 So it's time for sure. You know what that is, right? It's going to be the all night. All day, all night. No, I'd started. Excuse me. How are you, Dan? I think we met. OK. I understand that. I'm all right. Yeah. That's quite loud. I don't know what to say. You've already been here. You can just, whenever, just sit it right there unless it's right there. OK. Thank you. I've got to try the one. Prince? Mm-hmm. I can feel the pressure. I'm going to get a whole bunch of needles. OK. I'm going to get mine done. That's the main one. I can catch you in a tool, right? Yeah. I'm a USA trucker. I feel the pressure. A while, and if you want me to weigh it. We got back. Yeah. I'm very sorry to hear that. It says if you love clean water, we can't buy a house for you. Long time ago. Yeah. I think you're trying to bring them back. The truck needs a cement. Oh, nothing like that. You're going to pass that down. I mean, no, no, no. Submenace to estimates, wild land foundation. Caroline? I wouldn't. More Valentine's candy coming. Courtesy of Michigan goes here. Go ahead and pass it down. You'll bring Thin Mints to Planning Commission and not share. I had a $10.50. Yeah, I ran in the LT block when it was at, I know we had a new commissioner. I know it was at Central. And the recount. OK. She was appointed sometime between the two packets. Because I had to revise agenda. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city council and the county commission, the board of commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. And you should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us this evening. If you wish to speak tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. And for those of you that wish to speak, please state your name and your address when you come speak at the podium. Each side, those speaking in favor and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes total to speak on the issue. And the time will be divided between everyone who is signed up to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you and do not be distracted by the Thin Mints and passed around. I'd also like to just take a moment before our roll call to welcome our newest commissioner, Ms. Carmen Williams. Welcome aboard. Thank you. If you if you don't mind love to just have you introduce yourself for a moment and I think you just got sworn in just in the last few days. So it's great to have you here. Yes, thank you very much. Carmen Williams originally from Durham Hillside native North Carolina Central University native as well. I'm very excited to be here and I was just sworn in hours ago. No better way than getting in the deep end. That's it. That's great. Thank you. We'll have a roll call please. Mr. Alturk. Here. Mr. Johnson. Present. Mr. Gosch. Present. Mr. Brine. Present. Mr. Shatterfield. Here. Mr. Harris. Here. Mr. Hyman. Present. Chair Busby. Present. Mr. Miller. Present. Mr. Ketchum. Present. Mr. Hornbuckle. Present. Mr. Van. Present. Mr. Gibbs. Present. And Commissioner Williams. Present. Thank you very much. We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statement from the January 9th, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Brine. Thank you. I feel a little odd since I missed the last meeting to even be commenting on the minute. But with respect to case Z1700031 and case Z1700036, I got the impression from reading the written and in each case made some additional pro offers at the commission meeting. If that is indeed the case, then the motion might should be recommend approval with additional pro offers. So that's one comment. My second comment on page three, the consistency statement that goes with case 0170036 does not match the action taken by the commission. And just to be clear, it's almost like you were here, so thank you. On your final, just to make sure I understand, on the final note that you made on Z170036, what would your recommendation be? Well, it was the same thing. I think if there was a pro offer made, then the motion should say with additional pro offers. I got the impression from reading comments that in each case, pro offers were made. Ms. Smith? Yes, staff can make all of those corrections and Commissioner Bryan is correct about the consistency statement, and we will make sure that is updated. And we can fix these minutes and send them back out to you if you can approve them with those edits. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes as amended according to the suggestions made by Commissioner Member Bryan. I moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner. Me, Harris. Harris? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 14 to 0. Great. Thank you. Adjustments to the agenda? Graceland Planning Department, I'm not aware of any adjustments that are needed this evening. I would like to make a note that all of the legal notifications that are required by local and state law have been executed, and the affidavits of such are on file in the Planning Department. In addition, we did update the agenda, and the agenda online reflects the addition of Commissioner Williams for the meeting tonight. We didn't give you guys an updated agenda, but we made sure for posterity that that was done. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the agenda as presented. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Outerque. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We will move forward. We will open with our first public hearing, and this is Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment with Concurrent Zoning Map Changes, cases A17 quadruple 08 and Z17 triple 019. This is 410 Crutchfield. We'll start with the staff report. Good evening, Jacob Wiggins of the Planning Department. This is two requests, a consolidated item for 410 Crutchfield Street. The applicant in this case is Mr. Kim Griffin, Jr. This is located in the city of Durham's jurisdiction. The two requests are to change the Future Land Use Map from medium to high density residential to office, and to also change the zoning map from residential urban five to office and institutional, roughly 1.7 acres at the subject site, and there was no development plan submitted with this request. The subject area is highlighted in red in front of you. This is also seen as attachment two in your packets. So the two properties are located at the intersection of Crutchfield and Duke streets, just a little north of the County Memorial Stadium, and just slightly south of where Duke Street and Roxborough come together in North Durham. The Future Land Use Map, as you can see, there is some existing office along Duke Street, or areas designated as office, I should say. North to the site is a mix of residential, commercial, and office districts. On the immediately north of the site, you find the medium to high density residential category. The Zoning Map, as I indicated, the applicant is currently zoned RU-5. They are requesting to change that to the OI designation. I mean, you see there's a fair amount of OI's own property located adjacent to the property, both to the south and to the east of the site. The Requested District, the Office and Institutional Zoning District. This is in the urban tier, which would permit a maximum of 90 feet in building height, any permissible uses that are allowed in that district. The ordinance requires in this area, since it isn't urban tier, there are maximum street yard setbacks, in this case, a 15 foot maximum street yard setback. Comprehensive Plan Policy is reviewed as part of this item. Three main policies and the Future Land Use Map. As I noted, the request is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The applicant is hoping to change that to a yes through the approval of the Future Land Use Map Amendment. And staff determines that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable policies and ordinances, and I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this time we'll move to open the public hearing process and we have three individuals who are signed up to speak for the proposal. And so we will split your time for 10 minutes and we'll start with Kim Griffin. I am Kim Griffin and I'm 1816 Front Street Griffin Associates Relters, the Masonic Body asked me to sell the property for them. It's a, as he said, a residential zone and all the requests that were coming in were for office type use. So we came in and applied for a change of zone to neighborhood commercial. We had a meeting. We had two couples from Carver Street show up and four other people. And they all said they would support it. Because we were talking about putting a specialty pharmacy in and then do small offices about 1,500 square feet. The planning department said they didn't think the neighborhood commercial was compatible with the neighborhood. So the pharmacist said that he could live in a square footage of 3,000 square feet which is not what he told us initially. So we changed to office institutional. We had our second neighborhood meeting in August. We had nobody attend except the Masons. And so the plan is that we have designed something that would accommodate an office building no more than two stories with an elevator and approximately 1,500 square foot units. So we think the office institutional is in keeping with what's up and down Crutchfield Street and what's in keeping with Duke Street except around Carver Street. The homes at Carver and Duke are residential but when you go back the other way, everything seems to be more office institutional. So I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. The next members of the Masons are here in the event you wanna ask them any questions. I believe they bought the property was purchased by the Masons in 1950. And over the years, there've been several plans to build a building there but they don't desire to do that any longer. They desire to sell that property and to build a Masonic body building somewhere else. Thank you. Next, we have Charles Plus. My name is Charles Plus. Address is 4457 Murphy School Road in Durham. Property isn't, home is in Orange County but it has a Durham address. The property that's in question, the York Wright Masonic bodies own that property but we cannot afford to build on that property. One of the reasons being the piece of property is more valuable than what we need. And to build a building, we have some other property that we've purchased on Guest Road and we need the funds from the property at Crutchfield and Duke Street to build that building. Mr. Hackett and I have been on a committee for the Durham York Wright bodies seven years ago, trying to get something done and run into a lot of problems in getting that done. And the only way that we see that we can wind up with a home for the masons in Durham is to be able to dispose of the more valuable property and be able to use those monies to build the Durham Masonic Center on Guest Road. We're very much in the town and the Masonic masons of Durham in the outlying areas. We very much need a property in the Durham City Limits. There was not one until Durham Lodge 352 purchased a property on Coal Mill Road but it is not suitable for the, or not suitable for the fellowship lodge nor the Durham York Wright Masonic bodies and other Masonic bodies that would use it. Do you have any questions of me about it? I'll be glad to answer them. Thank you. If any of the commissioners have questions, they may invite you back up and address you but for now we'll move on to Mr. Joe Hackett who's our final citizen who signed up to speak. My name is Joe Hackett, I live at 3011 Shady Grove Road in Durham. I am the secretary recorder for the Durham York Wright Masonic Bodies. The Charles is the treasurer. So we've been on this quest for about seven years and it just suits our needs better if we can sell this property and then build a building which we need in Durham City Limits but we've already purchased another piece of property on Guest Road that we want to take the proceeds from this and build a building there to continue our charity work and all the good things we do and just hope it goes through. It would help the community also. Any questions, just ask. Thank you. And if anyone else would like to speak on this issue, please let us know and if not seeing none we will move to close the public hearing and move to any questions or comments from the commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. So two questions, one for either of the representatives of the Masonic Group. So in regards to the request and the application to change the zoning and future land use map to office, is that a result of you determining that that's the highest and best use that you would be able to find a potential buyer for the parcel of land? Sir, if you don't mind answering at the microphone, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Yes, sir, it is. That's just about all of Crutchfield is office buildings, office and institutional building. The only, of course, is one of the big chain drug stores down on the corner, but the rest of the building buildings are institutional or a commercial office and institutional, across from our property or doctor's offices and the hospital property. Thank you, that's helpful. And just one follow-up, and this would likely be for staff. So when I'm looking at the existing zoning and the future land use map, that seems to be incorrect me if I'm wrong, like some incongruencies of what would actually occur if this request is granted and that the future land use map has that, basically that Crutchfield Road being for residential and currently is set for mostly office. And so can you just provide some kind of insight into what led to Crutchfield, this stretch of land parcels being designated for residential and now, you know, the office requests would basically create this little nook in that residential strip there. Thank you. Sure, yeah, Jacob Wiggins, the future land use map. You can't tell you how and why everything came to be designated the way that it is, a good guideline, especially in this area at the time this map was adopted, I imagine, a fair amount of those properties were residential. You see the planners at the time saw this as potentially a higher density residential area. It is located just north of the downtown core. Current day on that portion of Crutchfield Street, and I think if you go just south on Duke Street as well, I think you'll find presently a lot of office-type uses even in buildings that have a residential appearance. So when looking at the comprehensive plan from a staff perspective for something like this, the plan does, depending on which district one is going to, we have some guidance for staff as to whether or not we're gonna recommend something. I mean, in situations such as this, given that the office designation is contiguous, there are some developing patterns in the area which seem to indicate that possibly an office seems like a reasonable use. I mean, at that point it's up to the applicant to make the decision whether or not they want to apply for that request. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Gauch. Thank you, Chair Busby. Yeah, I was gonna, I don't really have any questions, but I was gonna kind of touch on the same thing that Commissioner Johnson was noting on the zoning map, this appears to be basically a cleanup zoning. There's this missing piece that the Crutchfield property that is not zoned like the adjacent properties. I would also argue that the future land use map for this area is a little odd in my opinion because the properties along Crutchfield are adjacent to an institutional use, which has been there a long time. And I would think that, I mean, I don't know that high density residential is a bad use there, but office institutional or office, an office flum designation to me would make more sense, particularly as a transition from the institutional use to residential uses that you can see on the map further north. I intend to vote in favor of this request. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Harris. I need staff. Page two of the staff report. As I was reading this, it was kind of confusing under C, existing site criteria. Area criteria, you referenced Duke Street as South Duke Street rather than North Duke Street on a couple of occasions there, which made it quite confusing as I was reading it. My apologies. And then if you go over to page five under notification, you referenced partners against crime district one, and it's clearly in district two, not district one. And then if you go up to appendix five all the way in the back under zoning map change 2.3.1.b, under the staff analysis, you also referenced South Duke Street instead of North Duke Street. Thank you for noting that. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My biggest concern about this is quite frankly, the project that is described is not what's being requested in the zoning. Essentially, in the letter, the applicant says it refers to modest offices and neighborhood friendly, but there's no development plan to guarantee that it will be modest offices and neighborhood friendly on a 1.7 acre tract. You could build some pretty big office buildings and they wouldn't necessarily be neighborhood friendly. And this does a but single family homes right next door. Again, today at the hearing, we'll talk about office buildings if not more than two stories. I would support this rezoning if it had a development plan and it had in it limits to circumscribe the type of office development that could go on this property as it was described in the developer's letter and also here at the during the hearing, I would be all for it. I think it's unlikely that this property is going to have single family homes put on it given the way that Crutchfield works, but I'm not willing to go all the way to full O and I without some limitations. There is a neighborhood in there along Carver Street that is a useful and successful neighborhood and I wouldn't wanna do anything on this property that would make it less attractive to its current or future homeowners in there. So I'm not inclined to support this rezoning for that reason. Again, if it came back to us at some time with an O and ID, I'd be all for it with the right committed elements. Now, we'll note we've talked about highest and best use. The applicant in his letter talked about highest and best use wanna remind the commissioners that highest and best use is an appraisal term, not a planning term. And we're not under any obligation to ascribe a particular zone to a piece of property in order to maximize its value in the marketplace. So for those reasons, I'm gonna vote against this. However, I wish I didn't have to with the right development plan, I could have been all for it. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Williams. I have similar concerns in terms of Crutchfield Street and turning it into an office institutional space because of the neighboring residential properties that are currently behind this empty lot and also neighboring. And because it is also on the corner of a very, very busy street of Crutchfield and North Duke Street, I have concerns in terms of preserving the neighborhood that is around it and the current need to not overwhelm them with an office building and the amount of traffic that will be visited through that particular institution. And what its use is. So I have a question. With your potential buyers, have they expressed any concern for the residences around your potential property use? Have they mentioned that? Or has it just been about the sale? No, ma'am. The potential buyers have all expressed a concern about having to go through the zoning process to change it from a residential to an office institutional. The property beside it is the office condo that's a two-story building and it has residents behind there as do several other up and down Crutchfield Street. It's kind of a mixed bag up at the other end. But basically what you have is you have the hospital across the street from the hospital. The majority of what you have are medically, medical related buildings. Right, well, my concern was actually what would the hours of operation for this institution be because that would impact the residences as most of those office buildings close at five p.m.? Right this minute, we don't have anybody to buy it. We have several medical practices that have discussed going there. We have two specialty pharmacists that said if somebody would buy it and build office condos that they would like to own one that would be 1500 to 3000 square feet. So I can't answer your question about hours of operation. But I can tell you that at the two meetings that we had the neighbors that came were very supportive of what we were showed them was a potential development plan. Okay, but that's not the potential development plan that you submitted. We did not submit a quote development plan. We came and we showed them this is where we felt like would be the highest and best use of the property. Okay, thank you. I believe what Mr. Miller was talking about would require some engineering drawings. Yes, sir, thank you. Great, thank you. Commissioner Hyman and then a commissioner Miller had a follow-up question. My question was for Mr. Griffin as well if you could return. And I know it's customary to have the neighborhood meetings and you indicated that that was my question had you had the neighborhood meetings and was there any concern expressed from the neighbors as far as not supporting the project? No, ma'am, everybody that came was in support of what we showed them was a plan that Sam Brock will designed and showed two buildings in the middle of the property and at the first meeting that we had in April we had adjacent resident on Carver Street. We had a couple that lives on Carver Street, another gentleman that lives on Carver Street and another couple that lived on Carver Street and they said, what does this represent? And we said two brick buildings which would be the same size more or less as the building next door on Crutchfield Street. Right. And these neighbors also have existed harmoniously with the lodge that has been there since 1950? Yes, ma'am. I don't know when they built the picnic shelter but they purchased the property in the 50s and which is about the time most of the homes on Carver Street, Turrentine, Pendergrass and in those areas were built. The neighbors that came to the meeting as these two men can testify to also were very supportive. Okay, thank you. They told us specifically they did not want a fast food restaurant, they did not want a big box drug store and they liked what the masons thought the highest and best use of the property would be. Okay, thank you so much. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm a little concerned it sounds like during the neighborhood meeting a project of a certain scale that was in fact neighborhood friendly was presented and that the neighbors liked that. Quite frankly, if that was what was being presented here with the development plan, I'd like it and I'd vote for it. My concern is is that on this piece of property you could have a motel or a hotel, you could have an apartment building, a fairly big one. You could go to 90 feet, that seems unlikely, but you could, I mean anything up to 90 feet you're not limited to two stories. And I would feel just a lot better. I think that it, I think these neighborhood meetings are fraught insofar as there's no guarantee that anybody will discuss with the maximum potential under the requested zoning is. We talk about what's proposed, but not necessarily what the limitations are. And I think these neighbors would be surprised if circumstances were to change and the property was developed to the full intensity allowed by the O and I zone. And so for these reasons, I wanna ask Mr. Griffin if he'd be willing to have us postpone consideration of this for 60 days, during which time we could visit, he could visit with a land use planner, we have some fine ones in the community to come up with a development plan to append to this rezoning that would bring the scale of the project down to the neighborhood friendly project that he described in his letter attached to the application. Because I would like to vote for this, but I can't without those limitations. Could I address your concerns? Yes, please, Mr. Griffin. If you go a little bit further north on Duke Street, you will find four office buildings that are less than 50% occupied, what I call big box buildings. Then you will find the former telephone company or Liggett Tobacco Company building, which has got 160,000 square feet vacant. I've got 18,000 square foot building vacant in Central Professional Park is what they call it today. So the market in North Durham is not for the big boxes. In fact, the market in North Durham is for the medical users, and they're much smaller in scale than what you're describing. Duke University is buying Macy's in his closing three large medical facilities in North Durham. So I would say that there's gonna be much more vacant office space in North Durham that are large in scale. And so that's not the market today. And that's why we came up with a plan like this, because what we were getting were dentist, dermatologists, people that want a smaller office that are not affiliated with one of the two big medical facilities. So in response to my question, I take it that you're not interested in appending a development plan that would limit the scale of this project or the future use of this project. I can't answer that because the Macy's don't wanna spend the money on hiring an engineer to go to what I consider to be a development plan. Maybe what you're referring to is something different. If you would like to... No, I'm referring just to the development plan that's contemplated by the zoning code. Same thing you are. I'm not familiar with the detail that you go into today, but the last one I did, people have asked me on another piece of property why I haven't rezoned it that I happen to own. And I said, because quite frankly, I don't wanna spend 30 to $50,000 and be told no. And so a development plan is not something that you can just create off the cuff. It's something that takes time and effort that costs money and my customer here doesn't want to invest the money in that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Chair. A one moment. I think the staff had a clarification and then Mr. Alturk had a question and then we can get to Commissioner Hornbuckle. Just one minor clarification and just staff would respectfully thank you, Jacob. Remind the commission that the requirement for the neighborhood meeting is because there is a flum request. So that's why there is a requirement for the neighborhood meeting. If there was a zoning with a TIA there would also be a requirement for a neighborhood meeting. So I just wanted to make sure that you understand that it's not because there's a zoning it's because there's a form request. Just making sure for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. This is a question for staff. So because there's no development plan, you write under a criteria and see, you say that you evaluate this report or this application in light of all potential uses and impacts. And here you're talking about the impact it would have on water and sewer, right? But what are those potential uses and impacts? So kind of getting back to Commissioner Miller's point about what can be, what's allowed on this if the rezoning goes through. So what are the highest kind of impact? Sure. So if you reference attachment six in your packet so each of those three items, traffic, water, supply and school impact at the bottom of those tables you'll see what the assumptions are. Right. So in this case, just looking at the transportation numbers those are based off a 14,000 square foot office space building. And you will see that applied to the water supply as well. So typically a staff, what we would do, I have a spreadsheet based on this information we'll put in what we think the maximum can be based on the building area and then come out with those numbers, but yeah. So I have a follow up to that. I guess my concern is less on water and sewer and what I think Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Williams are getting at which is impact it would have on the neighbors. Sure. So maybe for example, the buffer, right? A buffer, what is the minimum buffer that would for the highest impact to move so I go out into the office? Give me one second, I'll get my order. Maybe that's, yeah. Yeah, I can get you that exact information. I guess that's what I'm worried about is that we have something that is high impact and would have a potentially low buffer, right? It wouldn't be. And I will say the buffers are typically, there are some exceptions, but they're typically based on the zoning district, not the actual use itself, but our buffer compatibility table goes on adjacent districts. And for this case, they would probably be looking at a 15 to 25 foot buffer depending on what's developed there. Okay. And that would be referring to the north side adjacent to those residential properties. To the residential properties, okay. I guess this case does put us in a tough position I think because like Commissioner Miller, I think it makes sense to have office here, but, and I'm typically in favor of something like this because it seems like it is compatible with neighboring parcels, but not knowing what the impact would be on the residential parcels, I'm inclined to not favor if there is no development plan that goes with it. So that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. We've got Commissioner Hornbuckle and then commissioners Gosh and Brian. I'm just ready to enter with a motion. Okay. So at the appropriate time, you bet. Thank you. Commissioner Gosh. Thank you. Mr. Wiggins, could you remind me, I did take a look at this. What is the zoning on the parcel east of the subject site? There's also zoned office and institutional. No development plan. I can't say for certain off the cuff. I apologize, I don't know. I don't believe there is one, but I'd have to research that for certainty. Okay. Yeah, I think I don't have it in front of me either, but I believe the case is that those parcels are not our zone O and I without a development plan, which to me would suggest that whatever the fear is, about the development here, going forward without a development plan, the same fears that you might have for this site are true for those adjacent parcels that are zoned O and I, because there's no development plan. I understand that we have an opportunity here to make a decision or to have that discussion, but I think it also is upon us to be sympathetic to this user, which is a charitable organization that has owned the property for quite some time and really at this point does not have a beneficial use for it and they are trying to sell it. From a planning standpoint, I think it is what they're asking for zoning wise is consistent with what else is in the area. So from that perspective, I think even though there is no development plan, the zoning makes sense because while we might be able to get a development plan in this case to limit the height to two stories, the adjacent parcels could develop with a 90 foot tall building anyway. So it wouldn't really be effective at helping the neighborhood and additionally, I would argue that letting them sit on the property and it not be very useful also is not going to help the neighborhood. If it's gonna fall into disrepair or not be used or whatever, that's not gonna be good for the neighborhood either. I think that it makes sense for the rezoning to go forward so that they can sell it and that the property can be put to some productive use, which the neighborhood behind it is already accustomed to. There's plenty of offices right behind them. I would encourage the rest of the planning commissioners to take those things into consideration when deciding on this case. I think it's very easy to ask for a development plan, but when you're dealing with a charitable organization, not a big developer, asking them to spend that kind of money to put a proffer that their building will be two stories. I mean, the cost benefit really isn't there. So, I would just ask you all to consider those items when voting on this case. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Bryan. Thank you. Just wanted to make a brief observation about the properties that are on Carver Street behind this. You can get some idea of it if you look at the aerial view attachment too. Those houses are all very close to Carver Street and they have fairly deep yards behind them, which are full of all sorts of different things, trees, garages, and so forth. So to a certain extent, the way these properties on Carver Street have developed, they have a building buffer, if you will. Thank you. Great. Miller, and we'll go from there. Sorry, thank you. So in response to what Commissioner Goche said, I note that this parcel is two to two and a half times bigger than the other parcels on Crutchfield Street. I suspect that those buildings were built back when we had two OI zones, one for big buildings and one for little buildings. However, I do not know the zoning history on those other parcels. Those office buildings though have been there for a long time. I've been a critic of the O&I zone that we've got because I don't think it's useful to us. I think we should have more than one O&I zone like we used to. I also note that unlike the parcels that are on Crutchfield, this parcel is on Duke Street and not far from other things and Duke Street is a major arterial. I know from experience that because we allow hotels and motels in O&I and that you can put a pretty big motel in a pretty small parcel, I think these neighbors would be very disappointed if after we resumed this without a neighborhood friendly development plan, if at some point in the future, someone decided that they wanted to build a motel here. It's not very far from a major intersection on I-85. I live in a neighborhood where motel developers are constantly looking for parcels to build hotels on. So that's why I think that this neighborhood, like any other, deserves the protections that the development plan offers. O&I, in my opinion, either we either need to divide that zone at some point in the future, but when O&I is next to a neighborhood, I'm gonna look for neighborhood friendly commitments in a development plan. So that's kind of why, that is exactly why I'm gonna vote against this. However, I would really like to vote for it if the appropriate development plan were present. Commissioner Gibbs. I agree with Commissioner Gosh. Thank you for saying that. It saved me from having to repeat. But I think this, going forward, we don't know what's coming, but I think we should let the transaction take place and deal with whatever is put there when that time comes. That's just my position and I plan to support it. I think it's appropriate in this area. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Hormbuckle, I believe we are seeing no other questions from the commissioners. I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we move case A17008 and Z170019 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Great, and actually for the record, we will first just move the A17 quadruple 08 motion. So we'll detach the two. That one with a light rule motion. Second. Okay, great. So the motion is to move forward case A17 quadruple 08 with a favorable recommendation, properly motioned and seconded by Commissioner Miller. And we will have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Alturk. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Gosh. Yes. Commissioner Bryan. Yes. Commissioner Satterfield. No. Commissioner Harris. Yes. Commissioner Hyman. Yes. Commissioner Busby, Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Hormbuckle. Yes. Commissioner Van. Yes. Commissioner Gibbs. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. No. Motion carries eight to six. Great, thank you. The motion carries eight to six and I'll entertain a motion for the concurrent zoning case. Mr. Chairman, I move case Z1700019 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. I'll second. Properly motioned by Commissioner Miller. I think Commissioner Hyman just made it in with the second and we'll have a roll call vote on this as well, please. Commissioner Alturk. No. Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Gosh. Yes. Commissioner Bryan. Yes. Commissioner Satterfield. No. Commissioner Harris. Yes. Commissioner Hyman. Yes. Chair Busby. No. Commissioner Miller. No. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Yes. Commissioner Van. Yes. Commissioner Gibbs. Yes. And Commissioner Williams. No. Motion carries eight to six. Thank you yet. The motion carries eight to six as well. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. We'll move to our next concurrent case. This is a case A1700013 and concurrent zoning case Z1700032, I'm sorry, 3718 North Roxboro Street and we will start with the staff report. Good evening, Jamie Sonjak with the Planning Department. I will be presenting case number A1700013, Z1700032, this is 3718 North Roxboro Street. The applicant is Don Meisel from Weathers Rabinel. The jurisdiction it's located within the city limits. The site acreage is 1.28. The proposal is for 20,000 square foot building for uses within the CN Commercial Neighborhood District. The rezoning request is office and institutional to commercial neighborhood with a development plan and the FLOM request is office to commercial. The site is located within the suburban tier within the Neuse River Basin and within the Falls, Jordan, Watershed, Protection Overlay District. The property is vacant and fronts on North Roxboro Street just south of the intersection with East Carver Street across from Crutchfield Street. There is a mix of retail, office, commercial, community and public service uses as well as a single family residential dwelling across the street. This is the existing conditions map and you'll see that there is on that map a an existing cross access easement which provides internal connections to the property to the North and North Roxboro Street. There are areas of concrete curbing and gutters which will all be demolished and removed if this application is approved and the site gets developed. Here is the future land use map. On the left, you'll see that the property is currently within the office from designation and the applicant is requesting that it be changed to commercial which would be consistent with the rezoning request. And here is the context map which shows the current zoning from office and institutional to commercial neighborhood with a development plan. Staff has reviewed this request and found to be consistent with the requirements of the unified development ordinance. The property meets the district requirements in terms of area, max and previous coverage and entry coverage. Here is the development plan and it shows access points, building and parking envelope and the tree coverage or protection areas. In terms of a summary of commitments, the applicant has shown on the development plan, they're looking for all uses within the CN district except for the following, indoor recreation, outdoor recreation and liquor stores. The applicant has offered a commitment to a six foot high fence along the property lines. There are limited hours if a restaurant becomes developed and there are associated design and graphic commitments. Staff has determined that this proposal is inconsistent with the current from office designation and the applicant is seeking a change to commercial designation. The plan amendment is consistent with policies 213E222B222E and in terms of the zoning map change, it is consistent with policies 231B232A and A12H. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will move to open the public hearing process and we have two individuals who have signed up to speak in favor of this proposal, Joshua Renke and David Brown. If you can come to the mic and give us your name and your address and welcome your comments. Joshua Renke with Ramey Kemp and Associates 5808 Farringdon Place for Raleigh, North Carolina. Just to be brief, I wanted to let you know I did perform the traffic impact analysis for this development. It was scoped and reviewed by the city staff as well as the NCDOT. They were in agreement with the TIA that no roadway improvements were required to address the site traffic impact. So I'm more than happy to answer any questions and I'm available for you. Thank you. And Mr. Brown. Good evening. My name is David Brown. I'm the director of planning at Withers-Ravenill. I'm here tonight representing my colleague, Don Mazzell, the applicant for this case. Mr. Mazzell is not able to attend tonight. I believe staff has done a very good job outlining the request. And again, I'll make myself available if y'all have any questions, if we can provide any other information to you. Thank you. I think you just set a record for both of you for public testimony. Well done. Would anyone else like to testify this evening, speak on this issue? Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period and look for any questions or comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Bryan. This is a minor question. Either staff or the applicant can answer it. I just want to pin down exactly how much impervious surface we're gonna have on the cover sheet on page one of the development plan. And also in the presentation, impervious surface was given a 60% on page two of the development plan. And then one of the attachments is given a 70%. Which one? I believe the 70% is a typo and is the 60%. Thank you. That was my calculation. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan, Commissioner Miller. I don't have a question. Thank you. Yes. This is a momentous occasion. Seeing no other questions or comments, entertain a motion, two motions. Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case A17000134 to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Properly moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Hornbuckle. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. And a motion on the zoning case. Mr. Chairman, I move we send case Z17000324 to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Motion carries 14 to zero. Great, thank you. Chair Busby, before moving on to the next two, my firm is representing the applicants on both of those, so I wanted to ask that I be recused for those two. I move that we recuse Commissioner Gose from the next two cases. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bryan. We'll say that Commissioner Williams seconded and these are to recuse himself from cases A1700015 and Z1700037, correct? Yep, and the next one. And the next one. Yes, the Z1700048. Yes. We will miss you. Don't worry, I won't be far. We'll move to the staff report. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. I will be presenting case number A1700015, Z1700037, this is long beverage expansion. The applicant is Patrick Biker from Morningstar. The property is located within the county jurisdiction. The site, acreage in total is 2.186. The proposal is for all uses within the Industrial Light District. The rezoning request is from rural residential to industrial light. There is no development plan. The Flaum request is from office to industrial, pardon me. The site is located within the suburban tier adjacent to the Wake County line. It is located within the Neuse River Basin. The properties are primarily vacant with one of the properties, 3723 Page Road containing a single family resident. A variety of uses are found within close proximity to the site. Most notably the long beverage facilities located to the north and east. And residential uses are located to the west. Vacant industrial land is located to the south. As shown on the Future Land Use Map, the property is currently designated office. And the applicant is proposing to change this designation to industrial, which would be consistent with the rezoning request. Here is the context map that shows the property as the current zoning rural residential with the request to change it to industrial on the right. This slide basically shows the consistency with the unified development ordinance. The applicant does not have a development plan and therefore has requested all uses within the residential area. Requested all uses within the industrial district. There has been no in the application that it would be for the expansion for the long beverage facility. But with no development plan, there is no commitment specifically to that. The maximum building coverage is 60%. The maximum height in the zone is 50 feet. Staff has determined that the proposal is inconsistent with the current office flam. And they are seeking, as I mentioned, a change to industrial, which would be consistent with 212C 213I 222A 222B and 2.4C. And in terms of the zoning map change, it would be consistent with policies 231B and 232A. Staff has determined that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will open the public hearing and we have one speaker signed up for the proposal, Mr. Patrick Beiker. Good evening, Chairman Busby, Vice Chair Hyman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Beiker. I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm here tonight to represent Long Beverage. Long Beverage is a Durham family business that has achieved great success over more than six decades. It's a remarkable story of perseverance, dedication, and the Durham can-do spirit. Today, Long Beverage employs over 200 people and serves the entire triangle and the surrounding counties. Unfortunately, Rodney Long, the president of Long Beverage, could not be here due to a business obligation, but he sends his greetings to each one of you. The reason for our application before you tonight is to accommodate future growth for the next generation at Long Beverage. There are four parcels, three of which are vacant, along Page Road, that are zoned rural residential and designated for office use on our future land use map. The existing zoning and the future land use map designation really don't make much sense, given the existence of industrial uses adjacent to these properties. We respectfully ask that you recommend approval for all four of these parcels to be zoned industrial light. This will allow the success story of Long Beverage to continue creating good paying jobs for our young people in the years ahead. However, I do wanna stress that the future growth at Long Beverage will not generate peak hour traffic on Page Road. Long Beverage's employees mostly arrive at 4.30 to 5.30 a.m., a lot earlier than I get up, and they finish their work by mid-afternoon. Therefore, any peak hour traffic conditions along Page Road will not be affected by Long Beverage. Accordingly, for all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your support of this proposal, and I'll be happy to try and answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Biker. Anyone else would like to testify? This is your moment. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open up any comments from commissioners. Start with Commissioner Bryan. Mr. Biker, when I look at Attachment 2, this aerial view, it looks like there's a tiny sliver of at least one of these properties that goes into Wake County. So do you have to go through this rezoning process there too? It's already zoned industrial Wake County, sir. Okay, thank you. And my second question, do you anticipate any driveway connections between any of these properties on either Page Road or what's called Airport Road on this? We do not anticipate that, sir. At this point in time, we certainly have no plans for it at the present time. Thank you. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Yes, sir. Mr. Biker, I have known the Long Family for quite a while, myself. They have been a long time-during business and I hope that all board members here will endorse and support this as it is supporting a long time-during tax-paying business, which we greatly need. And I know that this business has also been in that area while before a lot of the new residential areas have sprouted up along that end of Page Road. So I highly hope and encourage all commissioners to support and endorse this project. Thank you, sir. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Gibbs and then Commissioner Miller. I just wanted to make this comment that this is kind of an encouraging sign that longstanding businesses are considering expansion and are making plans to do so. And it looks to me like this little piece of land may eventually be all long beverage, but at any rate, I think it's appropriate here and not overwhelming, but it is an encouraging sign that I just wanted to make that comment too. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. I support this rezoning too. I note that with this rezoning, long beverage can actually become a Durham business. Currently, it's a Wake County business. We have three parking spaces in Durham. Any other questions or comments? And if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we send case A-17-00015 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Move by commissioner Miller and seconded by commissioner Hornbuckle. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. And any opposed? Motion carries 13 to zero. And the zoning case. Mr. Chairman, I move that we send case Z-17-00037 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Properly moved by commissioner Miller and seconded by commissioner Al Turk. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Would you mind a slight amendment to your recommendations? This case actually will go to the board of county commissioners. Oh, I apologize. You don't mind for the record, that would be great. For the record, it was to the county commission, my mistake. Great, so for the record, both cases A-17-00015 and the second, which we just approved unanimously, Z-17-00037 are being sent to the county commissioners for approval. And if I understood correctly, the second zoning vote we just had was 13 to zero as well, correct? Motion carries 13 to zero. Great, thank you, Mr. Biker. We will move to our final zoning case. This is just a zoning map change public hearing. This is Z-17-00048 for Lumley Road. We'll start with the staff report and commissioner Gauch is refused for this hearing as well. Thank you, good evening. Again, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. This is a zoning map change request titled Lumley Road Assemblage. This is submitted by Andrew Porter with Cultural Jewel Tims. This is also in the city of Durham's jurisdiction. And this is a request to change the zoning map for four parcels of land from residential rule to office and institutional, approximately an eight-acre site. The case area is highlighted in red in front of you. This can also be seen as attachment to in your packet. There's the aerial map. And you can see the site is located near the intersection of Lumley Road and South Miami Boulevard. And this is just slightly south of where South Miami Boulevard splits off of US Highway 70. The future land use map, the subject site is designated as office. So no change is required to go to the proposed office and institutional zoning district. The predominant future land uses in this area or designations, I should say, is the industrial designation, which you can find to the south and west of the site. And the recreation open space, which is predominantly found to the east of the subject site. The zoning context map, maybe a little harder to differentiate between the hues of pink and purple on your map, or on your screen, I should say. The subject site on the left-hand side, you can see it's zoned RR. The on the right-hand side, the applicant is proposing the OI district. If you look just to the east down Lumley Road, you will see more of the OI district, the purple color to the south of the subject site, that is all industrial light zoning. As I noted, there is no development plan with this request. So looking at some key ordinance standards, the OI district in the suburban tier allows a maximum of 50 feet for non-residential building heights. This would allow any use that is allowed in the OI zoning district. And in this area for non-residential uses, you're looking at a 25 foot minimum street yard setback. Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. There were three key policies that staff reviewed, as well as the future land use map. And staff found that the request met the policies of the conference plan. And having said that, the staff determines that this request, generally, as I noted, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and it's also consistent with any other applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll be happy to answer any questions y'all may have. Thank you. Thank you. We will open the public comment hearing and Mr. Biker is again our lone member to speak in favor. It's good to have you back. Good evening, Chairman Busby. Vice Chair Hyman, members of the Planning Commission, Patrick Biker with Morningstar Law Group. I still live at 2614 Stewart Drive. Want to let you know that our civil engineering and land use design firm for this proposal is Colter Jule-Tems and Andy Porter from CJT is here. And the developer of this site is Carlton Midgett with Darlington Advisors. And he's in the back left. This is a relatively small site of only about eight acres. We were attracted to this site because it has been designated for office in our future land use map for over 12 years. Accordingly, we have requested the OI zoning, which the comprehensive plan suggests is the most appropriate district for this future land use map category. We are seeing strong demand for office use in this section of Durham. A recent report on the Triangle Office Market states that the office vacancy rate near Research Triangle Park and Raleigh-Durham International Airport is only 3.6%. OI zoning also allows for townhouses. The townhouse development about two miles away on the south side of Alexander Drive that I've worked on for the last few years is experiencing tremendous demand. So there's a possibility that this site could be successfully developed for townhomes. We are blessed at the present time with a strong market. But the current rural residential zoning on these eight acres certainly does not conform to current market demand, nor is it consistent with the future land use map. It is important to note that at the site plan phase, any development on these eight acres will be required to install a driveway that lines up directly with Rolling Pines Avenue to the north. Please keep in mind that against this adjacent to this eight acre site, we are buffered by a wooded 3.86 acre parcel between this assemblage and the houses on Thoreau Drive. In addition to the south and to the west, all the adjacent parcels are already zoned industrial light. Accordingly, the office institutional zoning designation is appropriate, given the nearby homes and the nearby non-residential uses. In either scenario, the development of this site could serve as an appropriate transition from the light industrial uses to the south and to the west and the existing single family residential uses to the north and the east. I also want to stress that because of the small size, we do not anticipate a TIA being required for this development. And as you can see in your staff report, there is adequate traffic capacity on the road network in this section of Durham. And so for all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval and we'll be happy to try and answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Would anyone else like to speak on this issue that's in front of us while the public hearing is open? Seeing no one else, we will move to close the public comment period and open it up for any questions or comments from the commissioners. Yes. Even though we weren't required to have a neighborhood meeting, we did follow the neighborhood meeting process in the UDO for this site, notified all the required property owners, had a meeting at the church down on the corner of Lumley and Page Road. Only two people showed up and they appeared to not have a problem. Great. We did get something in there. Thank you. You may be able to do that. Yes. Commissioner Williams. Yeah, I have a question as it relates to the establishment of this new building. I know that both South Miami Boulevard and Lumley can be extremely, extremely over-densified with traffic at both the 8 a.m. hour from approximately 7.30 a.m. to about 9.45 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. to about 6 o'clock p.m., especially with Bethesda Elementary being right up the street. So I was wondering, where would the turn in be for this particular property? Is it facing Lumley or is it facing South Miami? Lumley. It'd be an access off of Lumley Road, opposite Rowling, I'm sorry. Rowling Pines Ave, I believe is the name of the street. That's a great question. And so depending on the volumes, we probably will have to build a left turn lane to make sure the traffic moves as efficiently as possible and also as safely as possible. But if you look at the context map that was in your staff report, any driveway for this eight acre development, would have to line up with Rowling Pines. So it's a straight crossing. Straight T. Yes. Okay. And my second question for that would be, in terms of navigating that same traffic for that particular corner, would you be opposed to possibly considering two turn ins for that? It's difficult to say Commissioner Williams because the problem you have with this parcel is at its own rural residential, which is single family on one acre lots, which I don't wanna say the land's worthless with that zoning, but it's kind of close to that end of the spectrum. Without knowing how the property would be laid out, it's impossible to predict how many access points. We anticipate only one access point directly across from Rowling Pines Ave. That's our anticipated, whether it was developed as low density office or low density townhomes, that's how it would turn out. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Great, thank you, Commissioner. Any other commissioners with questions or comments? Commissioner Miller. Patrick, why did you decide not to put a development plan on this? Because it's so hard, if once you do a development plan, the problem is it generally loops you into a TIA. And if they were to develop as a townhouse site, it'd be way below the town, the threshold for a TIA. I think your staff report references 88 townhouses as the maximum build out. I think the threshold for a TIA on townhouse developments is 240 or something like that. So it's not even closed. And then when you look at office, it's very difficult to anticipate what type of office and what type of traffic generation you would have. So looking at what the most likely scenarios are for development, it's impossible to peg a TIA and a development plan to what could be turned out. What could turn out to be developed on this site? Thank you. So I have the same. If we had an end user, then it's easy to do a development plan. But you really can't put this property on the market with our zoning. As Commissioner Williams hit the nail on the head, who wants to build a one acre house on a one acre lot on South Miami Boulevard, a stone store from South Miami Boulevard? So if I may, Mr. Chairman. I have some of the same concerns for this parcel that I did with the Crutchfield-Duke Street parcel in that across the street from this eight acres are six single family homes and a fairly nice subdivision that is right up against some commercial on Miami. But I distinguish this case also from that Crutchfield case in that this property is a designated office on the future land use map. And as Mr. Beiker said, a view office is a reasonable step down and development intensity between residential and the light industrial that is behind it. We have over on this side of town a lot of property that is designated for future industrial use. The property behind this property is not just designated for industrial use, it's used for industrial use. I'm concerned though, all the same and wish there was a development plan on here if that desire is not sufficient to cause me to vote against the project then. Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll take a motion for approval. Mr. Chair, I move that we send Z17-00048 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Motion carries, 13-0. Great, thank you. We will move to our final public hearing for the evening. This is a text amendment to the unified development ordinance. This is case TC-17 quadruple-07. And we'll start with the staff report. Thank you, Michael Stock with the planning department. He kind of caught me off guard. You guys were zooming on through with that stuff. I was talking to your commissioner out there. Mr. Biker's irresistible smog. Yes, yes. So TC-17-007 is a privately initiated text amendment from, submitted by Tim Somerville of Stewart LLC to develop a set of alternative streetscape requirements for design district zoning district. Just as background current design district standards, DD for downtown and CD currently for Ninth Street were initially adopted in 2010. And with subsequent amendments prescribed specific amenities for streetscapes within the public rights away. Those are benches or receptacles, street trees and such. And in many instances there are specific design standards for those amenities. The request was to allow an alternative set of standards for a large contiguous area within a design district. The amendment would provide a set of standards currently, alternative set of standards currently prescribed for design districts. The proposed amendment, which is attachment B, reflects revisions to the original application and is supported by staff. You can see that there is a big difference between what is being proposed then first, what is originally submitted by the applicant. It has been reviewed by staff, including the city attorney's office and the core components as indicated in your staff report. I'll just briefly go through them. Are as follows, that instead of a cultural sub-district that was originally proposed by the applicant, we just went with a straight up kind of alternative streetscape plan with a set, with specific parameters, minimum acreage of 10 acres, to minimize patchwork of streetscapes throughout the design districts, the original application suggested three acres. Also, it provides for cohesiveness along a streetscape, so it wouldn't be broken up within, say, a block face, it would be a complete block face instead of parts of block faces. Also, it would be the streetscape amenities would be the responsibility of the property owners, not the city. Currently, the streetscape amenities you see downtown, the trash cans and such, they are originally provided by, say, if a developer does come in and build substantial development where they're providing trash cans, they would initially provide the trash cans, but from then point on, it's the responsibility of city to maintain them and replace them and such. These would be ultimately the responsibility of that private ownership group or the property owners within that plan area. So, the city won't be responsible for maintaining and keeping in stock a variety of different kinds of trash cans or like poles or benches. Also, the design would specify what amenities could be altered and that it would be done through either a site plan, some sort of site plan review process. Additionally, staff is still looking into, we've been working with the applicant to, currently it would prohibit signage on the amenities the impetus for the application is with the Durham ID District. And so we're looking for ways for them to incorporate some iconograph type depictions on the amenities. We're still looking into that for them. So, the text amendment will either maintain a signage prohibition or with consultation with the attorney's office, allow for a very limited, I don't know if it would be a signage allowance or not, but something that would be consistent with time, place and manner standards and not try to open up loopholes for a commercial signage within right away. Other than that, I'll be happy to have any questions. And I know Tim Summerville from the applicant for this is here. Thank you. We will move to open the public hearing and Mr. Tim Summerville is the one individual who signed up to speak. So, please come and join us. Good evening, I'm Tim Summerville with Stuart, located at 101 West Main Street. I'd like to just reiterate what Mike said. This text amendment is born out of the Durham Innovation District to try and give itself along the streetscape some branding. We're only looking at changing the current, what you see out there, the black, Dumar benches and trash cans to have something a little more innovative for the innovation district. The receptacles and as he said too, that the property owners will be responsible for maintenance and replacement of all of them. And I just wanted to piggyback on what he said about the signage at the end. All we're looking for really on the signage is to provide maybe a little emblem of the district itself. I don't know if this is disabled but they have a little iconographs of the branding that's in all their marketing material. So it'd be just something like this, placed on the bench, placed on the trash can just to kind of identify the district. That's all I have to say. If you're for any questions that you have. All right, thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak for this public hearing? Seeing none, we will move to close the public comment hearing and see if any commissioners have questions or comments, Commissioner Gauch. Thank you. I guess, I don't know. My questions would be appropriately directed but with the signage, one question I had, and I'm not sure where this would come up, but would it include things like or prohibit things like, I don't know if you want to like a placard if you were dedicating a bench to someone or something like that? No, that kind of signage really wouldn't be, there's certain provisions that are allowed kind of just in general standards, it wouldn't necessarily prevent like just a small little two inch by one inch kind of placard on the bench or something like that. Gotcha. And then I had a question about this sidewalk provision and I'm just trying to get an understanding of what we're talking about here. I couldn't visualize it myself if it helps. It's on page two of the of the Item B. Yeah, Attachment B. And I guess it allows for a landscape area between the sidewalk and the building if that landscape area is like a BMP. Correct. And so my question is, what does that look like? And if it's a BMP, is it gonna be like wet? Is it usable? It means it satisfies certain stormwater code provisions of the city of Durham. So it has to function in a certain manner manner and accomplish certain stormwater requirements. Do we have, do we already have these around? We do. I mean, we have those and there are instances. I can't think of any in particular, they are small scale. They could be instances of types of rain gardens and similar features that provide some sort of stormwater remediation. The key with it being a BMP is that it does have to maintain a certain functionality and it's up to the property owner to maintain it. So it's not just a couple potted plants and they go away or they, you know. Okay. Yeah, I mean, my concern, I don't know what the standards are and I'm not really asking what they are either. I just was concerned that maybe this is something that would concern into like standing water, like a swamp area next to a sidewalk that wouldn't be very attractive. Generally not. No, they usually have pretty good drainage. I'd like to just, the reason we added this in there is during the master plan of the Durham ID, we identified these stormwater basins within the streetscape little, that we do our research that it's not allowed currently. You know, within the downtown district, obviously properties are expensive and owners need to maximize it, but they also have an obligation to meet stormwater requirements. So this would allow us to combine those two things. I put it in a streetscape. What we've posed is just that, what's called rain guard and bioretention basin, mulch with some shrubs, the rain would fall on it, infiltrate it into the ground, and be gone. And then on the last page, number five, locations. It says many locations shall be specified on the plan. Which amenities are we talking about? I couldn't imagine what you're talking about. Any of the ones that they're looking to seek alternatives for. So like benches, trash can, all of it. So they'd have to, on the plan, specify where. So you'd have to do that anyway when you come in for a site plan. So- Right, but this isn't a site plan. I mean, unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a separate plan, right? It would be a site plan either in combination with a development that's happening within the plan or a separate site plan in itself. So it would be a site plan. And you have- Okay, so it's site plan, like, that level of technical review, it is not like a zoning. No, it's not. No, it's a straight up site plan. Gotcha. Mr. Miller. Yes, I have a question for the applicant. So I take it you've got a client who's building in the portion of the downtown district we call the Innovation District. Correct. And what is about the rules as they are today that you don't want to do that causes you to ask for the creation of this new procedure? We're just looking to be able to identify where you're at, you know, right now, you know you're in downtown Durham by- But no, I'm talking specifically about the rules. Can you not do that under the current rules? No, you cannot. Right now you're required to supply the do more trash can benches and horseshoe bike racks. There's only three products you're allowed to use currently. But under this procedure then you would be able to propose alternative designs for those alternatives to the ones that are specified in the design district regs or downtown. Correct. So now my question is for the staff, how will the staff know to be able to approve or deny this plan if they submit a different kind of trash can and a different kind of bike rack and a different signage program and a different trash receptacle? What if you don't like them? There's nothing in there that says we can say no to it. The plan says this is what you propose. It limits the act to pretty much specific construction or design specific designs. They still need to meet the general dimensional or locational requirements. So it's really up to the applicant to propose. We're leaving it up to the applicant to propose what design it is. We're not having a say in that. And you do specify materials that have to be used. Correct. But so what concerns me though as we've written it all up is it's an alternative plan and it has to be approved. But you just said there's nothing to approve. No, it's saying that you're putting on paper exactly what it's going to look like. It allows for some minimum specifications. It allows for some minimum alternatives to such the sidewalk development or the types of benches. But other than that, we're not specifying what the alternative must be. It's not saying the current restriction for the current requirements, for example, is doing more of the black. We're not saying now you can just do silver. You can do whatever design the plan area would like to see fit to do as long as it meets the basic requirements. And would that be available to anybody in the design district? Yes, it's actually within the design district if the area is within with 10 acres and meets the locational requirements. Yeah. Okay. It's limited to Durham ID district. It is specifically just a 10 acre area that meets certain parameters along streetscape and contiguous properties, puts a responsibility on the property owners through their property ownership. And there you are. So other than changing the colors and shapes and designs and what have you of these items, what is there for staff to approve? Might not be that much. Just making sure it ticks off. Well, another question is what is there for staff to approve? Whatever is prescribed within the plan for them to look at. There are some material requirements. There's still locational requirements for the streetscape amenities themselves in terms of the size and location and the amount. But how is that different from the approval of the things that are currently contemplated in the standards for these things in the design district generally? It's just allowing them to provide something other than the do more. It is an alternative and specifying what the else specifying that. There's nothing discretionary about it. So why not then just build into the code saying it's everything, all these things got to look like this or an alternative alternatives? Because we don't want patchwork throughout the design district. That's why we're setting up a just a basic plan. That's either part, that's just a site plan. The site plan itself would be probably an administrative site plan, level one, maybe level two at the most if there's some stormwater review for the sidewalk. And then that would be it. Sarah Young with the planning department. So I think we need to go back in context a little bit and understand the genesis of the streetscape amenities for downtown to begin with. So back in early 2000s, there's a big public process and there was community involvement. The whole idea was to have a unified look throughout downtown. Many jurisdictions use streetscape elements as a way to kind of give identity or branding to their downtown. So one of the concerns that staff had was that if you just opened it up and let anybody do anything, you would get a mishmash. This property owner, you know, you'd have three property owners in one block. They'd each propose a different thing because it was the least expensive or their favorite color or whatever criteria they wanted. So we wanted this to be able to be big enough that you're really identifying a whole area just like downtown is kind of identified as a big enough area. That's why we're really cautious about just opening it up and we worked with the applicant to come up with the notion of, okay, maybe you designate a certain area of a certain size, similar to American tobacco, right? They did this themselves before the ordnance standards kicked in and they have their own branding and they're a fairly large entity. And there's no question when you enter their property that, oh, they have their own special stuff. Yeah, these are not actually the point of my questions. I'm just trying to make sure that we're not making, we're not stepping over some legal lines here established by the general assembly. So in other words, what we're saying here is that everybody complies with the streetscape requirements for the design district, but if you've got a parcel that's 10 acres or bigger, you can submit a plan for alternatives as long as they meet all the placement and dimensional requirements for different colors, et cetera, in your 10 acre parcel and that when you submit that and when we approve it at site plan, then you're committed to that, you can't go change it. Right, unless you change the plan. Unless you start over again and change it. It could be a collection of parcels too. It doesn't have to be just one parcel. Yeah, but 10 acres total. All right, I get it. Thank you. Well, actually for me, that cleared up a lot in terms of understanding the motion to move forward with identifying, I would assume it would be no different than possibly New York when you have the fashion district and the diamond district and there are similar storefronts that represent where you are. Sonnage may not necessarily be a big deal because Durham just does not have the capacity right now to actually accommodate major signage changes, but maybe an indication on the street sign, I could see saying that this is where it may be located if that's what I'm understanding from the representation of maybe a particular streetlight or a particular street sign or a particular street front, maybe stone front buildings would be a certain thing. And that's the representation that we're looking for the amendment to what is allowed currently underneath the 10 acre umbrella. Well, it wouldn't go as far as that in terms of like affecting the building design. We don't really get into building material and that would be left up to, you know, if Durham Innovation District wanted to create a certain look about their buildings, that would be up to them as long as they met some minimum parameters of those design districts, which there are some building design aspects. This would be limited pretty much to the streetscape features, those that you find in the public realm on generally public right away, which would be the benches, the trash cans, the side, you see there's some modification to the sidewalk requirements and such. So that's where they're seeking to get that identity of this larger scale area. I don't want to call it, it's confusing to call it a district sometimes because it's not a zoning district or anything of their making, of their branding. And in any signage, we just need to be careful about going down. We're currently reviewing our sign ordinance to comply with Supreme Court rulings about time, place, manner and design content. So we just need to be just very cautious about what is permitted on those features. And that's why we haven't said no and cut off the applicant in terms of the signage. And we haven't committed to saying yes, there will be some signage allowance, but we just need to review it and be very judicious about what we would approve. Okay, and also once, well, if this is actually moved on and passed, it would be applicable to say that anyone that would leave the district or come into the district would have to adhere to whatever that particular streetscape is. Unless collectively it was voted to change. Well, so it wouldn't be necessarily voted to change. It's, so the way it's functioning now would be all those amenities would be the responsibility of the property owners within that district. Okay, so, and their successors. Okay, so if they sell off right now, I believe there's two property owners within the district of the collection or three, but they all will function under a ownership group. They, that would be the legal representation. So you don't have to get like, so if there were 20 property owners, you wouldn't have to get 20 signatures for any kind of agreements to be in the right of way and maintenance agreements and such. You would all function through that association, kind of like an HOA, but for commercial properties. And then if there was any maintenance or issues with it, it would be their responsibility to fix the trash can, put in a new trash can, fix the bench, what have you. If they wanted to change any aspects of the design, like date, 10 years go by, and they don't like the look of their benches anymore, and they wanna do a whole new bench look, then they would have to just come in. Okay, and it would be administrative. It wouldn't be a zoning. Okay, so what would the impact of said representation be on Durham? What, how would that affect us besides not having to maintain whatever they vote on or whatever the streetscape may be or the signage or what is Durham's responsibility? Durham's responsibility would just be maintaining the legal entitlement, having it on record that they're allowed to do those specific amenities as an alternative of what the basic ordinance requirements are. Okay, I have a few other considerations in terms of if we're just to enforce whatever is allowed there, then at what point in time, if any, or I guess that's a legal question, can Durham step in and say, okay, things are getting out of hand, how do we rule this thing? Well, sure, yeah, if we see somehow that these plans are being abused in some way, we can propose text amendments to alter the rules of the plan or get rid of the plan and alternative option entirely. That, yeah, if you notice the violation of people are not maintained exactly, so if you're concerned that the trashcans are looking dilapidated and falling apart, then we would be going to, there's rules in there that they need to be kept in good upkeep. We would issue notice of the violations that you need to fix your cans. Okay, well, with those stipulations, I would not be opposed to approving the text amendment. Oh, yeah, they're in there. Okay. Great, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gibbs. I have a comment before my question. This would probably give some, I guess we're looking for some flexibility in the looks of things and identification of, I'll say districts. I wish this kind of thing had been in, sorry. I wish this had been in place about five years ago when Durham area designers were proposing and had a plan for transit stops, excuse me, covered shelters and they were incorporated into that was artwork that was appropriate to those particular areas historic characteristics. We were ready to go on it and we were, it was not allowed because it didn't go along with the regimented, everything's got to look the same. Anyway, and that was the very intent of these bull city connector stops was to be unique. And after all, you got a red and yellow bus. You can't get too much out of white with a unique bus stops all the way along the way. But having said that, I just had to get that out. I have a question about street lights. Did you address street lights while ago and I just missed it? A while ago and dressed them in what sounds? Alternative like decorative lighting, decorative street lights. And I'm not so concerned about the fixtures themselves as I am the use of LED lights. And I've got a couple of questions about that. If there is a use of LED lights in a decorative street light, if it conforms to everything, the 20 feet or 10 feet and decorative lighting, would we be strict enough or to make these alternatives meet DOT standards, which is what our lighting is based on. And I'm mainly concerned with, I forget what the acronym the DOT uses, hog or something like that. But the last letter G is the one that is most problematic everywhere LED lights are used and that is glare, which can for some people and some situations can be blinding, at least distracting. Do we have any kind of ordinance that would limit the use of LED lights? This is another question. We do have foot candle requirements. Pretty prescriptive foot candle requirements in the ordinance that actually came about even with the adoption of the UDO back in 2006. So we have that in there. It doesn't get into, and it does get into when you're looking at private property street lighting, such as for parking lots or such, does have standards for like full cut off lighting or direct or non directional lighting fixtures, but doesn't get into the type of molds itself. Because with LED lights, it could be placed in compliance with everything, all the rules that are set forth here, but they are very intense. They're narrow-beamed. They don't have an awful lot of light spread. It's mainly glare. And that can go way beyond the setback requirements and all that. I just wanted, any time I see lights being used around here, even though Durham, I still contend, is one of the most dimly lit main streets, side streets, which is something I hope we'll be working on in the near future. Anyway, those are my comments and I wanted to be sure that we would be controlling of. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Miller had an additional comment. I just wanted to throw in, although I don't think it's necessarily pertinent to the procedural issues laid before us, I agree with Commissioner Gibbs that light is different than glare and that at some point, I would love to see us look at the text of our lighting ordinance to address glare separately from ambient light that you can measure with a meter. Thank you, Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. I just had a quick question to Mike about the minimum acreage, the 10 acres. How did you determine that? I'm just curious. I mean, I guess you're trying to avoid patchwork, right? But I can, is 10, how big is the design district, the innovation district? I'm just curious. Innovation district, correct me if I'm wrong, is at least 15 acres, if not larger, correct? It's 30 now? Okay. Keeps growing, I think. I guess the concern would be that you have a few 10 acres. I mean, I don't know. We didn't want to make it, we didn't want to make it, we took a look at the map of downtown or even of Ninth Street and we saw that it seemed that 10 acres from what we could tell was not too large to be terribly prohibitive of doing this, but also not too small to start allowing for patchwork type situation. So I don't think there was anything scientific behind it beyond just kind of finding a reasonable size. And we felt that three acres that was originally proposed was just too small. Too small? Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Before we have a motion, I did just want to thank the staff for your time while working with Mr. Somerville and I know this came in front, as you noted it came in front of the Joint City County Planning Committee as well. So you've put some good time into trying to figure out how to make this work. So I certainly appreciate that. Mr. Chair, I move that we send TC-170007 forward to both governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bryan and seconded by Commissioner Al Turk. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 14 to zero. Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Before we adjourn, we do have a few items for new business. And the first I just wanted to mention, especially now that we are back to a full slate of commissioners with Commissioner Williams joining us. I know a few commissioners had mentioned the interest of having and we've had an annual spring retreat. And I've mentioned that to the staff as well, but just wanted to let everyone know that that's something that has been mentioned. And I think it's been a very valuable time together where we've gotten together for an afternoon. We've usually brought in an expert from the UNC School of Government. We know that there have been some new laws enacted that impact our work. So something that I think we'd like to be able to move forward on. I don't know if there's anything to say on that now, but just wanted to mention that. We, I've actually sent an inquiry into school of government to find out kind of their schedule. They get booked up in advance, but hoping to hear back something soon and I'll let you know. Thank you very much. I know Commissioner Miller, you had something you wanted to mention as well. Are you going to mention the April 1st? I can. Why don't you do that? Okay. Okay. Did want to also mention for fellow commissioners the UNC School of Government. So we've mentioned that they have a series of very useful zoning and planning classes. And this year they've announced that they're doing more of a regional conversation. There's an April 5th event in Raleigh, in downtown Raleigh. And that's something that I can send around to everybody. I've signed up to attend, I think Commissioner Miller. I'm going to do it too. The price is attainable. It's not very expensive in it, but it is a half day. It's a half day, it's in the afternoon. And it's more of a conversation which I think will be really interesting as opposed to their other classes which are more of a lecture format. But just wanted to let folks know if you're interested in your available, that's something that you should consider signing up for and joining us. Other comments, Commissioner Miller? I just wanted to say, and I'm reminded to do this, we were asked to complete our county disclosure statement. And even those of us who are city appointees, the city actually expects us to do the county disclosure. And so we're going to turn those in. And I wanted to, as a kind of a point of personal privilege, let my fellow commissioners know that there is a likelihood that in the coming months, a zoning case will be filed, which involves a parcel of land in my neighborhood. And the rezoning about which my neighborhood association may be expected to take a position for or against which I do not know. And I discussed my obligation with the staff with regard to this, I would live outside the notice area where this case filed. And I have no financial interest in the outcome, but I actually am a serving officer of the neighborhood association. The neighborhood association is organized a nonprofit corporation. And under those circumstances that we sat down with staff and we kind of looked at the rules and they're actually under the rules as they're written, there aren't any grounds that would allow me to be recused living outside the notice area and also not having any financial interest and not being connected with a for-profit corporation which the rules require. So as this goes forward and without grounds to be recused, if this case comes up, I want to disclose early and I will disclose again later that anything I, any remarks I may make during the course of the consideration of that case should be considered in light of the disclosure that I'm making now and will make again at that time. Thank you. Any other new business, Commissioner Bryan? Just a quick question. Do we have any ideas about what will be on the agenda next month? Yes, you should have something at your chair, hopefully, if you don't, I have an extra copy. Do you have it? No, that's okay. I went around, I snuck around behind your back when you weren't paying attention to them. Put it there. We have it. No, it's been there all afternoon. You've been asleep. Great, thank you. Anything else? Yes, so anybody that hasn't turned in your forms, I need them before you leave tonight and I know which seven of you have and which seven of you haven't. Uh-oh. So, and if you need parking validation, please see Jamie or Jacob if you don't mind. So you do expect the Old West Durham NPO to come next month? That's tentative. That's tentative. Yeah, I don't know. It's on the agenda calendar, but it also says to be determined. All right, very good, thank you. Great. Thank you. Seeing no other new business, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone. We only got...