SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

ON DESIGN OF LOT 5 AND THE WALLACE PARKING DECK

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 AT 5:30 P.M.

Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

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

Mayor pro tem Edith Wiggins and Council Member Dorothy Verkerk were absent, excused.

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, Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Representatives of RAM Development were Susan Tjarksen-Roussos and Ivy Greaner.  Others present working with RAM Development were John Felton with Cline Design Associates, and Josh Gurlitz of GGA Architects.

Item 1 – Presentation of Revised Designs by RAM Development

Presentation by RAM Development on Parking Lot #5 and the Wallace Deck.

Ivy Greaner noted they were presenting a revised Lot 5 plan tonight as well as some concept elevations for the Wallace Deck.  She said their expectations were to get additional feedback tonight, then take that feedback and finish modeling both projects and present all four elevations of all four sides.  Ms. Greaner said they were missing a view of the east side of Lot 5, and they would be available at the next presentation.  Ms. Greaner said they would be concentrating on the buildings tonight, and not the landscaping.

Susan Tjarksen-Roussos said regarding Lot 5, they had made minor changes in the perspective the Council had previously seen.  She said they had taken into account all comments, particularly regarding the shorter elevation of the middle building on Church Street.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos stated they would also present the elevations of the building at the corner of Rosemary and Church Streets.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the changes they had made at that location were now at grade level along Rosemary Street so that the retail component was much more accessible and neighborhood-friendly.  She said they had also made some changes in how the parking was laid out.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they wanted to make sure that this building paid respect to the neighborhood and still felt integrated but did not copy what was happening on Lot 5.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos displayed a drawing of the Lot 5 site plan, noting there were condominium common areas between the Lot 5 middle building.  She noted that the courtyard was one grade above street level, allowing for more efficient parking and ramping for the parking. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that had necessitated bringing the courtyard up one grade, which was 16 feet above grade.  She said that also allowed for handicap parking and took advantage of some of the LEEDs requirements for carpooling and handicap van access.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos noted that John Felton would go into more detail later in the meeting.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the site plan had not changed since the RFP process.  She said once they had completed the actual perspectives and elevations, they would revise the site plan to include elevations for parking, for public space, and for building footprints.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said it was their hope that tonight they would receive enough feedback to be able to bring back a final site plan at the next presentation to the Council.  She said they would also take the revised site plan and elevations and overlay it into the Town’s 3-D model, so that they could spin the buildings and look at them from several angles, including the 100 percent corner at Franklin and Columbia Streets.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they were aware that was a concern for the Town, and that the Council wanted to be able to see how these buildings fit into context in relation to the other buildings in the immediate area.  She said that revised site plan would show the east elevations and how it respected the fact that it did not face Columbia and Franklin Streets.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said regarding the Wallace Deck, tonight they would show the Council two perspectives that were the same massing structure but with two different architectural features.  She said she wanted everyone to remember that there was a serious weight component to the Wallace Deck, and that any artistic or architectural design on the exterior had to take into account that severe weight limit.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said because of that weight limit, brick or stone would not be an option on that site.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they understood that a part of the Wallace Deck was in an historic district, and they had tried to pay attention to some of those details as they proceeded, but still have an actual continuation of the Wallace Deck.  She said they wanted the Wallace Deck to respect the historic district but still be somewhat forward-looking so that there would be some synergy between the Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck buildings.

John Felton provided more detail on the design changes and solutions.  First, he said, the parking structure on Lot 5 had been revised so that the three and one-half levels of parking were not below the main plaza area.  He displayed a slide and pointed out that feature.  Mr. Felton said that would allow the planting of full-size trees in some locations, and allow for rainwater storage or storage for irrigation underground for the LEEDs program.  He said the new design also opened up the alley area on the back side in that location.

Mr. Felton displayed a slide that showed the sectioning of the Lot 5 site, including the three and one-half levels of parking, the residents’ entry, and garden level.  He said the new design would allow residents to travel by elevator directly from the parking area to that garden level, and then go directly to their flat, or to a stairwell that led to their townhouse.

Mr. Felton exhibited a revised rendering of Lot 5 without the plaza details, which were removed for clarity. He said based on comments and recommendations from the Council at their last work session, they had pulled the two-story expression line down to a one-story expression line, and similarly, they had pulled the two-story expression line at the retail site down to a one-story expression line.  Mr. Felton said that tended to activate the retail level better than the previous design.  He stated that the upper cornice, or expression line, remained to give some sense of the public space, adding they had left the upper portion of the building as it was in the previous design.

Mr. Felton displayed a slide of the concept rendering of Lot 5, showing the project from the Rosemary Street/Church Street angle.  He said it showed the basic outlines, forms and design intent, noting the form was traditional in style, with the middle building being an expression of a more modern style and materials.  Mr. Felton said the front building had a more modern detail and style, but it was packaged in a form that was more reminiscent of period architecture.  He said that building had a more pedestrian scale to address the existing architecture on Rosemary Street.

Mr. Felton noted their attempt to activate the retail with signage and awnings, and had been able to step the retail as it traveled down the grade on Rosemary Street.  He said that would enable a person to walk along the sidewalk and enter any of the retail shops at grade.  Mr. Felton said the elevations of the middle building would be considered at the next presentation and it would show the windows on all four sides.  He said those elevations would be dealt with carefully.

Moving to the Wallace Deck, Mr. Felton displayed a site plan.  He said the building at the corner of Henderson Street and Rosemary Street had been moved up towards the Post Office/Court building, which created a pedestrian connection.  Mr. Felton said they had placed the public space that would have restaurant seating for the retail at the corner.  He said they believed that was the best solution for that, and the most appropriate place for it.

Mr. Felton stated they had looked to activate the lower level of the Post Office/Court building with some openings in the building and some awnings which added a public use there.  Then, he said, a retail use would come along Henderson Street that would open up onto the plaza at Rosemary and Henderson Streets.  Mr. Felton said the alley would still function at its present location.

Mr. Felton pointed out the residential portion on the site plan of the Wallace Deck, as well as the private spaces, the location of the elevator and stairs, and the visitor entry.  He said a portion of the first level of the building on Rosemary Street came down in front of the Deck about 15 feet toward the street and created live/work units.

Mr. Felton exhibited a slide that showed the sectioning of the Wallace Deck, pointing out the three-story structure and noted they were load bearing the structure to address the weight limitations.  He said they needed to be careful and keep the construction there as light as possible.

Mr. Felton said the live/work area was accessible from the sidewalk; therefore, the level of the floor had to fluctuate with the level of the street and sidewalk.  He said you would be able to own this, live here, and have an art gallery.  Or, Mr. Felton said, you would be able to own this, live here, and rent out your art gallery.  Or, he said, you would be able own this, rent here, and work out of your art gallery. Mr. Felton said that would make the flexibility of that live/work area complete.  He said you would be able to enter the units directly from the street or directly from your unit.  Mr. Felton said they had also created loft units in several locations towards the Rosemary Street side that could be viewed from the massing rendering, and pointed out the private space and the alley.

Mr. Felton exhibited a slide that depicted the massing of the Wallace Deck, labeled as Character A.  He said the massing in both Character A and B were the same, which was very straightforward in order to line up with the Deck structure and to come out in the appropriate places to the street to create the live/work units.  Mr. Felton pointed out one of the retail spaces, noting the entry for customers and adding that it was a tall space with a lot of glass.  He said it was possible that if they had brick that they keep the brick and add it back at the parking structure so that when you walk in you would see brick walls, similar to a warehouse, with lots of glass.  Mr. Felton said that would give a nice feel to a studio area or office space.

Mr. Felton pointed out the stairs that were shared by the live/work area, as well as the flats located above that area.  He said the middle section was what was preserved from the Wallace Deck, and would remain, noting they would use matching brick so that there would be a continuous brick base.  Mr. Felton said from that point up, lighter material would have to be used.

Mr. Felton displayed the slide labeled Character B, which depicted the same massing but with different architectural features.  He said they had simply taken the window components and expressed them differently, using a modern expression with more concentrated glass, and rather than having punched openings you had openings that turned corners.  Mr. Felton pointed out the existing brick on the Deck and the new piece that could either be done in metal or masonry with a lighter material above.

Mr. Felton said they believed that the layout of the Wallace Deck was very straightforward and the best solution. He asked for feedback on Character A or Character B.  Mr. Felton said they were now at the level of talking about massing and expression, and it was their intent to develop detail that carried through on the character of the building.

Josh Gurlitz asked Mr. Felton to provide a description of the Wallace café building, since it would be an anchor for that corner.  Mr. Felton pointed out the location of the café building, noting that the first level was retail space at about 5,000 to 7,000 square feet.  The three levels above would be residential.  He pointed out the historic district line, stating that this building would come under the jurisdiction of the Historic District Commission for review and approval.

Mr. Felton said they were proposing a simple, historically dictated building with punched windows with a strong retail base.  Using Character A, he pointed out the outside dining area and the retail corner.

Mr. Gurlitz said the way they had intended to pull the buildings together was to keep the expression line at the first story, brick with brick on the Wallace Deck as well, and also to make sure that they carried some indication of the cornice or the eave line of the Wallace café building over to the Wallace Deck itself.  He said they were required to use different materials on the Deck because of its structural characteristics, and they would be tying the buildings together through the use of common heights and common materials, at least on the bottom level.

Questions and Comments by the Town Council

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos displayed a drawing of Lot 5, and asked for comments on the project.  She stated that the revised plans they had submitted tonight were in keeping with the comments received from the Council, including the retail components.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos exhibited a drawing of Lot 5 from the corner of Rosemary Street and Church Street.  She noted they had taken the liberty of starting to show some of the detailing that would be important not only at this corner but the other corner to help draw people into the retail base.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos commented that the retail works much more friendly and functional, noting that now you could walk right from the sidewalk into the retail area.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos stated that all of the residential units here would have a minimum of nine-foot finished ceiling heights, with some having slightly higher heights.  She stated that the finish levels were relatively the same throughout the residential units on Lot 5, with some minor differences between work force housing and other housing.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said with the revised design, those people living in the garden units would now have a view of the courtyard area rather than just the top of the next building, which also added some privacy buffer between the two buildings.

Mayor Foy asked what a pedestrian would see.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos replied that would be a finished building across the front that would be either part of the arcade or part of the retail, and would be made to look like part of the retail.

Council Member Ward asked regarding the interior courtyard that was now 16 feet above grade, what kind of sunlight would it have and how well could you grow a plant.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the higher it was the more sunlight you would get, but they had not put that level of thought into this as yet.  She said this came about because it made the parking more efficient to elevate that, giving them the height they needed and allowing the ramping to work, which drove the pricing down.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos commented that their landscape architect, whom the Council had not yet met, would be coming from Toronto if not the next meeting then the following one.  She said he would talk with them about what would be appropriate uses and types, as well as maintenance and costs.

Council Member Ward asked how wide the courtyard was at its narrowest dimension.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos responded 25 to 30 feet.

Ms. Greaner said they had incorporated the Council’s comments onto the front portion of Franklin Street and Church Street buildings, but needed feedback on the Rosemary Street elevations just presented.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said it did interface much better with the neighborhood to have it on the street, noting he did not believe a three-foot wall there would be welcomed by those who lived nearby.  He asked what was meant by the comment that “minor differences” would be present between workforce housing and other housing.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they would all have the same carpet and they would all have the same bathrooms, but they had not yet talked in detail about tile or appliances or the like.  But, she noted, the “vanilla boxes” would all be the same, and at least 80 percent of the finished levels in them would all be the same.

Ms. Greaner said the reason Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos had mentioned the ceiling heights was that normally apartment or workforce ceiling heights were at about eight to eight-and-a-half feet.  She said for condos, that ceiling height was generally somewhere between nine and nine-and-a-half feet, and that does make a difference.  Ms. Greaner said they were not differentiating between the affordable units and market rate units, so the units would all have the same feel.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said early on in the discussions he was concerned about that space, but was now sold on the value of the garden space to the tenants who would live there.  He said he believed having that space elevated made it more effective.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos replied that raising the courtyard area was a win-win situation, since it provided for more efficiency with the parking.

Council Member Ward said regarding the comments made about parking and keeping it shallow underneath the public space, he was glad to hear them talking at this early stage about water retention for stormwater and irrigation purposes, and the possibility of growing larger trees there if they chose to.  On the other hand, he said, it seemed to be a great idea to take advantage of the footprint of Church Street so you would not have to dig as deep for the parking.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos replied that it was “extremely” expensive to provide structure parking underneath Church Street, because it would have to take the load of a fire truck.  She said it would essentially be building a bridge with dirt and trees and a couple of hundred people on top of it.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said if they were to put parking under that green space on Church Street, they would have to build a bridge to take the structural load.  She added that trees could only be planted where there were support columns, which would force a lot of the design of the open space.

Council Member Ward said the other changes made regarding a seamless transition to retail along Rosemary Street made a lot of sense, and he was glad that change had been made.  He said the particular rendering of the larger center building was not the one he had favored, noting he did not remember exactly what the other choices were so he didn’t know what was missing.  Council Member Ward said he could buy in to that, but as time went by he would like to know what all that vertical glass was doing at the top of the building.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that rendering contemplated that the units on the top level could possibly be two-story units, and that was something they would wait to see if the market dictated.  She said if the market did not dictate two-story units, then that level would be redrawn to show single-level units.

Ms. Greaner added that this was the first presentation of drawings from that particular side of the building from Rosemary Street.

Council Member Ward said from the drawing, it looked as if it was “looming” as compared to the Franklin Street side.  He said he did not understand why it looked so different.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the other side had been drawn in just to show massing and the basic scale.  She said the banding at the top had not been shown on the other perspective, so it was not done to the same finish level.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said when it was done in that monochromatic color it tended to take on more volume that it actually had.  Council Member Ward said he wanted her to realize who their audience was, noting they take all this literally.

Ms. Greaner said it was their intent that once they finish tonight, they would come back with a finished product that would have all the elevations and the massing and others.

Council Member Greene said she was “not crazy” about the awnings shown in the drawing from the Franklin Street side.  She said she thought the design was clichéd.  Council Member Greene said if they had them, she at least wanted them to be functional.  She said she was convinced on the south side that they were functional because they provided shade, but in this drawing on the west side they looked as if they did not extend out as far, which was better to her.  Council Member Greene said from the Rosemary Street view, it looked like they were all the same all the way around.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said Council Member Greene was right, they should be the deepest on the south side for the sun.  She said the others could be scaled back all the way around so that it looked as if it was conceived together but did not all have to be at the same depth.

Council Member Harrison asked if the affordable units and affordable retail were visible from this view.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos pointed out the location of those units, adding their idea for the retail was to have units that would be affordable to the most people.  Ms. Greaner added that they did expect these particular retail units to be less expensive just by the nature of where they were located.  Council Member Ward said then they would not have the depth that would make them more expensive. Ms. Greaner said that was correct.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned that the address given to the units on Rosemary Street would become an address associated with affordable housing.  He said one of the ideas of integration was to not have that happen, for there not to be a particularly identified space where people live who don’t have as much as the penthouse people.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was not necessarily saying that a penthouse needed to be made affordable, but he was not excited about having 18 of the 21 units in that building being the affordable units.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they had not laid out the final plans for the buildings as yet, and as they move through that process they would look at where they could spread the affordable units across the project.  She said they would look at where they get placed depending on sizes.  Ms. Greaner commented that the size of the actual unit itself would drive where it was placed.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to see those units spread throughout the project.  He added he believed many of the Council members would agree.  Ms. Greaner stated that the affordable units would probably work better in that building or the one on Franklin Street.

Mayor Foy said it looked as if the retail would function well.  He asked as you go east on Rosemary Street from Church Street, was there a setback located there.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said no, but there was an expression line on the second level.  Mayor Foy said that something looked a little odd at seeing the side of that building, then walking a short ways and seeing the front of the other building.  He asked if the side of the building stuck out farther than the front of the rest of the building.

Council Member Hill agreed, saying the drawing did not line up with the plan view any longer.  He said if you look at the front of the building it looked like it sat back from the sidewalk, but as you get to the next building it was right out to the sidewalk.  Council Member Hill said in the plan view it was different.

Mayor Foy said then, does the side of the building that faces Church Street come out farther than the building sitting on Rosemary Street.  Mr. Felton pointed out the section on the street that contained the arcade.

Council Member Hill remarked that was not reflected in the plan view.

Council Member Ward said that would mean that the gable end of the brick building that fronts on Church Street was 18 inches or so further out towards Rosemary than the buildings that face Rosemary Street.  Mr. Felton replied that it was pushed back just enough to catch the roof detailing so that it did not project, and it also expresses the corner.

Mayor Foy said as you travel further down Rosemary Street, was there another building that was also set back.  He asked how those were being differentiated.  Mr. Felton responded that the street elevations change, but the retail basically grows.  What is depicted in the drawing is the expression of the fire wall, he said.  Mr. Felton said they were attempting to break the building up into some massings rather than having one long extrusion.  He said it may be that they are moved back or forth in the final drawings.

Mayor Foy asked what it would look like at street level, noting that as you look along Church Street it looked like one long facade.  He asked if it was one unified facade at street level, or would there be differentiation such as one in farther and one out farther.  Mr. Felton said he believed they needed some differentiation.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he felt them moving toward the line of Southpoint Mall, with a building that was built all as one unit but with different articulation to make it feel like a main street, and doesn’t really have that character.  He said that was one of the things that he was “really afraid of.”  Mr. Felton agreed, saying it was hard to talk about it without crossing over into that terminology.  He said if you did a retail strip that was just like the next one all the way down, he was not sure the Council would like that, either.  Mr. Felton said there needed to be some creative way, and they would look for creative ways of doing that.

Council Member Greene remarked that the design was interesting in that it suggested traditional architecture, but it obviously was not.  But, she said, it sure looked like it was the rendering that the attempt was there which was what the Council had said they did not want to see, to create a series of facades that looked, like they were built at different times but weren’t.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked that they be given time to think about that.  She noted that the Council had been consistent about that from the beginning, and what she wanted to take away from tonight’s discussion was whether the general architectural feel was traditional enough for this neighborhood, adding that to them the design provided the integration with the rest of Lot 5.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they liked this solution and thought it was a good one, but understood they needed to solve the problem of it not looking “fake” in terms of when it was built.  She said that overall, they believed the architecture as shown as the appropriate response.

Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed that it probably was the appropriate response, because they did need to be respectful of the neighborhood that was not likely to go through this type of revolutionary change all at once.  He said he believed the architecture respected that to a great degree.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said regarding the way the retail functions with the pedestrian aspect, one of the difficulties with this was that on the other side of Rosemary Street the restaurants didn’t look like this.  He said it was a difficult space, and was really “organic,” stating it was obvious those buildings were built at different times.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was afraid they would try to put “Disney” across the street from this thing that “just bleeds Chapel Hill character.”  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked that they be given time to find a better solution, in terms of breaking up the façade along Rosemary Street.  She said they would continue in this direction, so when they do the four elevations this was the genre they would work with.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if that was a fair summary.

Mayor Foy responded he believed it was a fair summary.  He asked regarding the tall building, was that the same material that would be used in the top part of the Wallace Deck.  Mayor Foy asked if they were meant to look similar.  Mr. Felton replied they were not meant to look similar.  Mayor Foy said they looked similar to him.  Mr. Felton said he did not believe they should try to make them look similar.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said what they were not seeing in the drawing of the Lot 5 site in the front was all the metal on the upper levels of the building, which was not well articulated in the rendering.  She said it was a color issue on the drawings, and not an effort to mimic the Wallace Deck.

In summary, Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said on Lot 5 they had the new construction building on Henderson Street that they knew was in the historic district, and with Mr. Gurlitz’s help they would make sure it was compatible with their guidelines and style.  She said the condominium common areas were shown on the plan, and it was important that the architects find a creative way of making sure that the live/work space was at street level so that they open onto Rosemary Street, which they believed was important in order for them to be viable.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that Character A of the Wallace Deck was much more traditional, with punched windows.  She said it took advantage of the existing brick and the first floor would continue to have that same brick color and style.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the massing of this building made it work in terms of street appeal and density.

Council Member Hill said regarding Character A, Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos had said the brick below would be the same as that currently on the deck, but they had to reconfigure the front of the deck to make room for the live/work spaces.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos clarified that it was the same type of brick.

Council Member Hill said he had never been fond of that brick.  Mr. Felton said if they couldn’t match it, they could move away from it.

Mayor Foy commented that if they were not going to use the front of the garage anyway, why did it have to be brick.

Council Member Hill agreed, stating he could see some brick work there, but he had a feeling they would end up not using much of the existing façade to such a degree that you would be able to start over.  Mr. Felton said there would be a piece that remained, and it would be enough of it that they needed to have a masonry product that related to it, either that looked compatible or as identical as you could ever do.  He said if they could not accomplish a near match, then they needed to find other material.  Council Member Hill suggested that paint would be easier to match.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked what the lighter weight material was on top.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos replied it would most likely be a stucco material, noting it would be a wood frame building.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if the Council liked the window openings depicted in the drawings.

Mayor Foy stated he thought the balconies looked like air conditioning units hanging out of the windows.  He asked if those balconies were useful.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said you could place plants on it.  Mr. Felton said it was a “French” balcony, and when you use French doors you could open up the whole space.

Mayor Foy asked if you could stand on the balconies.  Mr. Felton responded no, but they would be useful to lean out and look to the left or the right, or to open up the space by opening the doors.  He said the square footage of the units made it difficult to create a whole balcony, adding that type of construction was also expensive.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said from the structural engineer’s standpoint, if they put large balconies on these units it would place a lot of lateral torque on this building, meaning they would have even more bracing issues than they have already.

Council Member Greene said regarding the windows, the ones on the lower level had been described as being a warehouse style, and that was something the Council did not want.

Council Member Ward said he was inclined to favor Character B, noting they would be historical on the corner. He said to the extent that they could have something that speaks of today with the rest of the project and also would not be too jarring for the historical corner, he would like to move in that direction rather than having French balconies that you could hang a couple of tee shirts to dry or a plant. Council Member Ward said he favored Character B’s more modern, contemporary style.  He said he also liked that the deck end of the project was stepped back to create lots of good site lines around the alleyway, and it made it more pedestrian friendly, as well as the openness of the café.

Council Member Ward said as far as the brick foundation of that building, he would like to find something that complimented that brick rather than putting effort into finding a close match. He said paint would work, but it was a maintenance issue unless you liked flecked paint.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos commented that this look was fresh and very urban, and in their opinion would speak well to the 25- to 35-year-old market that was the work force housing, and who were people who were going to walk to work and who work in the downtown and the university and the hospitals.  She said it had an inviting appeal, and was not so modern that it was ostentatious.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that this building was still friendly, even if you didn’t like the exterior color that could be changed.  She said it was important that because of the length of it that it be broken up as you walk down the sidewalk, and that it was not one big monolithic wall.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the window lines allowed most of the units to have a great deal of light.

Council Member Strom said he was heading towards favoring Character B.  He said as a general comment he thought this was a good approach as far as the blocking and the mass and the way that they were approaching the deck.  Council Member Strom said he believed it was very responsive to what the Council had been talking about all along.

Mayor Foy confirmed that the live/work spaces started at the entrance and then continued to the next entrance, so that the whole front of the building was live/work spaces.  He asked how many units were planned for that space.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the single line of units was broken by the stairwell to get to the second level.  She said there were eight units, planned to be 14 x 20 feet, all on the ground floor.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos, directing her remark to Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, said for clarification that when they had said they needed 17 feet for the design for that building, they needed only six feet of right-of-way.

Mayor Foy said those units, then, would be about 280 square feet.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that was correct.

Mayor Foy commented that regarding the character of that building, the Council did not like the color. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said she agreed with them, that she didn’t care for them either.  Mayor Foy said the general characteristics of the building were better.

Council Member Ward said he was concerned about handicap access from the back of the Post Office Building to the new structure.  He said there was a stairway there, and asked if there was a ramp as well.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos responded that there was an elevator planned for the back of the building.  Mr. Felton replied that one of the schemes had shown an elevator at the back, but they were trying to use the same one for both accesses.  He said with this drawing, the accessible route would be up the sidewalk and around through the alley.

Council Member Ward said the access needed to be something that a person in a wheelchair could easily negotiate. He said he had a similar concern regarding access from Rosemary Street. Council Member Ward asked how would a person in a wheelchair come from Rosemary Street and access the live/work units.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said those units opened onto the street, so they would have direct access.  She said to access the living space above, there was an elevator located nearby.

Council Member Harrison said like other Council members, he favored Character B in terms of design.  He agreed with Mayor Foy that he was not in favor of the colors, noting the colors used in Character A were “easier to take” and were more attractive.  Council Member Harrison said he had been concerned all along about taking right-of-way on Rosemary Street, which had turned out to be the Town’s street.  He asked if anyone knew the depth of the sidewalk, and was it the same or less than Franklin Street.  Mr. Felton said they would propose something more like a 12 to 14-foot easement. He said they would like to have at least an eight-foot walking area with maybe six feet for trees and a curb.  Mr. Felton said providing street parking would also be ideal, if there was any way to make that happen.

Ms. Greaner asked Mr. Felton for clarification of what was being proposed now for the sidewalk.  Mr. Felton replied that if the right-of-way moved out seven feet, they would use roughly five feet of that for the building, which would leave two for some foundation planting or other use.  He said the sidewalk would then occur in the right-of-way outside of the seven feet.  Council Member Harrison commented that was easier to take.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they would proceed using the comments made tonight, noting that they would work with a few different color pallets.  She stated that one thing about these colors was that it made the articulation of the architecture easier to understand, but they agreed that different colors were needed.  Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said at the next presentation to the Council, they would be prepared to show all four elevations.

Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked if the Council wanted to see this in the downtown modeling plan, and was there a corner that it was important to see this from.  She said for instance, did the Council want to see Lot 5 from a particular perspective.

Council Member Greene said she would like to see it from Franklin Street and the Post Office side.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to see it from that perspective as well, adding he wanted to see it from the “space that was not dead.”

Ms. Greaner stated that she knew this had not been an easy process, and they appreciated all the feedback.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that the RAM Development team had been great, and the Council appreciated it.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.