Loading...
Item 6A CC TranscriptCity Council Carillon Discussion – September 16, 2008 (notes requested by Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell) Director Ken Baker – Presented item Applicant, Jeff Kennemer – Presented item City Councilmember Vernon Stansell – Quick question. Kennemer – Yes, sir. Stansell – There can be no more than 3 owners per structure? Kennemer – That is correct. There is a limitation. You cannot have more than one resident per floor. We do not have any availability to take these lots and break them into multiple units. It would be a max of one resident, one dwelling unit per floor. Now you could have a resident that wanted to buy two floors for a single loft, but not the other way around. We cannot take a single floor and break it into multiple units. Stansell – Okay. Kennemer – Continued his presentation. City Councilmember Pamela Muller – On the lofts, what prohibits somebody from putting an office on the top floor and the lower ones being residential? Is that left up to whoever purchases? Kennemer – We don’t have a restriction for that currently. Muller – Will there be any restriction that the lofts be owner occupied? Kennemer – We’d be happy to place that restriction. I don’t know that’s possible to prevent someone who buys a unit from being able to rent. But we have no intention whatsoever for these being rented, so I don’t have a problem with that. Muller – If there’s an office in the development how would the signage work? Because from what I’m understanding this is supposed to look residential like townhomes and such. Kennemer – It does. It would be similar to something you’ve seen in the Northeast <inaudible> it would be part of, it would be very nonintrusive, it would be, I could bring you in our next reading, I’ll bring you some examples of what those look like. I don’t have those with me tonight, but it would be sort of like a very short lamp post with a sign that hangs over <inaudible>. Muller – And you would regulate that in your… Kennemer – Yes, it would be part of our regulations. Muller – Explain what is high-end finish. What materials are those? Kennemer – Those would be masonry products. It’d be stone, brick, glass, stucco, I mean it would be similar to… Muller – Because some of the renditions and pictures you showed actually showed marble, in some of the pictures in the booklet we received and I don’t think that is what you are referring to. Kennemer – I’d have to see which picture you’re referring to that’s marble. Muller – Well, there’s some in the, they looked like they were building renditions you’d see in France, Paris. They looked like they were about five stories instead of three in one of the booklets here that you handed us. Kennemer – We didn’t envision any of these to be marble. These would be stone, brick, masonry, wrought iron work, and then a certain amount of glass. Mayor Andy Wambsganss – Any EIFS? I know we’ve had a real issue with EIFS. Kennemer – We’ve agreed not to use EIFS anywhere on our project. Wambsganss – Okay, and stucco. Which portion, if we’re looking at this, would be stucco versus cast stone or brick? Kennemer – I’d have to refer to my architect. Anybody want to help me from Carter and Burgess… <inaudible> Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Gregory Jones – At the very least, you’re either going to have masonry or your going to have true stucco. Correct? Kennemer – That is correct. Jones – Alright. There’s no EIFS. Which to me is probably the most important thing in terms of the quality. Wambsganss – That is. I just think for, I know, if this moves forward tonight, there’ll be another reading, but if you can kind of identify that, because I think expansive walls of stucco would kind of take away from that rich look. And then, one of the real criticisms of a lot of the brownstones has been the siding that was used on the back, and I’m assuming there’s no siding or hardy board. Kennemer – No siding. Wambsganss – Okay. Sorry to interrupt you Pam. Muller – The parking garage, are you planning to dedicate that to the City in the future? In the commercial area? Kennemer - The city? Not really. I sense the City probably did not want us to do, to dedicate the parking garage to the City. We can have those discussions if that’s something the City would like. Muller – No, the City wouldn’t like that. I just wanted to be sure. You brought it up and that has been an issue here in Town Square. Kennemer – Sure and let me clarify one other point, too. In terms of the parks that we show, we’ve agreed to maintain those through the property owner’s association even if the City chooses to accept dedication. Muller – And the fountain? Would that be part of the park dedication? Kennemer – Yes. Wambsganss – Relating to the maisons, talk about the square footage, the price points, so forth. Kennemer – Certainly, the building pads are 32 feet by 89 feet. So these will handle large, large units. We’re envisioning most of the units to be in the 2,800 s.f. to 3,800 s.f. range, although, we have the ability to build them bigger. Same with the lofts. That is really the range we are anticipating the market to want, but we could certainly build them bigger. Councilmember Vernon Stansell - Are you willing to stipulate a minimum? Kennemer – Certainly. Stansell – 2,800? Kennemer – 2,800. Wambsganss – What is your anticipated price? Kennemer – The sales price for the maisons and the lofts are anticipated, again this would be just a one-floor loft. It would obviously be more if someone bought two. But would be in the $600,000 to $950,000 range. Stansell – So about $200 a foot? Kennemer – Yes. Stansell – While we’re on that topic, not to take the Mayor off his stride there, but what would be the minimum size for the structures on the 45 by 110s? Kennemer – 2,700 square feet. Stansell – Want to stipulate 2,800? Kennemer – Yes, we would be willing to stipulate 2,800 s.f.. Jones – That’s on the 45 by 110? Kennemer – That’s correct. Jones – One of the things, in visiting with some of the neighbors that surround, and I’m happy to report in my business with them they’ve indicated, at least the folks that I met with, indicated they really do support the overall project. Their concerns were addressing some specific concerns that they had in different areas. But to me the good news was that they felt like the project overall was good and your company is a fine company. So I think those are positive things. One of the things that’s been raised is a question and I’ve visited with you about it a little bit, is the issue of construction entrances. And one of the things I was going to ask you was if we could basically set for Carroll Avenue, in particular, because Carroll Avenue has our elementary school on it, if we could basically set aside Carroll Avenue and agree that there will not be any construction traffic on Carroll Avenue? And then, in a like manner, from, as we look at this drawing that’s up here now, the plan that’s here now, over on White’s Chapel if we could also have an agreement that there will be no construction traffic that will circulate up north on White’s Chapel past your, past the Kirkwood entrance right there? So that trucks aren’t going to be going up White’s Chapel and over on Dove and that type of thing. And try to focus construction entrance activity on 114 and on the lower part of White’s Chapel. Have you had a chance to look at that and see if that’s a possibility? Kennemer – We would agree to that. We would agree to prohibit construction traffic to come in on Carroll and I certainly understand why residents in Estes Park would not want any traffic through their neighborhood. We would certainly do that. Jones – Thank you. Another point in sort of addressing the schools here a little bit is over on Carroll Avenue you have a trail that comes down from the north along Carroll Avenue and it comes down to your entrance there, and then it winds its way through the woods, and I noticed, intended to be part of the trail system and I think the part that winds through the woods you definitely want to keep that. What I would ask is if you would continue a sidewalk coming down along Carroll Avenue so that school children could use it if necessary. Bring it down Carroll Avenue to the point, and Ken, maybe you can help me with this. That’s Whispering Lane over there, is it? Baker – The sidewalk on Johnson extends north on the Johnson side of the east side of Carroll there’s a sidewalk that extends north to Whispering Lane. Jones – Okay, so if we can bring that sidewalk down at least as far as your property runs down there, I think in talking with Ken Baker a little bit, that we would have a good chance of being able to finish up whatever sidewalk is necessary so that there is good access to Johnson Elementary coming down that road. Would you be willing to do that? Kennemer – We would. Jones – Another issue that has been raised is the drainage and I know I’ve had a chance to visit with you about that a little bit, but actually we talked on many occasions. And I might point out to people who are here that we have been engaged in this now for probably going on eight months now of a lot of discussion a lot of visitation here. One of the things I spoke to our Public Works Director a little while ago about this, but I wondered if, Bob, in terms of some of the concerns that have been raised regarding drainage. One of the things I was pleased to hear was that, first of all, you’ve been engaged with Hines and have talked to them for quite a while, have you not? Director Bob Price – Yes, sir. Jones – How long you have you been discussing this stuff with them? Price – We have been meeting with the Hines Group and their engineers, Jacobs Carter Burgess, for six to eight months. Jones – Okay, in terms of your working with them, I mean, are there any outstanding issues right now that are concerned relating to drainage? Price – None at this point. We are in the entitlement phase and generally a preliminary amount of engineering goes in at this point. When we move into, once the entitlements are granted, should they be granted, then we move into a final engineering design phase and that’s the time at which we start looking very closely at the computer models. Generally speaking, I do have to say that the Hines Group has done more preliminary engineering at this point than is usually done at the entitlement phase. They have run several hydraulic models and have done the more work at this point than is usually done. Usually that work takes place during the final engineering. Jones – And I think, actually, this got raised sometime ago by Councilman Terrell and I know that Councilman Terrell had made a real point of wanting to see some what we call regional detention and regional drainage issues being addressed by the Hines Group and did they do that? Price – Yes, sir they did and just to give you a little background. Several years ago the City employed the firm of KSA to put together a Master Drainage Plan and in that plan it called for 43 acre feet of regional detention in this area. At that time that report refers to it as the Aventerra tract, which was the previous owner. That 43 acre feet actually is indicated in and is inclusive of the development that we’re looking at here this evening. Jones – Okay, what type of drainage are they anticipating here? Price – As I said the KSA report indicates 43 acre feet being required of regional detention. The Jacobs Carter Burgess Hines development that we are looking at today is proposing 60 acre feet that is in excess of that 43 acre feet that is required. Mayor Pro Tem John Terrell – Councilmember Jones, I think at our last meeting too, the applicant has agreed they won’t do anything less than 60 acre feet, and I think that should be part of any kind of motion that, if we get to that point. Jones – I think, so that was already agreed to last meeting then? You’re going to stick with that? Kennemer – We were. We agreed to stick to 60 acre feet if we could keep the plan reasonably in tact. Stansell – So are you qualifying your answer then? Kennemer – No, I’m not qualifying my answer. There hasn’t been any decision made on number of residential units, so what I said in the last meeting is that we would certainly be willing to keep it at 60 acre feet as long as the number of residential units was something we could still bear. There is some point at which the units will become so few that we will have to utilize some of the other land. Jones – At this point, though, with what we’re dealing with now you’re committed to it? Kennemer – This plan we’re committed to 60 acre feet, yes sir. Jones – And you’ll let us know if that changes? Kennemer – Yes, sir. Jones – Okay, good. Alright. Terrell – Let me back up to the, there’s so many different things to talk about. What are your plans, if for instance, I know all of your plans show a performing arts center in this area with fountains, and there was some discussion that you would donate land for that performing arts center? Kennemer – That is correct. Terrell – What if that performing arts doesn’t happen here? What is your plan and two, are the fountains and things you’ve shown in front of that center still going to happen with some other development of that particular building? Would it be moved? What I don’t want to do is necessarily base a plan on something we haven’t even talked to citizens about and that’s a fairly sizable cost. I don’t know if we’re going to be able to move as fast as you or if that would even occur at that location. We just can’t say that is going to happen at this point, so what is the plan? What’s the alternative? Kennemer – Okay, if this is the performing arts center right here, you can see the retail here in front of the hotel. The hotel was designed to be in close proximity. If the performing art, this is about a 2 ½ acre site here, including some parking for the performing arts center. If the performing arts center, and we would want there to be some type of time stipulation. That would be critical to the success of our development. We’re willing to have discussions with Apex and the City to determine the exact duration of that time frame, but at some point if it looked as if though the City was not going to be able to, or Apex or some partnership of both develop the performing arts center we would use this particular site as additional retail, that would be... we might reconfigure this pad site, but it would add to our retail configuration. In terms of the fountain, if there is not going to be a performing arts center there we would like the flexibility, we would like flexibility to look at potentially an alternate location for where that would be best located. Terrell – This is a very small issue to maybe many, but I think a big issue for at least one of the residents, Mr. Boudreaux who lives over on Carroll Avenue. There’s evidently a bridge that I walked with him. That is an old, dilapidated bridge on the south side of his house that goes back to Carroll Avenue. What is your plan on that bridge? It can’t support a vehicle, it is pretty much falling down. The water is eroding away underneath it and it has also eroded away into the bank of his area. What is your plan, too, for the outfall of the water in that lake? Is that going to go down into that creek that is right behind his house or is it going to outfall to that north end? Kennemer – This lake? Terrell – Uh-huh. Kennemer - I would like to ask my engineering firm to answer that question. Paul McCracken – Paul McCracken with Jacobs, 7950 Elmbrook in Dallas. We are in our preliminary designs. We are intending to have the outlet structure for that lake further north. There’s a draw that occurs further north and that is the location for it. Terrell – From what you know of the outlet flow the water goes through that creek. Is that going to alleviate some of the erosion issues along the backside of Mr. Boudreaux’s property based on that creek? McCracken – Yeah, the area that is draining into that lake is a whole lot more than what is showing up on that screen. It goes a considerable distance up 114 and that area will be routed into these lakes, so the fact that it will be routing into lakes and release essentially upstream, or downstream of this property, I don’t know the amounts that it would have to reduce what he’s seeing right there adjacent to his property essentially taking it around. Terrell – Okay. McCracken – Does that answer your question? Terrell – I think that helps me at least on the drainage side of it, but I’ve still got the question on the bridge structure itself, because that’s… McCracken – Is it on your land <inaudible> Terrell – It looks like it’s on your land. McCracken – We don’t have a use for it. Kennemer – We don’t have a use for it. Terrell – Will you take that down? Kennemer - We would. Jones – While he’s writing that one thing, I did want to make clear also, Bob, if you would just reiterate that any final, before there can be any construction, the City of Southlake engineering department has to give it’s final approval on all these issues. Correct? Price – Yes, sir. Generally speaking in most developments we go through a series of reviews. The design engineer will submit plans. We will review those. We will also probably use a third party consultant to subsidize our review to make sure we vet all issues. And then once we come to a conclusion, agreement upon those we will release them for construction. Jones – And that will include the drainage issues? Price – Yes, definitely it will include the drainage issues. Jones – Do you know at this time who you will plan to use for your… Price – We have been using third party consultant firm of Teague, Nall and Perkins for approximately the last year and a half. Jones – Alright. Terrell – I’ve got a few more questions, especially on the commercial side too, before we get into some of the other areas of the residential. This plans changed considerably, especially over on the White’s Chapel side. It appears there’s a lot more pads, individual pads, instead of longer buildings. I want to make sure of a couple things. You’re agreeable to no fast food restaurants. Right? Kennemer – Yes. Terrell – There will be no drive-thru restaurants? Kennemer – That is correct. Terrell – How do you envision these, it’s kind of a unique alignment of buildings up the east side of White’s Chapel. How do you.. Kennemer – These? Terrell – All the way up, yeah, along there. Right. Kennemer – We had a discussion with City staff about this. They were concerned about the appearance of massing, really wanted it to appear there was continuity and massing along White Chapel. As you can see, we came back after our meeting with City staff, and we, we would be willing to put some type of wall structure, to give that continuity of appearance between the various units. Stansell – So while he’s making his notes there. Just to confirm, we’re sitting up here with two different plans, but you’re referring now to the one that’s labeled “Alternative Plaza District Layout Plan.” Kennemer – Yes, sir. That’s correct. Stansell – And that is what you’re asking us to consider? Kennemer – Yes, sir. Councilmember Laura Hill – I just had an amenity question. Obviously this plan has gone through a lot of changes and one of the disappointments I’ve heard comment about is the corner of White Chapel and 114. That area that started out to be a welcoming point to your development has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. Now that I see the separation of the pad sites it even has the appearance that corner… Kennemer – Are you talking about this corner right here? Hill – Yeah. It started out as an amenity corner and it’s really, it doesn’t look the same as it started out, that’s for sure. So, do you have anything to show us as to what that will actually look like, because all the information you’ve given us, it’s quite a focal point but it doesn’t look like it will be anymore? Kennemer – In the development book there’s a rendering of how this particular area is envisioned to look. We will have a little amenity feature. It’s going to sort of welcome people in to Carillon. I might ask Emily Drake, are you here, do you want to make a comment? What is envisioned for the entry feature? Emily Drake – If you take a look at the previous plan, I think you guys have both in front of you, you’ll see that the building layout between the two, as far as there locations on the plan are fairly similar at that corner. The actual monument that’s located at the corner here, hasn’t changed in size in what you see in the two plans. The monument itself is the exact same size, and we’re still incorporating a 25 foot buffer along State Highway 114 with berming and a meandering trail, as well. What we had initially envisioned and what’s in the booklet is a masonry type wall with that has the entry signage on it “Carillon.” And I can find the exact page in the book in which that’s located, if you guys need that page number to refer to. It also incorporates some trees and some accent planting into the design as well, and the possibility, in the center of that piece is a focal point, some public art. Councilmember Virginia Muzyka – I know you’ve got a lot of parking that will be seen. Drake – There is, there has been a parking field, a small two-bay parking field that’s been added for that piece of retail there, I’m sorry, I keep pointing, I should use the cursor. This little piece of retail here does have parking in this location. Previously, there was one bay of parking. And so there is a double bay of parking now. But this piece here does have some green space intact with it as well as the buffer along 114 and the buffer along White Chapel that continues north. Muzyka – Do you anticipate the parking will be behind vegetation, berming, or something? Drake – Yes. Yes. Everything along 114 in the corporation district and the plaza district contains a 25 foot landscape buffer that has berming and planting to buffer that parking from 114. Kennemer – You can see too, really, that this particular area here has really been expanded upon to really be a beautiful entry feature as well. Stansell – And I, I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate the 25 foot buffer and the berming and all that. I want to make sure we’re real clear, we have been from day one. We don’t want to see any parking from 114. Drake – That’s correct. We understand that. Stansell – Why did, so you reconfigured the retail because staff suggested that? Why did you reconfigure? Kennemer – We reconfigured the retail, and I let, if it’s ok I’ll have Steve Chilton come up with Opus. I’ll allow him explain in greater detail some of the thought behind breaking up the parking garage and reconfiguring some of the retail. Stansell – That’d be helpful. Thanks. Steve Chilton – Steve Chilton with Opus West, 15455 North Dallas Parkway, Addison, Texas. We’ve done a number of these lifestyle type projects across the U.S. and have studied them and Europe and looked at the most successful projects. Looked at some projects that worked. And what we really, with our architects and our design staff, have felt that the original plan with the big central garage was just really too disjointed. There was no sense of pedestrian access, community feel, avenues, boulevards. It was just basically a big box which you would have to circumvent around it and not very pedestrian friendly. By breaking up the parking structure into two parking structures, you can see right here and right here. It allowed us to bring in this major entrance plaza area up in here and then have continuous pedestrian access all the way up through the project along with the east west corridor that was originally planned and saved. So, we think our retail here and these buildings here will thrive with the pedestrian access all through this area, and likewise because of the proximity of the garages spread out we will better to service these other buildings on the peripheral as well. Stansell – So basically for flow. Chilton – Flow, yeah. Terrell – Let me comment on that because and again, I’m going to have to ask staff to also help me out because I have one plan that is called “Revised Development Plan” and it’s not the same thing. And I have one plan called the “Alternative Plaza District Layout Plan.” Baker – The plan that the applicant is asking us to consider is the one that was handed out, it’s dated September 15. Terrell – The one that is stamped? Baker – Yes. Wambsganss – It’s “Revised Development Plan” but it’s got the Alternative Plaza District on it. Terrell – Ok. Baker – Just for clarification, when the two plans submitted in your packet, one was called the Existing Plan and one was called the Alternative Plan it came in the Monday before we had to send out the packet. When we saw that we made some comments regarding the commercial along White Chapel and our comments were basically the retail is now looked like individual pad sites and there was quite a bit of space between the buildings. The intent of the EC, and that would be in the “Alternative Plan”, the intent of the EC district is to create a pedestrian environment to frame that pedestrian area and to make it more inviting. In the interim between the initial two plans that are submitted, the applicant has gone back and made some revisions based on some of our comments on the alternative development plan which was presented to you this evening. Staff has not reviewed this plan but the applicant is asking to consider the plan that is on the slide. Terrell – Okay, that is what I wanted to make sure of. Staff has not reviewed the one that is stamped September 15? Baker – That is correct. We received that late yesterday afternoon. Terrell – Let me ask the applicant then, the applicant’s idea to, and I understand your thoughts about the plaza in there and separating from one garage to two for flow, but what was the thought process for separating into individual pad sites all along the White’s Chapel and let me continue with this thought. The way you have the earlier plan is totally on this hard corner in what now has been created appears to be probably a restaurant pad that seems to be kind of pulled out and separated. Part of this whole kind of PUD concept is to make this into a development that’s very cohesive. What that restaurant does is it now pulls out parking on this hard corner pad and it looks like it is going to be kind of a separate stand alone building on the hard corner, not really incorporated into the rest and creating a feel for that corner. Now what we’re getting is something considerably different from just the look and feel as you come up there. I will tell you I don’t like it in terms of that restaurant pad on that hard corner. I much prefer the way you had, whether you go with two parking garages or one for flow, that needs to feel like it’s all together and I don’t get that feel on the hard corner at the moment. Hill – Right. And that’s where my comments came from on that corner, because that corner was really highlighted and now you surrounded it by smaller pad sites it really takes away. And added parking on top of that to that corner. Terrell – And before you respond, let me just say another thing. I also realize this is to 285 acres. Normally, this would come in small sections and we would be looking at each one of these buildings very closely. We’ve got one shot to make sure this entire thing is right, so while we may appear to be.. Hill – nitpicking Terrell – on these things. We would be nitpicking each one of these with separate developers. We’re really, once we kind of, if we end up getting you something out here, that’s pretty much it. Then you’re going to be able to go in and do what we have given you the ok to do. It’s now that we’ve got to put on whatever criteria we need in terms looks, feels and everything else and so take it for what it is. We are having to look at this in considerable detail. This is a big project. Muzyka – One more question in that particular corridor. The last building on the north side looks like you’ve added a drive-thru or something onto the building. The last pink building as you go up to Kirkwood Boulevard. It wasn’t on there before. Hill – Is that a bank? Imagine that. Muzyka – Is it for a bank? It wasn’t there on this one. Kennemer – I would let the designer address that. We really could see a financial institution or two intermingled in the project. The comment to drive-thrus I’ve agreed we wouldn’t do that. That just might be an error design there. Terrell – Do you have a picture of the old retail that we can look at? Because I think when you look at the just prior plan, while you may be able to do a few things to make it flow better. It had a sense of everything was together. It was part of one retail, restaurant, commercial type development. What you’ve just now proposed is a bunch of individual pad sites up all along White’s Chapel and along frontage on 114 Service Road, which is an entirely different feel than those buildings all being together. Everybody else jump in if you disagree, but I just get a different feel from this new plan. Chilton – Let me back up and give you the 1,000 foot aerial shot of how we view the retail, the users and the come in and answer some of these questions. When Hines developed this project they really did a very good job in the massing and the amount of office and retail in the commercial district. We came in and wanted to massage it and tweak it to make it more pedestrian feeling and create a sense of place. We did market studies. We think there’s probably close to 300,000 square feet of retail that’s being developed here. In that 300,000 square feet we could conceivably see as much as 40-50% of that retail in being restaurants. I mean large, nice, exclusive, high end sit down restaurants. In talking to these folks, they all have individual building identities that they like to maintain. They like to have outdoor seating areas. Putting some breaks in those buildings allowing for the outdoor seating areas versus having them on the sidewalk street sides. Having space between the buildings as well, allowing us to enhance that through hardscape and landscape. We also, are from this plan, if you look at the hard corner there, we’ve got a single row of parking next to the retail, so you’re seeing the buildings there. That’s nice, but you don’t see anything beyond, if your on that hard corner, you don’t see anything beyond that first building. With the way we have the pads there we have u-corridors into the projects that you can look in and see several different layers of retail in here for us to go and experience. Stansell – In candor, there’s lots of developments that have continuous form, including the one you’re standing in and are still pedestrian friendly. My concern, and I think some of the other members concern is, I agree with John completely, this is just a bunch of pad sites. It is in no way related to what we were originally shown. Chilton – We can certainly stack all of the buildings together, maybe get a couple of breaks in there for patio seating areas. Jones – I don’t mean to interrupt, but if you take a minute and go over to Central Market and so on, and you see the way they have done their buildings. They have areas that they have built in where you can have outdoor seating or you can have that, but they still maintain sort of a continuous look. I don’t really understand how breaking this into individual pads, and I don’t see sidewalks there, but maybe they are in the front I suppose, but I don’t understand how that makes it more pedestrian friendly to separate things as opposed to having them together. I think you get the sense of what we all want to avoid and what we all want to not see happen is have a bunch of individual pad sites where you’re selling them off one after another. Not that you can’t sell off individual pad sites, but at least your bringing it together in a way that is more cohesive and it has a look to it that is less of what you see as the standard sort of commercial look as you drive down the street to Grapevine and you see one restaurant pad after another, whether it’s Chili’s, Macaroni Grill, or whatever. Chilton – I see yall’s comments and your points, and we can certainly pull several of those buildings together, do some massing of several of those buildings together, but at the same time still having some space in between a few of them, if for nothing else for view corridors and a sense of place. Stansell – You can accommodate that and get where we want to be, too. Wambsganss – And Town Square for the most part has been that continuous, you can have a couple of premium stand alones also. Just go down Grand Avenue and you got a Truluck’s stand alone, but I think just a row of potential restaurants isn’t the vision. Chilton – We want to be sensitive to the restaurateurs’ sense of identity at the same time creating a sense of place for the entire development and it’s very… When we look at a plan like this and we show a bunch of buildings, it’s almost like an unanchored strip center from a retailer’s perspective. Ok, this guy gets an end cap and this guy gets an end cap and I’m in the middle of a basically a strip retail thing here… Terrell – Let me tell you one thing ends up like a strip retail, we’re going to have some problems. For you to even say that… Chilton – We understand. I’m just taking about an aerial site plan looking down on it and selling off the site plan. The guys that end up in the middle of that space, if we got a Three Forks, we’ve got a space right here between these two retailers there going to get lost in the sense of identity. Terrell – Let me say, too…I know when we review these on smaller projects. Right now we are just focused on the retail and commercial corner. In order for us to get a good feel for what’s it going to look like. We need some visuals. And right now it’s very difficult for us to see what your thinking about this looks like with an overhead shot of some brown squares on paper. We’re going to have to have a lot more information to move this forward and make motions that say this is going to look like “x”. And we just now get this one separated and to be quite honest with you it’s a little surprising at the last minute to get these separate pad sites, which is not something I’ve been looking at, and have these discussion and to not get something at the minimum a rendering of what your concept of these individual sites would like to from down the street. From overhead, that just looks like, you’ve got a bank, you got an individual restaurant, one or two little individual retail sites, and then to the Mayor’s comment about Truluck’s. Yes, Truluck’s is a stand alone separate pad, but it is integrated into the project. The street that runs from the hotel to the theater runs right in front of it and its pushed up to the street just like the rest of them. The restaurant you have out here on the hard corner, is separate stand alone and is not part of the rest of the development. You haven’t incorporated it into the rest of the development. It’s basically a pad site for a big restaurant. You can have some of those look good, but that is not what we were, at least not what I was expecting to see on the corner. I was looking for something that has been previously submitted which was an overall development concept that brings all of it together, not individual sites in a commercial pad. Jones – Part of the concern, I’m agreeing with John here, part of the concern is when you came in and presented this as part of the Carillon development, it would have this French flavor to it and so on. Now if Three Forks comes into it and they want to have their own brand on it, there going to want to have their own building look to it, I’m guessing it is not going to have a whole of French flavor to it. Not that that is necessarily horrible, but you are going to start loosing that character and identity that you were trying to create initially. Your having these streetscapes that you were showing us in these initial photographs that flavor and look to it. I agree with John, I need to have some sense of what your talking about doing with some of these other sites. If they are separated, give us some sense of how they are connected and what the connectedness is and what the architectural standards are going to be for those buildings so we know what we’re getting. Chilton – From an elevations standpoint and materials were not varying in any way from what was presented to you initially. We are wholly buying into that concept and we will set our store front standards and architectural standards and sign standards to reflect all of that. Terrell – Even from what was originally presented, there’s not a whole lot of detail. There is one page that shows some renderings, but usually when you come in with a plan, and I took that as your initial idea give us a general idea of what it’s going to look like. Chilton – Concept Plan Terrell – Right, but we’re going to need something more than that if we’re going to approve this long term and you go out and build it we’ve got to have a lot more details. I realize it’s early, but we can have some significant more information and renderings that will help us get comfortable with it. I think your going to do a great project and I know Hines is very qualified, but we’ve got to have it on paper so later on, three years from now when all of us have forgotten what has happened in the meetings we can point back at a piece of paper and say this is what we all agreed on, and that’s what I’m look for just so we don’t have discussions later that we had confusion, that we had misunderstandings, we got something on paper that says this is what it was supposed to look like. Muzyka – And on that same vein, on the corner of White Chapel and 114 you made a significant difference to me in changing that up with the pad sites, but yet the one we got today, not the one from yesterday, you’ve got all the open spaces taken care of that you’ve done a little bit of difference to shown them and everything, but nothing is done on that one, and I think it should have been considering the changes that were made. It may look the same on that little corner, but it’s not really the same. Giving us one of these on that corner would be good too. Chilton – Sure. Jones – Along those same lines, and Mr. Kennemer you and I have spoken about this, but one of the things we have done in the past, and were looking forward to hopefully doing in this situation, maybe would address some of these other issues having to detail with details, you are in the process of creating CCR’s, Covenants and Restrictions, things of that nature, and architectural guidelines that would relate to the various districts. Correct? And I assume would relate to the commercial districts as well, would they not? Kennemer – We have CC&R’s that relate to the residential and design guidelines that <inaudible> Jones – Okay, I understand. And one of the things that I had asked of you was that I would like to go over and see those. What we’ve done in the past is take those guidelines and as we look at those we then incorporate them into the zoning ordinance for the site so it becomes a part of the zoning. With regards to that, obviously we don’t have those tonight, but is there some way you can give us a sense of what those guidelines are, for example, so that people who are sitting here want to understand the quality you guys are going to put into, especially these residential units. Is there some way we can see that so we can take a look at it and see what it is? Kennemer – We can create the CC&Rs for<inaudible> Jones – Okay. Wambsganss – Let me give my impressions. I know we been two three weeks now focusing on drainage, impact on schools, impact on roads all that and ya’ll have made good progress in that direction and I know there are those in the community who think you’ve done well in that regard, others who don’t think you’ve done enough, but I would say 95% of the focus has been on that. Kind of for us to get yesterday, a substantial change in the retail and there are still details to come, but I really don’t know that we’re in a good position tonight to be able to evaluate the overall plan with that big of a change in the plaza district coming in right now. Obviously, throw that out to Council, but that’s kind of where we are at tonight. I don’t know that we’re really in a position to move the ball forward giving kind of where we’re at. Terrell – I would tend to agree. I do think we ought to talk about some of the residential side while we’ve got everybody here. So that everyone has an opportunity to speak. I know there has been a lot of planning and discussions, I think we ought to at least, I think you got pretty clear indication on the commercial retail side, but we’re going to have some more discussion there and maybe look at some more pictures, but I think we ought to at least address some of the residential. Wambsganss – I don’t disagree. Only thing I only do want to do in deference to everyone’s time. Where we are going tonight, I think this item is going to be tabled regardless of what the residential issues are but in order to get a clearer view of the plaza district and get a feel for where this has evolved and is still evolving in a sense. Anyway, with that being said, any other questions of the developer’s right now? I’d like to get to the citizen’s comments. This isn’t a public hearing because we have to get through a couple of readings, so I would like to keep the process moving fairly quickly tonight. Mr. Stansell? Stansell – I just had a couple of quick follow-ons here. For the maisons, just confirm through your presentation floors two and three cannot be accessed from the garage, directly from the owner’s garage, they have to go out into a common entry. Kennemer – That is correct. Stansell – Giving the economic times we are in, what part of the development and I know you talked about this months ago, just out of curiosity, what part of the overall development has firm commitments in place? If you can say. Kennemer – Certainly, we have the…Opus West has committed to the retail piece of this project. Hines has committed to, this is all under contract, Hines Office Group will build the office part of the project. We are in the process of gathering together our builders for the residential. We are still pulling all that together to get it under contract, but all aspects of the project are going well at this point. Stansell – That’s all. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wambsganss – allowed the public to speak Wambsganss – read through the comment cards from people who did not wish to speak Terrell – I would personally like a copy of the Power point presentations that made by the folks this evening because I didn’t have time to take down all the notes and I want to make sure I didn’t miss anything so if I could get a copy of that I would appreciate it. Wambsganss – Any other questions or comments? Muller - I just have a comment to make. Again, what I’m hearing is that everybody is in support of Hines and of this development. The biggest concern is the density. For myself personally, though, and I think some people agree that I have a lot of problems with these maisons. They call them lofts or offices. The bottom line and it’s been stated here, we don’t have control that they are just owner occupied. That they are basically just a type of apartment and I personally cannot support those at all. I will look at other mixtures but as far as the town homes and these lofts… Terrell – Just one more comment, too, I know that the residents have indicated an interest in getting with Hines and I certainly encourage that. I think there has been some meetings. I think there has been some concern that the meetings may have occurred a little late. I think everyone going forward needs to have good intentions in mind. The developer is not going to want to meet with residents if basically you are going in with a demand list and everything you are wanting and there is no bend and/or no discussion. Why meet if all you are going to do get harassed and banged about the head with a bat. But I would also encourage the Hine folks to sit down and really have open dialogue and discussion about this development. If I’m available, I am happy to meet as well as I have offered in the past. But I would encourage it to be real discussion and not something where you just go in and beat up on the developer where you have him 50 to 1. So, those are all my comments. Wambsganss – Okay, anything further? If not, do I have a motion? Terrell – Mayor, I’d like to move we table Ordinance No. 480-564 until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Muzyka – Second – tabled 7-0