 Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name 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 ten 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. Can I have the roll call, please? Mr. Alturk, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Busby, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Gosh, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hornbuckle, Ms. Hyman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kinchin, Mr. Miller, Mr. Vann, Mr. Whitley, Madam Clerk, Mr. Commissioner Johnson has requested an excused absence, so I need a motion to approve excused absence. Ms. Hyman, I believe Mr. Kinchin asked for an excused absence as well via email. You were copied. I don't know if you saw it, but he did actually send one. Madam Chairman, I move that we excuse Armira Kinchin and Mr. Cedric Johnson from attendance tonight. Second. Motion by Mr. Miller, second by Commissioner Busby, that Commissioner Kitchin and Commissioner Johnson be excused from the meeting tonight. All in favor of this motion, please raise your right hand. Motion carries. Anonymous. Thank you. Next item we have is the approval of the minutes and consistency statements for the February 14, 2017 meeting. Chair recognizes Commissioner Bryan. I have what I believe is a minor correction. H4 at the top, when we're dealing with the Andrews Chapel, I believe that the motion actually carried 13 to 0 because even though Mr. Alturk had left, Commissioner Ghosh was no longer recused, so that would have given us 13. Thank you. Are there other corrections to the minutes? Madam Chair, I move the approval of the minutes as corrected. Second. Motion by Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner Bryan, that we approve the minutes with corrections. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand, please. All opposed. Madam Colerk. Motion carries, 11 to 0. The next item, adjustments to the agenda. Yes, Grace Smith planning. Staff would recommend or suggest that the commission consider moving item 6C to the beginning of public hearings under section 6 because we will be, the staff does intend to ask for a 60 day or two cycle continuance based on the applicant desiring to make some changes to that plan. And I know some people are here signed up to speak and it might be helpful for them if they don't have to wait for the other hearings. If we continue that hearing, that's totally up to the commission. Just a recommendation or suggestion. Madam Chairman, I move that we move items 6C, cases A-16, 0-0-15, and Z-16, 0-0-0-35 to the first position in Chapter 6 of our agenda. Second. Second. Motion by Commissioner Miller, second by Commissioner Busby that we move item A-16, 0-0-0-15, and Z-16, 0-0-0-35, 1900, Hillendale to first position under the public hearing, sixth category. All in favor of this motion, raise your right hand. Thank you. We'll move it to first position. Okay. And one last thing. Chair Hyman, staff can affirm that all legal notices have been carried out in compliance with local and state law and affidavits for those who are on file in the planning department. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 5, public hearing. Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as amended. Zerga? It has been moved improperly second by Commissioner Harris and Commissioner Brine that we adopt the agenda as presented. As corrected. Thank you. All in favor of this motion, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Now can we move to item number 5? Public hearing, comprehensive plan, future land use map amendments, it has none. So, okay, since there are none. Then item number 6, public hearing, comprehensive plan, future land use map amendments with concurrent zoning map changes, and we have moved item number C up to first position. The chair recognizes staff. Good evening, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. As Assistant Director Smith noted, staff would recommend a continuance of up to 60 days for this item. It's my understanding from the applicant that they are requesting or contemplating I should say some changes to their development plan. Has not had an opportunity to review those, so I believe a continuance would be helpful so that staff can evaluate those changes and bring them to the commission when they're ready. Two cycles, yes ma'am. Madam Chair? Chair recognizes Commissioner Harris. Madam Chair, I'd like to honor the applicant's request and have a two cycle continuance for case number A1600015 in zoning case 1600035. Question. Madam Chair, I believe staff said there were people here to speak, and we have, if we're going to continue, don't we have to open the public hearing anyway? I just wanted to make sure that if there were people who were opposed to or wanted to be heard on the question of the continuance motion before us, that we hear them before we vote. So it looks like I'm going to open the public hearing so that these individuals have an opportunity. Well first of all, let me check with staff. Is that, because this is a little bit since we're continuing at two cycles. So you have a motion and a second on the floor, so you need to decide how you're going to dispose of that, and then if you want to open the hearing, that's certainly, the applicant can speak for a few minutes and explain his position, and if anyone in attendance has questions, we can certainly answer those questions. However, there is a motion and a second on the floor. Okay. Let me go ahead and we have a motion by Commissioner Harris and a second by Commissioner Brian, that we continue item number 81600015 and Z1600035 for two cycles. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by a roll call vote. Mr. Alturk. Yes. Mr. Brian. Yes. Mr. Busby. Yes. Mr. Ghosh. Yes. Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Ms. Hyman. Yes. Ms. Freeman. Yes. Mr. Harris. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Vann. Yes. Mr. Hornbuckle. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. Yes. Oh, I did. I'm sorry. Did I call everyone? No. Motion carries unanimous. I'll take credit for that. Since the item has carried and we're a forward two cycle, we're going forward two cycles. There are individuals here who have signed up to speak. Are those individuals still interested in speaking? Let's open the public hearing for those individuals and let's see if the applicant would like to make a statement. And the, so I have Tony Tate who is here for, okay, and the applicants. I have three applicants. Olivia Moore, Daniel Kaston and Tom Clark. Yes. Madam Chair, my name is Tony Tate. I'm a landscape architect. I'm a landscape architect here in 5011 South Park Drive here in Durham. I am here representing the applicant in this case and he is requesting a 60-day deferral in this case for us to make some adjustments to the conditions of the plan. So we're asking for the deferral. Thank you. We've not completed those so we're just asking for that. Thank you. So Madam Chair, and that we have no idea what the request is. I don't know what the community can speak to since we don't know what the plan is. So we will just, the item, the individuals here will withdraw so there will be no further comment to this. Thank you. The next item, sorry. Excuse me, Chair. Hyman sort of, did you all actually open the public hearing? You need to continue it again, just procedurally. That's right. Yes. Move, we continue the public hearing. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Bryan and second by Commissioner Freeman that we continue the public hearing. Two cycles. All in favor of this motion, let it be known by raising your right hand. Motion carries unanimous 11 to 0. Thank you. The next item that we have, item number A160006 and item Z16000161201 Ellis Road. Staff report please. Thank you. Jacob Wiggins again with the Planning Department. This is a case for property located at 1201 Ellis Road. The applicant is Dan Ryan Builders. This is within the City of Durham's jurisdiction. The request is to change the zoning designation of this parcel from residential role to plan development residential 7.870 and also to modify the future land use map of the comprehensive plan from low density residential to low medium density residential for the site. The site is approximately 22.8 acres in size and the applicant is proposing a maximum of 180 townhouse units for this project. Context map, noting the, noting this area, you can see it, the property fronts along Ellis Road and is just to the east of the River Road at Ellis Road intersection. Moving in the area primarily a mix of residential role, industrial, there is a PDR's only designation to the south of this site. Some requirements of the PDR district for this project, maximum of previous coverage. The applicant has committed to a maximum of 70%, a maximum building height of 35 feet, 20% tree preservation and they're committing to only townhouse units. The existing conditions which is seen as part of the development plan packet or package I should say in your packet. The black hatching notes the environmentally sensitive features at the subject site and the remainder of the site is primarily a mix of hardwood forests. Proposed conditions, you can see the applicant is indicating the townhouse units for this, potential access points as well as some potential stream crossings. You can see on the northern property boundary the applicant is dedicating 61 feet of right of way. The transportation department requested a 50 foot reservation for this area. The end result of the dedication would mean that the applicant would not be required to provide a buffer along that northern property boundary. A summary of the commitments, again as I noted the applicant is committing to a maximum of 180 townhouse units, roadway improvements along Ellis Road, their site access points, a building and parking envelope, riparian buffers and potential stream crossings. A summary of the design commitments, the applicant is not committed to any particular architectural style, sloped roofs, one or more exterior building surface materials as seen on the development plan and distinctive features include front facing gables and or entry porches and or windows shutters. A look at the future land use map, you can see on the left hand side the existing conditions noting this property is low density residential and industrial to the north, the applicant is requesting to go to low medium density. The policies reviewed as part of this as it currently stands, the site is not consistent with the low density residential designation, which is why they are requesting the low medium density designation. Staff found that the request meets other applicable comprehensive plan policies for that requested change. And staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have at this time. We're going to open the public hearing for this item A-16-000-06 and Z-16-000-06. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak, Jared Edens. Two means you're going to vote for me twice for approval. It means peace, I don't know, two minutes. I'll take two minutes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jared Edens, comedian and engineer with Edens Land. I'm here representing my client Dan Ryan Builders, Dan Ryan, very local, a local very reputable builder in this market. They do a lot of the product that we're trying to put on this parcel here tonight. I appreciate staff support of our request so far. Personally, and we at Edens, we know this area very well. Our office is close to here. We've done several projects up and down Ellis Road. There's a good mixture of units there now. You have several different PDR zoning. I know PDR zoning, some people want PDR to include a mixture of uses, but you have different PDR zoning around us at different densities. You've got single-family PDR, you've got apartments, you've got PDR for townhomes. To me, it's a really good area. I think it's a hidden little gem in Durham. I think it's up and coming at this Ellis Riddle area. We like it there, so we like this project. I think the density works in this location. It's not unheard of. The 7.8-ish that we're applying for is not unheard of in Durham for a townhome product. We've done it several times. We have no neighborhood opposition that I am aware of as I look out into the audience. I'm glad to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I have another individual who has signed up to speak, Brent Lockwood. Madam Chair, Commission. I'm a neighbor just around the street, a disgruntled neighbor. Just a few things I really wanted to go over that bother me about this project. Since I've lived there, and even before then, where Ellis and Ellis Road come together, which is southeast of this project, a huge apartment complex was built. Right now, at Ellis and Ellis, there are townhouses being built. A fairly large number. I'm not sure exactly how many. We have a huge development that's been going on for the last eight, seven or eight years right on Edcook Road and Ellis. I guess I look at it and I say to myself, when's enough of development? I see they're putting in townhouses. They're not putting in apartments. That's good. I don't know if you can put a map up there, but where this is, there's a turn. It's a very dangerous turn. As a matter of fact, just this past Friday, there was an accident right there at that turn. There have been many accidents. As a matter of fact, I'm about 100 yards away and someone died right coming out of my driveway years ago. It wasn't my driveway at the time, but it's just a really dangerous place and the way where they have the road coming in is right there in the middle of the turn. The other possibility would be for Riddle Road to come straight across Ellis Road and come into their development. They could take that road, but that's where they're putting the buffer area in. There's a lot of traffic. If you ever come in the morning or in the afternoon, that wasn't 10 minutes. He has eight more minutes. I won't take eight more minutes. I'm almost done. If you come down Riddle Road and come to the stop sign at Riddle and Ellis Road in the afternoon, there are cars backed up all the way past the railroad tracks. Now, I don't know if they would put a light in there if they were going to run that road straight through. I guess that's a possibility, but it's a major problem right there. Major traffic. It's dangerous. So we've got the congestion is one, the traffic, the curve. You've also got that creek coming through, and I assume you guys have already handled that creek, but that creek goes basically from their northeast corner and it comes straight across diagonally to the southwest corner. I assume they're going to redirect that. Also, 35 foot. I don't know if they're going to be two-story or three-story. Obviously, they can put three-story in. I'm on six acres just around the corner. There's a lot of people on an acre or more, but obviously, as it's progressed, they're getting smaller and smaller lots. But the bottom line is I just think it's really dangerous. I don't think it's the right spot for all those 180 plus or minus townhouses. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have other people who have signed up to speak, so I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Are there commissioners who would like to speak to my right? Are there commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Freeman, let me start with you. My question is for staff and specifically around this area on the side. I haven't seen a buffer like this in a while, and I don't think I've seen one. How much space is that between the site access and this cul-de-sac on the side here with this eddy trail? I'm trying to understand exactly where the stream is and how much buffer there is. I can explain the buffer part. It's 50 feet from the top of the bank on each side, and there's a 10-foot no-build buffer located outside of that as well. Is that crossing center going to build across that stream? There's a noot on there that says that it's a potential stream crossing, so it could be at that particular location. Is there any limit to, because I know both say potential? Yes, ma'am. Is it like they could do both or they could do one? Sure, they could do both. This gives them the opportunity at time of site plan if they do want to install stream crossings to do so without having to come back for a formal rezoning. Any impacts on the stream would be handled at the time of site plan as well, so they'd have to mitigate any impacts into those areas. Okay, and then just for transportation as well for the area of the road that the gentleman mentioned, I've been around that curve. It is a sharp curve. And it looks like they're moving, are they giving, is there an increase of right-of-way and then this left-hand turn into? Yes, Bill Judge with transportation. The applicant located site access point number one to the south to try to maximize the offset with Riddle Road so that long-term, in order to get back-to-back left-term lanes in a three-lane section, so that's why that is located there. Obviously, at site plan stage, they would be required to show that they have adequate site distance at that location before NCDOT would approve that connection, and they are dedicating 20 feet of right-of-way along Ellis as well. And with the dedicated 20 feet, that's going into Edcook Road. Is there any adjustments that could be made for Riddle Road? And Ellis Road that the gentleman mentioned, I'm sorry, and Mr. Lockwood mentioned? More than likely, the right-of-way dedication would not necessarily be enough for any sort of significant realignment of Riddle Road, but it would potentially allow for some clearing of site distance around the inside of that curve. And what is the probability of getting a light at that intersection? The rezoning did not require a traffic impact analysis, so I have not looked at that particular intersection in any great detail. But as an existing intersection, anyone is free to request that from our department at any time where we can evaluate it for signal warrants. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to call the applicant up to this podium. Jared, I'm concerned about the staff's report where the Riddle Road extension, it's my understanding that staff actually asked for 50 feet right-of-way for the extension of Riddle Road, and that you put in 60 feet, and because they are 60 feet, there wouldn't be a buffer between the applicant property here with residential townhomes and the industrial parcel immediately to the north. My first question concerning that is, how important is the extension of Riddle Road to beyond where it currently stops on Ellis? How important is that to your project? I personally don't think Riddle Road is going to get extended in the next 25 years. It's my personal opinion. I can explain where the buffering came from, if you like, because it wasn't an effort to avoid anything. Staff had asked for a 50-foot right-of-way, I think, reservation. If we had given what was requested, which, fine, Riddle Road, even though I still don't think it's going to get built, take our land, more or less. You give the land away, you're required to do, if you just do 50 feet, our buffer would have been 80 feet on top of the 50. I mean, at some point, your land has to be developable. So to suggest to take a 50-foot strip of Riddle Road right-of-way for a road that I don't think is going to be built, and I know how things get built, and to take 80 feet on top of it was unreasonable. So our solution partially worked out in conversations with staff was to give a 60-foot right-of-way dedication to make this a fair project for everyone involved. That would be my answer to that. So do you not propose to put any buffer in at all, even with the right weight? What am I buffering, though? I mean, there's no road. So the answer is no. I do not, because the people who purchased the townhomes there in the future, they already know that Riddle Road may be there. So I'm not going to try to pre-buffer, because they're going to buy there if they want to live there. Is the Riddle Road extension important to your project? In other words, if staff hadn't asked for it, would you have offered it? Again, I don't think it's going to happen. It's not important. I would have rather had the land and done other things with it. Did you have something that you wanted to add in response to what the opponent said? I appreciate the opportunity. It's Mr. Lockwood, I believe. I'm trying to search him out. Thank you, sir. I don't think we met before. I don't know if you were at the neighborhood meeting or not. We hear this a lot. I've got some random notes. Everywhere you look, it's development, development, development. I, for one, can't complain about it, because I've had to fire too many people over the years because of lack of development. So, for me, it's Christmas time, because I've got a lot of stuff to do, and I've got to hire people, and we're all making money, hopefully, in the construction industry. I know the demand is there. I know people don't like to see, you know, the gentleman, Mr. Lockwood himself, said that he had six acres, but over time, the parcels have gotten smaller. Even just the general parcels around here. Over time, the parcels have gotten smaller. That's what's happening on Ellis Road. It's a desirable area. We like to make comments about affordable housing, and we like affordable housing and product options. Well, if you want affordable housing, if you give me more townhomes on a piece of property than a single family, I guarantee those townhomes would be cheaper. It's more affordable. There was a comment about road improvements and whatnot. We are doing road improvements that I consider to be off-site. We are helping the intersection of real road and Ellis Road by putting a left turn lane in there. That's part of our work. We do have to check site distance. I appreciate Bill Judge's comment on that, because DOT is very harsh on checking site distance. They go out there, they measure it. If you don't hit the 400 or 450 feet of whatever it is, you can't put your driveway there. One comment made about string crossings. They're there. We do them as safe as possible. We minimize the impacts because it costs us money to impact them more. I can't help. We're going to have string crossings. When Foxwood Manor, which I designed, was developed, we didn't want to put that road stub in on that northern property line. That's why there's a cul-de-sac there now. Some of the people may live there. There's a cul-de-sac there that was about their temporary knowing that eventually that cul-de-sac has to be removed whenever this road is connected through. So yes, we have to connect. We're going to cross. It's Durham's policy. Not every road or project is perfect. But I think this is a good one. You've got a good buffer to the south. I'm sorry for being long-winded. Look at the stream buffer that runs east-west along the southern part of the property. That provides a natural buffer between Foxwood Manor and most of the density for this project. That's great. Look at the Riddle Road right away to the top. Whatever is going to happen north of our parcel has a 60-foot right away between that and us. So I think we have a good project here and I appreciate your support. Thank you. Thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Gibbs? My question is, well, I guess for anybody, maybe Bill, Judge, the extension of Riddle Road, is that planned to extend to... I wish we had a rule when you submit something that is big enough to see. Where is that going to extend to Glover Road? Or is it just going to go somewhere and stop? Yes, Bill, Judge, with transportation. It would extend to Glover Road just on the west side of 147, which would then... There would be basically a realignment of Glover Road so it would be continuous right there across 147 to provide connectivity in this area. Well, I would agree with Jerry that it's going to take a long time because there's some property to buy up before it can be extended. But I was just curious. Thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak to this issue? Commissioner Miller? Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm going to, at the appropriate time, move that we approve this item. But I intend to vote against it on a couple of grounds relating to the Comprehensive Plan. My biggest concern is that what's being requested of us is the creation of an island in the Comprehensive Plan in the future land use map of a residential property of different density than all the surrounding area and the prevailing development pattern. I mean, to the north we have industrial and the Comprehensive Plan calls for that. This is not light industrial. This is industrial industrial. And then to the south we have essentially a predominantly single family neighborhood even in the PDR that's below. All of those are below four units an acre and this would be eight units an acre. And I just don't think that's good planning to create little islands of substantially different or double the density in our future land use map. And that's essentially what's being asked for here. So that's one reason I'm going to vote against it. I'm troubled by the lack of a buffer between residential property and industrial property. I believe there should be a buffer. I realize this real road request from the staff is problematic. I also wonder whether or not there will ever be an extended riddle road there. To me it would be more important as a matter of land use planning to have a buffer here. An appropriate buffer between residential and residential than to have a reserved right of way which may sit there for a long, long time and may never be used. I understand what Mr. Eden says. If you wound up giving 50 feet and then 80 feet. I don't know how many acres that is, but that's a lot of property. I would be much more in favor of this proposal if the proposed density was less. And if there was an appropriate buffer in there. And for those reasons I'm going to vote against this. The chair will enter if there are no additional questions. Commissioner, the chair recognizes Commissioner Gosh. Thank you Madam Chair. Just going off of Tom's comments. I do have a question for staff. Which is how was this area designated? What considerations were given when this area was designated for low density residential on the future land use map? It didn't really make a whole lot of sense to me because the area immediately to the north is industrial. And I'm wondering if this was just kind of a way to describe what's on the ground there today. Or was there some planning principle that determined that this area should be low residential? Sure. I was not with the department when this came around. I assume my former colleagues did use some good planning principles in that. I can say how staff looks at it today. We think about land use categories kind of on a hierarchy. Residential would probably be the lowest intense use. There's even variables within that. You get a single family all the way up to more dense residential. Moving up to office institutional uses, commercial and then industrial being the most intense use. We're evaluating this project based on the size of the property and the density. Staff was of the position that this request seems to be some of a better transitional use between the industry uses to the north and the lower density residential uses to the south. Thank you, Jacob. I mean, I would tend to agree with that. I appreciate what Commissioner Miller said, but unfortunately, I think that I'm coming to the opposite conclusion, which is that the future land use map in this area doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense and probably ought to be amended for more dense residential. Yeah, I mean, it's up against the industrial use there. And there's even multifamily designation north of that. And I think, as Jacob said, or Mr. Wiggins said, that it is more of a kind of transitional area and density probably ought to be higher and so that it can transition into residential. I think I'm going to be in favor of this one. It makes a lot of sense in my mind and I would encourage other commissioners to use it. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Gowsh and the Commissioner Gibbs. Just a comment. I'm glad that's all I have, but thank you, Commissioner Gowsh. All of the comments have merit, but I really, I was going to speak about transitional area and that's the way I feel about this. So I will be supporting this also. The chair will entertain a motion. Madam chair, I move that we approve. This would be two cases. A 16 triple zero 13. Strike that. I'm sorry. A 16 triple. No quadruple zero six and Z 16 triple zero 16 12 oh one Ellis road. Second. Motion by commissioner Miller that we approve item a one six zero zero zero zero six and item Z one six zero zero zero one six second by commissioner Busby. Are you ready for the question? Madam chair, I have a question for staff. Can we do it in one motion or do we still have to do plan amendment first to make the zoning consistent? Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. Thank you, Commissioner Brian. Yes, that is correct. You will need two separate motions, one for the plan amendment first and then one for the zoning map change. Then Madam chairman with Mr Busby's permission. I withdraw the incompetent motion and then move that we approve the plan amendment a 16 zero zero zero zero six. I second. Motion by commissioner Miller that we approve item a one six zero zero zero zero six and second by commissioner Busby. Are you ready for the question? All in favor of this motion. Let's have a roll call. No. Mr. Busby. Yes. Mr. gauche. Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Ms. Hyman. Yes. Ms. Freeman. No. Mr. Harris. Yes. Mr. Hornbuckle. Yes. Mr. Miller. No. Mr. Van. Yes. Now the chair will entertain a motion. Carries eight to three. Motion carries eight to three. Thank you. Madam chair, then I move that we approve cases e 16 zero zero zero one six twelve oh one Ellis read. Second. Motion by commission motion by commissioner Miller that we approve item is the one six zero zero zero one six second by commissioner Busby. Are you ready for the question? All in favor of this motion. Let's have a roll call please. Mr. Al Tert. Yes. Mr. Brian. No. Mr. Busby. Yes. Ms. Freeman. No. Mr. gauche. Yes. Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Harris. Yes. Mr. Hornbuckle. Yes. Ms. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Miller. No. Mr. Van. Yes. Motion carries nine to two. Thank you. I heard three nose. I'm sorry you're right. Motion carries eight to two. Eight to three. Nailed it. Madam chair. Can you recuse me? Yeah. Recognizes. I only got the roll call. Commissioner Harris did you? First of all I'd like to move that we recuse commissioner gauche from the next item. Second. Motion by commissioner Harris and second by commissioner Brian that we recuse commissioner gauche from the next proceeding. Lumley Road Town Homes. All in favor of this motion. Let it be known by the usual sign of aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Now I have a question for staff before we go to the next. Chair recognizes commissioner Harris. And I'll pack it here. We just have the zoning cases. We don't have the plan amendment. So what would you like for us to do with that? Yes. We'll look. There should be a note at the top that you put your comments for both cases on the same. And in the written comments start at the bottom and they flip over to the back side. Of that sheet. So yes ma'am. So the plan amendment would go on the same. Yes. Yes. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. The chair recognizes the next case. Lumley Road Town Homes staff please. Thank you. Jacob Wiggins again with the planning department. This case is from the Lumley Road Town Houses. The applicant is Andrew Porter. This is reviewed under the city's jurisdiction. There are two requests as part of this item. The first is a zoning map change to change the zoning designation of the site from residential role and commercial center to residential suburban multifamily. And to also change the future land use map as part of the comprehensive plan from medium density residential and commercial to medium density residential. The acreage for the future land use map change approximately two thirds of an acre. The zoning of the overall site is 13 and a half acres. And the proposed use would be any use allowed in the RSM district. There's no development plan submitted as part of this request. Context map, noting the area. The image on the left is the present day zoning. And the image on the right is the proposed zoning. As you can see this parcel borders the Durham Wake County line along its eastern side. You can also see the commercial zoning in the southeast corner of the site. The site is generally located along Lumley Road just to the east of Page Road. And there you have a view of the property from 2013. As you can see there is a multifamily development located directly west of the site. And some commercial uses to the south of the site along T.W. Alexander. The RSM district, the maximum density since the applicant did not submit a development plan with this request would be eight dwelling units an acre. They would have to provide a minimum open space amount of 18% of the site. And the RSM district permits a range of housing types from single family to multiplex housing types. The future land use map. As you can see there is a portion of the site in the southwestern corner which is noted as commercial on the future land use map. Which is the approximate two-thirds of an acre and the applicant is requesting to change that to medium density residential. Comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this request. As you can see in front of you on the future land use map as I noted there is a portion of the site which is commercial which the applicant is requesting to change. If that is approved then it would become consistent with the future land use map. Staff also evaluated residential and suburban tier policies regarding this type of development and found that the request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan. And that the staff determines that both of these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable policies and ordinances. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time regarding this request. Thank you. I have two individuals who have signed up to speak for Mr. Byker. Good evening Chairwoman Hyman, Vice Chair Busby, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Patrick Byker, I live at 2614 Stewart Drive. I'm an attorney with Morningstar Law Group in Durham. I'm here tonight representing Darlington Advisors for this item. With us tonight are Carlton Midgett, the manager of Darlington as well as Dean Jule and Andy Porter, our landscape architects with Coulter Jule-Tems. In regard to the comprehensive plan amendment before the commission tonight, I wish to stress that our plan amendment application only covers 5% of the 13.5 acre development we are proposing. In fact, when one looks at the underlying commercial zoning, one finds that the translation from the old merged zoning ordinance to the UDO was to CC, which is commercial center. However, the UDO mandates that any CC zoning district have a development plan. It is clear from the official zoning maps that there is no development plan for the two-thirds of an acre currently zoned CC within our proposed neighborhood. Accordingly, it appears we are here tonight to fix a mistake on the zoning map. Since a plan amendment was required with the zoning map change, we held a neighborhood meeting at a nearby church and no one other than our team and the owner showed up. We believe that is the case again tonight. Most, if not all of you on the commission have heard it said that Durham is pretty much out of good development sites. Based on our due diligence, the challenge with this site before you this evening is significant subsurface rock. Based on these rock conditions, we anticipate that we will be blasting in order to install stormwater BMPs and other infrastructure, and that is a costly undertaking. Given these difficult site preparation costs, it is impossible to state with certainty what the total number of dwelling units could be on this 13.5 acres. And that is why we did not submit a development plan. For these reasons, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval for the RSM zoning district for this site and also for the plan amendment that covers two-thirds of an acre to change the designation from commercial to medium density residential. Our team will be happy to answer any questions you may have tonight, and we thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Fred Snyder? Okay, thank you. Okay. You might want to look at the other form then. No, the others. We'll take a minute. Okay. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and give the commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. Are there commissioners who would like to speak? Commissioner Harris? I have a question for Bill Judge with reference to the transportation impact. And I'm looking at table two about traffic generation, where it's a negative impact on traffic of about the level of 1,500 trips per day. And is that mainly because of the explanation we have in there at the bottom? You used the maximum use of existing zoning? Yes, Bill Judge with transportation. We, for these tables, we always assume the maximum permitted uses on the site. And because a small portion of this was commercial, we utilized fast food restaurants. So that's why there was such a large reduction. Okay, thank you. Are the other commissioners who would like to speak? I'm looking to my left. Commissioner Horne Buckle? Mr. Becker, you can probably answer this for me, sir. Are utilities for this provided through Durham or with Raleigh? Durham, sir. It's Durham. Yes, sir. And with your designation, if it is changed, does this affect anything along with the border with Wake County side of it? No, sir. Thank you, Commissioner Horne Buckle. Commissioner Miller? I have a follow-up on that. Patrick, what's the property on the Wake County border? What's the property over there in Wake County? What's that going to be developed as? How's it zoned? It's zoned City of Raleigh. I believe it's in the City of Raleigh's ETJ for office mixed use, which is a combination of multifamily and office. Yeah, nothing that would necessarily be a bad neighbor to your project. No, that's correct. Commissioner Freeman? I just had a question. You mentioned that there were no more developable areas or no more good developable areas. No, it's very tough to find sites that don't have problems. Let's put it that way. Okay. It's very tough. I wish we could. Any other commissioners who would like to speak? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we recommend approval of case 8160013. Second. Motion by Commissioner Brine, second by Commissioner Miller, that we approve item number 8160013. Are you ready for the question? All in favor of this motion, let's have a roll call. Mr. Alter? Yes. Mr. Brine? Yes. Mr. Busby? Yes. Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Ms. Hyman? Yes. Ms. Harris? Yes. Mr. Miller? Yes. Mr. Vann? Yes. Mr. Hornbuckle? Yes. Motion carries unanimous, 10 to 0. Thank you. Now, entertain a motion for the zoning map change. Madam Chair, I move that we recommend approval of case 0160029. Second. Motion by Commissioner Brine, second by Commissioner Miller, that we approve item number 0160013. So, 1-6-00029. Forward with a favorable recommendation. Are you ready for this question? All in favor of this motion, roll call. Mr. Al Turk? Yes. Mr. Brine? Yes. Mr. Busby? Yes. Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Ms. Hyman? Yes. Ms. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Harris? Mr. Hornbuckle? Yes. Mr. Kenchen? Yes. Mr. Van. Yes. Motion carries unanimous ten to zero. Thank you. Item public hearing zoning map changes for village hearth Z one six zero zero zero one four staff please. Good evening Kyle Taylor with the planning department. This case was continued from the December 13th meeting to the February 14th meeting and now to the meeting tonight. There is one correction to staff report for a start. The applicant has committed to age restriction development and as such the proposed number of trips for the project should state 171 trips per day for the most severe use of this site. Now the age restriction does lower the number per unit. Based on this information the project would result in a reduction of 187 trips per day from the most intense use that would be currently allowed on the site. Could you repeat that for us please. Yes. So the applicant recently added with the most recent middle of this which is the version that's in your guys's patch a packet. A age restriction commitment and age restriction has a different rate for trips per day than what the actual single family does. And as such the trips per day that's anticipated for maximum use based on this development plan would be 171 trips per day versus the 300 and some odd that's in the actual staff report at this time. And the this would reduce the number of trips based on the most intense use by 187 trips. The applicant for this project is Daniel Joule. It is in the city's jurisdiction. The request is from residential suburban 20 and residential suburban 10 to plan development residential 2.1 1 0. The acreage is 15.207 acres and the proposed uses for 32 age restricted single family and multi family units with the community building. The site is located 1000 infinity road in the suburban tier and the E.A. watershed overlay district. I'm just going to go over the changes that have happened since last time you guys saw this case. Major changes that have happened is the addition of tax commitments. The addition of the addition of building area for a potential single family home near infinity road. The note to the on the existing driveway now no longer states that the use will be only for construction and maintenance traffic. The building and parking envelope has been updated and the note to the existing access point states that the applicant will seek the to admit this stuff out at the time of site plan approval pursuant to UDO section 12.3 0.1 0.2 and then the button bush drive access now states that it will the access connection to button bush drive to include construction of public cul-de-sac or T type turnaround and dedication of associated public right away. The updated tax commitments include the preservation of the existing driveway. The maximum age restriction. That's just a abbreviated version of the age restriction. The entirety of the age restriction can be found in the staff report and also on the cover sheet. Proposed developments as a series of single family and two family multiplex supporting buildings and all land not associated with buildings will be in common ownership. No individual residents shall exceed 1600 square feet and total floor area and there will be a maximum a minimum of four residential buildings on site and a maximum of 32. There shall also be a community building. No more than five acres will be graded at any one time and no clear cutting as defined in the UDO. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and staff is available for any questions. Thank you. May I have the list of individuals who have signed up to speak. We can do this in 10 minutes. Dan the chair recognizes Dan Jewel. Thank you chairperson Hyman and fellow commissioners and thank Kyle for the good staff report there. Good evening everyone. Again I'm Dan Jewel. Culture Jewel Thames 111 West Main Street in Durham. We are we are here representing the the Village Hearth community. Many of the members of the community who will be living out here are here tonight. But out of respect for your time and to not rehash the same points that were made three months ago they've elected me as their sole speaker. I think there may be a few neighbors here who may speak for and against but don't want to take up a lot of your time. We're back here after a three month hiatus. Basically word smithing the proffers that all came up at the meeting back in December. The requests those are and we think were those were all good ones. Since that time we made an initial resubmittal to the planning staff right after Christmas. We actually held another neighborhood meeting back in January. We met again with the staff. We made two more submittals word smithing the proffers and we've had numerous conversations with NCDOT and we're back tonight with what we think captures the intent of what you all asked for and what some of the neighbors concerns were at the December meeting just to recap the key points. Kyle stated some of these but but they're worth restating the existing driveway to infinity road of which there was much discussion will remain open in place and no conditions on gating or anything like that. So we just removed all of the language conditional on that. You may have a little discussion on that tonight. That's OK. But that will be part of a continuous private drive that goes through the community into the community and then connects back out to button bush on the other side. Folks will have their choice of how they want to drive in and out of the community. We've worked out a very detailed committed element language on the age restrictions. I think that takes up 90 percent of the line for the text commitment on the age restriction to that we think the staff satisfaction. And if you remember that is a very important aspect as Mr. Taylor reminded you because it has reduced the number of vehicle trips by more than half over what it would be without the age restrictions. We've also added easy said those commitments to not clear cut don't grade more than five acres of time and we've tightened up the allowable unit sizes and types with no unit larger than 1600 square feet. We've committed to the project being developed as a condominium form of ownership not a subdivision. In other words other than the units the individual units who would be owned by the members of the community. All of the remaining land will be held in common as common open space. This also helped with the concern over the future road stub out to the East East which none of us liked that showed right up against Mr. Browning's property. And although staff is still requiring us to show this stuff out they've helped us with some language on the development plan that gives us an out at the time of site plan approval to make that road stuff go away and of course it's it's their strong intent to do that because they would rather not have that road stuff out. Mr. Browning has been a very good neighbor to their and finally you can also see on the development plan that we have tightened up the building area envelope fairly substantially even though the site design is still not quite finalized there has been enough work by the community that they felt comfortable to go ahead and pull that envelope in get it away from the adjoining properties further preservation of the land on the bottom lands. We know that there are still folks in the Eno Trace neighborhood who are not happy with the connection to the road stub at the end of button bush. But we do ask that you commissioners please keep in mind that what we are not asking is any greater density than somebody could do by right today with a simple staff approved subdivision. And with the age restriction imposed on these residents the number of car trips is reduced by more than half. The Village Hearth community and I respectfully asked your recommendation for approval to the city council and of course I'm happy to answer any questions you might have at the appropriate time. Thank you that ends our presentation. Thank you. James Taylor and Jim Kimbrough be ready to speak. Thank you. My name is James Taylor. I live at 14 Hummingbird Lane in Durham. That's in Eno Trace. I just want to rebuttle some of the comments that was made the last time we was allowed to speak the rocket to end of the street boulder. So some of you went out there and seen them. I built houses out there for 12 years. I never bought a stick of dynamite. Everything was dug up. I'm sure they won't be no blasting. There was concern about the traffic construction on the streets and stuff's going to air them up. Kids are playing. There was kids out there when I built and I never ran over one child. If the streets get dirty and we clean them up the city makes us clean them. I never tore any of the roads up and I did 10 times with these people going to do there. So I just wanted to assure everybody that I did much more work out there than these people even thinking about doing and we never tore nothing up. So I'm for this. Thank you. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Jim Kimbrough. Good evening. I'm Jim Kimbrough. My wife and I live at 11 oh two infinity road. We are in favor of this project. I just want to let you know that I think the developers have been over backwards trying to keep the area as pristine as possible. There's a watershed restriction on the northern part of the property. Our property is just due east of where this project will be. For those that are concerned about development my wife and I did put two offers in on this property when it was under the estate of William Dunn. Neither were accepted of course but we are very pleased with what they put forward and we do honestly think it's the best value for that property at this time. Thank you. Could I get your name again please sir. Yes. Jim Kimbrough K. I. M. B. R. O. U. G. H. Those are all of the individuals that I have signed up to speak for. I do have individuals who have signed up to speak against Andrew Claren Kennedy Rizzuto and well I'll start with the two. Ten minutes all total. It's about three. She is listed here. Kitty Rizzuto. Thank you. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the commission. I'm Andrew Claren. I live at 4804 Button Bush Drive and I was just going to cover some stuff that we've discussed previously and present once again while we are not against the development per say. We are just for them using the 1000 infinity entrance and closing off the stuff to Button Bush. This is an overview of Eno Trace right now. There are currently three large cul-de-sacs. You have current laying round spring or warbler all with less homes than what Button Bush currently has. So adding thirty two additional homes with more than double the current traffic on the street. The main roads in Eno Trace all have speed humps. You note that this says three hundred sixty daily trips because that was what was put in. I know it's been amended now due to the age restriction. So it's a hundred and seventy one. But those studies are all based off of the main access road which is infinity. So if you consider that the majority of the traffic would be down Button Bush. I just think maybe a study should be focusing on Button Bush itself not necessarily infinity. But that's something we can we can discuss later. So the current access routes to Button Bush from infinity without going through the gravel drive. There are two speed humps on the Lazy River Drive and there are three on Shade Bush. So adding two additional speed humps on Button Bush to deal with the more than doubling of the houses would mean a normal trip to the property would cross four to five speed humps depending on which way you come in which is more than any other of the sites in Eno Trace. I know that that's one of the things that was discussed was adding traffic calming circles or speed humps to deal with the increased traffic. I'd like to point out that the property that was purchased isn't a thousand infinity roads not forty eight fourteen Button Bush. So I know that the stub is there but I would like to see that stuff closed off and only focus on infinity. I have a question about the thing that was submitted. It said that the existing gate was going to be removed. That designation was right along the infinity road. There are actually two gates on the property and I didn't see that they were going to remove both gates. And so I know they said that it was going to allow for continuous traffic. But on the plan that I saw both gates were not being designated as being removed. It was just the outside gate. And if the inside gate was to remain you could see it's blocked with a chain. Plus they're also saying that this is going to be a single family home site now. So I don't know how we're going to have a road through there. That's also going to be a home site. Other things that I'm curious about. But since we don't have a detailed site plan of where all the homes are going to go. We don't know what we're looking at. This is the current intersection of Shade Bush on the right. Lazy River going north and then Button Bush to the left. So if they were to put in a traffic circle it's not really going to be possible there with the other residents properties being affected. And then this is another community that they said they closely mimicked which is you know Commons off of Umstead Road and then this is South Riverdale. South Riverdale only has six houses that were impacted by this development and Hillock Place only has 14 houses. So and the density for this development was only 22 homes. So the comparison isn't what we think is really a true comparison. And going back to the previous meeting I know Mr. Taylor touched on a few things as well. We didn't really have a chance to communicate back on some things. Some of the comments we're talking about traffic and people you know speeding down the road and one of the commissioners said that we should speak to our residents and our fellow neighbors and ask them to slow down and and what we wanted to point out is it's not the residents that are doing the speeding. It's delivery drivers and for some reason we just have an unusual amount of traffic in our neighborhood. Our kids are used to it. They'll play on the street. A car comes down to get up on the grass and they don't even get off the grass because they know that car is going to be turning around. I mean it clearly says it's a dead end road on Button Bush but we have a lot of turnarounds and and traffic that's already there that usually is not destined for our street. So I think that the residents have also mentioned that they're going to age in place. So you're going to have an increase in emergency vehicles and just additional traffic and in December they made proffers of construction going down the gravel road possible emergency vehicles going down the gravel road. That's you know no longer there. We did have another meeting as Mr. Joel alluded to in January and we brought up the specific things that some of the commissioners had mentioned in December about a detailed site plan. Some other stuff about building materials and we didn't see that in the submission and we asked if he was going to provide that and he said no. And so I asked very bluntly I said so you're going to specifically exclude stuff that the commission is asked for and he said yes. So the overall sense that we get from dealing with the people of Village Hearth is that they're very set on what they want to do. They're only thinking about their residents. They're not considering other people in the community. And when we asked if widening infinity was Mr. Clarence I'm going to have to at least stop at this particular time to see there are two other people who have signed up to speak unless they have deferred their time to you and that's Sarah and Jim. Okay are you Sarah. Okay and you Jim. Okay. All right we can continue. Thank you. All right. We asked if widening infinity to add a turn lane and not pursue the connection to Button Bush was cheaper then would they still pursue that option and they said no. So we also mentioned if it was 300,000 was a number that we were told to widen infinity and put in a turn lane that that would work out to be about 10,000 or less than 10,000 per unit over the life of the site to add in that turn lane wouldn't that be beneficial. There were some comments made about people on fixed incomes and things like that. But the main sense that we got was there wasn't a cooperation there. We asked Mr. Jewel why they were pursuing the Button Bush connection and he said that this is what our the residents wanted. So we were in the room with them and we turned and faced the residents and said is this what you want do you want to use Button Bush is this that you know what you want to do there was some kind of silence and then they said well we're going based off what the developer wants that's why we pay him. We also asked well what is your address going to be where you're going to get packages is it going to be a thousand infinity or is it going to be 48 you know Button Bush whatever and they said we don't know you need to ask the post office. So we don't feel that extending Button Bush is best for our residents. We don't want we're not opposed to what they're trying to do we just want them to develop their main entrance which is for the property that they purchase and not continue this job that is Button Bush. Thank you. I've got two minutes for Mr. Fred James. See here. He may have signed the wrong sheet as well. I have two minutes. Good evening. So I'm a residence of Trace and I'll make it short and simple. Could you state your name? Oh I'm sorry. Cerebral and address. Address is 22 Pedestal Rock Lane Durham. Thank you. My concern is for the traffic and I know that they they put the number in half 170 extra cars in our neighborhood is still quite a bit. I'm in the neighborhood weekly many almost daily walking with my children two young children. We don't have sidewalks. There is already a lot of traffic and to have 170 extra cars in our neighborhood. I think it puts all of us at a safety risk and I know they spoke about previous construction. You never ran over a kid. That's not good enough for me because it can always happen and the more traffic and construction that comes through increases that. So thank you. Okay. That ends all of the individuals who signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public hearing and give our commissioners an opportunity to ask questions. I will start to my okay. Let's start with Commissioner Alturg, Commissioner Gosh, Commissioner Bryan, no David. Yeah I do. Okay. Commissioner Harris, Commissioner Busby and Commissioner Gibbs and Commissioner Holybeckle. Okay let's start with Commissioner Alturg. Thank you Chairwoman. Thanks to everyone for coming out and giving us your feedback on this case. I want to reiterate a couple of points that have already been made. The first is that if this was not a rezoning case and someone wanted to build on this land in this current zoning designation they could build 31 single family homes and so the rezoning the proposed number of units is 32 single family homes. So again so if someone wanted to go not go through city council not go through us they could build 31 single family homes and the generated traffic as the staff report mentioned as Kyle mentioned would be 360 daily trips. Again we heard that with the age restricted commitment that you know that daily the daily trips will be reduced to 171. So again if this was proposed if this if someone built without our approval this would actually generate more traffic than what this is proposed than what's proposed today. So I want to also reiterate something Mr. Taylor said he's you know he mentioned previous development in this in this neighborhood. So I was actually curious about the neighborhood and I went to the city of Durham's website online you can you can see where and when most or when houses in Durham were built and so a lot of the houses on Shed Bush and Laser River were built in the late 1980s. A lot of the houses on Button Brush Road were built in the mid 1990s and I mentioned that only to say that you know at some point Button Bush Road was probably a nuisance to the people on Laser River but it it seems like because the houses are in character you know are the same density with neighboring houses that there has not been an issue between neighbors and I think that this will be the case here. You know this is a development that will look very similar I think to the surrounding neighborhood and I don't think it will create so much more traffic that will have an impact. So but I did have a couple of questions one for the for the neighbor that spoke you mentioned speed bumps and you mentioned if that you know adding two speed bumps on Button Bush right. I wasn't clear whether you wanted that or whether you thought that that was that you didn't want another two speed bumps I mean yes please. Andrew Claren again 48 or four Button Bush Drive. One of the I don't know if it was a proffer but one of the things they mentioned to help deal with the potential traffic impact would be traffic calming circles or speed humps and so the yellow indication was just showing where those potential speed humps would go. Please speak into the mic. I'm sorry the designation was just if the speed humps were put in the potential where they would go just to kind of show the overall flow from the entrance to inner trace to the end of the prop where the beginning of the property would be. But is that something that would be that would alleviate some of your concerns or is it something that you think is it just another news. Well it I mean it would alleviate some of the concerns but it would then also increase trip time for everybody that lives on Button Bush. So it's it's a good and it's a bad I mean it's got I mean it's better than nothing but it would still impact us as well. I just had a quick question for Dan. I mean you know they're we've we've gotten a staff report and from Kyle's report that the gravel drive commitment was or the you know commitment on the development plan was changed to not include construction and emergency services is that what was the thinking behind that. So there was no thinking behind that I will admit in all of our back and forth with with staff mostly in spending a month working up this affordable or this age restricted language I'd forgotten that that was a strong desire of the of the commissioners as well as the neighbors. So even even though this is what got us in trouble last time I would like to if if if that's something that is still of interest to the commissioners to age restrict that to to to limit construction vehicles we'd be happy to do that if that's the consensus of the of the planning commission. I mean I think it's something that would alleviate some of the concerns I know it doesn't alleviate all of the long term concerns but it does help with some and so I that's something that I would and just a clarification to your your question the the speed the traffic calming was actually a request recommendation advisory comments from the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee which we respond to and said we'd be happy to work with the neighborhood on traffic calming if they're interested in doing that. Sorry so you would be willing to add would that be at another text commitment that you would we would have to the commitment is we'll work at work we'll work with the the the neighborhood at the time of site plan approval on that. The chair recognizes staff please. So Mr. Jule are you proffering something this time or stating that you will work with at the time of site plan. I'm proffering nothing at this time our our response in the written response to the staff report still stands. So he's referring to attachment eight of the state of the site plan staff reports are number three in the applicant response to that response is what he's just stating what he has stated in response to the comment. All right thank you. The chair recognizes commissioner gosh. Thank you chair Hyman I do have a question for Mr. Jule. Just point clarification I don't think I understood. The round about. Or what was being proposed there and where I was being I'm not sure that I'm not sure where that came from we are certainly not proposing around about. Okay that helps. I didn't I didn't see it but. All right thank you. The other thing I want to respond to something that. You said in your presentation and I forgot your name I'm sorry. But one thing you said was. That the village her folks are. Hadn't really considered. What the people on button Bush one and they were only thinking about what they want in their neighborhood. Frankly I I don't think that could be further from the truth I've seen a lot of development plans. I've seen a lot of rezoning through and they've essentially made every proper that. That we discussed and that you all raised. At the. At the last time we met. And so I I don't even understand where that came from. They've opened up. The infinity road access and and now they haven't closed off button Bush but. I would imagine that the planning staff. And just based off of our UDO cut connectivity requirements. I don't even think that would be a desirable. Project from a planning standpoint. Then you know the there is you have had some concerns about a lot of traffic on button Bush it looks like to me. Just eyeball test looks like the shortest route would be off of infinity. I'm not sure why. Why one would choose to go the other way when the shortest way seems to be off of infinity anyways. To recognize the staff. Just to clarify the existing driveway is remaining as an existing condition it is not to listed as an access point at this time right if it were to be utilized as full access it would need to meet street standards and be paid. But it is open for use it's a private driveway. Is that correct. Bill judge with transportation in our discussions with the applicant and CDO T. I mean. If a resident of the development chooses to go out using that gravel I mean there would be nothing prohibiting or restricting them from that. But in order to meet the required site plan. Elements which require basically the required drives to be. Paved all that access would be shown. Via through button Bush. So I mean it would be physically possible for a person to drive out there there'd be nothing prohibiting them. They would just be driving through a gravel existing gravel driveway versus a paid roadway which. May be less likely. Oh I understand what you're saying but it is still I mean it's not a. Right okay I understand what you're saying but it is still something that is available. For. For. In grass or egress from the people who live there so I mean. I think it really doesn't think all the profits they've. They've added really do you speak to the concerns that were raised. And. You know. I think they should be applauded for that. That's all I have to say. Thank you commissioner Brian. Thank you I like some of my questions have just been answered. It appears to me that we're leaving the gravel drive. Open so that it can be used. But the key to this seems to be is that we're calling it a driveway not a street. And if we call it a street then we get into problems is that correct. That's correct. Thank you. Commissioner Harris. Mr. Judd. Howard. Is there any restrictions. As far as traffic is concerned. On the private driveway. So. No they. There are no real. City requirements for for private driveway so that that all remains private property in any restriction. So the hundred seventy one trips per day could utilize that. Interest way. Yes they could. Other than like I said it's gravel so it may be slightly. We have many folks that live on gravel roads that. Complain and don't don't want don't wish to live on gravel roads so. Whether they would use button bush the paved access or the gravel. I can't tell you that would be an individual's choice. Okay. Commissioner buzz me. Thank you madam chair. Mr. Joe I had a question as well. If I understood it correctly. Mr. Claren had asked a question about the gate and asked if there were two gates instead of one gate. There's a gate out there's a gate out by the street and there's another gate that's basically just a chain farther in so. We we've shown no gates on the development plan so that's a that's a graphic commitment. Okay so both will be. Actually physically removed yes okay great. And then the home plan on site he also raised a concern about would that impact the gravel road. It does not at all. The the the community has just said they have a desire to keep the option open of one of the units just one of the units potentially being out at infinity roads so it would use that safe driveway and that's why we showed that cleared area by the street is not that they will. But but they wanted to reserve that right. Great and then one last thing just to to circle back to commissioner out Turks question around the construction vehicles using. The gravel road. I may have missed it is is that something that is in here in writing or is that something that that you. Are willing to. Put forward at the appropriate time I just want to make sure I understood what we what we did here we are willing to put that forward at the appropriate time if it's the consensus of the of the commission and I have actually worked out language ahead of time so we don't have to belabor this. Well done thank you I can speak and say I think that would be a desirable. Thing to put forward I think that would I know that doesn't deal with some of the traffic issues it doesn't deal with emergency vehicle access. But certainly I think the construction would be. Another step forward in the right direction so thank you. Thank you commissioner home back home. Well a lot of my questions have been answered but I just. I have known that area when it was the done farm many many many years ago and. I feel more comfortable I would feel more comfortable myself. Using the driveway versus coming out of a button bush place while I'm hoping that they do have that that option does remain open. Form to use that and and it's at certain times of the day it would be I think much safer trying to get on the infinity road it's a lot of traffic use on infinity road and from that driveway where it is located it would be much safer to get out from there then trying to come off of laser river down there and button bush so I you know I'm hoping that if my support that's going to have to be part of the stay open like that. Let me recognize that again at this time. Yeah just to clarify with Mr. Jule you just made a comment about that you are graphically committing to the gates. Simply not putting something on the proposed conditions is not a graphic commitment so if you are committing to removing those gates it would need to be as a textbook. Yes we will commit to removing both of the gates. Commissioner Gibbs. Well a lot of my questions have been answered also this is another one of those situations where it seems that every neighborhood has has its it likes for things to stay as they are and I don't think I've seen the level of I'll say stick to it in this for lack of a better word but I know some people in this this proposed development and if I were going to have neighbors they're exactly the ones I would want they're going to look after your kids by that I don't mean they're going to babysit but I wouldn't put that past them either they're going to become they could become your friends there's not that much traffic even when they do I don't think anybody is a speeder unless Margie Mac backs her Ferrari out of the garage then watch out everybody that that's an inside joke for some of the people in the at horse side but at any rate I really think when this I would like to see this this connection to button bush it I think you will find that you will be using that to visit these people nobody they're going to want their privacy just as much as you do but at least the door will be open to neighborliness and I'm not trying to play the part of peacemaker I'm really trying to restrain myself but they are a good group of people and as far as the design of the area I have all the confidence in the world that what they have you would be proud to even look at another another point in connecting to button Brit Bush the end of that road now and I said this last time and I'm going to say it again it's a mess whoever lives down toward that end you need to clean it up if nothing else is done and I'd like whatever building horse side does don't touch that stuff let them clean it up and I said I was going to restrain myself but anyway that those are some of my comments thanks commissioner Miller okay so I just want to recap a little bit I'm looking at your committed element number two here in the text commitments it says the existing gravel drive connecting the property to infinity of road shall remain in place the internal vehicle vehicular circulation will provide for a continuous private driveway network from infinity to button bush lane to me and tell me if I'm getting if if I misunderstand to mean this means that for your residents because this will be a private system that you you will be able to drive out the gravel drive to infinity or you will be able to drive to button bush and you will be able to drive from button bush to infinity so if you get home and because you forgot your sunglasses you could pick them up and then go out the other direction without turning around that is exactly correct and uh the in that you're going to create drives on the inside and those will be built to subdivision standards or will they be private drives what's your I'm not sure I understand all the rules here but bill maybe you could help me they will be built to private driveway standards private driveway standards so may I make a suggestion concerning the gate issue seems to me the simplest thing to do is in the first sentence of number two there where it says remain in place you could add the words open and so the road shall remain open and in place that's just a suggestion that's to a two-word fix for the gate problem and now I have a question for the staff if over time the gravel drive deteriorates and it becomes necessary to maintain it will that trigger any requirement that they upgrade it beyond what it actually is in other words what are they committing themselves to because gravel drives have to be graded and re-grabbled from time to time bill judge with transportation that may be a better question answer for by the planning department but typically you are allowed to perform maintenance ongoing with your property so they can continue to maintain the gravel drive they just cannot improve it or widen it yeah um significantly change it yeah that that is correct you he would be able to maintain it but not improve it could that with this commitment could they abandon it confer one second no because that commitment states remains in place that it will need to remain in place all right thank you I have a couple of questions for you Dan so the just to make sure I understand that single family house that you may build up there towards infinity would be a condominium its form would be single family but it would be part of the project and bound by the same system of covenants yes sir and you still don't have wood in your list of materials no wood on these buildings no there will be wood in these buildings you don't have it in your list of materials you sure I don't think so we talked about it before I didn't see it maybe I missed it I'm glad somebody reads these things more carefully than I do we talked about this last time we did so I would like to have that all right we'll we'll wrap up some about your mind yes thank you that's all I have thank you madam chair are there any additional questions from commissioners commissioner brian there's been some discussion of maybe speed bumps or tables or whatever on button bush but I'm curious I think there's already in the in that development in general too many or in the speed bumps and what I'm getting at is I think for emergency vehicles and stuff there may be some limit to the number of speed bumps and I it's seven it's seven so I don't think speed bumps is going to be an option on button bush and I had one other thing I was thinking about we all seem to be in agreement that this gravel drive is a driveway and I'm assuming that it's a private drive belonging to the residents out here is that correct so the private drive is an existing condition and does not meet the definition of private drive in the ordinance so it's an existing condition and how does it not meet the ordinance condition I'm gonna let bill judge speak to that bill judge once again we have we essentially have three street types we have public streets private streets private streets are required to be built to the exact same standards as public streets they're just privately maintained and then we have private driveways which are can be driveways parking lots gravel this falls in that private driveway category so it would remain it currently is and would remain that so there really be no change to it so there's no way in the future if these residents pull their resources and wanted to do it there's no way they could at some point in the future pave this private driveway um well they they could pave the private driveway I believe the if they were to pave it the requirement then by North Carolina DOT would be to construct a left-hand lane on infinity road which they were trying to avoid okay thank you yeah the chair recognized commissioner busby I think this is first a question for staff to start I think we're wrapping up our questions but I do want to make sure before we put a motion forward I want to make sure that I think it be helpful for all of us to hear from staff of basically a summary of the changes we've made this evening I know we and also to ask staff for their input I know normally our policies say that if we're accepting proffers and text commitments we are supposed to put this off for at least two cycles we don't have that luxury at this point so I'd like to ask you to share your input but I also do want to make sure we we are all understanding what has been proffered and then finally I do want to make sure we we make sure we wrap up the conversations to be clear about removing the two gates on the gravel drive as well as the potential proffer on construction vehicles using the gravel drive as well so thank thank you for indulging my very long question so to answer your question about what has been proffer at this time the only proffer that we have received so far is the removal of those two gates everything else remains the same as currently on the development plan and the wood material is that correct well yes but the actual commitment that's on here right now could be left the same and he could use a wood material so long as he used a minimum of those two that are on there there's no language in there that would prohibit him from using other materials so long as he used a minimum of two of those actually listed okay thank you okay so that was the first question and then so you staff seems comfortable then at this point with capturing those proffers that we have in place okay we would need to work with the applicant between now and council to work out exactly what the wording will be about removal of those gates but yes we are comfortable this time okay great and then finally if I may madam chair to to circle back to the potential proffer on construction vehicles I can't speak for everyone but I get the sense that the commission would agree that that would be an appropriate proffer to make given the the concerns of the residents so this is the appropriate time I will make that that that proffer I would word it as construction vehicles will be required to use the driveway connecting to infinity road and avoid using button bush lane pretty clear I've got a copy of this I can give staff and the share I would look to staff it seems clear to me but I want to make sure that that seems appropriate and clear to staff and thank you mr. jewel that commitment is acceptable to staff thank you thank you madam chair if there are no additional questions I think we're ready to entertain a motion madam chair I'd like to make a motion to send for z16 00014 with a favorable response okay motion by commissioner freeman and second by commissioner hohenbeckl I'm sorry by commissioner Gibbs I could hear it coming from that direction that we move item number z16 00014 village hearth forward with a favorable recommendation are you ready for the question all of all in favor of this motion let's have a roll call please mr. al-turt yes mr. brun yes mr. busby yes mr. gauche mr. Gibbs miss hyman yes mr. freeman yes mr. Harris mr. hornbuckle mr. miller yes mr. van yes motion carries 11 to zero thank you the next item that we have a Watkins at witherspoon item number z16 0007 staff report please we'll give the audience a few minutes to clear out it looks like everybody's leaving thank you Jacob weekends with the plane department this request is Watkins at witherspoon this is located within the city of Durham's jurisdiction and this is a request to change the zoning designation of one parcel land the site is currently own residential role with a development plan and the applicant is requesting to change this designation to mixed use with a development plan please ignore the plan amendment note on there there's no plan amendment required as part of this item and the applicant is requesting a mix of uses as per the mixed-use standards they're looking for a range of 33 to 300 residential units and a range of a hundred and fifty five thousand to two i'm sorry a hundred and five thousand to two hundred and fifty five thousand square feet of non residential uses the existing zoning map is in front of you the left hand image shows the current zoning the right hand image shows the proposed zoning the site was previously owned and operated by witherspoon rules culture which recently moved to garret road this property as you may be aware is now located in a compact neighborhood tier this application came in before that was approved so the applicant has not requested DD but they have committed to design standards as part of that some requirements of the mixed-use district so the district in general typically requires a minimum of four acres the applicant has approximately eight acres as part of this request they are providing the required 50-foot transitional use area the maximum residential density if the 300 units were provided would be 37.4 drawing units per acre the non residential intensity is a range of a hundred and fifty five thousand to two hundred and fifty five thousand and the applicant is also required to provide a phasing plan which is on the development plan and also shown on the screen there in front of you the applicant in the first phase must provide both residential and non-residential uses the existing conditions page as you can see the site the use is now vacant there are a number of structures and other small improvements from the previous use which those are proposed to be removed if this item is approved proposing additions as seen in the development plan and your packet on the applicant has indicated the site access points as well as utilizing the compact neighborhood standards and they are proposing to use a vertical integration as part of this mixed use district a general summary of some of the commitments the range of uses which I previously spoke about as well as the phasing plan access points the applicant will be making roadway improvements in the area providing a bus shelter as well as doing a right-of-way reservation for a go-triangle utilizing vertical integration and committing to compact neighborhood tier design standards a summary of some of those design commitments the applicant has indicated that it will be a creative and respectfully modern building design they will have pitched gable or flat roofs a minimum of one exterior surface material as noted on the plan front engine setback requirements ground for glazing requirements and that the building shall be articulated with a three-dimensional relief the future land use map is quite blue this is this entire area has now been designated as design district on the future land use map comprehensive plan policies reviewed as part of this rezoning request as noted the future land use map now designates this area as a design district staff did look at some of the other comprehensive plan policies and found that this request would be consistent with those the determination from staff which is noted in the staff report apologize for putting lots of words in front of you but in general staff finds that this request does meet UDO standards for transit supported development so even though it's not necessarily consistent with the future land use map of the comprehensive plan we do find that it is consistent with the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan and that the UDO does recognize the need to permit developments in the interim until such a time that the design district zoning can be implemented and I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time regarding this request thank you I have a number of individuals who have signed to speak for since I have no individual signed up to speak against so I'll just go down the list starting with Ken Spaulding Dan Jewel Dave Charters and Michael Waldron 10 minutes good evening madam chairlady and members of the planning commission my name is Ken Spaulding 7913 leonardo drive here in Durham I do represent the applicant in this matter along with Dan Jewel this is a mixed use development we're hoping to have both office retail multifamily and hotel this was filed back in March 14th a year ago 2016 the development is continuing to be a part of the filling in of the existing Patterson place which is important to our community's long range development and to our light rail development we made sure that we contacted Triangle in the very beginning made them aware of our plans we met with them early on I believe about eight months ago and we agreed to reflect on our plan their requested need we've met with them subsequently and I think we have have a good partnership moving forward and I think they'll speak to you this evening also I want to point out that what's around us is mixed use we're mixed use filling in with mixed use and I think it's going to be something that I remember when Mike Waldrop was working on this many many years ago I was working on South Point Mall and he was working on Patterson Place and we were sort of eyeing each other and competing a little bit but I'm so glad to see how that development has moved forward and I never thought I would be a part of it as far as representing a client but we're very happy to do that Mike and I want to say that we've met the request and concerns and suggestions of planning staff and we want to respectfully request your support for this plan Dan I think we'll take over from here thank you attorney Spaulding again Dan Jewel culture jewel Thames 1111 West Main Street our firm has been asked by our client to help them with land planning and preparation of the zoning application also with us here tonight my associate Jeremy Anderson who's the project manager and I think you all know Earl Llewellyn of Kimley Horne who's available to answer questions that may come up on that proposal before you is for creation of a mixed use zone on this property which will provide for a variety of residential office and or commercial uses at a density that is supportive of the planned future light rail system it's a fine balance though between density that will generate ridership numbers that will help go triangle in their application to the federal government for funding but still does not impose untenable levels of traffic and the surrounding street system absent the light rail system being here in the immediate future we're well aware of the current efforts of the planning department planning staffs been working hard to create a new compact design zoning district that will coincide with the compact neighborhood district tier that was adopted last year that you are all involved in I've been actively engaged in this planning effort publicly supported the creation of the compact neighborhood tier last year when it came before you and the elected officials while the adoption of that city county led zoning is still many many months away and many public hearings away I wanted to tell you why our proposal is very much in keeping with what we think this compact design district will be first and foremost we've committed to meeting the UDO design standards for compact neighborhoods and I've also committed to some more stringent standards only currently found in the design district requirements if you're familiar with these parts of the ordinance you'll already know that these require things such as building placement being close to the street establishment of an architectural podium height building architecture maximum spacing of openings pedestrian accommodations among others we're further committing to standards including ground level fenestration of at least 50 percent for non-residential uses and 25 percent for residential and having buildings occupy at 60 at least 60 percent of the street frontage so very urban we're also committing to a vertical integration of uses and have established a range of uses and minimum and maximum square footage of each that still meet the mixed use district requirements remember that even though we have built in flexibility on what we will build and the ranges of what we will build the traffic impact analysis is still the regulating document with this development plan that stipulates the maximum number of car trips that can be generated by this development in other words no matter what we end up building we cannot exceed the maximum number of trips stipulated by the traffic impact analysis by more than three percent a tiny amount without coming back to you and the elected officials for another rezone we hope you can agree that this proposal located less than a quarter mile of the proposed light rail station fits into the vision and mission of a transit supportive development but without unduly burdening the surrounding roadway network if the light rail is not up and running in the near future and is worthy of your recommendation of approval to the city council thank you for your time good evening commissioners thank you for allowing me the time to speak my name is david charters I'm the manager of design and engineering for go triangle leading the design of the light rail project we've had active and constructive discussions with the applicant as mr. jewel explains and mr. spaulding did we believe that the development will be supportive of the light rail project with the station at paterson place nearby as well as the bus connector service that presently serves paterson place so to be directly to the point go triangle is supportive of this project given its connectivity and density that will assist the light rail project and the bus connection services to go forward thank you I'm sorry michael wall drop five three two four mcparland road I just wanted to tell you that we were a neighbor of the witherspoons from 1984 on and that was a very happy relationship and I look forward to welcoming the developer the owner chris howlett and his family to the neighborhood and so I hardly urge you to support this project this is going in the right direction as early as anything is else is in durham and so I I would like to see a unanimous vote in favor of this if that can be done thank you very much thank you I have no other individuals who have signed up to speak so I'm going to close the public hearing and give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions going to start I'll start with commission al-turk commissioner harris commissioner freeman commissioner buzz okay we'll start with commissioner al-turk okay thank you thanks to everyone for coming I let me get straight to the point I I you know I think that I like the I like the density I like that it's close to transit options but because of those things because it isn't a compact neighborhood tier because it is a transit hub even if the light rail never you know comes to fruition the you know the parking ride there the the couple of routes that I take sometimes the 400 for example from durham the chapel hill it's an important transit hub but because of those things I think that it is important for us to think about affordable housing and so I did want to to bring that to the attention of the the commission and to the applicants you know I I know that under North Carolina law we can't just require you to do anything but I it is position I think of elected officials in the city of Durham and and I think it's that that we want to promote affordable housing and this is I think there was a report that came before the commission I think in 2015 I wasn't on their commission then but it's it actually specified a number of neighborhoods and a number of areas of Durham that where affordable housing could be located and I think Patterson Place was one of those and again that was in 2015 I think it was a study by UNC some students at UNC Chapel Hill I know that there are a couple of things in the UDO that that are that that provide incentives for developers and it's an I guess there's a density bonus I think there's a the lesson requirement for parking spaces right there so I I don't know those I looked through them last night I think it's section six of the UDO and section 10 and then I think there's another option of in-loop payments and so before I you know ask the applicant to consider these I wanted to ask staff if these are the the three I guess incentives or the the ways that we could encourage affordable housing um thank you Jacob Wiggins from the Pying department Commissioner Al-Turkha I apologize I didn't hear the beginning of your question could you would you mind I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't out of bounds I know that we can't require any affordable housing minimums but we do have an affordable density bonus incentive and incentive to I guess it's if they include affordable housing they don't have to have a minimum number of parking spaces is that correct which would then save money in the long run right or I mean I don't yeah and then yeah and that would just be yeah that would be for the affordable units only in that regard the other units they would still need to provide parking for those okay okay that's I mean that's all I wanted to okay I'm sorry I I guess I wanted to see if an applicant would consider any of those options Commissioner Al-Turkha Ken Spalding again let me just well first my answer's going to be positive but I do want to say this I don't know what the young people I think they say my bad is that right you wouldn't know dear John is my mistake I should have brought that up because the developer and I have talked about this quite some time ago and and that's something that they wanted to at least show their commitment because he's been committed here in Durham both on light rail and affordable housing and not even considering at this time not saying they wouldn't take advantage of it but our decision was not based on some of those ordinance incentives of what that was based on something he wanted to do I think when we look back at it was about 23% in that district of affordable housing and even if we built out what we were going to do it would be about 17% but what we want to do tonight and I think Dan you have that already prepared don't you we wanted to be able to do the in loop part and but one of the things I want to mention about that if you notice we have I think 33 to 300 residential units were indicated in that that was because the developer owns this property and he's developing and will be working to get users they have a contract signed with an office developer who has a user standing by and most a good portion of this project development will be office but we also want to do retail we also the possibility of hotel and so we don't know at this time that's why we put the figures in there about residential 33 units or whether would be more but we think it's going to be a much smaller use than than what the other uses that we are able to do but what we want to do is to make an in lieu payment voluntarily voluntarily of $25,000 even with the 23 percent 17 percent in the district or whatever but that because this could be used in other areas of the community that it might be needed thank you do you mind if he reads that into the record Madam Chair sure Jacob Liggins of the playing department I mean the applicant can read it I'm not 100 percent clear as to what the proffer is at this time so it would be helpful to hear the exact wording of the proffer okay thank you Dan Jewel again it can't ask me if I could do this we've had a couple projects in the last couple years where we've done a similar thing so the developer will make a $25,000 payment to the city of Durham to be used toward the affordable housing program that they choose prior to issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy I think I spent some standard language we've used in the past Jacob Liggins with the playing department so the the commission has the guidelines or typically may recommend a continuance something like that this there's nothing for staff to evaluate so the applicant can make that proffer we as staff I think in this case would not recommend but deferral based on that commitment thank you can I follow up I I actually I I think that formal housing advocates probably prefer in lieu payments because they can be used in other areas so I do appreciate that but I was curious how you came up with that number okay though are there other questions about this particular issue if not you know it's included in commissioner Harris yes hey staff I just had one question what is the maximum height the maximum height of this proposal is 145 feet 145 how many floors is that that's up to the applicants discretion they don't have to commit to a number of floors but I think on average you could assume 10 feet per floor perhaps okay so 14 stars okay thank you let me just double check to make sure that mr that commissioner al turk got an answer to your question about that I I didn't they came up with the 25,000 yeah if you don't have a an answer that's okay too okay thank you commissioner busby thank you madam chair mr charters I actually had a question for you if you don't mind coming up to the the microphone on the podium I appreciate you coming out this evening as you know you sent over detailed information that that the commission received yesterday from go triangle with the series of requests I just want to make sure I understand I'm frankly a little confused when I got this it seemed like you were asking for a lot of proffers or specific commitments that I did not see in the initial report and then when you came tonight and said you were in favor of this proposal I'm a little confused so can you help explain to me what I see here in your memo I don't see in this proposal and so I'm wondering what what in this memo is this being addressed appropriately you asked for a lot of very detailed information about both the light rail and for bus improvement in this proposal and I'm not sure if I see that represented in what's in front of us tonight yes David charters manager design engineer for go triangle again throughout the day today subsequent to the correspondence that you're referring to we've had very good and constructive discussions with the applicant to comply or make attempts to engage in the requests that go triangle sent forward yesterday so go triangle is confident that based on the discussions throughout the day today we've put together a letter of intent that we've shared with the applicant that is agreeable to the applicant that will be coordinating we actually have a meeting set up on Monday of next week to continue the discussion so based on what you're referring to that we submitted yesterday between the updated light rail right away information and the different bus amenities we're confident that the applicant will be able to comply and furnish those commitments great okay well thank you and we were just handed what I believe is a yet another new memo I find that encouraging I will say I'm not prepared to then vote on this this evening I don't I don't have enough information to make an informed decision so this this is good I appreciate the proponents being willing to work with go triangle I think that's very important I can't do my duty and vote for this with documents that I've just been handed so when the appropriate time comes I'm pleased to see movement here but I am going to move for at least a one cycle but I'll I'll look to the staff to tell me if it needs to be a two cycle deferment on on voting this evening thank you thank you Chair recognizes staff thank you Jacob Wiggins will point pardon it so I'm first I apologize for putting this one item in front of you this was actually part of the email that some of you may have saw yesterday both of these memos were included in there however I just noticed that the the second memo should have been on the backside of the paper and it appears it didn't copy so it's not anything different than you saw in your email yesterday in terms of a deferral or continuance I think that's up to the commission's discretion if they feel like they need more time to digest this information okay thank you Commissioner Miller thank you Madam Chairman I first wanted to actually make a remark so that make sure we understand with regard to affordable housing it's true that we cannot require somebody who does not require a zone change to include an affordable housing component in whatever they develop under the zoning on the property that as it exists but if somebody comes and applies for a rezoning with a development plan we can we are authorized by our city charter to say no we can turn that that rezoning down nobody is entitled to a rezoning and so if you don't if you think a project should have affordable housing as it's contemplated in our plans and it doesn't have it you can vote no so that's just an aside but I'm going to vote no on this project because I think it's out of time I think it's it's the wrong time and I have voted no on other projects we have undertaken a public process to turn this compact neighborhood tier into a design district and that essentially is a community collaborative process with stakeholders and the staff to decide how to rezone the whole thing using an entirely different set of categories in the zoning code as a matter of fact we're going to talk about some of those categories later on when you take a huge piece of property in the middle of a design district and rezone it without contemplating the design district zoning categories core sub one sub two you essentially frustrate the planning process if because you will have somebody who will be building according to one set of rules when you're trying to design another set of rules all around it the project that gets built here will stay there for a very very long time and you will have you will have the problem that we had at night street where we had we created core sub one sub two but essentially what's built at night street none of it's built according to those rules and we don't really then have a design district functioning the way we want our design districts to function we do not have to rezone this piece of property and when I look at the Patterson Place I mean I mean what's on the ground in Patterson Place in the compact tier and imagine how it will function as a design district essentially we have a lot of big box stores in there that are relatively new and will probably stay for a long time none of them comport with what we expect and want in a design district and so it means that Patterson Place even if we rezone it all to and identify core and support one and support two districts the fact is is that what's on the ground will never function as a as a design district at least not until these buildings were out and we start pulling them down this piece of property is not developed particularly it's very low intensity and the same thing is true with some of the properties to the south we unfortunately don't have any pictures showing everything but this is right in the middle and for the same reason I voted against the Farrington road project which was a great big essential dog in the manger of that future design district I'm going to vote against this one too I would rather wait and bring in a design district plan rezone this property that way then so that it can be built according to those rules according to the plan that we've made rather than according to another set of rules that don't necessarily work and also it will allow the team that's working to create the design district here they won't have to design around somebody a zoning that's already been granted they can incorporate this into a real planning process and for that reason I'm voting no whether we delay it or not commission or freeman I thank Commissioner Miller for saying all of that so I didn't have to but I wanted to add that I really appreciate the forward design investment in Patterson Place's design and addressing busing or buses and rail connections but I want to be specific in saying just some back of the page numbers 33 to 300 units whether they're affordable or not that would put it at like 4.95 to 45 units and 25,000 while it seems like a great benefit to have for the affordable housing process I don't think that that would be beneficial in helping to get those 4.95 to 45 units so I just want to be clear in saying that up front but I just wanted to check with Mr. Kennedy Spalding so I know that you noted that there were you had commitments from office retail and hotel how confident are you that more of this will be office retail and hotel as opposed to housing or residential housing correct me if I'm wrong please Chris but pretty confident what we have is we have a contract now the reason why we would very much both strongly and respectfully request that this move forward with go try go triangle and us addressing more specifically Commissioner Busby what you're talking about is the importance of that is this we've been working on this for a year everything was moving smoothly and even about two weeks ago there was an additional request it was made by go triangle that we're prepared to increase the amount of property they needed and I think they realize as well as we certainly realize that receiving on the day before the planning commission meeting receiving that long memorandum and requests that we really wish we had had it before now and because the particular contract that we have on this property there is a user now who is waiting for the rezoning and we could very well lose that user if we're not able to continue to move forward get this property rezoned get the site plan done because that user could not only not be in our building but could not be in Durham and so what I want to respectfully request is you know I have many times going with neighborhoods and others to be able to get cases deferred and give us time to work with the residents but we haven't had and I haven't had a situation where a client really needed to move forward and within 24 hours we received information that we had not received that we could have dealt with months ago and I think and I'm being very respectful to go triangle I really appreciate him having the regard and respect for us at this time to come to this particular commission and indicate that his willingness for us to move forward now and we will work together on this before the council and if the council we have not done what we have come to an agreement upon then the council is going to hear about it I'm sure from go triangle they do carry a lot of weight with we would just ask just allow us to just move on forward it'd be about 45 more days before we get in front of the council and we do have already a meeting schedule so please sir correct me if I'm wrong that we're working together as partners on this to try to get this accomplished and I think that you're in accord with this moving forward tonight and in regard to the they're also DeGiorna I mean commission they're also hotel users that are flocking all around now because if you go out there you see how it's being developed and so we feel between retail hotel users office then we want to fit in some residential in there but I think it's going to be minimal now Chris correct me if I'm wrong because I'm just a lawyer you speak yes please be nice I'm Chris Howlett I represent the owners of property as Mr. Faulding has stated we are we started out this project and we're looking at a mix of uses in the traffic impact analysis that Mr. Welland did was based upon certain parameters and guesstimates of what we could do and what we thought would come out here I have an idea of what would what would be there but as often happens many times the cart goes before the horse and I didn't want to do it this time I wanted to see what we could get approved the users are out there for each of these categories I know that the city wants to have a combination of housing and jobs and with the prospect of light rail we've come to an agreement with white rail folks we are we are changing some wording making some typographical corrections and we are looking forward to working with them to dedicate the right of way that they need and to give them the additional land for the sidewalks as far as the apartment uses it was just a matter of the TIA whether it's going to be 35, 37 whatever the minimum is or up to 300 we set parameters or boundaries just so we could get a TIA done you know I talk with Mr. Spaulding about this but you know if if there was something that could be done based upon a percentage or certain number of units you know $25,000 for every 100 units that were ultimately built he's going to tell me to shut up and sit down but we are very open to that and would look forward to working with the city council but we were supposed to come before this board in our mind in December and because of retirements with the city and staff work and things like that we're here tonight and the users that are there want to see performance by us to move this along and that's why we would request that we could get a vote tonight and go before the city counseling work out these vital items yeah the minimum number of apartments I think it's 34, 37 something like that but Jacob Wiggins of the Pine Department the current plan to show a range of 33 to 300 residential units set to site yeah so just based on that one piece of information that you did add I want to say that the 34 to 300 would be if you were to be able to offer 25,000 for each 100 units that would be 75,000 and that sounds a lot better but I really want to I offered it so my attorney is not jerking me from the podium so we will we will do that that's a great offer we I grew up in Durham I have a history in Durham I know the situation and I believe that as I know Mr. Waldrop and other people that are developing in this area also agree we want to work something out that works for everyone and that's the same spirit that we have with Go Triangle and I want to be clear and say like I understand the predicament you're in and trying to get this development through and the point is not to prevent future developers from coming in and developing apartments or residential units the point is to really make sure that around that transit area there is affordable housing and to make sure that the developers that do come behind you understand that we need to work towards having affordable housing not just in East Durham but all across the city where light rail might be and we know with that plan already in place that Patterson Place is one of those places where land is is a high commodity so I just want to be clear in saying that it would be great if you could get 300 units of affordable housing in place but in lieu of that the 75,000 is beneficial to trying to make sure that there are other developers that are in place to do just that two things the good news is that the report I think that we got from staff last year was that the affordable housing inventory in this area right now is about 22 to 23 percent combination of single family apartments and even if you do the math if we did 300 we would come down to about 17 or 18 percent which is still above but I personally think the best way to attack this problem is for payments and just recognizing that with development and the market being what it is you have to be mindful of the fact that just because we have affordable now doesn't mean it maintains affordability which is why I am saying to you that the 75,000 would go a long way agree one last personal thing that I make it in trouble about most apartment developers are not apartment developer most apartment developers want to do a project of at least 200 units so that's probably what's going to happen here it's probably going to be somewhere around 200 or more so I hope that helps thank you commissioner Gibbs well my first comment to you the developer is I commend you for for what you just said and but I was a little I'll say upset when I got I'd already stated in my package and looked at things and then what day before yesterday or yesterday I got this stuff from go triangle and I wanted and I emailed some people and asked what does this mean is is this going to change anything what's what's happening and and in conversations with developers representatives and uh I see where go triangle and the developer are working together and I don't really think and they are making progress and I don't I don't think this thing should be held up just for our re-review of something that is going to happen whether we review it or whether you review it with city council and this is one I know the first I think if I'm not mistaken this is the first development where the proposed track of of this rapid transit is going to occur right on the property and and it seems to me that it's a you're there the request from uh go triangle is pretty impactful to me it occurs on both sides of the street with the bus stops and shelters and all that and then changes in the right of way to allow for the tracks to say nothing the parking rides but I I'm going to support it because I would like to see it move forward as long as the developer and go triangle can come to a conclusion and submit something final to city council I don't see it in need of adding more time because I understand the developer has has some people on the hook and and I think it needs to go forward thank you commissioner gives commissioner hornbuckle madam chair I just like to make a motion at this time that we proceed tonight with a vote on this project at the appropriate time I do have one additional commission who has asked to speak and I like to have some input from staff commissioner gosch and then well let's hear staff first thank you Jacob Wiggins would just like for the applicant to clarify what the current property is regarding the affordable housing donation thank you the developer will make a seventy five thousand dollar contribution to the city of Durham to use toward affordable housing to be paid by the developer prior to issuance of the first certificate of residential certificate of occupancy okay I've been corrected there's a clarification the developer will make a contribution of twenty five thousand dollars for each one hundred unit increment of residential units to the city of Durham prior to issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy for each one hundred unit increment thank you and we can work through the exact wording of that that's for sure well I now the chair recognizes commissioner gosch thank you I just want to touch on a few things one I from what the comments for getting I think it sounds like more people are leaning towards voting on this tonight and I would encourage that I do want to recognize commissioner Buzzley's comments I think they're valid in most you know I think in most cases would be valid in this case the profers that are being sought are being sought by GoTriangle and they're you know they're we don't necessarily know the wording what they will be but we do know what the intent is behind them through the memos and I think they're fairly I mean they're reasonably understandable I don't think they're very you know complex asks that they have and on top of that we have a representative from GoTriangle that says with authority that they feel confident that they will be able to work it out with the developer so generally I would say yes I would I would agree that a deferral might be necessary but in this case I think we have some you know pretty apparent circumstances why we should not need a deferral so I would encourage us to take a vote on this tonight I do want to touch on something from the development team one thing I will disagree with was the general statement that payments might be the best way to handle a formal housing I think that's probably true in this location because we do have an inventory of formal housing but across Durham I hope to see more developers actually including the units in their development but in this case we have an inventory in the area so I think payment actually is probably the best way to address that and finally I want to touch on the comments from Commissioner Miller about you know waiting on this until we get to appropriate guidelines in place it is very true that we know that there is an intent to to you know develop more guidelines and give some more guidance in these design districts but or compact neighborhood tiers but I mean in my opinion the problem is we don't necessarily know when that's going to occur and I don't I don't see that as a reason why we should hold up development it would be nice if we knew the answer to that but I don't think we do and you know I think this project can be evaluated you know for what it is despite there not being um you know appropriate guidelines in place today so I intend to vote in favor of this because I think it's a good project and hopefully we can get those guidelines in place sometime in the near future thank you thank you Commissioner Busby great thank you madam chair I'm just my final comment I'm not sure I even have a second on my motion so I will wait for the appropriate motion and I'm going to vote no on the process when that motion is put forward I just think we should have more time I understand it's a unique set of circumstances but I do think we we should have the time to actually understand and deliberate and see what we're putting forward so just explaining my my no vote the chair will recognize Commissioner Hornbuckle I'm ready for your motion yes ma'am I make a motion that we proceed to vote tonight on case 016 0007 forwarder second I have a motion by Commissioner Hornbuckle and a second by Commissioner Miller to move item number Z16 0007 forward with a favorable recommendation are you ready for the question the chair recognizes Commissioner Al Turk and then Commissioner Brian I just like a clarification on the affordable housing on the the proffer so 25 000 per 100 units so if it's if there are 180 units built is that prorated or is that mean it's 25 000 and if it's less than and if it's less than 100 is there a minimum of 25 000 can we commit to that the chair recognizes staff take a week as the playing pardon I mean I'll give the applicant an opportunity to see if they want to clarify that the question that you have oh wait prorate yeah prorated we're not trying to dodge it prorated yeah Commissioner Brian I'm sorry that Commissioner Busby didn't make his original motion that he thought about I would have seconded it because to me we're getting too many things coming at us and there are wording problems that I think are going to be difficult to work out if we don't delay it I think it'll get delayed before it gets to council so in the long run it may not make any difference whether it's delayed by us or somewhere down the line I'm concerned about a lot of the things that GoTriangle has asked for simply because I'm trying to visualize how this is going to fit in some of what they want with some of the things that are required by the TIA and stuff like that so there could be changes that we're not really anticipating at this point in time so I'm also going to vote no simply because I don't feel I've had enough time to evaluate Madam Chair move the question I'm sorry staff needs to interject that the proffer that was made from the floor is not clear it has not been reviewed for enforceability it went from something fairly simple that we could understand and enforce to now we're talking about prorated and in most cases and the applicant knows this we staff would normally ask for a continuance on this but we worked willing to accept a fairly simple proffer if you're looking at per prorating I think that you know something maybe in the lines of a figure peer per unit versus poor per 100 so if it's $25,000 for every 100 maybe you look at 2500 per unit I'm not sure but we need something that we can enforce and we need something where we can do the math and doing this on the fly we would have to ask for a continuance unless we can work this out yep currently the chair has a motion and a second madam chair I don't know if you want to recognize Mr. Spalding if you'd like me to make a alternative motion I'd like to move a substitute motion to that we would continue this case for two cycles but I like I mean the applicant wanted to revise the proffer we were willing to listen however I don't know what he was getting ready to say but I don't have a second for my second it has been have a motion substitute motion by commissioner Busby and a second by commissioner Miller that we delay the continue for two cycles the item currently listed Z one six zero zero zero zero seven are you ready for the question all in favor of this motion roll call Mr. Alturk Mr. Brian yes Mr. Busby yes Mr. Gosh Mr. Gibbs Ms. Hyman Ms. Freeman no Mr. Harris Mr. Hornbuckle Mr. Miller Mr. Van I'm sorry that's all right that's it okay I called everybody right motion fails seven to three three to seven motion fails three to seven there's somebody in our vote hold on take a please in the pine apartment the the vote was three a so that motion fails have an original motion on the floor and motion by commissioner Hornbuckle commissioner Hyman's I just want to point out that staff is asked for us to at least ask the they need some clarification before we vote so we can we please get the clarification if possible Dan Jewel again I've been asked to try and offer a clear or more understandable proffer if staff is ready the developer will make a payment to the city for use for affordable housing twenty five thousand dollars prior to the first certificate of occupancy twenty five thousand dollars prior to the hundred and first certificate of occupancy and twenty five thousand dollars prior to the two hundred and first certificate of occupancy I still don't understand Jacob Williams the planning apartment Mr. Jewel thank you for clarifying that staff has it does not need to further evaluate that commitment yeah okay then we're back to the original motion motion by commissioner hornbuckle that we move this item forward with a favorable recommendation of a second by who was the question of second I did commission second by second by commissioner Miller that we move this item forward with a favorable recommendation item number Z one six zero zero zero zero seven are you ready for the question all in favor of this motion let's have a roll call please Mr. Al Turk yes Mr. Brian no Mr. Busby no Mr. Ghosh Mr. Gibbs Ms. Hyman Ms. Freeman yes Mr. Harris Mr. Hornbuckle yes Mr. Miller Mr. Van yes motion carries eight to three the next item we have bound item number eight public hearing text amendment to the you not to the unified development ordinance and we have none nothing listed number nine public hearing text amendment to the dot drum comprehensive plan and we have none uh unfinished business unfinished business next item new business I know the staff has some new business for us right oh there it is there it is it's for information not public hearing no it's not a public hearing thank you one moment while I pull up the PowerPoint that I studiously prepare for you folks this afternoon please do and I was told that it was good to do a PowerPoint so my head wouldn't show up as much on the TV that's supposedly a bonus I think that's correct so um but um yes I don't normally do a PowerPoint for um text amendments but for this item I thought it was prudent to at least uh walk the commission a little bit through the background of of this text amendment and I'm not going to go into detail about what's in front of you it's an information item at this point you'll have it again to actually take a at least I can't see it and tentatively we plan in April to have your your actual public hearing so before you is the design district updates this just want to give you a brief history about design districts in general many of you may be aware of them but I'm sure there's a few of you who either would like a little more clarity about them or at least the history about them or don't even know much about them at all even before design districts brief history 2002 downtown had an overlay called the downtown design overlay and it had many of the aspects of the current design districts have today it was the first to really emphasize form in relation to the public realm or streetscape and it did utilize sub districts that the current design districts use so more intense development in a core and then it would taper out away from the core to less intense areas especially adjacent to non-downtown neighboring residential areas with non-downtown areas in 2010 the DDO was taken off the map as was the base zoning in downtown and replaced with the first design district the downtown design district and then in 2012 a variation on the theme of the design district downtown design district the compact design district was implemented and adopted in the 9th street compact neighborhood tier area just for your reference here's the current zoning areas the shades represent the different sub districts the lightest is the core and then as you go out you go into support one and then at the edges the dark purple support two that's downtown and then also for your reference you have 9th street again the lightest is the core and it goes out to support one support two the lovely lavender is a special sub district developed for this compact neighborhood which is the pedestrian business district that's specific to that section of 9th street that business district of 9th street and a lot of this was reflected of the 9th street plan that was adopted back in the late 2000s so since the adoption of design districts there have been technical corrections you've seen them through the almost annual or biannual omnibus tech tech amendment technical changes bill bills I've been looking at legislation a little too long lately text amendments and also as the design districts have been implemented staff has monitored the effectiveness or any issues that have come up that are a little bit more than just technical or minor changes policy changes and so we began developing and starting to work on these changes starting back in 2014 and hence the TC 14 case number so to emphasize we're not rezoning anything at this time we're not changing any boundaries we're not changing any sub district boundaries we are taking a look at the lists and considerate or we did take a look at the lists of issues and considerations that were developed by staff and and other stakeholders and applicants we even took on an additional mission of developing specific street typologies that would be applicable only to the design districts at this point but maybe in the future could be more applicable to other aspects of Durham we have had extensive staff and interdepartmental meetings and reviews this is this again has been going on since 2014 so we have definitely not rushed this one we have also had focus groups where we have had design professionals that have worked with the regulations and design professionals who have not really had to work with it just wasn't part of their job purview to work with them and get feedback with that to get different aspects and opinions on it we've had public meetings back in September we had two public meetings on drafts I know at least a few of you have attended those meetings and we receive feedback on that and then we also have had JCCPC review of these proposed changes I'm just going to go down I don't want to take your go into depth about this at this time I just want to kind of run down the hot topics for you all to pay attention to as you review this in more detail and prepping me with questions probably in April if not before we are doing one of the big changes is a substantial reorganization where one of the big things we heard was that if we could consolidate more of the design dysregulations into one area of the UDO instead of having to follow through with it throughout and we've been able to do that to a certain extent in some other areas it just works out to works better not to do that but we have we are creating a new article article 16 exists we are replacing article 16 with design districts and moving definitions to article 17 so we are creating one new article but the new article 16 will be called design districts and the sections will be broken up in the by topic so as you see in your packet hopefully the first section is more general or use related aspects the second section will be site design primary aspects with site design third section building design and then fourth section streetscapes lotting patterns and such we did originally and in actually in the staff report I indicated a section 16.5 and a 16.6 and that was the plan up to very recently and I apologize for not deleting that part even up through the JCC recent JCC PC review we had those sections in there we reverted those back to their original articles article 10 is parking and article nine is landscaping it just for those particular aspects it just tends to work better that if someone wants to find out about all the parking regulations whether they're generally applicable parking regulations no matter where you are or specific design district regulations it just I polled a number of people and it's like in that particular instance for example it just works out for it to stay in one section so that's why we kind of backed off from that same thing with landscaping trying to prevent people having to do too much going back and forth which was the original intent of coordinating fall into one section so basic highlights I'm just going to go through some main topics if you want additional information I'd be glad to expound upon it a little bit more for you and even if you and if you have like you see typos or you just need some basic clarity on things feel free to email me feel free to call me I'm around I can easily fix those no big deal I don't want to take up your time with those kind of comments be glad to and even if you want to come in and meet and talk about things more substantially we can do that too but to get back to the highlights so one of the things that we heard from DDI it's in their draft master plan that was recently released and even from the focus groups was creating more of a non-residential street experience in the core of downtown and along the axes of Main Street and Foster Blackwell not to prohibit residential but just focus on non-residential uses at the street level to activate it a little bit more in that core design special use permit we are removing those we are removing that aspect of the ordinance for a combination of reasons we feel that a number of the changes get at what has been asked for and past special use permit applications correct correct there's still an opportunity if there's a unique site situation that creates a that the applicant feels is an unreasonable hardship there's still an avenue for a variance we've met with one group that I failed to mention that we also met with was DDI DDI brought downtown downtown Durmink they brought in a number of the developers or developer representatives for downtown and we spoke specifically about design district design special use permits and I'm comfortable in saying that at least 50% of them walked away feeling pretty comfortable with it there's other aspects to why we've taken them out we've also left in provisions for still seeking special use permits for more targeted areas so open space requirements one comes is the one that comes to mind I know there's a couple other and I'm just blanking on them right now but transitioning into next bullet point there are new open space requirements that the current regulations do require certain types of open space they're not called open space they're called pedestrian malls or possibly even pedestrian passages even the some of the frontage types like courtyards create a type of open space if you want to call it that way but these are actual specific provisions for larger development projects and is very and is consistent with the recently adopted downtown open space plan so that's why that's being implemented we've also well there was no specific open space requirements I'm using quotes sorry but open space requirements at all currently so the the downtown open space plan said require minimum of 2% of the gross site area for projects that were over 80,000 square feet in building area on sites of four acres or more and we're consistent with that it's we say three and a half acres because that lines up with our block sizing but and then service areas we've really tight we've really service areas are the areas where and we define that where you might have loading areas or mechanical equipment or trash handling and such and we're really expounded upon and specif and prescribes the specific requirements especially along street frontages the applicability of frontage types we've really tightened up how they are applicable or when they should be applied the current language was was somewhat ambiguous at times so we tightened that up we've revised height allowances and provisions we got away from a ratio calculation with streetscape to just set numbers and those numbers are are consistent or appreciate the ratios that are currently established but we heard it from all sides that can you just give a set numbers and and can work from there and then we also revise the provisions for getting additional height we wanted them to mean something more a lot of them stayed the same we might have adjusted how much additional height you got so affordable housing we actually bumped it up but and then some we might have combined so public parking and providing electric charging stations we combined that into one and specified gave more details to what you would actually provide the public parking as an example again structured parking we got into more deep we kind of pulled that out as its own frontage type and made it a standalone architectural standards because they can either be standalone structures or they can be a component of another of a building itself and so we felt it just seemed to work better as these are the architectural standards for parking structures and they also do limit where parking is visible on the ground floor we heard feedback I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm very excited thank you plus I want to get you guys out of here but limiting the exposure of parking at the at the street level and then also limiting exposure even at the upper levels too so it's a little bit more compatible at least gives a screening of those parking facilities at upper levels so let me ask you this if under the new regs and this is one question I had as I read it under the existing regs if I wanted to build a freestanding parking deck there was a frontage type for that and there were a lot of requirements and what have you if I want to build a freestanding deck today you still could I can but what is it going to look like is does it no longer have to conform to a frontage type? It's not a frontage type it's just its own set of architectural standards the frontage types a lot of times focus on just the street level experience it's a facade application and then there's some general above the street level general architectural standards we felt that it just seemed to work out review-wise and for even just clarity purposes to say let's just treat parking structures as their own kind of beast and how does this work so if I wanted to build a something like the Liberty Apartments one of these four or five-story frame on two stories podium wrapping a parking deck but irreverently referred to sometimes as a Texas doughnut no it's not a new one and if I have if my deck is exposed you would have to be consistent with the requirements in the ordinance if it's not exposed if it's completely wrapped then you're not going to have to worry about it so if my if the deck maybe that wasn't a very good example say Solis Ninth Street which I realize was not built to a to a design district standard can you have like the apartments wrapping it on three sides but a street exposure on the on the fourth side and if it is does that have to conform to a building frontage type the exposure would have to conform to the architectural standards specific to structured parking which would mean that you could not have you'd have to have an active non-parking use along the streetscape there so you can't have bays of parking along this the street you could have them on that level but they'd have to be hidden or non-exposed however you want to term it and then there would be architectural standards for the floors above also right so that building then would have to conform to a frontage type on the other three street faces correct I just want to make sure we're not driving the development community into building parking putting parking decks on the outside the apartments on the and to clarify at the street level it would have to apply a frontage type we're introducing a new building type called incidental building types to address rare instances but instances that can happen nonetheless of those primary uses that don't require large buildings that are feasible to adapt to applying a frontage or building type to it's not non-elemental building and it's you know if it's if you have an urban farm going on and you need to do a greenhouse or a shed you don't need to put a frontage type on that so the current ordinance is silent on that which is can be frustrating so we decided to tackle that and then there's other aspects to it two parks would come into play and there's some other and then we also did refine the general facade requirements one of the things we heard about the especially from the focus groups was that they were a little too prescriptive and didn't allow for innovation in terms of number of it was too prescriptive of how many bays or articulations you needed to have um entrance placements and such so we revised those to not reduce the intent of the standards but to allow for a little more innovative design so i'm kind of concerned about that because one of my criticisms of the the the way we the building frontage types have been applied especially to these big apartment buildings is is that when the building is built I look at them I can't figure out what frontage type has been applied well we're not changing the frontage it's a lot of these general facade standards apply to almost the entire facade even more above the frontage type you still have special specific design criteria applicable to a particular frontage type at the street level what a lot of these general facade requirements apply to is they do apply a bit to the frontage type itself at street level but they primarily apply to the overall facade itself above the frontage type above the frontage type street level aspect if if that was clear I mean Sarah you and I talked about this gosh a couple of years ago about the big apartment buildings like the a couple of the buildings that were built in the night street area according to the design district regulations and I guess one or two of them had facades that were that were um the the building frontage type with the you know excuse me the either the the quarter or what and some of them it was like it just didn't look like the picture and it was kind of disappointing to me are we going to still continue to have that I'm very worried about the way the way frontage types are applied to these great big buildings so to be honest I'm not a hundred percent sure I know what you're asking so I think because I didn't ask it very well can I jump in for a second one thing I didn't highlight one of the big changes we did and I and I skipped over it in this third bullet point one of the frontage types that we did change substantially with the four court and use the four court is probably what you've seen in most residential and we did change that to get away from just saying oh it could be a raised court or a lighted court or a stoop to actually say we don't care if it's raised or lower or stoop you have a specific amount of four court and you actually have to provide some amenities in that four court so now you have to actually do possibly some landscaping and seating and some some dimension and actual interaction required interaction with the streetscape entrances if it's with a dwelling unit you have to provide access into the four court so we have revised that substantial even reduce the amount of depth to the four court to pull the the main building facade itself closer to the street so that's where you see some some substantial changes so I would suggest take a look at that if you have any questions on me now look at to I think this is my last slide we've tightened up the sidewalk requirements sidewalks are important in the design districts the design districts are as you've seen in downtown and we need sidewalks and good sidewalks in downtown and they are to be applied in the compact neighborhood tiers where your future light rail and you're going to have kind of downtown light in many aspects where it's also meant to be pedestrian oriented so we've tightened up the sidewalk requirements there if it's inadequate sidewalk a lot of times you're going to have to improve that sidewalk if it's already existing as I mentioned before we've introduced new street typologies where we currently public works has a reference guide for development we've met with them and a lot of those are not terribly adequate for compact neighborhood design no gravel driveways no gravel driveways we'll take a look at the standards again and make sure but reduced travel lane lifts specified bike lanes and buffers for those bike lanes specific actual typologies number of lanes to be and where they could be applied transportation department has been thoroughly involved with this as has been bike ped even getting into some standards for intersections and such and how the bike lanes would interact with rather regular travel lanes at intersections the last two buffers and the suburban tier this is probably so street typologies and and buffers we haven't really changed much of the landscaping and buffering section we did just want to point this out add in the buffering is silent now it only references the urban tier but we now do have compact neighborhood tiers adjacent to suburban or even non-jurisdictional areas so we needed to recognize that so we added buffer language to that and I'm going to get I'm going to say one statement about future design districts in a in a second and then finally one of the other big revisions is taking look at our bike parking standards and you'll notice under in the you'll find those in the miscellaneous section again 16.6 doesn't exist you'll find this in in the miscellaneous section new short-term and long-term bike parking standards and taking a look at more detailed use applications for how much is required of each and and a total amount in a much more prescribed manner we've recognized that actually the current standards might actually provide too much bike parking in in many instances and for the wrong reason and for the wrong uses this will not be the end of the changes even if you have some concerns again if you have some concerns please let me know I'd be glad to address them even ahead of the hearing typos again but once council hopefully adopts this there's there's going to be revisions it's just the nature of the beast and also when we go forward and this was mentioned good segue from the last case when we start you know Patterson Places the first one we're going to be looking at to rezone and then they're going to be coming down the pike we're taking a look at these areas on on an individualized basis and there may be additional there might be an additional sub district or two or revisions to the current sub districts that we find would be applicable in a general sense as we take a look at what the issues are if there are issues with each new compact neighborhood tier so don't be surprised that you see some technical changes after these are approved don't be surprised that you see some changes that are associated with the rezoning of compact neighborhood tiers we've wholly anticipate both yes sir I have a specific question concerning on page two of attachment a paragraph b we talk about ground floor residential uses and this requirement about the finished floor elevation etc shall be at least 30 inches above the street grade and I can't figure out why well that's that's current text and that's just to give a little bit of additional height privacy for residential uses so you're not right on the street for for if you're walking by you typically do see ground floors of residential lifted a little bit above so you're not looking directly into people's windows sometimes you still can but it's just not as easy okay well see the thing that bothers me is this 30 inches if I'm a handicap person in a wheelchair that's a real barrier doesn't preclude handicap accessibility but how do you handle it you on there there are there are design there are ways to handle that there are ramping aspects and such that you can do it doesn't it doesn't preclude it okay I just would like to see those in here if they exist well okay we can consider thank you sure so I have I know I've been talking a lot you go ahead Madam Chair okay thank you thank you Madam Chair I just wanted to say under the items for future consideration I encourage to see that we will eventually look at item number two a fee schedule for temporary right of way closures I know that's just becoming a bigger issue for small independent downtown businesses so I was happy to see this on here obviously we want to do it the right way we want to be thoughtful about it and I but I wanted to commend that and I also wanted to get a sense of so these items for future consideration what's the timeline we don't have timelines for them right now I mean these are these are kind of like three big ticket items that were kind of identified through the this whole process that either we felt we were not adequate to address or just wasn't our our primary purview to address or if we did it would just slow things down even further you know when we took on the new street typologies that was an added thing that really slowed down the project itself but we have already started to look into it Charlotte has a program I know they're currently revising it Lisa Miller was looking into that a little bit more detail but I don't have a timeframe for that and the same thing with multimodal TIAs we're working with Go Triangle and the transportation department with those we feel that those are important to develop to recognize the aspect that all our current TIA requirements are very motor vehicle track trip generation demand focused and no or very little consideration of other modes of transportation bike or pedestrian facilities and then since I'm on the topic of timely number three public trash and recycling receptacles I know that's not exactly the sexiest topic in the world but that is actually being considered with the city they're looking to do potentially some pilot program for doing a more automated type of trash receptacle collection system we feel it's something that's going to be needed especially when you start because the current ordinance regulations require developers to put in trash and now we're actually adding in recycling containers along the streetscape well that's going to create a labor intensive aspect on the city when you have one development go into Patterson Place and you have to collect those two cans but you don't have to collect any of the other anything else else in Patterson Place because it's all already developed so that's just an aspect that that's actually currently being worked on so that that actually might be the first thing that come that you'll see you might see something in downtown and or 9th street great thank you sure commisioner Raymond thank you I just had a quick question for clarity on the park I'm sorry the parking for bicycles is there any conversation around the reduction of parking in place of the bicycles a reduction of parking in place of the parking requirements being reduced based on how many bicycle parking spaces oh so motor vehicle parking reduction yes well right now downtown doesn't require any parking it's an 80 percent and for compact neighborhood there's currently it's 80 percent of whatever the parking rate is but already in the ordinance there is a provision for you get an additional reduction for the provision of additional bike parking I know the design community did not like the old step back requirement which was a one to one ratio tell me help me understand how this new 10 foot thing works basically it's a one time step back at what height when you reach the top maximum podium so if you can go above if your height allows you to go above the maximum podium you have to step back so so for each of the sub districts we have a maximum podium level correct and then we'll have a 10 foot step back there you can make it bigger but it's got to be 10 feet at least 10 feet correct all right because I'm still instead of the wedding cake effect right I'm I'm a little worried about kind of canyonization of things and we're still we're still addressing that problem and the other thing is it and finally is help me understand the way height limitations will work in the s2 so the height limitations so let me get you to that page and I'll find it myself so that's one of the big changes thank you for bringing that up 15 and then and actually also on 18 if you look at the cd so both of those have the similar limitations so right now you have 50 foot height limitation period some of the concerns that we've heard from adjacent neighborhoods and actually particularly from the Holloway street neighborhood which I'm also working on the rezoning for that so you'll you'll see that soon too was the mass again scale of buildings at front along those neighborhoods so we recognize that there may be there's a net that there was a needed more height limitation when you're fronting along those non-design district areas and it's not the entire property but it's a certain depth back from the property and then you can scale back up yeah correct to the original height correct so in an area where the boundary between the design district and the non-design district area is not a street but is the back lot lines of of properties how will this function there it's measured from the property line I know it's measured from the property line but but it's 75 feet back okay yeah all right so you'd have that height limitation even against there so if it's along a street where the zoning line falls in the center line you don't measure it from there you still measure it from the property line because then you're saying that oh part of the street is at 75 feet and you're losing losing that impact or needed so in the cd district is there any place where I mean right now it's a 45 foot height limit for the for the whole structure wherever it is whatever the circumstances are this will drop it down to 35 feet depending upon the distance of the building from the from the non-design district correct thing how now factor in affordable housing height bonus and in that same s2 district under these circumstances you can still utilize it and and what is it it's the height bonus would be oh 15 feet you essentially can add a you can add a floor yeah and then the explain to me how step backs work do we still require a step back in s2 when the height requirements only 35 feet oh yes because the maximum podium I'm sorry when it's 45 the maximum podium is 45 feet so if you're going above it then you're going to have to do a step back in any in any provision where you're at getting additional height if you're going above the maximum podium you still need to do that 10 foot step back right very good thank you thank you and we'll do this again in a month but then you get the vote but then you get the vote on it um um we should about that the chairs so sorry else I'm sorry I'm already going to have to take this with me to keep that too the one group with that was very he did very use to man I'm telling you guys to Scott Harmon