 Commissioner Harris has an announcement good morning good afternoon commissioners and city residents I've been asked to make an announcement prior to our meeting tonight first of all we had renovations in here last month when we met and so we have new lights we have new monitors without the glare we also have new microphones but the microphones are default to onto the own position in order for you not to be heard you have to push the button in order to mute and keep it pushed for it to be mute because once you release the button the microphone is active again so if you don't want to be heard you have to mute the thing secondly the only motion in the microphone towel is just at the top if you if you move it from the bottom you will break it in the cost of $100 in order to get it repaired so be careful so if you move the mic make sure it's just the top that you're moving and also when you speak into the mic make sure you lean in because this is being televised and since they've been in it's been how should I say people at home have not been able to hear so you have to lean in and those of you using that mic also lean in to speak in order so that people at home can also hear you so with that thank you okay good afternoon welcome to the Durham Planning Commission the members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials you should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight if you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak for those of you who wish to speak please state your name and your address clearly when you come to the podium please speak clearly and into the microphone each side those speaking in favor of an item and those speaking in opposition to an item will have 10 minutes to present for each side the time will be divided among all persons wishing to speak finally all motions are stated in the affirmative so if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial thank you before we have the roll call I do have several individuals who have asked for excuse absences so I will need a motion to excuse Commissioner Freeman I will need a motion to excuse Commissioner kitchen and I need a motion to excuse Commissioner van who will be leaving early so so moved second moved by Commissioner Brian second by Commissioner Miller that the individuals indicated will be excused either receive an excuse absence or will be excused at the appropriate time all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed thank you now we're ready for our roll call please Commissioner Al Turk here Commissioner Johnson present Commissioner Gouche here Commissioner Brian present Commissioner Satterfield here Commissioner Harris here Commissioner Busby present Chair Hyman present Commissioner Miller here Commissioner Hornbuckle present Mr. Van present Commissioner Gibbs here thank you may I have an approval for the minutes and consistency statements for the July 11 2017 meeting so moved motion by Commissioner Satterfield second by Commissioner Miller that we approve the minutes and consistency statements from the July 11 2017 meeting all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed thank you we're at adjustments to the agenda we're gonna bring some more water pitchers in just a few minutes so if you would the ones that we've delivered if you'll pull them back and sit them on the top here and we'll bring some more cups and I'm not sure what happened. I said Grace Smith the planning department there are no adjustments to the agenda this evening however I would staff would recommend that if Mr. Reverend Melvin Whitley should show up we would adjust the agenda that point to adopt the resolution in his service and then staff would like to affirm that all advertisements and notifications have been carried out in accordance with the state and local law and their own file in the planning department okay thank you thank you very much Madam Chair yes Commissioner Miller would it be possible to canvas canvas the audience to determine whether or not there's anyone here to be heard on item 5a and if there is not would it be appropriate to move that to be heard after item 7b yes so is there anyone in the audience that is here to be heard on the comprehensive plan amendments our first we're ready for our first public hearing comprehensive plan future land use map amendments public it's 2016 evaluation and assessment report of the dorm comprehensive plan item number a 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 staff please good evening I'm a little disconcerted by the new format and notice that the slideshow there we are now we're ready I'm Laura Woods of the Durham Planning Department and this is the annual evaluation and assessment report just a reminder purpose of the AR is to recognize rectify differences between city and county future land use maps report on progress of plan implementation proposed changes to policy language provide technical updates to the future land use map and forecast planning trends and issues could you please speak directly into the mic it's yes I feel like it's it's I'm getting feedback so I was right I'm not sure how loud I sound I think we're all going to be adjusting to this so we'll be moving around as we do this well we'll do the best we can thank you okay let's start with the staff recommendation because as you've probably noted there's an error in your staff report the staff recommendation should read staff for him it recommends approval of the policy text changes identified in attachment to of the report that was a late change and unfortunately because of the number of changes it was of such size that it was better placed in an attachment so we apologize for that we'd also like to add staff recommends amendment of the future land use map as shown in figure five of the report it is noted in the report but probably it should be noted in the recommendation on page one as well and we will address that in due order in 2016 17 plan amendments were approved by the city of Durham and three of plan amendments were approved by Durham County all of those safe to are shown as maps and attachment one and those two I will discuss briefly the largest impact on net acreage on the future land use map were over 1900 acres that were transferred to five design districts and those correspond to the compact neighborhoods shown on the map one of them Lee Village design district in that case the board of commissioners and City Council opted to adopt slightly different boundaries and let us say at this point that they have agreed to disagree for the time being on this boundaries therefore those two cases are not included in attachment one because we aren't proposing to rectify the differences at this time and that is represented shown in pink it's approximately 62 acres as a difference city had a slightly larger boundary than the county okay in terms of transfer of land use design nations to the design districts these are the impacts to other land uses on the map as you see the largest change was 823 acres taken from commercial design nations and approximately 800 from a combination of medium density residential and medium high density residential now in this case that doesn't mean that there's less land available for these land uses or for office in fact we would expect that design districts will feature these land uses and probably more intensively than was formally allowed in the future on the future land use map reason being design districts are in the vicinity proposed light rail stations there'll be transit hubs and we expect they will be more urban in character than say the suburban tier that surrounds some of them now in terms in terms of other plan amendments that were adopted here are the effects on net acreage on future land use the largest impact was low medium density residential and that's four to eight units an acre mostly at the expense of land designated for low density which is two to four units an acre that may be part of a long a sort of a trend that we can expect for the foreseeable future and I will discuss that again I'll come back to that at the end of my report terms of technical updates to the future land use map we only proposed one this year staff recommends a change for three properties in the vicinity of broad street and stadium drive these were acquired by the alabry street alabry creek watershed association and they have filed conservation easements with the register of deeds and they are designated as conservation lands therefore the most appropriate future land use would be recreation open space and as you see the larger of the three properties is partially within the floodplain of alabry creek in any case terms of policy status text amendments and accomplishments we contacted all sitting county departments that have some role in implementing plan policies and we had a very robust response I must say most most of the departments responded with recommended changes mostly the recommended text changes are words missing slight small changes in department names and things of that sort they also provided us with lists of accomplishments and fulfilling policies within the plan that's in attachment three proposed changes to language as I say are mostly words missing but there are a few substantive changes one I wanted to highlight policy four point three point three a during public schools informed us that the policy grants them a great deal more flexibility in terms of school design than they in fact have that in fact they utilize the standards set by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and therefore recommended this change to the policy shown here as underline another policy and this is a recommendation of the Planning Department to incorporate two additional open space plans by reference in policy seven point two point two F open space master plans those two plans are the downtown open space plan adopted in 2014 and the urban open space plan adopted in 2017 and one additional policy this was recommendation from the Parks Department City Parks and Rec Department is that the Durham General Services Department maintain a record of parcels and easements acquired for future parks and future greenway trails I have not followed up yet with the General Services Department will do so prior to taking this forward to the elected bodies as far as I know they have no objection and I believe they may be already be doing this okay in terms of planning accomplishments I will leave it to you to read the accomplishments of all the other departments planning accomplishments like to highlight the aforementioned designation of five design districts associated with planned light rail stations complete a completed east end connector land use study some of that is in the county some of that is in the city therefore it needs to be rectified in in this report and also we updated all local Historic District criteria it had been a number of years since we had done that we have one suggested format change to the document this doesn't actually change anything substantive but at this stage in the life history of the comprehensive plan many policies have already been fully implemented so as a way of making it easier for appointed and elected officials staff the public to identify policies that are outstanding things we still have to do we would preserve that at the head of each chapter we've list all those then we would add new sections and move all policies that have been fully implemented to later in the chapter and those are shown to you in attachment for now getting back getting back to the housing trends I was talking about and this really was included as attachment five simply as an FYI this will be part of another report you'll be seeing in the near future that will deal with this subject far more extensively than we can in a document of this sort I'm showing two maps here there are three shown in your in your staff report 2000 to 2005 illustrates new residential being added each of those little squares is one square mile overlaying over Durham County and it's a trend that was typical of Durham from the late 1970s until the early part of the new century with a lot of suburban low density residential sort of in a ring in the suburban tier within Durham County an interesting reversal of that trend has taken place in the last decade or so with a great deal more housing being added to the urban tier and downtown that of course is more intense development than has here before been typical of Durham that is not to say that suburban tier suburban style single family residential suffering in any way it is still robust there is robust growth in that form of residential development particularly in southeast Durham in the vicinity of research triangle park and Raleigh's Briar Creek area and that concludes my remarks Mr. Rogers Mr. Rogers is coming forward thank you hello hello okay hi my name is James Rogers I go by my middle name speed which is a really long story that you can come ask me about at a different time I'm just here to speak in favor of the proposed comprehensive plan changes in particular I would really urge the Commission to adapt the the design district rezoning as our population expands and our housing values go up we're going to need more dense mixed-use development here in Durham and I would like to see that reflected in our comprehensive plan that's it thank you mr. Rogers did you state your address for us please I'm sorry I live at 1007 Drew Street here in Durham thank you so much I do not have other people who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions Commissioner Gauch thank you chair Hyman I had one question for staff regarding the recommended change to policy 2.1.3d I was just if you could explain what the change is meant to accomplish I didn't quite understand it that's two point two point one point three D it's on page one of the text changes that's right attachment to residential defined it's the first time residential defined I simply wasn't spelled out previously that mixed use allows for residential development and residential densities of four dwelling units per acre is not untypical of mixed use districts which tend to be within the urban tier so with this new policy or with this policy change mixed-use district would require residential densities greater than four dwelling units per acre I was under the understanding that you could do a mixed-use district at four dwelling units of the acre that's correct okay so I guess I don't understand why we're changing because now you're saying if you you can't do four but you can do four point zero zero one you have to do at least four in mixed-use district it's required it's already required we're just spelling it out in the in the policy okay I think it would be more clear if it stated residential densities are four dwelling units of the acre or more okay yeah thank you thank you thank you Commissioner Miller that was my exact same issue and so Commissioner Gosh has handled it nicely Commissioner Brian I will note that the it's also in two point three point one G on the next page of this same section the same change resides there yes Commissioner Brian I have a very minor point your figures three locations of approved plan amendments I think your locations are all absolutely correct but you've put the zoning case numbers down and it'd be more helpful to see the plan amendment case numbers very good thank you other questions Commissioner Miller so I have a general comment that it doesn't really reflect on the items so much but does relate to the way we write and work with a comprehensive plan and I realize that this is an annual review and kind of an adjustment and reconciliation and that we have coming before us I hope in the not too distant future a fairly comprehensive re-examination of our comp plan a comprehensive plan comprehensive review I would love to see the comp plan be be limited to policies that guide the way we make land use decisions and express our goals and that we take out of the comprehensive plan items that to me are more like work plan items or that we at least segregate those things like here are things we need to do in the future into a separate section that's like a work plan because it sometimes when we say that we need to do this we need to make some rules here we need to do this there we're expressing a broad policy in favor of it says okay we need to we need to adopt rules that do this one when you do that you're expressing a policy preference I would rather go ahead and just state the policy preference in the comprehensive plan and then have in a separate section or perhaps even a separate document something that lays out what it is we think we need to do in terms of changing rules because I sometimes as you know I have sometimes had some difficulty reading the plan the same way the staff does in trying to worry out of it the policies that guide at least my own decision-making and that's just a general comment and I hope that when we get to this plan comprehensive plan review in the future that's one of the things that we can look at Commissioner I completely agree with you you're right this is kind of maintenance on the existing plan but we have a larger project to redo and rethink our comprehensive plan and how it functions to shape our community suggestions like yours and comments like yours are very welcome even in advance of when we get there certainly when we get there we will be engaging this commission as well as a very broad group of stakeholders so we I completely agree thank you for the comment thank you may I have a motion please for item a one seven zero zero zero zero two madam chairman I move that we send a 17 quadruple zero two forward to the elected bodies with a favorable recommendation so long as that recommendation includes the changes recommended by mr. gauche and mr. brine here tonight second it has been moved and properly second that we send item a one seven zero zero zero zero two forward with a favorable recommendation to include comics by Commissioner gauche and and Commissioner Brian all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed motion carries 12 to 0 thank you chair hyman before we begin the next public hearing and there are several items on the agenda that I need to recuse myself it might be appropriate to do it all at once all righty so that would be the item for ample storage okay small wood drive and the last item the Wake County initial zoning ample storage small wood and what was it third one Wake County initial zoning the last public hearing oh I see it madam chair I move that we allow Commissioner ghost to recuse himself from case and our agenda case 6a 7a and 7b second it has been moved and properly second by it has been moved by Commissioner Miller and second by Commissioner Brian that Commissioner gauche be excused from item 6a 7a and 7b all in favor of this motion let it be known by raising your right hand all opposed we'll move to the next item public hearing comprehensive plan future land use map amendments with concurrent zoning map changes the first item 6a ample storage two items a 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 4 and Z 1 6 0 0 0 3 0 staff please thank you Jacob Wiggins with the planning department so this case is a request for ample storage Sandy Creek on this is a future land use map change as well as a zoning map change and this is for a 27 roughly a 27 and a half acre parcel located at 43 43 Garrett Road please have the PowerPoint back on the screen please that the subject site is highlighted in red in front of you on the aerial map as some of you may know this was a former driving range now vacant use the subject site is located a little to the southeast of the intersection of Garrett Road at the Durham Chapel Hill Boulevard also known as 15 US 15501 there is some self storage to the north of the subject site as you get closer to the Boulevard there's a mix of uses multifamily commercial as well as some retail uses on the existing conditions at the subject site as you can see it is bounded by riparian features on both the eastern and western sides as well as a little bit of the northern side and the southern portion of the property fronts along Garrett Road the future map as a noted the site is currently designated as a medium density residential which permits 6 to 12 dwelling units per acre and the applicant is requesting to change this that designation to commercial there's a variety of designations in the area predominantly commercial as you get closer to the Durham Chapel Boulevard more residential as you go further south down the zoning context map kind of the same thing is with the future land use map a mix of designations primarily industrial and commercial along the strip of Garrett Road more commercial as you go along the Boulevard I'm with the residential designations to the east and north of the site as well as to the south the requested CG district as I noted the subject site a little bit over 27 acres the applicant is proposing a maximum of 200,000 square feet of self storage self storage is a committed use committing to 35% maximum pervious services for the site one access point along Garrett Road as well as reserving buffers for the riparian features found at the subject site the proposed conditions the reserve areas for the riparian features and other buffers are highlighted in the pink purple color on the screen in front of you with the surrounding wide area being the building and parking envelope comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request does not meet the current future land use map which is why the applicant is proposing to change that to the commercial designation however staff does find that the request meets all other applicable policies and ordinances and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have at this time regarding this request thank you may I have the list of individuals who have signed up to speak for this item I have one individual who has signed up to speak Patrick biker are you this afternoon great thank you good evening chairwoman hyman vice chair buzzbee members of the commission my name is Patrick biker I'm with Morningstar law group here in Durham I live at 2614 Stewart Drive I'm here tonight to represent the applicant for this project ample storage and we very much appreciate the staff presentation recommendation you just heard by way of introduction ample storage has been offering quality storage solutions in Durham and across the triangle for many years and I'd be remiss if I did not brag on ample storage a little bit since their current facility on Garrett road has been there for almost 20 years and it is in pristine practically brand new condition today that's a testament to how well ample storage operates their facilities the project before you tonight essentially will be an extension of the existing facility with the growth our city is experiencing there has been a steady increase in the demand for self storage the existing facility is consistently rented out at about 90% of its capacity similar to ample's other locations in Durham there are plenty of existing neighborhoods near this location such as Garrett farms and hope Valley with families that will continue to have increasing storage needs there are many benefits to the proposed development plan before you tonight self storage places hardly any demand on water and sewer capacity and generates no students self storage is one of the least traffic producing uses there is you're probably familiar with the extent of traffic in the area daily traffic volumes on Garrett road are approximately 12,000 cars per day and this segment of Garrett road the three lane section has a capacity of 16,000 cars per day accordingly this proposal preserves that 4,000 vehicles per day of traffic capacity for future development or redevelopment along Garrett road since this project will not result in any appreciable increase in traffic next you'll also notice that a significant amount of the acreage is preserved on the development plan unlike many development plans can I just have a little bit more time yes please continue should only take one more minute the building and parking envelope indicated is not merely reflective of the UDO setbacks instead a large portion of the acreage in excess of 14 acres is preserved generally speaking the area is closest to the stream which runs through the property will be left undisturbed and the feature of the deep land further demonstrates why self storage makes sense at this location is doubtful there are any other uses that could be established here and preserve this amount of open space for example if you look at the current future land use map designation that would essentially call for garden apartments and that would require a great deal of surface parking accordingly the plan before you will benefit by preserving the natural features that exist on this property finally I want to touch on the text commitments that relate to future transit you'll notice that text commitment number two is a proffer to dedicate right of way for the future light rail system as you know these light rail plans are not etched in stone and that made proffering this commitment very difficult also if it is determined by go triangle and go Durham that an additional bus stop is needed along this corridor ample has offered to provide that on its property as well just right up the road not even a thousand feet north of this property line on the same side of Garrett there is stop 5570 known as the Garrett road at ample storage stop nothing in the UDO nor the comprehensive plan would require ample to dedicate in another bus stop in this location but ample is willing to work with the the city of Durham to improve our transit options for all these reasons we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval I'll be happy to answer any questions and our team that includes Terry Wethington of ample storage and Patty Hildreth our site engineer is here as well thank you very much for your time thank you mr. biker I do not have other people who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close to public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions do I have commissioners who would like to speak on this issue okay we'll start with commissioner Al Turk thank you chair this is a question for staff in the staff report you said the request the applicant is not in harmony with policy 2.3 1d can you say more about that because I'm trying to find it and sorry commissioner out which page are you referring to for under section g your staff determinations yeah so that policy yeah I apologize that was not more clear in in the staff report that's referring to the noodle the type development in terms of commercial strip versus linear versus no development in this case we found that given the environmental constraints on the site that since it's bounded by the resident or recreation open space that even though it did not necessarily meet that policy we thought that that was not something that should be necessary a prohibitive for this site going commercial okay so so this is related to policy 2.2 e the suburban tier commercial development which you should be yeah and I apologize for the incorrect reference so you're referring to that yes yeah my apologies for that thank you commissioner Johnson thank you chair woman so a couple questions and other questions for mr. biker and his team could you provide insight on the amount of existing a square footage of storage space at the adjacent site and it states that the proposed plan is to for a maximum 200 200,000 additional square feet basically of storage space and in and given that 35% of the project would basically be in pervious surface so that entire 200,000 square foot would go on that and within that 35% range and at least 65% and do you have any preliminary design drawings of like what's the height of that what would it look like it be single story very very similar to the existing ample stores facility it's meant to be harmonious with what's already there so I'm typically in favor of it and been familiar with this area and just driving along that particular road it just even though it's currently zone for residential it just seems that trying to place some residential within that little pocket from a congruence in contingent with standpoint it I'm more aligned with being open to thinking of rethinking you know that designation I just I just don't have enough you know insight on regards to more storage is there really the demand for 200,000 more square feet of of storage space here in Durham we've seen a number of these projects of storage space and so it's just a question of is this more speculative or is there actually a demand that warrants 200,000 additional square foot up to 200,000 additional square footage of storage space in this particular area and feel free I welcome any insight or comments you may have regarding that last point I'm Terry Wethington with ample storage answer your question yes it definitely is a need when he used 90% occupancy as a statistic we have maintained above 95 for the last five years and have hit a hundred percent several times so we're being maxed out there we definitely need the additional square foot follow-up chairwoman so do you have insight into the the actual customer makeup of who's using the current space is it residential owners homeowners in the area or is these commercial entities that is that's securing this storage space we have both it's a good mix exactly what the percentage is because that fluctuates a lot but because we're a high security storage facility we have a manager on site we have gated access only a lot of cameras that record we have a lot of commercial tenants to it's like commercial tenants that would store overflow goods we even have the city I don't know if they rent it that particular spot but in a lot of our locations of fire departments police departments we're rent units from us there's no open commerce in the facility nobody operates a business open their door and operate a business but there are a lot of business tenants a lot of business tenants that come in get their stuff go to work at their different jobs they store their reminiscence thank you thank you Commissioner Satterfield yes thank you I was noticing the letter from the open space and Trails Commission requesting that during construction heavy equipment be restricted to the no-build zone of the property and I was just wanting to ask if the applicant can explain what measures might be taken along those lines I would support that restriction I'm Patty Hildreth the engineer for the project we can note on the plans to avoid any heavy equipment in the no-build zones and we can also put up protective fences such as tree protection fence in those areas thank you is that a question it's Jacob Jacob Wiggins with the Plain Department that sounded like a proper commitment can we get some more clarification on what the applicant means by no-build zone referring to the no-build areas as defined in the unified development ordinance or even referring to areas that you're preserving on the site yes we're preserving on the site we can work with that in the morning no problem Commissioner Miller Madam Chair and fellow Commission members I'm going to vote in favor of this rezoning and plan amendment I know from the current comprehensive plan that we have hops scotch zoning along Garrett Road here we proceeding south from Chapel Hill Boulevard we have commercial and then we have industrial and then we have residential and then we have industrial again and it seems to me that a better organization of our maps both in the comprehensive plan and in the zoning Atlas would be to have this general I mean GC like the property across the street I note that the developer has limited this to storage only as they've said is the perhaps least intensive commercial use that you can have at least in terms of traffic impacts they are protecting all the areas that are in the property that are currently designated as a recreation and open space in the comprehensive plan they have offered even further protections for those areas today it seems to me this is a great opportunity to make our comprehensive plan come better in line with what's actually happening on the ground and it seems to me that's a much more likely use of the property much less invasive than the way we have it currently designated in the comprehensive plan or zone so I'm in favor of this one thank you Commissioner Miller Commissioner Gibbs I could probably pass up but I just wanted to add to what Commissioner Miller just said he said what I was going to say but probably much more eloquently but I do support this it this is a good use and it's well thank you if there are no additional comments Commissioner Altar this is a logistical question for staff as I was visiting the site I I don't I didn't see the zoning notice on there did anybody else have that issue okay I may I thought maybe I missed it but I just wanted to let you know that I didn't see the the Z the so okay Commissioner Brian I can comment on that it was laying down the ground when I was out there I picked it up and tried to put it back into the ground unfortunately I didn't have a hammer with me and that ground was very hard I suspect that it kept getting blown over by the wind thank you are there any additional questions for this item if not I think we'll take them separately great madam chair if I may I'll move that we we approve or send case number a 1600 014 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation second motion by Commissioner Busby a second by Commissioner Brian that we send the ample storage a 1600014 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation all in favor of this motion let's have a roll call yes Commissioner Altar yes Commissioner Johnson yes Mr. Brian yes Commissioner Statterfield yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Hyman yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Van yes and Commissioner Gibbs yes motion passes 11 to 0 madam chair I'll also move that we send case z1600030 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation and noting the addition of the proper second commit motion by Commissioner Busby and second by Commissioner Alturk that we move item number z1600030 forward including the proper forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation all in favor of this motion roll call Commissioner Alturk yes Commissioner Johnson yes Commissioner Brian yes Commissioner Statterfield yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Hyman yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Gibbs yes and Commissioner Van yes motion passes 11 to 0 thank you madam chair yes before you call the next two cases I want to commission to know I live within the notification distance for these cases and under our rules of procedure I need to recuse myself thank you second motion by Commissioner Harris second by Commissioner Gauch that Commissioner Brian be excused or recused himself from the is it the North Carolina 54 self storage was your second one as well okay both items all right all in favor of this motion let it be known by the usual sign of I all opposed thank you okay we're ready for the next item North Carolina 54 self storage it's two part staff please good evening Jamie Soniak with the planning department I will be presenting case number the 170001 NC 54 storage with associated plan amendment case a 170001 switch to the PowerPoint please the applicant is Tim Savers from Horvath Associates the jurisdiction is within the city the applicant is requesting a plan amendment from office to commercial with zoning change from residential suburban 20 to commercial general with a development plan the property is 1.9 acres and the applicant is proposing 120 thousand square feet of self storage building this is the aerial map and the property is shown highlighted in red it is located within the suburban tier the Cape Fear River Basin the FJB watershed overlay and within proximity to the MTC I40 overlay the property is adjacent to residential both to the west and to the north there's a cell tower just to the east and and a portion of the Barbie Road retail site which was recently recommended for commercial development is located to to the east this is a close-up of the property it's one parcel fronting on NC 54 and it is currently vacant basically a hardwood forest the applicant has submitted an application to change the office future land use designation to commercial to conform to the proposed zoning map change the staff has evaluated that change and found to be consistent with the Durham comprehensive plan and I'll discuss that a little bit further in the presentation the applicant has submitted an application to change the zoning district from RS 20 to CG with a development plan and staff has reviewed that and found to be consistent with the policies found in the in the unified development ordinance again the site is 1.9 acres the applicant has committed to up to 120,000 square feet with a use of self-storage they are requesting the maximum impervious coverage of high density of 70% max and committed to tree coverage percentage of 10% this is the development plan for the property which shows the access points there's dedicated right-of-way along NC 54 and also showing project boundary buffers and tree coverage areas so just to summarize again in terms of the commitments they're committing to us particular use the self-storage use the building envelopes and parking envelopes are identified they are showing the project boundary buffers tree coverage one access points and the development plan also includes a number of transportation related improvements including a right-of-way dedication and additional asphalt for a continuation of the future bike lane bus and pad shelters and other roadway improvements they've also included design commitments relative to the architectural style of the building and other features we have staff has reviewed the proposal and found that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of being consistent with the commercial flaw the commercial land use designation is consistent with the commercial defined policy the commercial land use designation is consistent with the suburban tier land use policy with a caveat that it ties into the Barbie Road retail site the proposed commercial land use designation is consistent with the suburban tier policy and the applicant has proffered a multitude of transportation and circulation related improvements to address the increased traffic associated with the applicant and I've already discussed a number of them including the roadway widening right of way for future bike lanes and other methods to help mitigate increased traffic we've also reviewed the application with respect to the general commercial policies and feel that the zone request would expand they recently recommended CG zone adjacent to the site and although and the already established office and institutional zone located directly east and southeast of the property this introduction of commercial general zoning allows the opportunity to provide employment as well as commercial land use uses and goods and services to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods there is existing infrastructure water and sewer to support the development the applicant has proffered a number of improvements to help address the traffic they have provided the appropriate project boundary buffers the use provides a transition from non residential to residential and the the plan is also consistent with the Durham long range bicycle plan map with the proposed bike lane along NC 54 staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and apical policies and ordinances and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have thank you I do have two individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to call Tim cybers and Jamie is it sweatler okay great thank you I'm Jamie Schwaedler and I'll start off tonight and we'll have Tim follow-up if that's all right that's fine thank you good evening Madam Chair and members of the Commission my name is Jamie Schwaedler with Parker Poe at 150 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh I'm here with Mr. cybers tonight who's with four bath and associates to present the the overall aspects of the plan and then Mr. cybers will go into a little bit of more of the development details but first I'd like to thank staff for their presentation and for Jamie for doing such an excellent job of covering all the policies this area should be familiar to you because this is the adjacent parcel to the Barbie Road retail that was approved last month it just kind of touches on the at the eastern edge of that property and it also borders the greens of pine Glen apartment complex to the west and then the small tele cell tower site that largely appears vacant to the east it's across the street from the assisted living facility but in all respects it's a much smaller much more dense area than the larger Barbie Road retail and for those reasons this small parcel is a common sense addition to that commercial area that was just approved to go forward to the council last month it's a small parcel that's currently zoned in a way that is just not conducive to residential use there's a lot of residential use that's been used around that area and it's designated as office on the the future land use map we believe the site because it's so small and narrow is really not ideal for for office or residential use and it makes much more sense to have this commercial use and with the text commitment for the 120,000 square feet of self storage it won't just be any commercial use it'll be a sensible addition to that Barbie Road retail miss on expo about some of the policies that support commercial use in this area this is a one of those node uses not a commercial strip or or the like and so it'll support the residential area that's been built up close by and some of those projects that have been approved recently and so for the reason those reasons we'd support the we know that the land use map amendment is supported by several policies that miss Sonja went through and I won't belabor those points but I would like to highlight that the change is consistent with discouraging that strip commercial that that some have feared along the NC 54 or about equidistant from the NC 55 and the South Point area and just adding that small commercial use to support the residential users in that area compliments the node and that change from the office to to commercial in addition although we're not providing an office transition between the medium density residential and the commercial we're providing a very low impact commercial which is essentially the same type of transition between those two uses it's also supported because this idea this area is just simply no longer ideal for office as it was was was designated and there's still a shortage of commercial areas and needs that are that are needed by this area the zoning is supported mainly by the policy 2.3.4 C which provides these commercial transitions between the different nodes and the orderly development and patterns of development in this area we don't have a spot zoning issue here or just a random commercial it's a sensible commercial that goes along with what you all have already approved to send on and so with that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Tim cybers who will talk a little bit more about the traffic improvements and the buffers and be happy to answer any questions thank you good evening Tim cybers 4 bath associates 16 consultant place here in Durham North Carolina I'd like to speak about the proposed use a little bit as well as a little bit more details on the development plan as Mr. Miller mentioned earlier self storage is one of the if not the is one of the lowest traffic requiring elements for commercial use the site will have one stored or one single point of access on 54 it's currently designed as a full access there are road improvements that are associated with that access point in conversations with transportation staff today there's one clarification that we made and I imagine at the end my presentation bill judge would probably stand up and clarify this as well but text commitment number seven we will clarify that by putting that text commitment under a specific heading that's titled improvements required by others and may be required of this project that is an improvement that will be required of the Jason Barbie retail project and we just wanted to clarify that through an analysis at the time of site plan that may or may not be a requirement of this development additional test commit text commitments on this plan include up to 35 feet of 35 feet or more of right away dedication project boundary buffers are shown the development plan they are illustrated on site and off site we're working with the adjacent parcel on some easements so I wanted to clarify one point on that that if the easements are not able to be acquired by the adjacent parcel we will provide them fully on our site that includes our presentation Jamie and I are available if you guys have any questions and we ask for your vote thank you thank you I do not have other people who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public comment section and move to the commissioners and give them an opportunity to ask questions do I have commissioners who would like to speak Commissioner Johnson thank you Chair woman so I am compelled to provide comment on this particular proposal as I did not vote in favor for the Barbie retail proposal the other one in part because I commercial is just I feel that this area should remain residential but obviously my colleagues the majority feels that commercial is the way to go in this area here in regards to the storage this particular proposal here I just again ask the question in regards to the prior case that we just heard so for mr. Shiver or Jamie I'm sorry I didn't get your last name Shweifer and so given that this is a relatively small parcel of land and you're looking to put a hundred and twenty up to a hundred and twenty thousand square feet of storage space on that do you have any sense at this point of what that will look like in regards to height how that fits on this on this particular parcel of land Tim Cyrus yes it the general designer now is it will be multi-story to to essentially reduce the amount of impervious is the proposed goal but it will be multi-story this developer has is currently have a couple sites under construction right now so it'll follow that same building designs that have been committed on the cover sheet follow up and so did the applicant the principal over this particular project was there any conversations with the applicant or the principal on the the Barbie retail project in regards to this comportment with that project or did this come subsequently to that what there any discussions of how those these two respective projects actually align or there was actually we we spent many months working with that adjacent owner and looking at different options of ways we could work together or possibly make a proposal that we go together through the process for a variety of reasons and restrictions on there and it didn't work out but we've worked with with the planning department to see what those combinations could look like as the projects develop in the future and the nice thing about our project is that there's a lot of natural buffers that are already built in because the Green and Pine Glen has a huge buffer area there we've got the cell tower site that's relatively a buffer and then that connecting parcel is a difficult out parcel for the adjacent area so it's a commercial use but it's tucked in very nicely that will minimize any impact and then will there be a barrier between this project and the Barbie retail will there be any kind of pigments will you be able to see the Barbie retail project or will there what's the nature of how that because they proceeded in tandem the two separate projects there'll be a project boundary buffer for each project and I believe that their development plan just has a building envelope that will have you know a significant amount of space between our building envelope thank you Commissioner Busby thank you Madam Chair I had a couple questions first I did want to thank the proponents for the the large amount of the tax commitments I think there are a lot of commitments here that were appreciated I was going to ask Mr. Judge if you could address your take on the tax commitment number seven which was mentioned earlier I just want to make sure I understand how that's going to be noted here Bill Judge transportation the comprehensive plan section does require us track cumulative impacts of developments in the area so the additional lane is need it with all of the proposed development so what the applicant asked to make the modification tonight is it for whatever reason the other developments don't move forward this project moves forward and they're able at site plan to provide a phasing analysis to show that the additional lanes not mean it for capacity just for this project because it's relatively low traffic generator that they would have the ability to phase it so we're conceptually okay with that we'll work out the exact wording with them and before it gets to the council great thank you you just answer my follow question well done and then my final question this is for the proponents as well in the staff analysis it there's an advisory note this is page one of the of attachment six and it says the applicant has not provided commitments that address whether the resulting development will be strip or nodal in configuration and just wanted to ask about that and and to give you the opportunity to offer a response and I'm not I wasn't sure where you're referencing in the in the application itself but but it but the orientation will be of a nodal nature and if there's anything specific we can answer on that we'd be happy to okay great I'll just ask the staff if that that makes sense okay great thank you Commissioner Miller thank you madam chairman so when I look at the commitments it says that it'll be storage are you satisfied that the first commitment in the commitments there about the use is a limitation it doesn't say that the use will be limited to storage it just says the use will be storage is that sufficient language for a limitation yes I'm satisfied I don't interpret that as any other use but self storage well I do but sometimes I'm surprised so and will somebody explain to me again how these buffers work if I understand the site of the the plan the development plan the buffers are actually the proposed buffers are off-site is that correct that's correct the ordinance does allow for if there are already dedicated buffers on a developed site to to combine an off-site buffer with an existing or they proposed buffer on site so you would basically take the combination of the two so if the buffer requirement let's say was 50 feet the adjacent property already has provided 30 let's say the applicant is responsible for providing the remaining 20 feet so in this instance that they're I mean I would up there I could not actually discern anything that looked like a planted buffer in there just look like woods what would be if this is approved and is built as the development plan shows what will I see that will be different there than what is there now which is woods I don't believe that you would see anything different on an off-site property what you would see different is what the applicant I mean that correct me if I'm wrong but what you would see different is what the applicant is going to be planting on their own site in other words so there's an opacity figure in the development plan but I'm I'm when I go look at woods I can't tell what the opacity is I mean it's it's high summer and I can see through those woods to a considerable correct I'm worried that I want to make sure if this goes through that there are effective buffers yes sir Tim cybers or about so she it's some of the allowances in the ordinance in the current ordinance allow you to keep the natural buffer as opposed to ripping down existing trees and planting new ones there are some allowances with that and when that is accomplished there are minimums met the minimum for a natural buffer I believe is 25 feet off my head in this case we are proposing to keep the natural buffers and work with the adjoining property owners to keep the believe all the way around it's 50 feet on the north and the west and then working with the Barbie Road Jason thank you madam chairman if I may a couple of comments and then I won't we won't have to come back at our meeting last time when we considered the Barbie Road retail I voted against it because I was against a the creation of a commercial note at the intersection of Barbie and 54 the council has not acted on our our recommendation which was inconsistent with my vote because of that I still oppose the idea of creating a new commercial note at this intersection I just don't perceive the need and so for that reason primarily I will be voting against this so that my own comments on this will follow and be consistent with the comments I said last time had timing been different I would have taken into account the council's decision on the on the previous case did whatever that was it might have sharpened my feeling one way or the other on this I will note though that we just approved a 200,000 square feet of self-storage one-story buildings on a 14 acre parcel part of a almost 30 acre parcel to in this case we were looking at 60% of that same square footage 120,000 square feet on less than two acres with almost the entire property developed I was concerned when people said is it going to be strip or nodal it's going to be total not know and it's going to be three stories or more tall and I'm concerned about that when I did go look at the apartment complex and drove up to the end of the apartment streets there and noted that in as you get closer to 54 this site is actually maybe a little bit lower than the apartments but that as you get moved back from 54 gets higher and higher and I just don't see how there's going to be any effective buffering between this very intense use of this property and the residential properties next door so for those reasons and and the position that I've already taken with regard to Barbie and 54 I'll vote against this and I ask my colleagues on the commission also to consider those positions in making their decision thank you on the other commissioners who would like to speak commission or Al Turk and then commissioner goes thank you chair I'm also leaning toward voting against this I and last month I voted in favor of the Barbie Barbie retail development so now I seem like I'm kind of flip-flopping but I at least for that case it seemed to make sense to be on that corner the I took into account the development plan itself and I will say just from a purely aesthetic perspective when I was on 54 it seemed like you know adding another commercial lot right here seems incongruent with the rest of the at least you know to the incongruent with the west and south of the plot of the of the parcel so again I I'm torn about this because I did vote in favor of a commercial rezoning last month but I am I'm I will most likely vote against this for for the reasons I've stated thank you commission or gosh thank you chair Hyman question for well I guess anyone could answer it whoever can I'm trying to understand what the maximum height limitation is for this Tim Saver's 35 sorry what did you say 35 no CG allows up to 50 feet this looks like a good question we'll figure it out and another question for staff while that one's being considered the development plan shows one point of access and I'm wondering if that would prevent you know a future point of access to the adjacent Barbie Road commercial if you know if they're able to get a cross access easement would the development plan need to be amended to provide that or is that something that could be provided anyways bill judge with transportation that would be a termination planning director would have to make but typically an access point even cross access point would be considered an additional point of access and would have to be shown on the development plan so if they were able to come to an agreement they would both sites basically would have to come back and reason to show that okay and then just so the commission is familiar with why I'm asking that if I recall I think there was you know some consideration for self-storage on the Barbie Road commercial piece and you know to me it would seem odd if that developed as self-storage and so did this but they weren't connected you know they could be different self-storage entities I get that but you know that's that was my thinking I just wanted to see how that would how that would have to happen and Jamie do you have an answer for us on the height limitation yeah I apologize it was 50 feet okay and that equates to roughly how many stories do you know okay thank you those are all my questions thank you do I have other commissioners who would like to ask questions on this if not I think I'm ready for emotional separate items Madam Chair I move that we send case number a 17 quadruple 0 1 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Busby that we send item number a 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation may we have a roll call please Commissioner Al Turk no Commissioner Johnson no Commissioner Ghosh with some commentary I'm gonna vote in favor of this with the hope that if it is self storage and so the adjacent site that the applicants will work together by the cross access Commissioner Siderfield yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Busby no Chair Hyman yes Commissioner Miller no Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Van yes Commissioner Gibbs yes I'm sorry motion carries seven before and the next item the next part of it Madam Chair I move we send forward case z1 7 0 0 0 0 1 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation second motion by Commissioner Busby second by Commissioner Al Turk that we send item z1 7 0 0 0 0 1 forward with a favorable recommendation to the City Council roll call please Commissioner Al Turk no Commissioner Johnson no Commissioner Ghosh yes Commissioner Siderfield yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Busby no Chair Hyman yes Commissioner Miller no Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Van we'll count that as a yes for Miss Commissioner Van Commissioner and Commissioner Gibbs yes motion carries seven to four thank you moving to the next item public hearing zoning map changes small wood drive staff report please thank you Jacob Wiggins excuse me with the planning department this is a request to rezone one parcel of land currently in the county's jurisdiction there is a pending annexation petition submitted by the McAdams Company and this is to rezone approximately twenty four and a half acres of land located at 208 small wood drive from residential plan development residential 6.458 the subject site is highlighted in red in front of you this area is in the southeastern part of the city near the Durham Wake County line just to the west of Page Road a couple years ago there was a planned development of residential development to the directly to the west of the subject site you can see the cleared area near Roach Drive and that is currently under development and the site is slightly south of TW Alexander existing conditions at the subject site the site is currently vacant no use as we see on this sheet there are a number of riparian features wetlands as well as some steep slopes primarily located along the northern portion of the subject site the future land use map this site is designated as low to medium density on the future land use map which is four to eight drawing units per acre the proposed PDR designation fits within this future land use map designation this designation is found adjacent to the site to the west and south the remainder of the area is primarily designated as industrial on the zoning context map the very similar situation PDR designation directly to the west of the subject site with industrial zoning found to the south of the site as well as some RR and OI districts the applicants proposal as I noted this is the site is a little bit over 24 acres they are committing to a maximum of 155 residential units no specific unit type has been noted on the plans they are committing to a maximum of 60 percent impervious surface for the site as well as indicating buffers for riparian features those potential street improvements to small wood drive the proposed conditions the sheet outlines the potential I'm sorry not the potential the actual building and parking envelope as well as buffers for the riparian features found at the site and two access points along that small wood drive as well as a future potential public street connection along the eastern portion of the subject site review comprehensive plan policies in regards to this request staff found that it is consistent with policies indicated in the plan and in general it is consistent with other applicable policies and ordinances and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have this time regarding this request okay I do have individuals I'm gonna open the public hearing and I do have individuals who have signed up to speak I'll call you in order is Wes Carter Patrick biker and Thomas Drake good evening again chairman Hyman vice chair buzzbee members of the Commission I'm Patrick biker with Morningstar law group of the 2614 Stewart Drive I'm here tonight to represent Catfish Farms a long-time owner of this property for this agenda item it's been my privilege to work with these gentlemen for over five years now since they were involved in the effort to rezone the parcel to the West as being developed as townhouses the adjacent parcel shown in your staff report is one that I hope the planning Commission has taken a look at to see the townhouse development currently underway just to give a little bit more history a few years ago as mr. Wiggins noted the city council unanimously approved the townhouse neighborhood that's under construction along the south side of Alexander the Catfish Farms ownership group has always envisioned that when the adjacent parcel was under development Catfish Farms would move forward if the market was strong we are experiencing very very strong demand for these townhouses that are under construction along Alexander Drive and so now is the time to move forward with the entitlements for the 24 acres owned by Catfish Farms this makes sense because just a couple years ago the developer of the townhouses next door entered into a cost sharing agreement with NCDOT in order to pay Smallwood Drive which had been a gravel road for decades the townhouse development we are discussing tonight eventually will have access to both Smallwood Drive and to Roach Drive and that creates better access both for these new townhouses and for our neighbors Henderson Grove Missionary Baptist Church and All Saints United Methodist Church since this proposal follows our comprehensive plan and dovetails well with the existing development we respectfully ask for your recommendation of approval and now a couple of our friends would like to speak and they'll be happy to answer any questions thank you good evening chairwoman Hyman and commissioners my name is Wesley Carter and I'm the owner of the property at 2736 Page Road which is between Page Road and this property we are for this we are intending sometime the next six months or so to propose zoning changes for a senior living center which we think will do well with the residential development and as well as the two churches next to it so we whole hardly approve this proposal if you have any questions just for the record could you state your address 2736 Page Road madam chair and fellow commissioners my name is Tommy Drake I'm one of the owners of cat catfish farms property we've owned it for over 15 years and we're grateful for the presentation by staff and for staff support I'd like to thank you for your service to the community and respectfully ask that you support this request available for any questions thank you thank you for the record could you state your address your home address I told myself five times to do that before I got up I know Thomas Drake 500 Lake Stone Drive and that's in Raleigh North Carolina thank you so much I do not have any other individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public comment section at this time and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions do I have commissioners who would like to ask questions I'll start to my commissioner okay commissioner Johnson thank you chair woman and thank you to the applicant for bringing this proposal before us I'm I'm inclined to support this just the one question I have is have you decided upon the type of residential units that will be a part of this development townhouses single family detached or I'm sorry I didn't mention that yes 100% townhouses I'm sorry I should mention that thanks yes commission about speed thank you madam chair a question as well for mr. biker or someone associated with the with the proposal just a small question on the existing conditions map when you look at that and then you compare it to the proposed site improvement map it looks like there's a fair amount of the wetlands that are being preserved but there do seem to be just some small existing wetlands that aren't preserved so I just wanted to know what the what the thinking was and the plan was for that you really tested my eyes on this actually Stephen Dorns our site designer with John with the McAdams company good evening Dorn with McAdams landscape architect live 87 28 he me all abroad in apex you are correct are some wetlands on site some of those there are riffs and they are jurisdictional wetlands there could be some impact and so we're not necessarily known what impact at this point but there would be some impact just from a grading standpoint to be able to navigate around to the portions of the property do you have a sense of what you you might have to do to help mitigate anything that would be happening anything with with existing wetlands that might not then be preserved during the development there would be so there's there is mitigation that comes with a price tag certainly if we mitigate more than a certain amount and it just depends on how much we actually end up having to impact that's probably how that be handled okay great thank you yes sir are the other commissioners who have questions commissioner Brian my reading of some of the commitments suggest to me that you know smallwood and roach drives are ultimately going to be connected absolutely and in fact some additional construction offer roach is already started yes sir my question is is will there be any sidewalk along smallwood from this proposed development to the adjacent development that you're connecting thank you other commissioners would like to speak if not I'm going to what is your pleasure madam chair I move z 17 quadruple 0 7 he sent forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second motion by commissioner Miller second by commissioner hornbuckle that we send item number z 1 7 0 0 0 0 7 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation a roll call please commissioner out there yes commissioner Johnson yes commissioner Brian yes commissioner satterfield yes commissioner Harris yes commissioner buzzbee yes commissioner hyman yes commissioner Miller yes commissioner hornbuckle yes and commissioner Gibbs yes thank you motion motion passes 10 to 0 thank you and let's move to our next item zoning map changes public hearing for and this is sl to 2017 dash 80 and it was Wake County initial so we've had this one before you have a zoning okay so it is the zoning case z 1 7 0 0 0 2 5 a staff thank you guys thank you Jacob Wiggins with the plane department give a quick bit of background on this case as well as an update so as you may have noticed in the report the North Carolina General Assembly annexed a number of properties within Durham these were all considered donut holes basically these were tracks of land that were completely surrounded by the city limits on all sides the idea behind this this was something that the administration that I think was interested in for a number of years we as the city and I think on the county side to their confusion at times in regards to emergency service response with these kind of isolated pockets so this particular case this is for properties that cross the Durham County line into Wake County still within the city of Durham's established annexation area and also surrounded by the city limits on all sides this effects this particular case affects 10 parcels the zoning recommendation in the staff report recommended RR in since you received this report some internal discussions with staff as well as some of the property owners I just realized that perhaps the RS 10 designation would be perhaps a more reasonable translation or I should say initial zoning the site is currently zoned our for in the city of Rawley's jurisdiction that for designates for drawing units per acre which is very similar to what our RS 10 district permits which is 10,000 square foot lots basically the same thing as for drawing units per acre since these properties are in Wake County and currently have no Durham established zoning designation a recommendation is needed from this board before these before this case can go before the city council for a final determination on the initial zoning so the future land use map here is noted with the properties highlighted in red this is basically an area that's at the end of Andrews Chapel Road as it comes into Comstock maybe a little hard to see on that map this one will show a little bit easier you can see where the Durham Wake County line cuts through these parcels the area to the north is primarily del Webb areas to the south and the east is the Brian Creek area Durham and Rawley some information about the RS 10 district as it said the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet which equates to a maximum density of four going units an acre the maximum height in this district is 35 feet and this district in terms of residential units only permits single family residential structures new duplexes or townhouses are allowed in this only district and it's some of y'all may recall from last month that even though this designation it's not necessarily consistent with the comprehensive plan this one is close the comprehensive plan recommends this area as low to medium density which is for a drawing units per acre so the RS 10 designation does clip the bottom end of that as it allows up to four units and acres so even in light of that staff finds that this request is reasonable which is especially true given that the unified development ordinance notes that an initial zoning is not required to adhere to the future land use map and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have about this particular request at this time thank you I do have one individual who has signed up to speak for with modification Patrick biker whatever that means chair hyman members of the planning commission my name is Patrick biker morning star law group I still live at 26 Stewart drive here in Durham I'm here tonight to represent Gruhan investments LLC which owns just over four acres located in Wade County that's one of the subject parcels you're considering tonight it's important to note that this property in Wade County is zoned our four as mr. Wiggins just described which is residential four houses per acre I also wish to point out for the planning commission that water and sewer infrastructure is readily available for the property owners such as Gruhan investments that are for you this evening I know this from my personal experience with the other developments that have built the water and sewer infrastructure in the immediate vicinity given the need for translational zoning and the red ready availability of water and sewer I'm here to support the staff recommendation for Gruhan investments and the other properties located in Wade County that they be designated RS 10 RS 10 is the Durham zoning district that most closely matches the R4 zoning of these parcels existing in the city of Raleigh's zoning lexicon and so since the RS 10 would also more closely match our future land use map I think it is appropriate it's important that translational zoning be applied to these parcels in Wade County since this is an involuntary annexation and it's only fair for property owners to maintain the entitlements they have today so for all these reasons we respectfully ask for the planning commission to support the staff recommendation and be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this particular parcel thank you very much for your time tonight I do not have other individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public comments give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions and Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Brian, to my right, Commissioner Miller, no one else, okay, Commissioner Johnson. A woman and to the applicants I hope you encourage you to reach out to your state elected officials and thank them for having us having to consider such an application in the first place this probably is more for staff I'm just curious in the report it says that basically there's a 60-day time line for the city to apply for the zoning designation before that about what happens if the city doesn't meet that 60-day deadline if the city does not meet that deadline then there would be no zoning at the subject site it would be an unzoned property and what would that mean for property owners with no zoning designation is it the Wild Wild West or we don't want to find out what that is okay thank you the chair recognizes Commissioner Miller I think that the property owners would have the right to sue for mandamus to compel the zoning category thank you Commissioner Brian thank you I think this if I'm reading this correctly this follows from the session law of 201 780 passed by the General Assembly and the one thing that conflicted about a little bit we're talking about 10 parcels in the staff report but when I look at the session law for section 2 there are only four properties identified in the session law as being in Wake County I like to reconcile that difference sure I'm Jacob Wiggins the the law or the the session bill talked about the four specific properties in Wake County this item has ten items because there are portions of six other parcels that cross the county line so the preceding part of that bill contained 417 other parcels including these other six parcels that were annexed into the city okay so the listing of what's supposed to be in Durham County is not exactly correct is that what I'm here no what I'm saying the matter before the Planning Commission tonight is a recommendation for ten parcels which have portions are wholly within Wake County the authorizing legislation annexing these parcels encompassed a number of other parcels in Durham County those other parcels don't need any action from this board okay I think I see your point just something that bothered me yeah the other parcels are being recommended for an exact translation zoning and the Planning Commission in my memory serves correct 2009 passed a resolution which automatically recommends approval for any exact translational zoning so that matter will be heard by the City Council on August 21st do I have other Commissioners who would like to speak Commissioner Miller all right so I'm more confused so despite what the report says we're looking at RS 10 are we looking at RS 10 for the entire shaded area yes it just seems to me that for the Durham port well never mind that's all I have madam chairman I'm going to vote in favor thank you any additional comments from commissioners if not I'll entertain a motion madam chairman I move that with regard to case z1 7 0 0 0 25 a that we recommend to the city of Durham with regard to this initial zoning that the property that is shaded in the staff report be rezoned from its current zoning whether in Durham or Wake County to the Durham zoning classification RS 10 motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Al Turk that we send item number z1 7 0 0 0 2 5 a forward to the City Council with comments as stated by Mr. Miller all in favor of this motion let it be known by a roll call please Commissioner Al Turk yes Commissioner Johnson yes Commissioner Brian yes Commissioner Satterfield yes Commissioner Harris yes Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Hyman yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes and Commissioner Gibbs yes motion passes 10-0 thank you our next item unfinished business oh there's none okay and under new business we have a resolution and recognition of Reverend Melvin Whitley serve us I will read this into the record so sorry mr. Reverend Whitley is not here tonight resolution and appreciation of mr. Melvin Whitley where as mr. Melvin Whitley was a member of the Durham Planning Commission from February 1 2010 through June 2017 and where as the planning the Durham Planning Commission and the citizens of City and County of Durham have benefited from the dedicated efforts that he displayed while serving as a member of the Durham Planning Commission and where as this Commission desires to express its appreciation for the public of a job well done now therefore be it resolved by the Durham Planning Commission section one that this Commission does hereby express its sincere appreciation for the service rendered by mr. Whitley to the citizens of this community and section two that the clerk of the Commission is hereby directed to spread this resolution in its entirety upon the official minutes of this Commission and this resolution is hereby presented to mr. Whitley as a token of the high esteem held for him adopted this 8th day of August 2017 Elaine Hyman chair thank you madam chair move the resolution second it has been moved and properly second that we adopt the resolution of appreciation of mr. Melvin Whitley all in favor of this motion let it be known by the usual sign of aye aye all opposed I have it thank you I'm signing it thank you so much motion to adjourn