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, February 23, 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 Present 5 - Chair Susana Dancy, Vice-Chair Christine Berndt, Edward Hoskins, Susan Lyons, and John Weis Absent 1 - Megan Patnaik Minutes Commissioner Weis and Vice-Chair Berndt identified a few amendments. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, that the January 26 Minutes be approved as amended. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. January 26 [21-0127] Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Announcements - Council Committee on Boards & Commissions will meet Thursday; CDC Downtown Design petition is on the agenda. - Board priorities will be a topic at the next meeting. Chair Dancy asked all members Page 1 of 6 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2021 to send her 3 ideas for priorities. Ideas could include priorities from last year to carry forward. - Interest remains of reducing Commission size to 7 members. Request was made to Council but not a formal petition. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Hoskins, to petition Council to consider a reduction of Commission member seats. The motion carried a majority vote of the quorum but not a concurring vote of at least 5 members, as follows: Vice-Chair Berndt voted nay because she was not sure the proposed reduction was the best approach. Aye: 4 - Chair Susana Dancy, Edward Hoskins, Susan Lyons, and John Weis Nay: 1 - Vice-Chair Christine Berndt Petitions A motion was made by Vice-Chair Berndt, seconded by Hoskins, that a report on Status of Petitions become an official part of each agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Old Business 1. 1200 MLK [21-0126] Commission has requested an opportunity to update their recommendation for the conditional zoning application of 1200 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The commission has included their draft resolution for discussion. Members are asked to come prepared to discuss the draft and resolve the language quickly in order to prepare for Council the following night. John Weis prepared a draft resolution stating the Commission's main concerns about the project and interest in further review. The resolution would be provided to Council in advance of their possible decision on February 24. Commissioners discussed what range of concerns to identify and how much to suggest language for zoning conditions. It was determined that the focus should be on Council deferral of action to all further CDC review of design aspects before a Conditional Zoning approval. Chair Dancy noted the images she had provided, attached to the agenda, which focus on gas station design and mobile home park landscape. A motion was made by Weis, seconded by Lyons, to approve the Commission resolution and send it to Council along with Chair Dancy's email to Council Page 2 of 6 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2021 from the previous week. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 2. University Inn [21-0111] Certificate of Appropriateness Commission is asked to review the applicants updated CoA request. Staff presented updates on the progress of staff review, and noted the applicant would be submitting a second submittal soon. The number of design alternatives had been reduced to 5. Staff noted the CDC review deadline was early June, based on 100 working days. The applicant presented updates to the project design, and the Commission provided comments. Major concerns expressed by Commission members include the low height/less inviting nature of the pass-through and the limited reduction in floor plate size on upper floors. There were mixed opinions on the overall scale of the Fordham Blvd. facade. Some areas where the Commission sought more information included: - How is the project meeting the Town's sustainability goals? - What was the Town Urban Designer's feedback and how did the applicant respond? Commissioners noted improvement in the design of the north building corner, but felt more could be done. Members of the public asked whether there were any spaces for children on the plan, and whether there are any solar panels. The item was deferred for continued discussion at a future meeting. No action was taken. Courtesy Review 3. 411 N. Columbia Street [21-0112] Commission can provide courtesy comments for single family expansion in Northside Neighborhood Conservation District. · Make sure the front building setback is consistent with the neighboring property to the south, as a way to support neighborhood character. · Incorporate landscaping into the front yard and around the parking area. · Consider adding a sidewalk for the parcel’s frontage along N Columbia St, since the Northside guiding documents encourage sidewalks. · The Commission supported the Optional Front Elevation that included an additional second-floor window. · Commission members encouraged adding more windows to the house, particularly to add more articulation on the north side (Right Elevation). One member did note that privacy was a consideration, and therefore preferred focusing on more front elevation windows. · Commission members appreciated having the parking located in the rear, but one member expressed concern about the potential for parking along the driveway. Page 3 of 6 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2021 Concept Plan Reviews 4. 1751 Dobbins Drive [21-0113] Applicant is requesting from Council to modify their Conditional Zoning building sq. ft. limit. This limit modification requires concept plan review. Applicant is currently approved for 5,747 sq. ft. and are requesting to increase buildable area to 7,500 sq. ft. based on building financials. There are no site changes or building footprint modifications proposed or requested. The 15/501 facing building facade will remain unchanged. The CDC will still get to review this project as a typical final plan review. · One Commissioner expressed a preference for the previous roof form design on the side of the building facing Fordham Blvd. · One Commissioner advised the applicant to ensure there are measures to prevent any negative impacts on the adjacent residential area to the west, given the greater height proposed for the rear portion of the building. 5. Flats @ Chapel Hill [21-0114] The commission is asked to provide concept plan comments for the proposed student housing project. · Multiple Commissioners voiced concern about the height of the building, which would cast shadow on townhomes to the north, and be out of character with the surrounding residential areas.. · Multiple Commissioners voiced concern about the size of the building footprint (400 feet), which would be out of character with its residential surroundings. One Commissioner noted that for comparison, the building is longer than what is allowed in the Blue Hill District. · Multiple Commissioners voiced concern about the large building setback on MLK Jr Blvd., and how that could lead to a more suburban feel. Commissioners encouraged designing the ground floor to engage the public realm, activate the street, and promote pedestrian activity. The use of stoops and techniques shown in the applicant’s precedent images were noted as a good approaches. · Multiple Commissioners advised the applicant design a building which transitions to the adjoining single-family neighborhoods on all the sides... Commissioners felt that having buildings that fit with the topography and stepping down in height, would be a better approach than using a landscape buffer. They advised the applicant to pay close attention to how the building feels from the back, and there was interest in seeing a street level view of the proposed building from Stinson and Isley Streets to better understand its visual impact. · Multiple Commissioners also noted the potential for traffic impacts on Stinson and Isley Streets, since the streets provide access to the parking deck. One Commissioner felt Page 4 of 6 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2021 the developer should be responsible for paving StinsonStreet, improving Isley Street, and extending a sidewalks to N Columbia St in an area with lots of pedestrian activity · Multiple Commissioners expressed interest in opportunities to reduce the size of the parking deck. · One Commissioner voiced concern about traffic conflicts from left turns out of the parking deck onto MLK Jr Blvd. · One Commissioner felt the pedestrian connector needed more thought. The applicant should avoid having it become a dark alley down the side of the building. · One Commissioner expressed interest in seeing the existing homes retained or moved, since they contribute to the historic character of this older section of Chapel Hill. The time was 10PM when discussion on this item concluded. A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Chair Dancy, to extend the meeting until at least 10:30PM. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. Peach Apartments [21-0115] The commission is asked to provide concept plan comments for the proposed affordable housing project. · Commissioners voiced support for various aspects of the project including: o The affordable residential program proposed for the site o The scale of buildings in relation to the surrounding neighborhood o The range of site amenities provided o Efforts to protect existing natural features · Multiple Commissioners voiced concern about the visual impact of parking on the street frontage. Commissioners noted that the Pine Knolls NCD Design Guidelines call for measures to screen or minimize the view of parking. Suggestions included adding landscaping and/or moving the parking lot to the rear (with amenities then moving to the front). Also noted from the Design Guidelines - the parking lot should take up no more than 30% of street frontage. · Multiple Commissioners voiced an interest in seeing the buildings engage more with the street. Suggested measures included moving unit entries to the street-facing side of the buildings, and adding front porches. Also suggested was moving the play area and garden in the rear of the site to the front, by the street. These measures would promote social interaction and better match the single-family character of the neighborhood. · One Commissioner advised the applicant to consider reducing the parking lot drive width if possible, since it seems oversized for the scale of the neighborhood conservation district. · One Commissioner suggested adding coverings to some of the internal walkways, to protect residents from the elements. Another Commissioner suggested the Town consider adding a sidewalk along the Johnson Street frontage. · One Commissioner felt that the architectural treatment looked somewhat more institutional than residential. · One Commissioner expressed interest in having the CDC review the design of the Page 5 of 6 Community Design Commission Meeting Minutes February 23, 2021 retaining wall and screening of mechanical equipment at a later point in the process. Adjournment Next Meeting - March 23 A motion was made by Lyons, seconded by Weis, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Meeting was adjourned at 10:35PM. 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 6 of 6