SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.
Council Member Cam Hill was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Proposed Rezoning of the Mason Farm/Whitehead Areas
Planning Director J. B. Culpepper stated this public hearing had been called to consider a rezoning of the Mason Farm Road/Whitehead Road area from the Residential (R-1) zoning district to the Residential-Low Density 1 (RLD-1) zoning district. She said consideration of this zoning change was in response to a petition the Council received from the neighborhood last fall.
Ms. Culpepper said in response to that petition, the Council had initiated the development of a Neighborhood Conservation District for that neighborhood. She said they expected that to be in place as early as Spring 2007. Ms. Culpepper said the zoning change was being considered to provide a more immediate protection from subdivision of the property.
Ms. Culpepper said the zoning change would increase the minimum lot from 17,000 square feet to 43,560 square feet, or one acre. She said they had examined a potential rezoning area and determined that under the existing R-1 zoning designation, 20 of the total 44 properties have a lot size that is 34,000 square feet or more. Ms. Culpepper said under the current R-1 zoning, those 20 properties could potentially be subdivided.
Ms. Culpepper said a primary issue was the boundary of the proposed rezoning. She said the Planning Board had recommended the RLD-1 for an area that included the four lots on the north side of Mason Farm Road, three of which are owned by the University. She said the staff’s preliminary recommendation for this proposed rezoning was for a slightly smaller area that did not include those four lots. Ms. Culpepper said the Council could consider any combination for this potential zoning change within these areas.
Peter Krawchyk, representing UNC and the UNC Healthcare System, expressed their support for the rezoning. However, he continued, three of the four properties in question were part of the University’s Master Land Use Plan area and the University would continue its plans to develop its three properties as student family housing. Mr. Krawchyk said the University planned to seek a zoning change from R-1 to OI-4 for these three properties in the future. Thus, he said, they respectfully requested that the Council exclude those three properties from this rezoning request, and support Ordinance A.
Brian Payne, a neighborhood resident, supported the proposal to rezone the neighborhood. He provided a brief history of the neighborhood, describing individuals who had lived in the neighborhood and their contribution to Chapel Hill. Mr. Payne described his neighborhood and its diversity, noting they were increasingly being subjected to pressures of the University.
Mr. Payne said the neighborhood no longer had confidence that the University would engage in good faith discussions. He said they were fighting on multiple fronts just to get information regarding the proposed widening of Mason Farm Road. Mr. Payne said they needed the Council’s help to protect their neighborhood.
Mr. Payne said the four lots on the north side of Mason Farm Road were a part of the original subdivision, and the restrictive covenants specifically deny the subdivision of these lots or the construction of duplex housing or apartments. He said the University owned three of the four lots in question, but all four were zoned R-1 and all four fell within the Residential Conservation Area. Mr. Payne said, based on that fact alone, he believed all four of the properties should be included because of the understanding that all decisions made regarding a Residential Conservation Area should lean towards the preservation of the neighborhood.
Mr. Payne encouraged the Council to approve the proposal before them, inclusive of the four lots on the north side of Mason Farm Road. He asked that the Council be more proactive to enact lasting change to preserve the character of Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods from the greed that was driving many of these issues.
Lee McLlwain, a neighborhood resident, stated his support of Ordinance B. He said the four properties in question were not only to be used to build new student family housing units, but also to assist in widening Mason Farm Road from two to four lanes. He said he did not believe that use was inevitable for those properties, and asked that the Council include those four properties in the proposed rezoning.
Mr. McLlwain said that when a request for rezoning to the OI-4 or some other overlap district was received, then it could be addressed. He urged the Council to consider the four properties as part of the rezoning.
Diana Steele noted she resided on the property on the north side of Mason Farm Road that was still privately owned. She said she wanted to see all of the properties and covenants kept integral to the neighborhood until the Neighborhood Conservation District process was complete. Ms. Steele said excluding those four properties would decrease the well-roundedness of the neighborhood.
Michael White, a neighborhood resident, pointed out that this was not just a discussion of a rezoning, but a discussion about the character of a neighborhood as well. He stated that the University had already acquired one-third of that area and was looking for more, as well as looking for other properties around the Town. Mr. White said the Town at some point needed to think about what it wanted for the community, and this neighborhood was a good place to start.
Mr. White pointed out the area where the four-lane road was planned, noting the traffic it would bring. He said the University wanted to build a major thoroughfare to move thousands of cars through that area. Mr. White said the University would change the character of his neighborhood, and would do it elsewhere. He asked that the four properties remain a part of the rezoning.
Mayor Foy explained that the Council would not make a decision this evening, but would refer comments back to the staff. He said they expected to take action on April 24. Mayor Foy said he did not understand the University’s objection to rezoning this property, noting they did not expect it to remain in the long term and R-1 was not an appropriate zone for the University’s intentions.
Peter Krawchyk noted the University’s primary objection was that when the original proposal came forward these properties were not included and the University had not requested such a rezoning. Because of that, he said, the University would prefer that the properties remained zoned as they are.
Mayor Foy asked if a Protest Petition had been filed. Ms. Culpepper said not to her knowledge.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EASTHOM, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 24. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Items 2 – Land Use Management Ordinance: Modifications to
Payment-in-Lieu of Recreation Area
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – Concept Plan: Downtown Economic Development
Initiative – Parking Lot 5 Site
Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo briefly introduced the Concept Plan for Parking Lot 5 as well as for Agenda Item #4, the Concept Plan for the Wallace Parking Deck.
Mr. Poveromo stated that Parking Lot 5 was located between West Franklin Street and West Rosemary Street at the intersection of Church Street, and the site was on 1.75 acres. He said currently the site contained a surface parking lot with 173 parking spaces. Mr. Poveromo said the proposal included the construction of three buildings ranging in height from four to nine stories, an underground parking deck with approximately 375 parking spaces, 124 residential dwelling units, and 24,000 square feet of retail floor area.
Mr. Poveromo said the Wallace Deck was located at the intersection of East Rosemary Street and Henderson Street, and consisted of 1.64 acres. He said the proposal was to retain the Deck and construct two adjacent buildings ranging in height from three to five stories, construct 6,000 square feet of retail floor area, and construct 99 residential dwelling units consisting of approximately 145,696 square feet of floor area. Mr. Poveromo said a portion of this site was located in the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District.
Mr. Poveromo stated their recommendation was that the Council review the Concept Plans, receive comments from citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant. He noted that Ms. Tjarksen-Russos from RAM Development would make a presentation.
Susan Tjarksen-Russos, representing RAM Development, began by thanking the Council for the opportunity to work with them, and for the availability of the Planning Staff, which she noted had been quite helpful.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said their lead consultant was present this evening to discuss the process on LEEDs Certification, and they would have a public art presentation as well. She said these issues were key components of both projects. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos noted they would make a presentation regarding the programming as well.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos provided a brief history of the Lot 5 project thus far. She said one thing they had spent some additional time on was the affordable housing component, and were planning affordable units in both of these projects. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos, using a PowerPoint program, displayed slides of the present Lot 5 site from different directions. She stated the revised site plan included three buildings with three levels of underground parking containing approximately 400 parking spaces. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the project included approximately 150 dwelling units, 14 of which were affordable units, 24,000 square feet of retail space, 250,000 square feet of residential units, and 33,000 square feet of corporate space.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos stated they had added an arcade through the middle of the property to make the plaza area more user friendly, as well as an alley on the east side so that all the services of the building could be conducted within the site line of the property rather than on Rosemary Street. She described the two entrances to the parking deck, and noted that all traffic would exit onto Rosemary Street. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos noted the primary reason for keeping the services within the site line and off of Rosemary Street was to allow the possibility for Church Street to be closed and annexed as public space. She said by keeping the vehicular traffic off Church Street the Town could control when and if it were closed.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos exhibited a cross-section of Lot 5, and pointed out particular elements of the site. She displayed elevation slides and indicated the location of the public arcade area, the public square and other elements of the site. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos exhibited a view of the site from Franklin and Columbia Streets after construction. She provided a detailed description of the Lot 5 public space, noting they were recommending that the curb on Rosemary Street be removed to provide for a seamless space.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos commented that the height of the middle building on the site was of some concern, noting that the building was 110 feet and the current ordinance allowed only 90 feet. She said they were requesting a floor area ratio of 3.2, and the current ordinance allowed 2.28 on the Lot 5 site.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said that Brenda Morwell would provide information on LEEDs Certification efforts for both projects, and Janet Kagan would provide information on the public art activities, primarily for Lot 5.
Brenda Morwell, of BBM Engineering in Atlanta, Georgia, presented the work to date on acquiring LEEDs Certification. She described the general approach, the prerequisites that required special attention, LEED credits that were economically feasible and those that were not, potential LEED credit targets, and the status of projects in relation to LEED.
Ms. Morwell stated that LEED was an objective measure of sustainability, and was not a prescriptive path. She said there were seven prerequisites that must be met, and there were 69 possible credits. Ms. Morwell said to achieve the Certified level, 26 to 32 points had to be earned; for the Silver level, 33-38 points had to be earned; for the Gold level, 39 to 51 points had to be earned; and finally, for the Platinum level, 52 or more points had to be earned.
Ms. Morwell provided an overview of the categories for which LEED credits could be earned and prerequisites satisfied. She said the first was Sustainable Sites, which carried 14 possible credits and one prerequisite. Ms. Morwell said this would include alternative transportation, how to connect with public transportation, stormwater management, the heat island effect, and light pollution.
Ms. Morwell said the next category was Water Efficiency, which carried five credits but no prerequisite. She said this category was concerned with the use of potable water. Ms. Morwell moved to the next category, Energy and Atmosphere, which carried 17 credits and three prerequisites. She said this category carried the largest number of possible credits. Ms. Morwell noted that the LEED prerequisite dealing with energy was more stringent than in most areas of the country.
Ms. Morwell said Materials and Resources was the next category, which involved materials used and where they were obtained. She said this carried 13 credits and one prerequisite, which was based on how the site was set up to accommodate tenant recycling. Ms. Morwell said the last category was Indoor Environmental Quality, which involved the types of material used, environmental conditions within the building, and how outdoor air was brought into the buildings. Ms. Morwell stated this category carried 15 credits and two prerequisites.
Ms. Morwell said one of those prerequisites for the Indoor Environmental Quality was environmental tobacco smoke control. She said because this would be a residential building they could not arbitrarily declare it a no-smoking building, which meant they had to do other things to protect residents from smoke migration into other units as well as into the public spaces.
Ms. Morwell said there was an additional category called Innovation and Design, where extra credit points could be earned using innovative construction and design, or going beyond what was required by the LEED standard.
Ms. Morwell said much of their work to date had focused on the prerequisites, including things that could be done that cost little or no money, as well as those that would not affect the economic viability of the project. She said they had also attempted to identify things that they could not do, noting there were not really any resources that they could reuse, such as doors or windows. Ms. Morwell said to get to the credit threshold for rapidly renewable products would be difficult as well. She said renewable and solar energy was economically difficult in any type of building without a grant, again because the threshold was so high. Ms. Morwell described other credits that may not be possible.
Ms. Morwell said they were now looking at the levels of insulation, the type of glazing, the type of shading devices, the HVAC systems, the low humidity materials, and other things to meet credit requirements. She said much of these things did not cost any more to do but were really important to the project. Ms. Morwell said they were also looking at the roofs to make sure they were no more of a heat element than necessary. She said as they move forward with the project they were beginning to split it into specific targets for credits. Ms. Morwell stated they would begin to identify the specific credits they would target.
Mayor Foy asked what level of LEEDs certification they were seeking. Ms. Morwell said it was her understanding they were seeking the Certified level, which required 26 to 32 points.
Janet Kagan, chair of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, provided an overview of the public art component of the project. She said their lead public artist had met with the design team and had been working diligently on the project. Ms. Kagan said the artist’s master plan proposed the creation of artwork that responded to the life cycles of light and water that would make the project a special place and different from other places.
Ms. Kagan described the three public art areas and pointed out their location on a site map. She stated that although there were three artists who would each work on one of the three art areas, the Lead Artist’s goal was to create an indiscernible blur among the work of the three artists at their primary points of intersection. Ms. Kagan said those points of intersection were along Church Street, at the corner of Church and Rosemary Streets, and along Rosemary Street to Henderson Street. She went on to describe how the three sites would be linked, and how each site would address the architecture and engage the public.
Ms. Kagan displayed several slides showing examples of the types of materials and blending that would be used in the project, and described the art planned for each of the art sites. Ms. Kagan described how each site would be linked and how each artist would work together to accomplish that. She said that light and water would be the guiding principles that defined the art on Lot 5. Ms. Kagan exhibited slides of existing art projects to show have light and water could be used to create different types of artwork.
Jonathan Whitney, representing the Community Design Commission (CDC), offered the following comments from CDC members:
Liz Parham, representing the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, noted that the height of the nine-story building was not of much concern to the Board given the context of the setback from Franklin and Rosemary Streets, but cautioned and asked the Council to look at it from the Church Street perspective, particularly in relationship to the NC Pharmacy building and the Aveda building.
Ms. Parham said the Board was particularly pleased with the plaza space and public space, given the fact that we have limited such space in Chapel Hill. She noted they were also pleased with the number of residential units, and the entire effort by many others to provide such housing downtown. Ms. Parham stated that these residential spaces were key to the continuing viability of the downtown. She noted that the retail spaces were also a key component, stating that these two projects would add about 28,000 square feet of retail to the downtown. Ms. Parham said these would open up a greater variety of retail uses.
Michael Czeiszperger, a resident of Southern Village, noted he and his wife wanted to live in a walkable community, and preferred to live in the Franklin Street area. He said they were excited by the projects, adding that many people wanted to live in such an urban environment. Mr. Czeiszperger said he hoped that other developers would continue the trend to bring people into the downtown to live.
John Lindahl said he was a native of Chapel Hill but had not lived here for many years. Now that he was back, he said, he was shocked by the changes. He said of particular concern to him was Rosemary Street, which now had the facade of a brick wall with lots of dark shadows. Mr. Lindahl said that was a disgrace, noting the parking lot on Rosemary Street looked like an easy place to get robbed and there was no longer any sunlight there. He said he did not know if these projects would work, but he believed Chapel Hill had turned into a dark dungeon.
Scott Maitland, owner of the Top of the Hill on Franklin Street, said despite the 31 meetings held regarding these proposals, he did not believe anyone anticipated that a nine-story building would be planned for the heart of the downtown. He said he believed that the Town was going too far, stating that he believed it needed to re-evaluate the parameters it had established before spending large amounts of money.
Mr. Maitland said what was planned for Lot 5 was clearly outside the scope of what most citizens had anticipated. He said there had been no voter review of Lot 5 either as a campaign issue or a referendum, and he believed the Town needed to discuss the issue of moving from a quaint college town to a small urban center. Mr. Maitland said because the Council was acting as the developer this project was going to happen, but he hoped that the Council would show its dedication by holding more public hearings on the project as it now existed as opposed to when the previous 31 meetings were held.
Mr. Maitland said his personal concerns were that it was too tall and not in keeping with historical development, that it would lead to a spin-off of other extremely tall buildings, and that it failed to address the opportunity to increase the commercial tax base. He noted that if the Town increased its commercial tax base it would provide additional opportunities to bring people into the downtown.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about what seemed to be a change in the size of the public space in the courtyard. He said they had seen the front of the Franklin building move over to the west, and had seen the public space become a little more fractionalized. Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he liked the solution of enhancing the Church Street option, but needed to be convinced that was the way to go since the Town would not be closing that street very often. He said the Town might be losing a more cohesive public space.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos responded they had looked at how Lot 5 from Rosemary Street interfaced with Franklin Street and how porous the site needed to be in terms of pedestrian traffic. She said, if the public space was too large it would be uncomfortable, adding it was difficult for 10 or 15 people to be comfortable in a space for 200. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they then moved to thinking about how the public spaces would connect and yet be user friendly for different functions, such as dining or shopping, or an outdoor concert or street fair.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said that when they had looked at all of the uses for the public spaces, they had decided it was most advantageous to have several interconnecting public spaces instead of one large space concentrated on the corner. She remarked that she believed everyone wanted public space that was successful, and they believe this solution would work every day as well as for special events.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when they had first talked about what they wanted regarding public space, he had found it helpful to compare the public space to existing public space in the community. He asked that the next time the Council discussed this they be provided with such a comparison. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would also like to see a slide that demarcates Church Street where the balards would be located. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said she would be glad to provide that.
Council Member Greene asked about the narrow stairs that went when down from the private open space, noting she had not previously heard about that stairway. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos indicated on a slide the location of the stairway, noting it was an emergency exit off the public courtyard. Council Member Greene commented that it was not a public access then. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos stated that was correct.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said that one of the advisory boards had suggested that those stairs might be widened so that people could sit on them, at least at the bottom, and become part of the public space. She said the feeling was that those stairs might look dark and ominous and cramped.
Council Member Greene asked about Ram’s response to the comment by the CDC that the space was cold, dark, and not very inviting. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said their next step would be to do an extensive daylight and sun shade study, noting it would be important to that space that it feel residential in scale and that there be some green aspect of it. She said they had engaged a landscape consultant with the hope that they would be able to integrate the public space and the art, noting there was the potential for some art that would integrate with the environment.
Mayor Foy said, regarding what the CDC had said about the space having a cavernous feel, that would be on the residential courtyard but also on the south side of the nine-story building between the fourth and ninth story. He said if you have a light issue, especially at certain times of the year, how do you deal with that. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the public art artist was considering photocells as part of the public space, which had sunlight for most of the day.
Mayor Foy said the south side of Franklin Street was normally shaded, and the north side was sunny. He said the north side of this building would be sunny, so how would they deal with that given the height of the buildings. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the next step would be to conduct sunlight studies for the exteriors of all of the buildings, and then determine what the potential appropriate solutions might be. She commented they firmly believed that the outdoor space had to have some level of green to it and a place people wanted to stay, or the retail would not be successful.
Mayor Foy said another question from the CDC had to do with the use of the top of the building, and he asked if there was a plan for that. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos responded not at this time, noting that was something they were happy to explore. She noted they had to consider the placement of some equipment on the roof, and it might be possible to use some of that space to meet the recreation requirements of the Town’s ordinance.
Council Member Harrison said they had received many comments from the CDC on both projects, particularly about the complications of vehicular and pedestrian movement. He advised Ms. Tjarksen-Russos to take them seriously, and to consider that Rosemary Street on both ends would be a complicated environment. Council Member Harrison said that it was important to remember the impact of construction on the downtown, noting they had to think about such issues as where construction workers would park. He urged them to keep such issues in mind.
Council Member Harrison said a comment from the Downtown Partnership had followed their advice about flexibility. He said the types of retail suggested might not be what eventually would be put there. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they would keep all of that in mind as they move forward.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how close the tower part of the building was to Church Street. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos displayed a slide from the Church Street perspective. She pointed out the sidewalk stepback, noting the tower was approximately 20 feet from the sidewalk. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that was about the same as the stepback of the Franklin Street building. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos replied it was. Council Member Kleinschmidt said then they were going for the same sense of pedestrian scale all the way around the project. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said that was correct, noting they had added to the pedestrian scale from their original design. Council Member Kleinschmidt noted it was helpful for people to understand that that was the intent.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said, regarding flexibility in the retail space, that he was not quite sure what that meant. He said the worst case scenario might be that the Town builds all of these small spaces for retail only to have it all torn down and a superstore built. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said their development agreement with the Town would prohibit them from doing that. She said that space was for what they called urban infill retail, and those spaces were small. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said there was only about 24,000 square feet for retail, and the largest use they imagined was maybe 3,000 square feet for a restaurant. She said they were actively pursuing a grocer, noting it had been said repeatedly that a grocery store was needed in the downtown.
Council Member Hill remarked that he had grown up in Chapel Hill and that this project was scary to him because it was a major departure from what had been done in the past. At the same time, he said, he was enthusiastic about many aspects of the project.
Council Member Hill said the buildings on Franklin Street had been built at a time when there was no higher purpose than to build them as cheaply as possible. He said in the early 1960s many merchants had placed aluminum awnings on the fronts of the buildings, and by the 1970s those awnings were gone. Council Member Hill said the history of downtown was not as pristine as some like to think.
Council Member Hill said with that history in mind, he believed that the problem with the tall buildings that the Town now had was not their height but that they were unattractive and mediocre. He stated he did not want to have that happen on Lot 5. Council Member Hill said he had been a builder for 35 years and did not always understand architecture, but he did understand materials and did not want to see particular types of artificial materials on these buildings. He said he wanted to see authentic materials, like brick and steel, adding that even though it would cost more it would be worth it.
Council Member Hill said he believed the Town got a lot of its ideas about architecture from the buildings on the campus. He stated the older buildings as well as many newer ones were built to last forever, and buildings that were 200 years old still blended in with the newer buildings. Council Member Hill advocated for authentic materials, adding he was very concerned about the materials used and how it looked. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos replied that they would soon be figuring out what the finishes would be, and they had heard and noted his concerns.
Council Member Ward said he would like to know what the experience would be for a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk opposite these buildings, and looking back at the top of them. He said nine stories sounded tall by Chapel Hill standards, and if he was standing across the street from a three-story building and it was set back so much he did not even see the nine-story building, why should that bother him. He asked if they could demonstrate if that was the case or not around the perimeter of this building, noting that would identify where those visual insults, if any, might be. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos replied that was a valid point and they would provide that.
Council Member Ward asked if any of the retail of the Franklin Street building opened out onto the public space. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos responded that almost all of it would. Council Member Ward said the way the interior space was articulated it appeared that the spaces had front and back entrances on Franklin Street, but did not open out onto the Church Street side. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos exhibited a site plan and pointed out how the spaces opened out on the street and onto the public space. Council Member Ward said his preference was that some of it opened onto the public space, noting it would make it more successful. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos agreed, noting they believed it would make the retail space more viable.
Council Member Ward asked how the east side alleyway worked. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos pointed out the entryways on a slide and pointed out the one-way entrance. She said they knew there would be pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that they needed to work out how the two would cohabitate safely. Council Member Ward asked about the underground entrance. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos pointed that out, as well as how to exit that area. Council Member Ward asked, if he were turning off Franklin Street, how would he enter the parking. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos pointed that out on the slide.
Council Member Ward said that one of the illustrations showed two travel lanes close to the Franklin Street building. He asked if that was meant as a bank drive-through lane. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos remarked that they had made that wide enough that it could potentially be used for a bank ATM access, but not for a manned teller. She said they were exploring that.
Council Member Ward said he agreed with an advisory board comment regarding interest in having a generous sidewalk around the perimeter of the buildings. He said the Town was in the process of developing an average width or useable sidewalk width, and he would like to understand the width of the sidewalks being planned for these projects. Council Member Ward added he wanted to have something to help him visualize that. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they would provide that.
Council Member Ward stated that the public parking space that was accessible to the public needed to be easy to get to or people would assume there was no parking available. He asked if there would be something like an escalator to get to and from them, and was there an exterior access to those spaces. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the retail parking spaces would be on the top level, so as soon as you pulled into the garage all of those spaces would be available for use. She said when you come up from the parking garage there would be two elevators as well as stairs.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they were considering an escalator as an option, but cost would be the deciding factor. She said one would not have to go through a store to get to the public space, noting they had made a conscious decision on where to place the openings for the parking so that people would not feel like they had to enter a store and buy something in order to use that public space.
Council Member Ward asked about the status of LEED certification. He asked which ones they believed they would attain and which ones were unattainable. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said to reach LEED Certification they needed between 26 and 32 points, and needed to have some buffer because there may be some they could not reach. She said at the present time they were at about 20, but they were confident they would reach their goal. Council Member Ward asked them to set their target at 33.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he agreed with the assessment of the public artist and her benefits to the project. He said from what he understood it seemed as if the Town was limiting her participation to the specified art areas. Mayor pro tem Strom said that Dean Malecha in his presentation had talked about how many of the pallets and final choices were very important but that the Town was far from making those choices. He asked if they had a plan to involve the artist in those types of aesthetic decisions every step of the way. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos replied that the artist herself, along with the Public Arts Commission, had established the art zones, but that did not mean that she would be limited to those areas. She said they would work with the artist to incorporate her designs into the facades of the building as well as other aspects of the project.
Mayor pro tem Strom said it would be helpful for the public and the Council to get a sense of how these buildings would compare to others in the downtown, not so much in terms of absolute number of stories but in terms of actual heights. Mr. Poveromo said he had looked at University Square, Granville Towers, and the Bank of America building. He said that Lot 5 was directly across the street from University Square, and the first buildings encountered were the retail with an office portion above. Mr. Poveromo stated the height encountered at the rooftop was 65 feet, and then there was a penthouse that brought the height to 78 feet.
Mr. Poveromo said behind that retail and office area was Granville Towers, which from ground elevation to the top was 92 feet, with a penthouse bringing the total height to 107 feet. He said for the Bank of America building, there was a shorter elevation on the Franklin Street side at 57 feet, and the larger portion was at 87 feet. Mr. Poveromo said above that was a penthouse that brought the height to 100 feet. He said, looking at that building from the Rosemary Street perspective, the elevation from ground level to the top of the building was 110 feet.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he believed the applicant had noted what we were looking at here was 110 feet. Mr. Poveromo stated that was what Ms. Tjarksen-Russos had indicated.
Mayor Foy asked what the height was of the proposed buildings that fronted Franklin and Rosemary Streets. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos responded that the Franklin Street building was planned for 66 feet plus a penthouse to house mechanical equipment. She said the Rosemary Street building was planned for 54 feet plus a penthouse to house mechanical equipment.
Council Member Easthom asked, regarding the underground parking and the stairway, since the parking would be public, how would a physically disabled person get up and out of the parking area? Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said all of the handicapped parking for both the retail and residential were located on the first level, and two handicapped accessible elevators were located on that level. She said the elevators would take the person to the ground level, noting all of those areas had an accessible slope.
MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Concept Plan: Downtown Economic Development Initiative –
Wallace Parking Deck
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the Wallace Deck posed the most challenging design innovations of the two sites. Using a series of slides, Ms. Tjarksen-Russos provided a brief history of the project to date. She exhibited views of the site from several directions. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said in the RFP they showed this as one continuous building, but after looking again at the alley and how it was utilized they had decided that was not feasible. She said they had then broken it into two separate buildings, one the existing Wallace Deck and the other a new construction at the corner of Rosemary and Henderson.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they had now added live/work spaces to the Wallace Deck building along the entirety of its Rosemary Street elevation. She said those spaces had front doors that opened onto Rosemary Street. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said by adding these live/work spaces along Rosemary Street, they could provide retail and/or small office space that would activate it and allow people to walk in and out of those spaces and create a more friendly urban pedestrian environment that what existed now.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said on top of the Wallace Deck they were adding three stories of residential units with interior courtyards. She said they had moved the location of those interior courtyards from what had previously been planned to give the interior residents something to look at instead of looking out into the alley. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they had planned to utilize the existing elevator for the Wallace Deck, but after a comment about not being able to get furniture in it they had realized they would have to revisit that idea.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said, for the new building they were suggesting 16 new residential units and 18 new parking spaces. She said nine of those spaces would be available on the alleyway side to take advantage of the elevation change, and the other nine on the Henderson Street side. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said those additional 18 spaces were provided to accommodate the 16 new residential units.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos exhibited a cut-away of the Wallace Deck section, and pointed out the live/work space, the interior stairway, and the three additional residential floors. She displayed additional slides, noting it was important that the new building honor its location in the historic district and pick up some of the architectural inflection of the neighborhood. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said it was interesting that the HDC had said they would like it to be a more modern building.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos displayed slides of the elevations of the two buildings, and pointed out the different functions of the spaces. She exhibited slides of the current Wallace Deck from the Franklin Street/Columbia Street perspective, then showed the same slide with the new Henderson Street building superimposed on it. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos noted you would not be able to see the Wallace Deck from that perspective after construction.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they were proposing approximately 100 units in the two buildings, with 2,500 square feet of retail space. She said that would all be located in the new building at the corner of Rosemary and Henderson Streets. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said of the 309 parking spaces currently located in the Wallace Deck the majority would remain available to the public. She stated that only a few would be reserved for the residential units and would be rented by the residents, providing income for the Town. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos displayed a rendering of the Wallace Deck and new Henderson Street building.
Jonathan Whitney, representing the Community Design Commission, noted the following comments from CDC members:
Mr. Whitney said the following comments by CDC members were with regards to both Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck:
Mr. Whitney said the CDC wanted to thank the design team for their excellent presentation, both graphically and in delivery, and looked forward to future presentations.
Amanda Ashley said the citizens and the Council needed to start looking at the microscopic aspects of the architecture as well as the macroscopic aspects of what they were doing by turning Chapel Hill into a much harder urban environment. She said the costs would not end with the dollar figure of these projects, and asked what they were going to do when the village was gone and they were faced with a city. Ms. Ashley said having a hard core urban downtown would be an expensive proposition.
Ms. Ashley said one of the things they would have to consider would be safety issues. She said many citizens did not feel safe on Franklin Street, and asked how they would pay for increased police protection not only for new downtown residents but for businesses and visitors as well. She said these would be ongoing costs that she did not believe the Council had considered.
Ms. Ashley said traffic management was another issue, noting the intersection of Franklin and Columbia Streets had been identified by NCDOT as one of the more dangerous intersections in the State. She asked how the Town would manage to protect pedestrians with the increased traffic. Ms. Ashley said the long-term issues of turning Chapel Hill into a city was something that she did not believe had been considered.
Ms. Ashley reminded the Council that the Weaver Street Market in Carrboro did an excellent job of having an ongoing viable center for public use with less than a half acre of grass.
Scott Radway stated he was a former member of the Planning Board and the CDC, and had had the opportunity to see the presentation to the CDC last week. He said one thing that had struck him were the big picture items, such as meeting the goals of more residential development downtown, more retail space downtown, and more activity on the street in the evenings that made it safer as well as more exciting and that put some community back into downtown Chapel Hill. Mr. Radway said all of those were issues that needed to be understood.
Mr. Radway said many of the comments by the CDC had been focused on the actual details of the project, such as if the parking really would work, and would the sun really reach the corners of the buildings. He said change was scary, and this was a big change for Chapel Hill. Mr. Radway encouraged the Council to go forward on this path, which he believed this was the right one. He said because the Council was acting as both the reviewing agent and a partner in the project they had the opportunity to get the kind of comment and express the kind of concern the community had about this change taking place. Mr. Radway said he supported the concepts as proposed.
Mr. Radway stated that his daughter had grown up in Chapel Hill and had gone away to college. He said on her last trip back she spent an evening downtown with friends. Upon her return, Mr. Radway said, she had commented that the downtown was scary because there was nothing happening there, and that she had been afraid when she had walked back to her car. He said part of solving that was getting more streetlights and more activity back into the downtown. Mr. Radway said there was a community of children and teenagers who no longer came to the downtown, and that many women felt at risk there. He said he believed that was a statement that the right kinds of things were not happening to bring the right kind of people there. Mr. Radway said these projects were a positive step forward.
Scott Maitland said he believed the scale of the Wallace Deck was more in keeping with how it fit into the overall scheme of the downtown. He said they needed to be realistic when talking about the parking and the impact of both projects. Mr. Maitland said they were allocating 1.3 spaces for each residential unit, and he believed it was intellectually dishonest to assume that residents living in those units would have only one vehicle. He said those residents would be forced to make use of public parking, so the amount of public parking provided would decrease.
Mr. Maitland said, with respect to the idea that these housing units would bring people downtown, he now experienced between 7,000 to 10,000 customers in his restaurant each week. He said, when talking about the economy of the downtown, with two people per condo they were not talking about a large number of people living downtown, nor could those people be expected to venture out nightly. Mr. Maitland said the Town was unable or unwilling to leverage the $5 million investment being made in the adjacent Arts Common on campus. He said that was an opportunity to bring people downtown. The Memorial Hall renovation, the expansion of the Ackland Art Museum, and the expansion of the music hall, all expected to be completed in the next ten years, he said.
Mr. Maitland said those cultural opportunities would bring visitors to the downtown, the majority of which would not be citizens of the Town. He said if the Town were truly interested in revitalizing the downtown, then parking that was used during the day for shopping and employee parking could be reutilized at night to support the arts common. Mr. Maitland stated that the Town needed to facilitate and leverage the resources that it already had.
Mayor Foy said the north side of the Wallace Deck would never be exposed to light, and would have three more stories on the top. He asked how that would be dealt with. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos asked if he was referring to sunlight at the street level. Mayor Foy said yes, as you walk down Rosemary Street on the south side you would always be in the shade. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said no shade studies had been performed on the Wallace Deck as yet, but that would be looked at.
Council Member Greene said she was interested in the HDC’s opinion regarding the new building being more modern. She asked how RAM would address that. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said if they were to take the HDC’s comments at face value that would mean the building would look dramatically different. She said the building design as it now existed was what Dean Malecha had envisioned. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said that was something they would have to work on as they move forward. Council Member Greene asked Ms. Tjarksen-Russos to take the HDC’s comments back to Dean Malecha and see how he responded.
Council Member Ward said he wanted to make sure that the Town was generously equipped for sidewalks. He said as he looked at the corner of Henderson and Rosemary Streets that area was completely covered by an overhanging building, and asked if that was correct. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said there was an arcade on the Henderson Street side but not there. She said the arcade would go all the way to the curb line. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos displayed a site map and pointed out that location. Council Member Ward said he wanted to be able to move comfortably around that corner without feeling that a building would fall on him.
Council Member Ward asked what the plan was for street-side parking. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they had made no proposed changes in the plan for parking, noting they would like to see parallel parking on the south side of Rosemary Street. She said the traffic study would indicate whether or not that was feasible. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said where the curb cut would move into the parking garage on Henderson Street would result in a loss of possibly two parking spaces, and they would work with the Town to identify how to accommodate the revenue loss from that.
Council Member Ward asked if the north end of the Post Office on Henderson Street was going to be punched out with any street-front activities. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they would like to see some civic use to utilize and activate that space.
Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked Ms. Tjarksen-Russos for the work that RAM had done in Chapel Hill over the last several years, because they had done in the short term things that the Council thought could only be done in the long term. He said that RAM was inspiring other uses of downtown properties. Council Member Kleinschmidt said RAM was not just helping the Council to put 400 to 600 people living in these two properties, but was also helping to spark a Rosemary Renaissance with the addition of others living in that corridor. He said he believed it had been inspiring for other developers in this corridor, and he was surprised that that inspiration had created a spark so quickly.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that people would feel ownership of their units, rather than thinking about that area as just another building. Council Member Kleinschmidt described the changes in Charlotte that had brought people into the downtown, noting part of it was that people owned their own residences there. He thanked RAM for helping Chapel Hill realize that goal much more quickly than the Council had imagined.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos commented that the new Children’s Museum had been a great addition to the downtown. She noted she had been in town four days last week, and on three of the four days there was a line waiting for the doors to open at 10 a.m. Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said, in all her many visits to Chapel Hill, it was the first time she had seen children under the age of 10 in the downtown area.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Foy encouraged the public to participate in the process as they move forward. He said the SUP would move through the normal process, and would be reviewed by the Planning Board, the Transportation Board, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, the CDC, the HDC, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mayor Foy said those were all citizen committees that provide opportunities for citizens to review and influence the plans. He said it would then come back to the Council for a public hearing.
Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said the next step would be to price these buildings, and while construction prices had risen 30 percent over the last year, they would be working aggressively to make this project come to fruition.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.