 So, is it better just doing it later? Better, you can get here. You ready? Okay. Good evening. We'd like to call the Durham City Council meeting to order on Monday, February 20th. I certainly want to welcome all of you that are with us this evening. If we could just take a moment for a solid meditation, please. Thank you. I'd ask Councilman Davis if you would leave us in the pledge. I'd like would you call the roll, please? Yes. Mayor Bell. Present. Mayor Pro Tem Cole McFadden. Councilmember Davis. Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember Moffitt. Councilmember Rees. And Councilmember Shull. Good evening. We have two recognitions that we want to make this evening. The first highlights are Neighborhood Spotlight Citizen of the Month. And tonight we're recognizing Reverend Dr. Tammy Rotman, if she would join me, please. Again for some of you who may not know, the Neighborhood Spotlight Award is an opportunity for the City Council and the City to recognize residents for work that they've done in their community. We do this each month. This is under the auspices of the Neighborhood Improvement Services Department. And this is a person that is selected by their neighbors. Mrs. Reverend Dr. Tammy Rotman is the resident of North East Central Durham on Ash Street and particularly what we call Old East, North East Durham. And she has been very instrumental in her community by opening her house for neighborhood children to provide summer meals, providing a safe space for neighbors, including providing emergency housing. She's led vigils with the Religious Coalition for a Nonviolent Derm, and she's been very instrumental in organizing and participating in city and neighborhood initiatives to improve her neighborhood. And certainly we are very much appreciative when we have neighbors and residents such as Dr. Rotman to be involved in her neighborhood just since she has, and more importantly that she's been recognized by members of the community. And I'm going to ask if there are any neighbors that are out in the audience if you mind standing, please. My whole family. My whole family. Okay. Let me read this award. It's the City of Durham Neighbor Spotlight Award, and the certificate is awarded to Reverend Dr. Tammy Rotman in recognition of valuable contributions to Ash Street and Old East Durham by opening her house for neighborhood children to provide summer meals, by providing a safe place for neighbors, including emergency housing, by leading vigils with Religious Coalition for a Nonviolent Derm, as I said earlier, by organizing and participating in city and neighborhood initiatives to improve the community. And it's signed by Thomas J. Bonfield, our city manager, and myself, William Villebele, Mayor of the City of Durham. I'm going to present this to Dr. Rotman, and certainly offer the microphone for any comments that she might have. Thank you. I'm usually a little camera shy, believe that or not. But I do want to have just a moment to say thank you, first and foremost, to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, because it is only because of our relationship, our love for each other that I have the strength and the ability to do these things, to open up my heart and open up my home to love and to give and to try my best to be a blessing as I have been blessed. I also would like to thank my family for their support. This is a portion of my family, but I have a very huge and diverse family. My family looks like God's garden, and they are truly my brothers and sisters. And so I would like to thank them for their support. They have supported me in so many ways. They have prayed with me. They have encouraged me. They have supported me in just countless ways. They've even at times cried with me. So I want to thank them. And then I want to thank Mayor Bell and the City of Durham for taking time to present awards such as this, because there are many people who are in the trenches who are working and who don't always get a spotlight. And so this means a lot, especially when you're out there day in and day out, and sometimes you have those moments when you feel that nobody understands what you're doing and why you're doing it. And so thank you all for taking the time to do this, continue to do this for people, and continue to help us to be that light in the community, because each of us have a purpose and a plan, and we need to do what we've been called to do, even if it's something that seems minor, hugging a child, offering an extra sandwich, sharing a coat. If you've got five coats, and I don't know about most of us, but I know I've got more than one, think about giving one of them away. That's what God tells us to do. So whether you believe in God or whatever your faith is, I think faith, if we understand all of the many faiths, love seems to be a strand that runs through them all. So love somebody, okay? Thank you. Next we would like to recognize the National Collegiate Transition Month for the Durham Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc. I'm going to ask Dr. Hester, who's a social action and committee chair, if she would join me, along with Kelly Devage, the Collegiate Transition Task Force, and others that you may bring forth. Is this it? Okay. The proclamation reads, whereas Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, was founded on January 13, 1913 on the campus of Howard University to promote academic excellence, to provide scholarships, to provide support to the underserved, to educate and stimulate participation and establishment of positive public policy, and to highlight issues and provide solutions for problems in their communities. Whereas Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, is a public service organization with over 1,000 chapters worldwide, and has initiated over 200,000 women committed to service, leadership and empowerment. Whereas Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, is focused on the organization's five-point programmatic thrust, which includes educational development, economic development, physical and mental health, political awareness and involvement, and international awareness and involvement. Whereas Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, Collegiate Transition Task Force was established to address the retention rate of collegiate members and help increase the transitioning rate of collegiate members to the alumni chapters by connecting with an alumni chapter before they graduate. Whereas at the start of this establishment, the Collegiate Transition Task Force created a five-year plan to increase by 50 percent each year the number of graduating collegiate members to register with an alumni chapter prior to graduation, and during February, National Collegiate Transition Month, collegiate members gained invaluable information about alumni chapters and life in Delta beyond collegiate years. Therefore, I, William D. Bilbell, Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, do the proper claim February 2017 as National Collegiate Transition Month in the City of Durham and urge all citizens to join me in expressing appreciation to the Durham Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, for the support of the community and its collegiate sorrows, transition to an alumni chapter for continued commitment to service, leadership and empowerment beyond graduation from college. And with my hand, Corporate Silver Seat of Durham, North Carolina, this is the 20th of February 2017, and I'm going to present this to you for any comments that you may have. I would say that I think all of us are aware of the work that Delta Sigma Theta and its members do in this community and throughout the country, and we certainly are proud that we have the leadership here in Durham and that you are so involved for that, we're very appreciative. Thank you. Thank you, and good evening, Honorable Mayor Bale and esteemed members of the City Council. My name is Tina Hester, Chair of Durham Alumni Social Action Committee, Delta Sigma Theta Incorporated and co-sponsor of this event, Delta Days at the City Council. We also have Kelly Page, the other co-sponsor of this event, and Chair of the Alumni Collegiate Exchange and Collegiate Transition Task Force. The sorority is especially honored to have our National Second Vice President, Ms. Taylor McCain, accompanying us this evening. Thank you. Finally, we are proud to bring you greetings on behalf of our regional director and one of Durham Alumni's own, Ms. Juanita Masenberg, our President, Ms. Arvis Bridges Epps, and other officers and members of Durham Alumni, Delta Sigma Theta Incorporated. Delta Sigma Theta Inc. is committed to taking an active interest in the welfare of our nation, state, and city by contributing ideas and providing oversight to the enactment of laws that protect all of us, and especially those who are less fortunate than we are. Further, we stand vigilant to guard against any actions that deprive individuals of their privileges and rights. Our attendance this evening commemorates National Collegiate Transition Task Force Month with the theme, Come and Grow with Us. To those ends, members of Durham and Lumney, would you please stand? Come as supporters and not as adversaries, but as partners of hope. Thanks again for allowing us to observe Delta days at the City Council and for the beautiful proclamation. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I believe Kelly Page might be related to one of our most esteemed city staff members, Ms. Wanda Page. Mr. Mayor, could I recognize the presence of the wife of our first African-American Mayor, Mr. Chester Jenkins, is with us? Ms. Leola Jenkins, that's my moment in black history. Thank you. Let me ask her there, comments by members of the council. Recognize Dr. Reese. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make sure everyone in the room and everyone watching at home or listening on the Internet was aware that earlier today the Durham Performing Arts Center announced that in its 2018-2019 season, Hamilton American Musical will be coming to the D-Pack. It is an extraordinary show that uses modern music, especially rap music, to tell a really great story about our founding fathers and also casts people of color in the role of those founding fathers as a way to break down the barriers that separate people today from the history that is still very much relevant today. Mr. Mayor, I know you know that politics is a tough business. Alexander Hamilton was shot and killed by the sitting vice president of the United States. Not the last time the sitting vice president of the United States shot someone, by the way, but that's another story. I was really, really excited to see this. I went down to the ticket booth today actually and spoke to some of the folks that worked there since the announcement was made at 11 a.m. Their phones have been ringing off the hook because the only way to make sure that you get tickets to see Hamilton in the next season of the D-Pack SunTrust Broadway series is to be a season ticket holder for the upcoming season, which also looks terrific, by the way, and then renew your membership next year. And so as we move into this renewal period and sign-up period for season tickets for this year, I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that Hamilton, the American musical, is coming to Durham. So I just want to make sure that people of Durham do not throw away your shot. If you want to be in the room where it happens, make sure to sign up for season tickets this year, and I'll see you down there for this season's shows as well. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Charlie. That is very, very much of a highlight of D-Pack in spite of all the success it has had. And I was hoping it was going to come to Durham in North Carolina first, but unfortunately it's going to Charlotte, but it's then coming to Durham after we do that. But that's great and I appreciate you. They'll be first, but we'll have it best, Mr. Mayor. I hope we do, and I'm sure we will. Are the other comments by members of the council? Yes, sir. I would like to congratulate the cappas. The cappas are yours. Are the cappas yours? No. No, excuse me. The cappas for an event on Saturday in which they were uplifting young black boys. And one of the speakers asked the question, where is the press? And I think that we need to encourage the press to come to positive activities so that people can see the great things that our young black boys are doing. Thank you. Are the other comments? If not, I'm going to read to the council and to the public a letter that I've written and it is a follow-up to the discussion that the council had at our work session last week or whenever the last work session was. And it's on HB2, the House Bill HB2. And some of you may or may not know that we had a pretty lively discussion on the effort to repeal HB2 in a proposal that I suggested. And that suggestion obviously did not pass. It was a tie vote among our city council people. But I respect the right of my colleagues to vote however they choose to vote on, whatever issue they choose to vote on. Certainly they're right and I'm not questioning. I might not agree with it, but it's certainly a right that I respect. And it's in that tone that I would hope that my colleagues would also respect the right that I have as the Mayor of City Durham to write a letter as I'm going to present to you all this evening and to the public. And the letter is written to Governor Roy Cooper, North Carolina Office of the Governor, to Senate Senator Phil Berger, President Pro Tem of the Senate, to Representative Tim Moore, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The subject is the proposed House Bill 2 compromise. And the letter reads, Dear Governor, Senator Berger and Representative Moore, as Mayor of the City of Durham, North Carolina, I am writing to request that you repeal HB2. My appeal to you is based on basically two situations that have occurred since your last consideration of repealing House Bill 2 during your special session in December 2016. And these two situations are as follows. Number one, we now know for certainty that the United States Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for GG versus Gladzester County School Board on March 28, 2017. A decision in that case may provide legal guidance regarding local discrimination, non-discrimination, ordinances in North Carolina. Therefore, if House Bill 2 is repealed in the near future, we will encourage our respective boards to wait to consider new local ordinances to after June when the GG decision is expected to come from the court. Now that was not known at the time when the special session was held in December 2016. This is new information that has occurred since that time. The second point is that we now know for some certainty that the NCAA and other athletic associations have made it clear that this repeal of House Bill 2 will be an important factor in determining whether or not they hold their tournaments in North Carolina. Which could have had at least a five-year impact on North Carolina on its schools, primarily higher education, and its economy, the economy of North Carolina. Again, that's the second fact that was not known when it was discussed in the special session in December 2016. We all know that politics is about the art of compromise, trust and commitment in many political decision areas, and this is an important subject upon which to build the proposal. Additionally, as a part of this proposal, I would recommend that the North Carolina General Assembly impose a moratorium on localities establishing any anti-discrimination ordinances in opposition to the present ruling on HB 2 for a period of six months after HB 2 was repealed, or until the United States Supreme Court has issued its ruling in G.G. vs. Godsister County School Board, whichever occurs first. As previously mentioned, oral arguments in that matter has been set for March 28, 2017. As a part of this compromise for repeal in HB 2, I am encouraging my fellow colleagues who are mayors and are members of the North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors' Coalition, and for some of you who may have been a North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors' Coalition, consist of mayors of the largest urban areas in the state of North Carolina, about 28, and I presently am a member of that organization. And I would encourage our respective councils to wait to consider new local ordinances until after the six-month moratorium, when the G.G. decision is made by the U.S. Supreme Court of whichever occurs first. Finally, we appreciate greatly the effort of all of you in attempting to resolve this issue in a timely manner. I would urge you to carefully consider this proposal as you continue to find a solution that is having an enormous impact on our state that we all love and for which we want the very best. And it's signed by me as the Mayor of the City of Durham, a carbon copy representative, Darren G. Jackson, House Democratic Leader, a carbon copy Senator Dan Blue, the Senate Democratic Leader, a copy members of my city council, I'm carbon Thomas Bonfield, our city manager, Patrick Baker, our city attorney, and Ms. Julia White, who is the Executive Director of the North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors' Coalition and would request on her to also send this letter to members of NC MMC. Now let me say for me, there really is no downside for the General Assembly repealing HB2 and establishing a moratorium for six months or how soon the court decision is made, which comes quick first. There's no downside because if HB2 remains on the book, no matter how much we oppose HB2, and this council is going on record early on as with a resolution requesting the General Assembly to respectfully repeal HB2, no matter how many persons who don't want HB2 and would like an anti-discrimination ordinance to be imposed by localities, as long as HB2 is on the books, we can't do that. No matter how much we want or how much we care or where we are, we will never be able to do that as long as HB2 is on the books. So for me, there's no downside. The upside is if HB2 is repealed, then what in my opinion it may do is to at least take away the issue that we now have before us in terms of the economic impact HB2 is having on the state, the brand, and etc. Now, I don't know what the NCAA will do if the HB2 bill is repealed under these conditions, but it's pretty apparent to me that if it's not repealed, they've pretty much made it very clear that they are not going to have any of their tournaments in this state, and that could impact us for the next five years. And we don't know how many other organizations with similar status or companies are thinking the same thing about HB2. The upside is if it's repealed, then hopefully that will go away. In terms of timing, now somebody may say, well, you know, this is the same proposal that was turned down back in December. And I would say yes with exception of two things. One is that it's not just waiting until the moratorium is over. If the court decision comes before that, then it gives the state of North Carolina, hence localities, some guidance as to how they might act relative to anti-discrimination ordinances that affect and impact the LGBT community. The other thing is, as I said earlier, we didn't know for sure what the NCAA was going to do in terms of timing, but I think they've made it very clear that they want to make a decision in March. And if this bill is still under books in March, I think we pretty much have certainty as to which direction that's going to go and also it impacts the brand of our community. Now, the general assembly can do anything it wants. We know that. They may accept this. They may not accept it. They may decide to do something else, but we don't have a vote on that. But I think it's important that at least they hear from some of the leaders of the cities of which they have concern as to where they are. And again, I'm speaking for the mayor of the city of Durham. I'm not speaking for my council. I mean, we've had a discussion on that, and we saw where that went. But the fact of the matter is, if it's repealed and the moratorium is in place, as I said, we're not going to be able to do anything anyway. The situation doesn't change. The only upside that I see or the upside that I see is that possibly the economic impact that we've been threatened with may potentially go away. Now, I'm not asking for any comments from my colleagues on this matter. Again, this is the letter that I'm writing, and I have the privilege and the prerogative to write the letter. I'll hand it out to you. I'm going to make sure that it gets to the persons that have been addressed on this letter. We'll be mailing it tomorrow and email it to those persons. And we'll see where we go from there. But again, I just wanted to share this with you in a public way. And as I said, I will share the letter. And we will await what have outcomeed the years to the letter. Sure. I promised no more conversation about it. I just want to have a question about it. When we considered this matter a week and a half ago at our last work session, the posture in which it was brought before us was as a motion to suspend the rules to agree to the letter that you proposed at that time, which is somewhat similar to the one you were going to write for yourself. And as I recall, the vote to suspend the rules was a tie. Therefore, the rules were not suspended. Is it your intention to bring that matter back before us under the regular order so that we can act on it or not? It's not my intention. In fact, I have to speak to the city attorney. I think that the winning side of the argument would have to bring that specific motion back for us to debate it unless it's after a certain period of time. I'm not so sure that the losing side, and I was on the losing side, would be able to bring this matter back before the council. But that to me isn't important. It really isn't. It's up to the council if they want to bring it back up and discuss it. Again, this is a letter from the mayor of the city of Durham to the persons that I've addressed, and I'm comfortable to leave it up to them. They may very well come up with entirely different proposals. We know the governor's been in discussion with the leadership. From what I read in the newspaper, in the media, the three-point proposal that he had presented, again, as I read and what I heard from the senator leadership was not acceptable. But again, I don't know what's happening behind closed doors and what other kind of discussions are going on. I don't think my letter is going to have any negative impact on whatever discussions are going on. So I don't really seem to need to have further discussion. But again, it's up to the council if you choose to do that. I don't know if that answers your question. Councilor Rees. You absolutely did, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I recognize the Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you so much. If we're off that subject, I want to recognize the presence of Dr. Benjamin and her students from UNC. Would you please stand? Dr. Benjamin, raise your hands so that you look so much like a student yourself. I thought that was a student. She looks like a student. Glad to have you. I ask other prior to items, first of all, the City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. No priority items. Likewise, the City Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No priority items. And likewise, the City Clerk. No items, Mr. Mayor. You said no. Why thems? I'm sorry. I have no items. Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I just didn't quite understand what you said. Okay, we proceed with the agenda as presented. Again, there are, we have the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda may be passed with a single motion. If I remember the Council, I remember the audience chooses to pull an item. The item will be pulled and discussed later in the agenda. And I will just read the heading of each one of the agenda items. Under the Consent Agenda, Item 1, Approval of City Council Minutes. Item 2, the Mayor's nominee for Reapportment, Durham Performing Arts Center Oversight Committee. Item 3, Durham Performing Arts Center Oversight Committee Reapportment. Item 4, the Street Infrastructure Acceptances. Item 5, Request to Amend the FY 2016-2017 Budget and other grant and capital project ordinances. Item 6, Families Moving Forward 2016-2017 CDBG Funds and for Grant Conference of Case Management Services. Item 7 is Change Order No. 1, Brown and Williams Water Treatment Plants Expansion and Upgrades Project. Item 8 is Small Lift Stations Rehabilitation and Construction Contract Award to Gilbert Engineering Company. Item 9 is Construction Services Contract with Hockaday Mechanical Corporation for the Campus Hills Pool Dehumidification Improvements Project. Item 10 is the Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Construction Services Contract. SD 2016-03, Professional Services Contract Amendment, SD 2013-03. Item 11 is Contract Amendment for Durham, Downtown Loop Water Line Replacement Construction, Storm Drainage Repairs and Improvements. Item 12 is Contract Amendment for Contract SD 2015-02 Trenchless Pipe Repairs. Item 13 is Utility Petition Projects. Item 17 through 20, Audiences that can be found on the General Business Agenda as a Public Hearing. Item 21 is Museum of Durham History Board of Directors, City Council Appointment. That concludes the Consent Agenda. I would entertain a motion on approval of the Consent Agenda. This has been properly moved in second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? We'll close the vote. It passes 7-0. We move to the General Business Agenda Public Hearings. Item 17 is Street Closing of Nevada Avenue, Chester Springs Road, and Hickman Avenue. Good evening. Good evening, Kyle Taylor, the Planning Department. I can affirm that all legal notice requirements have been executed in accordance with state and local law for Public Hearing items 17 through 19 in affidavits for such or on file in the Planning Department. Etabrassi proposes to close 15, I mean, 1,505 linear feet of public right of way. The request compromises portions of Nevada Avenue, Chester Springs Road, and Hickman Avenue. The right of way is currently dedicated and not opened. The portion of the streets requested for closure are bordered by property owned by B. Wallace Design Construction LLC, Big Begford NC LLC, and Triangle Residential Optics Options for Substantial Substance Abuse Inc. If the request is approved, the portions of these right of ways will be recombined with the adjacent property owners. Staff recommends Council approve the permanent closer of 1,505 linear feet of these streets. Thank you, Staff, for your questions. So this is a public hearing. You've heard the staff report. I would ask, first, are there comments by members of the Council on this item? If not, we have one person that has signed to speak on this item, Annalisi Kellner, and she says she was unsure if she's a proponent or a proponent. So if you can come forward. Let me ask again, this is a public hearing, and I would ask is that anyone else that wants to speak on this item, either for or against. You just state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. Annalisi Kellner, 2355 Huron Street. I'd like to get some clarity as to where the ingress and egress is for this subdivision. So just as a point of clarification, this is for the street closing itself, which is separate from the actual subdivision. But to answer your question about the subdivision, which is going to be happening after this approval, if it is approved, that access is off of the existing Nevada Avenue intersection. And that intersects with Huron? Pull up my site plan. That is correct. Okay. My concern is having lived on Huron for 13 years now, we've got a lot of very small houses, don't have garages, and a lot of on-street parking. I'm concerned that the walkability is going to be compromised by more traffic. And that includes the fact that we also don't have sidewalks. And, well, some of us don't park so good. So the distance on the road, all the way down, up and down here on, could be 12 feet to try to pass one more car. And with 14 houses being placed in there, I'm concerned that that's going to impact kids who are playing in the streets, riding the bikes, that sort of thing. That's it. You have come to Councilor Moffitt. I just wanted to thank you for coming tonight. I wanted to say that there's an extensive amount of right-of-way that currently exists, including the same road connections to Huron. And the case tonight is to close part of that, but not all of it. So we could choose not to close it, but it wouldn't eliminate the connection to Huron Street. That is already in existence and has been for probably decades. But they're just seeking to close part of it. You're welcome. Did you have another question to scale on? Could you come to the microphone again, please? Will there be access in and out any other way than here on street? No. That is what they're proposing, but that's not what we're talking about tonight, right? Okay. So what they've proposed is, as far as I know, my understanding is, is a cul-de-sac. They don't have 14 houses on it. Instead of the... How many lots are currently plated there? Sarah Young with the Planning Department. They're currently 27 plated lots. So instead of the 27 lots that are currently plated, they could close some of the streets and turn that into 14 lots. Okay. So maybe I'm wrong and I'm not really understanding, but if there are other egresses being closed, they would box that in so that only Huron Street would be in and out, right? So wouldn't that affect the closing of the streets? Isn't that the topic tonight? Or am I mistaken? Sarah Young again. Yes. That would limit this small subdivision to only being the ingress and egress for it coming solely off of Huron. That is correct. Okay. So it does affect tonight's agenda item. Great. Thanks. Okay. Okay. Are there other persons that want to speak on this item? This item being a public hearing? If not, let the record reflect no one else that's to speak on this item. And no matter if it's back before the council, no matter being to recognize council moderate. When this case, when this came up five weeks ago, I was not very supportive of it for some of the same reasons that you were talking about. We strongly support connectivity as much as we can in developments and subdivisions. And this limits the connectivity. It's very difficult for, at least in my understanding, it's very difficult for solid ways to get into the cul-de-sac and then be able to maneuver and pick up the bends. But in looking into this a little bit further, it's my understanding that the two major streets that would be closed are both basically built on creek beds. I mean, excuse me, not built on creek beds. They're laid out on creek beds. And that by not closing the street, then those creeks would have to be, my understanding, would have to be piped. And that fairly substantial amount of environmental degradation. So because they're limiting the number of lots and because of the environmental situation, I will be supportive of this tonight. It would be lovely if it was a little bit easier on solid waste, but I'm going to be supportive of it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I appreciate your concern. And it's certainly legitimate, but I do think that this is a good development. I think that the housing will be very nice and there will only be 14 units. And so there won't be a whole lot more traffic on here on. I agree with you that I've been on here on many times and I agree it is a narrow street and there are cars parked there. I don't think that, I don't think this will have any significant negative impact on the street in terms of traffic. I live on Club Boulevard. We have, in the corner of the club in Carolina, we have much, much more traffic than that. And adding 14 houses, I think, will add very little. And I think in a lot of ways this is a really good thing because we need more housing in the City of Durham and I think that this is a good infill development. It's a place where it's really good to have more housing and so I'll be supporting it. I also want to, again, say, appreciate the neighborhood and developer having a discussion about this in the last few weeks. I think that was also really positive and thank you so much. Is there further discussion? Recognize the Mayor Pro Tem? I would just like to ask the speaker if she attended the meeting with the other neighbors with the developer. Oh, okay. Because we received an email from that group stating that they were no longer opposed to it. I didn't know if you were there or not. Thank you. Move the item, Mr. Mayor. You have closed the public hearing. It's been properly moved in second. Madam Clerk, will you open the vote? Close the vote? It passes 7-0. Thank you. We move on to item 18. The zoning map changed for the Winn provision. Thank you. Jacob Wiggins with the Planning Department. This is a request from the Durham City County Planning Department to change the zoning designation of nine parcels generally located at 1303 Winn Road. The site is currently zoned Plan Development Residential 4.840 and the proposed zoning designation is the same PDR 4.840. The current designation was established by the Durham County Board of Commissioners in 2006 and the site was annexed into the City of Durham effective September 30th, 2014. The only proposed changed with this rezoning is the removal of text commitment number eight on the Active Development Plan. That text commitment states that at the time of the building permit, it shall pay a voluntary school impact fee of $1,000 per single family lot and $300 per multi-family unit with credit given appropriate against any other impact fees which may have been in place. The request to remove this commitment is required by settlement agreement between the City of Durham, the City County Planning Department, the Durham Board of Education and the property owner. No other modifications to the previously approved PDR are proposed through this request. Staff recommends that the council approve the requested rezoning and the adopted consistency statement and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Okay, you've heard the staff report. Again, this is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. I would ask first are there comments, questions by members of the council? Hearing none, I would ask is that anyone in the audience that has not signed up to speak on this item would like to speak. Item 18, zoning map change. Is there anyone who wants to speak on this item? Let the record reflect that no one in the public asked to speak on this item, either for or against. The clerk of the public is going to be closed as a matter of fact for the council. Moving on to the second. It's been properly moved to the second. Madam Clerk, we open the vote. We close the vote. It passes 7-0. Thank you. We move on to item 20. I'm 19, zoning map change for Creekside Commons. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mayor Bill. The council also needs to adopt a consistent statement. It's been properly moved to the second. Madam Clerk, we open the vote. We close the vote. It passes 7-0. Thank you. We now move to item 19. Zoning map change for Creekside Commons. Good evening again. Kyle Taylor with the planning department. Zoning case Z-16-0-0-0-1. Creekside Commons is a zoning map change request for 26.461 acres. The subject site is presently zoned residential suburban 20 with the future land use designation of low-medium density residential 4-8 dwelling units per acre and is located in the suburban tier. The applicant proposes a zoning designation of planning development residential 5.000. Development plan associated with this request graphically commits to the following. General location of site access points, location of building and parking envelope, location of tree preservation areas. Text commitments have been proffered. A complete list of these text commitments can be found in the staff report or in the cover page of the development plan. A few of the proffered commitments will require that a 110-foot right-of-way be dedicated, the installation of speed humps, that a crosswalk be provided across Ephesus Church Road and all dwelling units shall be townhomes. Staff terming this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans and policies. Thank you and staffs available for any questions. Again, this is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. I would ask first again from members of the council if you have comments or questions. Here and then from the council, we'll go into the public. I have four persons that are signed up to speak in support of this item and two are signed up to speak in opposition. I have 12 minutes on this item first. I recognize the proponents. I have Isaac Woods, Ken Spaulding, George Sanciel, Andrew Boyer, and as anyone else that wanted to speak in support of this item did not sign up. That being the case, we'll go with the proponents of the development first. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Ken Spaulding. I represent the applicant in this matter. This rezoning was just pointed out. We actually meet all of the rules, regulations, policies, and a comprehensive plan for this area. We have met with the neighbors over a period of time and we had worked extremely hard to try to meet their substantial issues that they had raised with us. One of the important things was density. We've been able to reduce the density previously at 6.3 units an acre. We reduced it to five units an acre. That is actually from 169 townhomes to 132. We deferred and continued the planning commission meeting in order to get that done and we met with the neighbors and we accomplished that. I also want to point out that key issues had to do with traffic. Traffic on Farrington Road and traffic on Ephesus Chapel Road. On Ephesus Chapel Road, we're talking about significant traffic, in particular at the time of going to school and going leaving school. The important thing is our project is right in front of Creekside Elementary School. What we did, we went and we met with the Hugh Osteen or Robert Ditt of the school system and talked with them about the traffic there. Also found that they didn't have traffic guards there most of the time and we suggested that that be done based on the traffic. The neighbors felt that would be a help. We also pointed out that we were going to do a crossing walk there, which the school system thought was a good idea. I want to point out that the other area is the current problem of Farrington Road. I think you all recall when we passed the Wood Partners project that I represented them on, we were able to get substantial changes for 54 and Farrington Road, which will help to alleviate some of the traffic concerns that are there today. That's the current situation. Now for future, what we're going to be trying to do is to be able to give or dedicate the right-of-way for what would be the Southwest Durham Parkway, which is the George King Road. We're going all across our property, we're going to actually dedicate that right-of-way for it. So that will help to serve, hopefully as an impetus for future revenues for that future contributions by the city and by the state to see that that gets done. That's important to be done because it will alleviate significant traffic off of Farrington Road. So we're a part of hopefully a solution to this. We went in front of the Planning Commission and after they had deliberated over it, we had a 12-0 vote in favor of it. We're here tonight and George Stanziel will deal with more specifics of the project. We would greatly appreciate and respectfully request your support for this project. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I'm George Stanziel, 115 Cofield Circle in Durham. I'll try to be as quick as possible. Some of it will be some repeat, but I do want to read these into the record. As Mr. Spaulding pointed out, we have met a number of times with neighbors, both formally and informally. We've been to Planning Commission twice. As a result, we've reduced our project from 6.38 units per acre to 5.0 units per acre, which was requested directly by the neighbors at the first Planning Commission meeting. We've reduced the number of units from 169 to 132 units, reducing impact on traffic in schools. I wanted to point out a quote from Planning Commissioner Tom Niller. The project, as proposed, now makes a more successful and appropriate transition between the areas designated for low-density residential development and the area marked for low-medium density development on the flume. The wide buffer between the project, which is 200 feet, and the neighboring single-family home subdivision mitigates any potential tension that might be caused by the change in building form between detached single-family homes and multi-family townhome buildings. He goes on to talk about the fact that what we've done, the density, the commitments we've made, meets all of the policies of the comp plan. We've committed to townhomes only. That was a request by the neighbors. And that was to help mitigate traffic, as well as impact on schools. The traffic generated here is less than it would be at four units per acre, which is the low end of the four to eight units per acre in the comp plan. The traffic generated by our proposed development over the existing zoning, which is R20, adds only 264 cars over a 24-hour period. The current R20 district could be developed by right with a site plan and no committed elements. We're also dedicating 1.8 acres for George King Parkway, as Mr. Spaulding pointed out, which bifurcates our site and essentially makes it a little more difficult to master plan it from an efficiency perspective. We are committing to 5.4 acres of tree cover, and we're committing to architectural standards related to materials, colors, building setbacks, and building setbacks as requested by the Planning Commission. I noted that there is a 200-foot buffer that runs between the existing neighborhood along the entire western portion of our site, which will remain as a required buffer for a stream buffer. When we spoke with Mr. Osteen, he made a comment to us that he encourages density adjacent to schools because in his estimation it reduces the need for buses. However, our proposed development has no impact on schools. In fact, based on the current zoning of R20, it actually reduces the impact on schools by four students. We are adding a crosswalk from our project to the school. And I wanted to point out that this site lies within 0.8 miles in two different directions to two different transit stations, proposed transit stations. And if we believe in transit, we know that transit will not be funded federally if we have areas within those one-mile districts that are at low densities. This is pretty low density, honestly, for transit you're really looking at as much as 24 units in acre. So this is pretty low density, and we want to make sure that we support these transit areas. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Mr. Andrew Boyer, Isaac Woods, put you on everyone who wants to speak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Isaac Woods. I reside at 5223 Epses Church Road. That property is located and adjacent to the property that you're considering rezoning. We're here on behalf of the Jones family and the Woods family in support of this project. This has been property that's been in my family that my great-great uncle purchased when he was really from slavery and purchased it doing caulkwood. That's called lumberjacking now. We take our hats off to this developer and what they have is simplified as an excellent record the developers need when they come into a community. They've reached out to us, if you heard, they've had meetings, they've reached out to us and said, what do you want? How can we be productive to make this a better community? You don't hear too many convalesers coming in asking how to make it a better community. But this developer set a pattern and a tone that every developer should need to follow. They've met with us. They asked us what we wanted, how to reduce the traffic, how to reduce the school system. And we all met, and as you heard, we met more than one time. And one time they were 6.3. Now they're at 5.0. They're putting on a crosswalk. And this is a project that we support and we think it makes the city better and improves the neighborhood. And it supports the land use that we were here years ago, about 15, 20 years ago when we developed the land use map of the property in there. And we asked that you approve this project. We were here when you built and rezoned for Creekside. We didn't get that type of respect for the developer of Creekside. They didn't meet with us. The developer has taken they have all. And it would be a shame for you to turn down this rezoning request as a slap in the face of this developer with the type of expertise, community activities and support that they've given every citizen there. There's nobody that's going to be impacted by this subdivision other than my family. We're adjacent to it. We've been there before. We had commons and all the rest of development. We all been there. We do not feel like it's a traffic problem. We feel like they worked out a solution. We look forward to the transit there. We look forward to being a better community for everyone there. And we ask that you support this project and give this developer a hands-off for the type of example that every developer in Durham County needs is set. Thank you for your time. Could I ask you a question, please? Yes, sir. Are you on City Ward and sewer in your development now? No, we have water, but we don't have sewer. Would this development allow that to happen? Yes, yes. This development will allow us to have sewer. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Recognize Andrew Boyer? Oh, I'm sorry. You sure did. I had you on 24. I'm sorry. Okay, is it that concludes the persons that have signed up to speak on item 19 in support of it? I'm going to recognize now the persons who have signed up to speak as opponents. First is Adam Jury and Ted Sozinski. I know I baffled that, but... A short presentation. I'd like to... Could you name an address, please? My name is Adam Jury. I live at 3 Wesley Wood Drive in Durham. Thank you. Give them the same amount of time they've gave them. Okay, is that all set? All right. Okay, thank you. Members of City Council, Mayor Bell. I just wanted to give kind of an executive overview of where we've come from on this development and appreciate the comments made by the developer as well. Initially, we were opposed to the density. We did ask for a decrease of five units per acre. There were several different citations and we do believe that the developer has come to meet us on that. We appreciate that. So we agree that that issue has been resolved. The second issue that we talked about was school overcrowding. This is an issue because all of the entire fifth grade, as you see, is housed in trailers and part of the actual city ordinance states that the quality of education cannot be matched with temporary housing or buildings versus a permanent facility. And so right now, Creekside is well overpopulated with kids. The capacity is at least 900 students and it's only slated to get more even if it's going to be a smaller impact from the proposed developer. So this issue still remains unresolved. And the traffic side, they did acknowledge the traffic issue. I think that anybody who drives through the Southwest Durham on the morning times and afternoon times when school is let out, at Creekside can acknowledge the fact that sometimes you have to wait five to six light cycles at the intersection of Farrington Road and 54 to get through. This issue is really not going to get any better with the added traffic. So this issue unfortunately also remains unresolved and I think probably tabled for another larger discussion about this growth in Southwest Durham in general. This was an issue that we brought up last time was that the traffic volumes that they stated in the calculations for the planning department were based on the 2013 study and West Endowns was completed in 2013 and that has added considerable traffic to both Ephesus Church as well as Farrington Road. And so we believe that these numbers are likely to be understated at this time and the other point worth mentioning is that the assumed use is 50 single lots, single family lots and that's where you get the kind of the delts between these two to be 264. However, there's only two actual homes on this lot right now so if you actually assess the actual impact on the community it's basically the full 800 cars and although the developer cannot be legally bound by that but that is the actual community impact. So the traffic will get very much worse once this development gets in. So this issue remains unresolved. But the one point that I really want to focus on today because I believe that we can do something about this is the situation of pedestrian safety with the kids crossing Ephesus Church Road every day to go to school. As they mentioned, Mr. Osteen with the Board of Education said that he prefers to have a higher density near the school but the school policy is actually that they can't cross without an adult and so having a crosswalk there may not actually do any good without somebody to walk them across and as you can see here currently there's kind of a rotation of families that walk kids across in large groups and right now they've reported to me that it's very hard a lot of the times to get traffic to stop on Ephesus Church Road because there's no signals. There's just a crosswalk and a lot of times people just waving their arms trying to get traffic to stop on that road and that's as it is right now. So you add a lot of cars. Here this is the intersection where the Ephesus Church where the school entrance is and so this is a typical morning here. You've got lots of cars coming in and out. This is coincidentally also exactly where they want to put the crosswalk and now you also have added another layer of competing left turns. So you have left turns coming out of the driveway. You have left turns coming in which as you saw the majority of these people are trying to make that left in from the I-40 direction and now you have most of the people who are going to make making a left to I-40 out of this development to go to work and now you have all these influences right there at this intersection and it's bound to be a really tremendous problem I think once the development gets built. And granted they did provide for an easement across their property for Southwest Urban Drive but as I believe it was the same gentleman from the Planning Commission that he cited. Tom Miller who said that the funding for that is not available and it will be possibly 20, 30 years off before that actually gets built and so this is a long-term issue that will have to be dealt with in the community. So really what can we do to improve the pedestrian safety and that's what we're here to kind of question and ask for your guidance as to what the best scenario is. Really what we would, we think may help would be a lighted pedestrian sign where this crosswalk is out maybe even a full traffic light at the crosswalk. The possibility of a traffic study to really understand where exactly the best place for this crossing is. Is it right here with all the rest of the traffic? Is it over here and put the light up there for the future Southwest Urban Drive that comes across here? I'm not a traffic engineer, I don't know these answers but right now we have a major development going in and it's going to create a major problem for the community especially at the school crossing. So that's pretty much where we're at tonight is hopefully we get something offered by the developer to improve the crosswalk situation. Possibly a study done to really understand where the proper light should be placed or any other safety features for kids crossing the road there because although there really are no kids from this development because there's only two houses there, there's going to be a lot more. I think that having development there will be very attractive for families and there may actually be more kids than is calculated based on the standards in the Durham Planning Department. So I believe that there would be a greater issue than is really perceived to be in the future with kids crossing the road. That is all I have and I'll pass it on now to Ted. I want to come back to that to this point here but I'll wait to hear the next speaker. I'm sorry, recognize the Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Reese. I have a question for Mr. Jury real quick. Adam, I hate to do this but you signed up to speak in opposition and that you didn't say you opposed the development. Can you talk a little bit about that? Well, in general we are not opposed to development. I live in West and Downs. That was a development that was an infill development right there. So I think it's just we need to understand how to develop in the right way to minimize the impacts on the community and also in a situation like this where it might actually have a greater impact on situations like kids actually crossing the road. I think it really behooves us to take a step back and see is there something extra we should be doing and are the standards really reflecting such a situation and in this case I don't believe they are. And so I am opposed to the development as it is right now and I'm hopeful that we can pull together with some adjustments to accommodate the school crossing issue. You had a question? Sir, I decided I would ask you now. Did you discuss your concerns with the team? Yes, we did. I was present for most of those meetings and we did discuss that. In fact, I did offer at one point a lighted crossing sign so I'm really kind of hopeful that that's still on the table. I would also actually bring up a good point. There is a list of text commitment suggestions in here by the Bicycle Commission and one of them is a median refuge island in the crosswalk. I think that would be a fantastic addition as well for the kids crossing the road there as well as the rest of their text commitment. So I wasn't sure if we would be able to add any text commitments but there was a whole list of them that were requested anyway and maybe that's possible. You answered my question. Thank you. I'll ask the question since we've opened it up. I guess what's apparent to me independent of the development is the discussion, or have you had a discussion with the school system? I mean it seems to me a simple matter is having a crossing guard there on what it costs. I mean but during our schools opening and closing has that been discussed? It was brought up actually by the developer as a possible solution but it would be paid by the HOA fees of the development. We really didn't feel comfortable that that was going to be sustained long-term because once the developer goes in I don't think that was ever being really a lot of thought on your side. It was something that Britt had thrown out and passing but whether or not there is a school guard crossing guard that can be put there I think that would be another good thing to consider. Right now I don't think that there is a real well thought out process I'd say for implementing the school crossing guard there at Creekside because the number of kids is maybe not enough at this point in time or I'm not sure what the reasons why they haven't put a school crossing guard there. Okay I want to follow that up but I'll move to the next speaker now. I shoot a pronunciation name because I know I screwed it up so. Ted Sozenski, 5314 West End Downs Drive Durham. I'm going to speak about the storm water problem that we have and how it's going to get a little bit worse with the additional water from Creekside Commons and I would like to see hopefully major improvements in how we handle storm water. This is an overview showing West End Downs and Marina Place and you'll see there's a little blue line going off to the upper right to a pond that's a creek that runs adjacent to West End Downs and the Creekside Commons development. Also Clark Lake feeds into this pond and the output of that pond continues to ease and starts going south and intersects with New Hope Creek. New Hope Creek goes all the way to Lake Jordan. This is the lower part of West End Downs and Marina Place where the water for this creek starts. We get water from underneath Ephesus Church. It's probably street water and we get water down the slope from Marina Place. This is the erosion coming from Marina Place. You can see the back of a house that faces Marina Drive. So there's already erosion here, tree and jeopardy. That water combines with the water from Ephesus Church. The overflow from our retention pond goes underneath West End Downs Drive and this is probably the official start of the creek and you can see how severely undercut this is. The lower level is probably four to five feet from the surface. This creek continues north and east. I'll show you some pictures of erosion coming from West End Downs. We have gullying and more gullying and stormwater erosion is an issue that we, the residents of nearby areas, know about since we received notice of the proposed development of creek side commons. Our neighborhoods have been involved in a crash course on development issues. We have been investigating stormwater and its consequences of erosion and silting and have come to learn that the stormwater ordinances in Durham are inadequate. If we look at the other side of the creek, what's coming down from what's probably going to be creek side commons, you'll see there's an open area a little farther north, there's a forested area. In the open area, you can see the cut land in the back, more gullies, more gullies, silting in the creek. Now if we go a little farther north, this is looking up into the forested area and you can see that there's no erosion here. When rain falls on a forest, it lands first on the upper canopy that makes its way slowly to the ground with minimal erosion energy allowing time for absorption. The tree leaves brush grasses and decaying matter hold the water rather than let it run off and create problems. Our creek eventually winds up into a pond in Five Oaks subdivision and you can see the difference between that pond and Clark Lake. Clark Lake is nice green healthy and the erosion in the pond. The top of that pond leaves and heads out to Lake Jordan via New Hope Creek. When you get to Lake Jordan, you can see the amount of silting but what you can't see is the nitrogen and phosphorus this is bringing into the creek. We're all quite familiar with the problems in Lake Jordan with the machines that they had out there, the solar bees. This is a quote from the United States Army Corps of Engineers from their technical bulletin. Historically, stormwater has been managed using the flood control approach where excess stormwater runoff is conveyed through a developed network of channels and pipes downstream to a central treatment outlet. This centralized approach is outdated, expensive to maintain and only moderately effective as a pollution control measure. Numerous case studies and research have indicated that stormwater management strategies should become decentralized and stormwater control measures should focus on mimicking an area's pre-development hydrology in an effort to lower downstream pollution. I guess I'm up. Thank you. I want to congratulate you for your presentation on how it's going to affect the rolling but I appreciate the educational piece about it. Recognize Charlie Reese. Hi there, Mr. Zizinski. I wanted to ask you first of all, you did have done a great job in your crash course. You've learned an amazing amount about stormwater and those types of issues. I'm assuming this is all since the last planning commission meeting, is that right? Most of it, yes. I watched that when I didn't hear these issues raised so I wasn't sure. That's why I said that was really fast learning curve. Can you talk a little bit about the why erosion and gullyization, as I believe you said in your letter, implicates this particular development? Like why is this development that you're, the reasoning that you're talking about, why are those two issues important when considering this particular development? There are already existing gullies from the open area and I don't know what's going to happen farther north where the trees are. This is more of a, there's definitely going to be some water coming from creekside commons. And this is our chance to do a good job in controlling it as best we can. What are your specific concerns about how the developer has proposed to address the stormwater issues on the site? I don't know what he's doing. I said a question, what did he say? He said he didn't know. Appreciate your honesty. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Are there other questions by our members of the council? Recognize Councilman Schuhl. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate your presentations. They were both excellent. So I guess my question is for the developer. Is that appropriate at this time, Mr. Mayor? I have a couple different questions so I'll start with the stormwater question. How are you planning to treat stormwater and what are the plans? And can you talk about that a little bit? Mr. Schuhl and members of the council, I'll let George answer that if this is not enough. But let me just say that Durham has some of the strictest stormwater regulations in the state. I think you all are aware of that. Number two, we're going to have a detention pond in which excuse me, several detention ponds which basically what they do is they hold the water. Right now, what would happen if you had a big rain, it would just flood right off. And what we're going to have here are several detention ponds which will actually catch that rain, hold it and let it off in an engineeringly design manner and pace it. But it will hold it there. It will help clean it as it sifts through and then they let it off in a gradual way versus what happens today. So I think that and I appreciate. This didn't come up in our meeting that I recall but I'm glad you brought it up so we would have a chance to explain exactly how it's done and this is the way it's been done. Durham is pretty much known as one of the strictest in that area. You engineers can correct me if I'm wrong. Well, I don't want to mislead anybody thinking that I'm an engineer because I'm not. I'm a landscape architect. But under the laws of North Carolina, landscape architects can also deal with stormwater. And just to answer your questions specifically, we will be required to collect there's two levels here. We have to collect runoff from the first from the one year storm that has to be collected, it has to be held in a detention facility that you see everywhere. It's held, the water is cleaned and it's released at a rate that is less than or equal to pre-existing runoff rates. So we can't increase that runoff. The second level is that we look at the two and ten year storm and that's really looking at downstream. That's a study that looks at erosion downstream. And if that study indicates that the flow would cause erosion downstream, then the detention ponds that Robert was talking about would then have to be designed to hold more water and release it at an engineered rate. So this is not something we typically get into in specifics and zoning. We do have extremely difficult and as I understand it probably as difficult or close to as difficult rules as the state of Maryland which is extremely difficult. So you know that's the only thing that we can say at this point in terms of how we will deal with storm water. Thank you. Sir, and I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Can you tell me your name again? Ted Solzinski. Solzinski, Mr. Solzinski. There is a lot of there's a lot of debate about people who think a lot about storm water about what the best practices are and you're right their low impact development can have different kinds of storm water practices that really will be good and there's a lot of that work going on in the city of Durham rain gardens and the city of Durham itself is doing a very large storm water facility at the bottom of Trinity Avenue that will service a lot of downtown so there's a lot of different kinds of innovations and innovative thinking about storm water and you're right about that but these are our ordinances and the way these storm water ordinances work is that this developer will have to have its storm water plan approved by the city storm water department assuming this development goes forward and they will have to meet our standards and so I hear you when you say it's not the best practices and I understand that there are debates about that these are our standards and they are I think that they are pretty strong, pretty stringent standards so I appreciate your concern but I do think it's something that I do think they are standards that developer will be I know that there are standards that developer will be has to meet and I think they can do a good job treating the storm water from this development on the question of school overcrowding I think that that is I understand that that's a concern for the school but I'm not sure how it really is a concern Mr. Jury for this development that is to say the schools are going to have to make a decision over time about how many students are going to be there they're already in an overcrowded situation and my expectation would be that they were going to be changing there are, I know the school systems are looking at changing attendant zones and my expectation is that I'm sure that this will be one of the schools where that zone has changed so I hear you yeah yeah the traffic on Ephesus and this part of town is it's legendary I'm appreciative of this problem and 54, this whole area is problematic you're right that the improvements for this area in terms of roads are ways away, years away let me just say that one thing hopefully it is not as many years away that I think has a better chance of anything else of reducing this traffic at least on the 54 corridor is the light rail and I hope and expect that in a dozen years which is what it will take that that will be alleviating traffic but you're absolutely right the traffic there is problematic especially at the rush hours and this will add this will add cars for sure on the other hand it's not adding so it's adding cars over time I don't have it right in front of me 260 some trips per day not nothing but over 12 hours doesn't seem to be a tremendous addition to the traffic there especially because the main problem that I've seen in the traffic there is at the rush hour times and when school is coming in I'm really very sympathetic to the problem of the crosswalk and I had previously discussed with the developers the possibility of a stoplight there's their estimate that there would not be it would not meet the qualifications for a stoplight at this time but I am interested in maybe Mr. Judge or someone from transportation could talk to us about the possibility of a lighted crosswalk and because I agree with you very much I'm a little bit problematic there so I'm just wondering what our possible solutions are Mr. Judge and if you could comment on that yes, Bill Judge with City Durham Department of Transportation it's unlikely that the proposed driveway and school driveway intersection would ever meet warrants for a traffic signal I think long-term solution the more likely place where potential traffic signal would be in George King and those improvements that intersection at some point would probably meet signal warrants but that's not anytime within the development timeframe of this development is currently proposed there are measures to provide warning signs or flashing warning warning lights at crosswalks that could potentially be done at this location sort of subject it is a state maintained road so anything that got installed would have to be subject to their approval would that be the kind of how would something like that occur Mr. Judge would it be that would that be something that the city proposed to the state is that something the developer would have a role in how would something like that happen yes it could be handled a number of ways it could be a proffer of the development similar to the crosswalk was proffered short of that if the development is not approved or if it goes forward without any sort of proffer we could throw a request of our department to the state we could investigate that or through either schools or the citizens thank you so would it be appropriate then to ask the developer of you all's interest in proffering anything on that crosswalk I talked with my client about it earlier today as I had heard more about this and yes it will it can be proffered I think that George and I talked about it Friday and they've sent over the language to the city but George can read it into the record and we will voluntarily proffered that in a committed element George yes so we vetted this and it reads subject so this is an additional committed element subject to the review and approval by NCDOT and the city of Durham the developer shall install two flashing pedestrian crosswalk signs along Ephesus church road on each side of the proposed project entrance per NCDOT and city of Durham standards prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy thank you and that's been vetted through our transportation department yes Mr. Judge thank you Mr. Stanzeal may I also ask you have you all considered a proffered donation to the city's affordable housing fund we have and the developer voluntarily proffers an amount I think for you all's fund amount of $35,000 and we can read it into the record and clear it with staff as well the committed element will read the developer shall provide a one time donation to the city of Durham's affordable housing fund in the amount of $35,000 the payment shall be made prior to the final plat approval and this is this was also vetted with the planning department thank you very much I don't have any more questions Mr. Mayor appreciate it thank you Mr. Mayor I have a couple of questions for staff in the planning commission notes they noted a commitment of two to six units in a building the design commitments say no more than six does townhouse mean at least two in a building let the record show that the nod headed yes Sarah Young by ordinance three or more units as a townhouse two would just be a duplex which is one of the reasons we spoke with them about clarifying that so the fact that they've proffered only town homes means three to six given all the different commitments also the citizens spoke about the traffic impacts of the current use and the staff report always gives current zoning can we just get some clarification for some edification on why the staff report indicates the impacts for the current zoning as opposed to the current use so we always use the most intensive use based on the current zoning because that is what they could apply for with a site plan by right right so they could build they could build it out at RS 20 and those impacts that you're indicating somebody raised a question about whether or not like how those traffic impacts are calculated can you talk just briefly about where those numbers come from yeah so I may need some little backup assistance with this one however generally speaking they're based on a system-wide approach so they're not based on individual school districts based on calculations breaking down by the type of use so whether it's based on single family town homes apartments or another use commercial etc they're based on that number and how many students are likely to be generated based on an existing calculation and so those are I don't want to say unique to Durham but those are based on calculations made on what's going on in Durham within the school system with the Durham Public Schools on an annual basis to update the generator numbers and that's an analysis based on real time what we're seeing great thank you and then Mr. Judge likewise on the traffic impacts can you just very briefly tell us where those numbers come from yes the estimates for the trips generated by both the existing zoning proposed zoning or through the National Transportation Engineers trip generation manual those are just basically estimates based on the type of land use and intensity national averages for similar developments I will point out I think one of the citizens had neighbors in opposition had indicated that the comparison numbers were based on 2013 data and I think that was correct for the earlier planning commission those the 2015 counts were provided from NCDOT around the first of November and those are numbers are reflected in the current staff report so 264 additional cars and fewer students so the impact of the applied for rezoning would mean it would have a lower impact on creek side then if it was built out of its current zoning so I have another question for staff it looks like the right-of-way for Randall the connection to Randall I don't know which way is up but I think up north that's on the back end of the development it looks like that right-of-way exists based on what I'm seeing on the like vicinity maps why are they not why is there no connection that I can see from this development on the Randall there is okay so they'll actually be building a road there and okay okay great thank you Nick can I get this is one thing I always wonder I'm always flipping back and forth between things like the BPAC letter and then the committed elements I'm trying to figure out what was the response to the BPAC letter could you just walk us through they had five requests and I think if I understood it correctly there were three of those were addressed and two of them may not have been so for an answer about exactly the response from the action developer was the developer would be the best person to ask about that but on a staff perspective we will look at the comets from BPAC and compare them to the comprehensive plan yes and so long as they meet the comprehensive plan we will still recommend approval however there are some instances in the comprehensive plan where it says we shall seek and a couple of other instances like that where BPAC's comets addresses that concern in particular right the best example of that is the one that they have on there about the additional asphalt the comprehensive plan says that if it's on a if it's shown on the development comprehensive plan we shall seek it but we don't require it unless they're actually doing road improvements to that road yes so I wasn't actually asking how it affected the recommendation I was simply asking which of their requests have been addressed by the applicant and which of their comments I would love to just get a simple report each time but and I believe that's one of the things that we have been discussing internally as far as improvements for this project number one is the commitment that I just talked about where we requested it but they are not producing the additional asphalt yes they are meeting that by providing the sidewalk across that adjacent property that's a text commitment the remainder of that sidewalk will be required site plan the number three is already a requirement of the site plan process they will have to provide bicycle parking at that time they do have a text commitment on there about traffic coming devices and I know there's been some conversation between the transportation department and them regarding the traffic circles and then number five is the connection which is the directly across the street which there is a commitment about that however they are not providing the median refuse island that they requested I'm looking at my notes rather than I can't look at everything at the same time was it the one about bike racks that's the one that I was referring to as a requirement of site plan they will be required to actually provide bicycle parking and then I wanted to clarify Mr. Judge maybe you can help with this one I want to clarify I'm a registered committed element at first when they started I thought they were talking about what I think is referred to as a hawk signal that is a pedestrian controlled signal that would stop the traffic and allow pedestrians across the road safely and as I heard the element red it begins to sound like it was just simply a lighted sign on the automobile approach to the crossing saying that there was a crossing ahead yes bill judge transportation the proffer as I understood it would be more similar to the signs we have behind city hall here where they there's basically some warning lights flashing over a static crosswalk sign so they would be like overhead yellow flashing light well not overhead around the sign surrounding the sign alright thank you and then I just have to make a little editorial comment about crosswalks and the fact that the schools won't let kids cross an company and saying as a father of a 12 year old who's now in middle school I completely agree with that if kids are walking to school the parents should be walking with them they're just these are elementary aged kids so yeah I would have preferred a is hawk signal the correct term you can nod it's alright yeah that's a type of signal for pedestrian crossings okay so I would have preferred that but I appreciate the committed element to the warning lights and something else happened tonight but I have appreciated the work of the developer to address the concerns and I'll support this thank you thank you Mr. Mayor welcome thank you Mr. Mayor Mr. Judge could you come back up for a second there's sort of one clarifying point that I don't think we've ever really made sort of been understood or assumed but not do we let developers put stoplights wherever they don't well please in city Durham no traffic signals are only installed where they meet traffic volume warrants and there's also safety accident pedestrian crossings that are part of those considerations but there are national standards that we utilize for determining when and where traffic signals are appropriate I've heard you speak before about this particular intersection and you indicated that you do not believe that it currently warrants the placement of a stoplight is that correct that is correct okay I just want to make sure that as we consider this proposal we don't dock the developer for being unwilling somehow to put a stoplight in which is kind of a little bit about what I've heard in the conversation as I've heard it a number of times I think reasonable people can differ about whether or not a stoplight would be helpful or harmful at this intersection at least with respect to the traffic problem that you identified I'm not sure how a stoplight would necessarily help you much right there but for the crossing issue it certainly would help and I hope that the that the lighted crosswalk will add a measure of safety I feel compelled to point out though that there is conflicting literature out there about the efficacy of these lighted crosswalk signals about whether or not they actually are safer or whether they act as a distraction to drivers but since that seems to be what everybody wants to do here and the developers committed to it I guess that's what we'll do but I think the real answer is if this is a need that the community sees they need to petition not only the administrators at this particular school but also the folks who are elected to the school board to find out, to find funding for a crossing guard because I think that is the real answer here but as that doesn't appear to be a land use issue I'm not going to hold this up because of that the other thing I wanted to mention if we're moving on to comments now thank you Mr. Judge I appreciate it Mr. Sosinski I just wanted to say that in asking the questions that I did about erosion and gullyization what I was trying to understand is how you believed that failure to proceed with this development would improve the storm water situation in that part of our city. The pictures that you showed are concerning but what they say to me is we need real storm water management right there because it looks to me as though some developments have gone in around there that have been effective in managing it and as described by the developer and as described by our requirements there's going to be a solid waste water management plan for this particular site because as you said the water moves out to the north and into those areas and you can see the pictures that you showed sedimentation going into the waterways there but I don't know that that improves by doing nothing in fact I can guarantee it doesn't improve by doing nothing they could develop it by right and do much less than they're going to be required to do with this rezoning and under the plan that they're going to put forward so that's the reason I was asking those questions that I didn't understand how doing nothing was going to improve the situation I don't think it will but I certainly appreciate you bringing that in the room I think it's something that we all have to think about as we move forward and I share Council Member Schultz representation that we have a strong stormwater management set of guidelines we need to do more to think about how we incorporate some of the more up to date features that you mentioned in your letter and that Steve mentioned that we're using in other parts of the city but I do appreciate you bringing that in Mr. Jury as well thank you for the fantastic presentation and slide transitions which were A plus and I know that I really respect your continued engagement in this process and willingness to come on a Monday night when you don't really have to be and to invite members of the City Council out to your community to talk to you about it because you're engaged in improving the life of our city and if we had more folks like you and Mr. Szczesinski engaged in these processes I think developments would be much better for the people of the city and the built environment of the city would improve so thank you for your engagement tonight I appreciate it that's the question absolutely just on the point of the lighted sign I was just curious is that going to be pedestrian activated or will it be just lighted all the time it'll be subject to NCDOT's approval but our anticipation would be that it would be pedestrian activated so that it would only flash when pedestrians are present okay thank you and then the second point was just on the text commitment about the median refuge from the BPAC I wasn't quite clear on what the response was that going to be added or not going to be added the text commitment about the median refuge island we're not doing that okay all right thank you recognize the mayor pro tem I just wanted to thank you for the work that you did before coming here and for anticipating the kinds of questions that would be required of you for answers tonight thank you for working with the neighborhood the way you did thank you well I don't want to prolong this but I do have a comment and a question on the storm water piece that's been presented and we've heard so much about how strong our regulations are my concern is who's responsible for maintaining the detention ponds once they've been built and let me give you an example and Ken you know where I'm going I mean if you go on Herndon road which I pass about four or five times a week at least where they have a detention pond and you can tell us about how long it's been there but the bottom line looks like a mud hole so I don't know how effective that detention pond is now but I guess my question is what are the guidelines, what are the rules who's responsible for maintaining these detention ponds once they've been built and they're fine when they work but if they stop up like I'm seeing the one on Herndon road I wonder if they still have the same value so that's my comment and that's my question Sarah Young typically in residential development the homeowners association has the responsibility for ongoing maintenance and upkeep of those facilities they're required to submit an annual certification that conforms to the original design standards Mr. Mayor I would say to Thursday's work session there's a presentation on storm water about an amendment to our NPDES permit I know we'll have plenty of storm water staff there that probably could answer specifically about that location but also generally any other questions you might have about storm water I'd appreciate that because that that is horrific as far as I'm concerned I can't imagine it's still working today as it's contemplated when it was built Other recognize Councillor Schultz Thank you Mr. Mayor just one more point I should know this because I was on the school board for four years so I'm kind of embarrassed that I don't but I do think pursuing the potential for crossing guard there I do think for your neighborhood it's very worthwhile and I'm not sure what qualifies as a place that you put a crossing guard so it may be that since it's not directly across from the school that that's the reason that it's not there but I just want to urge members of the neighborhood to continue to take this up with our school system and I think that the chances of your success are good because I think that with a number of people crossing that intersection I think that they will give it some serious thought so I urge you to pursue it Thank you Mr. Mayor Okay I think that concludes all the comments that the public hearing has been closed to entertain a motion on item move the item I assume that takes into consideration all the text amendments the process that have been made is that intended to motion that's intended to second the motion Okay Madam Craig will you open the vote It passes 7-0 It's been properly moved and second Madam Craig will you open the vote Close the vote It passes 7-0 Thank you We move to the last item on agenda which is item 20 public hearing to consider ordering a petition sidewalk on a section of Hartwick Drive Good evening Mayor Bell, members of council I'm Robert Joyner Public Works Engineering Item 20 is to consider the ordering of a petition sidewalk on a portion of Hartwick Drive the proposed project is inside the city limits and will close a gap in the existing sidewalk Staff recommends that council accept a certificate of sufficiency for the petition adopt a preliminary resolution conduct a public hearing and adopt a final resolution to order the improvements Be happy to answer any questions council has Alright this is a public hearing you've heard the staff comments I would ask again first questions by members of the council if not I recognize Mr. Andrew Boyer and Mr. Boyer is coming forward is anyone else that wants to speak on this item that hasn't signed up to speak Thank you Mr. Mayor my name is Andrew Boyer I live at 517 Scottney Circle and this is my co-worker on the H.A. Board Brian De Laurentis and we're here because we really want this chunk of sidewalk to be completed it's 128 linear feet and we've been trying to get it built since 2008 it is a basically it fell into the cracks between two developers one came and built Wellingham and they put sidewalks in front of all the houses that were there but they didn't put it on this side of the house on Hardwick because it would have gone to nowhere the second developer came along and built out Hardwick and put houses down it but they didn't put a sidewalk in front of the existing house to connect the two so currently when you walk around my neighborhood which is a wonderful neighborhood full of children and bikes and things and you get to the end of the sidewalk and you have to walk in the street in front of Andrea's house it's a hill there's a little bit of a car on Wellingham it's not all that safe we understand that financing is tight and we have offered to pay the full cost of the installation and we're here tonight to please ask you to approve getting it built Thank you The questions of the Proponent Recognized Councilman Schultz Thank you Mr. Mayor I appreciate your being here and I was a little bit confused when I read the item and I'm not sure if you're the person to answer this or staff Robert but the way I read this is one landowner adjacent to this property that is correct and this landowner would is footing the bill for this? But you said you all were I don't believe that's correct the homeowner is all in favor of this and she's signed several times giving us permission to do this but it's kind of the HOA that's actually paying the city Okay so my understanding of the way our ordinance reads is it's paid by people who are adjacent maybe you all are reimbursing this person I mean I just had some concern about private agreement between the owner is my understanding that there's a private agreement between the owner of the property and the HOA and that the HOA will reimburse the owner however it will be assessed against the owner adjacent to the property Is the owner aware that the assessment will be made against them individually? I believe they are the best of my knowledge she's agreed several times to do this and has even come in previous meetings I believe Alright She's not here to speak for herself but you seem like you have an honest face sir Thank you Ah Okay and then just let me also just ask one other thing as I read this it seems like I was seeing the landowner but it sounds like the HOA would apparently prefer for the city to do this work than to hire a private construction company to do the work knowing that it could take some time and possibly cost more From our preliminary estimates our hardworking HOA manager got several bids and the bids came in higher than what the city wanted and then there's the separate issue of getting permits, getting plans then you've got to get it built then you've got to get inspected what if the inspector doesn't like it from our perspective it's worth it to us to wait six more months to make sure that it's done right the first time and that it just gets taken care of the city's going to maintain it the city's we would like the city to build it Great, okay well you've considered it very thoroughly thank you very much for your answers Thank you Steve Other questions, comments? Brief question, I think we're just approved, we're about to approve a contract for sidewalks Big contract Is this going to be able to get added to an existing contract or does this wind up in a queue? Under the manager's authority he has the opportunity to add priority items and raise the priority of the sidewalk in this situation so I would defer to him Okay, I'll trust his judgment thank you Any other questions, comments? Any other person who wants to speak on this item in the public let the record reflect no one else in the public has to speak on this item I'm clear to put them here and be closed as a matter of fact for council It's been properly moved in a second Close the vote It passes 7-0 Okay, are there any other items to come before the council? Most certainly In that case we adjourn at 8.97pm, thank you Thank you