Secondly – incremental upgrades of sidewalks widths specifically along north central through and during development of property by developers can be used to provide wider sidewalks, as done with Ceylon De elopement. 1. Developer reconstructs sidewalks adjacent to their property If PC wishes to continue

6

investigation of revised Setback requirements particularly if it comes to requiring a mandatory ground floor setback (by requiring a mandatory setback of a min percentage). Implications need to be modeled using 3D digital models as done previously, in order to fully understand physical form implicatins on different size parcels/developments in order to decide exactly what impacts are and what dimneiosnal requirements could be incorporated or revised into dimensional standards. If PC wishes to move forward with this recommendation to do some 3 dimensional modeling on different sized parcels in order to determine what dimensional requirements that could be incorporated or revised into standards, what those specific requirements would be. David Gipson – talking about changing setbacks potentially and we don’t know exactly what those implications would be to building massing and from the ground. Without a visual representation it’s difficult to feel comfortable on this issue. Tim Breihan – two examples outlined in memo, we mentioned in the discussion of design considerations, there are lots that are 25 feet in width where the overlay standards would apply. One discussions at last hearing, revising to state ground floor facades must be setback to a minimum average of 6 feet up to max average 12 feet min 25 percent façade length up to a max of 75 percent facade length, on 25 foot wide lot – 6 x 6 foot inset which wouldn’t be useful for any of programmatic purposes discussed previously. Reviewed Ceylon that does have in sets. While they are not 6 foot min depth, there are 60 – 65 feet of total ground floor façade length that is setback on the north central ave façade for a total faced length of 218 feet, which means 27-29 percent of total faced length is set back. Those are individual store front insets, even if setback to proposed 6 feet, we don’t believe that will meet the intent of providing programmatic space. Needs careful consideration to make space is usab le and how the space is treated and how use of space is monitored by city in order to ensure intent of updates is achieved. Bob Denlow – noted strong sentiment to protect sidewalks for walkability and to figure out a setback formula for open air uses are available to buildings and that the uses now and in the future, so if our goal is to protect sidewalks for public benefit and not have private uses encroach. Do you feel we are at a point to move forward or do we have to do this modeling? Tim Breihan - it’s important to make a distinction - are there certain type of sidewalk uses in public ROW that the commission considers to be a positive contributor to the character and vitality of an entertainment district. Our opinion that having outdoor dining in particular is something that is very important to have a vibrant and active sidewalk environment, but it doesn’t need to occur everywhere and works best when concentrated on a particular block or street. Has to be implemented m managed and operated to still preserve public use of sidewalk. Any use by private business for outdoor programmatic use undesirable or it is more of an issue that we want those uses but have to be done in such a way there has to be a comfortable use of sidewalk. Ira Berkowitz – having stationary objects that precludes free flow – have to find necessary pockets to see that occur – entertainment. Tim – maintaining consistency with other overlays (Entertainment overlay). Our reading that ordinance seems to clearly support and encourage outdoor dining and retail uses. Because it is part of what we were tasked for studying, that is certainly a priority that we were being responsive to but perhaps that is no longer the desired condition or concerns that impact dining and retail uses can have (negative) on

Our reading that ordinance seems to clearly support and encourage outdoor dining and retail uses. Because it is part of what we were tasked for studying, that is certainly a priority that we were being responsive to but perhaps that is no longer the desired condition or concerns that impact dining and retail uses can have (negative) on

7

broader use of sidewalk. Understanding form implications and how long terms management of setback areas. From a form standpoint – it’s fair to say that what a boutique or storefront retailer is going to want in terms of accessibility they are not going to want a mandatory 6 foot setback area particularly if it is not required to be maintained as a publicly setback on private property – it will reduce the visibility and retail accessibility from a sidewalk. For dining it can be different. Can have useful patio area that goes back – when weather is nice can be welcome and inviting for passersby. What happens 5-6 month out of year when it is too cold – how is that space activated and what is it used for? Intent is providing contextual and compatible building forms that can support a variety of ground floor uses over time. One concern with this approach is you are tailoring a building for a specific use in this case dining, within the parcel boundary but that is a form condition that is not conducive to other non-dining commercial or commercial/retail uses on ground floor. Would that then make those ground floor units less desirable if no market for a restaurant? Then you have a building designed for a specific set of uses then building to becomes less desirable over time Bob Denlow – we wanted to protect our existing sidewalk- what are we doing to private developer? Why mandate a developer to recess back when that use may not be usable for 6-8 months out of the year and only for a restaurant. in any of these cases – what are these spaces used for? Tim Breihan– is it possible to require public infrastructure improvements of developer under a by right overlay? One approach (larger developments) – require developer to make sidewalk improvements; if smaller, in lieu of improvements collect a fee to support future improvements of adjacent sidewalks. Ira Berkowitz – Board’s desire is for pedestrian experience. Buildings built up to sidewalk doesn’t add to your pedestrian experience. Bob Denlow – summary – want wider sidewalks and areas for outdoor activities, under that scenari preservation of existing space is a minimum but goal is to widen it. It will be difficult to require a developer to dedicate. Ira- discussed additional levels to building or other benefits for developer dedicating space for public. David Gipson – ½ blocks that are left on Central, unless you have full block, those lots are not deep so once you require 6 foot setback and a stepback, not sure you have capability to go up in those particular spots if we were to require setbacks Don’t want to drive people to PUD because they are trying to avoid the overlay. That’s why modeling is important. Helen DiFate – agrees with David. Going up an extra floor may not be economical. There is a ratio of floor area to core that works. It could discourage development especially because of shallow lots. I don’t think moving building back 6 feet is not going to allow dining without encroaching on public sidewalk. Tim Breihan– summary – it’s not an easy solution but it’s important to note this is not unique to Clayton. Ultimately what we need to do is to get everyone around a table and understand various stakeholder perspectives and what ultimately are we trying to achieve and that will point us in the direction for the most appropriate solution. Public Speakers: