 I'm going to say, because how are you going to address that bridge right here? Well, you see, it's funny, because when I went to the meeting on the air, I was paying attention to them. Yeah, they changed these things last week, so we could shut them off. Yeah, because you got to come down to my parking lot. I did, I told him. I said, you did your hard work. And he didn't listen to some people on a few things. And that statute thing didn't help him. Because they just expanded the bridge. I said, when there was that many people down there, they were bound in the terminal. And it's just complex traffic going through there all the way up to the air station. It gets crazy. Well, I still say he should have went out there. I got you right to protest, but when I put your hands on it, come on, he's going to jail. If it takes 100, if I have to call the city, the National Guard or whatever starts the ride, let it go, you know. You know, he said, oh, I had to go on what was presented. Yeah, man. What are you doing? Probably have it six more. Mr. Last one. Yeah, I had, we had a lot going on at work. I just, I had too much work. I'm not sure we were tired. No, I've been, I'm working full time again. I retired, yeah. Four years at the sheriff's office. We built that old house, and the old lady says, you know what I'm saying. I had no idea. But good for you. The law enforced my office. No, no, no, I got it. I went to work for Orange County Schools. Oh, wow. The custodian at Grady Brown Elementary School. Wow. I'll stand there. I go in about 5.30 in the morning. And you know, I'm done usually by about 1.32. So you have 1%? They're both. But I'm glad I went here for the sign or the scrap. I would have voiced my opinion on that. I think it's a bunch of crap. The agent is like, we can wait. I'm good. How are you? Oh, it's your family. I'll take that as a good sign for them. And zoning and council. It was almost 11 o'clock. I figured it was going to be long. We had that. We were in the full school. The teachers came back. I had got a good commission member. I wish we were all behind this. Oh, my God. It's a great guy. It took me a few months to go. What we don't have is somebody to represent. We don't. We don't want to. It's the worst. Maybe it was the worst. I should all have a beer. Comments that were made or desires that were. They're. Never. Should. And so. Back. 20. 20. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. So. We're gonna take just a minute before we actually open the meeting and give our new commissioner an opportunity to say hello and tell us a little bit about. You self. Nate Baker. I was born and raised in Durham, North Carolina and went through a Durham public school system. And then studied. degree in city original planning at UNC and since then I've been at Clarion Associates in Chapel Hill we do comprehensive plans land development regulations and those types of things so I'm happy to be here. Thank you. We have just a brief delay before we start the meeting. Our chair is stuck in traffic and we're waiting for some introductory papers so we'd still have just a minute before we actually get started. Perhaps some of our other commissioners would like to introduce themselves to our newest commissioner who is joining us tonight for the first time. Commissioner, I'll start with commissioner Al Turk. We're doing just a little brief introductions to our newest commissioner who is joining us for the first time tonight. I just spoke for a few years. I'm working on my PhD in UNC Chapel Hill and I've been here a couple of years, two years on the commission. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Cedric Johnson, this month is the first month of year three for my first term on the planning commission. I have been in Durham since 2012 I think. I'm getting to know here and my professional work is in the economic development finance space. I'm George Bryan. I'm a county appointee to the Planning Commission. I've lived in Durham since late 1967 and I have served off and on on planning commission since sometime in the mid 1990s. I'm Erin Durkin. This is my third meeting as a planning commissioner. I grew up in Wake County. I actually work in New York. I'm a lawyer and I have a planning degree and I represent affordable housing developers in New York City. And my name is Elaine Hyman and this is my second, the beginning of my second term. I am retired from Durham County government so this is like home for me. I'm a county appointee and I am retired HR director from Durham County government so I bring a little bit of that administrative policy to the organization, to our group. So my name is Tom Miller and I've been on the Planning Commission for four years. I've lived in Durham all my life. Before I retired I spent over 30 years with the Department of Justice here in North Carolina handling land use regulatory questions. Hey my name is Armira Kenchin and I am starting my second term as a county appointee and I've lived in Durham for 20 years now and I raise all three of my children here and consider it to be my home. So excited to meet you. I'm Paul Hornbuckle. I'm a retired lieutenant with the Durham Sheriff's Office. I've been in Durham all my life. I'm a county appointee representing the Mangum township which is the Rougemont and Bahama areas and have been in that you know part of basically all my life and this is going into my first term starting my third year. Okay Commissioner Williams. Department Williams, Durham native, life for in Durham. I think I came in on the back end of someone else's term so I'm starting my first term. I'm not sure of that but that's about it. I work for our architecture firm actually two architecture firms in Durham. So thank you. I think we can officially get started. Good afternoon and welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name, your address clearly when you come to the podium. Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Each side, those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side. The time has been divided among all persons wishing to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May we have the roll call please? Yes, I'm going to do it from here if that's okay with everyone. Yes. Commissioner Al Turk. Commissioner Baker. Here. Commissioner Brian. Here. Commissioner Busby is running a little bit late but he is on his way. Commissioner Durkin. Here. Commissioner Gibbs has requested an excused absence so when we get to the end maybe you can make a motion to that effect. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Resident. Commissioner Hyman. Resident. Commissioner Johnson. Resident. Commissioner Kenchin. Resident. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Satterfield. Here. Commissioner Williams. Here. And late breaking just a few minutes ago I received notice that Mr. or Commissioner Van has resigned from the commission. He's got some other duties to fulfill and can't serve at this time so he will not be here tonight and so I just found that out. Madam Chair if it's appropriate I move that we grant an excused absence to Commission Member Gibbs and I suppose we probably since we only have two cases Commission Member Busby. Exactly. It has been moved and properly seconded that we offer excused absences to Commissioner Gibbs and Commissioner Busby all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. If for some reason Chair Busby shows up then we'll note that he is in attendance. Thank you. The first item approval of the minutes and consistency statements from the August 14, 2018 meeting. Madam. Recognizes Commissioner Bryant. Madam Chair I move approval of the minutes and the consistency statements as presented. Second. Motion by Commissioner Bryant second by Commissioner Horne Buckle. Was I correct? Was it Commissioner Horne? Yes. That we approve the minutes and consistency statements for the April for the August 14 meeting. All in favor of this motion please let it be known by raising your right hand. All opposed. Thank you. The first item that we have public curing zone map changes. Madam Chair. Yes. Before we get there I want to just let you know that under new business I have two minor items. Yes. And having said that unless there are no other adjustments to the agenda I move the agenda as amended. Could you maybe let us know what the items are and I also need to speak to the advertisements and legal notice. Right so what are your items that you're adding? One will be just an announcement about an NCDOT project. I think commissioners will be interested in and the second is going to be my request for an excused absence for next month. Okay. Okay. No problem. All right and at this time I would like to let the Commission know that the other cases for public hearings and I have been advertised in accordance with local and state law and affidavits for such an on file in the planning department. Thank you. Thank you. So then I have a motion to approve the agenda with adjustments. Second. Motion by Commissioner Brine. Second by Commissioner Miller that we approve the minutes with adjustments. All in favor of this motion. Let it be known by the usual sign of aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Our first item public hearing item number Z1800011 Barbie Road Townhouse. We'll have our staff report at this time. Good evening. I'm Jamie Sonjak with the planning department. I will be presenting case number Z1800011 Barbie Road 54 townhouses. Before I get started there were two corrections in the staff report. There was an incorrect reference to the number of units. So I made that correction and also there was a corrected reference to a legacy case on page 2. The applicant for this case is Jared Edens from Edens Land. The address is 107 East North NC 54 64 52 Barbie Road. The property is located within the city's jurisdiction. The request for rezoning is from commercial general with a development plan to commercial general with a development plan. The site is 14.38 acres. The property is located within the commercial form. There is no request to change that. The applicant is seeking to rezone specifically to allow 112 townhouse units. This slide depicts the aerial mapping and the subject site is shown in red. It's two properties located on the west side of Barbie Road on the north side of NC 54. It is located within the suburban tier and within the Cape Fear River basin. The smaller property is these I'm sorry in these slides to pick some of the pictures of the area. The smaller property is just under one acre in size and is vacant. And the larger property is about 13 acres in size and contains a number of existing residential structures and nursery nursery sales building, several greenhouses, all of which will be removed if the site is developed. There are a number of pictures also within the staff report that show area conditions. The site is adjacent to the greens of Pine Glen residential development. There is a cell tower also to the west to the north is the Interstate Highway. The property to the west was recently approved to allow a self storage building up to 120,000 square feet in size to the southeast is a gas station, which is also undergoing a rezoning application which will be in front of the Planning Commission, ideally in October. On the north side of NC 54 south of the property west and south of the property. There's a single family residential neighborhood. The seasons at South Point Memory Care Community. There's also the meadows at South Point Residential Development on the east side of Barbie Road south of the site. And then abutting the site on the north side of 54. There are also additional residential developments South Point Towns and 54 station. The zoning context map shows the existing and proposed zoning designation. So the colors have not changed on the left side. You'll see the proposed that the existing zoning is CG and the proposed zoning on the right side is also CG. The future land use map there is no request to change that the property is currently designated commercial which is consistent with the rezoning request. And next slide shows the development plan and I'll just highlight some of the conditions. The maximum pervious coverage is at 70% proposed tree preservation requirement of 20% and there are various minimum side yards rear yards and and different setbacks shown on the development plan. Summary of the key commitments. The development plan limits the townhouse units to a maximum of 112 units. There are various site access points building and parking envelopes various transportation improvements and roadway improvements and design commitments relative to the building materials and roof and features. In terms of consistency with the comp plan, the it is consistent with the existing commercial future land use map designation and also consistent with policies 231A contiguous development 232A infrastructure capacity, 812H transportation level of service maintenance, 814D development review and adopted regional bicycle plans and 1111B adequate school facilities. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you. It's good to be here. I apologize for my tardy arrival. I want to thank Vice Chair Hyman for getting us kicked off and running smoothly as usual. At this point, we would open the public hearing and we have one individual signed up to speak for the proposal, Mr. Jared Edens. Good evening. Jared Edens with Edens Land here representing the property owner. I appreciate Jamie's summary of our project and I'll just summarize a couple of key points. As Jamie mentioned, we were here about a year ago for a retail rezoning on the same site, Planning Commission and Council both approved retail zoning at that time. What happened after that time was the market never really developed for the retail center. It just never came to pass like we thought. The next highest and best use in our opinion was town homes. There was definitely a market for town homes. So we started investigating that possibility and that's brought us here before you today. So as Jamie mentioned about 112 units, this would be a much less impactful request than what we had a year ago. I think we're reducing our trips by about 8,300 trips by going from retail to town homes. Our water usage is way down. Everything is down generally. We did have we had a neighborhood meeting last week, voluntary, we only had one person show up from the immediate neighborhood. We not have any opposition that I'm aware of and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thanks. Thank you. And this is the opportunity if anyone else would like to speak during the public hearing and seeing none, I'll move to close the public hearing and see if there are any questions or comments from the commissioners will start on my right. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Alturk? The floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Jamie. So you mentioned that there will be a rezoning case before us next month, possibly the gas station. Can you say a little bit more about that or what you what that's just the broad contours of that? Yeah, the the rezoning case involves upgrades to an existing shell oil station located on the southeast corner of that intersection. They are increasing the number of bays on the existing site. There will be some improvements to intersection access points. And there will be no increase per se in terms of a convenience store. It'll still remain as a pay station. So it's it's really to improve increase the number of bays and the applicant can speak for themselves when they come. But they are also hoping that that will alleviate some of the existing traffic congestion within that area. So the traffic impact will be minimal or zero or what's in terms of I mean, you don't off the top of my head, I couldn't provide you with that information. But okay, thank you. I guess I'm asking because in attachment six, you mentioned the all of you know, if all of the new developments that are going up, it would it's going to increase the the traffic to more than 110% of capacity. But that's below the 120% that would be not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So I guess that's good to hear that this rezoning is not going to increase traffic there. So thank you for that. And one more question. And I'll ask it both to Jared and to Jamie. So let me the the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission in their first question asked why I think this is a good question. Why are we, you know, why is CG zoning or a for townhomes? I understand that that's allowed. But you know, when I look at the rezoning map, it's very colorful. We have deep pink and light pink and we have office institutional or industrial sorry, to the east of this, although it has townhomes. And I guess I'm curious if that's going to be addressed at some point, or is that something that's common in planning that we just have a commercial designation, but we have a bunch of townhomes in it. It just seems like that's incongruent or doesn't well the the the previous application for the site amended the zoning to become commercial general with the development plan. There was no residential as part of that application. The current applicant is interested in building residential, which is permitted within that zone, but they are specifically committing to residential. So essentially it it is a commercial future land use map, which coincides with that, but they are specifically committing to residential. I guess a more specific question. Is there a reason not to encourage a PDR or something else from the planning department? It's the applicant's request in terms of what they're seeking. Okay, can you I'm just curious since we have a lot of time today. Honestly, just for simplicity as much as anything else. I mean, okay, we're already CGD before actually have another zoning you're going to see in three or four months. It's townhomes on a CG zoned parcel, another part of town. So it's something we've done before, and we will be doing a little bit down the road, but just for simplicity as much as anything else. Okay, just to keep it CGD. Okay. Well, I don't have any questions. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. So just a quick response to that. I initially had the same question of the latter question that was just asked, and I tend to agree. I tend to agree with the logic of that it makes sense that if we have the applicant can do residential within the commercial zoning as it is, there's even in the case that the future land use is updated to make that residential, then it becomes more in conformity to what's around it. But an applicant would still have to come before a commission at some point if they wanted to reprogram that site, but the development is just so is large enough, I think there'll be just too costly to like tear that down and send them. So I had that concern, but I think that what is being proffered and committed to here addresses the what could potentially happen to that site if we kept it the way it is commercial and the future land use map is another concern. Some remnant on that one. My question is one for Jared just to be to try to gain some clarity on the price point for the townhomes. Do you have a sense of what what that range will be or in some kind of relative to what's around the site? I mean, all I can say is market rate, which is what people say, right? But in this market, the rate changes pretty often. So I'm not, I'm not really in the business of trying to guess what the sales price is going to be for units because things are changing all the time. But it's just a market rate product, I can tell it'll be comparable to what's been constructed across the road. And the poultry development across the road comparable to that. The market size of homes. I got you. I got you. And just a comment on the gas station question that that my colleague referenced, I will note that that is that that tends to be a concern to me as well. And we'll hear about it on in the next session, the next meeting. But what I will share in it has it has some tangential implications on our decision here is that what tends to happen is there's only like two or three bays right now. But people are coming from both ways on these two lanes and they're literally stopping like it's right at this corner. So they're stopping trying waiting to turn in to get into these bays. And so during the peak hours of the day when people are getting off from work, and there's a school right down the road less than a mile or so, you're just seeing like stand still traffic right out of light because people are trying to get into one of those bays. And so that's something to think about when we're addressing the fact that that infrastructure is can only support so much traffic with two lanes. And so I don't know if more bays will actually assuage that that issue. But I think it would just encourage more people, they'll see more bays. And it's like, Oh, there's an opportunity for me to get into the queue to something to keep in mind. So thank you, Commissioner Brian. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to engage some commissioners, remember, the last time this particular piece of property was before the commission, I had to recuse myself because we were dealing with both a flume amendment and a rezoning. And I live within the notification distance for the flume amendment, but not the rezoning. So I just wanted to explain that in case some of you were wondering why I was up here tonight. You're Mr. 750 hours. Well, about 910. And living in the area and seeing what's happened around it. I didn't particularly care for the commercial that was proposed. And City Council heard about that. But I personally believe that the townhome proposal is a better fit for this site than what was previously proposed. And I'll shut up with that. Thank you, Commissioner Brian. For the record, you're always in a thousand with us. Commissioner Baker and welcome aboard. Thank you very much. So I have a few questions. Going to take advantage of the fact that there are a few items on the agenda today. First, I see that commitments are in excess of UDA requirements. You know, best practices would encourage a mix of housing, especially missing missing middle housing. And I see that one of the commitments here is to limit this to only townhome. So kind of a homogenous development with no mix of housing opportunities for people. So I'm just curious about why why there's a limit on only producing one type of one type of housing typology. Honestly, if the site is really only large enough for one one type, I mean, these builders, I work with them day in and day out. All kinds of different projects, mixed use, singles, towns, apartments, 14 acres, they just most of the builders that I work with, they just got to have a certain number of units to be there. And I don't think if you split the uses between singles and towns, one, you'll service less people, your singles will be more expensive than your towns. And I just don't think many builders would jump on that. Thank you. I'm also curious about roadway connectivity. I know that this isn't something that we can necessarily add and this is certainly not the place to do that, but I think that that's something that we need to be working on and encouraging is improving connectivity and making sure that we have short blocks, short block lengths, and when possible we have things like alleys. I'm curious from the developer if, and this is not asking for a proffer, but if there are any green building practices that are going to be employed, if there's going to be any low impact development that's going to be employed in this development. And fortunately now with the market rate, most of the builders with their standard product, we won't have that on this project, I don't believe. Okay. So we have one type of housing product here and very little connectivity. Well lastly, I just want to bring up the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission. They brought up, they cited the UDO saying that the development in the CG district should provide safe petition access to adjacent residential areas. Currently there are no text commitments addressing safe pedestrian access to adjacent residential areas. Is this in violation? My question is, is this in violation of the UDO? And I guess that's for Jamie. So Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. So they will be providing sidewalks in accordance with the UDO along the frontage of their property. That is the requirement. There is also a commitment relative to I think it's access point to A or B, I forget in the event that the access point is provided to the adjacent property to the West, which was approved for the self-storage they would be providing cross access easements there. Okay, thank you. That's all. Great, thank you. Commissioner Miller. I'm with Mr. Bryan. I was very much opposed to the rezoning on this property, same parcel a year ago to develop a conventional grocery store laden strip shopping center. I think this proposal is dramatically better. I have opposed the creation of a new commercial node at Barbie and 54 from the beginning all of Highway 54 indeed this whole area of the county that weaves in and around I-40 as it skirts underneath the city is kind of the pinnacle of automobile suburban design. And it is very heavily commercially laden. There's more commercial, especially automobile based commercial development in this part of the county than any other place and we don't need more of it. The people who will live on this parcel will have probably more opportunities to shop and to buy groceries and all the other things that are missing in other parts of town than anybody else that lives in Durham. And so we don't need another shopping center here so I'm glad to see a townhouse project. Normally this is the when we see a townhouse project proposed this is the opportunity that I take to talk about townhouse design and also front-loaded garages and all those other things that give me heartburn but so thrilled am I to see this turn away from what I thought was a really bad idea of creating a commercial node here to one that is in my opinion a smoother and more conjugious line of development for townhouses I'm not I'm gonna lay off that and so I understand what's going on here I'm glad for the opportunity to fix a mistake that we made a year ago and so I'm going to vote for this for all of those reasons and some I have not articulated. Thank you Commissioner Kenshin. Yeah I voted last year for this because I think the intersection is really problematic I drive down Barbie Road almost every single day because 40 and 147 are impossible with all the growth but I am pleased it's going to be residential instead I think that's a better use for it but I really wanted to see the intersection get improved and I'm pleased with the commitments I see here in terms of that left that tone lane on Barbie and some of the other features I see on that intersection is going to be vastly improved and with the gas station which is not our case right now but you know I can't see that fixed as well because there's cars literally stacked on 54 trying to turn into that gas station and it's always very dangerous intersection so I'm pleased to see this is a great start I think and I like the use as well so excited to see that intersection get fixed finally thank you. Thank you Commissioner Williams. Yeah from what I read in terms of the text commitments as it turns as it reads for the access points for access point 2A and access point 2B it says that if it's decided upon and if it is determined then it will be designated and given the current congestion the issues that are already on Barbie Road and that particular intersection to overload on highway 54 and Barbie Road I believe that even though a shopping center on that particular lot may have been bad then this is just the lesser of the two evils. I feel like the impact of this particular intersection regardless of the gas house that sits on that corner and people traveling through that area is indeed the lesser of two evils unless you address the issue and putting a sidewalk on the big the front face of the property to Barbie Road I'm not really sure where that's going to leave besides maybe highway 40 and overpass or the apartments across the street or the townhomes across the street so I mean even though it is a need I don't think that it's necessarily a need to build new townhomes in that area considering the fact that the ones that were just built probably aren't full but that's just my personal thought process on it and I feel like this is an opportunity to use land to build on it because the opportunity is there and Durham is growing I don't know that it's necessarily a need I would think that some type of if you're going to do it for commercial maybe some type of what is it called a like a green house where people walk in like a community you walk in you grow your vegetables you sell them and you leave like that type of area to give people access we can't depend on the infrastructure to be improved but so much and with another case coming up I'm trying to figure out how they're going to build more bays in there and where they're going to expand to because the drop-off for the gas houses right there because of the new property that was just built and then whatever lies behind it and then what is across the street so I'm definitely not inclined to vote for this for the obvious concerns of the stress is going to put on an already stressed intersection and neighboring for neighborhoods the amount of traffic that's going to be generated on Barbie Road 54 both east and west so those are my comments thank you any other questions or comments commissioner Johnson thank you chair so just in response to that is I mean I tend to agree with your presentation of the issues at hand commissioner Williams my when I put on my reality hat is that the green house the vision that what you envision as being ideal for that site is pop I'm inclined to say it's almost impossible because the cost that it product that I'm sure that it took to acquire that land just doesn't make that feasible for the developer I really say it's just getting very expensive in Durham and so the question is I mean even if you don't pursue the hot the best and highest use of that site something is going to go on that site that's just not going to be congruent with the current infrastructure like I think that's a larger sit a city issue that we have to figure out like how do we enhance in the the physical infrastructure in this area of Durham along with how many other areas in Durham to support the growth that's going on and so as we've shared with many other applicants or opposition to applicants that something is going to happen on that site it's just going to make it even not the ideal outcome in regards to the congestion the traffic etc etc and so the question of and I'm not saying that this project gets us to the best outcome but it's like well how do we try to mitigate as much as we can what is going to happen which is that site is going to be developed and I don't have that utopia answer myself but you know just it's important when we like thinking about the reality of what's happening here some private owner owns that land and they're going to do something to it sooner rather than later so it's a question of what is it going to look like and what's the implications and the impact and do we have an opportunity to assuage the bad and highlight and enhance what we can possibly on the positive side thank you any other questions or comments Commissioner Williams counterpoint yeah I mean I understand where you're coming from but doing something just because eventually something will get done that's going to cause more harm to good in the way I feel about it is we can't always just say well eventually something is gonna happen because our voice is to determine partially what is going to happen and to speak to that effect so if we voice as 14 bodies or 13 or 12 or 11 or whatever the case may be then it goes to another body which they have the opportunity to kind of steer this entire process into where it may go if it doesn't sound right first and it doesn't sound right second then maybe a third will come or fourth at the end of the day until something get approved nothing gets built so it's not necessarily a process of approving something just because eventually something will happen until there's the right fit we have the opportunity to do that to get it right because it's right now it's sitting dormant so it's not adding any more traffic or any more impacts because it's not being used and right now I can't say well because the owner has done this or because the owner has done that then you spend until you get it right and if it's the right fit then it will generate its own revenue follow-up thank you and I'll follow up and then we actually have other commissioners will question oh I'm sorry that's fine this look no so in response to that and thank you for sharing those comments to staff my question is given what the current zoning allowances on that site what is what is the the max as we said what's the if you can do the largest development type on the potential property on the property as is currently zoned what could the developer potentially put on that site right now without having to get a year and a from us on on what they would pursue Jamie Sanyak with the planning department the rezoning that occurred in 2016 allowed up to 160,000 square feet of uses that are permitted within the CG zoning district there were certain exceptions to that self storage was one of them but that's what be the the max on the site right now unless the zoning changed so that's the reality and that I just wanted that to be on record that that can happen right now whether we fall asleep up here or not that you know something is going to happen on that site and and and that's the reality commissioner Durkin I just had a follow-up question for the applicant on the question about type of housing you mentioned that single family was not thought about but what about duplexes or quadplexes I think that's more of a greater need than additional single family homes I mean that is a different housing type for sure but that that's a much different builder also the number of builders who build townhomes as opposed to a number of builders who are going to go and build duplexes very different buyer pool and builder pool and the goal here was really to if you're going to townhomes was you know to get as many units as we can get I mean the townhomes across the street they've sold out and they were selling 15 to 20 a month for the entire time they sold so they're gone the demand is there so we know the demand is there we obviously need housing in Durham we need townhomes in Durham and condos and apartments in Durham and less of the singles so we felt like this was just the best we could do follow-up thank you commissioner Miller so I wanted to point out there's no particular virtue in duplexes or triplex this is a matter of fact because they are almost invariably rental properties as opposed to home ownership properties I don't favor them I would like to see us and improve the percentage of of home ownership properties home ownership properties grow wealth grow wealth for families where rental properties are wealth transfer engines townhouses which are a form of multifamily housing are are technically missing middle houses I don't want to get caught up in these these new terms were throwing around I think what we need to do is look at if the way these properties perform in terms of of how they supply housing where we need housing and also their general compatibility is that's contemplated in our comprehensive plan and it's a matter of good planning because of the way this area it has been developing even though it has been admittedly taking advantage of the counterintuitive uses you know you name it a zone commercial you name it office but you allow certain certain types of residential uses it creates a dissonance that people have noted here today I'm thrilled at the way this corner is developing out of this is going to be at the high end of what I would call of what our comprehensive plan contemplates is medium density housing isn't that right about ten units an acre ten eleven units an acre so and it so we have a way of we're adding housing we're adding it at it at a certain density we are bringing the number of trips per day down by 8000 on a facility that is already crowded and is going to get worse I see this particular project is a win-win project and while I would like to see more commitments about the actual townhouse designs I do not want to risk losing the opportunity to fix mistakenly last that we asked we created last year when we zone this commercial where we approve the shopping center by insisting on something I don't believe this developer wants to give thank you seeing no additional questions or comments before I call the question and ask for a motion I'll say that I also agree that this is an improvement from my personal perspective I do have concerns about the traffic from a long-term perspective but I do think this particular issue does address some of the most immediate concerns and I do plan to vote to approve it but this is a intersection that's getting busier and I I do hear some of the other concerns that some of my fellow commissioners have raised and I think we're gonna have to pay attention to as we move forward that said I will look for a motion if someone is willing to make it Commissioner Brian Mr. Chairman I move that we send case Z1800011 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second moved by Commissioner Brian seconded by Commissioner Satterfield even though it was close why don't we have a roll call please Commissioner Al Turk yes Commissioner Johnson yes Commissioner Baker no Commissioner Brian yes Commissioner Satterfield yes Commissioner Darkin yes Commissioner Hyman yes Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Kenshin yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Williams no a motion passes 10 to 10 22 sorry 10 to 2 thank you very much thank you Mr. Edens our next item is a case TC 18 quadruple 06 this is the private streets text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance Mr. Stock thank you very much Michael Stock with my department text amendment TC 180006 is a privately initiated request to amend paragraph 1222 other forms of access specifically would allow an additional instance where private streets would be allowed currently the ordinance allows private residential private streets and for circumstances form to serve a maximum of six single single family or duplex lots for multifamily developments if shown on a development plan and within conservation subdivisions in this proposal the private streets would be allowed for only single family developments only within the county jurisdiction so any single family development within the county jurisdiction only private streets must be designed and constructed the city or ncdot standards as applicable but they would not be maintained by either the city or the state the applicant is here to answer any questions and I'd also be happy to answer any questions thank you thank you very much and can we do you mind if we can see if anyone is signed up for the public hearing and we'll move to open the public hearing thank you and we have one individual signed up to speak mr. Mitch Craig the microphone is yours you don't mind if you can come up and give us your name your address and make your statement Joseph M. Craig 301 Glenwood Avenue suite 220 Raleigh North Carolina 27603 and I'm representing the applicant and here to answer any questions the main issue for this subdivision is the majority of subdivision is in Chatham County it's completely developed in Chatham County with private streets there's a private street that comes off of 751 it serves the majority of this development and they would like for their streets to be private I'm here to answer any questions you have thank you very much is there anyone else who would like to speak as part of the public hearing seeing none I'll move to close the public hearing and come back to the commissioners any questions or comments from the commissioners Commissioner Baker so questions for staff it's my understanding that communities that have historically been more liberal in allowing private streets are in fact moving away from that policy some curious has staff conducted an assessment or held a dialogue with some other communities that have this policy and or have you looked at what are the potential consequences of this policy if you allow it county-wide well allowing it county-wide it wouldn't be a county-wide would just be within the county jurisdiction so wouldn't apply to the city at all county jurisdiction so the really the only the negative impacts that we would believe would be to the development to the property owners themselves if they could not maintain it and then they went to seek acceptance from the ncdot because from my understanding is that it would have to be maintained the reason why we require it for to be built to city or ncdot standards so if they sought acceptance by those by those entities then they're already built to those standards and they could be taken over they would need to be maintained to a certain level for ncdot to accept them so they they'd have to be a certain quality to the to the maintenance of that road that would be the biggest drawback I have two other questions so as the city grows in population and municipal borders move out would it be correct to assume that eventually the city is going to be asked to annex some of these properties have private streets and potentially have to annex properties in the scenario where the HOA fails have to take over maintenance of those streets usually when we see a number of new developments are coming in they're already going in through city annexation process so it's pretty rare to see those kind of instances happen any new developments are going to go again go through the annexation process with the city and they'd have to develop through the city processes so it's but it's rare today but then we would permit private streets so it might not become rare anymore it still would be pretty rare there's a good part of Durham County that is not likely to be served by the city in any foreseeable future okay and last question to me this is this is a pretty easy no but I would like to ask are there other more site specific alternative solutions to the problem that that that exists today for the applicant I'm not aware of any but you could ask the applicant to see what kind of solutions they saw and Commissioner Baker if you'd like you can directly answer them this week we looked at doing public roads and the reason they want to do private is because small subdivision roads are just not a priority of the city or the DOT and they have you know in this particular instance they have the means to maintain them in most instances I would say that's the case because they're going to be developed as private so people that are buying in that subdivision would know that those streets are private and you know frankly it's just the biggest deal is just not a priority for the DOT and that's that's the biggest issue does that answer your question thank you very much other questions or comments Commissioner Alturk yeah thanks thank you chair another question for staff so you mentioned that the streets would have to be maintained up to NCDOT standards how often I mean do you have any sense of how often NCDOT does this they go around and say oh these private streets are up to our standards I think they're only gonna look at it if they're petitioned to take over the street so that's it that's it thank you thank you Commissioner Miller so while you're standing there in instead of doing a text amendment they could have applied to rezone this property to a PDR with essentially the same lot layout that's that's on the ground right and then they could have had private streets under the existing code provision correct so there is a site specific solution what this does because I think it's it isn't immediately intuitive for me when we say for any single family subdivision we're talking about subdivisions that are zoned between our youth well I guess you we probably don't have any of those in the county jurisdiction but we could it would be any no you couldn't know in the county jurisdiction unless it's the for RU in sense unless there's county within the urban tier you couldn't rezone to RU all right most of it you're gonna see is RS 20 it's unlikely that it could be RU but we're talking about the single family zones that is that are described in the code RSR that have the R the R prefix and probably rural residential as well correct and that's but that's a lot of land mm-hmm and so the development limitations if I understood you before though in the county jurisdiction since we're talking about the county only here are the availability of water and sewer utilities primarily and the city controls those under its current policy so moving forward new sub subdivisions I know there are plenty of existing subdivisions out there that have septic tanks or private wells and those kinds of things we're not creating those much anymore no so those will come into the city and once they're in the city they could do private streets if they wanted couldn't they or do we just have no private streets in the private streets it would be limited to very small so the first instance that's already allowed so serving six or less or PDRs or PDRs if it's on the development and we do a lot of PDRs so and we don't we it my experience here is only four years old but we have had very few cases that have have been to our zones you know it's usually a PDR because of the improved flexibility of lot sizes and housing type right so I personally do not see a real threat with this private streets provision I realize that it gives mr. Baker whose expertise I think I'm going to become accustomed to deferring to some heartburn and there is a property specific solution here I would like to ask the developer if I may mr. Chairman you may whether or not they had considered rezoning this property where they want private streets to a PDR zone as opposed to this text amendment which runs from from the person county line all the way down to where you are in Chatham County because I think it is the extent and the difficulty of contemplating the consequences of so great a change that is giving or giving some of my colleagues here heartburn when we could have done something that was just for your property to fit it within the current code requirement for private streets correct me if I'm wrong Michael but some of the development is developed is being developed can it still be rezoned to a PDR if it's already been developed it's alright well with a PDR you would have to get signatures from all the property owners within the within the develop within the site so if it's an area that is still controlled by one or maybe two entities that might be easier to do is already has multiple property owners that would be a more difficult task which would not be a problem in this instance to rezone it to a PDR it's just the time frame is probably the biggest issue to be framed the timeframe to rezone it to a PDR is more than than this instance thank you I had not actually considered the the practical implications of having to go get everybody to sign on to it that's a good point thank you thank you any additional questions or comments all right seeing none this is also an opportunity just for any either emotion or for a continued discussion if people have thoughts they want to share I see a half commissioner Johnson there it is commissioner Johnson medicine with the question thanks chair so I just in response to I just follow up to the comment about the time process so if if this was approved in in favor of the request tonight would it likely go to council for vote next month or what would be trying to get a sense of the shortest versus the potential longest so if this happens tonight in favor how quickly will the final affirmation we're probably looking at before the end of the year right November December and any times and such we're talking about the the board of county commission board of county commissioners correct and and I'm asked the applicant so how many signatures would at this point what you have to go back and get in regards to the alternative option potential option of getting the PDR with the private streets in it how many and and then this follow-up question would be the process once that happens but how many signatures would you have to go and fish out fish out of society currently there's 40 houses in phase 9 and 16 of them are inhabited so probably 16 plus 17 so the homeowners association would be and what do you have an idea of how quickly you would be able to get 16 plus one that would be fairly quick I think it's the process that and frankly we you know when we talked with the city and we've talked with the JCC PC as well and nobody felt like this would be a negative proposal to anyone so that's why we chose to pursue this first because you know it's it allows it but it doesn't require private streets it allows private streets and you know most people don't don't want private streets so they would develop them to be taken over by a city or the DOT we're we are developing them to be per the requirements of the city and the DOT I get the logic I was trying to so based on this information upon getting all the signatures how quickly would the applicant well how long would the applicant have to wait before they are back before this body with the request Jamie Sanyak with the planning department so my understanding and I don't know this site 100% but they would need to seek a rezoning and not a future land use map amendment so they would need to seek a rezoning at a minimum future land use map amendment is uncertain at this time the process would be that they would need to start with a request for a pre sub that's a requirement before the zoning if there's a future land use map amendment associated with that they would have to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to submission once they got all their application materials together then we start the review process so ideally the rezoning could be in front of the planning commission I would say no less than three to four months depending upon the type of application that's submitted again I am not familiar with this application per se once the planning commission makes a recommendation then ultimately would need to go to the board of county commissioners so they would ultimately be the one who would adopt the rezoning then it would become effective immediately and final question I promise so in the case that there are some unforeseen implications negative consequences with the decision we make tonight what would be the retroactive response like would it be that no longer going forward would subdivision like if we had to roll back what we are what we would potentially agree on tonight how would that work if we wanted to address something that we are not thinking about tonight and so we don't want it to happen to future subdivision opportunity to have an ability to have private roles because x y z is likely to happen and we don't want x y and z to happen not quite sure how to answer that question possibly may I try to reframe the question please help me if we believe this is the fastest path forward we don't see that there will be many if any unintended consequences let's find out how what if we find out there are unintended consequences and we wish to try to then remedy the situation if it turns out we've opened a can of worms we don't think we will but let's say we do how would that move forward for us to remedy the change that we're making tonight is that an accurate question thank you for the clearing well that that's something that we we do on a regular basis with our ordinance and taking a look at how new provisions function and perform we do that through omnibus 10 11 12 13 up to 20 you know we haven't gotten there yet but it's probably gonna happen so one of our jobs is to to make sure that we that any new provisions are functioning in a way that we're at least anticipating or not negatively impacting things and if we see that there are negative policy implications or real-world implications even to that then we will make corrections to it and bring it back to you thank you and commissioner Johnson thank you because that's the same question that I was sitting here thinking as well commissioner Durkin and then commissioner Miller I just it's not quite a question but I just the the idea that you'd have a universal text amendment for a very project specific project it gives me heartburn personally and if there's a solution that is solely project specific then I would much prefer that route be taken also keep in mind that the ordinance does allow private streets for single family up to six dwelling units so I would think that you probably have some of those in the city as well and you know what I guess a follow-up question to that statement is you said that most of the development is in Chattanooga County how many houses are in Durham County in this development that when it's completed there'll be 91 and within that Durham County and 31 are allowed to be to have private roads already development plan okay this is just to make the other ones in that development private yeah no I understand that that makes sense so that it can take you as throughout your development I just would rather have a project specific application thank you commissioner Miller so I feel the same way commissioner Durkin does but on the other hand I think it's our job to actually to do the very best job we can to anticipate the consequences and to not go forward if we're if we're uncertain but I also believe that with the people in the room especially our staff the likelihood of very many unintended or discoverable unintended consequences when we vote is small if we if we search the mountain satisfy ourselves with the answers to the questions I know Mr. Baker said this was an easy no and so I'd like for him to articulate for me to guide me in my voting what the negative policy consequences of voting in favor of this text might be what why would I vote against this so we come across a lot of counties in our work that are experiencing issues with HOA is failing they then have to take over the street often times there's a situation where folks buy into a neighborhood not realizing that it's on a private street look at their neighbors down the road and you know that say you know why am I paying my taxes but at the same time I have to I have to pay extra to maintain the street Wake County is experiencing this right now so and then we see San Francisco where I mean this is an extraordinary extraordinary case where private street was actually purchased by someone who didn't didn't live in the neighborhood and so we see lots of unintended consequences HOS fail all the time you know I totally feel for the applicant I want to find a solution here but to to go ahead and change make a text amendment that applies to the entire county based on hardship being experienced by a single applicant on a single property does not seem to me to be the most appropriate solution in this case Mr. Mellon and I know we have one Commission member here who has lived through the circumstances that you have described of being a development caught with its trousers down and left hold and the homeowners left holding and the city left holding the bag I was wondering if Ms. Hyman had anything she wanted to add to the debate only that you know of course it's an issue that gives us heartburn because there are an intense it unintended consequences that happen to homeowners and when HOS fail so I've had you know I've experienced both but to have but to address it from an ordinance perspective does give me heartburn so and only because I've experienced it but I do want to point out that that was in the city and those were streets that were caught half completed on their way to becoming public streets through the subdivision approval process so voting against this isn't necessarily going to prevent homeowners from being caught with incomplete developer built public streets thank you Commissioner Miller Commissioner out turkey been very patient thank you chair sounds like we need to stock up on Tums along with our water here a lot of heartburn today I'm you know I think I've been convinced by Commissioner Baker and and I won't repeat why and so I would be inclined to vote against this but I would like to at least give the applicant an opportunity to you know if you want to have a continuous or think about it and if you if you want us to consider that to do that to grant that continuance I think we would probably be happy to but I want to leave that in your court I'll just ask you whether like that or whether you want us to vote on it as it stands let me let me confer thank you thank you we'll give you a moment I'll ask if there are any additional questions or comments Commissioner Satterfield well I just wanted to take a different tack we're looking at individual requests to change in ordinance and we really feel a lot of us like we would rather have a solution for that particular property as opposed to something that will impact multiple properties countywide other piece of it to me is setting a precedent or an applicant who may not be able to meet their timeline for whatever type of a situation they're looking at and so well you know we'll just see if we can't get the ordinance changed instead so that was just what I was thinking about that was on my mind thank you other questions or comments and you're welcome to come back up and I did I would just ask commissioner out sorry if you don't mind just repeating your question sure the question is would you like a continuance or would you like us to vote on the matter today yeah one more question or Michael do you know of the any developments in the county of Durham that are owned by HOAs that have private streets didn't have failed does the city know of any of those I'm not aware of any but that doesn't mean that there aren't okay um you know we wish for you to vote on it we think is that it is a it's a good proposal I don't see any we've talked about it for the last three months with the city with the JCCPC and we don't see any negative things that could come up it's a it's not a requirement and it's not changing the the ordinance is actually just amending the ordinance to allow private streets for a subdivision that is larger than six single family units like I said you could come in with six single family units and have a private street and I don't see how it's any different than allowing an entire subdivision to have private streets you have more homeowners that pay into an HOA when you have more units in the subdivision and I don't see how that's any different than a is just allowing more units into a private street subdivision so no we wish for you to vote on it we appreciate the input thank you for answering the question commissioner johnson and commissioner brian just one final question to the from from my first year so what what happens what does your project look like if this request is not granted what does the final product look like well again we can as it's a mixture of things really we have a development plan for 31 lots it shows private streets that has been approved which is you know it's adjacent to the only the only part of this subdivision that that that can't be private is phase nine which is 40 lots because it's already been approved is being developed the previous engineer didn't come in with a development plan for private streets and that was one of the reasons why we were coming in is so we have private streets for phase nine and I get that we can have a pdr and I get that we can have you know development plan and but I just don't see what adding this to the ordinance I don't see you know the negativity to that but it looks like a it's jumbled up there's some private streets there's some public streets that haven't been taken over by DOT yet that will be taken over by DOT and then when we come in with a pdr the whole modern association will take them back over from DOT so just be clear so phase nine is the component in Durham County that you're asking for the request and so and so in the event that you're not granted the the ordinance change the streets will be public maintained by some of them some of them will be public DOT and then they will some of them will lead to private yeah okay thank you so you know doing this for for us is for continuity but I really don't think that this would be developer specific I think it would be a good plan for the county if you have a developer that is willing to put in private streets and can do it per the ordinance you know I don't see how that doesn't help the city the county I mean this is we're really not talking about the entire county we're talking about areas outside of the city Commissioner Brian thank you Mr. Chair I've been listening and actually learning quite a bit for the listening to the arguments one way or the other my own feeling on the matter is is that I trust our staff has done their homework and has followed some of the same things that we brought up so from my perspective I'm going to take a chance that we know what we're doing and vote yes on this knowing as we have discussed that if we mess it up we have a way to fix it thank you any additional questions or comments and if not this is the appropriate time for a motion and a reminder we make motions in the affirmative and then you can also vote against your own motion Mr. Chair I will move that we send TC 180 0006 forward to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation properly moved we have a second right up moved by commissioner Brian seconded by commissioner Williams I think before we do vote we want to just give an opportunity for any discussion on the motion commissioner I'm sorry I raised my hand a little too late but I I would actually like to hear from transportation department I mean I'm in a case like this where we know that NCDOT has you know limited capacity to maintain roads I mean is there a public is there a benefit to actually having counties or subdivisions like this have private streets I mean just from a not just for the subdivision itself but for the city and the county as a whole bill judge city transportation so this is a county case right and only I was you know and so we are city department so I don't know that I can particularly answer your question other than I mean the state DOT is constantly challenged for maintaining roads all over the county basically that they're constantly looking for opportunities to reduce their maintenance responsibility because there's never enough money to maintain roads thank you and I'll say as part of the discussion before the vote I've been on the fence on this issue on the client to vote with commissioner Brian knowing that we have the ability to come back even though I do share some of the concerns I know the staff's thought about this and worked on this so I'm inclined to vote for it any additional comments or discussion Commissioner Johnson I just broke my promise last question so to the after one one last question and this may help me thank you so can you give us a sense of the price point of this subdivision that you're developing what's the price point of the units that you're building and do you have a sense of what the HOA fee is associated to these units I can say that the lots are going for yeah the housing or million dollars the lots are selling for six hundred thousand and so do you have an idea of what a HO a monthly HOA fee would equate to for a lot unit can you repeat that for the for the rest of this fifteen hundred dollars a household per year and currently there's 183 households that have been developed okay so I'm gonna ask that we can just ask very focused questions we've had our time for discussion we have a live motion this is normally when we vote but I do want to allow further discussion but let's try to keep it brief if we're able to Commissioner Baker yeah so I just on on the back of those questions and I think there's a good questions but I just want to remind everyone that this is something that will apply to the to the county jurisdiction to the entire county jurisdiction not just in this one case so just a reminder that's a that's a fair reminder and Commissioner Miller so I want to throw something out there that as I've been trying to decide how to vote on this backwards and back and forth one of the things that when I look at the current rules and the limitations there they seem to be for private streets are allowed but where we allow them we want them to be fairly small applications the exception to that I suppose would be PDRs I suppose you could have big multifamily developments but an even big conservation subdivisions but it seems to me that this would allow possibly in land that's already zoned for single family development in the county fairly large systems of private streets and I have to say there's something in me that I can understand a fairly small system of private streets that don't necessarily because private streets may be exclusive private streets mean private you don't have to let it be just anybody drive on them there's something in me that says that while it's it's appropriate to allow some of that to allow a lot of that is bad public policy and because I don't have a very strong sense of how of my concern is that we could one one consequence of this could be is we could wind up with some large subdivisions in the county jurisdiction that are already zoned single family don't have to come for us we would never know no rezoning required systems big swaths of land that are subject to a regime of private streets maintained by the state but available only to the two limited number of persons that makes me uncomfortable and so I'm going I'm going to vote against that against this because of that but primarily I'm persuaded by a commission member Durkin whose argument if I understood it correctly is a county wide change for one phase of one subdivision is not the way to go unless there is obvious county-wide merit thank you mr. stock just wanted to make sure we are clear that when we're talking about county jurisdiction we're talking about anything outside of the incorporated city right just want to make sure we're clear thank you all right with that we do have a motion and a second on the table and seeing no additional discussion on the motion I would ask for a roll call vote please commissioner al-Turk no commissioner Johnson no mr. Baker no mr. Brian yes mr. Siderfield no mr. Durkin no mr. Hyman no mr. Busby yes mr. Miller no mr. Kenshin yes mr. Hornbuckle yes mr. Williams yes the motion fails five seven great thank you very much a reminder even a failed motion will continue to the governing body for review debate correct we are on to new business and we have two major items we have the annual election of officers and then commissioner brine has added items as well on the commissioner and the election annual election of officers I'll ask miss Smith to help number one remind us of the process that we have and then also to open the election process I lost my place when I moved my notebooks to hang on one second or and I'll just note that and and miss Smith you can remind me if I get this correct or not we have one year terms for a chair and a vice chair and they can serve two consecutive terms they're then term limited and we then switch from a city between a city appointee and a county appointee that is correct so I'm a city appointee I've finished my first year vice-chair Hyman is the vice chair and has finishing her first year having been chair previously that is correct okay basically you just said what I was going to say so we normally for time no you're good no you're right on time so you are eligible for election anyone obviously anyone else is eligible for election our staff will take the nomination and I'll be glad to tally a vote for you if that's what you'd like for me to do I think it's a nice way to go about things okay so normally we go ahead and do the nomination for the chair so who wouldn't like I would like to nominate Commissioner Busby for chair second okay and can I get a show of hands or Commissioner Mr. Miller did you have something are you good well I was just wondering if there were other nominations well since we just voted I would draw my I'm sorry I mean no one else jump with a substitute motion so you should have probably had a yeah jumped in ahead of me but so it looks like you got reelected sorry I put you in there now we'll take a nomination for a vice-chair I nominate Commissioner Hyman for vice-chair second do we have any other nominations can I get a vote show of hands please thank you very much enjoy your continued seats in rank I get a raise after this meeting I think what's double of nothing no I did personally just want to say thank you I've enjoyed it I've enjoyed working with all of you and looking forward to one final year as the chair I think Mr. Ryan had a couple of announcements thank you something that in view of the discussion tonight people might find interesting the North Carolina Department of Transportation is initiating at least the information gathering phase of a project to widen NC 54 from 15501 in Chapel Hill to NC 55 in Durham it's going to take a while it's probably going to be much more expensive than their thinking but at least there's a project number STI P you 5774 so we may get some improvements in that roadway down the line the second item I wanted to mention is that I have another set of duties on the board of trustees at the University of the South and I will be at a trustee meeting on October the 9th so I would appreciate an excused absence great thank you for the heads up and then we will remember to vote to give you an excused absence next month thank you a commission I'm talking of next month I will make a note of that Mr. Brian for you and we'll be sure that we bring that back next month for your attention we do have several items on the agenda for next month and I was actually working on that summary and didn't quite finish before I came up to you so it's rather long anyway there's several zoning cases I'm not limited to but including pinecrest and the romp yes and we have the continued future land use map change for forest hills coming back and we have a couple of other items several items on the agenda so I send out a summary tomorrow and if you have any questions please contact the case planner directly or myself great thank you and if you're reading between the lines it's going to be a long meeting with a lot of hot issues so bring a snack bring a snack or or find a board like commissioner Brian to serve on requires your attendance elsewhere commissioner meller so mr. chairman I have a request and it's a request not only the commission but of staff because I'm actually asking for staff work the North Carolina independent the indie ran an article probably three or four weeks ago about controversy associated with development and rules having to do with the the open space land near Patterson place compact neighborhood tier would it be possible to get a kind of a staff briefing on on that and the staff's perspective of what's going on there how we handle the conversion of compact neighborhood tiers to design districts and the what actually happens on the ground we've seen it happen we've had what the experience at night street and now it's it's happening in other places I'd kind of like to know be briefed on what's happening with these and I read that article I'm not sure from reading the article I understood all of the issues we at least I received an email from an interest group associate who cares about what's happening over there and I would like to hear the staff's perspective at some at some future meeting maybe not the next meeting and then I also have to say that you know we're the planning commission we have a statutory duty to advise the elected bodies on what's happening in planning and I have to say I'm a little disturbed to see that the expanding housing choices program is so far along briefings to the elected body we've had no briefings at this level at all and at some point I would like to have us have a briefing I would hate to have that come to us as a ten minutes per side public hearing vote and then we're done second too big a deal for your first request the about the article in the nd I will check with staff and we can probably get something for you on the November agenda October is fairly loaded down and I'm not sure we can fit it in but I'll let you know at the next meeting for sure thank you thank assistant director young to speak to your other request I need to make it Sarah young with the planning department you are slated to get an informational item both on Patterson Place and on the expanding housing choices projects so those will be coming to you they will come to you in advance of a public hearing I don't know off the top of my head what the schedule says but you will you will get briefings in advance on both those items those are already built into the schedules excellent thank you thank you commissioner hyman yes so I wanted to make a statement only because I was asked a question about something that happened in our community that I am very proud of and that I owe a debt of gratitude to the city of Durham for and that includes the streets in front of my house in our community I happened to move in one of those failed communities and the streets were not done and it was not something that we you know we're aware of but I do I worked on that particular project and I just wanted to say because I know that my neighbors could be listening and everybody else that the city of Durham was able to complete those streets for us in conjunction with a new developer and it's something that we're very proud of and very proud of the way that we work with the city of Durham and getting that done so just wanted to say kudos thank you that's great any other comments commissioner Baker I'm curious about the zoning map change reports is there any way can I can I make a request that some additional information is provided is that within our review here I would be curious if in these reports we could see when there's a resident an application for residential development if we could see walking distance to schools parks and maybe a grocery store is that possible I don't want to add to I'm not going to be able to answer that like on the fly tonight okay we have something that you know but I will certainly look into that and report back okay thank you great seeing no additional comments I just again want to thank you all for your time this meeting is adjourned we'll see you next month