Algoritmo de Geometric-Water-Filling

added.]

19) Existing conditions. The existing conditions drawing is from 2008. Is there additional information that should be included on this drawing? Has any pertinent aspect of this drawing changed? An up to date existing conditions drawing will be required with a formal application so it is probably worthwhile for the applicant to prepare one now to facilitate the design review process.

Zoning Ordinance

20) Multi-unit residences. The Zoning Ordinance allows multi-unit dwellings in the Central Business District only as a Mixed Use with residential (office/retail down, multiunit residential up). The proposed first floor parking does not conform with this use.

21) Building height. The maximum height in the Central Business District is 30 feet with an allowance for up to 50 feet at the discretion of the Planning Board. The five-story building would likely be about 50 feet tall. 22) Number of stories. The Central Business District provides that mixed use buildings (with

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 174

nonresidential on the first floor) are a maximum of 3 stories and that buildings with two floors of nonresidential are a maximum of 4 stories. The proposed building contains 5 stories with 4 floors of residential. The proposed number of stories and uses do not conform with this requirement. [Emphasis added.]

23) Conditional use for nonresidential. The requirement for nonresidential use on the first floor would have to be addressed as part of the conditional use process as provided for in the Central Business District section. 24) Drive through facility. A drive through facility for the bank is allowed by conditional use.

25) Setbacks. There are no minimum or maximum setbacks in this part of the Central Business District. 26) Impervious surface. 100% impervious surface is allowed in the Central Business District.

27) Habitable area. Based on the Settlement Agreement, the new zoning amendment setting a minimum of 600 square feet of habitable area per resident will not apply. The old standard of 300 square feet will apply. 28) College Brook. The Shoreland Protection Overlay District extends 75 feet from College Brook. Structures must be set back 25 feet from the brook.

Conditional Uses.

29) All of the following eight criteria (key points excerpted here) must be addressed for the approval of a conditional use.

1. Site suitability: The site is suitable for the proposed use…

2. External impacts: The external impacts of the proposed use on abutting properties and the neighborhood… 3. Character of the site development: The proposed layout and design of the site shall not be incompatible with the established character of the neighborhood and shall mitigate any external impacts of the use on the

neighborhood…

4. Character of the buildings and structures: The design of any new buildings or structures and the modification of existing buildings or structures on the site shall not be incompatible with the established character of the neighborhood…

5. Preservation of natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources: The proposed use of the site, including all related development activities, shall preserve identified natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources on the site and shall not degrade such identified resources on abutting properties…

6. Impact on property values: The proposed use will not cause or contribute to a significant decline in property values of adjacent properties.

7. Availability of Public Services & Facilities:…

8. Fiscal impacts: The proposed use will not have a negative fiscal impact on the Town unless the Planning Board determines that there are other positive community impacts that off-set the negative fiscal aspects of the proposed use…

The Planner continued with a request for a detailed Parking Analysis for Site Plan #4, including analysis whether parking should be focused on Plaza customer needs over residents, whether there would be assigned spaces. Next, the Planner addressed Traffic & Circulation Issues, including a possible traffic study, a

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 175

including “bicycle infrastructure” would exist and whether bicycle lanes meet “nationally accepted best practices.”

Next the Planner’s June 2016 review addressed Landscaping and Other Issues regarding Site Plan #4: Landscaping

41) Landscaping. The site needs more landscaping, along pedestrian and bicycle paths and within the parking area at the front of the site. Perpendicular planting islands (along with those now shown at the end of the parking aisles) could be added as well as landscaping strip parallel to Mill Road (per the site plan regulations). 42) 5% landscaping. The zoning ordinance requires that at least 5% of parking and driveway areas be

landscaped.

43) Other requirements. There are numerous requirements related to landscaping in both the Zoning

Ordinance and Site Plan Regulations. In the design review phase the applicant should ensure that sufficient areas are designated for landscaping, or that reasonable adjustments can be made at the formal phase. 44) Foundation plantings. It is always desirable to have a planting strip around the base of buildings where they meet parking lots and driveways. The Site Plan Regulations require a 4 foot wide strip. Several strips have been added at the rear of the site. They should be added in front, as well, as practical.

Other Issues

45) Stormwater Management. How will this be handled? The applicant said there will be some underground storage. Space should be indicated where any above ground structures will be needed.

46) Snow storage. Where will the snow be stored? It should not be along the College Brook buffer. This should be shown as part of the preliminary plan.

The Planner continued with questions of where Dumpsters will be located, Loading & Unloading areas for each building, encouragement to explore Permeable Pavement and an Electric Vehicle Charging station, and a need for clarification on what types of Water & Sewer upgrades may be needed.

Finally, the Planner provided relevant excerpts from the December 2015 Settlement Agreement. The full 8-page Planner’s Review from June 8, 2016, on Site Plan #4, can be read here:

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21851/planners_review_6-8- 16.pdf

Again, the May 2016 Site Plan (#4) being addressed is posted here:

https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21851/mill_plaza_redevelo

pment_concept_5-25-16.pdf

+ + + + +

LETTERS SENT BY RESIDENTS BEFORE THE JUNE 8, 2016, PUBLIC HEARING On June 5, 2016, Ellie and Donald Sutherland, 25 Faculty Road, wrote to the Planning Board:

We write to express our enormous disappointment in the latest proposal for the redevelopment of the Mill Road Plaza. This latest plan is a large move backward in its vision for the Mill Road Plaza. We have attached our letter of February 6, 2016 to the Planning Board voicing our concerns and providing suggestions.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 176

southern part of the plaza directly adjacent to our neighborhood and right next to the path that links the plaza to our neighborhood. This is completely incompatible with the established character of the Plaza and our neighborhood, and will adversely affect our quality of life and property values.

In addition, this new plan does nothing to promote the village center feel that our town desires. We do not need to build more student housing in Durham. The student population in Durham is not increasing. In fact, student housing supply in Durham has eclipsed demand, evidenced by the For Rent signs during this past school year on both newly-built and established rental property. Why are we building more student housing in the Mill Road Plaza? Studies show that the senior population in New Hampshire is increasing. Why not build 55-Plus and/or Senior housing instead of student housing in the Mill Road Plaza?

The Sutherland June 5, 2016, letter on Site Plan #4 is posted here:

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/donald_ellie_sutherland_6

-5-2016.pdf. The letter they attached from February 6, 2016, is excerpted further above and posted here:

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/letter_from_sutherland.pdf

On June 6, 2016, Diane Freedman, Laurel Lane, wrote:

The property in question is very small and already crowded, with insufficient parking for customers. Downtown is a bottleneck created by yield and stop sign placement along with on-street parking added in recent years. In such a situation, the redevelopment proposed for Mill Plaza strikes me as NOT in

keeping with conditional-use requirements and the good of the community and the value it places on green space, quiet, convenience, community, aesthetics, consistent character. Period.

While I would like to see the Hannaford expand in size and aesthetics, offerings, and access (parking), there is nothing desirable about more student housing, certainly not in the density and location on the lot proposed by the developer (in opposition to the Town's actual preference of minimum size per bedroom and even signed agreement with respect to location on northern rather than southern end).

I do not understand why the Town has not a stronger stance to begin with and more control and vision in working with possible developers for the heart of our Town. The point of a Master Plan and Town

Planning Department is to my mind to have control over the situation from the get go.

I sorely wish I could be more complimentary and positive about the redevelopment of our Town to date. But I wince and grieve every time I chance to see the new buildings off Madbury Road and Pettee Brook Lane, and my blood pressure rises as I try to make my way on a simple errand to the Post Office or shopping expedition. All fondness for the layout, structures, establishments, activities, and circulation of our Town has completely drained out of me and my friends and neighbors, who are so despondent and hopeless about it that they do not even bother to write. They feel no one will listen or do anything in response. Their numbers are legion. This is a very sad state of affairs on so many levels.

The full Diane Freedman letter can be read here:

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/email_from_diane_freedm an_2.txt

Shane & Katelyn Malavenda, 15 Faculty Road, also wrote to the Planning Board on June 6, 2016: My wife and I own and live in 15 Faculty Rd and are direct abutters to the Mill Plaza (tax map 6-6-5). Regretfully, we are unable to attend the meeting on June 8 due to work related commitments that could not be rescheduled.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 177

we could enjoy dining and shopping that a downtown typically offers. We look forward to a

redevelopment of the Mill Plaza that would enhance our options for these activities. However, being direct abutters, we have three main concerns with redevelopment of the Mill Plaza: noise, aesthetics, and privacy.

The latest design takes a step backwards from addressing these concerns, and it seems to ignore one other key component of the joint Motion to Stay Proceedings between the town and the developers. That key component was the plan to locate the majority of residence on the north side of the property. Instead of concentrating residence to the north side of the property, the new design includes a five story building on the southern portion which sits directly behind my home. We acknowledge that there is a wooded buffer between our property and the Mill Plaza. However, those trees only have leaves in the spring and summer, and, in addition, we anticipate that a five story building will extend above those trees. A large five story building looming over our backyard does not improve the aesthetics and reduces our privacy. The latest design is also likely to increase the noise that our home and the rest of the Faculty

Neighborhood are subjected to. A five story residence facing the neighborhood will broadcast noise from televisions, stereos, and conversations across the neighborhood. Furthermore, if residents of the

proposed design have access to the proposed courtyards, these courtyards would likely become areas for gatherings which may become loud and unruly. Already, on Saturday afternoons in the fall and spring, the cheers from drinking games can be heard throughout the neighborhood. We fear that with the

proposed design, those cheers would now literally be emanating from our backyard.

We believe that the Mill Plaza property is too small to support the amount of housing and commercial space that the developers are proposing, and the fact that the design includes buildings that disregard the height guidelines established by the town is evidence of this. The current design would add large buildings and an abundance of new residences right on the edge of the Faculty Neighborhood, changing the character of the neighborhood which has been a draw to many families for so long. We urge the council and the developers to once again revisit the plan and create a design that better addresses the concerns of Durham residents to provide a usable commercial area while maintaining a family feel in the Faculty Neighborhood.

The Malavenda letter on Site Plan #4 is posted here:

https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/mill-plaza_hearing-

060816_malavenda_letter.pdf

Another June 6, 2016, email came from Peter Wolfe, former chair of the Durham Planning Board.

I am out of state and cannot make the meeting this Wednesday but would offer these thought about the design presented by Mill Plaza.

The front of the project toward Mill Road reminds me of the first plan presented to the planning board when I was chair almost 2 years ago. If you remember there was unanimous dislike for the "L" shaped design for the following reasons: