Begin forwarded message:
From: Maurice Jones <mjones@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: RE: Citizen report on April 2nd CDC meeting
Date: April 14, 2020 at 3:47:19 PM EDT
To: msJuliemcclintock <mcclintock.julie@gmail.com>
Cc: Pam Hemminger <phemminger@townofchapelhill.org>, Town Council <mayorandcouncil@townofchapelhill.org>, Fred Lampe <frlampe@bellsouth.net>, Susana Dancy <susana.dancy@gmail.com>, Amy Harvey <aharvey@townofchapelhill.org>, Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>, Scott Clark <sclark@townofchapelhill.org>
Ms. McClintock and Mr. Lampe,
Here are our responses to your questions. Please let me know if you have any others.
All the Best,
Maurice
Questions for Concept Plan Discussion:
- How will the Town ensure entrance and exit traffic can be accommodated given the 2 entrances shown on E. Rosemary street? Does the TIA for this new parking structure and the associated new 200,000 sq ft office building to be constructed where the current Wallace parking deck is located support the AM and PM traffic generated by the current entrance/exit plan shown for this new parking deck?
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been ordered by the Town for both the new Rosemary Deck at 125 E Rosemary Street and proposed office building at 150 E Rosemary (Wallace Deck site) that will analyze the impacts of both projects. Our understanding is that it will be completed by mid-April. Final designs will be modified, if needed, once we have the TIA and further feedback from staff and the community.
- The football field sized parking deck borders immediately on a historic neighborhood on the north side. What steps does the architect propose to mitigate the impact of the sheer size, as well as the light and noise impact on all the neighborhoods nearby? Could the Council ask the applicant to host a neighborhood walk about with a balloon flown on North Street to the height of the parking deck?
The Applicant is studying stepping the north side of the deck down one level if possible. The north façade will be screened by a combination of dense plantings, a green screen with climbing plants, and architectural façades. Much of the north façade will be 90% enclosed, such that noise and light impact will be minimal for neighbors. The eastern third of the north façade will be approximately 50% enclosed and the interior lighting will be designed with appropriate cut-off angles to prevent spillage into neighboring properties. Applicant will consider placing balloons along the north wall of the parking deck to analyze views from North Street if Town Council wants to pursue this.
- Could you or the staff please comment on where we could find the financials on the 1100 parking space minimum quoted at the CDC meeting that was required by the Town to make the project feasible?
Please use this link to February 19, 2020 Council Presentation : https://chapelhill.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4333935&GUID=FC55FD56-DF31-45E4-8152-80B9BACC229A. The Staff Presentation covers the financial discussion. It is not just for the project to be financially feasible that the proposal includes 1,100 spaces but that the Town replaces and provide sufficient new spaces to meet the demand.
- What accommodations are being made to provide for a roof top solar energy canopy?
Town staff and Grubb are continuing to explore the feasibility of partnering with a third party solar leasing company. Grubb and the Town are interested in exploring a PV canopy for the top of the deck. This will require a PV partner for design, application and financing to make it feasible for the project.
- Please ask the applicant to comment on the QUALITY of the deck design and surface finishing material (no exposed concrete like the current CVS deck).
The design intent is to clad the exterior with architectural facades of some combination of masonry, metal panels, green screens and glass, and not to leave the structural precast members exposed to view from the outside. The current concept design incorporates vertical elements in masonry and metal paneling to add visual interest and break up the horizontal massing of the deck. These elements will help attenuate sound within the deck as well as headlights during nighttime/dark conditions while also allowing for natural air ventilation. Additionally, the stairwells are designed to be open and enclosed in glass to add interest/variation at the corners as well as for visibility/safety. Finally, the street level design incorporates an open air pop up porch feature with a two-level height to help open the massing at the ground level. The Grubb team is working with Town staff on this to include other programming needs.
- What design changes can be made to mitigate the pedestrian experiences at the ground level (no long blank wall along Rosemary St etc)? The parking deck will be just across East Rosemary from another existing very large building creating a canyon effect on East Rosemary which would redefine the character of downtown Chapel Hill.
Step backs will be included in the design to minimize massing. The extent of the step backs will be influenced by fire code, as accessibility to upper levels of the building need to be ensured. Additionally, there will be opportunities for street level activation (on pop up porch), pedestrian connectivity, and the incorporation of public art and greenspace to further enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape. See comments above on design.
- What is the allowable height of vehicles that can navigate in the proposed deck? Will the deck accommodate workman’s vans at least on one level? How many fully functional electric vehicle charging stations will be provided and where are they located? How many pre-wired stations and where? Are there 6 or 7 levels of parking? Does this account for the Application’s variable parking space statement of 1000 to 1100 spaces?
The number of EV charging stations is still to be confirmed. The variable parking space number is due to potential design constraints including easements and overall design. Final height of the first floor is still being evaluated.
- What are plans to handle East Rosemary Street traffic during demolition and construction of the new deck?
While preliminary discussions regarding construction and traffic management have occurred, we do not yet have a complete plan in place. We are waiting on the results of the TIA, more advanced engineering and design plans, and an executed contract with a firm to provide third party construction oversight. These elements will help to create a comprehensive management plan for all phases of construction and to minimize disruption to the best of our ability.
From: Maurice Jones
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 5:39 PM
To: msJuliemcclintock <mcclintock.julie@gmail.com>
Cc: Pam Hemminger <phemminger@townofchapelhill.org>; Town Council <mayorandcouncil@townofchapelhill.org>; Fred Lampe <frlampe@bellsouth.net>; Susana Dancy <susana.dancy@gmail.com>; Amy Harvey <aharvey@townofchapelhill.org>; Judy Johnson <jjohnson@townofchapelhill.org>; Scott Clark <sclark@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: RE: Citizen report on April 2nd CDC meeting
Dear Ms. McClintock and Mr. Lampe,
Thank you for your feedback and questions concerning the CDC meeting and the East Rosemary Street parking garage concept plan. Staff will provide responses to the questions that were raised prior to the parking garage item returning to the Town Council. However, that meeting will not occur next week. The earliest it would be back before the Council is April 15thif a special meeting is called. It is more likely that the plan will be presented at a later date in April. We will let you know the exact date as soon as it’s determined. Responses to several of your other points and questions can be found below.
Let me know if you have any other concerns.
All the Best,
Maurice
From: msJuliemcclintock <mcclintock.julie@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 4:53 PM
To: Maurice Jones <mjones@townofchapelhill.org>
Cc: Pam Hemminger <phemminger@townofchapelhill.org>; Town Council <mayorandcouncil@townofchapelhill.org>; Fred Lampe <frlampe@bellsouth.net>; Susana Dancy <susana.dancy@gmail.com>; Amy Harvey <aharvey@townofchapelhill.org>
Subject: Citizen report on April 2nd CDC meeting
External email: Don’t click links or attachments from unknown senders. To check or report forward to reportspam@townofchapelhill.org
Dear Manager Jones,
We are providing a report on how the CDC Virtual meeting went yesterday, at 3:00 pm April 3rd, from the perspective of several on-line citizen observers. The main topic of interest on the agenda was a review of the East Rosemary Street Parking Deck project. Attached is a list of questions that we request that be addressed before the Council meeting deals with this topic next week.
Chair Susanna Dancy did a good job introducing everyone and moving the meeting along. In general the sound quality was good for all commission members and the developer representatives. It was nice to see small video pictures of each commission member, if a little blurry and hard to see who was talking. It was helpful when the Commission members identified themselves before speaking and a hand wave would be sufficient to know who was talking.
We’ve listed our observations and concerns in descending order of importance.
- There was no discussion about the exit and entrance locations impact on East Rosemary traffic. This is a key question for the council to address. Agreed. Staff and the Town Council are committed to understanding and addressing the impact on traffic on East Rosemary Street and the area around the Columbia/East Rosemary intersection. We will have information from a TIA soon to present to the Council and public.
- CDC members received new materials 30 minutes before the meeting that were not made available to the public to review in advance or during the meeting. Doesn’t town policy require all materials to be made available to the public before a meeting? This is doubly important during a virtual meeting where the public is playing a much reduced role. It is always our intent to have information out to the Council and the public well in advance of our meetings. There are however times when new information is being relayed to our boards and commissions right before meetings. I’m pleased to say this is an exception and not the rule. In circumstances like yesterday’s meeting, that information is included in the public record.
- Public comments received by email were read into the record 3/4 through the meeting by staff member, thus well after the Commission members had already asked their questions of the developer and the staff. Is there a way to improve the order so public comments are seriously considered? We are working diligently to enhance the methods by which we receive and report out the comments by the public during this unprecedented global crisis. It is very much a work in progress and we are making adjustments after each meeting. We are examining ways those emailed comments could, at the very least, be sent to the commission members before a Q&A with the applicants and staff. We will also be asking folks to email in their comments ahead of the meeting if possible to give staff the time to package the emails and send them to commission.
- When the staff member was questioned via email during the meeting about when the questions would be answered, staff said it was not his (the Town’s) responsibility to answer the questions, but only to ensure they are put into the minutes making a public record. We wonder when these questions will be addressed and have provided a list below so the staff can address these questions before the East Rosemary parking deck project is brought back to the Council next week. Responses to the questions will be addressed prior to the item returning to Town Council.
- The Developer’s Presentation Graphics were nearly unreadable due to poor video resolution. Points made by the speaker using the cursor to locate items under discussion were invisible to viewers. Note that CDC members were able to view the presentations file in high resolution, but not the public. This is another technical issue we are working on. Our staff is reviewing our options for improving the quality of the video and audio for each meeting. As you pointed out the video quality on the virtual platform is very strong however we are struggling with the transfer to streaming to the internet and government television access channel. We believe we are getting close improving that situation.
- The sound quality for the town staff member’s presentation was very uneven and could not be heard periodically. CDC Chair Dancy to her credit observed this fact and asked for questions from the Commission. The remedy is to be sure everyone can be heard as it is virtually impossible to ask a question about what is not heard. I’ll ask our staff to look into the audio issues.
We attach a list of questions for the staff and developer that we had asked the CDC to address. Would it be possible to answer those questions before the Town Council considers this concept plan next week? In ordinary times, we might not make such a request, but the virtual meeting format presents challenges for meaningful public input, and so far these questions are unaddressed.
Thank you!
Julie McClintock
Fred Lampe
Questions for Concept Plan Discussion:
- How will the Town ensure entrance and exit traffic can be accommodated given the 2 entrances shown on E. Rosemary street? Does the TIA for this new parking structure and the associated new 200,000 sq ft office building to be constructed where the current Wallace parking deck is located support the AM and PM traffic generated by the current entrance/exit plan shown for this new parking deck?
- The football field sized parking deck borders immediately on a historic neighborhood on the north side. What steps does the architect propose to mitigate the impact of the sheer size, as well as the light and noise impact on all the neighborhoods nearby? Could the Council ask the applicant to host a neighborhood walk about with a balloon flown on North Street to the height of the parking deck?
- Could you or the staff please comment on where we could find the financials on the 1100 parking space minimum quoted at the CDC meeting that was required by the Town to make the project feasible?
- What accommodations are being made to provide for a roof top solar energy canopy?
- Please ask the applicant to comment on the QUALITY of the deck design and surface finishing material (no exposed concrete like the current CVS deck).
- What design changes can be made to mitigate the pedestrian experiences at the ground level (no long blank wall along Rosemary St etc)? The parking deck will be just across East Rosemary from another existing very large building creating a canyon effect on East Rosemary which would redefine the character of downtown Chapel Hill.
- What is the allowable height of vehicles that can navigate in the proposed deck? Will the deck accommodate workman’s vans at least on one level? How many fully functional electric vehicle charging stations will be provided and where are they located? How many pre-wired stations and where? Are there 6 or 7 levels of parking? Does this account for the Application’s variable parking space statement of 1000 to 1100 spaces?
- What are plans to handle East Rosemary Street traffic during demolition and construction of the new deck?