Community Design Commission

Town Hall TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Community Design Commission Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Meeting Minutes Susana Dancy, Chair Susan Lyons Christine Berndt, Vice-Chair Megan Patnaik Edward Hoskins Polly Van de Velde Kim Levell John Weis Thursday, April 2, 2020 3:00 PM RM 110 | Council Chamber Opening Staff to lead discussion Roll Call Staff Present- Amy Harvey Adam Nicholson Judy Johnson Present 8 - Chair Susana Dancy, Vice-Chair Christine Berndt, Edward Hoskins, Kim Levell, Susan Lyons, Megan Patnaik, Polly Van de Velde, and John Weis Virtual Meeting Notification Board members will attend and participate in this meeting remotely, through internet access, and will not physically attend. Members of the public may live stream the meeting and are encouraged to do so. View Board meetings live at https://chapelhill.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx . In addition, there is an opportunity for the public to view the meeting by coming to the Council Chambers in Town Hall. However, because of the stay at home directives issued regarding crowds and social distancing, there will be limited seating available at Town Hall and it may be necessary to turn people away. The Public is urged to find other locations and ways to observe this meeting. Announcements Approval of Agenda Vice-Chair Berndt expressed concern about providing time for adequate public input for the parking deck development project being heard. Vice-Chair suggested the CDC take public comments and start discussion, and schedule another meeting to complete the CDC concept plan review. Page 1 of 4 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes April 2, 2020 Staff noted that the Council hearing on the concept plan would be the following week, and therefore the CDC must proceed tonight. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Patnaik, that the agenda be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the consent agenda be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Granville Tower East [20-0224] Roof Mech. Equipment Commission is asked to approve building elevation modifications as a result of maintenance upgrades. New mech. equipment and railing will be added to the roof of granville towers. No other exterior modifications are proposed. 2. 316 W. Rosemary-The Warehouse [20-0225] Maintenance Required Window Replacement Commission is asked to approve building elevation modifications as a result of maintenance upgrades. Applicant is proposing a one for one window replacement to address failing windows. Concept Plan Reviews 3. 125 E. Rosemary Street [20-0226] Parking Structure Commission is asked to provide comments on proposed parking structure. Commission Consensus 1. Expressed the desire for the applicant to provide more information on the surrounding site context and how the project relates to it. 2. Concerned that the commission was asked to review only a portion of the overall project in piecemeal fashion. One member stated a concern that the design of the lab/office building is informing the design of the parking deck. 3. Encouraged the applicant to provide maps of the local and national register historic districts and to review the historic district standards and how those could shape the design of the proposed structure. The impact of the project on the location and national register districts is a concern. 4. Concerned about the building height, massing and footprint and its effect on the adjoining residential neighborhoods of North Street and Cobb Terrace. A solid north-facing wall was a concern. In addition, the sheer size of the 320' facade along Rosemary Street will have a very substantial impact and does not provide a human scale environment. More information needs to be provided about the height of the building as seen from adjoining residential areas. Page 2 of 4 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes April 2, 2020 5. Expressed desire to see more underground parking to reduce the footprint and height of the building. 6. Wanted to see additional building articulation, asymmetry and detailing in the facade, both vertical and in elevations plans, to create interest and break up the mass of the long facade. Supported the applicant reviewing the skin of the strcuture to add some play to facade. 7. Expressed a desire to see public art included in the project. Members wondered how the existing murals might be protected. A member asked if there was a way to make sure there would be a mural on the west wall facing Columbia Street. 8. Intrigue about the idea of the pop-up space needed more attention, particularly the view of the car ramp on the inside wall, and the need to mitigate heat from the south-facing orientation. The space needed to be welcoming, inviting and broken up into smaller spaces. 9. Wanted to see more greenery on and around the structure. They supported the idea of green trellises on both the front and rear of the deck. A commissioner mentioned reviewing and keeping trees of value on site. One commissioner sought clarification on the viability of plant material on the north facade. 10. Felt the project would not create a pedestrian-oriented environment along Rosemary St. 11. Supported addressing the need for additional parking downtown. 12. Two commissioners referenced the Green Square parking structure in Raleigh as a good example of interesting architecture that could be used here to break up the facade. Individual Comments 1. One commissioner was concerned that the 90' high corner pedestrian ingree/egress towers at the edges of the project negatively impact the North Street neighborhood and would direct foot traffic away from the retail porch. A pedestrian access should be placed in the middle of the site. 2. One commissioner suggested using a step back provision like that in the Northside Conservation District on the W. Rosemary Street as a guide to designing how the deck interfaces w/ the adjacent residential neighborhood on North Street. 3. One commissioner expressed a desire to keep a pedestrian bridge over Rosemary Street; another commissioner expressed a desire to remove the current pedestrian bridge that exist over Rosemary Street so that there would be more foot traffic at the street level. 4. One commissioner recommended that there be adequate opportunities for additional public comment on this project to engage the community. 5. One commissioner supported the placement of PV solar arrays on the roof and the reduction in impervious surface. 6. One commissioner supported replacing the current structure w/ a like use. 7. One commissioner suggested a taller facade on Rosemary, w/ a lower Page 3 of 4 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes April 2, 2020 facade on the north side, facing residential. 8. One commissioner felt the deck design was being influenced by the current 136 Rosemary building, and questioned that direction. 9. One member requested a breakdown of the components of the 1100 parking spaces, and wanted to learn how that number was determined. 10. One commissioner expressed belief that the Wallace Deck did a great job of engaging the pedestrian, and its scale and articulation would be useful to study for this project. 11. One commissioner suggested the sketch provided of the future view from Porthole Alley as the grand entrance to downtown for visitors is an important piece of the overall context. Petitions 4. Design Awards Report [20-0227] Pending meeting time, interface and coordinating logistics commission may discuss current efforts on chapel hill design awards. Hoskins provided an update/outline on the awards petition. Chair Dancy suggested council allocate money for the award. Commission also discussed drafting a petition for downtown design review. The commission also agreed to draft a petition to Council regarding downtown design review. This step would follow up on Vice-Chair Berndts petition at CDC's February 25 meeting regarding the Strowd Building in the 100 block of East Franklin STreet. Prior to April 2, staff had provided information regarding the building via email. Berndt and Lyons agreed to prepare a draft for the Commission's next meeting. Adjournment Next Meeting - TBD Opening Staff to lead discussion Page 4 of 4