SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

ON DESIGN OF LOT 5 AND THE WALLACE PARKING DECK

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29 , 2005 AT 3:00 P.M.

Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Representatives of Ram Development were Susan Tjarksen-Roussos, Ivy Greaner, Kimberly Horne and Alan Moore.  Others working with Ram Development present were John Felton with Cline Design Associates, Josh Gurlitz of GGA Architects, and Allen Jones and Chris Hayler with Skanska USA.

Mr. John Stainback, the Town’s consultant on these projects, was also present.

Item 1 – Discussion of Key Project Design Issues from the

June 20, 2005 Work Session

1a.       Architectural Styles.

Ivy Greaner said they had put together a number of photographs of different architectural styles from all over the country, and the idea is not to say they would pick any one architectural style, but what they were looking for was feedback from the Council on what they saw in those photographs that appealed to them, that were interesting, so that when they came back with a design it would be something that the Council found acceptable.

Ms. Greaner asked the Council to keep in mind as they looked at the photographs that they wanted feedback on what they saw, for instance that a canopy was interesting or the lighting or the windows were promising.  She said that would give them a sense of which direction they were heading and not propose a design that the Council would not approve.

Ms. Greaner said that Mr. Gurlitz would take the Council through each of the photographs, and she and her associates would take notes of the Council’s comments.  After that, she said, they would answer the questions the Council had posed on June 20, and then end with some information on the Wallace Deck.

Mr. Stainback asked if this would be interactive, in that questions could be asked and responses given during the presentation.  Ms. Greaner said that was correct.

Mr. Gurlitz said he was pleased to be a part of the creative, imaginative project, noting he was a long time supporter of the downtown.  He said that what they were going to do now was a critical task.

Mr. Gurlitz said as they went through the photographs, it was important to note that the buildings would not be a template for the building they were going to do but were chosen because they were similar in scale.  He noted they appear in environments that may or may not be close to what they were doing here.  Mr. Gurlitz asked that the photographs be looked at in the abstract, and asked the Council to look at the details, the overall impact, and tell them what they liked.

Mr. Gurlitz said he had three suggestions for basics, and hoped that would be a good place to start.  First, he said, there were no wrong answers, but they need some answers.  Mr. Gurlitz said if you like the form and hate the brick, speak out.  He said they don’t have anything invested in these images, adding that the buildings were chosen to show a range of possibilities.

Mr. Gurlitz said the second basic was that this was their job, which was to get a better idea of what the Council believed would be successful in this location.  He said the Council did not have to worry about loving or hating the buildings, about hurting any of the staff’s feelings, they just needed to let them know what they were thinking.

Mr. Gurlitz said the third and last basic was that they wanted the Council to respond to all of the images. He asked them to interrupt if he moved too quickly.

Mr. Gurlitz began his presentation, noting there would be about 18 slides with a range of two to three buildings on each slide.  He described the first slide.

Slide 1

Council Member Verkerk - liked the use of color.  In the image on the upper left, there was a pediment that seemed to have no use and no rationale reasoning for being there, which she found irritating.

Council Member Ward – also liked the use of color.

Mayor Foy - agreed with Council Member Verkerk, that the image of the apartments looked liked standard construction with something stuck on it to dress it up.  Regarding the image on the lower left, he did not want a tropical feel and sometimes colors helped convey that.

Council Member Greene - agreed with all of those comments, adding that the top left image was generic and not a genre they were interested in.  Color contrast was interesting.  Style of image on the right with a flat roof was a modern genre and a cliché of architecture today, and was not interested in contemporary clichés.

Council Member Strom – agreed with Council Member Greene about building on the right.  Particularly liked the difference in heights.  Said if those buildings were on Franklin Street that in 15 years they would look dated.

Mr. Stainback – relationship of the building to the sidewalk looked tight.  Does not look to have an opportunity for interaction, such as an outdoor café.

Council Member Hill – liked the windows and the roof on one image. Liked art deco, and would consider it.

Council Member Greene – art deco not out of the question, but clichés are.

Slide 2

Mayor Foy – building on the right looks like a dormitory or classroom on campus.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if the Council liked the setback balconies on the building on the left, noting it was a design preference style that would affect the building envelope.

Council Member Verkerk – did not like setback balconies; gave the appearance of cubicles.  Building had faux facade with Roman architecture, not something she liked.  Did like the arches.

Council Member Hill – said building on the right was brick in front but different on the side, noting it looked like houses in subdivisions that had brick in the front and vinyl siding elsewhere to save money.  Did not admire that.

Council Member Greene – agreed with Council Member Hill’s comments.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if the Council had to choose between brick and stucco, which would one they choose?

Mayor Foy – stucco.  Liked setback balconies for appearance but would not want to live in one.

Council Member Verkerk – protruding balconies and stucco.

Council Member Kleinschmidt – because balconies were recessed, the building looked more massive.

Council Member Ward – if building was facing south it might make sense to have setback balconies to get relief from the sun, but if north facing if would make the setback balconies too dark.  That would not appeal to him.  Image on the left reminded him of the Spartan 60s or 70s with pre-cast concrete.  Minimalist and too angular for him; did not respond well to it overall.

Council Member Greene – balcony on a pre-cast concrete building may look Spartan and sterile; hard question to answer in the abstract.  Should be specific to the design.

Council Member Hill – image on left looked like something between a 1960s housing project and something built in Holland.  Would like to see two versions of those buildings right next to each other on the lot.  Would not mind seeing two divergent styles close together.

Mr. Gurlitz asked if balconies were useful in a project such as this.  He said they would think about it as a marketing standpoint, but wanted to know what the Council thought.  Mr. Gurlitz asked if they added quality of life to the people in the buildings, or do they think that as they develop this new vision that other things should take the place of balconies.

Council Member Strom – liked balconies, and liked them in different locations with different setbacks.  Did not like large buildings that had long rows of balconies.  Believed balconies were attractive to those living there; provided private outdoor space; for some they would provide spectacular views.

Council Member Greene – balconies on orange building in previous slide were good because they had a solid front and personal belongings would not be visible from the street.  Liked a combination of different types.

Mr. Stainback – floor to ceiling windows would increase rental rates, which in turn would increase the returns to the Town.  Noted there was always a cost factor and a return factor to consider.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins – balconies usually look the same from the outside.  This might be a place where public art could interface with the buildings.

Council Member Harrison – sees a theme of lots of glass in these slides.  The more glass the better.  Agreed it would have an effect on returns to the Town.

Council Member Ward – favored balconies.  Added to the quality of life for those living there, and could add to the texture and interest of the buildings.

Mr. Stainback – in previous slide, the type of balcony on the image to the left looked like a closet.  Did not believe they wanted that on Franklin Street.

Slide 3

Council Member Ward – liked the image in the bottom right corner. Liked the way the design made the building appear to move gracefully.  Liked the gradual change in position for each successive balcony and the fact that it fanned out to provide a view for more people.  Would like to provide something similar in Chapel Hill.

Mayor Foy – did not like the use of so much glass. Would like to see a mixture.

Council Member Ward – glass should be used for daylighting; should not be used casually but should serve some useful purpose.

Council Member Kleinschmidt – liked the use of glass in other examples, but in this example it goes too far.

Council Member Greene – liked what Council Member Ward said about the building almost moving because of its curve.  Interesting idea; might be an idea for the building fronting Franklin Street.  Would like to see the building on Franklin and Columbia not have a hard edge; if building curved it may give some line of sight around the corner.

Ms. Greaner asked if the Council liked overall that type of style.

Mayor Foy – liked the different materials used and different textures with the wood, steel and water.  Liked the lighting and the angle; showed a lot of thought and made it attractive.

Council Member Greene – liked the rich colors of the wood; found it appealing.

Council Member Ward – liked the clean lines, but at the same time it had warm elements in terms of the wood and the lighting that gave it a welcoming appeal.  Liked the openness that the glass provided.

Council Member Strom – found both buildings to be enormous.  Disagreed with the notion that we have a curved building on Franklin Street to allow people to look around the corner. Elements in this slide he liked were the exposed structural steel and pattern created and rhythm as you walked in, liked the exposed aggregate sidewalk for texture, and water feature was nice.

Council Member Ward – believed most people responded positively to water, but cautioned that they be careful to use it as a feature that made sense.

Slide 4

Council Member Hill – did not like the elevations on either building, but liked the top three of four floors of each.  Did not like what was underneath those floors.

Council Member Greene – tops of the buildings are styles you can see in every major city.  Looked like a style built in the 1990s, and had been done and done again until it looked like a factory building.

Council Member Kleinschmidt – agreed with Council Member Greene.  Have buildings such as this in Durham that were factories converted into other uses.  We don’t have factories here.

Slide 5

Council Member Verkerk – liked canopy in center photograph; looked like it could withstand wear over time rather than shredding.  In right photo liked the solid run of glass on the second floor, which would be good for a restaurant.  Liked the intimacy of these buildings.

Council Member Ward – in center photo liked the translucent covering makes for diffused lighting during the day without having total shade.  Liked the exposed wood framing, which warmed it up.  In image on the left, liked the more detailed decorative treatment at the top.  Another way art could be expressed in these buildings.  Liked the way it diverged from the rectangle, with some more interesting angles than just 90 degree angles.

Council Member Strom – agreed with Council Member Verkerk’s statement about the second floor windows on the building on the right.  Would prefer an arcade rather than the storefronts and the way they were configured here.  In center image, liked the translucent material with the open framing, but here it looked as if it had been “plopped” onto the building for no particular reason.  Preferred elements that had some utility. Said Louisville had used some of these translucent coverings where they had actually covered streets between buildings, which created a wonderful space on their city sidewalks.  Could imagine using materials like this in the interior courtyard to create some of the exterior space that would be protected somewhat from weather and become design elements of the public space on the interior.

Council Member Greene – center photo looked like a classy shopping mall.  Agreed with much of what Council Member Strom had said.  Regarding photo with water at the entrance, liked the beams and exposed structural elements, noting they were real and part of the structure.  Suggested combining that with this awning as part of the structure.  In photo on left, if they were going to have columns, which she would not prefer, she would like them to be structural and not just decorative.

Council Member Harrison – in center photo, those windows were as good as or better than those he had supported before.  Does much the same thing.

Mayor Foy – something about the building on the right that was cold and not welcoming, maybe because it was flat.  To him it said “don’t come in this store unless you have a whole bunch of money.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt – agreed with Mayor Foy, adding he did not like that one at all.  Actually made worse by the full wall of glass at the top, which enhanced the sterility of the space.  Everything appeared to be too clean and dead, adding there was nothing there he wanted to touch.  In the center image, liked the different use of materials.  Regarding wrapping corners, he did not like the Aveda building on Franklin Street that wrapped on the corner, saying it was too reflective.  Glass that let you see inside made the space more intimate in that you were a part of it and allowed to be in it.  The image on the right told him he was not allowed to be there.

Ms. Greaner said there were only about 10 minutes left for this portion of the meeting, and suggested providing less description of the slides so that the Council could use the remaining time for comments.

Mayor Foy suggested that Mr. Gurlitz go through each slide without interruption, and when he was done the Council could make comments.

Council Member Ward said the slides were selected for a purpose, and if it could be pointed out what particular feature they wanted the Council to notice, then they could focus on that.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed each of the slides for a few moments, then went back and gave a brief description of each.

Slide 6

Council Member Verkerk – liked the curves on the building to the right.  Did not like the one of the left.

Council Member Hill – liked the image on the left.  Don’t have anything like that in Chapel Hill, but thought it was creative and different.  Would make him happy if we did.

Council Member Harrison – would like some curves in those buildings, probably not on the Franklin Street frontage but there would be a good use for them somewhere.

Slide 7

Council Member Ward – both images too much for him.  Too much color.

Mayor Foy – liked the form.

Slide 8

Council Member Hill – looked like cost-effective multi-unit housing that was not using traditional materials, which was different and what he liked about it.  One looked like it had planking on the side and one looked like it had tar paper, which he was sure that was not what it was but at the same time at least someone was doing something that was different.

Council Member Ward – did not want anything like that in the downtown.

Council Member Kleinschmidt – liked the windows in the image on the top left, noting they were different kinds of windows and not the regular pattern normally seen.  May not be appropriate for the downtown, and what he was referring to was that it was not just pulled out of a design book.

Council Member Verkerk – did not like the windows that came out like the ones in the image on the right.

Slide 9

Council Member Verkerk – upper left photo looks like a very confused building.  Does not know what it wants to be and looks like someone had a lot of things left over and it was put on that building.

Slide 10

Mr. Gurlitz asked if anyone liked the use of color and projected elements in this slide.

Mayor Foy – said he did not like the one on the left, adding it appeared that something “had landed there.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt – it was a little “Montreal, 1968.”

Council Member Strom – liked the inset walkway there and the use of stainless rails.  Liked the structural elements that were visible.

Mayor Foy – liked the one on the right; liked the variety.

Slide 11

Council Member Ward – liked the curve of the building on the right.  Said that curves needed to respond to a need, so if it were curved around the public space oval it would make sense.

Council Member Harrison – agreed with Council Member Ward.

Mayor Foy – brick made it look too industrial.

Council Member Verkerk – too much red brick.

Council Member Ward – said we needed to be who we are, and our building materials in Chapel Hill are established and for good reason.  To diverge widely from that would not make sense.  He said it needed to be an authentic building material for this place, and in many cases that was brick.  Did not want it to be too heavy or industrial, but needed to use materials that were indigenous to this region.

Slide 12

Council Member Verkerk – image on lower right looked like a recently built project but was trying to be Amsterdam in the 17^th century.

Council Member Greene – did not like the idea of so many styles within one framework that were built at the same time and looked like they were trying to look like something else.  Too contrived.

Council Member Ward – attracted to the bay windows, which gave more surface and views.  But, not if your view was into your neighbor’s home.

Slide 13

Mayor Foy – did not like the image on the upper right, but there was something to be said about the clean simplicity.

Council Member Strom – looks like prison architecture.

Council Member Verkerk – image on lower right was another example of architecture that appeared to have no reason for being there.

Council Member Greene – agreed with Council Member Verkerk, saying that one made no sense.

Slide 14

Council Member Kleinschmidt – images shown here was what he was afraid of, adding they were boring.

Council Member Verkerk, commenting on Slide 11 – on upper right, nice use of materials and color that was not way over the top, but had nice warm reds.  Materials shown here might be appropriate for Chapel Hill.

Council Member Kleinschmidt, commenting on Slide 11 – lots of things going on here that go together well, such as different types of windows, pitches of the roofs, and that kind of thing.

Slide 15

Council Member Hill – image on left looked like a tall house to him.

Council Member Strom – building on left was obviously a mixed-use building, was right up to the street with interesting setbacks, it used a mix of materials, and a lot of the structural elements working to hold the building up were visible.  He said it was too big but he liked it a lot, because it created a lot of interesting spaces within the buildings and had nice work.  Said he believed it would work well on Lot 5.  Believed it as authentic in many ways, and was bold.

Mayor Foy – in top right image, the pieces of the facades were different, noting the windows were different and there was a setback there.  He did not object to that.  Did not appear to be fake, but seemed to be varied.

Council Member Ward – found it interesting.

Council Member Greene said she wanted to articulate something to the Council.  She said it seemed that what they had all been expressing in different ways what she termed a modernist sensibility.  She said they wanted real structures that did real work.  Council Member Greene said they were not interested in neo-traditional, and they were not interested in post-modern.  She asked if that was how the Council as a whole felt, adding she believed it would help if they understood that that was what they were aiming for.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed Council Member Greene was right.

Mayor Foy said he hoped that John Felton would be able to extract from this discussion some cohesive vision, and then create it.  Ms. Greaner responded that of course Mr. Gurlitz and Mr. Lowe were working closely with Mr. Felton, but the answer to the question was yes.

Mayor Foy said one of the big things that he wanted to avoid and believed they all wanted to avoid with this project was design by committee, and that was why he was saying they needed to put it in the hands of professionals who had listened to them.  Council Member Greene said that was what she was trying to indicate with her synopsis, that this be less by committee and more a direction that they could all agree to.

Mayor Foy noted he did not believe the Council needed to comment on the remaining slides. 

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked Mr. Gurlitz to go back to the slide with the exposed structural steel.  She said that seemed to be the one that the Council reacted to the most positively.  She said regarding the image on the left, if something had to be picked today would that be the closest to the Council’s concept, not the actual building but the building materials, the warmth of those materials, that the architecture have function and not trying to be something it was not, the different forms, etc.

Mayor Foy said he believed that was a fair assessment.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said did that mean that would be a basis for all three of the buildings.  Ms. Greaner said they had understood the Council wanted something different for each building so there would not be one generic form.

1b.       Parking Lot #5 Design Issues.

Ms. Greaner said they wanted to respond to the questions from the June 20 meeting regarding Lot #5, noting that Mr. Felton would help with that.  She said they needed to talk about the dimensions of the public space, and the heights and ratios of the buildings compared to the rest of Chapel Hill.

Ms. Greaner said there were three things they were not prepared to talk about today.  She said regarding the parking elevator, they knew they needed to strategically place that in better position, and they would do that during the design phase.  Secondly, Ms. Greaner said, security with the garage was an issue and they did not have an answer to that at this time, but they would make sure that everyone would be comfortable with a safe environment.  Ms. Greaner said the third issue was the curb cut on Rosemary Street because it felt too big and too wide, and they had not been able to sufficiently address that because of time constraints.

John Felton exhibited a slide that showed the scale of the Lot 5 space compared to the Post Office.  He said the slides were intended to help the Council understand the scale of the space.  The second slide compared the space to the Carolina Inn, and the third slide compared it to Weaver Street Market and the associated space next to it.

Mr. Felton exhibited the next series of slides, noting they would give the Council some definition of the public space and private space, but specifically what they were calling “The Green.”  He noted it would go from the property line to the base, and was approximately 9,500 square feet.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos stated that they had named these so that they could talk about how the public space worked.  She said The Green was a place to do programming, such as an outdoor concert, a theater production, or something that was programmed for many people.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said to help them understand that this was very public space they had named it The Green.

Mr. Felton displayed the next slide which showed The Green in combination with the Plaza, at 17,900 square feet.  He said they intended that there would be a grade change between The Green and the Plaza, adding they believed it should be there to help support the slight difference in the character of the spaces.

Mr. Felton exhibited the next slide, noting it included all of the public space on the site, with public sidewalks at 33,000 square feet.  He said if the street were closed off, then you would have 50,000 square.  The next slide, he said, showed The Garden, which was about 4,300 square feet, adding that area was under discussion as to whether it would be public or private space.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the decision on whether that space was public or private would be made jointly, but encouraged the Council to allow it to remain private space for the condominium association.  She said there were provisions for a lot of open public green space, and there would be over 250 residents in these units, assuming four people per unit, and they had a right to have some space that was private to them.

Mayor Foy said from looking at the map, when they get to the point that they actually have a design for the buildings and know what their footprints were, it might be good for everyone to go there and chalk out the outlines and actually see it.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos agreed that was a good idea.

Mr. Felton displayed the next series of slides, stating they were for comparison of the mass of scale of the proposed buildings on Lot 5 compared to existing buildings in the community. He said they were developed using the Town’s downtown model.  Mr. Felton said the next slide showed a bird’s eye view of the project, looking northeast.  He said they had taken their massing model and dropped it into the computer model provided by the Town to produce these slides.  Mr. Felton showed additional slides that used an aerial view and eye height views of the project.

Mr. Felton displayed slides that showed the development looking east on Rosemary Street, looking west on Franklin Street, looking north aligned with Church Street, and another aerial view looking northwest.

Mr. Stainback said the slide looking north aligned with Church Street was a good depiction of the height of the middle building, now proposed as seven stories.  He said he believed the height of the building could be increased, adding additional floors.  Mr. Stainback encouraged the Council to think about that.  He said he was thinking about it from the standpoint of income and yet not sacrificing the scale.  Mr. Stainback added that the building was set far enough off of the street that its height was not as important as the building on the street frontage.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said just behind this project on Rosemary Street were some very low buildings.  He asked would they be completely blocked by these buildings.  Mr. Stainback said that should be tested.  Mr. Felton replied they could do that.

Mr. Felton commented that the proposed height of the building was near the limit of what the Town Code termed a mid-rise building.  When you go beyond that, he said, typically more cost was involved and once you broke through that barrier you would want to go significantly higher to make it worthwhile.

Council Member Harrison asked if he was speaking of the building code limit.  Mr. Felton responded that was correct.  He said the limit was 90 feet, and that worked well to keep you to a mid-rise building.

Mr. Felton displayed slides of an aerial view of the Wallace Deck looking northwest, and an aerial view of Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck looking west  He displayed additional slides with views toward the Post Office from Franklin Street and looking west and east on Rosemary Street.

Mr. Gurlitz stated that Town staff had recently asked them to go through a quick summary of two items in the Town’s dimensional matrix, and how the particular proposal configured with those dimensional items.  He pointed out that the RFP asked them to keep an open mind on how they achieved what they wanted to achieve, and to use their creativity.  Mr. Gurlitz said in some cases the Council would see that they had exceeded Town guidelines and in some cases had not approached Town guidelines.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed two slides that showed the building envelope criteria, the 90-foot secondary height and the 44-foot primary height, applied to the two different treatments of the Lot 5 building.  He pointed out on the slides the areas where the design exceeded the envelope criteria and where it was below the envelope criteria.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed a slide showing the dimensional comparisons of the Wallace Deck, noting that the floor area ratio for the Town Center-2 zoning district was 1.97 giving them a floor area of 133,000 square feet.  He said that because the buildings were mixed use, they were able to get a bonus of 15,000 square feet, or 10 percent of the floor area.  Mr. Gurlitz said that gave them an equivalent floor area ratio of 2.17.

Mr. Gurlitz said for the Wallace Deck they were well below the floor area ratio allowed, at 2.07, and was below what the RFP was looking for, which was 140,000 square feet.  He said they were providing 127,000 square feet, or about 13,000 square feet less.

Mr. Gurlitz displayed a slide showing the dimensional comparisons for Lot 5, and using the same set of calculations, they arrived at an equivalent floor area ratio of 2.14 including the bonus for mixed use.  He said their intensity on Lot 5 was 2.32, and the RFP projected intensity was at 2.19.  Mr. Gurlitz said therefore on Lot 5, they actually exceeded the RFP amount by 10,800 square feet.

Mr. Gurlitz said in total the LUMO would give them about 333,000 square feet, their proposal was 328,800 square feet, the RFP was 331,250, so within that there was about a 2,000 to 2,500 square foot difference.  He said in the aggregate, they were just a little lower than LUMO but they came really close.  Mr. Gurlitz said the RFP was just a little lower than the LUMO but it was very close.

Ms. Greaner said it was their understanding that in the RFP process in terms of creativity that they were not using the hard and fast square footage requirements.  She said they were looking for direction from the Council as to exceeding the Code, meaning should they plan to stay within the Code or proceed with the idea that as long as they came up with an appropriate design that everyone approved that they would apply for variances or exceptions during the Special Use Permit process.

Mayor Foy asked the Manager to remind the Council of why the RFP exceeded the LUMO in some areas.  Mr. Horton responded that in the Council Committee discussion and in the full Council’s discussion the Council did not want to forego the opportunity to consider arrangements of space and design that would help attain both the economic and creative objectives.  He said the LUMO provides for the Council to make exceptions to the Ordinance, in effect modifying the Ordinance, when public purposes were being attained.  Mr. Horton said this appeared to him to be consistent with what the Council had earlier indicated, and consistent with the Ordinance provisions as well, through the Special Use Permit process.

Mayor Foy said then the Special Use Permit could grant what was required.  Mr. Horton replied that the Council could find that public purposes were being achieved and allow variation.  Mayor Foy said then the question would be were there objections to these square footages.

Ms. Greaner said they wanted to make sure that they understood the instructions from the Council, that is should they stay within the existing Code or was there some flexibility.  Mayor Foy responded that the answer was that there was some flexibility.  Mr. Horton added that from a staff perspective most of the deviations are fairly minor.

1c.       Wallace Parking Deck Issues.

Ms. Greaner said the remaining questions they had for the Council pertained to the Wallace Deck.  She said at the last meeting it was understood that there would be some redesign work that would take some time, as well as some concern expressed by the Town Manager that if they did not have that redesign work completed in a timely fashion that it would affect how the developer agreement worked.

Ms. Greaner said they had four primary questions.  The first, she said, was that there did not seem to be a consensus about public versus the private space on the Wallace Deck, whether or not it was critical that there be public space at the Wallace Deck or could it be provided elsewhere, and whether they had some alternatives so that the Town was not giving up public space.  Ms. Greaner said they needed some clarification on which way to go on that.

Mayor Foy said then the question was if there was no net loss of public space, was it okay if the public space not be provided at the Wallace Deck.  Ms. Greaner said that was correct.  Mayor Foy asked if anyone objected to that.  There was no objection from the Council.

Ms. Greaner said the next issue was that the way they had proposed the Wallace Deck there was a loss of parking and that seemed to be of concern.  She said they needed to understand how much they needed to push the envelope to make sure that there was not a net loss. Mayor Foy responded that he believed there was strong consensus that there could not be a net loss of parking.

Mr. Stainback commented that the parking supply and demand issue would be solved with the ultimate build-out of Phase II.  Mayor Foy said that was true, if there was a Phase II, so we should fix it now.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he remembered that before the RFP process they had anticipated some shortage, but what they had now went beyond that.  He said he would like to get back to where they thought they would be with the RFP.  Ms. Greaner said they were only 30 spaces different from the RFP, so as long as there was no more than that loss they did not have to go back and make up for the 100 spaces that were assumed in the RFP.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said for him that reflected the level of tolerance.

Mayor Foy said regarding the RFP, as long as they were within that framework they were fine.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if the 50-odd spaces they had added to the Wallace Deck could be placed on Lot 5, if the combined spaces of the two lots would result in no loss.  She said it was much more economical to put them on Lot 5.

Mayor Foy asked if there was an objection to that.  There was no objection from the Council.

Council Member Ward said part of the previous discussion was whether they had enough parking associated with the activities at the Wallace Deck, adding they could not ask people to live there and walk to Lot 5 for their vehicles.  He asked how many spaces would they be suggesting be shifted to Lot 5.  Ms. Greaner said they had not thought that through in detail, but had wanted to know if it was a possibility before proceeding.  Council Member Ward asked would it be in the range of 50 spaces. Ms. Greaner responded yes, although that was not definitive because they had not analyzed it as yet.

Ms. Greaner said the third question regarded the discussion about the Parking Deck and what the other team had proposed regarding townhouses on the front.  She said they needed to understand, in terms of how they explored that, what should they explore going outside the boundaries of what was there now.  Ms. Greaner said should they anticipate interrupting Rosemary Street, or how creative did the Council want them to be in terms of going outside the existing boundaries of the Wallace Deck.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they had talked about potentially extending these boundaries using the Post Office, and asked was that something that was viable.

Mayor Foy said the Post Office had Historic Preservation requirements.  Ms. Greaner responded they had anticipated that, but wanted to know if they should bring that into what they were doing.  Mayor Foy said that personally he would.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked exactly what did that mean when she said bringing that into it.  Ms. Greaner responded that if they could make some kind of connection in terms of utilizing that building or some of that space that created a flow of traffic.  She said it might mean displacing some of the uses in that building to create alternative uses.  Ms. Greaner said they wanted to know if that was something that was appealing in terms of tying things together.

Mayor Foy said if the Post Office retained all of its Historic Preservation aspects and remained a public use, and that it continued to serve as a Post office, then with those broad guidelines if it could create a conduit back to the Wallace Deck and it made sense, then he would not object to that.

Council Member Ward said the public uses he could think of, which were the Post Office, the Teen Center, and the Court, were all public uses that he would want to continue to have there.  Ms. Greaner said they would assume that the uses would remain public uses.  Council Member Ward said he wanted those specific public uses he had mentioned to remain.

Council Member Strom said he would not have a problem shifting the Teen Center to a different space.

Council Member Ward agreed it would not have to be located there, but if that space was reconfigured he wanted to make sure that a space was identified nearby for the Teen Center to use.  He said all of those uses could most likely move elsewhere and not be in the shell of that building.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said in their professional opinion in order to make the Wallace Deck work it had to be tied to Franklin Street on a more structured, known way than down Amber Alley. She said that was necessary in order for people to want to live there, and for people to want to park there.

Ms. Greaner said regarding the original question about going outside the boundaries, part of what they had heard in terms of the design on the Wallace Deck was that maybe there were some alternatives to doing things on the front of it.  She said in order to achieve that they may need to go outside the boundaries of the Wallace Deck.  Ms. Greaner said it may mean encroaching on the street.  She said they were not saying that had to happen and they had not yet fully explored that, but they had heard that what they had suggested to date was not adequate.

Council Member Strom said he believed that any approach they could take to create a more vibrant, pedestrian-friendly and community-friendly space on that face of the Wallace Deck should be considered.  Ms. Greaner said one concern might be that if they took a piece of Rosemary Street, for instance, how that would affect traffic or possible transit stations.

Mayor Foy said that was a three-lane road and he was not sure why it needed to be three lanes, other than needing turning lanes at various points.  He said the Town did not own the street, but he did not object to using a piece of it.

Council Member Hill asked what was the possibility of taking the right-of-way on Rosemary Street, adding they were only talking about five or six feet.  Mr. Horton said if the Council settled on a design that worked well for the community, he believed that we could find a way to work that out.  Council Member Hill said there was no question that live/work spaces fronting the street was appealing.

Mayor Foy said the answer to the original question was that the Council did not object.

Ms. Greaner said they were assuming that the pedestrian bridge was still important as a connection to the Bank of America building.  Mr. Stainback said if they did not have public space on the plaza, then how important was that.

Council Member Ward said his vision of how this was all integrated with Lot 2 was greatly enriched by having that pedestrian connection.  He said the more they talk about having the Wallace Deck respond more directly to Franklin Street made it even more valuable.  Council Member Ward said the fact that that block, which RAM’s proposal described as overly long and hard to penetrate, made the pedestrian connection even more important.

Mr. Felton asked if that could be provided outside the deck site.  Council Member Ward said show him how it could be.

Mayor Foy said maybe it could if they had the frontage on Rosemary Street, stating that maybe they would not want to divert people up but would want people to come down the sidewalk in Lot 2.  He said they might want Lot 2 to have more retail frontage on the Rosemary Street side if they created that.

Council Member Harrison said Rosemary Street had a lot of uses on its pavement, and he was not sure that they would want to lose any of its lanes.  He said they may want to do something to them, but some version of three lanes would be needed long term.

Mayor Foy said he saw a lot of trucks parked in the middle lane.  Mr. Horton said the middle lane’s primary function was for delivery trucks.

Council Member Strom said he wanted to clarify a comment he made during the first part of the meeting.  He said when he was talking about a translucent awning, in terms of the plaza, he could see how that type of element might be used there.

Council Member Ward said whenever they designed the open space for Lot 5, he wanted Church Street to be something they could transform into a seamless piece of that, so that if they wanted to close it to vehicles that it would be easy to have that blend into what existed on Lot 5.  Mr. Stainback said he strongly agreed with that.

Mr. Stainback said he wanted to go back to the slide on the open space.  He commented that he was still concerned about the walkway joint and that it was too tight.  Mr. Stainback said he urged the Council to request that the developers take a look at that in close up, adding that in his opinion it did not work.  Ms. Greaner asked if the joint he was referring to was from the building face to the curb, and from the building face on the green side to the actual softscape.  Mr. Stainback said that was correct.

Council Member Ward asked what the width of that sidewalk was on Franklin.  Mr. Felton said it was fairly wide, noting there were trees there.

Mr. Stainback said he wanted to see a plan in large scale and a section in scale, adding he was still not convinced that that was the kind of frontage they wanted on Franklin Street, and he believed that joint was too tight between the public space and the edge of the building.  Ms. Greaner said they had tried to make the building edge consistent with other buildings on Franklin Street.  Mr. Stainback said in his opinion they were too narrow.

Council Member Greene said there was not consensus on the Council, but for her that lower left-hand corner of the Franklin Street building would make sense if that was a curve, and that it would give the opportunity for sight line into the public space.

Mayor Foy said it might be possible to use something similar to what they had seen on one of the slides, which was a pulled in curb element.  He said in regard to Church Street and their ability to use it, he would like to consider losing the curb and gutter on parts of it to make it pedestrian.  Mr. Horton said if you did not have any vertical separation, which they did now with the curb and gutter, then it could be seamless expansion and have protective elements that were moveable so that when it was being used for street purposes they were in place, and when used for pedestrian purposes they were removed.

Item 2 – Discussion of Next Steps

Mr. Stainback said he would like for the developers to describe what they would present to the Council in September.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said their goal was to:

· have two new schematic designs for the Wallace Deck;

· have two or three actual building designs per building on Lot 5, incorporating comments from today’s discussion;

· continue to negotiate their agreement with the Town so that work could continue on parallel tracks; and

· continue working on trying to get a better idea of how to acquire the LEED Certification desirable to the Council;

· continue to work on the cost estimates

· continue to refine the building footprints and the actual units upstairs.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said regarding the design, was that a phase where they would be considering the use of  materials and appearances as far as how to work something artistic into that, or did they see the public art aspect as a separate phase in terms of separate structures.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they assumed they all wanted the public art to be meaningful and that meant being involved very early in the process.  She said she would be working with the Public Arts Commission to begin formulating how they take the next steps.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos it was her hope that by September they would have identified artists that could be looked at.

Ms. Greaner said they did expect Tom Lowe and the rest of the team to incorporate art into the project from the beginning.

Council Member Strom said that part of the financial model included RAM contributing a significant amount of money for seed money for the programmatic side of the public space.  He said they do not know who would be actually programming the space, but just as with the public art thinking about the programming early would be helpful.  Council Member Strom stated that thinking about the programmatic uses of the space carefully now would help them be sure that they were designing it correctly. He said it seemed important that they think more about whose eyes should be looking at these plans to make sure that the potential uses were correctly addressed.

Ms. Greaner asked if that was something that we could identify through the developer agreement or with the Town that they could start talking about.

Council Member Strom said he did not have an answer, but he wanted to earmark this as an area that they needed to think carefully about.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said regarding looking at Church Street as being seamless, someone had mentioned the idea of putting parking under Church Street.  She asked if that was something they could explore.  She said rather than adding parking by going down another level, it would be more economical to move it over.  Mayor Foy said that would be appropriate to consider.

Mr. Horton commented that doing that would involve some property rights of other persons and we would have to explore the legal aspect of that, but it was certainly worth considering.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.