ERGONOMÍA Y SU IMPORTANCIA

to living near Durham’s center and to sustaining a spirit of community. We urge you, the Planning Board,

to reject this revised Plan. The future of the Mill Road Plaza will profoundly influence Durham’s future

as a viable community where different generations can co-exist and flourish.

The full Wheeler letter can be read here:

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

_wheeler.pdf

A few hours before the meeting, Annmarie Harris, 56 Oyster River Road, sent an email (with in-text date of June 1, 2016),

As a 40+ year resident of Durham and a former member of various Town Boards I offer the following observations:

Redevelopment of the Mill Plaza may be of benefit to the community depending on the

rearrangement of buildings on the site. Location of commercial space and student housing will determine community support.

The principle business that draws everyone to the Mill Plaza is our grocery store, therefore its location should be the priority.

Durham’s small town character is being eroded by over-building student housing in the town center. Student life styles are not compatible with existing residential neighborhoods regardless of well- intentioned management. Therefore adding even more student housing may be undesirable.

Any housing units intended for students should be located as close as possible to campus in the northwest quadrant and away from existing neighborhoods.

A parking garage should be a high priority for redevelopment. It could be built into the hill with the possibility of an access from Main Street through one of the properties where currently there are outdated buildings.

The UNH Transportation Policy Committee and Town goal for a walk-able community should be considered.

Any parking plan should address effective circulation for emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, etc. Safety for children and adults that walk from adjacent neighborhoods through the plaza must be given special consideration.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 179

Noise and lights from activity in the plaza at night negatively impacts the quality of life and the value of homes in adjacent neighborhoods. Commercial uses that cause noise and intrusive lighting should be avoided and residential uses should be located as far as possible from Chesley Drive and Faculty Road.

Residential units for mature adults should be included in the proposal, possibly in a separate building near the brook.

Respect for the natural environment that separates the plaza from existing neighborhoods should be in the plan including snow removal.

We have high hopes for a plan that will “dazzle” and will therefore be worthy of support from the citizens of Durham.

Annmarie Harris’ June 2016 letter is posted here:

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

marie_harris_2.txt. A related letter from Annmarie Harris can be read here:

https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/email_from_ann marie_harris_0.txt

+ + + + +

June 8, 2016—Planning Board: Public Hearing on Mill Plaza Redevelopment, Plan #4 (May 2016)

IX. Public Hearing - Mill Plaza Redevelopment – 7 Mill Road. Design Review (preliminary application). Review of updated design for site plan and conditional use for the redevelopment of this 10-acre site. The proposed project involves demolition of rear commercial building; construction of new 2-story commercial building, bank, and 2-story addition to the existing Hannaford Building; construction of building(s) at the rear of the site with 4 stories of residential over 1 story of garage parking; and parking, circulation, and other site changes. Colonial Durham Associates, LP, property owner; Sean McCauley, agent; Joe Persechino, Tighe & Bond, engineer; Steve Cecil and Emily Innes, The Cecil Group, planner; Lisa DeStefano and Adam Wagner, DeStefano Architects, architect. Central Business District. Map 5, Lot 1-1. Recommended action: Discussion and continuation of design review and public hearing.

+ + + + +

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

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

pment_concept_5-25-16.pdf

From the minutes of the June 8, 2016, Public Hearing on the Plaza Redevelopment, Site Plan #4

Attorney Ari Pollack said the project team tonight included members of The Cecil Group, who were brought into the project in order to add some fresh ideas to the plan. He reviewed how the process had unfolded in

February when the team was previously before the Planning Board. He said after that, the applicant’s team did its best to memorialize the extensive public comments that had been received. He said they also organized a meeting with some residents, with the help of Town staff to try to get some additional public input. He said they then redeveloped the concept of their plan, and said this was before the Board this evening. He said the differences between it and the previous plan and how it was responsive to the comments received would be explained.

Mr. Cecil said the focus of his company’s work was on how to put the pieces together for new developments in existing communities, including developments in downtowns. He said they appreciated the many comments and concerns received on the Mill Plaza project, and how it could best fit into the community. He explained the current plan [see pages 3-4 of the meeting minutes for a repeat of these plan details, described earlier]…. Mr. Cecil concluded that the team was confident that they had provided a plan that responded to many

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 180

concerns and considerations, and that could be successfully built. Chair Corrow asked Board members of they had any questions.

Ms. Dill asked about a black dotted line on the plan in the northeast corner. There was discussion, including discussion about getting an aerial view of the abutting properties in that area in addition to the site itself. Mr. Cecil spoke about the significant grade change in this area, and how it affected the spatial relationship of buildings there.

Mr. Parnell noted the comment from the applicant’s team the last time they were before the Board that Building B would remain in place while the new buildings were being built. He said with this new plan, that didn’t seem possible. Mr. Cecil said they weren’t sure that was the case, and he spoke further on this.

Councilor Lawson asked what the default parking ratio was for the commercial space. Mr. Cecil said it was often about 3.5 spaces per thousand gross sf of commercial space. Councilor Lawson asked if the plan would meet this objective in the central parking area for the retail businesses, and Mr. Cecil said the plan was a little short on this. He said some of the parking would have to be provided in other locations, including possible parking underneath the residential space, and noted that it would be recommended that employees park there. He said the team was comfortable that the scale of parking provided in the plan was practical for this site. Councilor Lawson asked if it had been stated that some of the parking would be for people visiting the

downtown center. Attorney Pollack said that wasn’t correct, and said the parking areas on the site would not be public parking.

Councilor Lawson asked if there was any opportunity to trade off some of the proposed landscaped terrace area for apartment structure, as part of moving the apartments further away from the Faculty Neighborhood. Mr. Cecil said that was a very reasonable question. He said the greenspace provided views for the apartments, and added to the sense of buffering, but said there were also concerns that on a nice day, it could be noisy if people were gathering there. He said perhaps a building edge could be better. Attorney Pollack said it came down to weighing the priorities, and said perhaps providing greenspace wasn’t as important as possible nuisance and security issues. He spoke in some detail on this.

Councilor Lawson noted that it had been stated that a variance might be needed in order to have residential space on the first floor, but said he believed the Planning Board could make a decision on that under the Zoning Ordinance. There was discussion between Councilor Lawson and Attorney Pollack on this….. Mr. Cecil said they were working on creating a new façade for Hannaford, and introducing a continuous

sidewalk along the edge that connected it to the edges of the new commercial building. He said there would be spaces for restaurants, which would make use of the pedestrian environment, and said they were hoping there would be a better pedestrian environment than was there today. He noted that there was very little signage about the great businesses at the back of the site, and said there might be suggestions for new signage…. Mr. Roberts said perhaps the applicant should consider retaining the park located next to the bagel restaurant. Mr. Cecil said the team had heard two different views on this, including the view that it was an attractive area and it would be beneficial to retain it….

Ms. Dill said this seemed like a good time to ask again about the possible idea of not providing the student tenants with parking on the site, which was what the most recent developments downtown had done. She said this would relieve significant congestion. Attorney Pollack said providing parking under a building was

expensive, and said if it was felt they could provide less parking and still have units that were attractive to the market, the applicant was ok with this. He said perhaps providing parking for 50% of the residential tenants was too high, and he spoke further on this.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 181

area on the site needed for stormwater management. Mr. Cecil said while it was more expensive not having an area on the site to put open basins for stormwater management, they were confident that they could provide a stormwater management design that would work. He spoke further on this.

Paul Rasmussen MOVED to open the Public Hearing. Councilor Lawson SECONDED the motion and it PASSED unanimously 7-0.

Joshua Meyrowitz, Chesley Drive, noted the applicant’s meeting with some community members, and said he’d been asked to read a report of that meeting, and their comments concerning it. The report was signed by the following residents in addition to Mr. Meyrowitz: Heidi Ely, 177 Durham Point Road; Elaine Fink & Steve Fink, 11 Fellows Lane; Erin Hardie Hale, 74 Mill Road; Annmarie Harris, 56 Oyster River Road; John Hart, 13 Mill Road, Brookside Commons; Beth Olshansky, 122 Packers Falls Road; Mark McPeak, 13 Mill Road, Brookside Commons; and Kate Ruml, 7 Thompson Lane.

The community members said they were writing to the Planning Board and Mr. Behrendt as ten “members of the public” who were invited to meet with Steve Cecil, Emily Keys Innes, and Sean McCauley on Saturday, May 14, 2016, as mentioned in the “Submission of Conceptual Plan for Mill Plaza” cover memorandum dated May 25, 2016. They said they were very pleased to have an opportunity to “discuss possibilities for the site” and to provide input “about different options for siting the proposed uses,” as noted in the memorandum from the applicant. They said the meeting was extremely cordial, and said there was general consensus among members of the community regarding optimum features for a redeveloped Plaza site. They said although they were clear at the meeting that such a small group of residents could not represent all the potential views from the larger community, they felt that they were focusing on issues that reflected broad consensus, as expressed in scores of letters, petitions, and comments at public hearings over many years.

The community members said that at the May 14 meeting, they were shown and discussed 2 different general concepts for redeveloping the Plaza, and were told that Colonial Durham would be presenting both concepts to the Planning Board for the Public Hearing on June 8, 2016. But they said, sadly, what the Cecil Group had submitted to the Planning Board largely disregarded both their input and the best ideas expressed by all present at the meeting. [Emphasis added.]

They said their input and concerns clustered into 10 sets of criteria that must be met in order for them to support a redevelopment plan. Their letter went into detail on each of these criteria:

1. Housing Location

2. Building to Building Siting 3. Keeping Structures in Scale 4. Protecting the Neighborhood 5. Child/Adult Pedestrian Safety 6. Pocket Parks

7. Parking

8. College Brook and Stormwater

9. View from Faculty Road and Brookside Commons Residences

10. Coordination with other Main Street Development and Overall Town Fiscal Health

The community members noted that given these criteria and the concerns expressed in regard to each of them, the most exciting parts of the May 14 meeting focused on the second concept the Cecil Group shared, which they were told would also be submitted to the Town. They explained that this concept would relocate Hannaford to a new building parallel to and set back from Mill Road, and would top that building with a floor of office/commercial space. They said this concept could also include locating at least 75 of the residential units to the northern area of the site (in keeping with the Settlement) parallel to Main Street, where Hannaford currently sat. They said this new commercial/ residential building would have 1st floor retail and 2 or more stories of residential units.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 182

They said this second concept was refreshingly responsive to prior public input, including comments made by a number of community members at earlier public hearings. They said it would also maximize the potential for meeting the criteria discussed at the meeting. They said they’d been excited to hear Steve Cecil emphasize that the Cecil Group had recently merged with the architectural firm for Hannaford’s stores. They said they were told that discussions regarding Hannaford’s move to a new building had been in progress, and that although Hannaford had not yet agreed to such a move, it had also not yet said “no.” They said they then suggested that the Plaza owners offer incentives to Hannaford to agree to the move to a new building facing Mill Road in order to make attainable the larger and longer-term goal of a finely redeveloped Plaza. They said they also noted at the meeting that in addition to solving so many other redevelopment issues, a new

supermarket building would offer Hannaford a more visually prominent and dominant spot in an aesthetically pleasing Town center.

The community members said they were disappointed that the second concept had not been presented to the Planning Board for consideration at the June 8, 2016 Public Hearing, and instead Scheme A, which they said was deficient in many ways, had been submitted.

They said the submitted concept violated just about every criterion discussed at the meeting on May 14th: 1) It has a massive five-story housing complex pushed up near a well-used pedestrian entrance to the adjacent Faculty Neighborhood, a neighborhood comprised of single- and two-story homes. Placing housing at this location is contrary to the Settlement and also violates Conditional Use criteria for housing in the Central Business District. The proposed structure also has large outdoor decks over ground-level parking, decks that face into the neighborhood and would likely become the sites for loud student parties.

2) The plan has the pedestrian paths through the Plaza (including those to be used by schoolchildren) passing alongside student housing.

3) In addition, we note that a loading dock at the southern edge of the “18k x 2 Commercial” building is shown on the recently submitted Concept Plan. Delivery loading and unloading are noisy activities and should occur away from residential areas. The small number of trees shown on the plan will not block those sounds. 4) The current scheme destroys the only park-like area next to the Works Bakery Café and adds no significant new green spaces. And no increased Brook protection or buffer is indicated, in violation of the Settlement. 5) The submitted plan leaves the ugliest and least-improved building (with Hannaford/Rite Aid) in place. Although community members at the May 14 meeting favored waiving 100% of the residential parking

requirement for any housing in the Plaza, we now see that, with the current submitted plan, even more parking spaces for occupants of the residential units have been added, moving from a calculation of 0.5 spaces per unit to 0.5 per spaces per occupant. The community members said this redevelopment plan, if accepted, would eliminate the possibility for the foreseeable future of any meaningful development of this central and essential “town center”.

The meeting minutes then quote the final 160 words from the letter (which appear in the excerpts from the letter further above. Again: The full resident report on the May 14, 2016, meeting can be read here: June 8 2016—Resident Report to the Planning Board on 5-14-16 Design Meeting with CDA

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/letter_from_community_m embers_to_pb_on_06-08-16.pdf

More from the minutes with comments at the June 8, 2016, Public Hearing on Plaza Redevelopment Plan #4: Tim Horrigan, Faculty Road, said the existing Plaza was thriving, especially the businesses that provided essential services [to full-time residents]. He said he worried about how this plan served them, and asked how

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 183

the parking spaces they relied upon would be affected by the construction of new buildings. He asked how realistic it was to put that many apartments, with one entrance and exit into an area that what was already fragile and impacted by flooding. He also spoke about possible safety issues if there was an emergency situation. He said it might be safer to have the units near the front of the property. He said there were a lot of problems with this plan, noting especially the 5-story building(s) planned.

Phyllis Heilbronner, Mill Pond Road, said the cart was before the horse, and said a traffic study was needed. She said there was already an issue getting in and out of the Plaza. She said this and other background work was needed in order to see if what the applicant was planning fit into the needs of this community, was sustainable, and took into consideration the traffic issue.

John Hart, 15 Mill Road, noted that he was an abutter, and said he was one of the residents who met with