Chairman Lichtenfeld also asks that anyone who speaks please spell out their last name. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 2019, were presented for approval

RON REIM – MOTION TO APPROVE JUNE 17, 2019 MINUTES AS AMENDED

JANET WATSON – SECOND

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. 4-0

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD – MOTION TO MOVE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TO THE END OF NEW BUSINESS

RON REIM – SECOND

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. 4-0

2 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN LICHTENFELD NOTES THAT THIS IS FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY AND SO THE APPLICANT MAY GET FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC.

114, 124, AND 134 GAY AVENUE – CONCEPTUAL REVIEW – NEW TOWNHOMES

Director Susan M. Istenes summarizes the following staff report: “The subject property is located on the east side of Gay Avenue, just north of Maryland Avenue. 114 Gay Avenue has a zoning designation of C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and 124 Gay Avenue has a zoning designation of R-4 Low Density Multiple Family Dwelling District. 124 Gay Avenue is also located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District (UDD). The property is currently developed with commercial buildings used as office space. Adjacent land uses include residential to the north, east and west, and office/commercial to the south.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the existing office buildings will be demolished. Two lots are proposed, each lot containing 4 attached townhomes separated by a shared twenty-foot-wide driveway. Access to the properties will be provided from this drive and parking will be located at the basement level of each unit. Townhomes are currently permitted by right in the R-4 zoning district. The commercially zoned property will have to be rezoned to R-4 to allow the proposed development and the properties will have to be replatted. Based on the submitted plan, it appears the units will fall under a condominium style of ownership.

STAFF CONSIDERATIONS:

The proposed project will require a rezoning, platting, site plan approval and architectural review board approval, prior to construction. The development will have to comply with the R-4 zoning district requirements and the zoning regulations associated with Townhouse dwellings.

As to the proposed appearance of the structures, staff suggests that applicant consider designing each townhome to look more individual in its appearance, rather than as a continuous solid mass which appears as one building. Staff also notes the elevations provided show nine units attached in a row, which conflicts with the survey/concept plan submitted and the zoning regulations. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board consider the proposal and provide input. This is conceptual review only and therefore any comments made in this report or at the meeting, either by the applicant, staff, or the Board/Commission members, are not binding.

GABE DUBOIS – THD DESIGN GROUP Lori Fumagalli – L.E. Fumgalli, INC – Architect

GD – There may or may not be some confusion. We originally submitted for two four unit buildings, at the time we were working with possibilities. At the end of last week, we submitted including the 134 Gay Avenue with two five- unit buildings instead of two four-unit buildings. The two five-unit buildings on the three properties are what we are requesting review for. 114 Gay Avenue I currently zoned C-1, 124 and 134 Gay Avenue are currently zoned R-4. We are proposing two five-unit buildings. We fill this will be great for the City of Clayton. We wanted to take full advantage the Conceptual Review process to show you where we are at not and get your feedback before we get too much farther into this process. I’d be happy to take questions from you. *shows power point of the current site and what it looks like and what is located on the lots. Shows what the elevations will look like *

I’d be happy to take questions from you. *shows power point of the current site and what it looks like and what is located on the lots. Shows what the elevations will look like *

3 The garage is a tuck under garage with individual garage spaces for each unit. You enter on the south side and pull through the garage and then pull through to the next garage that is also a tuck under and exit on the north side. These will be basement level so you will have a drop in grade from the front to the rear.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – So they would go through how many garage doors to exit the first building, three?

Ron Reim – They would have to go through a total of four garage doors.

LF – We were considering a main garage door but there are also individual garages with garage doors. This is a design in progress. It may just be that is open and you drive through because your individual garage will have a door to your unit. So it’s not necessary for that to have four garage doors.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – The individual garages would have a garage door?

LF – Yes, there are two parking spaces per unit and one is in a garage with a door and the other one is an open space.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Oh, ok. Have you considered security issues for have the two center openings open?

GD – Well, it’s similar to a lower lever parking lot but you also have a closed secure parking space and then an open space. The one in the garage has a secure entrance to the unit as well as to the garage so no.

Richard Lintz – This is a one way, correct?

GD – Yes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – I’m concerned it’s an open garage, anyone could get in there

Brian Maguire – Its no different than street parking?

Ron Reim – The one garage is closed and secure.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – I really feel we need to have secure parking for both cars. Does everyone understand how the garage works?

GD – There is a slope on the property that leads to a storm sewer inlet. We are reducing the amount of impervious coverage so there should be a reduction of the storm water runoff. We’ll follow City and MSD storm water regulations. I don’t believe that MSD is going to require a rain garden or anything like that based on these conditions.

Chairman Lichtenfeld - You have individual entrances to each units, you have at grade terraces, you have a third floor terrace which should have some pretty good views. On to the ARB – the fronts are very flat there is essentially no differentiation between the units. I do notices the arches and windows are different but they don’t really make it as dimensional as it could be. You could stagger them to add that individuality.

GD – Were on the setback lines, so if we did that it would be taking square footage from the units and it would mess with the parking garage.

Chairman Lichtenfeld – Some material changes might help. I think we agree with everything you are doing.