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 John Weis Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting Notification Board members will attend and participate in this meeting remotely, through internet access, and will not physically attend. The Town will not provide a physical location for viewing the meeting. The public is invited to attend the Zoom webinar directly online or by phone. Register for this webinar: URL After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: ###-####-#### Opening Roll Call Staff-Corey Liles and Adam Nicholson Council-Karen Stegman Present 5 - Chair Susana Dancy, Vice-Chair Christine Berndt, Edward Hoskins, Susan Lyons, and John Weis Absent 1 - Megan Patnaik Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Chair Dancy, seconded by Lyons, that the agenda be approved with the modifications noted below. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. -Item #9 (1602 E. Franklin Street Concept Plan) be moved to the consent agenda with no comments. -Item #5 (700 N. Estes-Area 13) be moved to the consent agenda. -Item #6 (Kippos @ Eastgate) be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Announcements Staff made one announcement regarding the board priorities for the year. Page 1 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Noting that a final decision did not have to be made this month. Petitions None noted Approval of Minutes 1. September 2020 Minutes [21-0037] A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the September 2020 minutes be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 2. November Minutes [21-0066] A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the November 2020 minutes be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 3. January Minutes [21-0038] A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the January 2021 minutes be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Old Business 4. 700 N. Estes [21-0039] OWASA Screening Review Applicant shared updates with the commission including the added landscape associated with the mechanical equipment in question. The commission voiced their support and appreciation to the applicant for the newly installed landscape material. No action was required on this item. 5. 700 N. Estes [21-0040] Area 13-Action Request Commission is asked to review and approve Area 13 modification. This would provide a full approval with the approval of the related elevation changes from the January 4 meeting. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, that 700 N. Estes, Area 13 be approved as part of the consent agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. This approval along with the approval noted in the January minutes completes the review of this project. Consent Agenda 6. Kippos @ Eastgate [21-0041] Page 2 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness Review Commission is asked to approve CoA request for the addition of a trellis at Kippos @ Eastgate A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Vice-Chair Berndt, that the trellis at Kippos be approved. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The commission discussed various questions with the applicant including verifying that the existing pedestrian walkway the existing lighting would remain in place, and that enhanced landscape would be added. New Business 7. Merritt Mill Road [21-0042] Final Plans Review Commission is asked to review and consider action on the elevations and site lighting plan provided. Actions include approval, approval w/ conditions or deferring for future discussion. A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the applicant be referred to the Community Design Commission, due back by 2/23/2021. The commission requested the applicant return to review more information associated with the landscape relating to HVAC and screening. They also asked the applicant study reducing the light temperatures from 4k to 2700k. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, to approve the submitted building elevations. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 8. University Inn [21-0043] Certificate of Appropriateness Commission is asked to review and consider action on applicants CoA request. The Chair suggested using five design review categories to organize discussion, and she noted the Commission will continue its review at future meetings. She suggested adding Site Planning as a category in future meetings. Member comments made are grouped by the five categories: Building Design and Articulation · General o Design as is does not meet or exceed the functions of current Blue Hill guidelines. o Building should have more transparency and be architecturally distinctive at the corner of Ephesus and Fordham, which is a Page 3 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 highly visible and dominant corner in the district. o Recommend calling out commercial lodging in much more concrete ways. Perhaps make it a hotel or real commercial space. o Entrances need to be clearly identified and more distinctive; this is done well on the back side of the building, where people park and where the leasing office is locationed, but it is not done well at the corner or along Fordham Blvd. · Specific Commissioners o Concerned with the sense of a large building with very little articulation on the Fordham side. Length of the Fordham façade, the lack of articulation, and massive visual impact it creates. Façade is very long. It is boring and massive. o Complying with the code’s step-back design for upper floors and using roof spaces would help to break up massing and add interest. o Concerned that current storm water diching will impact pedestrian path. o Window glazing for commercial space and to attract public are too small along Fordham. This is the side of the building most people will see as they drive by. o Asked applicant to make better definition of the corner of Fordham and Ephesus, although there were mixed views as to whether this needed to be increased height. Another missed opportunity. o Wanted more information about number of spaces in parking deck and whether deck could be smaller. o Asked applicant to consider use of environmentally green materials, solar panels, and green roof systems. o Asked for major entrances to the building to be clearly identified and more prominent. o Liked the roof line variations, although one member expressed concern that the variation in parapet heights was too great and do not relate to a function. o Liked the Ephesus Church and rear design of the building provides more interesting spaces when viewed from the rear. - Building Massing and Height · General o Various opinions were expressed on additional height at corner, but all agreed the design of the corner is very important. o Proportions of the pedestrian pass-through, which doubles for fire access, are unfortunate and need to be revisited. The current “tunnel-like” design presents a missed opportunity for creating an interesting and functional connection between Page 4 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Fordham and Ephesus · Specific o The proposed building is very large with few ways for pedestrians to get through it except for the singular passthrough. o Break up the massing of the building, especially the southern portion of the Fordham side of the building. o No sense of lightness to the building; nothing to draw one to the building. o Parking deck is very large, and it makes this an auto-oriented project. Not enough info provided on number of spaces needed for the proposed design. o Massing of 4th and 5th stories in the design alternative is a concern. o The outdoor rooftop space on Ephesus Church façade is good. Would like to see more of this feature throughout building to break up massing. o Building out on the top floors impacts massing. o Building is too wide and too tall on Fordham side. Pedestrian/Bicycle Experience · General Commissioners questioned whether this project meets the goals of the Blue Hill District to have a pedestrian orientation. o Building does not seem to be designed for the public at this point. While resident experience is good, the pedestrian or cycling public do not have opportunities to interact with building. · Specific Commissioners o Shared concerns over the proximity of the Fordham facade entrance stoops to the multi-use path. Reviewed potential hazard with pedestrian traffic from the building interacting with the cyclist traffic on the path. Only 2-3 feet of warning space before one is in bike path from current steps on Fordham side. o Concerned that the project is not designed for the public at this point. There needs to be more amenities to enhance the pedestrian experience. No street furniture or anything that invites people to the area. Disappointed in signals the building gives for wayfinding. Need better markings for entrances public spaces. o Asked for clarifications on the road design for Legion Road Ext. and its potential future connection with Fordham. o Expressed the desire for more information on the pass-through design alternative request, specifically related to how the space is designed to be an inviting pedestrian friendly space. Page 5 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 o Asked for attention to the system for pedestrian wayfinding. o Asked applicant to consider how the bike/pedestrian system relates to the context of the surrounding area. Concern expressed about how to cross Fordham safely. o Were concerned that leaving the existing stormwater conveyance system along Fordham affects the design of the pedestrian path. Public Spaces · Specific o Identify a safe outdoor play space for children. o At a minimum, the Legion Road Extension to Fordham Blvd. right of way could be kept open as green space with bike and pedestrian access. o There appears to be only one public space in the project. Needs to be more. o No commercial space visible in the building to draw people in. o Need more park space. Landscaping · General o Commissioners expressed interest in potentially adjusting the proposed street tree design alternative. Spacing of trees should be appropriate to the tree size. Town needs a guide for tree selection by power lines. o One commissioner expressed interest in saving an existing tree at the Fordham/Ephesus Church Road interchange. o Project needs additional landscaping and trees. Try to protect tree on corner of Fordham and Ephesus. Developer Response: The developer (Adam Beck) asked to respond to Commission comments, and offered the following: -He would like clarity on the design alternatives, in particular the overall massing of the project. He stated a building above 5 stories is a completely different project and construction method. -He agreed to look at the Fordham elevations again. He felt that they did a better job on the Ephesus Church elevation, and they will try to apply those techniques to the Fordham elevation. -The applicant will look at corner appeal, the concept of wayfinding, and pedestrian paths and landscaping. He said they are including a pedestrian loop. They will look at the issue of the door stoops being too close to the Fordham pedestrian path. -He will look at the tunnel design again and whether glass could be incorporated at the entrance. -He will look again at the amenity area across Legion Road Extension. Commission encouraged the applicant to have a follow up meeting with the Town's Urban Designer for additional input. The CDC began review of the Design Alternatives, and it will continue discussion at a future meeting. A member asked about incorporating Page 6 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 public art. The Chair requested that the CDC review transformer locations. The Chair suggested the applicant consider taking the 2 corner floors and turning them into lodging or commercial space; this approach would also open up the tunnel to activated space. The developer requested a photo of the tree mentioned by a Commissioner. Staff noted the following citizen comments: -Applicant needed to address issues related to stormwater controls, flooding concerns and dealing with the volume of water expected in this location. -Regulating plan does not match the proposed plan; not clear how other properties in the area will be served. -Consider holding a public hearing on this project; and enact a Code provision to make it a requirement. - Building material, massing, and the impacts the mass of the building could have on winter weather road conditions were also mentioned. -There was support made for including energy and environmental measures such as solar panels and green roofs. - One person spoke in support of increase height to seven stories in this location. A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Hoskins, that University Inn COA be tabled for further discussion at the February CDC meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Hoskins, that University Inn COA be tabled for discussion at the February CDC meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Concept Plan Reviews 9. 1602 E. Franklin [21-0044] Signature Health Care Commission is asked to provide comments on concept plan. This concept plan was originally heard in 2016 and those comments have been provided. The applicant has been to Council to request and have been approved for a limited scope Special Use Permit review. The applicant's request is based on the lapse of the current construction dates listed in the SUP. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, that 1602 E. Franklin Street be approved as part of the consent agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commission Discussion 10. 2021 Board Priorities [21-0045] Page 7 of 8 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Commission is asked to discuss 2021 priorities. A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that the 2021 Board Priorities be deferred to the Community Design Commission, due back by 2/23/2021. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Adjournment Next Meeting - Tuesday, February 23 A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, that this meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned at 10:21pm. Order of Consideration of Agenda Items: 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant’s Presentation 3. Public Comment 4. Board Discussion 5. Motion 6. Restatement of Motion by Chair 7. Vote 8. Announcement of Vote by Chair Public Charge: The Advisory Body pledges its respect to the public. The Body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Body and with fellow members of the public. Should any member of the Body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Unless otherwise noted, please contact the Planning Department at 919-968-2728; planning@townofchapelhill.org for more information on the above referenced applications. See the Advisory Boards page http://www.townofchapelhill.org/boards for background information on this Board. Note Page 8 of 8