 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the Planning Commission City County Planning Commission meeting of September the 9th 2014 to order. 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 action before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign to sign up to speak. For those who wish to speak, please state your name and address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak clearly 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 each side. The time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak. If you have, if you are opposing a rezoning tonight, you should be aware of what is called a protest petition. A protest petition can be very helpful to those residents who live in the zoning area. Please consult the Planning Department staff for any details on a protest petition and they will be happy to help you. You should also keep in constant touch with the Planning Department as to when your case will go before the elected officials for a final vote. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. Could we have the roll call, Madam Clerk? Commissioner Bieland, Commissioner Busby, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Gibbs, Commissioner Freeman, Chair Harris, Commissioner Hollison, Hollison Worth, Commissioner Huff, Commissioner Hyman, Commissioner Miller, President, Commissioner Padgett, Commissioner Whitley, Commissioner Wonders. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Pat Young with the Planning Department. No adjustments to the agenda, but I can certify for the record that all public caring items before you tonight have been advertised in accordance with law and there are affidavits to that effect on file with the Planning Department. Okay, the Chair would like to add under new business announcements and announcement pending the results of A9A. Okay. You each were mailed a copy of the minutes. What's your pleasure for the minutes? Mr. Chairman, move approval. Motion by Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner Davis, that we approve the minutes as sent out by email. All those in favor of the motion to approve the minutes, please raise your right hand. Minutes has passed, 13 to zero. All those in opposition? Okay, thank you. Okay. We move down to public hearing. I open the public hearing for plan amendment with the concurrent zoning map change request for the corners at Briar Creek A120008 in zoning case 120019. Good evening. I'm Carla Rosenberg with the Planning Department. I'm here to present on corners at Briar Creek A120008. The applicant is Morningstar Law Group. They're proposing to amend approximately 62.5 acres of the future land use map from commercial and low-medium density residential to medium-density residential and commercial. This change would allow them to develop commercial space and multi-family residential on the site. Here is a map showing the broader area in the future land use context of the site. US Highway 70 runs diagonally from the bottom right corner to the upper left of the screen, bordering part of the site to the west, southwest. The site is located approximately one mile from Briar Creek Interstate by 40. There have been several recent changes to the future land use map for these parcels. The site sits along the border of Durham and Wake counties and is divided between both counties. The 1999 Durham Raleigh Annexation Agreement designated portions within Wake County for future annexation by the City of Durham. In 2014, Senate Bill 871 then transferred 1.07 acres from the City of Raleigh to the City of Durham. In the justification statement, the applicant explains that for the first parcel, the change of use from commercial to medium-density residential is due to environmental constraints, including deep, great changes, and perennial stream which would necessitate a strip style development if the site were developed under its present designation of commercial. The comprehensive plan specifically states to avoid this type of commercial development. The applicant justifies the change of parcel two from low-medium density residential to medium-density residential as being consistent with the increasing residential density along US Highway 70, including a range of multi-family developments either built or approved within one-mile radius of the site. The applicant justifies conversion of parcel three from low-medium density residential to commercial as the expansion of a commercial node. And we would add that the assignment of a commercial designation further expands the commercial node, and it's the result of the General Assembly's annexation of these two parcels into the City of Durham. Staff has reviewed the request against these four criteria found in the Unified Development Ordinance. For the first criterion, we found that the proposed amendment is consistent with land-use policies in the comprehensive plan, including those regarding commercial node spacing and continuous development. For the first policy, it recommends separation of distinct nodes of commercial development in the suburban tier, spacing them by at least one-half mile and clustering them at major intersections. For the second, it supports orderly development patterns that take advantage of existing urban services and avoids leapfrogging or non-contiguous scattered development. I'm sorry. And the third discourages strip development in favor of commercial nodes with internal connections. And so for the second criterion for plan amendments, we found that the proposed land uses are compatible with patterns of increased multi-family residential and commercial development occurring along this corridor toward the east at Briar Creek. They also created transition between the commercial node and lower-density residential uses to the north. And for the third criterion, we determined there would be no substantial adverse impact with regard to infrastructure, environmental protection, or future demand for land uses. And finally, staff determined that the site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed residential land use. And so the request meets all of the criteria for plan amendments and the staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions, we'll take them. And I would like to present Amy Wolfe to present on the zoning. Good evening, Amy Wolfe with the Durham City County Planning Department. For the zoning request that applicant is pre-scraven and associates. This site is within the city's jurisdiction, as Ms. Rosenberg mentioned about the recent annexations. So the present designation is rural residential in the city's jurisdiction to plan development residential at 12 units an acre and commercial general with the development plan. The total site is 122.22 acres and the proposed use is for residential units in the plan development residential portion of the site and for non-residential development in the commercial general designation of the site. The site is 12 parcels. It's in the suburban tier. It's mostly in Wake County. You'll notice on this map the county line in yellow. Again, it was recently involved in some annexations in January of this year effective March 31st, as well as more recently in July. So the northern portion of the site, 61.68 acres is proposed for plan development residential at 12 units an acre, which would yield a maximum of 603 units and they propose a maximum height of 60 units. This does meet the minimum standards of the PDR or plan development residential district. For the commercial general district with a development plan, it meets the site minimum acreage at 60.54 acres. The minimum site is 20,000 square feet. It's well over that. And the request does meet all the minimum standards of the district and it designates 390,000 maximum square feet of non-residential. Here's the existing conditions of the site outlined in red is the boundaries of this project. There's a number of constraints on the project or on the site. There's wetlands on this southern four acres to the south of T.W. Alexander. There's some wetlands in that portion of the site north of T.W. Alexander, which is about 118 acres. There are some streams. There is a power line easement running through the site. There's also a sewer easement and a pump station near the confluence of the streams. This represents the proposed conditions of the site. In the blue is the plan development residential portion and the pink outline is the commercial general portion of the site. There's a number of transportation or traffic improvements associated with this amount of intensity proposed. There was a traffic impact analysis that had many recommendations for improvements in the area and I will briefly go over those. They're also detailed in your staff report. I will reference a number of roads. T.W. Alexander is here. Here is the Loop Road. This is Street A. This is ACC Boulevard extension and Cozart Road is on the eastern portion of the southern PDR piece. Andrew's Chapel Road extends from the eastern boundary of the site this way. The commitment of this proposal is a maximum of 603 residential units that would be on the PDR portion of the site. Maximum of 309,000 square feet on the commercial general portion of the site. There's two potential stream crossings. I want to note the staff report was an error. It mentioned one. There are in fact two identified on the plan. There are eight site access points. The impervious surface maximum is 82.5%. The tree coverage is identified at 15.1%. There are graphic commitments on the site which is tree preservation areas and those eight site access points. There's a number of committed roadway improvements. I'm not going to read them all. They are detailed in the staff report. They are a result of the traffic impact analysis and if you have any questions where staff is available to answer that. This site was reviewed by I believe two different jurisdictions of NCDOT. So it had a thorough analysis. There are text commitments as well which include dedication or ride away to accomplish those traffic improvements as well as dedication of a Greenway easement for the Briar Creek Trail along Briar Creek. Again more dedication of ride away to accomplish those traffic improvements mentioned as well as strengthening pavement on Andrews Chapel Road. There are design commitments associated with requests because this request would allow for multi-family residential as well as non-residential development. Those are the two criteria that would require design commitments. This request is not consistent with the future land use map of our comprehensive plan. You heard the staff report by Ms. Rosenberg for your consideration. It is consistent with all the other applicable policies of our comprehensive plan and for that reason staff determines that should the plan amendment be approved this request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and staffs available for your questions. Thank you Amy. I have one person signed up to speak on this item. I represented for the applicant attorney Patrick Biker. You have 10 minutes. I should need a lot less than that Mr. Chairman. Good evening Chairman Harris members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Biker and I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group in Durham. I'm here tonight representing the property owner Creekwood Highway 70 Alexander LLC. We are requesting your recommendation of approval for this plan amendment and zoning map change for slightly more than 120 acres that is located primarily in Wake County at the intersection of T. W. Alexander Drive and Glenwood Avenue. With me tonight are our traffic engineer Earl Llewellyn with Kim Lee Horne and also our site engineer Ben Williams with Priest Craven. Since you all have just heard a thorough staff report on the plan amendment we don't have a whole lot to add on this topic. In a nutshell we're requesting this plan amendment because the commercial area along this part of US 70 needs to be consolidated at the T. W. Alexander intersection. This plan amendment will create an attractive commercial center rather than unattractive strip commercial development. Also it's important to locate residential buildings on parcels that need to be developed with more sensitivity to environmental constraints such as stream buffers. Accordingly we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval for this plan amendment. In regard to our zoning map change we are calling this approximately 120 acre development the corners at Briar Creek. The northern half of this development will be a mix of apartments and townhouses and the southern half close to Alexander Drive and US 70 will be commercial. The Briar Creek sub market is strong for multifamily and it's even stronger for retail. The corners at Briar Creek represents a tremendous opportunity for the city of Durham to get a piece of the action in this hot corner of Wake County. Based on anecdotal evidence it appears that many East Durham residents are spending a considerable portion of their disposable income in Raleigh at Briar Creek. The retail component of the corners at Briar Creek is Durham's opportunity not only to reduce this sales tax leakage but also to attract Raleigh residents to spend their money within the Durham city limits. So in conclusion we're very excited to bring to you this evening the corners at Briar Creek. We've been working for two years on this ambitious project and we think it will be a great asset for the city of Durham. We respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval and are too happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you sir. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item? If not then I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back before the commissioners. Are there members of the commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Gibbs and then Commissioner Milford. This first question is for for a staff. In our notes it said that there will be a traffic separation between 70 and TW Alexander. Do we know whether which which one of those is going to go over the other just out of curiosity as much as anything. Bill Judge with transportation know it would be too early to definitively say which road would go over which based on some of the preliminary functional designs. It's probably more likely that TW Alexander would go over 70 but until the actual interchange gets into hard design design work that would still be yet to be I didn't do that. Thank you Mr. Judge. In the notes that I read and of the other other people that have reviewed this there are several stream buffers and I it seems that the concern has been met by what you have proffered and what you are planning to do. I am wondering there was one concern and I know this has nothing to do with this right now but ACC Boulevard it dead ends on the edge of your property and picks up again on TW Alexander. Is that going to connect sometime in the future and I know it's going to be done by somebody else but it will cross one of the stream buffers I was just curious about that also. That's a very good question Commissioner Gibbs that extension of ACC Boulevard is on privately owned property and I believe it's within the jurisdiction of the city of Raleigh but having said that I think when that property redevelops it will be extended by that development yes sir. Well other than that I think this is going to be a it sounds like it's going to be a nice development and that concludes my comments. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have some questions for staff. I want to understand a little bit better what the level of service on these roads is going to be after this project is built out. Can somebody come to the mic and tell me about that. The applicant did perform a traffic impact analysis that analyzed the intersections one year after built out of the site. It was reviewed by the city of Durham and CDOT and City of Raleigh as well because the number of the intersections impact them and they are providing all the acceptable levels of service at the various intersections. What are their location. Can you tell me what the level of service would be on TW Alexander and also on 70. The intersection of US 70 and TW Alexander would be a level service D and by the AM and the PM peak hour have built out with the improvements with the developers improvements. With the developers improvements. Yes. And then I have another question if I may Mr. Chairman for the applicant. The version of the development plan that we get is difficult for me to read because it is small. So I was hoping you could confirm for me. Do you have any commitment concerning the mix of apartments and townhouses that you propose to build. Our educated guest Commissioner Miller is perhaps one quarter townhouses and three quarters apartments but as a large project it'll be a long process. I would plan to start with the commercial section and then get to the residential which obviously makes sense. You work north from the intersection so it'll really be dictated by market conditions when we get there. So it'd be really conjectured but that's the that's what appealed to us about the PDR designation is that allows flexibility to respond to market demands and they're both successful townhouse communities and successful apartment communities in the prior Creek development. So is it possible under the current commitments that it could be all apartments or all townhouses. It could be either one that's correct. And you have a 60 foot height limit. Do you have any do you envision on what these buildings might look like. It would be to be brutally honest the answer is no but they would be. We're trying to mix in with the successful multifamily that's already there and 60 foot height limit is is very acceptable to us. We certainly have no intention of asking for coming back to ask for exceeding that. Thank you. I have one final question for for staff. Is there any way that anybody that you could show the future land use map for this area actually a larger area than that. So essentially one of my principal concerns is that as I read the comprehensive plan and look at the future land use map for Highway 70. We talk about commercial nodes and trying to avoid continuous strip development along Highway 70. But I'm concerned that if we make every intersection along Highway 70 in Durham County in this area a commercial node that we're going to wind up with a strip of commercial nodes along Highway 70 that will make the road unattractive and a mess. And so what I'd like to do is have somebody convince me that creating a commercial node here at TW Alexander with 50 acres of general commercial development is a good thing and promotes this notion that we will then have some spacing and distance between commercial developments along Highway 70 in Durham County. Just beyond this in Wake we have a gigantic commercial node. I don't even call it a node. That's it's a town called Briar Creek. And I'm concerned that if we don't manage growth well as we come as you go west along 70 from this point into the city that we're just going to have a mess. And I want to be assured that this isn't step one in creating the mess. Whoever can answer that. Mr. Commissioner Miller Pat Young with the Planning Department certainly a very valid concern. I think one of the top concerns when the 2005 COMP plan was adopted was to not encourage strip development as you've described. There is a policy as you're probably aware that prohibits us from recommending any new commercial node that's within a half mile of another commercial node. And so this does meet this test for Durham. You're certainly correct that this is a western extent of a very large commercial node at Briar Creek in Wake County. So in the bottom line is we've evaluated this that there are not any commercial nodes in Durham County. There are some non-conforming or pre-existing commercial uses but not commercial nodes to the to the west on 70. And we would not we would not recommend any commercial new commercial nodes with a half mile of the site if this has been approved. Thank you. Commissioner Wanda's. It's it it seems to me that this is a well-designed plan and and it's in the zoning is an improvement over what what we've got now. I think my questions are would relate to the what the city needs to do to or if the city is policies are going to make good good development in this area. And I was wondering I'm thinking about transit it's not served by by transit it says it's no transit in a quarter within a quarter of a mile or half a mile or something of the site. And we if we have all this commercial development and and dense housing I'm wondering if we're going to have labor force problems if there's no transit. Commissioner Winder's I'm sorry if I didn't catch that in the staff report no their data route 15 serves this site there is a bus stop on Alexander Drive at our frontage. And for those of you who remember I was back when Durham had a bus authority I actually served as the chairman and it was my idea to have bus service that connected Durham to Briar Creek. So no good deed goes unpunished. And so no it was there is a there's a bus there right now. So if that if the staff work didn't mention that I apologize for not catching it but there is data bus service there serves the Wake Med facility that's on Alexander Drive today. I'm glad you asked that question. Thank you. Commissioner Whitley. I have a question. Mr. Biker. Can we get a committal of bus shelters. I was forcing my clients not here. Pat I don't want to step on your toes about a commitment. We've certainly worked that out in the past a bus shelter at this location. So what we've Mr. Chair if I might what we were just discussing was that I can't directly dispute with Mr. Biker as represented about the stop on the site. But the best information we have is that the current the closest current site is at the Walmart site which is over a quarter mile. There's a bus. There's a sign right on our client's property saying data bus route 15. So if that's changed and they left the sign there. I didn't have any control over that. Sure. And that's why I'm saying I just that's the best information we have here. Yeah. Can we commit to look into it Commissioner Whitley and if it's something that's feasible and makes sense then we'll work with it before I get to the city council. It worked for me. Keep that in the record and I'll follow up with with you all later. Very good. I appreciate the concern. Right. I can tell you how big a boost this would be for East Durham. You know our neighborhoods closest to the airport. And we have five different routes to go out of East Durham into by Creek area. So and the idea of money coming from East Durham to be spent in Wake County has always been a problem for me. But here we got a chance to vote on a project that's going to be beautiful and smart. And I'm going to supply a need to members of East Durham. When the time comes I would like to make a motion on this on this. Mr. Chairman hold it just a second commissioner. Freyman. Mr. Biker I just wanted to ask if there was any committal or property or areas of the land being reserved for schools or anything of this sort with that. There are Wake County schools in close proximity so that was not necessary with this project. So they would be in Wake County. The of the hundred and twenty two acres I believe a hundred and fifteen are in Wake County. OK if there are no other comments and before you make a motion when you speak please speak into the mic. Commissioner Hymans. Yes I I think this is a great project and it looks wonderful on paper. I have just one question primarily because you know projects tend not to develop the way that you know they fully intended. There are lots of changes that are recommended to the roads. Is there any possibility or any indication that some of all of the changes that have been planned will not happen. We have no indication of that Commissioner Hymans. This is a strong sub market. If if if commercial can't work in the Briar Creek sub market then something's really gone off a cliff and we've got we've got good interest from really top quality commercial tenants for this location so. You know there are no guarantees in life that's for sure but this this looks like a good. A good bet. Thank you. I appreciate the concern. Thank you. OK before we go back to the second round are there any other commissioners who have a spoke that would like to speak on this. OK Commissioner Miller. I just like to follow up on Commissioner Hymans question how are the road improvement commitments tied to the development or completion of the project or are they tied at all. So Commissioner Miller and other commissioners Pat Young again with the planning department as is typically the case. All the transportation improvements are committed as presented to you so they're required to be provided. The one caveat or nuance is that they can be timed. They can be phased if the development develops at a slower pace than is anticipated. If there's cause and there's justification provided by a transportation engineer in the train our transportation department approves the phasing so they can be phased over time to be concurrent with the need for the improvement. So there's not any commitment at this time that they all be provided prior to first CEO or anything like that. But that is our standard requirement unless there is a phasing analysis completed. Bill wants to add to that. Bill Judge Transportation that's correct. I believe the right away dedications are also typically they are tied required prior to any building permit but they they've been phased in the text commitments to basically be tying to the building permits for the various zoning districts or phases where they'd be doing work. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chairman that's all I have. The chair recognize Commissioner Miller. I mean Commissioner Whitley, Mike on. I would like to move that case Z one to a plan commitment first. I would like to move that Z one to a one to. Okay. Eight eight one I would like to move that a one to zero zero zero zero eight. Be approved. And I'll second. Motion by Commissioner. Whitley second by Commissioner pageant that. Case a one to zero zero zero zero eight be approved. All those in favor let it be known by show your right hand. All those opposed show the right hand. Case a two zero zero zero zero eight has passed eleven to two. And now the chair will entertain a motion for the zoning. Case Commissioner patch. I'll make I'll make the motion that we approve the zoning case Z one two zero zero zero one nine second. Motion by Commissioner pageant second by Commissioner Miller that we approve zoning case Z one two zero zero zero one nine. All those in favor let it be known by show of right hands. All those in opposition. Case Z one two zero zero zero one nine has passed thirteen to zero. Okay. Right Mr. Chair. Can I just make one comment about what we just finished up. It's not a really important thing but it's something that. I said that if I had another opportunity I'd like to. Differentiate between East Durham and Eastern Durham. East Durham is a relatively smaller area. Than Eastern Durham and it it seems to be that. East Durham is applied to everything from. Holloway Street to. Down to Oak Grove. And the only reason I mention it is because that they are to. East Durham is in Eastern Durham and there is a lot more people. Involved. In Eastern Durham. And East Durham is the one that is the historic district. And. Just to keep it. Keep its identity as such. And that's. That's all I wanted to comment on. Okay thank you for that point of person personal privilege. Okay now the chair with open public hearing on zoning map change request. Madry residential Z one four zero zero zero zero zero seven. Good evening Amy Wolf with the planning department. This is the zoning case number Z one four zero zero zero zero seven for Madry residential. Applicants Thomas Earl Madry senior. This is within the city's jurisdiction and the request is from the present designation of residential suburban twenty. Office institutional. And commercial neighborhood to office institutional with a development plan. The site is twenty five point three five acres and the request is for proposed use of one hundred and seventy five multifamily residential units. The request is for parcels in the northeast quadrant of Barbie Road and. And see fifty four highway. The rear of the site are opposite the frontage of fifty four highway is residential suburban twenty with office institutional and commercial neighborhood along the N. C. fifty four frontage. The site is within the suburban tier. It is encumbered by the F. J. B. watershed protection overlay as well as the major transportation corridor overlay. The request does meet the standards of the office institutional with a development plan district. The minimum area is twenty thousand square feet. This site is twenty five point three five acres which is over a million square feet. The. Oh I district allows up to eleven dwelling units an acre. The applicant is requesting seven point three five dwelling units an acre which would yield a maximum of one hundred and seventy five units. And the district allows for a maximum height of fifty feet. Again the site is twenty five point three five acres. It was most recently used for horticulture and agriculture uses as well as retail stores sell those products. There are a couple farm prop ponds on on the site as well as a small portion of the stream along the eastern boundary. And there are some existing buildings on the site which are proposed to be removed. The proposed conditions show the committed access points there's three of them tree preservation areas there's also three of those along the rear portion. As well as two portions along the eastern boundary of the site. As well as the stream buffer. There's also a number of commitments. At a maximum of one hundred and seventy five residential units the three side access points a maximum of seventy percent impervious surface which is also dictated by the watershed protection overlay. And thirteen point four percent tree preservation. The graph commitments are the tree preservation areas and those access points. There's also some text commitments which includes commitment of housing type for apartments and townhouses dedication of right away along the frontages of the site as well as. Roadway improvements for site access. And asphalt along Barbie Road and for turn lanes as well. In those with those improvements. Because the site would like to have the option to do multifamily or it's a committee to multifamily which is apartments or townhouses. Design commitments are required and they have been provided more details in your staff report. They are summarized here. This request for office institutional is consistent with our office land use category on our comprehensive plan. Excuse me on our future land use plan of the comprehensive plan. So this request is consistent with that as well as the other applicable policies of our comprehensive plan. And staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. Staff is available for your questions. Thank you. I have one person signed up to speak to Rod Eaton. He's speaking in favor of it. You have 10 minutes. Good evening. Jared Edens with Edens Land Corp. I appreciate your time tonight. I appreciate Amy's summary of our project. I'm just going to reiterate a few points and provide a little bit of additional information. As Amy mentioned the zoning is consistent with the future land use plan. I know that traffic is an issue on 54. I understand that. But this proposed zoning actually reduces traffic from what the current designation would allow. Transportation zone calculations say that over 600 fewer trips would result from this zoning designation than what's currently allowed. We are widening Highway 54 and Barbie Road providing left turn lanes and right turn lanes on 54 and Barbie Road. We are also offering to provide a four foot bike lane along the frontage of the property on both Barbie and 54. I believe this residential use makes sense for the area. You've got significant shopping at South Point nearby. We did have a neighborhood meeting on July the 9th with three people in attendance. We have no opposition that I'm aware of. And I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for butching your first name. But I've been called so much worse by some of the people up here. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this issue. If not I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. We have commissioners wishing to speak. Commissioner Davis commissioner Miller commissioner Busby. Okay. Commissioner Davis. This question is for staff with the road improvements to this site. Is there any direct correlation with I think the existing new development that the metals at South Point that we confirmed that that is the access point there. And if not. Has it been in consideration to because I know they profit some road improvements as well with their projects. I don't want to belabor the point but I want to make sure that all these concerns get addressed. Yes. The intention is that that access point will have to line up with the one for the metals at South Point across the street. I believe the applicants aware of that project and hopefully is coordinating with that. And my last question is I understand the road improvements are based on a phase development. However with much development that is potentially here is anyway we could get the road improvements not as a phase development and just have the improvements already there. I was looking said it here. As a phase plan. So I guess as many as you do construction and there would be the need for the improvement. So would the improvements be based on the fact that it could be a hundred and seventy five units here. I'll chime in if you don't mind. But the way to text them I read it says prior to the issuance of a single. C. O. the first one all of the the prior to the first C. O. all of the improvements have to be in. Okay so we won't be able to face it. Thank you. Commission Villa. That's a question for the applicant. Does your development plan commit you to building residential only. Yes it's a hundred seventy five units max and it's either apartments and or town homes but that is a commitment. Thank you. And commissioner bus. Just had a question for staff it's it's encouraging when a big traffic area to see is going to be a decrease in traffic any long term concerns in the water. Supply issue I know that the water use for this area will go up. But we still have. Looks like we're in good shape long term just curious. First steps. Point of view. Based on our general and Amy Wolf of the planning department based on our general analysis with the information that we have there's capacity. Presently as well as in the future for for water capacity. We do keep track of that in a general sense. And provide that to you so we don't anticipate with this development that that'll be an impact. Thank you a significant impact. I see no other comments from the commissioners. I have a motion for approval. Commissioner Whitley. I move. That we approve. Z one four. Zero zero zero zero zero seven. Second. Motion by. Mission of Whitley second by Miller. That we approve zoning case Z's one four zero zero zero zero seven. All those in favor let it be known by the raise of the right hand. All those in opposition. Case number. Z one four zero zero zero zero seven has passed thirteen to zero. The chair will now. Open the public hearing for. Bride Creek assemblage. In this. Z one four zero zero zero nine eight. Good evening Amy Wolf of the planning department. This next case is an initial zoning. For Briar Creek assemblage initial case Z one four zero zero zero nine eight. That this is the applicant is the city of Durham again this is associated with. An annexation case. The request. The geography of the site straddles the Durham. Wake County line. In Durham County presently in Durham County's jurisdiction. The site is residential rural and in the city of Raleigh is residential for and. C. U. D. T. D. which is a thoroughfare district for the city of Raleigh to the city of Durham's jurisdiction all rural residential. The site is a hundred and fourteen point one seven acres and again this is an initial zoning. Anticipating newly annexed. Land which is. Council's decision. Or be will be considered by council. The site is for a non contiguous zoning there are four parcels associated with this site. It. Again straddles the Durham. Wake County line and is south of Andrews Chapel road and also south of Lee'sville road. South and west of Lee'sville road. And staff determines this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and city policy for initial zoning. Will also like to note that there is a pending application for the same site that is still under review. That is a request for a P. D. R. district. Of approximately five hundred residential units. When that is reviewed and it will come before this. Planning Commission. I came and one person signed up to speak in favor of and Jarrett. Okay so the applicant. Representatives available for questions if any. Are there any other people in the public that would like to speak on this issue. If not then we'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners. Are there commissioners that would like to speak on. This particular issue. If not then the chair will entertain a motion for approval. Mr chairman I'd like to move the approval of the briar creek assemblage initial rezoning. C. K. C. 14. Zero nine. Second. It's been motioned by. Commissioner Miller second by. Commissioner Buxby that we approve zoning case one four zero zero zero nine a. All those in favor let it be no more show the right hand. All those in opposition. Case zero Z one four zero zero zero zero nine a has passed thirteen zero. Next we have. Item a on the agenda unified development ordinance. I. L. Project boundary buffer T. C. one four zero zero zero zero two. Good evening Michael stock with the planning department. Text amendment application T. C. fourteen zero zero zero two is a privately initiated. Text amendment from the morning star law group. To reduce required project boundary buffer. For properties that are zoned I. L. that are also. Less than four acres in size. And also only when adjacent to. High. Heavy industrial eyes owning districts. The amendment would reduce the potential one hundred percent buffer opacity. To a forty percent opacity. With a corresponding reduction in the buffer with. Requirement. The specifics are within your. Agenda packet. As part of this request of the planning staff suggest a minor reorganization of. Of U. D. O. paragraph nine four three for clarity. This change would create a new paragraph nine four three C. In this paragraph staff has relocated. The current buffer modification standards found. Within paragraph B. And is added the proposed standard discussed. Above no other changes are proposed so in your draft ordinance you'll see. A whole bunch of. Strike throughs all that strike through language. Has been reorganized into paragraph C. And I highlighted. In bold. The new language. So. Just for ease for ease of review and for clarification purpose. I'll be happy to any questions- represented for morning star law group here- is here for any questions also. And my assumption is- Patrick you're here to answer questions of would you like to make a statement. If you indulge me with a couple minutes of your time I'd appreciate. Have you wonderful thanks. Good evening chairman Harris members of the planning commission. Again it's Patrick biker and. I still live at twenty six fourteen Stuart drive- I'm an attorney with morning star law group and I'm here tonight representing Wendy's international. We're requesting your recommendation of approval for this text amendment. To reduce the required buffer between parcel zone I. L. and parcels of less than four acres that are zoned industrial. I thought the staff report for this text amendment to define job of outlining them the important issues so we don't really have a whole lot to add on this item. Long story short Wendy's wants to replace its store on Hillsborough road that is over thirty five years old and has a tax value of one hundred fifty five thousand dollars. Replace that with a new store they'll let new jobs. And have a tax value this in significantly higher than the status quo. When we first looked at redeveloping this parcel on Hillsborough road we saw that it was two hundred feet deep and that there is an industrial zone parcel behind Wendy's with a twelve thousand five hundred square foot warehouse on it. Under the current regulations is twenty five foot street set back and then because the property behind Wendy's is owned industrial. There's an eighty foot buffer imposed. In order in order to redevelop the Wendy's site. So the two hundred feet that we have to work with. We lose a hundred and five feet more than half of the property to buffers and set back. To me that just does not make sense in contrast I think it does make sense to request a minor text amendment that will spur redevelopment opportunities like the one we've just discussed for Wendy's. We respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval and I'll be happy to answer any questions thank you for your time. Thank you are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item. If not then we'll close the public hearing bring it back before the commissioners. I have a commissioner Huff commissioner Miller commissioner Freeman commissioner Busby. Okay so we'll start with her and commissioner. Yeah I got. What happens if the property that is behind it that's now zoned it industrial. What happens if it's re zoned this industrial light property now has you know doesn't have. The buffers that it might have if that other property was zoned say I don't know lower zoning of some kind. It would still have to meet the buffer requirements for whatever that zoning would be if it were commercial to industrial light it would still have to meet the it would be no change from the status quo. In terms of the buffering regulations. Yeah yeah I understand but you've already built something that has a lighter buffer than you would if you were next to a residential area correct. I mean if Wendy's is if you redevelopment developed this place and you put in a minimal buffer because you have an industrial piece of property next to it. If that zoning next to it changes. You're not going to have a buffer to suit perhaps the zoning of the changed property. Right. Do you follow me. I follow you but if it were down zone the down zone then the buffer would go down according to the buffer table that's in the UDO today. And so it would still have it would still meet the buffer requirement that's that would be imposed for whatever the rezoning would be. No I understand that and just to be clear no residential is allowed in either IEL or industrial. I do understand that. So there's no issue of there being a residential use on either of these parcels or in any IEL or IZone properties. Right but if it's rezoned if it's rezoned residential if it were rezoned to some other zoning then you'd have then you'd have a piece of property that that I mean I think there's a reason why people put the buffers in for light industrial is that they wanted to keep. Right. And it'll still be there there'll still be point four buffer on the industrial light zone parcel. Which is if it were industrial light next to residential I think it'd be a point four buffer as well. I'm not sure but I believe it would be. So that wouldn't change. So stop. You want some you want to add something to that. Oh no I was if there's a question I'll be happy to answer it. Okay. Commissioner Miller. So while you're standing there. I looked at the table of permitted uses for these two zones and I was trying to construct in my mind. Why this buffer was created in the first place between these two zones is there and could not come up with a good answer but is there. An ostensible reason why the buffer of this magnitude. Was thought appropriate between to divide these two zones. I was not party to the. Creation of these buffer standards at that time. And so I could not. Come up with any reasonable. Conclusion as to why there is a. Either a buffer between the two zones or why there's such a high buffer requirement between a light industrial zoning district and a heavy industrial zoning district. And the one that's proposed. Appears to be reasonable to the planning staff and it's very consistent with all the other buffer requirements. That is required for I.L. zoning against other similarly intense. Zoning districts. And so my next question if I may Mr. Chairman. It's also for the staff. Have you looked at the zoning atlas to determine. And. Get a kind of a general picture of. Of what the impact of this text amendment might have on other parcels. Where we have a. Conjunction of industrial and light industrial. And is there anything out there that we need to anticipate might be a problem before we vote. Yeah I I I had our GIS staff kind of take a look at where where are their locations where. I.L. zoning districts are abutting. Heavy industrial I zoning districts and it's it's all. Ninety nine point nine percent is all existing. Heavy industrial against other industrial or light industrial segments. There's one area on Ellis Road that has. Residential in. A heavy industrial district and next to it is in is residential it's it's all established. Residential along which is also already makes us right across the street from a concrete plant to. Which is also already zoned. Heavy industrial so other than. That and. Notice there I'd we didn't see any negative impact with the. Proposal. So in that's one instance where we actually have in Congress uses in these zones. Are you concerned at all that that this change. Might put the residential development in either of the two districts at any kind of risk or or or leave it inappropriately protected. Now I didn't see any concern whatsoever that where it's residential it's they're currently. Not residential uses are currently nonconforming uses. But be that as it may. The. Have been asked. The maps here but the. Heavy and dust the light industrial zone. Parcel that is residential is less than was around a quarter acre site. Next to around a half acre or an acre site of residential property that is. Industrial zone which is across the street from the concrete plant. So that's about that's the extent of the. I don't. Let me let me add to that I'm sorry Mike there there's a provision in the ordinance might be you can help cite it for us. That says that if there's a residential use even if it's an industrial zone the residential. But the buffer has to be full buffer as this as if it was a residential use rather than an industrial use has to be provided that's correct and that's unchanged that's unchanged that's unchanged and that's actually in the text. Before you. That's what I saw. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah thank you. Commission of Freightman. Sorry my time I just have a question regarding I'm sure there's some logic behind I just want to understand it in that. You're using the text amended amendment versus a variance. Yeah this would be a poor variance case. I don't know if it's good or bad but as a lawyer I advise my clients to follow the law. And state law requires that for a variance. You have to prove that the reason for the variance was not caused by the action of the applicant. And so if Wendy's were to tear down the store that would trigger the eighty foot buffer and so in order to ask you wouldn't be entitled to a variance under state law. And so looking at what the options were this appeared to be the right course of action and. I sincerely believe it does create better opportunities for redevelopment in Durham than than what we have now with the. Eighty foot buffer requirement. Commissioner Buksby. This is a question for staff commissioner Miller actually asked most of my questions. The one question I have left was any concerns on the stormwater runoff issues with the reduction of wetland or the buffers. They would have to meet all current stormwater regulations. This amendment does not affect any of that. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs. Well this is something I've wondered about for a long time even when residential backs up to residential while there is almost a doubling of the buffer. I think this makes sense. And I and again. Commissioner Miller's questions and staff your answers. Pretty much took care of my questions. So. That's it. Thank you. Commissioner Whitley. My my my question is a simple one. I've noticed along. That stretch. Of the lack of shelters. But shelters. And I think right beside. Right beside. Wendy's is. Is a bus stop. Could you help us get a shelf there. I'll be happy to ask them sir. Have it as. We're going to be putting in there's a missing link of sidewalks so when the stores redevelop that will put in a missing link of sidewalk on Hillsborough road that is sorely needed as well and I know we'll be doing that but I'll certainly ask the question. Happy to. Any other. Commissioner Freeman. While we're at it if we could ask for it to speak up while we're at I'm asking you to speak up this is being televised. And I need to hear you. You know. I was just going to ask if there was any commitments for bike lanes as well. No this is a text amendment this is not. And they're not improvements proposed to Hillsborough road. This is just. Asking out if Wendy's in the goodness in their heart wants to put out a bus shelter for their patrons all. I'll ask the question. Commission and it's not a it's not a rezoning. Mr. Chairman if I may I normally do not like changing the text of the zoning ordinance to accommodate a particular piece of property but in this case. I'd like to make a motion to approve this text. Second. Motion. So is it appropriate. Yes. All right so I move that we change the aisle project boundary buffer is proposed by these applicants in case T.C. 14 0 2. I'll second. It's been motion by commissioner Miller. Second by commissioner pageant that we approve. T.C. 1 4 0 0 0 0 2. All those in favor let it be known that show me the right hand. All those opposed. Case T.C. 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 has passed 13 to 0. Thank you very much appreciate your time. All right so that concludes the business through 8 so we at new business now 9 a and I think. Pat is going to take over now. Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the commission this is the as designated by the interlocal agreement between the city and county. And by your bylaws this is the time for our annual elections. What I'm going to do is call in a moment call for nominations for chair. Once chairs elected the chair will will call for nominations for vice chair. I said that an email on this a while back but I'll remind you all that all 13 seated members are eligible to run for either. Seat however. Whichever body the chair is from the vice chair has to be from the other body so if a city member is elected the vice chair would have to be from the county and vice versa. So I'll be happy to at this time unless you have any questions which I'm happy to answer. Mr. Miller. I have no question but I do have a motion. Oh very good. Well so I'll take nominations and once nominations are closed I'll call for a vote I think. So I nominate our current chairman Mr. Harris for chairman. Very good. Any further and nominations do not need a second so. Any further nominations. Okay so I'll close the nominations and then ask for a vote for chair for David Harris. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Same sign. And that appears to pass 13 to 0 and I'll turn it back over congratulations. Chair Harris. Thank you very much. And now for the election of a vice chair the vice chair will have to be a county appointee. County appointees are Frederick Davis. Charles Gibbs. Elaine Hyman. Ricky Pageant. And Mr. Hollenworth on the end down there. And commissioners in front of each of those so. And commissioner Huff. And commissioner Huff I'm sorry. Okay. And commissioner Huff. So the floor is now open for nominations for vice chair. Mr. Chairman. I nominate commissioner Huff for vice chair. Commissioner Huff has been named has been placed in nomination. Commissioner Whitley. I nominate Frederick Davis for vice chair. Commissioner Davis has been placed into nominations. Are there other nominations for the position of vice chair. I nominate Elaine Hyman for vice chair. Elaine Hyman's commissioner Hyman's has been nominated for vice chair. Are there other nominations for vice chair. Are there other nominations for vice chair. Hearing no additional nominations. I would like to nominate commissioner Padgett. Okay. Commissioner Padgett name has been put in the nomination for vice chair. Can I openly decline. Let's close the nomination before we have people who wants to decline. So are there other nominations for vice chair. If not could I get a motion to close the nominations on the four said names. Move to close. Can I get a second. The motion is second that we close the nomination on the four said names. Now if we have anyone that like to bow out can we bow out before we vote. Okay. Commissioner Huff wants to bow out and commissioner Hyman's wants to bow out. So we have left commissioner Padgett out. So we have one left. No Davis. You have Davis. I said one left. That's Davis. Commissioner Padgett. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Well that makes it easy. I would like to move that we vote for the vice favorite Davis vice chair by acclimation. You'll hear a second today. Okay. Are there questions about the transaction of our acclimation. We're going to accept commissioner Davis as fast chair. If not all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed. Congratulations. Commissioner Davis. Okay. Okay. So I have one announcement. As Mr. White stated he referenced the procedure that we follow. And it's a procedure that we are governed by the Durham City County Unified Development Ordinance. We're governed by the interlocal between the city and the county. And we're also governed by the general statue of 160. From 360. 168 dash 360 to 387. And also general statue 153A. Now this was last revised on November the 10th. And we have found some irregularities or corrections that need to be made. So one of the things I'd like to do is to sign an ad hot committee to look at that and make those and they're mostly minor corrections. It's nothing major. But go on and amend this to correct those things. Also, and that was done on November the 10th. On November the 15th, 2011, the staff gave us basic rules, Robus Rules Basic. And at the conclusion of that, they recommended that the staff recommend the commission's hold a retreat to go over these documents to make sure everybody understands why we do what we do and I would like to go on and do that. This was, again, this was 2011 and nothing had been done since then. So after we get the recommendation from the ad hot committee about our rules of procedure, I would like to go on and schedule a retreat to go over the rules of procedure that we use and why we use what we use and also the Robus Rules Basic and so if, and I will get with staff and I also have to get with the vice chair and we'll come up with a plan of action of how to get this accomplished and I have a good friend, her name is Tannis Nelson, she is the chair of the North Carolina Association of Parliamentarians. She's from Wilson and I get her to come up to do the training for us. So if there are no objections, I would like to appoint a committee to be headed by attorney Miller to look at our rules of procedure and I hope everybody have a copy of this. If not, if I can get the clerk to send out a copy and I would like to work with Mr. Miller on this and also like the vice chair if you would work with us on that and we will come up with the corrections and maybe present it to you at our next meeting and then you have 30 days in which to massage it and we'll take an action on it and we'll also include the staff with this. Thank you Mr. Miller for volunteering. The staff, you have any additional announcements so what's coming up next month? Mr. Chair, next month we have three land use cases including the return of the Irwin at LaSalle case from last month. We have one text amendment and we have an informational update on the station area strategic infrastructure plan. And also if I may, just one other thing I wanted to mention so that you all can think about it until next month with the departures of commissioners Smudsky and Board we lost our planning commission representatives to the Durham open space and trails committee and the Durham Chapel Hill Orange group so we'll need two new commissioners to take those places and they can be, they are appointed by the chair. Yeah, they are, I did see that and I'm trying to find it here. Okay, the bike pedestrian commission so we lost, Smudsky was there right? Stas. He was, he was Durham open space and trails. And if I may I inform the chair I serve on the Durham open space and trails commission I'll be happy to play that role moving forward. Okay, and the development review board? The development review board has been dissolved so I guess you can point someone to that. I'll do that. Okay, and we have the Durham Chapel Hill working group. I don't know what that is. So there's a quarterly meeting between the staff and some elected and appointed officials between the city and counties of Durham city of town of Chapel Hill and Orange County that get together and talk about issues that may affect all the jurisdictions. And so one of the representatives is a member of the Durham City County Planning Commission. Who currently represents us? It was, it was Ms. Board. Okay. Commissioner Winder's, would you be interested in working on that? Quarterly meeting. It also includes free lunch. Oh, okay. Okay, so Commissioner Winder's has volunteered. Okay, the Joint City County Planning Commission, I currently serve on that. I will continue that. Open space and trails commission. Okay, yeah, that's Ms. Commissioner Busby. Okay, and do we have any others? Who is our bike peddler? Yeah, bike pedestrian commission. So thank you. Now, you look fit. Okay, is there anything else? Mike? Mike. I serve on a public advisory committee for parts and reg programs, for special programs. And that's just in case you needed another place to appoint somebody. But that's, that's where some of my other efforts are. Okay, and I also yesterday afternoon was appointed the Associate Supervisor for Soil and Water. Okay, if nothing else to claim my own attention, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. The motion will adjourn. The motion by the pageant does not require a second. All in favor. Let it be known by rising and leaving.