Developers ask to pause review of 71‑unit affordable building at 347 E. Gay after commission requests design revisions

City staff and the project team presented plans for CLA 2400579, a proposed six‑story, 71‑unit affordable apartment building at 347 East Gay Street that would include a concrete podium, 21 structured parking spaces on the first floor, and a mix of amenities including bike racks and a community room.

The applicant team, represented by Andrew Johnson of Development Architecture Collaborative and Courtney Geiger of the same firm, described value‑engineering changes made since the project’s prior review: “We removed some of the windows, made some tweaks to some of the more expensive materials, to go with something that's a little bit more simplistic on the façade,” Johnson said. He told the commission the massing and number of floors remain the same and that the team replaced some veneer with full‑depth cast stone and full‑depth brick, and shifted to fiber‑cement siding for durability.

Commissioners raised multiple design concerns and requested additional materials and clarifications. Commissioners asked for more variation in window sizes and a stronger top cornice or banding to better “cap” the building; they suggested less institutional railings in favor of a more residential approach and urged the applicant to submit manufacturer cut sheets showing the exact window system and muntin details so the commission could evaluate shadow lines and depth. Commissioners also discussed the project’s long‑term maintenance tradeoffs, noting the need to balance durable, low‑maintenance materials with construction costs for an affordable housing project.

The commission did not vote to approve the application. Instead, members moved to continue the case so the applicant can return with revised elevations and material details, clearer window and railing specifications, and with an owner or operator representative in attendance. Staff and applicants said they would resubmit updated materials for the next month’s agenda.

Clarifying details from the presentation included the building program (71 dwelling units; six stories), a reduction of parking shown in the current submission from 27 spaces to 21 structured parking spaces, and use of a concrete podium to allow an additional story. The applicant said certain funding requirements (referred to as OFA funding in the presentation) require covered outdoor amenity space, which informed the inclusion of a second‑floor terrace. The commission emphasized that applicants should bring full product cut sheets and owner representation at the next hearing.

The commission’s action was procedural (continuance): no formal approval or denial occurred. The applicant agreed to return to the commission after incorporating the requested changes.