ATTACHMENT 1

 

Town Seal



 

PLANNING
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC  27514  

phone (919) 968-2728    fax (919) 969-2014
www.townofchapelhill.org

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY MINUTES

COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007, 6:00 P.M.

 

Chairperson Jonathan Whitney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.  Commission members present were Mark Broadwell, George Cianciolo, Kathryn James, Gretchen MacNair, Laura King Moore, Scott Nilsen, Amy Ryan, Jonathan Whitney (Chair), and Robin Whitsell (Vice-Chair). Staff members present were Kay Pearlstein, Senior Planner and Kay Tapp, Senior Planning Technician.

COLUMBIA STREET ANNEX (File No. 9788-20-4502)

 

The Town has received a request for review of a Concept Plan proposal for construction of 87,000 square feet of floor area in four buildings located at the northwest intersection of South Columbia Street and Fordham Blvd. The development is proposed as a mixed use development. The proposed project includes 75,000 square feet of floor area   for 32 dwelling units with 15% of the dwelling units proposed as affordable housing. A combination of retail and office space for 12,000 square feet of floor area is proposed on the ground floor. Parking for 80 cars is also proposed. The 4.6-acre site is located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district and    the Resource Conservation District. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-20-4502.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

The design team presented a mixed use proposal for a carbon zero development.

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS

  1. Joe Capowski, a resident of Coolidge Street, stated that the biggest bottle-neck to the project is S. Columbia Street traffic. He showed a photo taken the previous day at 5:00 p.m. of traffic on S. Columbia Street to illustrate the traffic problem. He believed that if would be difficult if not impossible to make a left turn out the proposed development at certain times of the day during peak traffic. He supported bus use, but stated that it would be dangerous for people to cross S. Columbia Street to catch the bus to the University. He believed that the traffic problem has to be solved or the project will not be viable.
  2. Kimberly Brewer, a resident of Purefoy Road, thought it is a wonderful project but not on this site; too intensive; presence of Resource Conservation District; and heavy traffic on S. Columbia Street. She believed that the 80 spaces proposed with the project will create additional traffic hazards.

    3. Ms. Brewer stated that the Entranceway Plan for this location identifies green areas and tree canopy rather than a 2-story building. She wanted to see a project more compatible with Residential-2 zoning and better bicycle and pedestrian circulation on S. Columbia Street before major projects are built.

  3. Scott Radway, a resident of Chapel Hill, stated that he had presented a proposal on this property previously and that the site is an isolated piece leftover when Hwy. 54 was constructed. He stated that the on-site Resource Conservation District is a man-made corridor of drainage pipes and should be reconstructed. 

    4. He believed that the traffic issues are significant but that the proposed driveway is a good solution. He thought that the project should be viewed as a significant RCD reclamation project. 

COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION COMMENTS

  1. Commissioner George Cianciolo was interested in hearing more about reclamation of the Resource Conservation District. He wants this location to be used for significant project and architecture. He encouraged the Town to be innovative with the use of the site.

    2. Commissioner Cianciolo believed that traffic was a significant problem and encouraged the applicant to talk to Town and NCDOT traffic engineers. He supports the use of geothermal heat and wants to know that it is workable from the beginning of the project.

    He asked the applicant about an Affordable Housing component. The applicant replied that Robert Dowling had suggested a payment-in-lieu. The applicant replied that it was crucial to have a non-segregated social base. The applicant also proposed live-work building design to cut down on the need for car travel.

  2. Commissioner Scott Nilsen thought the design very innovative but the intensity was too great. He stated that in order to make the live-work concept effective ideal tenants would need to be found. He wanted to see further development of the project.
  3. Commissioner Mark Broadwell considered the presence or Resource Conservation District on the property an opportunity and not an obstacle. He suggested that the western portion of the site remain undeveloped and additional compact parking spaces be included. In so doing, the western parking area could be unnecessary. He also suggested a traffic light at Purefoy Road to help with traffic.
  4. Commissioner Robin Whitsell thought there was a lot of pavement on the western side of the site for parking area. She liked the environmental aspects and supported the scale of the project. She also wanted to see a bike-friendly design.
  5. Commissioner Laura Moore liked the unique aspects of the project. She particularly liked the proposed stream restoration but is not comfortable with the encroachments into the RCD. She wondered why the RCD had to be crossed at all. Instead, she recommended focusing the development on the eastern portion of the site and leaving the reminder of the site undeveloped. She wanted the applicant to concentrate the development and retain tree stands. She is excited about the project but cautioned the applicant about traffic and bicycle circulation problems.
  6. Commissioner Amy Ryan supported leaving the western portion of the site undeveloped. She thought reclamation of the RCD was acceptable but concerned about precedents for encroaching into the RCD.

    7. She thought the citing of the project across from Merritt’s Pasture is significant and did not want to see a typical office building with parking lots on this site. Instead, she wanted to see something with a subtle impact on the land and recommended a green site with suitable architecture. She was excited about a zero carbon development. 

  7. Commissioner Kathryn James hopes that the project goal of zero carbon works. She recommended intensity on the street and at the same time retaining the green canopy along S. Columbia Street.

    8. She is concerned about the building mass and supports careful integration with nature. Keeping the building transparent is important.

  8. Commissioner Gretchen MacNair hopes the buildings are wonderful and will be visible from Fordham Blvd. and S. Columbia Street.

SUMMARY

The Commission was excited about the project, especially the proposal for a zero carbon design. They like the innovative design and architecture. The biggest concern for the Commissioners was traffic on S. Columbia Street – vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle. A traffic light, easy bus access, unique tenants for the live-work units, and better circulation for bicycles to campus and pedestrians across S. Columbia St. were recommended.

 

Several members were concerned about the proposed intensity and suggested leaving the western portion of the site undeveloped and not crossing the RCD. They wanted to keep the site green and concentrate the buildings close to the road.  They encouraged the applicant to pursue reclamation of the RCD but concerned with precedent setting and minimizing encroachment into the RCD.

 

Some Commissioners wanted the architecture to be seen from the highway and street and others were interested in maintaining tree canopies and reducing tree removal. A relationship to Merritt’s Pasture and the Entranceway Plan was recommended that includes careful architectural design.

 

Prepared for:    Jonathan Whitney, Chair

Prepared by:     Kay Pearlstein, Staff