SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
ON DESIGN OF LOT 5 AND THE WALLACE PARKING DECK
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 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, Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt, Senior Planner Phil Harvey, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Representatives of RAM Development were Susan Tjarksen-Roussos, Ivy Greaner, Casey Cummings, Kimberly Horne and Alan Moore. Others working with RAM Development present were John Felton with Cline Design Associates, Tom Lowe with Duany Plater-Zyberk, 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
1a. Parking Lot #5.
John Felton presented a PowerPoint presentation that took the Council through the anatomy of the proposed building designs, as well as the open space, workforce housing, and public art. He said they would present the same information for the Wallace Parking Deck, and then proceed to a discussion of the LEEDs issues for the buildings.
Mr. Felton displayed drawings of the Lot 5 Site Plan, noting they had taken into account the connection from Rosemary Street through the site, and pointed out the future connection to adjacent property. He indicated the vehicle access off of Rosemary Street, noting that was where all service vehicles would enter and exit. Mr. Felton said there was a potential access from Franklin Street as well that ramped down into the parking structure, and noted its location.
Mr. Felton exhibited aerial renderings of the project, pointing out the plaza space and smaller passive space, the smaller building on Franklin Street, the mid-rise building at the center of the site, and the retail and residential building on Rosemary Street. He then displayed renderings of each level of the structures. Mr. Felton displayed a slide that indicated how they would keep the buildings within the height limits set out in the Town’s Design Guidelines. He then exhibited elevation drawings of the buildings.
Council Member Verkerk said she was trying to get a sense of the scale of the buildings. She said the site was near Granville Towers, University Square and the Baptist Church. She asked how these buildings would compare to the heights of those three buildings. Council Member Verkerk noted there would currently a hotel being built nearby. Mr. Gurlitz indicated that the hotel would be five stories, but it stepped back about 24 feet.
Mr. Felton noted that the Franklin Street building was four stories, with a slanted roof. He said if they decided to add loft units, it would be located inside the roof to say within the height guidelines.
Mr. Cummings indicated he would be happy to compare the proposed buildings with the buildings mentioned by Council Member Verkerk and report those findings to the Council.
Council Member Verkerk said she wanted to be able to visualize how these proposed buildings would look. She said she had asked this specifically because some citizens had expressed concern about the height of the proposed buildings, and she wanted them to have some sense of it.
Council Member Harrison asked what the approximate setback was from the edge of curb on Rosemary Street to where the six-story section started. He said he believed it was about 180 feet, noting it was a mathematical function as to where they put it in order to stay within the height boundaries.
Mr. Felton displayed renderings of the public plaza area from Franklin Street. He said they anticipated quite a bit of activity spilling out from the retail area in the public plaza area. Mr. Felton then showed renderings of how the public space might be used, such as for book fairs, people eating their lunch, or other activities.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos noted they had spent quite a bit of time on understanding the parameters of the workforce housing issues. She stated they had found that the one-bedroom units needed to be around 725 square feet, and the two-bedroom units needed to be around 950 to 1,050 square feet. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said more one-bedroom units were preferred, and in the Wallace Deck we actually have two three-bedroom units.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the price for the one-bedroom units needed to be around $95,000 to $105,000, and for the two-bedroom units the price should be around $105,000 to $115,000. She said the three-bedroom units should be around $139,000. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said on Lot 5 the residential units were shown on Rosemary Street, because that building had the ability to provide character for the size of the units so that they would be better than “just a plain vanilla box.”
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said this was an area that would need a lot of input from the Council and from the public. She noted they had spent a lot of time with Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, and would continue to work with him to assure that all parameters were met so that all the units could be absorbed into the Land Trust.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they had been in conversations with the Public Arts Commission and knew there were processes in place, and they would continue to use those processes and use the Public Arts Commission to move through the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and work together to decide what they think is appropriate for public art. She noted that 1 percent of development costs for Lot 5 totaled $431,972. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the sooner they could incorporate the Public Arts Commission into this process the more meaningful the outcome would be for the project. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos mentioned the possibility of using some of the bricks from the McDade House to build the public space to give it history and more meaning.
Questions from the Consultant and the Town Council
Mr. Stainback noted that a series of questions had been provided to RAM Development several days ago so that they would be prepared and to make this discussion more effective.
Mr. Stainback, referring to the list of questions, said in his mind number 7 under Open Space was the most important. That question reads, “Describe how the proposal provides different types of active and passive pedestrian-oriented space for different kinds of users (family, children, etc.). (People watching spaces, a Town gathering place, space for civic events, outdoor dining and window shopping, etc.).” Mr. Stainback said he wanted to make sure that everyone had thought this out and that there were different types of space available to different users.
Mr. Stainback asked RAM to answer question 8 at the same time, which was, “Discuss the amount and types of softscape (lawn) vs. hardscape (paving) included in the pedestrian spaces.” He said the Town’s objective was to make this open space as active as possible and a true gathering place for the Town. Mr. Stainback said he was not convinced RAM had it exactly right.
Mr. Cummings stated there were three types of open space that ranged from semi-private to fully active public space that would be programmed as active as the Town would want it to be. He said there were also open spaces that should be perceived to be semi-private, which would not be gated but would be more private for the people who lived there. Mr. Cummings noted the area at the entrance to the mid-rise building would fit this category. He stated there was an area in between, which would be open to the public but more passive to prevent later issues with residents. Mr. Cummings noted the area between the two buildings would most likely have to be governed more closely to terms of hours of use and level of noise.
Mr. Cummings commented that they were open-minded to how those areas bleed into one another, but they wanted to make sure they did not create an area that may become a problem in the future for residents. He said RAM wanted the community to be engaged in this whole process, adding they did not feel it would be proper to have a “property manager” be responsible for that because that would not reflect what the community wanted. Mr. Cummings said they wanted to set up guidelines with the Town for use of these spaces and execute that in a way that respected the wishes of the community but also respected the privacy of the people who would live there.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when he first looked at the semi-private space towards Rosemary Street that Mr. Cummings had indicated he believed rather than enhancing safety it could actually be a “scary” place. He wondered whose eyes would be on that, noting the Town would certainly not put cameras there. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how RAM perceived that space as being safe. Mr. Cummings responded they envisioned that space to be open during the day, but potentially requiring that it be secured by a security gate in the evening. He said if you wanted to respect the street frontage in terms of creating buildings and activity on Rosemary and Church Streets you had to have the edges come all of the way over. Mr. Cummings said they did not want to create a hazard and if necessary they could cut the space further back from the street.
Mayor Foy asked what would go on there, such as people moving to and from their homes, basketball games, or something similar. Mr. Felton replied that the first three levels of the mid-rise building look out onto that space, and all six floors look over that space. He added that some windows on the second floor of the townhomes look out onto that space as well, so there were many eyes on it. Mr. Felton said the use would be primarily for residents to move to and from their units.
Mr. Cummings said there may be benches for people to sit, but they did not see that particular space as space used for exhibits, music events, or the like. He said they view it as a place with not a lot of activity, but where people could go for “peace and quiet.” Mr. Cummings said they envision people getting lunch and sitting quietly there while they ate, but not a place where people would use it late in the evening.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted a small courtyard on Franklin Street that was behind an establishment so not very visible and as such not well used. He said a coffee shop had opened for business close by and now that courtyard was seeing some use. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked was it possible that the first floor of that building could have a similar use so that the public space was used for passive activity during the day. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said she believed the retail space on Rosemary Street would be opened front and back, so that the open space would be more welcoming during the day. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that appeared to be a wonderful space, and he would not want to ignore its possible uses.
Council Member Greene noted that while they were studying this project, that many spaces such as this had been identified, where there was residential uses as well as retail uses with connecting open space. She said in all of the studies they had read, none deviated from what was being suggested here, adding they recognized that private homes had distinct identified space connected with it but were separate from any public space. Council Member Greene said she believed a coffee shop would be fine, but she did not share Council Member Kleinschmidt’s concern. Mr. Cummings responded that he believed that there was a certain amount of open space that at certain hours of the day needed to be reserved for the use by the residents.
Council Member Verkerk said when they were programming the larger, more active open space, did they keep in mind that Church Street was a Town street and so could be cut off in some respects to this development. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said that was one reason there was no vehicular access on Church Street to this development, so if the Town wanted to close it off for a special event it could be used in conjunction with the open space on the corner.
Ms. Greaner noted that was one reason they had suggested that the Town be responsible for the programming in that area and that RAM do whatever necessary to assist in that.
Mr. Stainback asked if there were arcades facing most of the areas. Mr. Cummings indicated on the site plan where the arcades were located. Mr. Stainback asked what the rationale was for the placement of the arcades, adding he believed it shortened the visible of the retail shops. He said they were not convinced that they needed arcades in this Town.
Mr. Cummings said it was a personal choice for the community, noting he personally liked areas without arcades but with things suspended off the buildings because of its looks. But, he said, as a shopper or pedestrian he would like the arcades because he would provide protection from the sun or other weather. Mr. Cummings said they could explore that, but he believed that by paying attention to how the stores move in and out of the space and how the signage was placed, they could make the shopping experience equal. He said it was a taste preference, and there was nothing about their designs that would require the arcades.
Mr. Felton noted that the sidewalk grade falls away several feet as you were walking from Church Street to Rosemary Street, and they had placed an arcade on that side to create a handicap accessible route that was at the same level as the plaza. He said another arcade had been created to provide visibility to the site from the intersection of Church and Rosemary Streets.
Mr. Cummings said as a process, at their next meeting they would provide larger scale drawings that would pinpoint the arcades as well as the dimensions of the key spots. Mr. Stainback said larger scale drawings would be most helpful, noting that in Chapel Hill open space was so important that the Town was willing to pay the toll for underground parking.
Mr. Stainback said he would like to know from the Council if they thought there was a good balance between the passive space versus the active space for the open space on Lot 5.
Council Member Verkerk stated that based on her experience, particularly with tattered awnings and the complaints the Town received about them, that arcades become wonderful transition areas from solid buildings to the outdoor street, and they provided a lot of areas for people to use. She said she would disagree with Mr. Stainback and go with the arcades. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos added that the arcades became important if you wanted outdoor dining in the public areas.
Council Member Ward commented that what was important to him was that the space could be many things easily, and that would depend on the surface treatment and the topography as well as other things. He said it was important that the space be “flex space” that could do many things with little effort, and that it had shade from the heat. Council Member Ward said if this space was as active as he envisioned it, it would be difficult to keep grass there. He said he wanted to be prepared to use a more durable surface.
Ms. Cummings stated when the community defined all the things it wanted to do with the space, it would become a question of programming. He said if the determination was that there needed to be less grass and more hardscape, then that decision could be made very late in the process. Mr. Cummings said he believed you would have to have both, so that children could have a space to play safely. He said such a space would make it less urban and more like a village.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed grass would be acceptable along with some other surfaces, noting an area in Carrboro where grass was provided along with an arcade. He said talking about programming the space, in Chapel Hill we tend to “take to the street” a lot, noting we have book fairs as well as protests. Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that in just the last six months we have had three or four marches in support of or in protest of something. He said the relationship between the public space and Franklin Street was important, and asked was this something where if people were marching down the street, could the marchers move up to the public space to complete their journey.
Mr. Cummings asked if the question was if the space was wide enough to accommodate such an event. Council Member Kleinschmidt said yes, that the renderings seemed to have the area framed off. He said the public space in front of the Post Office was completely open and easily accessible and therefore absorbed into the streetscape. Mr. Cummings said they had looked at a variety of ways to connect the public space to Franklin Street, but at the same time not have it disconnected from Rosemary Street. He said they could possibly make more public space along Franklin Street, but he believed it would affect the financial viability since that was the premium space on the site.
Mr. Cummings said they needed to provide enough retail, architectural or other interest to bring people, not just protesters, down the street into the space. Mr. Cummings said they could provide the Council with information about how many people could comfortable fit in the space, and if an event was planned where seating would be available they could figure the capacity of such an event as well.
Council Member Greene said she supported the idea of arcades, noting they had worked for centuries in Europe, were made of hard structure, kept people out of the weather, and provided markets. She said she imagined that this space could function like Bryant Park in New York. Council Member Greene said she would like to see movable chairs as well as grass. She said she wanted RAM to think about green urbanism and green infrastructure as we go though the process, adding the more natural environment we could create the better.
Council Member Strom, referring to the setbacks and overall ratios, said he wanted to confirm that the plan currently meets the site volume ratio and overall zoning for downtown, and that exceptions would not need to be made. Mr. Felton confirmed that the plan did meet the current ordinance and no exceptions would need to be requested.
Council Member Strom said he was drawn to the Lot 5 plan because the right uses were in the right places, and he believed the blocking of the buildings and the use of the space was exceptional. He wondered about the exterior look, and would like to understand what the process would be that would yield a different look to the collection of buildings at the end. Council Member Strom said they did not want any big surprises. Council Member Strom said he wanted to know what the Council through were reasonable ways to achieve that as well as what RAM thought. Mr. Cummings said that was a two-part question, with the first being how we wanted to decide those things. He said that was a process that they wanted to make sure was thorough and had everyone’s input, but would like to live with the schedule already set. Mr. Cummings said once everyone agreed on what they wanted, RAM would then present a full material board that had samples of the types of colors, exterior materials, windows, etc. for the Council and the public to see.
Mayor Foy said he believed the primary purpose of today’s discussion was for the Council to discuss what this project would actually look like, both with regard to the design and the architecture. He said he would like to do that now.
Council Member Strom said he liked the blocking of the space, but did not like the look. He said he believed the buildings should be more forward looking than what was presented.
Mayor Foy said he believed that what we would come to was that the way that it looked respected the existing architecture in the Town, but did not duplicate it. He said in his mind it did need to be more contemporary, and it was hard to say what that meant. Mayor Foy said his sense was that this space was so important to us and we were focusing on how the public would use it, but the visual cues that it gave needed to be forward thinking and not retrospective. Mr. Cummings suggested that perhaps each Council member could share their views regarding the architecture.
Council Member Harrison said he voted yes for arcades, and to carefully think about sun and shade and how that affected the space. For instance, he said, if a lot of shade trees were present then eventually you would have a lot of leaves. Council Member Harrison said regarding architecture, the renderings he had seen seemed to resemble Windsor Castle. He said he agreed that the architecture needed to match but not imitate what we presently have in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Hill asked who would actually design the buildings. Mr. Felton responded they would be working as a team on the design. Mr. Cummings added that the team that was selected was not a slave to one particular architectural style. He said the team was set up to be a collective process, but ultimately it would be RAM’s job to interpret what the Council was telling them it wanted.
Council Member Hill said he wanted to encourage RAM and its team to realize that it had a customer that was interested in something that was special and not something that was mundane or went to the lower common denominator. He said they had an opportunity to do something that many of their customers would not be interested in. Council Member Hill encouraged them to get creative and realize that we want something that would fit into Chapel Hill but would move us forward. Mr. Felton commented that they recognize that this was an opportunity to push the boundaries and get out of traditional forms. He said the designs they had presented were “safer” designs and should be considered a place holder, and was something to get started with and build on based on the Council’s vision.
Mr. Felton said they would like to provide the Council with photographs of other developments so that the Council could give them a better indication of what interested them.
Council Member Verkerk said she believed what the Council wanted to say was don’t be afraid to use some of the more quaint village-type designs, but make sure it looked like 2005. She said she would hope that they would know that within Lot 5 there does not have to be a uniform look. Council Member Verkerk said she had visited a new shopping center that was not warm and inviting, and it was because it had all the same edges and all the same look. She said she believed all of the buildings in Lot 5 could be completely different, and that would mean it would not look like that particular Town Council did it in that particular year.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she would know what she liked when she saw it. She said having the photos of other developments to look at would be most helpful.
Council Member Ward said he agreed with the sentiments already expressed, adding he did not want to see the 1750’s reproduced. He said Chapel Hill was used to seeing particular materials used, and he would like to see that continued here. Council Member Ward said the buildings had to respond to what was happening inside them. He said in an effort to make this area a destination, the area needed to speak of this place called Chapel Hill. Council Member Ward said he believed he would like to see some examples to respond to as well.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to see what the team’s professional and artistic experience could produce, and did not have much to add to what other Council members had stated. He said he knew what he did not like when he saw it, and he did not like a manufactured main street look, and that was what he feared the most. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not want it to look like a mall that was trying to look like a main street. He said primarily, he wanted to see what RAM’s ideas were.
Council Member Greene said she wanted to be able to separate really good planning ideas from neo-traditional architecture, which did not necessarily have to go together. She stated she had understood Mr. Cummings to say that they would listen to everyone and try to please everyone, but she believed that was what Council Member Hill was talking about when he spoke about the lower common denominator.
Council Member Greene said when they began the RFQ and RFP process they made sure to give the architect as much attention as they would the developer. She said they wanted to know the name of RAM’s architect, so it was a little disturbing not to have gotten an immediate answer to that question. Council Member Greene said it was important to know who they would be turning to in order to give them the type of design they were asking for.
Mr. Cummings said if they thought that any one of their three design team members had been able to do the job alone then they would have hired just one. But, he said, they believed that all three of them collectively provide the team that they need. Mr. Cummings said that RAM was the client for the architect, so it was RAM’s job to interpret what the Town Council was saying. He added he believed the more we head towards a future-looking style, the lower the margin for error, so the standard would have to be higher.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos asked when it would be appropriate to schedule a time for RAM to bring back to the Council examples for their comments. Mayor Foy asked the Manager how that would play out with the negotiation they were working on. Mr. Horton replied that the Council should provide as much detail as possible today. He said the Council would be taking a break during July and August, but a Council Committee would be working with RAM Development in the latter part of July. Mr. Horton said unless the Council wanted to add a meeting that was not presently on its calendar, then he believed we would have to work towards getting something that the Council could look at individually or that the Council could look at together sometime in August.
Mayor Foy asked if the negotiations could proceed. Mr. Horton said he believed so. He asked Mr. Cummings if the Council reached agreement on the general program, such as the layout and general massing of the buildings, then what they looked like could be decided at a later time. Mr. Cummings said that was correct, noting that the Council would have to approve of the design or they would not move forward.
Responding to Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos’ question, Mayor Foy said that the Council would give RAM as much information today as possible, and if it was necessary to schedule a special meeting they would do so, or if not then they would wait. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said the entire design team had a clear understanding of what the Council did not want, so she believed they could make some assumptions about how to move forward with a design. Mayor Foy said that the Council was wary of “design by committee,” so they would respect that in terms of what RAM brought forward. He said he did not think it was the best process for RAM to talk to individual Council members, but if RAM believed they would have something for the Council to look at in a short period of time then it was possible they could meet in groups.
Ms. Greaner asked if it would be appropriate to follow the Town’s normal approval process. Mr. Horton said the normal process would include review of the facades and review by the Community Design Commission. But, he stated, this was not a normal approval process and it was important because of the Council’s objectives that they participate more directly and more fully in approving the look of this project. Mr. Horton said he respected Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos’ desire to move forward, but it was more important for the Council to work as a group in providing feedback on potential design, and he did not believe that would slow the process down. He said there was still a lot of work to be done to negotiate the deal to make that work. Mr. Horton said it would seem to him that if the Council wanted to follow its present schedule then that would be okay.
Council Member Ward said he believed we would want to move as quickly as we can whenever we can, and for that reason he would like to have an exchange of ideas at every opportunity. He said he realized that was not easily scheduled and that the Council may not want to schedule an additional meeting. Council Member Ward said for that reason, he would like to take Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos up on her offer of getting back to the Council in a couple of weeks or so. He noted she could contact the Council by email or by phone or even face to face. Council Member Ward said there was an advantage to having a conversation over the next two months rather than waiting. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they could continue to working on the actual building components and other issues, so they would not be losing time on the schedule. She said they could come back at a scheduled time to show the Council options. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said when they get to actually making decisions on what the exterior elevations would look like, then that would affect the construction schedule and the LEEDs point system as well.
Council Member Ward said he was afraid they would get to a point where the construction schedule was affected. He said that the facade was the most important issue because it was nebulous and they could not come up with concrete ideas in order to get to a group decision. Council Member Ward said those decisions did not have to be made now, but he did not know if it was wise to get started in August or later.
Mr. Cummings commented that from the perspective of first things first, RAM Development needed to be assured that the massing, positioning, and separation of the buildings were generally agreed upon. He said they could certainly get examples of styles back to the Council in a couple of weeks, but they did not want to have to redesign the buildings over and over again.
Council Member Harrison brought up the access of the parking garage and how it related to pedestrian movement. He noted that from the diagram he could not pinpoint where the entrances to the parking garage would be. Mr. Cummings pointed out the entrances on the site plan.
Council Member Harrison asked if there was still a possibility of a bank with drive-through lanes in that area. Mr. Stainback said that was still undetermined at this time. Council Member Harrison said that was certainly something that had to be kept in mind when you think about the pedestrian movement in that area.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Cummings if he had any comments regarding how to most effectively enhance shopping on Franklin, Rosemary, and Church Streets. Mr. Cummings said at the risk of oversimplifying the answer, his response would be to build great buildings and put great retailers in them. He said it was important to have a mix of local, regional, and national retailers, and to build buildings that they would want to occupy. Mr. Cummings said the more you can accommodate adequate frontage, accommodate appropriate heights and ways to load the store, then you can attract better retailers.
Mayor Foy asked how many of the walls of the building were for retail. Mr. Cummings pointed those out on the site plan.
Council Member Harrison asked how they would minimize noise impacts on residents on site and around the site. Mr. Cummings said it involved establishing rules and regulations in order to control it. He said the most problematic use was probably a restaurant because of the odors, so extra vents would be needed. Mr. Cummings said some areas of the site would by nature be noisier, particularly on the street.
Mayor Foy said Mr. Cummings had asked earlier if the site plan had the Council’s approval, and he believed we needed to answer that question and move on to discussion of the Wallace Deck. He said in response to the earlier discussion about the use of the space, that he agreed with Council Member Greene that the public space should be grass and more “park like.” Mayor Foy said he was interested primarily in the informal use of the space, noting that scheduled use of the space would be secondary since the real vitality of the space would come from how we design it and how we encourage people to use it every day. He said all of it, even if it was quasi-private, should be recognizable as public space. Mayor Foy said he wanted to maximize the space that was available to the public even it was different kinds of uses, and it needed to be obvious that it was public space.
Mr. Cummings asked if it would be objectionable if they said that from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. that anyone could come into the semi-private area and use that space and post signs to that effect, and that the sign would also say that after 6:30 p.m. it was available to residents only. Mayor Foy said he would not necessarily object to that, noting that the Town closes parks are certain times. He said what would be a problem for him was if it appeared to be a private space so people would pass it by.
Mr. Cummings said they would get more specific about that particular area and what they envision happening there, and provide that to the Council along with the other promised materials.
Mr. Stainback suggested giving RAM Development three directions. First, he said, that we agree on the massing, heights, and master plan for Lot 5. Secondly, Mr. Stainback said, that we agree with the building program in general. Mr. Stainback said third, that they come back with more specifics on the open space and architectural design in two weeks, or some other acceptable time frame.
Mayor Foy said we were running into the problem of not meeting in July in August, and unless we came up with a different plan it would be September. Mr. Cummings said they would keep moving, and they had enough information to get back to the Council with much of it in a week’s time. Mayor Foy responded that the Council would be meeting next week and could possibly schedule another discussion.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if private green space on the top of the buildings for the residents was discussed. She said it was confusing to have green space at ground level that was public some time but private other times. Mr. Cummings said he believed that outdoor space needed to be provided, whether it is at grade or above grade. He said he believed that people who lived there would want private outdoor space. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if they had thought of putting that space on top of the building. Mr. Cummings said there were constraints associated with that, and it was one of the things they would look at. He said they were suggesting that there needs to be resident-only open space provided.
Council Member Hill said he was experienced enough to know that having good freight and delivery access was important to retailers. He said he was curious as to who RAM saw as retailers here. Mr. Cummings said it was too early to talk about that, but they did not foresee any one tenant taking up an entire space. He said he would be surprised if the largest tenant took up more than 4,000 square feet, which would probably be a restaurant.
Council Member Hill asked if they were uncomfortable with not having an “anchor” store. Mr. Cummings replied not at all, adding that in mixed-use developments that many smaller retailers make up the combined size of an anchor store. In any case, he said, he did not believe the available space in this project would attract an anchor store.
Council Member Greene asked someone from the staff to rediscover the Urban Land Institute (ULI) studies that the Council had previously seen. She said she could envision the residents in this area coming to the Council in two years to complain about the noise or other issues. Council Member Greene said she understood what Mr. Cummings was saying about having private space for the residents, and she believed having the Council review the ULI studies would be helpful.
Council Member Greene said she had a question regarding question 11, “Discuss the lack of building definition along Church Street.” She said she remembers the explanation at the last meeting that you wanted those spaces to catch the eye and she agreed that would work well with the arcade. Council Member Greene said regarding the underground parking, what were the plans for lighting and security as you move two levels down. Mr. Cummings said there would be lots of both.
Mr. Felton responded that the underground parking would certainly be gated, but they had not thought that aspect out to its final conclusion as yet. Mr. Cummings said garages by nature had to be better lighted than a regular parking lot, and because people would be living there that security was even more important. Mr. Cummings said there had to be a part of the garage where something would close behind you, and you could expect to be reasonably safe to get out of your car.
Council Member Greene said she was talking about someone like herself that might park there at night to eat at a restaurant and then get back to her car later at night. Mr. Cummings said they would address the security issue and specifically address those types of concerns, although they were not prepared to do that today.
Council Member Ward said one of the critical ingredients to the success of this space and that open space in particular was easy, accessible parking. He said Mr. Cummings had indicated the drive access points earlier, but asked where the pedestrian access points were located and how you would get from the parking area to the open space. Mr. Felton pointed out areas on the diagrams and explained how pedestrians would have access to the public areas. He said an elevator would be present, and an escalator might be useful to allow pedestrians to move easily from the underground parking to the open areas.
Council Member Ward said his opinion was that at least one of the access points should be more proximate to the public open space. Mr. Felton agreed to look at a solution for that. Council Member Ward commented that he believed we should consider parking on Franklin Street. Mr. Cummings said they held the same opinion.
Council Member Ward asked was there a way to get any more useable space from the entrances to the parking garages. For instance, could they have a top over them. Council Member Ward said that might be a place where we could improve the connectivity of that green space if there was a way for it to go over that entrance. Mr. Felton responded that there would be tall trucks that would have to enter that area, and it would not be possible to cover it.
Council Member Ward asked with the middle building, were there interior circulation to connect to those green spaces so that people could move through the building to either side. Mr. Cummings said they would need to get to a point where they were more specific about the use of that space, particularly if that space was kept as private for the residents. In that case, he said, they would not want people to move through the building into that space.
Mayor Foy said it appeared that another meeting was necessary, probably Monday or Wednesday. Mr. Cummings said based on what they needed to accomplish, Wednesday was their preference.
1b. Wallace Parking Deck.
Mr. Felton displayed a site plan for the Wallace Deck, and pointed out the location of the retail and residential space. He exhibited drawings that depicted the views from Rosemary and Henderson Streets, and the extension of parking and addition of retail. Mr. Felton showed drawings of the Rosemary Street elevation and the Henderson Street elevation of the buildings, and pointed out the pedestrian pathway at the plaza level.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos noted there would be 18 residential units on this site, with five one-bedroom units, 11 two-bedroom units, and two three-bedroom units. She said the price would be the same as those discussed earlier in Lot 5, that is that one-bedroom units would be around $95,000 to $105,000, the two-bedroom units would be around $105,000 to $115,000, and the three-bedroom units would be around $139,000.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they would use the same process discussed earlier regarding working with the Public Arts Commission. She noted that 1 percent of the development costs equaled $197,822 to be used for public art in this area.
Mr. Felton said the additional parking spaces that the Town would gain by extruding the deck would be expensive for what they would gain. He said that was an issue that needed to be discussed. Mr. Felton said they were designing the plaza in order to accommodate a bridge connection, and that needed to be discussed as well, in terms of how critical those issues were.
Questions by the Consultant and the Town Council
Mr. Stainback said he believed we all agree that this needed more attention, such as the issue of extending versus creating a new building at Henderson, the cost of different levels, etc., and he did not believe it would be solved today.
Mr. Stainback said he had questions about the ability to lease or sell housing units facing that alley, and the ability to attract tenants to the retail space at Henderson and Rosemary Streets.
Mr. Cummings said they believed the units on the alley would obviously be less desirable, and they would be priced that way. He said that would give people access to the market rate component that might otherwise not get them. Mr. Cummings said those units were not ideal, but he believed they would sell because the quality of the project would be high and people wanted to live in Town.
Mr. Cummings said regarding the retail space at Rosemary and Henderson, he did not believe that space would rent for as much as the space on Franklin Street, but he believed for incubator types of businesses it would attractive. Mr. Greaner noted that the space was only 3,000 square feet, and it would be priced less that the space on Franklin Street. Mr. Cummings noted they did not anticipate any problems in leasing that space.
Mr. Stainback asked why the retail space stopped where it did. Mr. Felton said that behind that space was the 51 new parking spaces, and it was a trade off. Mr. Stainback asked why it was placed where it was. Mr. Felton said that was the way the existing deck sat. Mr. Stainback said he knew they could not solve this today, but he believed it needed to be looked at again. He said he was optimistic that a solution would be found, but we had not found it yet.
Mr. Cummings said that question 37 asked for an explanation of RAM’s alternative plan noted in the May 2 proposal, including the option of phasing. He called the Council’s attention to Appendix 1b, noting that it was basically building a building on the vacant parcel behind the Post Office. Mr. Cummings said he was not sure that would accomplish all of the Council’s objectives, but it was an alternative they were prepared to explore further.
Mr. Cummings said that once you decide to expand the deck and building on top of it, you need to create enough scale to support that endeavor. He said their analysis needed more thought, because he was not 100 percent certain that they have just the right concept that accomplished all of the Town’s objectives and made it worth the effort of actually going on top of the deck and expanding the deck. Mr. Cummings said that was an area that they needed to further refine their thinking on.
Mr. Cummings said unless he was told otherwise, he would assume that the comments received regarding architecture on Lot 5 would hold true for the development on the Wallace Deck. He said he would like to hear comments on the site plan and on the open space issue.
Mayor Foy asked exactly what the alternate plan was. Mr. Cummings described the alternate plan according to their proposal contained in the materials in Appendix lb. Mayor Foy asked what the advantages were to that alternative. Mr. Cummings said it was not necessarily an advantage, but was a radically different approach that they might pursue if a consensus could not be reached on the design. He said the alternative was far less ambitious and involved less development, although it may not be as advantageous for them from a financial perspective.
Council Member Greene said that given what had been said about giving the residents some private open space on Lot 5, how did RAM arrive at this design where the public plaza was “right in people’s private faces.” She added that she liked the way it looked but everywhere she looked there was someone’s home. Mr. Cummings responded that with Lot 5, they were starting with a vacant piece of ground and they were starting from scratch. He said that with the Wallace Deck, he believed that people would necessarily have to be more comfortable with the public space being “in their face.” Mr. Cummings said they were basically taking a platform that had public space on it and adding housing to it. He said they could take some of the smaller courtyards and make them more private, but by its nature there was less flexibility to make the spaces private.
Mr. Cummings said they had looked at different designs, but given the constraints they believed this design was the best way to approach it. He agreed that this design was not as good as the design for Lot 5, because of the constraints encountered.
Council Member Greene asked had they built or seen a configuration such as this that was successful. Mr. Cummings said he had seen residences built on parking structures that had effective private space associated with them, but had not personally seen many examples that were at elevated levels above grade.
Mr. Felton said they had experimented with other designs, such as townhouse designs at the street level, but that caused the unit count to go down. He said they could go back and look at that, although it would affect 12 to 14 units.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos commented that one of their concerns during the design process was how to transfer the energy from Franklin Street through both of the alleys so that people coming home at night could walk through the public space and know that it was public and it was okay to walk through there. She said it was really a trade-off, whether you wanted to have private space for the residents of public space shared with the residents that others could freely use.
Council Member Verkerk wondered if we were trying to make our demands for open space too great, noting that the open space we had now did not work. She said she did not want to be looking into someone’s kitchen while using the open space. Council Member Verkerk said maybe we should just give up the idea of open space on the Wallace Deck if that would give us more flexibility for something else.
Mr. Stainback said he had wanted to state that earlier, but thought it might be too radical. He said it was a very interesting concept. Mr. Stainback agreed that the open space presently there did not work. He said he had visited the site this afternoon and there was no one there, adding it was one of the most barren spaces he had ever seen. Mr. Stainback said it really did not work, so why save it.
Council Member Verkerk said if removing the open space bought them more flexibility, then the Council should consider just doing away with it. Mr. Stainback agreed, stating he would highly recommend that.
Council Member Greene said we could leave some of it and designate it as private open space for the residents only. Mr. Cummings said that was possible, noting it was a common concept. He said they had found that the most successful developments such as this had units that fronted on courtyards rather than streets. Mr. Cummings said the private open space would be surrounded by buildings and would create an area where people would want to live. He added that the present design was reacting to the RFP and they had not felt it was appropriate to suggest what Mr. Stainback had just said, although they might agree with him.
Mr. Cummings said in terms of what they take from this meeting to analyze, this was one of the things they were prepared to do. He added he did not believe a study and an analysis could be prepared by next week.
Mayor Foy said he was concerned about giving up on the open space, because we needed to think about what would happen when the north side of Rosemary Street was developed. He commented he did not like the way Rosemary Street was developed now, which was the dead space that the garages created. Mayor Foy said he hoped that would not be how it worked in the future. He said he would like there to be the possibility that someone would actually be able to go from Franklin Street to Rosemary Street some other way than just down Henderson Street, although he did not know if that would ever happen.
Mayor Foy said he was reluctant to give over that public space, although the current space had failed. He said there would be limited opportunities for pocket parks or similar areas. Mayor Foy said he would also like to see the area in front of the Post Office to act as sort of a welcoming area where people could walk through the Post Office to the development in the back. Mr. Cummings stated they had actually looked at that idea, adding they believed we would benefit from expanding the boundaries of this site either through privately owned or publicly owned property. He said the dimensions were awkward and there were many constraints placed upon them by virtue of what was already there.
Mr. Cummings said they would like to have a short period of time to analyze these ideas, so that they could discuss some alternatives with others.
Council Member Strom said personally he was not wedded to this design and would welcome some additional thought and approaches to the site. He said he had two thoughts, with the first being that the idea of having the townhouses cascade over the front of the Wallace Deck was interesting. Council Member Strom said secondly, when talking about transferring the energy from Franklin Street back to Rosemary Street, he wondered with the way this was configured if there was a possibility of some designation retail opportunities on that courtyard, such as copy shop or dentist’s office or something similar. Council Member Strom said he believed the plaza could function that way with some retail or office space on it.
Mr. Cummings said that idea was worth exploring, adding he believed something in that open space may well be possible. He said there were things they could do, but they needed to understand more about the flexibility of that space. Mr. Cummings said in the case of the Wallace Deck, there were a variety of alternatives, but they wanted to speak to the RFP so this design was brought forward. He said there were many other designs that could be considered.
Council Member Ward said he had been looking forward to having a pedestrian connection from this site over to Lot 2, so he did not want to give that up if giving up public space would result in that. He said that he believed the courtyard was too small, and was interested in getting rid of the fountain shown on the design to widen the available open space. Council Member Ward said he agreed that retail would be a possibility on that corner of the site, but it may not work until it was connected to Lot 2.
Council Member Ward said he could not determine from the drawings how universal access was provided. He said he was hoping that the issue of LEED construction, a part of which was designing and building it in a way that it was flexible over a very long period of time, that the building could sustain those required changes. Council Member Ward said there was a comment that they would give us a product that was LEED certifiable to the certificate level, and the Council was still pushing for the Silver level. He said that was something that we needed to push for together.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said many of the things about Lot 5 he saw as existing on Lot 2 later on, such as open space and the marquee design and that kind of thing. He said what he saw as a benefit to the whole project was that more people would be able to live in Town, and so his ideas of what would be on top of the Wallace Deck were not as important as the fact that people would be able to live there. Council Member Kleinschmidt said if getting rid of the public spaces would provide a better place for people to live, then so be it. He said he had never liked the space on top of the parking deck, and he doubled it would ever be workable.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not believe that destination retail would work there, because until you brought it down to the street level, it would not function successful. He said he supported putting as many residences as possible there and give them a nice place to live, and then focus our energies back on the original projects, which were Lots 2 and 5.
Council Member Ward encouraged RAM to look at some way to punch in another piece of retail mid-block on Rosemary Street, rather than having the blank wall of the parking deck facade. Mr. Cummings assured him they would look at that.
Mr. Stainback commented that in terms of going private with the deck, that if they considered an alternate pedestrian space at street level it would be possible to save the magnolia tree at the site.
Mayor Foy confirmed that what Council Member Strom had spoken about was that we had seen the proposal for retail space on Rosemary Street in front of the deck. Council Member Strom said that was one of the configurations that had been talked about. Mr. Cummings said they believed that there should be useable space for people, not cars, on Rosemary Street, and he did not think there was a way to do that without changing the boundaries of the property in a real functional way unless you removed a part of the garage. Mr. Cummings said the garage was built on or right at the property line so there was no useable space.
Mr. Cummings stated that the other proposal they had received contemplated townhomes at the street level but it involved changing the boundaries of the property and taking some of the right-of-way and sidewalk on Rosemary Street. He said that if there was a way to change the right-of-way on Rosemary Street then that would provide more flexibility to consider other designs and preserve the garage. Mr. Cummings reiterated they had reacted to the RFP and proposed designs that stayed within the four corners of the boundary.
Council Member Harrison said he did not have a problem with tossing the plan on this and trying again. He said he did want housing on it, he wanted the connection to Lot 2 and connections to Franklin Street, that the public wanted replacement parking and the public space even if it was not worth anything, should be compensated for by having something to take its place.
Item 2 – Discussion of Next Steps
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos provided a summary of the issues that would come back to the Council for discussion at a meeting to be set for next week. For Lot 5, she provided the following:
· Provide dimensions for Lot 5, showing specific dimensions of the public space and setbacks.
· Provide a program and some direction for the small inner courtyard that was behind the Rosemary Street building on Lot 5.
· Look at parking and security as it relates to security and lighting for the below-grade parking and how it could be adjusted to come up to meet the open space.
· Provide some pictures of projects on a nationwide basis for the Council to view different architectural styles.
· Look at the curb cut on Rosemary Street to see if some covering could be provided to make it more continuous across that curb cut for vehicular traffic and service on the back portion of Rosemary Street.
Mr. Cummings asked his team if it was realistic that those issues could be addressed by next week. Mr. Felton said he would prefer more time to research examples of architecture and not provide the first thing he found, but he believed they could meet that deadline. Mr. Cummings said they would do the best job possible regarding the photographs, but believed they could respond to the other issues without much difficulty.
Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that he wanted to know what the team liked, and what they thought should be done. Mr. Felton said he wanted to craft a project based on input from what he heard from the Council, and did not want to show them something that would not hold together. He said with the Council’s input, they would craft something that was very wonderful and very imaginative. Mr. Felton thanked the Council for its honest comments, noting they need to go through this process of determining what the Council’s taste was and then go from there.
For the Wallace Deck, Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said she understood that they would go back and redesign this almost in its entirety to take into account the Council’s comments. She said she believed they needed at least 30 days to take a step back and see how these ideas could be incorporated into the design, such as what if we could incorporate the Post Office into the design, and what if we could go outside the existing boundaries of the property, and other ideas.
Mayor Foy said he would rather they use their imagination to develop another design. Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said they would ask for at least 30 to 45 days to reconsider what might be possible based on what they had heard today.
Mr. Stainback said they would be negotiating heavily in July and August, so they needed it as soon as they could get it.
Council Member Hill confirmed that one agreement would cover both projects. He said that if we could only move as fast as the slowest part and this was the slowest part, he saw no reason to rush with the other steps. Council Member Hill said if we were going to step back and take a second look at the Wallace Deck, why speed through on the other. Mr. Cummings replied that his preference would continue the momentum on Lot 5, which would not slow down their work on the Wallace Deck. He said he would hope that the agreement would provide some flexibility so that if they were ready to move forward on a date certain on either project, they could do so. Mr. Cumming said he did not believe they were contemplating simultaneous development.
Council Member Hill said then there was some value in proceeding with Lot 5 in advance of the Wallace Deck. Mr. Cummings said he believed so.
Mr. Horton stated he believed it was important to keep the project moving forward, but we needed to look at it from a financial standpoint. He said the numbers did not work particularly well for the Wallace Deck at this point, but if you take the Wallace Deck out of the picture then the numbers don’t work for Lot 5. Mr. Horton said he did not believe it was possible for the projects to move forward on different scheduled unless the Council had seen where it would end up. He said for this to work for the Council they had to see what the end point looked like financially. Mr. Horton said that may cause this to go slower than they would like.
Ms. Tjarksen-Roussos said from their perspective they were not wasting their time by proceeding with Lot 5, because if progress was made in that area it would allow them more time to work on the plans for the Wallace Deck. She said it would be beneficial to continue the momentum of Lot 5 and get those issues to close agreement so that they could focus on the Wallace Deck. Mr. Horton agreed it would be beneficial to continue with Lot 5, noting it would help us to learn how to solve problems with each other and solve problems that would help us with the Wallace Deck
Mr. Horton suggested that perhaps the Council would be able to meet next Wednesday, June 29th, at 3 p.m. Mayor Foy said two Council members had indicated they would not be available on Wednesday.
Mr. Stainback said he would be here through the 27th and would leave on the 28th.
Mayor Foy said there was no time next week when everyone would be available, so they may have to meet without someone there. Council Member Greene noted she would be coming back into Town on Monday afternoon and could meet at 5 p.m. Mayor Foy commented that a 5 p.m. meeting would only give them about an hour and a half.
Mr. Cummings commented that the next meeting would be to provide very specific answers to questions, and to provide the Council with some photographs, so meeting for that short of a period would be beneficial and provide ample time to answer specific questions primarily about open space.
Mayor Foy said he believed Wednesday was preferable, but two Council members said they could not meet that day at 4 p.m. Several Council members commented on their availability to meet. Mayor Foy concluded that Wednesday at 3 p.m. was the most appropriate time. The Council agreed by consensus.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.