi-purpose building are compatible in terms of height, mass and design with nearby structures. The use of red brick as the primary building material is compatible with adjacent buildings, while the proposed roof and secondary building materials introduce modern design elements to the property. Adequate landscaping is proposed between the public sidewalks and front yard fences or walls. The proposed building will provide year round use of this area of Shaw Park and is compatible with goals for Downtown developments. She concluded by stating that staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant revise the building elevations to replace areas proposed as wood panels with red brick.

Mr. Testo presented slides depicting park photos, a floor plan of the proposed multi-purpose building (he noted that the warming room has a 2-sided fireplace), and exterior elevations.

Scott Wilson noted that staff is recommending brick instead of wood panels.

Anna Krane stated that staff feels that brick will simplify the façade and that the panels being proposed are not commonly found in Clayton.

Ron Reim commented that he’s not crazy about the idea of using panels, he’d be okay with using real wood or an alternative to natural wood; referencing Clayton on the Park (COTP).

Mr. Bogan agreed.

11

Slides depicting the streetscape design and outdoor dining space were shown.

Mr. Hull stated that they have updated the design.

Joanne Boulton asked about the balconies.

Mr. Hull stated that they are clear glass.

Mr. Hull presented elevation slides; noting that they have incorporated the metal panel on the northern garage façade.

Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that the changes are drastic. He asked if the mechanical ventilation requirement has been removed.

Mr. Hull replied “no”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked about headlights.

Mr. Hull stated that it’s not intended to block all light; but light will be reduced by 50% +/-.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked for confirmation that no vehicles will be facing north.

Mr. Hull stated he’s correct; cars that face north are on the south side. Slides depicting the east and south elevations were shown. A slide depicting a 3D model of the building was also shown.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the conversation has veered toward architectural review; he asked that it go back to the rezoning and PUD.

Ron Reim asked about the material used for the retail space.

Mr. Hull stated that it’s a resin based material composite that looks like wood. (Example: Trex). He added that to some extent it depends on the tenants.

Chairman Lichtenfeld again asked that the architectural elements be discussed later during that portion of the review.

Mr. Bogan stated that of the 324 parking spaces being proposed, 9 are ADA spaces, 283 are 9 X 18 and 32 are 9 X 22 (parallel along the ramps). He stated that there’s a potential to add 16 compact spaces (8 X 18; 6 per level). He continued by stating that currently, there are 29 hourly spaces and 103 monthly spaces; they are proposing 29 hourly spaces and 295 general spaces. A slide depicting comparative data was shown.

He continued by stating that currently, there are 29 hourly spaces and 103 monthly spaces; they are proposing 29 hourly spaces and 295 general spaces. A slide depicting comparative data was shown.

12 Chairman Lichtenfeld asked how non-residents that are parked at a metered or shared space exit the garage to access Forsyth or Brentwood Boulevards.

Mr. Bogan indicated that there will be a gate within the garage that will provide separate alley access.

Chairman Lichtenfeld voiced concern about the pedestrians.

Mr. Bogan stated that there will also be separate elevator access.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if this was included in the original plan.

Mr. Bogan replied “yes”.

Joanne Boulton asked if there is a charging station for electric vehicles.

Mr. Bogan indicated that they are still working on that.

Joanne Boulton asked that they commit to providing one.

Mr. Bogan commented that they just need a good vendor.

Ron Reim asked how the 29 hourly spaces that currently exist are consumed.

Mr. Kittner indicated that it is generally easy to find a space available.

Ron Reim commented that customers of the area restaurants use that lot; he asked if the same number of spaces are being provided by this project.

Mr. Kittner replied “yes”.

Ron Reim asked if the same arrangement will be made for the leased spaces.

Mr. Kittner replied “yes”. He added that he believes there will be generally between 50 and 100 open spaces daily.

At this time, public comments were solicited.

Gary Feder, representing Koman (KP Development), owner of adjacent property, asked that consideration of this project be continued again or, if voted on, to deny the request, based on insufficient parking. He noted that they’ve had very little time to review CBB’s report or staff’s report. He then referred to a letter from Lochmueller regarding parking.