The proposed driveway material and the material for the front entry steps were not specified on the plans. An 8-foot-tall wood, decorative fence is proposed at the rear property line. Brick clad retaining walls with cut stone caps are proposed on both sides of the driveway and along the front stairs and porch. The proposed brick will match the primary building material of the house. Decorative, black metal railings are proposed for the balconies, porches and stairs and standing seam metal roofing is proposed for the bay windows and rear porch. The applicant is proposing a new eight-foot-tall solid wood fence with two feet of lattice on top, for a total fence height of eight feet. The proposed fence will parallel the rear

12 property line. The applicant is proposing to install the fence against the neighbor’s stone retaining wall on the east property line.

The proposed house is in conformance with the requirements of the R-4 Low Density Multi Family Dwelling District and the Architectural Review Guidelines. Staff believes the plan is compatible in terms of mass, height and design with surrounding structures.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

RESERVED).”

CHRIS PIKE (CP) – THOMAS ALLEN GROUP AJ – THOMAS ALLEN GROUP

CP – agrees with the staff report.

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – Where do the shingles go?

CP – So there was a chimney and i took it off so there will be no shingles anymore, sorry.

CAROLYN GAIDIS – Could you do glass instead of the bricked out window, like a frosted glass? I get it’s a bathroom, maybe stainless glass?

CP – It’s actually an elevator shaft so it wouldn’t look so great for people to look at that.

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED

BRIAN MAGUIRE – SECOND

ALL – AYE

PUBLIC HEARING

10 NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE – TEXT AMENDMENT – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “This is the fourth public hearing to review and consider changes suggested by the public and the Plan Commission at the June 17 Plan Commission and the June 22 Board of Aldermen meeting. Changes to the text are underlined and are predominantly located starting on page 4, Section 405.1380, including the addition of the Table.405.1380.1, starting on page 6. The last item of discussion is the point system for public benefits, which is summarized by the table.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN”.

The last item of discussion is the point system for public benefits, which is summarized by the table. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN”.

13

BOARD COMMENTS:

Chairman Lichtenfeld: I had a lot of understanding on this go around but I have a question on page 3 would a restaurant fit into retail if there were no hotel? Could retail include a public restaurant?

Susan Istenes – Yes. This is old language that is in there now and I think that it came about as a result of a very specific project where someone wanted to build a hotel and a restaurant. It has to be a public restaurant.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – It was very informative in how it was rewritten. There are some items that are definitely judgmental or subjective and one of them is the architectural distinction and signification but I don’t know how it could be clarified. More affordable housing, I’m not sure how we look at that.

Susan Istenes – When it comes to POUDs in general, we want flexibility so we don’t want to be too prescriptive in these. When I did the suggestive exercise, it is really the applicant that has to make the case for public benefit. It’s not our job to do that for them. For example Celyon, I think, argued that a smaller unit size than that was required would mean that they could rent them for less money than the other units that met or exceeded the amount required and it was an interesting argument. I thought it fit within the context of what we were talking about. So affordable housing is defined by HUD or whoever and they do calculations to say this is affordable housing for this area. From a Clayton perspective, I am not sure we are going to get there given the higher cost of living and cost to build here. So the argument of smaller units and them charging less for them makes sense.

Richard Lintz – I sent Susan an email asking if we should have negative points. So if they take out the Shanley Building, they would start with negative points and have to work their way up from that starting point. And Stephanie’s response would it would add to the complexity of the system. I think there should be acknowledgement that during the development certain benefits were lost that already existed. Maybe that’s all you say but it should be acknowledged.

Susan Istenes – Again, it is subjective to allow for flexibility in what is seen as public benefit and Clayton does not recognize the Shanley Building as a historical site. Would public underground parking be more of a benefit than keeping the Shanley Building – it is subjective. *There are no members of the public present*

RON REIM – MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS FROM THIS MEETING.

WILLIAM LIEBERMAN – SECOND

ALL - AYE

HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:00 (20:00).

______________________________ Recording Secretary