 It was tough for me to understand that, but I'll put the thing about V-coats in there. Good evening. We'd like to welcome all of you here to the Durham City Council meeting at 7.01 p.m. on Monday, February the 3rd. We take a moment of silent meditation, please. Thank you. I would ask the clerk if she would like to do President Leeson. Councilman Jean Brown, if you'd leave us in the pledge. Okay, well, we got it. We are blessed to have with us tonight to lead us in the pledge. It's Destiny Quick, and her mom, Dewan and Langley, is out in the audience. I met her during kids' voting, and she was responsible for my getting 100% of the kids' voting. So I thought I'd better run out. I'm Destiny Quick. I will be leaving you in the pledge of allegiance tonight. Thank you, Destiny. I'm Madam Clerk. Would you call the roll, please? Mayor Bell. Present. I'm Cole McFadden. Present. Councilmember Brown. Present. Councilmember Cattati. Present. Councilmember Davis. Present. Councilmember Moffatt. Present. Councilmember Shull. Let me again say good evening, and it is really my distinct pleasure to welcome you to my 12th annual State of the City Address. To my fellow City Councilmembers, fellow elected officials, I see Commissioner Recall present, City staff, business and community leaders, all of you who are present here tonight. I certainly want to thank you for being here. Each year I'm honored to have your presence when I give the State of the City Address, and I'd also like to welcome my fellow residents who are viewing us on DTV8, as well as those who are watching tonight's live stream from the City of Durham's website. At this time of the year, my job as mayor is to provide an honest assessment of the past year and look ahead to the coming year. As we exit a long period of economic uncertainty and challenges, our great city accomplished a lot on many different fronts, from downtown and neighborhood development to maintaining our strong financial standing, and there's no doubt that while we accomplished a lot, a lot remains to be done. Continuing to fight crime and its underlying social causes remains high on the City's agenda. Hand in hand with that goal is something that Durham is perhaps one of the most diverse cities in the State has to intentionally strengthen, which is relationship building, thereby strengthening trust between government and different communities within our city. But before I go on, I'd like us to get started by continuing our tradition of looking back at the year before. But looking at our accomplishments, our accolades, at how well we all work together to achieve our mission to make Durham a great place to live, work, and play. In fact, some may have thought that with shrinking resources and efforts to do more with less, our goal might seem to have been a mission impossible. But as you view this short video, you'll see that in 2013, we took charge to make Outraged City and the next level, trying to move it to the next level. And by doing that, you'll see that what we did, we're able to make really a mission possible. I really want to... Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make Durham a great place to live, work, and play. I'd like to take a quick moment to thank the Office of Public Affairs for giving us a look back at many of the highlights of this year. Much of what we accomplished was the result of a successful partnership or relationship between the City Council, the City staff, led by City Manager Tom Bonfield, and our remarkable community. And I'm going to tell my colleagues on the council I had asked the staff to make copies of that video so you guys wonder, is it all worth it? You can slide it into your computer and look at it and say, yeah, it's all worth it, but you get it when it's all over. Two years ago, the City Council working with City staff set five strategic goals to guide us as we serve the residents of Durham. They are a strong and diverse economy, safe and secure community, thriving, livable neighborhoods, a well-managed city, and stewardship of city's physical assets. And while all of these goals are important to ensure that Durham is a city that we're all proud of, one of the issues that has a very high priority for me is embodied in the strategic goal, safe and secure community. This involves working to continue the reduction of crime, particularly violent crime. As you know, violent crime consists of aggravated assaults, rape, robbery, and homicides. We as a community in law enforcement have made progress in reducing crime in our city, and while violent crime, which is something we focus on in particular this past year, is down by 5.6% compared to 2012. Property crime, which includes burglary, larceny, and theft, is up nearly 6%. Both categories combine to drive our overall crime up by 4.3% since 2012. And I continue to call on the community to work together with the police department to not only reduce crimes in the coming year, but also to help solve them. I'm of the opinion that for us to be a truly great city, we have to do more to reduce crime and enhance our feelings of safety in our communities. Another issue that is a very high priority for me is reflected in the strategic goal, thriving, livable neighborhoods. Increasing the amount of affordable housing and contingent neighborhood revitalization efforts, particularly those in neighborhoods that have been depressed for long periods of time, is a very important issue for Durham. I continue to believe that strong neighborhoods make a strong city and contribute greatly to the quality of life in Durham. In a way, those two strategic goals, a safe and secure community, thriving and livable neighborhoods, are interconnected. The one issue that connects the two strategic goals, but also differentiate between them, is the level of poverty or absence of poverty within a neighborhood. The presence of poverty is not a justification for crime, but its presence and accompanying deficits in education, job training, jobs, poor health care, and lack of access to services are all contributing factors to the level of crime. Poverty and its contributing attributes also help determine whether or not we have a safe and secure community and thriving, livable neighborhoods. Our city is great, as you've seen from our earlier video. Great things are indeed happening in Durham. The state of our city is good, but it can be better. But working together, focusing and addressing some of our key challenges, we can make it a much better city for those who live here, for those who visit, and for those newcomers who may choose to make Durham their home. A key challenge that we must undertake to make our city even greater is work to reduce poverty in Durham. Today I am proposing that we as a city council, city administration, and residents of Durham accept that challenge and make it a key priority to reduce poverty in our city, neighborhood by neighborhood, year by year, starting in 2014. Now you might ask, why focus on poverty now? It may be aware that 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty and in the North Carolina, Governor Terry Sanford created the North Carolina Fund to create economic opportunity for people living in poverty. And although some progress has been made by many accounts nationally and locally, it's a war on which we've lost focus, with more people living in poverty than just 10 years ago. Secondly, here in Durham, we have focused a lot on our effort on our downtown revitalization over the past 12 years, with many great results. Public-private partnerships have resulted in increased overall investment in downtown, with construction and revitalization well underway, and the success of D-PAC is an example that can't go unmentioned. And two years ago, we dedicated a penny for affordable housing, enabling the transformation of the once-depressed South Side and Rowland Hills area into a housing for people of various income levels and serving as a source of revenue for future efforts to provide affordable housing. We're making progress on areas in which we have intentionally focused our combined efforts. We as a city have made significant progress, creating a can-do attitude on the whole of our city. Now is the time to take those same steps that we have used to move our great city forward to address those among us who have the least. Let me share with you some national facts, which some of you may even be surprised. According to the Center for Law and Social Poverty, known by the academic class and the new census data, almost one in five U.S. children are poor, which is almost 22 percent. In 2012, over 16 million children in the United States were living in poverty. And according to the official measure, poverty is defined as living in families with income under $19,090 for a family of three. Children are more likely than adults to be poor. Children under age three have the highest poverty rates with potentially lasting consequences for education, health, and other key outcomes. Racial and ethnic minority children are disproportionately poor. Child poverty is linked to negative child and adult outcomes. And many children in poverty have working parents. Those were national statistics and facts. But did you know that poverty affects approximately 20 percent of people who live in Durham? That's nearly one in every five people, persons who are either homeless, cannot afford adequate housing, or paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Making them choose between food for their children, transportation to get to their jobs, and paying for other basic necessities like medicine. These are choices no one should have to make in our society, especially in Durham. Let's take a closer look. According to a 2013 study by the UNC Poverty Center, many of our poor neighbors live in areas that are just blocks from the most prosperous areas of our city. In certain parts of East Durham, which has been an area of focus for both the city and county, the poverty rate is even higher. They just travel down Dillet and Petterview Street, which is identified by the census tract 11. The poverty rate there is 37.5 percent. Travel east to the census tract 10.01 to the neighborhoods around Holton Career and Resource Center, near East Durham Park. The overall poverty rate is 44.1 percent, with an overwhelming 63 percent of children living in poverty. And it gets even worse as you travel south to the census tract 14.00. There is around Grant Park and Durham Technical Community College, where over half of the residents live in poverty, including 8 and 10 children. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that poverty is exclusive to Durham. If we look at the ranking of leading cities in North Carolina, according to the US.com, Durham, North Carolina, the historical poverty level data, and ACS 2010 data, Durham, which had a population then of almost 230, 29,000 people, 46,167, which is about 21 percent, live in poverty. It's composed of 17.9, almost 17.5 percent in North Carolina, and about 15.3 percent in the US. If we look at Durham families that are in poverty, it's about 7,800, which represent about 14.67 percent, as compared to 13.3 percent of North Carolina families living in poverty, and 11.26 percent of US families living in poverty. Durham's poverty rate ranked at 21.03 percent, which is six in the state. And if you look at the chart, you might not see it very clearly, but we have cities ranging from the largest city, Charlotte, up in the Greensboro, Fayetteville, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Durham, High Point, Asheville, Gaston, and Wilmington, and Durham sort of sits right in the middle at about 21 percent of poverty. What I'm saying is that it is time that we as a community come together to do something about this affliction that directly or indirectly affects us all. As I described in the beginning of my remarks, whether it is manifested through crime, through health disparities, through high school dropouts, and unemployment, it's time to stop hoping that the solution to solving or reducing poverty will occur by some wealth which will trickle down or that rising tides will raise all boats. It's just not happening. In fact, the UNC Poverty Center showed that just opposite is happening. People living in many of the neighborhoods pointed out tonight are experiencing higher poverty rates, especially children than they were just 10 years ago. We as a city and county are rich in many resources. We live in a great place in this state and this country. We have great universities. We are home to the research triangle park. Many talented persons, a city classified as a creative city with many entrepreneurs, innovators, and more. We must find a way to harness those many resources to focus or target the reduction in poverty in our community. Now fortunately, some leaders in our faith community took the lead last year to take some very specific action steps to reduce poverty in our community. And one major priority that they've taken is to develop what they call intentional relationships across the lines of privileges and poverty at all income levels. A plan for reducing poverty, neighborhood by neighborhood, year by year, must incorporate specific actions. I'd like to ask the Reverend Mel Williams and Cameron Smith if they would mind standing. Now some of you may remember Mel as the former pastor of Watch Street Baptist Church. But Mel is also the coordinator of In Poverty Derm. This organization is helping to lead the way by putting a laser-like focus on how we as a community can work together to reduce poverty. What is key among their approaches is to develop intentional relationships across lines of privilege and poverty. And working with Mel is Cameron Smith who coordinates a project called Relationships, Equipping Allies and Leaders, or the acronym, Real Derm. And here's how it works. Starting in March, Real Derm will match individuals of families in poverty with four volunteers who offer not only friendship and understanding but other important resources, such as access to financial planning, job training, and interview skills, finding safe and affordable housing and health care options, the essential needs to step out of poverty. This program is modeled on the National Circles Campaign which has seen measurable success in the lives of people they've touched since 2008. I and many others believe this program has real promise. Thank you Mel, thank you Cameron. Another organization that is focusing on steering our young people in the right direction for gainful employment is a program by Manpower Development Corporation, M.D.C. and it's called Made in Derm. This program is chaired by Dr. Victor Zowell, Chancellor of Health Affairs at Duke University and President and CEO of the Duke University Health System and consists of Derm's top public business and community leases, such as NCCU Chancellor Deborah Saunders-White and our own city manager Tom VanVeel along with others. But before I speak more about Made in Derm, let me share a few national facts that were provided by the Center for Law and Social Policy. One, the high unemployment situation of black males has been persistent and historically unacceptable. It has endured for decades. Work opportunities for black male teens have all but disappeared. The great recession dealt a knockout blow to young black men. Black males as well as Hispanic males are overrepresented in low-wage jobs and underrepresented in professional and management jobs. Despite subsistence education gains since 1970 and high school completion in college enrollment for young blacks, among young blacks males, they still lag substantially behind their white counterparts in educational attainment. The criminal justice system is delivering a crippling blow to an employment prospect for young black men. Consider this. Black men 18 and 19 years of age were imprisoned at more than nine times the rate of white men. Black men 20 to 24 years of age were imprisoned at more than seven times the rate of white men. When surveyed, 60% of employers indicated they would not hire an ex-offender. Studies show that increased availability and accessibility of criminal background data is associated with worse labor market outcomes for ex-offenders. Now, while all these facts that were given by CLAPS may not be the same for DERM, I suspect that to a certain extent it mirrors DERM. And while the study focuses on the plight of black and Hispanic males made in DERM is a program that is gender and ethnic neutral. But because DERM mirrors many of the statistics cited by CLAPS, that is why it is important and more important that the program made in DERM be a success. It is known that only about half of DERM's youth will complete high school, go to college and get a job by the time they're age 25 years old. Moreover, many will struggle in the process and some will not make it at all. There are now between 4,500 and 6,000 disconnected youth enough to fill four DERM high schools who are either at significant risk of dropping out of high school or who are not pursuing any education, training or employment. All of them have talent and aspiration for a better life. Together they represent a source of workforce skills, civic participation and taxpayer revenue that DERM can ill afford to waste. Made in DERM seeks to mobilize DERM's top public business and community leaders to help lead an education to career system through the creation of a formal partnership. The Made in DERM program is important if our young people are not able to acquire the necessary training for the jobs in our community. They may very well become a part of the jobless unemployed which may result in a life of poverty acquiring all of the attributes that come with living in poverty. Located in one of the distress census tracts that I mentioned earlier, the East DERM Children's Initiative is an example of public-private partnership working to prepare children to succeed in school and life. Under the leadership of David Reese and Barker French and I like David and Barker to stand if you don't mind. Barker is chairman and I see Ellen Rackow is here. He's a member of the East DERM Children's Initiative and I know we had someone else here that was also. Chris, I want to get to Ms. Bass later. Ted Fisk, they're all up in my office. In fact, all of the persons that are associated with East DERM Children's Initiative if you would mind standing. I'm serious, this is important. The reason I mentioned EDCI is because of what I said earlier in terms of trying to reach out. Tonight they have Ms. Bass and Ms. Bass I'd like you to stand. I met Ms. Bass earlier this evening in my office but Ms. Bass is raising her hand but Ms. Bass is raising her grandson who attends Y.E. Smith Elementary School and although they are a family of low wealth she's taken the necessary steps to help her grandson see that there is another path out of poverty. Ms. Bass is engaged in his school, in the community and with EDCI and I'd like to thank all of them as well as all the members of the EDCI board and staff for being with us tonight and more importantly for the work that you do and will continue to do. Thank you. As mayor, I want to use the office of the mayor to raise the visibility of poverty in DERM. For some people poverty is hidden in plain sight. Others see poverty and do not acknowledge that it exists or that it affects them. Some feel poverty and live in poverty every day and some are just not aware of the extent of poverty in DERM. If in fact we're going to work to reduce poverty it is important that we develop specific benchmarks for the reduction of poverty within the targeted neighborhoods. The state through its healthy North Carolina 2020 project has set a goal of reducing the poverty rate in the state to 12.5% by the year 2020 and the county's public health department and partnership for a healthy DERM are working together to help reach that goal in DERM. DERM County's Public Health Director Dale Harris is here and I know Gale very well. Please stand. Please stand. Gales, I like people to see you. Probably everybody knows you. Again, I want to thank Gale for all the work she does to help improve the lives of DERM residents. Just as the city and county have been working together on specific areas of their respective strategic goals I want to encourage the city, the county and partner organizations to work together to achieve this goal of reducing poverty. As a city we must work in partnership with existing efforts of those non-profit private sector and county government. Those sectors work well together when we're revitalizing downtown and we should be able to work just as well to reduce poverty in our community. We must utilize and better prioritize existing financial resources. Now, this is not a call at this time for more financial resources but a call for better coordination and collaboration of existing resources. Strengthening partnership efforts, building what has already been started by our faith community. In closing, I'm reminded of the recent Sunday ceremony on January 19, 2004. That was delivered by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove during the Watch Street Baptist Church Martin Luther King service. Jonathan spoke about the actions of Reverend King in his civil rights efforts. It was called for collective action during the Montgomery bus boycott. The mayor, the city, city council, the city administration, we don't have any monopoly on solutions to reducing poverty in DERM. It will take collective action by all in DERM to be concerned about the level of poverty in DERM. And tonight, I'm calling on all of us to begin to take that collective action toward reducing poverty in DERM neighborhoods year by year starting now. This road to reducing poverty will not be an easy road. It will be a road of endurance and time. The achievements will not be readily seen or felt by many. It will not be analogous to the revitalization of a neighborhood or a revitalization of downtown DERM where we can see the physical transformations take place with ongoing construction that eventually gets completed and results in a finished product. Our focus is on people. People who live in poverty. And for many, though, no fault of their own who have been in poverty for many years. The road out of poverty for many does not happen overnight and many roadblocks have to be overcome. It is not a road to be traveled along. People in poverty will have to be willing to travel that road in partnership acting collectively with those who are willing to assist in that journey. But I remain convinced that if we as a community have the will and determination and if it can be done anywhere reducing poverty can be accomplished in DERM where great things happen, great things do happen and this will be one of the things to add to our list. In the coming months I will be calling together community leaders, people in poverty and organizations to help develop an overall plan and roadmap with the benchmarks to meet that challenge. Again, I want to thank you for your time and patience and I want us again to say DERM let us move forward together to achieve the goal of reducing poverty in DERM neighborhood by neighborhood year by year starting in 2014. Thank you and God bless DERM and God bless America. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to take a short break to begin our regular council meeting at 7.40pm and I see that Senator Mike Wood former city council person is with us. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Thank you. We'd like to reconvene the DERM city council meeting at 7.44pm. We have a couple of ceremonial items and I would ask Councilman Moffitt if he's available. Good evening. I'm the liaison with the Human Relations Commission and the mayor has privileged me with presenting us tonight. Whereas the DERM Human Relations Commission has diligently served the city of DERM since 1968 and continues to promote a spirit of goodwill and mutual respect among individuals, groups, races, persons of differing social and economic status as well as religious beliefs. I'm going to take a moment and say I'm going to back up. I'm going to tell you this is the first time I've done this. It's almost start over. First thing I want to do is introduce three people that are involved with the Human Relations Commission and the division. First of all is our chair, Ricky Hart. Can you come over here, please? Vice chair, Phil Seib and the director of the division, Delilah Donaldson. Thank you. Okay, I'll try it again. Whereas the Human Relations Commission has diligently served the city of DERM since 1968 and continues to promote a spirit of goodwill and mutual respect among individuals, groups, races and persons of differing social and economic status as well as religious beliefs and whereas the DERM Human Relations Division enforces the city's fair housing ordinance and remains committed to eliminating discrimination, housing disparities, hate crimes and biases while promoting diversity and inclusion and whereas the city of DERM believes that in order to achieve justice and equal opportunity for all we must value and accept people and not just tolerate each other and whereas the city of DERM has made tremendous progress in human relations in the year since the establishment of the Human Relations Commission and looks forward to continued progress in addressing the serious human and civil rights challenges that still faces and whereas the city of DERM owes its appreciation to all citizens who have contributed and continue to contribute to the advancement of the mutual understanding, fairness, justice and equal opportunity for all Now therefore, William V. Bilbell, the mayor of the city of DERM, North Carolina does hereby proclaim February 2014 as Human Relations Month in DERM and hereby urges all citizens to take special note of this observance witness his hand and the corporate seal of the city of DERM, North Carolina this third day of February 2014 by William V. Bilbell mayor of the great city of DERM and each of our Ricky will start Chair Hart will begin Good evening I would like to say thank you to the mayor given honor and praise where it's due and thanking the mayor Mayor Bale, the city council the Human Relations Commission liaison commissioner Don Moffitt to the deputy city manager Mr. Keith Caldwell the NIS department director, Ms. Constance Stansel Human Relations Manager Mr. Lila Donaldson assistant administrator, Ms. Juanita English the vice chair of the Human Relations Commission Mr. Phil Seib and to all the Human Relations Commissioners I would like to say thank you for the support of everyone of the task that's been given to us we are doing our best our due diligence to do what is and I'd just like to say thank you all for your support and we look forward into assisting and doing whatever we can for the city of DERM at this particular time I will ask the HRC manager Mr. Lila to come forward Thank you Chair Hart I am pleased and honored to stand before you and proclaim February as Human Relations Month not only is it significant it's significant pretty much nationwide during the month of February I thought also that in looking at the agenda and seeing that tonight we are also going to commemorate Mr. Beckton and he was the person that hired me in fact worked with him a few years before he retired and I thought that was that is something that it really takes you back a long ways and to have to think about all the accomplishments that he did and what he did for Human Relations and bringing it forward in fact not only having that ordinance created but being a director for the years 20 plus years or whatever however many years before you left so I'm very pleased and honored to stand before you and to let you know that this is a very special day and thank you While we had the community leaders and the concerned citizens here we wanted to take an opportunity to invite everybody to come out to the Human Relations Award Ceremony it's the 12th annual Human Relations Award Ceremony being held February 21st at the Haytai Heritage Center at 6pm it's free and open to the public which is asking for you to RSVP through the Neighborhood Improvement Services office it's about two hour event where we get to honor the participants for various awards and their work with the Durham community we also have keynote speaker Mandy Carter who is based in Durham but internationally known as civil rights and LGBT activists there will be a couple pieces of spoken word done by the Bull City Slam team and it's a great time so if you all can come out just make sure you RSVP that's about it and with that I'll present the proclamation to the chair thank you so much thank you councilman Mark good evening good evening thank you I'm honored to present the resolution memorializing Joseph William Anderson Beckton Jr. to the Beckton family would you please come up all of you the first lady coming up is Joe's wife Edna Ray Beckton and some other family members and the resolution reads whereas Joseph William Anderson Beck Beckton Jr. a native of Durham was born July 9th 1932 educated in the Durham public school system graduated from Hillside High School in 1950 after which he served in the US Marine Corps for four years and whereas after leaving the military he received a BA degree from North Carolina Central University in 1958 studied at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and municipal administration in 1972 and continued to study in education on federal regulations related to rights law and whereas for more than 41 years Joe was married to Edna Ray Beckton sharing many years of happiness with his high school sweetheart I added that right classmate and the love of his life and whereas Mr. Beckton worked as an investigator with the New York City Social Services Department and in 1970 he served as the executive director of the Human Relations Commission for the city of Durham until his retirement in 1993 after obtaining legislation to grant citizens of Durham the right to go into state courts to gain a resolution to charges of discrimination when all other alternatives had failed and whereas during his tenure as executive director of human relations he was instrumental in seeking equal opportunities within the areas of education employment, housing and public accommodations after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 1968 and 1972 and whereas he touched the lives of many people through his professional and community affiliations to include the National Association of Human Rights North Carolina of NAHRW President in 1973 through 1993 International Organization of Human Rights, American Arbitration Association, the WTVD Advisory Committee which he chaired from 1971 through 1977 WTVD Chairman Emeritus awarded 1978 the class of 1950 Hillside High School President a charter member of James E. Shepherd Sartoma Club Sartoma State Director for two years from 1991 to 1993 Sartoma International Director from 1993 to 1995 and the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People John Avery Boards and Girls Club Board of Directors and the Youth League just to name a few and whereas Joe Bekton will be remembered for forging one of the most remarkable alliances this city has ever seen. His work with Civil Rights advocates Ann Atwater and the late C.P. Ellis a former Durham clan member which is discussed in Osha Gray Davidson's book The Best of Enemies and Redemption in the New South now therefore be it resolved by the Durham City Council number one that this city pauses in a moment of silence in memory of Joseph William Anderson Bekton Jr. that this city council pays homage for his service to mankind leadership and legacy as a long-time activist for civil rights justice and equality three that this resolution be spread upon the official minutes of this governing body and that a certified copy of this resolution be presented to his wife Edna Ray Bekton you know we love Mr. B and he loved us too thank you now I thought it was important to present this resolution because so many young people don't understand our struggles and they don't know the names of the people who worked hard and struggled and were criticized and ridiculed for trying to gain equal access to employment opportunities contract opportunities and he was one of the strongest leaders I worked in close proximity with him so I know how strong he was sometimes real real strong he was outstanding and if it is possible that he's looking down upon us tonight he really meant a lot to so so many people and helped so many people and I remember when he hired you you can wipe your tears I know thank you Ray for coming and thank you so very very much you're quite welcome Edna thanks for sharing Joe Wolfes appreciate that let me ask are there any comments for the council then I would ask for prior terms first by the city manager thank you Mr. Mayor good evening members of the council priority items this evening we have a brief bridge replacement water line utility agreement with North Carolina Department of Transportation we're requesting that this item be referred back to the administration that's my only priority item you've heard the managers prior to items entertain the motion second close the vote it passes seven to zero as the city attorney thank you Mr. Mayor no priority items likewise city clerk items Mr. Mayor we're proceed with the agenda as printed consent agenda items may be approved single vote I'll just read the heading of each item council member removes one the public removes one we'll discuss that later in the program item one is street and infrastructure appearances item two is amendment to substance abuse and mental health services agreement grant project on this one item five three four item three is appointment and removal of deputy finance officer item four is recommendation by modification to personnel ordinance 42-7 annual leave and 42-8 sick leave city code item five has been referred back item six is Duke energy power pole replacement and your driver streetscape item eight is light transit vehicle conversion item nine is Durham Chapel Hill car borough metropolitan planning organization memorandum of understanding items eleven through sixteen items that can be found on the general business agenda public hearings entertainer motion for approval the agenda has been properly moved second Madam clerk we open vote close the vote it passes seven to zero we move to general business agenda public hearings assessments and improvements item eleven is confirmation of assessment role for street paving on clover hill place and Dunwoody subdivision good evening members of the council Robert joiner development review public works department this is item eleven confirmation of assessment role for street paving on clover hill place in the Dunwoody subdivision good evening mayor bell mayor pro tem call McFadden members of the council item eleven is to conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the confirmation of the assessment role for street improvements that have been completed on clover hill place in the Dunwoody subdivision staff recommends the confirmation of the assessment role as presented this is a public hearing the public hearing is open would ask first are the questions of our members of the council hearing none is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on the side of this being a public hearing matter let the record reflect no one else has to speak and be closed matter for the council second we open vote close vote it passes seven is zero item twelve comprehensive plan amendment Ellis road residential eight thirteen zero zero zero zero eight good evening mayor bell members of council pat young with the planning department first I could certify for the record that all public hearing items before each night have been advertised in accordance with law and we have affidavits to that effect on file with the planning department the case before you as the mayor introduced a thirteen zero zero zero eight is a plan amendment by teague hankens development to request amendment to the future land use map for approximately fifteen point five acres from its current designation of low density residential to low medium density residential the site is located on the east side of Ellis road in this event here north of so high drive in south abroad staff has determined that this request meets the four criteria for plan amendments outlined in the udo and staff therefore recommends approval of the request the planning commission also recommended approval at its meeting of December ten two thousand thirteen by vote of twelve to zero I'll be happy to take any questions thank you this is a public hearing the public hearing is open I would ask first of the questions by members of the staff members of the council of the staff person if not we had one person that has signed up to speak to Rod Edens Mr. Edens you have three minutes initially yes sir good evening Mr. Mayor members of city council thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight here representing my client Tom Hankins with teague hankens development as Pat stated we've got a request before you to amend the future land use plan and later request to amend the zoning to allow development on Ellis Road as the report mentions the density we're requesting does provide a nice transition between the higher density apartments to the south and the mainly single family communities that are north on Ellis Road decides very near RTP as far as the southern end of Ellis Road does provide another housing option and we are committing to a town homes as part of the land use amendment and re-zoning the housing option in the area that doesn't currently exist in that immediate area we held a neighborhood meeting on September 3rd with three people in attendance we've had no opposition that I'm aware of to date as Pat mentioned we did receive unanimous approval during planning commission one thing that we did want to offer up tonight we noticed in the staff report that I guess that's at the re-zoning I can make that proffer but I wouldn't proffer it now we're offering to offset the cost of the one additional student that will result from the land use amendment and the re-zoning by offering to contribute $500 to the school system and my client will make that contribution I believe it's prior to the first final plat for the project it's been the way we've been handling those and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have thank you. This is a public hearing matter are there persons that want to speak on this item? Let the director reflect no one else has to speak I'll declare the public hearing to be closed as a matter of fact before the council. It's been a proper move in the second amount of clerk will you open the vote? Close the vote. It passes seven to zero. We'll move to item 13 zoning map change Ellis Road residential Z13 00006 026 Thank you again Mr. Mayor members of council Pat Young with the planning department this is the companion zoning case to the conference of plan amendment case you just heard same property 15.53 acres at 1443 Ellis Road the request is to rezone the property from its current designation of residential suburban or RS 20 to plan development residential 7.341 this request is consistent with the future land use designation that you just adopted of low medium density residential the current density would allow approximately 27 single family units to be developed in the county's jurisdiction if on-site wells and wastewater systems could be accommodated the proposed rezoning would allow the development of 90 townhouse units the unit type is committed as the applicant told you in previous case the associated development plan includes a number of text and graphic commitments which are detailed in your staff report these include one access point off of Ellis Road cross access to the parcel to the north and one stream crossing would be committed also the applicant is committed to providing additional improvements to Ellis Road that would allow the accommodation of a bicycle lane as called for in the city's bicycle plan staff determines this request is consistent with the conference of plan and other adopted policies and planning commission recommended approval at its December 10th meeting by about of 12 to 0 and I did make note of the commitment that was made by the applicant in the previous case and we can certainly enforce and add that to this case if it's your desire be happy to take any questions thank you are the questions by members of the council again we have Gerard anyone else want to speak on this item that director no one else has to speak we close the property moving second madam clerk we open I'm sorry I I actually I was waiting for the public hearing before I came back to staff so I wanted to ask I note that on the development plan there are steep slopes could you briefly tell me the impact of steep slopes on they developable non-developable there are regulations in the unified development ordinance that within certain criteria the steep slopes are not developable and I think the applicant did identify where those areas were at the time of site plan those will be feel verified and identified on the site plan and would not be developed if they meet the criteria in the UDO for steep slopes thank you thank you Mr. Mayor Madam clerk we open the vote close the vote it passes 7 and 0 thank you we move to item 14 we have change for Crosdale commons Z13000 024 thank you again Mr. Mayor and members of council Pat Yen with the planning department this case Z1300024 Crosdale commons is a request to change the zoning designation of a 8.8 acre property located on a Hillendale Road known as Crosdale commons from its existing zoning and requested zoning as a nation of commercial general with the development plan CGD this request is consistent with the future land use map which identifies the property as commercial the current zoning of CC creates a limitation on the amount of office use allowed on the property and the applicant is seeking this zoning change to allow approximately 11,000 additional square feet of office use staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances and the planning commission recommended approval at its December 10, 2013 meeting by vote of 12 to 0 I'll be happy to take any questions thank you this is a public hearing let me ask first of the questions I remember the council I recognize Councilman Schuhl thank you Mr. Mayor I know I know that there's not a bike lane on front street being provided and I was just wondering what are our rules and practices here about that Councilman Schuhl typically what we do through our transportation department is if there are any access improvements so driveway improvements return lanes other roadway improvements we request that bike lanes be provided if the comprehensive bicycle pedestrian plan calls for them typically if there are not any associated access improvements we don't ask for them because we don't think there's a close enough nexus and that was the case here again this is primarily just a minor would allow a minor addition of additional office use great thank you the only thing I want to say Mr. Mayor if I'm sure you all have been by this this has already been redeveloped and it's a very nice redevelopment the shopping center had been not as not redeveloped for a while and it looks great and it's wonderful to have those in there really great tenants for those of us who are near neighbors it's really a nice addition great thank you any other comments by members of the council comments by members of the public Judge Stanziel George Stanziel with Stuart 115 Cofield Circle in Durham I'm just here for any questions and be happy to answer any questions I had a presentation I'll bore you with it if you don't have questions are the other persons that want to speak on this item if not let the record reflect that no one else has to speak can we close matters by court council we've been properly moved and second Madam Clerk we open the vote close the vote it passes 7 to 0 thank you move item 15 unified development ordinance text amendment review provisions to article 6 TC-1200012 thank you very much Michael Stock with the planning department text amendment TC-1200012 is a request by Horvath associates to modify certain density standards within article 6 of the unified development ordinance or UDO the original proposal is indicated in the attached application on attachment A would have established a new roadway density bonus for the suburban tier similar to a roadway density bonus already established for the urban tier at its May meeting the joint city county planning committee discussed the proposed amendment application and afterwards with additional staff review of the application and discussions with the applicant came to the conclusion that the proposed modifications were not supportable due to not being able to guarantee how exactly the bonuses would be used based upon the proposed application subsequently there had been and as before you revisions to that application and I'll just summarize them quickly one that they adjusted just current density allowances to remove fractions some of the density corrections go up by half a unit per acre some actually go down modify the existing residential suburban multifamily major roadway density bonus to include frontage along service roads allow higher densities in the RSM and RUM districts but only with approval through a development plan increase the density of the residential compact or RC district to maintain consistency with densities higher densities allowed in the RUM and also in design districts that are currently within the UDO and also allow use of density bonuses for multifamily development in non-residential districts in the suburban and compact neighborhood tiers consistent with how it's already applied for similar development in the urban tier all revisions were reviewed against the comprehensive plan and were deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan these revisions were presented again to the JCCPC for review and comment back on at its November 6th meeting and no changes to the draft were suggested at that time the planning commission held a hearing on the text amendment on December 10th 2013 and recommended approval 11 to 1 I'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here to also answer questions thank you this is a public hearing you've heard the staff report questions about members of the council we have three people have signed up to speak on this item four people three as proponents one as opponent I'll call proponents first and you have 10 minutes between the three of you Gerard Eaton, Joe Stancil and Ron Horvath Mr. Mayor, Ron Horvath members of the council my name is Ron Horvath 16 consultant place I took on the task of this text amendment the staff as you are well aware is over task shorthanded and underfunded on many items and we've been discussing this in the next section of the text amendment for some time so right or wrong I took it on my main purpose is to encourage redevelopment of properties along our major thoroughfares our major roadways 15501 business and bypass Rocksboro Road I have a number of clients that are looking at redeveloping properties and being able to both residential into the commercial aspects of the property make it enticing for redevelopment if you carefully read this I'm not asking for a change of rezoning plans that have a D on them still have to come back to you rezoning still have to come back to you for the higher densities what I'm after is in a general commercial zoning the maximum residential density right now is 10.5 I'm asking go to 11 and I'm also asking that the same courtesy that's given to an RM zone that if they're along a major roadway it be allowed to add one unit per acre no more but right now the ordinance if you're in the GC or OI zone you're allowed to do residential but there's no bonus so all we're asking for here is that that bonus be applied both to the general commercial and the office institutional think of the mixed uses that can come out of that old shopping centers old office complexes now you tear them down and you rebuild and you have a mix of apartments housing commercial and office well some consider this slight increase this one to one and a half unit or even a half unit increase too high for Durham I counter that the adopted comprehensive plan the suburban tier can support one of the ranges is 8 to 20 units an acre our best is 10 and a half under a straight zoning the best you can get is 10 and a half the rounding up of the dense half unit per acre will not affect the current RM zones I won't repeat myself again the 8 unit an acre stays 8 unit an acre the 12 unit an acre stays 12 we haven't made changes in the RM this only really is occurring in the O.I. and the general commercial zones there may be some other changes in the R.U. that are occurring but they are a direct result of this but it's again in the urban tier I feel it's very very viable in my opinion these changes to the residential density limits will help encourage redevelopment at the perimeter of the urban core we're no longer suburban we've got a large area that's borderline suburban urban and we're looking at trying to redevelop those areas and have them developed in a way that makes the current Durham county and Durham city tax base more viable thank you and I'll be available for any questions we have also Gerard Edens Joyce Sancio I'm here to speak in favor of the text amendment I'm generally in favor of things that make sense and to me this makes sense and we're what Ron is talking about is a very slight increase in density in areas where you could argue that we're aiming too low with the number so I think this makes sense to me and I'm here to support it thank you you're welcome Joyce Sancio with Stuart Ron and I standing up here talking about the same thing so it's kind of unique the only thing I'd like to add is that even when our UDO was written we were still thinking a whole lot in terms of sort of a suburban way of thinking and our suburban land is we don't have a lot of it left so the whole idea of redevelopment making and reusing buildings adding to them and creating density is going to encourage development and I can tell you that a half a unit or a unit we ought to be talking about a whole lot more than that frankly in the urban core we really should be talking about a lot more you know if we're going to encourage transit and you know whatever level of transit we want to talk about so as somebody that uses the ordinance that works with a lot of different developers I completely agree with this text amendment thank you you're welcome I recognize Ms. Patricia Carstensen you have 10 minutes I'm Pat Carstensen I'm representing the inter-neighbourhood council of Durham we sent you our resolution which sort of does go on and I'm not going to go through the details of it we really don't disagree with the proposal on the non-residential part but the part on the residential part a lot of the discussion that we had was we do support density we support densities that's smart which means this density where people can walk from where they live to where they want to shop or whether they want to be entertained or whether they want to work we support it where we are already doing good transit and we are committed to doing better transit so for example at the Patterson place we would love to see more housing housing near that but this is what you might call a loose cannon in that it will be able to compute density wherever it wants to go whether it's where it will be served by transit or where you will have people with that will be stranded with their cars at two parking places per unit wherever it wants to be so we would like to I and C would like you to wait until we see how density is developing in other areas we've already made a lot of commitment to density before you go with the the residential parts of this proposal thank you you're welcome is it anyone else that wants to speak on this item before I close the public hearing let the record reflect that no one else has to speak I will close the public hearing matters before the council I recognize council so it's Hannah thank you I have just one concern which is that we're working on trying to find ways to encourage more affordable housing and one of the things that I've heard is that density bonuses don't work because there's already sufficient density to encourage development that's been one of the understandings that I've had and through this ordinance change we're talking about ways to increase and if I'm doing apples and oranges you can tell me that but it looks like we're looking at ways to increase density which seems like it would make it even more difficult to encourage affordable housing and I'm just wondering if you can talk me down here convince me that I'm wrong I will give it a shot and plan director will gladly step in where I'm not being sufficient but there is sort of a problem here there's a whole separate project as you're aware of for studying affordable housing the current affordable housing density bonus which is a completely different methodology in terms of the amount of density you get and that is also based upon the density that you're allowed under your current provision so any increase in density is actually only going to even if it's a minimal amount only going to help any affordable housing density bonus can be used together or cumulative but the discussion really with affordable housing is going to go much beyond just density it's going to look at a lot of different tools needed to encourage or support affordable housing so this is something that came about separate from the affordable housing discussion and I don't know if that actually fits adequately enough so the one thing I wanted to ask about was you said that more density makes it easier for the bonus because they can get even more but what I was thinking was if they're not interested in affordable housing density bonus because 100 units for example is sufficient and now we're saying you can do 105 units before you even have to start thinking about bonuses for affordable housing and they were already happy with 100 I'm not sure how that makes it easier and I guess really what I'm really asking is for staff to say look we looked at this with affordable housing in mind and either we did this is exactly what we came up with was it makes it better or we realized that the affordable housing density bonuses are useless and have no impact or something like that Good evening Steve Medlin with the Durham City County Planning Department not to put it too fine of a point on the comment that you just made in fact the density bonuses that we currently have in the unified development ordinance are not workable we recognize that we recognize that density alone is not going to necessarily drive affordable housing there are a lot of other elements that have to come into play what we did do when we were taking a look at this text amendment we decided that whatever we do is not going to work adversely to our ability to provide affordable housing through other mechanisms that we're working on as you're familiar that includes allowing for increased density but also other incentives that we're going to be looking to use to help offset the cost of providing affordable housing within our targeted areas that may be any range of things including modifying our development standards parking standards to increase the overall costs associated with providing affordable housing and I think that's going to carry the ball further than focusing solely on density I recognize Councilwoman Cattati Thank you Mayor I just wanted to ask staff if you could also clarify again where the density bonus applies to essentially address Ms. Carston's concern about going wherever I think it's actually much more limited than that No, the density bonus the modifications for any of the existing density bonuses the only real changes to the current RSM density bonus which allows a one unit per acre bonus and we're adding the ability for along service roads and that was actually and we've actually modified that since planning commission based upon comments received from Ms. Carston about access to that service road so we built in provisions that you had to have access to that service road to actually take advantage of that the other bonuses built in they're not really bonuses but the modification of the fractions opposite a half unit at most per acre so that's one unit over two acres and the other additional increases that are proposed for say the RSM and RUM districts are just basically you're increasing what someone could ask for but it still has to be approved through a development plan and just for clarification and come back to us for approval that is correct recognize councilman Davis the question that councilman just asked me to take care of what I'm concerned about but did I get together from Ms. Carston that one aspect of the proposal she's asking that one aspect be delayed or is she talking about more than that I guess to staff or to she's here we're pretty much okay with the non-residential part to see other three that we have problems with and I guess to follow up on that Mr. Mayor what would be the impact of delaying that aspect of it direction as to or policy direction as you like staff to see take with us I would just add to that man I think that that's right without some direction from the council I don't know what referring back to staff where that would really get us I think we probably come right back to where we are because that's the staff recommendation without more definitive information or direction thank you any further questions comments it was just a motion by C councilman I just want to make one quick comment I want to appreciate both run Harbor Athens associates for stepping in and helping draft this because our staff is overburdened and I also want to appreciate all of the citizens who've worked on this in their own time to help improve it and strengthen it and and I just really appreciate everyone's input we had a motion we didn't get a second it's been properly moving second any further discussion hearing none call to question madam clerk will you open the vote close the vote it passes seven to zero item 16 unified development ordinance text amendment tree coverage calculations thank you again Michael stock again with the planning department text amendment TC 130002 is a text amendment again submitted by Harbor Athens associates to amend the method of calculating required tree coverage areas pursuant to section 8.3 tree coverage of the unified development ordinance or UDO the original proposal attachment a in your packets by the applicant would remove proposed to remove areas within most easements and stormwater facilities from the overall development area and that is the area used for which calculating tree coverage area requirements are based upon after review and comment by staff the applicant revised the proposal to limit the area with only within area within existing utility easements of record with a minimum of 50 feet in width currently tree coverage is required in the suburban tier and only for residential development in the urban tier no tree coverage requirements do apply in the rural compact neighborhood or downtown tiers the UDO also currently provides two exemptions for tree coverage calculations that's for existing water bodies and rights of way dedication for widening existing right-of-way this text amendment would add a third exemption again only which would exclude existing utility easements measuring 50 feet in width or greater at its October meeting the JCCPC did review this text amendment and indicated no concerns with the proposal the planning commission held a public hearing on the text amendment on November 12 and recommended approval with unanimous vote again I'd be happy to answer any questions and the applicant questions thank you very much you have the staff report are there questions is the public hearing anyone if you recognize I have a comment on one of the people that signed up but I can I'll do this at the end we have three persons that are signed up to speak and support we have three persons that are signed up to speak in opposition as the proponents first and limit your time to 10 minutes initially thank you mayor members of the council Ron Horvath again let me start by saying I started this text amendment eight months after the other one how they ended up in the same night I'm baffled but with this one Steve and Patrick and I have been discussing this very text amendment for over two years and Steve said yeah on our next big rollout we'll look at this and make modifications well I had four projects in the last five years that had this issue so again no good deed goes unpunished I decided to file the text amendment and assist staff and I I asked for everything and staff and particularly Steve called me up and said you're not getting everything this is involved in extremely large easements power lines gas lines et cetera and best example I can use most of those are in a 50 to 60 foot easement across a piece of property it used to be under the zoning ordinance and I think the initial UDO that you could plant some of your trees under there the smaller ones that the power company allowed so it wasn't a major problem well then the power company came out particularly on the large ones and said yeah you can plant them but we can't guarantee them Agent Orange was sprayed over the entire right away and all the trees would be dead and staff ended up changing the ordinance to say you can't count it you can't plant trees there and I understand that fully I totally am supportive of that but they had two exemptions in this ponds because you don't build on ponds and you don't plant trees there and they just get our lakes and then right away dedications for road widening both places that you can't do additional tree planting they took that area out of the gross land area to calculate your tree preservation now utility easements like this do allow road crossings generally around 90 degrees but you're not allowed to parallel them and fill them in they do allow play areas limited parking they allow some parking fields on them but in a limited nature and very limited for BMPs I can put my slopes into them but I can't put the actual stormwater ponds in the easement so there's nothing I'm allowed to really put in there including lots of buildings so what we came up with was take an easement if it's 150 feet wide subtract 50 feet and then the remaining hundred foot you could get reduced from your gross land area in the calculation the Dell web project Carolina Arbors you're very familiar with and that's the one that set me off when I finally about eight months ago realized where we were on it the right-of-way is 350 feet wide traverses this site and this occurs in a lot of vacant property over in that section of Durham you'll be seeing this come up more often 350 feet wide it's 27 acres of land the retreat replacement is seven and a half acres I got to put some place outside of the right-of-way those numbers started generating with me and that's why I filed this text amendment we're not asking for the entire right away to be exempt I'm not asking for anything beyond a reasonable use of the land which is I can't plant trees I can only plant grass so I asked your support in this text amendment tonight thank you you're welcome Eden's speak on this and George Stancil yes thank you Jared Eden's again I'm here in support of the text member that Ron's proposing Ron's much older and much wiser than me so I have to support Ron just by nature but I do want to point out that maybe maybe an out-of-the-box thinking but you know tree coverage is not always true preservation a lot of times it's planting so one of your more expensive items you run into when you're working up a site development cost for a developer is planting some plantings are very expensive this would slightly reduce what that cost would be and cost of a project directly relates to the affordable housing possibilities on a project just tying that together I love Durham I'm a Durham cheerleader anyone who asked me I say I love Durham it's where I want to work but Durham's an expensive place to work and whenever there are expenses that are associated with development including tree coverage it eventually it all falls down to the end user it's just a simple economics so that's the only small point I would like to make I appreciate your time you're welcome George Stancil George Stancil with Stuart really as a landscape architect very impressed that these civil engineers have come up here asking for landscape kinds of stuff so that's really cool what I guess the point that I would want to make in support of this is that land is getting extremely expensive we don't have a lot of it left that is of any quality to be honest with you the land that we do have is very challenging with steep slopes and and and particularly if you're talking about a project that that Ron like Ron was talking about you typically will have a major easement that runs across it I can't think of many projects that I've done that are large pieces of land that didn't have some major easement running across it housing is on the up again I just came back from a urban land Institute meeting in Charlotte housing is starting to roar again but land prices are up housing lots are getting smaller houses are getting smaller and the the ability to utilize the amount of land that we do have on a piece of property is very critical and so it really gets down to cost I mean it's not so much the cost of planting plants in these in these areas of tree coverage it really gets down to what is actually usable on a piece of property after you apply buffers and tree coverage and those kinds of things so you know I think what what Ron and staff have have suggested makes a lot of sense you're probably not going to find these on a lot of projects these very very wide ones like he's talking about like on the Dell web but from time to time you do and it has a very very major impact on the financial a big and financial impact on on a project and the actual usable acreage and I say usable acreage because to plant either to either keep or plant tree-save area you're taking up developable area so you know again I you know this this goes to our you know sort of more urban way of thinking Durham is urban now and and I I completely agree with this with this text amendment thank you welcome we have three people who was signed sign up to speak in opposition and I'll call their names Robert Healy Patricia Carson and Will Wilson and again opponents have six minutes have ten minutes among the speakers City Council thank you council members and mayor and staff thank you very much my name is Will Wilson 16 Sunny Oaks place first of all tree coverage is not about trees this is a public health issue trees in urban trees reduce temperatures they improve air quality and reduce respiratory health issues so we're talking about a public health issue you know you don't get a flu shot because you like shots you get a flu shot because you want to move a communicable disease right we get tree coverage in urban areas so that we have better health now in fact the EPA is developing in the RTP a new tool called the Enbyro Atlas I'm not sure about the name but it's got more than 75 benefits of trees census tract by census tract in Durham and these include things like the annual number of acute respiratory system cases avoided by ozone particulate matter PM 2.5 which now has new EPA regulations on it that we have been exceeding asthma exacerbation and all of these are measured by reductions in public health problems due to tree coverage census tract by census tract and it also deals with poverty issues so this information needs to be also the foundation of our open urban open space plans that we're developing and now with respect to the tax amendment itself let me just read my what I've ascertained from communications with planning director Steve Medlin on the simplest statement of this change is that presently developers move both imperviousness allowances and tree coverage requirements from the easement area to the remainder of the parcel right so the the easement goes through your parcel you get credit for imperviousness over where you can build it likewise you have to build the trees put the trees where outside that easement so the this developer initiated proposed change relieves the developer of the tree coverage requirement but still the developer retains the ability to have the impervious surface calculated on the basis of the entire parcel area what that's doing is increasing the relative amount of imperviousness to tree coverage which is going to increase the urban temperatures and decrease air quality and increase the public health problems now you know you could beyond that they could also seek a rezoning to get higher levels of density in that area with even lower tree coverage so the health problems will be even worse so so the effect of this text amendment is that will develop neighborhoods with these easements that have lower tree coverage per capita than similarly zoned areas of this it's so on the basis of this I urge you to reject the this next minute. Good evening I'm Bob Healy I live at 839 Sedgefield at least seven of us all of us active in land use planning in Durham for many years and sustainable development have gone back and forth on this in exchange at least 50 emails trying to understand what the impact would be. Looking at it we do think that some of the impetus for this are people who have problems specific problems with the application of this provision and we wonder why if they have specific problems they don't seek to have their specific property rezoned in such a way that will accommodate their desires and we think that perhaps they're looking for a general solution because they would have a weak case in the case of a specific for example they'd have to explain as will point it out why they want to include the property in an easement for purposes of calculating density but not included for purposes of calculating tree cover. So rather than argue the merits of the individual case they are seeking a general change in the rule. Now we do know that changing general rules can lead to serious and unanticipated consequences and frankly in going back and forth with these 50 emails we couldn't figure out exactly what this is going to do so we would like to ask Steve Medlin or any other member of the planning department who may be present the following question given that this is a request for a text amendment affecting the entire county are you prepared this evening to show the council and the public on maps all of the properties that would be affected by the change and whether or not these properties are near major streams parks or areas identified in the natural heritage inventory specifically how would the text change affect New Hope Creek, LRB Creek and the Eno River all of which we observe have high-power tension lines nearby often in more than one place. If they can't do that and really tell us what this would do and tell you what it would do we respectfully ask that the matter be returned by council to the Planning Commission which did not have access to this specific information so this important matter can be analyzed and debated and then considered. Thank you very much. I've always had a problem with that part of the UDO because I don't know whether you can see the picture but this is what I've always had as the image of having a nice pond and one little scrawny tree and what I've been told is that generally what you have is a very small pond and a big acreage so it's a very small decrease in the amount of the tree coverage so I would like to understand are there places where it'd be a significant decrease in the acreage in the tree coverage so are you losing two trees or are you losing three quarters of the trees when you don't need to have the trees in there so I would like to have the planning department come up with a study about are there places where a significant amount of trees would be the tree coverage would be decreased significantly I also think that if you're allowing the tree coverage along a power line you're setting yourself up for like generations of people complaining about the power the power company butchering their trees so you should probably try to back some of the tree coverage off the power line instrument thank you you're welcome is anyone else Mr. Mayor earlier tonight on Mr. John Tarantino approached me about adding an item to the agenda because he wanted to sing a song I said that it is not proper protocol to add an item and that he should probably go to you know try to put it on work session so what he has done is signed up to do to sing on this item and I'm not exactly sure I mean he's just playing games I just want to let the council know what I had shared with them and what he decided to do to have his way tonight thank you but let's let's do this we we're still we're still we're still it was still in a public hearing we've had from the proponents and opponents let me ask all the other people who want to speak either proponent opponent on this item speak not sing Mr. Tarantino if you want to speak on this item are you for or against item I just need to know are you are you are you speaking for against you want to speak in support of the development with a friendly with a friendly do you want to speak on this item and support of it if you do with a friendly word of caution mayor that's what I was going to go ahead and speak you have it doesn't have to be musical no I your opponent I just want to make sure I was supporting it with a friendly word of how much time to say I think it was two minutes I mean 30 seconds is enough all right Mr. Tarantino you got to my good doesn't have to be musical I could do it musical I could do it yet yeah but Mike so this is a rephrasing of some words that was once performed by Miss Joni Mitchell and it's regarding number 16 it's not the not the song that I'm going to do on Thursday and it has to do with this they paved paradise and cut back the vegetation lessen the easement restrictions via tree cover calculations don't it don't don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone they paved paradise via tree cover calculations that's all I wanted to say it's just a little philosophical comment on a social comment which I thought as a citizen I was allowed to do but I think I think I think that the other motive was miss misunderstood by miss McFadden but I'll see you on Thursday with the thing that I applied for on Thursday all right thank you thank you thank you mayor thank you other other persons that want to speak on this item either for or against if not I'm going to close the public hearing and matters back before the council recognize Councilman Cattati thank you mayor I was just going to ask staff if they could address some of the concerns that have been raised particularly regarding the imperviousness allowance and adjustments to calculations and what the impacts might be good evening Steve Medlin again with Planning Department in terms of impervious surface by ordinance any track or development project basically is entitled to take credit for the full acreage or square footage of that tract obviously as you all are aware we do have impervious surface limitations throughout the city and county of Durham with two-thirds of the city and county being in watershed protection areas obviously those areas are limited in terms of the total impervious surfaces in fact as I think mr. Wilson indicated it is possible to transfer impervious surfaces from easement areas or excuse me pervious areas if you will from those those easements to to offset the the overall impervious surface impacts of any development on the overall tract one point of clarification I think there may be some some confusion about what is actually permissible within the easements themselves I want to be very clear that basically most of the easements that we have that are greater than 50 feet in width basically preclude the ability to put trees in there so all trees would have to be outside any of those easement areas put on to the lack of a better description the more developable portion of the track I know there had been some comments about density just want to to clarify that obviously to transfer densities that would in fact require a rezoning of property to a zoning district that would allow for like a pdr or even a rum or rsm district that would allow for densities to be done on overall track basis single family zoning districts like an rrs 20 rs 10 you are not allowed to do those transfers and that that's a key here obviously as mr. Horvath indicated in his comments most of the projects that you see come before you that will probably be impacted by these types of easements will come forward as a rezoning more than likely to a plan density residential district much like the case in point that mr. Horvath mentioned which is the the Dell web project in the East Durham if you can remember that project as he indicated a good portion of that was actually impacted I didn't realize it was 27 acres to be honest with you of area within the easement that obviously had to be offset by tree coverage areas outside of that obviously that's a large percentage considering that typically if you're doing retained tree coverage you're looking at 20% retained tree coverage if you have to plant it then it goes up slightly above that so you're looking at at least one-fifth of any development project that will be required to have tree coverage on it regardless in terms of mr. Healy's question to me I would like to respond to that if I can very quickly we have not done a parcel by parcel analysis that obviously is just not something that we anticipated that would be needed and it had not been requested before we did do some isolated project evaluations and determine that way we felt like what was being requested was reasonable yes sir thank you mr. Medlin regarding density if I have a if I have a PDR rezoning currently and it's got an easement running across it am I able to transfer that density am I able to use the if these changes are adopted would I be able to use the power line easement to meet your as part of the calculation for the PDR you currently can I want to be very clear we're not changing those requirements and that's pretty much what happened but currently you also have the tree so what we've done is we've removed I'm sorry to interrupt you read no no please okay so what I understand then is is that what's being proposed is that we take out the tree coverage requirement but allow density and impervious surfaces to be calculated continuing to be calculated using the easement using the overall track acreage including the easement that is correct right did the and I recognize that that this was drafted by by private shop in order to assist the department did you all consider that issue of density and impervious surface in in reflecting on this I mean I'm because I to me it seems what the one solution might be to say look you either the for purposes of calculations affecting the site the easement is part of the property or it's not part of the property and but it seems like right now from my very uninformed perspective it seems like it's only taken out of the calculations when it's when it benefits the applicant but left in when leaving it in benefits the applicant it seems like the best of both worlds I'm just we didn't consider it in that aspect but we have take took a look at other current ordinance regulations that do impact how you calculate density such as a lot of the environmental protection beyond tree coverage such as floodplain or even stream buffers or even steep slopes for instance do put limitations on on the land that's within those areas as to how you put that towards density so those already actually restrict the application of that land towards your density calculations so we did take a look at how that was in play but we didn't take a look at the impervious surface or or just an overall density calculation recognize Councilman Davis thank you Mr. Mayor I'm learning a lot of things is it normal for private groups to make recommendations instead of the staff for these kinds of text amendments Steve Medlin again with the planning department the short answer is that privately initiated text amendments are infrequent but we do get them periodically the unified development ordinance actually has a provision that allows for any person to submit a text amendment for consideration so what has come before you is well maybe not a really routine is permissible by law Councilman Brown about Councilman Shul thank you Mr. Mayor Ron could you please come to the podium I have one question for you could you give us again you mentioned the Dell web project in the scum if what you are posing would have been in effect what difference would that have made in that project if you remember I've been before you for several rezonings that added property to the Dell web project well part of that was to cover this additional tree replacement area we actually bought more land to cover it so those couple of the rezonings that I brought back several times to add more property to it one of the issues we had with and this isn't just Dell web I can like I said it go through several projects but don't if may I just answer Don's one question Don if we take the easement out of the property and I still am allowed to build 1300 residential units somewhere within this forget the easement 1300 is what was approved by the council I still on where the houses are being built that property still has 20 plus percent tree coverage it's still meeting the minimum requirements of the ordinance 20 to 24 percent so it's not a reduction but we're being asked to take property from the easement seven acres put it into that and not building houses there and we were actually will have more like 26 27% tree coverage instead of the 20 to 24 that's the numbers that's why the density transfer really is in part of the equation but councilman Brown to answer your question yes during the rezoning we had concept on our designs and we figured out with lot sizes and road layouts and had it all figured and it was enough and when we got we had talked to Duke power and they at that time said we could put the water quality basins in the easement as long as they weren't where their towers were going to be well the merger occurred between Duke and Carolina power or progress energy thank you I've been around here too long the rules changed again and the only thing we can do with our BMPs is have the side slopes go into the easement so they've now been pushed out so this is just one I've done several commercial projects where these easements have come through and it takes up buildable area where shops could go and the same for some office buildings so I'm not trying to get I love the tree protection ordinance I did some of the first subdivisions in Durham along with George and back then you were only required to put one little tree on a whole block and I can take you to a subdivision that I worked on where the owner said well I'm not required to I'm not going to and then as the subdivision developed there were three changes in the ordinance requiring more trees and more trees and more trees you can tell going neighborhood to neighborhood what time it was built in so we've got a great ordinance don't get me wrong this isn't weakening it this is just trying to make it a more level playing field that's all I'm asking I hope that answer your question thank you thank you mr. Mayor it seems to me mr. Horvath it that Carolina Arbor's is a smashingly successful it is project and and done under the current guidelines yes it is I've been happy to vote for it on several occasions and I think that I if I to I'm to understand this that the basically as I understood your your emails which I appreciate it thank you and I want to say your emails and also the emails from Will Wilson and others it's been a it's been a education for me and I appreciate it but as I understood it you had to dedicate an additional five five point five acres more than you would have for tree coverage because of the situation six point five acres versus one or something in that area correct and and how big is the whole oh it's it's large it's four hundred and some acres yeah but so I guess I'm I'm I'm struggling with I can understand what the public interest in the trees is I can understand what the private interest of the developer is in having less tree coverage but I'm having a struggling with trying to figure out what the public interest would be with the less tree coverage so help me let's take a smaller site let's do a 20 acre parcel land that has a power line easement cutting through it 350 feet wide now that same land area eats up most of the property you do have a little bit developable property left there's very little they're going to be able to do with that if you amass a large track it's easier to absorb which we have for the most part we're not in dire needs we we've absorbed most of it by the additional land they bought but there are a lot of parcels out there in East Durham that you're going to be seeing over the next couple of years from us 70 to the Wake County line that this power line is going to be drastically affecting and not all of them are 400 acres they're going to be 20 30 40 acres and big swast cut out of the middle of them and they'll still need tree preservation areas and it goes into developable areas so it seems to me that if you had that particular situation you could come to us and ask for a change on a particular project I don't think the council can grant a variance in the UDO on tree coverage so the question was can the council grant a variance for tree coverage on a site by site basis no the short answer is the only body that has the ability to grant a variance to the any requirement of the unified development ordinance is the board of adjustment okay that case they'd have to identify it as a hardship I would assume yeah just that that is correct the manager is absolutely correct in order to be granted a variance you have to show it's a hardship not of your own making I think it would be extremely difficult for the board to find the necessary findings in order to grant a variance thank you so here's my concern I can see why that would be a problem for a small piece of land and so maybe we needed a text amendment that deals with a small piece of land because I'm not very sympathetic to the idea that for a very large piece of land with a very large easement that we would want to reduce the tree coverage well that we wouldn't want to count that for purposes of the tree coverage so I could I wouldn't be adverse to voting for something that was about those smaller pieces of land I could see that that there is a public interest there but it's hard pressed I'm hard pressed to say that universally I would want to support that because I think that we're going to have some other quite large projects I'm guessing that would be in the same situation and I don't want to lose that tree coverage so that's where what I'm thinking at this at this point do you have any other thoughts about that councilman sure the only thing I could say is I brought this forward not just because of Dell web but by the other projects that have been hampered by it it did cut into how much land could be the developable land could be used I just considered it if we're exempting ponds like stuff that we want there road right away dedication easements utility easements like this large ones we're not even saying the small ones 50 feet the standard ones we have to count them but outside of that we it puts us at a disadvantage to other developments within that same context we're having to plant or preserve trees on property that's developable and George said we're running out of it it's it's disappearing very fast well as I say first of all I'm not you know thank you for bringing it forward I have no problem that you did that and I think my colleague raised a great question because we don't see many of these understood probably but I do think I know there's some feeling that we should never be looking at these these these possible UDO changes individually and I'm that is I don't believe that I think that there are times where it is very appropriate and I appreciate you bringing it forward I could I feel that I could support this in another form but I don't think for for the universal coverage that this would provide that I could support it say thank you thank you sir could you share again what your recommendation was you said to send it back to the planning commission we don't that's a good question we do not know where these power lines are and how they relate to lands we want to protect and just from visual observation there are large power lines near the you know River Park near New Hope Creek and Ellaby Creek and we also the the the water line easements we do not know where they are so what we're doing is what we're being asked to do is to make a change that could affect very significant local resources and yet we have no idea they say we'll just take the big ones and there's not many of them but all right so where are they and how do they relate to properties that might be developed I think once that is done and this is something for planning commission not counsel I think then they can go over it and say yeah this is starting to make sense or no this is going to result in a whole lot of exemptions for tree cover right next to the very places that we have worked so hard and spent so much money to protect so that's the recommendation thank you thank you mr. medley how much staff time is involved with this request on this request so how much more time do you have I think one of the questions might be is that is that an appropriate to follow up for a staff or follow up for the petitioner I think thank you mr. manager I actually think that if that is the desire of counsel that we would actually deflect that back to the applicant to do that research and provide that information it's certainly not something that we in the planning department are currently capable of taking on in addition to our to our other work program items but if that is the desire of counsel that would be my recommendation that's counsel Mark first time I have a question for mr. Herbath if you would appreciate it when you were answering councilman Brown's question and in mind the you mentioned that one impact of this was that Dell web had to acquire additional properties and you said that even that there's 26 to 27 percent tree coverage is that with the additional property that you had to purchase because yes of the easement issue so absent that extra property you know if the if if the proposal that we have in front of us was in place today what what would the percentage of tree coverage be then the 20 to 24 percent okay it would it would comply with the ordinance it's I'm just saying right now we're doing more we're providing more tree coverage in the area of the housing outside the easement then what the UDO requires or dictates okay thank you I want to say councilmember shul I've seen about your issue of small tracks large tracks and thinking about one possible way of solving that problem without we could base it on a track size we could also base it on the percent the impact of the easement on the tract for example if the easement was more than 30 percent of the tract so were some number which I don't know what that number might be the as far as the rarity of seeing this one of the cases we heard tonight has a 65 foot wide easement running across it so in tonight it was you know already it's in front of us so it's just a thought in terms of how that might be addressed okay of the further questions comments by staff members on the site I recognize councilwoman Katari I don't know if staff's in a position to address any of councilman Moffitt's comments in terms of taking up proportion of a site or acreage or any of those do they strike you as feasible and would that merit further study in a limited fashion Steve medlin again to be very blunt we have not evaluated either a minimum acreage size or percentage of coverage but certainly it is something that we could take a look at to to do some modeling to see what would be reasonable we can work with the applicant in this case have them do some of the mapping for us I'm sure Mr. Oravath would be willing to commit some of his staff resources for that I think it is reasonable probably to consider establishing a acreage threshold because it would be a whole lot easier just off the cuff to apply versus a percentage of coverage of an easement on a parcel I think it would get to the concerns that I heard raised this evening by councilmember Schull I think to some degree and I think it's certainly something that can probably be prepared fairly fairly quickly within probably 90 days let me I do want to bring this to a close I notice I know it's important I cannot support the ordinance the way it's written I think there are still too many questions that I like to have answers for but by the same token I don't want to put this council specifically myself in a position that if we choose to have the development do more work that automatically assumes we want to support it so I just want to make sure that's clear but I can't support it the way it is but I would like to recognize the mayor pro tem we just continue this item for maybe three cycles so that you can certainly that is the prerogative of the council if you wish to continue the item for three cycles and we can report back at that time what's the pleasure of the council on this I closed the public hearings I see I closed the public hearing on the site and I can reopen it and what if if the council wants to extend what's the best way to do I would suggest that you reopen the public hearing and continue it to a date specific so the public hearing is still open not recognized comments are there emotions just wanted I was gonna move that we continue the hearing for three cycles that was is that adequate time to I would actually prefer to get a little longer time frame at least four to five cycles yes could we suggest the beginning of May perhaps the first work session in May so what do I need to do before you make the motion I want to recognize councilman sure he'd raise him okay so if it came back to our work session and we made recommendations would it need to go back to planning commission with that be a significant change I'm just wondering about timing generally speaking as long as you're not diminishing the strength of the ordinance and certainly the attorney can correct me if he feels like I have this wrong but typically you have the ability to modify the ordinance unless it's significantly different and I think that you yourselves would probably refer it back if you felt it was significantly different can kind of staff tell us can staff tell us a recommended timeframe posted come back we want to do this we're taking a look at the calendars and to meet an agenda deadline of April 22nd for now meet don't get you to the second meeting in May May 19th May 19th council meeting May 19th okay recognize Councilor Brown yep thank you I think it's important however to recognize the fact that we are extending the time on this until April or May in order to obtain more information that's correct Steve yes sir but that information will be supplied by your department as well as the applicant yes sir thank you all right we have another question can we I like to entertain the motion and I public hearing is open I've heard you wanted extended to give me a date May 19th okay do I have a motion that effect is there a second it's my proper move in second Madam clerk will you open vote close the vote it passes seven is zero like any other arguments to come before the council not the council's adjourn at 9 20 p.m. thank you