Workforce housing This should be explored But we have seen that workforce housing is probably not compatible with student housing in the same building (or floor of a building) [Emphasis added.]

99) Dwelling units. How many dwelling units are proposed? Are these being designed in a way that they might be readily convertible from student housing to apartments for nonstudents?

100) Outside space. A seating area is shown to the east of Building D. What is the optimal location, size, and character of outside space to serve the (likely) student residents while minimizing disturbance to neighbors? Pages 14-15 of the February 2016 Planner’s Review discuss Landscaping and Open Space:

101) Landscaping. The site needs significantly more landscaping and shade trees, along pedestrian paths and certainly within the parking area at the front of the site. The Site Plan Regulations require more landscaping areas within the parking area. Perpendicular planting islands could be added as well as landscaping strip parallel to the Hannaford Building.

102) 5% landscaping. The zoning ordinance requires that at least 5% of parking and driveway areas be landscaped.

103) 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. 104) 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. These strips should be added, especially along the front of the three buildings fronting on the commercial area, unless a waiver is granted.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 139

proposed ~55%.

106) Buffer. As part of the formal application, the Planning Board should look at whether additional screening/fencing is needed between the multi-unit housing and adjacent residences. [Emphasis added.]

107) Bicentennial Park. The park that was recently redeveloped by the Town is situated on the Mill Plaza property. The Town has an easement to create this park. The easement retains the right of the property owner to use this land in the future. We would like to talk with the applicant about ways to potentially keep the park open in perpetuity. The applicant may want to provide direct access from the park into the adjacent building. 108) Mill Road park. A new park along Mill Road is proposed. A formal park with a combination of shade trees, green space, hard scape, and street furniture could be a fine amenity for the project and the community. 109) Green roofs. Is it possible to install green/vegetative roofs on any of the buildings?

Pages 15 and 16 of the Planner’s report discusses Natural and Cultural Resources

110) Mill Plaza Report – brook. The report states: “College Brook, a tributary of the Oyster River, and its wooded wetland surroundings provide stormwater filtration, aesthetic beauty, wildlife habitat, and a valuable buffer for light and noise between the downtown commercial core and the Faculty Neighborhood. As supported by a report of the College Brook Restoration Group to the MPSC, the redevelopment should work to protect and restore the brook and its buffer's natural functions on the site. This would add value to the Plaza, reassure residential neighbors, and set an example for good environmental stewardship.”

111) Mill Plaza report – brook functions. The report also states: “We recommend that public space be provided along College Brook for: 1) a brookside park for walking, biking, and other activities; 2) access between

neighborhoods, the Plaza, and the University; and, 3) key functions such as flood storage, water filtration, and wildlife habitat. This brookside park should incorporate curves and other features to appear more natural. The Committee further encourages “low impact” designs incorporating features such as rain gardens, natural swales, permeable asphalt, retention ponds, underground filtration systems, and roof gardens to effectively and more naturally manage storm water.”

112) Brook restoration. It would be desirable to restore the brook as appropriate, including the riparian buffer along the brook. Madbury Commons restored the brook adjacent to its project adding significant value to the development. It appears that more than half of the brook is situated on two abutting lots. However, it has been noted that Mill Plaza has deposited large amounts of snow along the brook historically (I

forwarded photos sent to me). What responsibility does Mill Plaza have now for restoration of the brook and the adjacent greenway? See the email from Robin Mower, an abutter, showing photographs of snow piled along the brook. [Emphases added.]

113) Abutting lots. The abutting lots to the south of Mill Plaza are Brookside Commons Condo Association on the westerly side (Lot 3-18), and Martin Lee Trust on the easterly side (Lot 3-19). College Brook weaves among the three lots, with more of it located on the two adjacent lots.

114) Buffer along brook. Per the agreement, “The Revised Application will have increased natural buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the College Brook; such buffer to be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity.” [Emphasis added.]

115) Wetland and shoreland. The precise wetland and brook and buffer locations will need to be delineated by a wetland scientist on the formal plans. [Emphasis added.]

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 140

that will likely apply to this project. We will examine these provisions in light of proposed plans as we move along. [Emphasis added.]

117) Invasive species. There is a great deal of Japanese Knotweed, a highly invasive plant, along the brook. We should coordinate for the eradication of this plant.

118) Flood zone. The brook is located in a flood zone, which should be shown on the plans. The flood hazard requirements apply largely to buildings so this should have minimal if any impact on the design.

119) Other features. Are there any special natural or cultural resources on the site, such as a stone wall? An overview should be provided as part of an existing conditions plan.

Pages 16-17 of the February 2016 Planner’s report on Site Plan #3 discuss Fire Issues, including fire-truck circulation, sprinklers, fire hydrants, proximity of new buildings to buildings on other sites, as well as

emergency access, as follows:

120) Emergency access. The Fire Department will need a second/emergency access into the site. The best location would probably be off Mill Road toward the north of the site, adjacent to the park. This could simply be a wide asphalt or concrete pedestrian way at other times. There could be up to a 6” reveal on the curb to prevent use by other vehicles. Plants in pots that are readily movable could be placed there. (As an alternative, if not feasible, the applicant could probably satisfy this need with extra building requirements.) [Emphasis added.]

Page 17 addresses Police Issues, including a needed property management plan, the Town’s strict noise ordinance, recommended video monitoring, and the impact of students downtown from recent projects. Regarding the last item, Chief Kurz indicated that “The impact upon the Police Department was minimal but that was due in large part to significant interaction with each landlord/management team to ensure

management protocol was in-place and enforced as well as outstanding coordination with move-in this fall.” Pages 17-18 discuss Utilities, including burying utilities, need for careful location of dumpsters for trash and prevention of flyaway trash, “which goes toward the brook and Chesley Drive”; encouraging recycling; water service, sewer service, and other utilities such as gas.

Page 18 discusses Stormwater Management, including low impact development, underground retention, erosion control, permeable pavement, College Brook evaluation, increased flooding on land south of the Plaza [following CDA’s unauthorized 2002 bulldozing of the rear hillside].

Construction issues are outlined on pages 18-19, including phasing, hours of work, and the priority of protection of College Brook during construction. [Emphasis added.]

On page 19, the Planner outlines issues of Architectural Design, including the value of placing balloons “at several building corners to give a sense of height and scale for the site walk.” Regarding street furniture and site details, “We will want to see details of all proposed street furniture that is permanently affixed such as benches, tables, fencing, light fixtures, and pavers. An architectural review committee could assist in reviewing proposed designs.”

Pages 19-20 address Other Issues, including Energy Considerations Checklist, Fiscal impact,

commercial/advertising signage, directional signage, lighting shielding and dark-sky compliance, clean/safe bathroom access, clear street addresses for emergency access, 24/7 management, and LEED (Leadership & Energy & Environmental Design). Snow storage received the longest treatment (because of historical damage to College Brook):

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 141

Brook, since the sand or salt could get into the brook and the snow storage could damage vegetation. Snow cannot be stored (i.e. the “dumping of snow”) within 75 feet of College Brook per the Shoreland Overlay District. This would likely not occur with the new plan anyway with the parking lot separated from the brook area. Arrangements will need to be made for removing snow in the event of excessive accumulation. In the past, Mill Plaza has placed a great deal of snow along the brook. Mike Lynch suggested looking into acquiring snow melting equipment. He said there are various technologies including portable and pad mounted equipment. He noted that snow can be dumped off site only at NHDES permitted sites. The snow dump at Durham DPW is for use only by DPW. When snow needs to be removed from the site arrangements should be made for daytime removal so that trucks with back up beepers do not disturb

residents. Our engineering consultant should review this plan carefully. [Emphasis added.] Again, the full Planner’s Report for the February 10, 2016, Public Hearing can be read here:

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

ndation_-_february_10_2016.pdf

February 10, 2016—Planning Board: Public Hearing on Mill Plaza Redevelopment (Plan #3)

Again, the site plan (#3) being discussed for this Public Hearing is posted here (the document is dated 1-27-16, yet with 1-21-16 in the file name):

https://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21851/color_architectural_ plans_1-21-16.pdf

Excerpts from the Planning Board minutes on the February 10, 2016, Public Hearing on CDA Plan #3 Attorney Ari Pollack said the project team was present concerning the design review submission for the redevelopment of the Mill Plaza property. He noted that the Town Attorney had provided the Planning Board and the public with an overview of the settlement agreement terms at the last Planning Board meeting [January 27, 2016], and there was then discussion on them. He said the team had used those terms and the proposed redesign sketch that was appended to the agreement as the basis for the design review submission to the Planning Board. He said the plan hadn’t changed since the team was before the Board in January [2016], and said they were waiting to hear comments from the public before making any revisions to it.

He briefly summarized what was proposed. He said there would be 5 buildings, one of which was the existing building where the supermarket space was located. He said that building would receive a renovation and [a two-story commercial] addition at one end, and said the supermarket would remain in its current location. He said the aesthetics of the entire building would be renovated in keeping with the new structures that were proposed. He said the plan included provisions in accord with the agreement for parking, pedestrian

connectivity, and stormwater treatment. He said beyond the terms of the agreement, there were provisions for gathering spaces and other enhancements beyond what was there today, which was a limited and

underperforming property….

He said the team’s role this evening was to take in information, and not to provide counterpoint. He said they would return with something they hoped would be responsive to a substantial portion of what they heard. He asked everyone to keep in mind that this was a functioning commercial site today. He said they were approaching the development process with the hope of keeping as many tenants as possible during the phasing of the project, and relocating them without significant interruption. He noted that the tenants’ needs were driving many of the decisions that could and could not be made. He said some things could be considered and done, but said some things might not be feasible, and said it would be beneficial if everyone understood this context. [Emphasis added.]

Attorney Pollack said at the end of this meeting, the request would be that the Planning Board table the application until the March 23rd [2016] meeting. He said this was the amount of time the design team expected to need to do the revision, which would include meeting with Town staff in a collaborative way.

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 142

Chair Corrow asked if Planning Board members had any questions before the public hearing opened. Councilor Gooze said if for some reason it looked like the design submitted with the settlement agreement would change, it would probably need to come back to the Town Council. He said if there was a design that was satisfactory to the applicant and the public, he assumed the Council would make a revision that would be satisfactory to everyone. He noted that the density couldn’t change, but said other aspects of the design could change based on the settlement agreement….

Councilor Gooze confirmed with Councilor Marple that his words were appropriate. Chair Corrow said after the public comments were received at the public hearing, he would ask the Planning Board for their comments. Steve Roberts MOVED to open the Public Hearing. Lorne Parnell SECONDED the motion, and it PASSED unanimously 7-0.

Julie Haines, 42 Oyster River Road, said the rear of the Mill Road Plaza near the Chesley Marsh path into their family neighborhood was a fragile and important buffer that protected the neighborhood from the

commercial core and concentrations of university students. She said placing a large number of students at the entrance to the Faculty Neighborhood would have a negative impact on the entire neighborhood. She noted that her kids and others walked to the Middle School on the path through the woods that led to Mill Plaza, and said this path was used by a lot of adults as well. She also spoke in detail about possible negative impacts from the student housing that was proposed, including an increase in noise and trash, odors and light pollution, especially Thursday through Saturday nights. She said the proposal would harm the delicate balance between University needs and family needs that the neighborhoods had taken time to achieve.

A related February 7, 2016, letter from Julie Haines to the Planning Board can be read in full here:

www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/21171/email_from_j._haines.txt

Ms. Haines also read a letter from Monica Chiu and Brian Locke, 14 Burnham Avenue. They said their family had been in Durham for 12 years, and said they enjoyed and encouraged change, but it should be thoughtful change that considered the community within which the change occurred. They said the residents of the Faculty Neighborhood worried that the proposed plan seemed to exacerbate the potential for noise, trash, pollution, traffic, etc., rather than creating positive impacts such as exciting new businesses and hopefully affordable housing.

They said the proposed placement of student housing on the south end of the property was in violation of the settlement agreement, which said such housing must be built on the north end of the Plaza. They spoke in some detail about wild student celebrations that occurred in Durham, and their impacts on their family and other residents of the neighborhood. They said if there were no consequences to the college students, which had been the case, the walk to the Middle School and High School amidst the new student housing would be very unpleasant for the young people who lived in the neighborhood.

They said Ms. Chui’s 90-year-old mother strolled to the Plaza using her walker when she visited 3-4 times a year, and said if the parking lots became “encased” by buildings, which demanded new traffic patterns to accommodate an increased flow of traffic including possibly opening up Chesley Drive, she would be hard pressed to feel safe walking to the Plaza. They spoke in detail on this, and noted that while students on foot expected vehicles to stop for them, sometimes on a dime, when the students were driving they were often too rushed to stop for pedestrians. They said despite recent laws against using handheld phone devices while behind the wheel, many students and nonstudents still did so, which made an increase in cars around Durham a hazard for pedestrians of all ages. They said while private business property owners could claim these weren’t issues under their purview or control, the issues should not be overlooked and should be considered in the plans for the property….

Durham’s Mill Plaza – 1967 to 2018 / 143

They asked if some of the new housing that was proposed could perhaps attract a range of residents for an appealing population variety, including seniors and foreign visitors/scholars. They noted that at the previous Planning Board meeting, a representative of the property owner said anyone able to pay market price for a unit was welcome to rent it. They said the owners had an expected ethical responsibility to the community into which they were building, and said an offer of low income senior housing might spur other wealthy property owners to do the same. They said this was the kind of leadership the Durham community expected. They noted the Mill Plaza plan done several years ago, and questioned why it was rejected. They said they appreciated the fact that the current plan included restoration of College Brook, a natural buffer between the property and the water, and consideration of green spaces.

The full text of the February 8, 2016, Chu and Locke letter can be read here:

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

_and_b._locke.pdf [This letter was re-submitted by Chu & Locke in November 2017, since the #6 plan

submitted by CDA then was even worse with respect to the criteria that concerned Chu & Locke.]

Resident Sally Tobias read a letter from Diana Carroll, 54 Canney Road. Ms. Carroll said the proposed