Dead feel to downtown Clayton, currently – are we looking at it the wrong way? Maybe having them up against the line isn’t a bad thing aesthetically and the

7

fundamental issues previously noted the width of the sidewalk is secondary, we don’t have enough people to use them. Carolyn Gaidis – we are trying to build what we have already, good businesses and good restaurants. H3 has come up with the plan and we are now trying to find the dimensions of what would create the space people want to be in. Bob Denlow – characterized Clayton downtown is just restaurants; real estate so expensive can’t support dying retail. Fundamental question is not whether having wider sidewalks is going to do anything, ground floor uses we need more of and market controls what goes on ground floor. Ira Berkowitz – Have to start somewhere with making the City conducive to foot traffic; if having sidewalks people don’t want to walk on is going to be a negative. Make sure we have plenty of room. Good for us to have a standard. How do we set city up with our infrastructure so that we start somewhere with building what we want to see happen in the City? Steve Lichtenfeld – title of page 5 is “form standards”, if form of a building is carefully developed it may affect use of building or use in different ways. Allowing the developer to make decision on how to use it instead of us telling them how to use it might be the best way to go. The existing numbers may not be right, but we should be dealing with the form sidewalk and setback usage. Doubt an arcade a full block long that would be used consistently with the setback. Growing concerned with full flock setback that could be seen as a full arcade. George Hettich provided examples of existing businesses. Suggested change to code to read: Ground floor facades will be set back from the build to line for open air seating or other programmatic uses up to a maximum of ___(blank)____________, upper level façade should be built to the build to line then upper floor stepbacks would be required. Discussion about useful life of buildings and location of restaurants, width of sidewalks, protection of right of way, dedication of private property, moving property line/build to line, easements, etc. protecting sidewalks, not allow encroachment to go further, etc. Tim Breihan – if we establish a “shall requirement” then a minimum and maximum percentage depth needs to be specified. 6 foot minimum and 12 foot maximum seem reasonable. Instead of specifying a defined numerical value we could say it has a minimum average of 6 feet or maximum average of 12 feet and would permit additional flexibility; 25 to 80 percent seems acceptable. 80 percent may be a bit high perhaps, 70-75 percent. Do we want to set a maximum because we don’t want an involved arcade being developed? I think it is a matter of what percentage requirement makes sense given the desired urban form. Believes this is the right approach based on what everyone has expressed as their desired outcome tonight. Public Speaker – Hank Winkelman - sidewalk and pedestrian experience is significant on Maryland. What does it look like? Balconies projecting out on Maryland Walk over the setback and are landscaped? Are any balconies going to project out over the private property seems to me they only need to extend out as far as their property line. Maryland reminds me of Hanley. Ragged, uneven not very attractive and intersections are gateways to the City. Conversation regarding what form and uses are and look at graphics that a consultant can produce that will show you what it will look like with the proposed setbacks. Look at it that way – form based code then develop the form. What is there now is

Look at it that way – form based code then develop the form. What is there now is

8

unattractive and whether pedestrian line or control of projections it doesn’t work. The 6 foot concept was a way of giving the intentions of all of the developers a chance to grow and the uniqueness of all of these sites. Suggest return to developing the form then go to the law to in essence allow it to be created. Helen DiFate – questioned allowing build to line to be setback 6 feet and then the second floor above would be at 0 feet, if I do that with my building, may I have columns coming down from the second floor or must I cantilever it? Steve Lichtenfeld – would have to allow columns coming down for the structural integrity of building. Helen Di Fate- then I am building to 0 build to line, I am just carving out pieces to allow for outdoor dining. Steve Lichtenfeld – yes, but you won’t gain rentable interior space by building that way. Helen DiFate – we are saying you need to build to 6 foot setback for a certain percentage maximum but if I bring columns down then my building can be at that 0 building to line. Concerned over how the language could be manipulated. Steve Lichtenfeld– exception on page 5 notes façade; faced is different from structure of building. Helen DiFate – agrees with that distinction but is that routine? David Gipson – we could take care of that in the definition section. Can’t imagine columns will be 6 feet deep you will have space between columns and building. Steve Lichtenfeld– don’t want to leave this undefined where it may come back in the future. Ira Berkowitz – Board was looking for the PC to weigh in on this issue. Where do we go from here? Helen DiFate – suggested to give Tim some time to digest what we’ve decided on tonight and to see if that has other ramifications that we haven’t considered and come back with his recommendations. Carolyn Gaidis – suggested another meeting for ARB to come together and discuss as this is a complex issue. George Hettich – agree we need to continue public hearing. Steve Lichtenfeld – prefers Tim gives us his thoughts and professional recommendations. Ira Berkowitz – ok with giving Tim some time to come back with a recommendation. Tim Breihan – agreed to study and determine if there are any unforeseen pitfalls or concerns that arrive from this approach. Steve Lichtenfeld moved that the meeting be continued to next regularly scheduled meeting. So moved. Educational Discussion Susan Istenes presented the proposed training/educational proposal for Plan Commission discussion for future agendas.