 Click on yours and then hit five to maximize it. And then if you needed to, um, you've advanced it by down or you can use. So advances to the right. Exactly. Right. That's what I'm saying. I don't know. Something's going to have to give. You know, he's right behind you. It's going to be. I'm tempted to go back. That's one thing. You know, Yeah, but it's. That's what you just do. Well, that's what I'll bring some of it. I said they have to be hidden on some of this. Absolutely. This is my. And somebody has that. Hey, right here. How many people in this? We wanted this to. Close. Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you all to the Durham planning commission meeting. Just, you know, the members of the planning commission have been appointed by the governing bodies, half of us by the city council, half by the board of county commissioners. So you should know that the elected officials have the final say on any agenda items that are before us this evening. If you wish to speak on an agenda item tonight, you probably saw, we have a very packed agenda tonight. We invite you to sign up on my left. You can see the table. There's a piece of paper for each of the agenda items. So please make sure you're signing up for the particular item that you would like to speak on. And you can put down your name and your address. Let us know if you're speaking for or against. And each side during the public hearing on that particular item will have 10 minutes per side. When you come up, when we call your name, we ask you to come up to the podium and speak into the microphone. Let us know your name, your, your home address, and then you'll have time to speak. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties the recommendation is for denial. So thanks again for joining us. May we have the roll call please. Commissioner Williams has requested an excused absence. Commissioner Morgan will be arriving later. Commissioner Johnson. Right there. Commissioner Bryan. Present. Commissioner Durkham. Present. Commissioner Alturk. Present. Commissioner Hyman. Present. Commissioner Busby. Present. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner Kencham. Present. Ms. Satterfield. I'm making sure everybody got the email earlier today. Ms. Satterfield has resigned. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Present. Commissioner Baker has requested an excused absence. And Commissioner Gibbs. Present. Thank you very much. Commissioner Bryan. Move an excused absence for Commissioner Baker and Williams. Second. Properly moved and seconded by, moved by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. We will move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our January 3rd, 2019 meeting, as well as our January 8th, 2019 meeting. Let's do those as two separate motions. Commissioner Bryan. This is in reference to the revised draft that came out this afternoon for January 3rd. But I move approval of the minutes and consistency statements from the January 3rd meeting as presented. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the January 8th consistency statement in minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the minutes and consistency statements from the January 8th meeting as presented. Second. I move by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Al Turk. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Adjustments to the agenda. Staff does not have any adjustments at this time, but we would like to state for the record that all public notice requirements have been met per state and local ordinance and our own file in the planning department. Half a day, but it's actually our own file. Thank you. And let's have a, do we need a motion for tonight's agenda? I move we adopt the agenda as presented. Second. I move by Commissioner Bryan, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Excellent. We will move to our first item. This is a public hearing on a comprehensive plan, future land use map amendment with a concurrent zoning map change. This is 1309 Junction Road cases, a one eight quadruple zero six and Z one eight triple zero one seven. And we will start. Thank you. We'll start with the staff report and then we'll open the public hearing. Good evening. I'm Jamie Soniek with the planning department and I will be presenting case number a one eight zero zero zero six Z one eight zero zero zero one seven 1309 Junction Road. The applicant is Pam Porter from Tony M. Tate PA. The site is located at 1309 Junction Road. It is located within the city pending and annexation application. The site in total is 33.31 acres. The zoning request is rural residential to plan development residential 2.702 PDR 2.702. In addition, there is a future land use map amendment from industrial to low density residential, which is for dwelling units or acre or less. And the proposal is for a maximum of 90 single family residential units. And as mentioned, there's a voluntary annexation petition also submitted as part of this request. This is the aerial map and the subject site is shown in red. The property is located within the suburban development here. The property is located within the city's river basin. The falls Jordan watershed protection overlay district B and a portion of the property is within the major transportation corridor. I 85 overlay district. The 33 acre parcel consists of vacant undeveloped land, including areas of streams associated with Perian buffers, wetlands, these pictures show the existing site and some of the surroundings. Most of the properties bordering the property site are residential development. However, there is an industrially zoned piece of land, which is owned by Durham County to the south. This is the zoning context map as shown on the left. The site is presently zoned rural residential and the applicant proposes to change this designation to the blue shade, which is the plant development residential 2.702 density. Here is the future land use map as shown on the left. The property is within the industrial designation and on the right it's shown in the low density residential, which would coincide with the rezoning request. The proposed conditions map provides the site access points, the project boundary buffers, Perian crossings, the building and parking envelopes, the tree coverage areas and the maximum impervious coverage. In terms of a summary of key committed elements on the plan, the permitted housing type is single family detached residential along with permitted accessory uses within the zoning project. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed 70%. They have committed to installing some transportation related improvements, including a left turn lane on Feral Road at the proposed site entrance and additional asphalt to accommodate a future bicycle lane. In addition to the text commitments and the graphic commitments already discussed, the development plan also includes a couple design commitments for the roof styles and a variety of different building materials. In terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan and its policies, the proposed PDR zoning designation does not comply with the current industrial designation on the future land use map. The low density residential designation for the track is consistent with the neighboring land and farms plan residential development to the west and is an acceptable designation in the suburban tier in accordance with 213D. The proposed low density designation is consistent with the plan development residential development permissible within the suburban tier and we should note while industrial uses are also allowed within the suburban tier, staff has reviewed the industrial land study and determined that this property is not a prime industrial site, especially given its proximity to an existing residential subdivision. The proposal supports orderly development patterns as per policy 231A and that the site is surrounded by plan development residential 3.360 to the west, rural residential to the north and east and there is existing infrastructure such as roads and water sewer to accommodate the potential impacts. The proposed development is consistent with 812H while the traffic from the proposed zoning will increase the applicant will install exclusive westbound turn lane on Federal Road at the site entrance and in terms of 814D the development plan commits to additional asphalt for the future bicycle lane and the proposed development is consistent with 11.1B there is sufficient capacity within the school system to accommodate the additional growth. Staff determines that this request these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Ms. Sanyak. We will open the public hearing and we have one individual who is signed up and they are speaking for the proposal. Pamela Porter. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Pam Porter 5011 South Park Drive. I'm the applicant on this for the landscape architecture firm that helped to put together the development plan so I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members who would like to speak on this item. I'm not seeing anyone so I will close the public hearing. And commissioners, any questions or comments? We'll start to my right Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. So quick question for Mrs. Porter regarding the request. I'm correct in that the maximum amount of time that is spent is spent on the project. Yes. And so for staff, I was just noting that on the attachment 7 the description of the commitments does not include the 90, the number 90 units on that and then I didn't see it on the actual site plan here. So I was just noting that when I was seeing it on the written text commitments in the site plan. So Jamie Sanyak with the planning department, so if you calculate out the acreage times the proposed PDR density, that's the maximum that you would get. Okay. That's good enough for you all. Okay. And I'm just curious, do you have a sense of what the price range would be for these single family resident, residential units? Yes. The average price will be approximately $275,000. That's the average. So could be a little more, could be a little less. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Brian. I also have a question on the development plan sheet D1. I noticed that there was a feature A, which seems to be pointing out a stream in the wetlands and a feature C also pointing out a stream in wetlands. And the note says C, the NCDWG letter. We don't have that letter in our packet. Can you tell what does it say? Sure. So it was submitted to staff when we submitted the development plan and it's just a stream determination letter and it shows the determination of what streams have buffers on them and what do not. So sometimes there is a stream present but it's not a buffered stream. Okay. As you can see, there's a couple buffered streams but there's a couple that are not. Okay. The problem with the entrance off of Farrell Road where you have more room I think to make an entrance you do have to cross one of these buffered streams and wetlands and I'm wondering did you give any thought to coming in off of Junction Road? We did. As we have been developing the layout for the site, nothing's been finalized but it was making the connection to Farrell logistically made more sense based on the working layout that we have and we're also preserving trees where that connection to Junction Road may have been made. We've elected to save that as tree save. It made more sense to have it there. Thank you. Commissioner Miller? Yes, so I have the same question. I'd like to follow up on it a little bit. This is a difficult property to go look at because as big as it is it doesn't present much view from the street. It seems to me that it would be desirable to be able to enter this property from Farrell Road and Junction Road or may be preferable from Junction Road because then you don't have to cross a buffered stream. So I listened to your conversation with George and I get it but it still seems to me that it might be better to be able to get into this piece of property more than one way. However, I know that because it's 90 units that doesn't trigger the two entrants. Is that right, staff? And the question for staff is the number of units, does it 90 units does not trigger two entrants? So it's got to be more than 90. No. It would have to be more than 92 have more than one access point if you have. That was my question. I'm sorry. I also wanted to ask staff to a couple of years ago, maybe even three. There was a proposal by the county in this area to do a rezoning or some sort of development. Was that near this piece of property? One that was I was asking Scott because I think it was right around the time he and I switched jobs. Yeah, it was south of this site. But it was not too far away. No, it's not far. It's just down. It's actually it's adjacent. Yeah. And what became of that? It's still vacant. They've not found a development. No, but the county's proposal to create like an industrial park or something in there. This is going for the planning department of what we understand from the county. They've they're not moving forward with that project. Okay. Do you still own the land? That's the parcel that on the development plan has the two large access areas. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Durkin. I had a question on the development plan page D2. You have the potential site access two and three. But what does that really provide access to if the county owns that land and there's not a public street or any access point to the south? Sure. So as we're working through the layout for the site, there's a links to nodes requirement in the UDO that you have to have a certain number of stubs or connections to the surrounding properties. And as we're working through the plan we're wanting options to meet that requirement and if we may need to have the stubs to the properties of the south. Correct. So they're not required but we're just leaving our options open in case we do need to utilize it and we've had conversations with staff and they said to show it on this just in case we do need to make those connections and call it out as optional. And you have a potential future wetland crossing in the middle. This arrow on either end. What do you anticipate that looking like? What do you mean by that? It would be a street connection to cross from the north to the south part of the project. We're still working on the exact layout so that road may shift a little bit and we may be able to pull it out of the wetlands so it's not set in stone but we wanted to show it on there in case we did need to make that connection across the wetlands. Okay. I just have a question for staff about the industrial land. You study and just timing on that since we had a similar question of changing industrial use to residential recently. So we did complete one in 2013 a few years ago and we are currently working on one that would be more expansive and it will probably be finished around June of this year. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments from commissioners? And if there are none this is the appropriate time for a motion. Commissioner Gibbs. I pass. Great. Commissioner Miller. For this for staff, if the property will remain zoned as it is today how many units could you get on it just roughly or what is the residential density for RR and you don't have to answer the original question. Amy Sanyak with the planning department. I'm going to refer to attachment 6 and it's calculated to be roughly 38 single family lots under the current zoning. Any additional questions? That's all. Thank you. That helps. This is the appropriate time for a motion. I'll recognize any commissioner that is prepared to make a motion for approval. Commissioner Alturk. Please send case A180006 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. It's moved by commissioner Alturk and seconded by commissioner Brian. Staff would prefer roll call vote. If you would indulge us. We will indulge. Roll call vote please. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Brian. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Alturk. Commissioner Hyman. Chair Busby. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Kynchon. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Commissioner Gibbs. Motion passes 9-1. And the zoning. I move that we send case Z1800017 to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Second. It's moved by commissioner Alturk and seconded by vice chair Hyman. Roll call vote please. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Brian. Commissioner Durkin. Commissioner Alturk. Commissioner Hyman. Commissioner Busby. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Kynchon. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Commissioner Gibbs. Motion passes 9-1. Thank you very much. We will now move. We have three zoning map cases in front of us. The first case is the King's Daughters in and this was continued from our January 3rd meeting. This is cases Z1800024. And we will start with the staff report. Good evening. I'm going to start with the planning department. Since case Z1800024 King's Daughters in has been continued from January 3rd meeting and no changes have been made to the application. Staff is available for any questions. Please let me know if you'd like me to repeat the PowerPoint. Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone asking for repeating the PowerPoint. So we will move to the public hearing. So we'll open the public hearing. We have one individual signed up to speak and to speak for the project. It's Deanna Crossman. The evening commissioners. Deanna Crossman 301 South Academy Street in Cary. I'll be brief. I just wanted to kind of highlight a few things about the project. So this is a request to rezone the King's Daughters in from partly RUM, partly RU-52 to all RUM. So the home operated for almost 100 years as a home for elderly as a home for elderly, indigent women. They had 34 rooms. We were the second owners of the property. We bought it and we actually applied the covenants on the deed as well as applied for the local landmark historic landmark status once we bought the building because we felt very strongly about making sure the building was protected for the future. We have a minor use special use permit to operate as a 17 room bed and breakfast in Trinity Park. It is to convert the property to condos or apartments. It is for sale and we just want to provide flexibility to a future owner. The because of the protections of the covenants and the local landmark status there's almost no modification you could make to the site plan and fit within those boundaries. And if converted it would allow residential units, seven units from around 2,500 to 4,000 units. So it would allow seven units by right. The site already has enough parking with a previous concrete parking lot to meet that requirement. Staff report notes that it is a lower density than a bed and breakfast in terms of traffic utilities and water consumption because we want a pretty high occupancy and we aren't asking for any exceptions to the design or density requirements. We did several outreach to the neighbors. We hosted two meetings at the King's Daughters, both December and in January. We listed it on the Trinity Park listserv. We discussed with representatives of Duke. They had no concerns. In addition to the two open meetings we had at the hotel we also attended the most recent Trinity Park Neighborhood Association monthly meeting to make sure we were there to answer questions or discuss concerns and allowed for two continuances since the first one was the snow. The second one about the Covenants, the deed Covenants of the Neighborhood Association is leading the pack in looking at transfer of ownership of those from the King's Daughters to either Preservation North Carolina, Preservation Durham, or the Neighborhood Association. The King's Daughters will actually be discussing that on March 25th. But this has kind of been parallel to that. Concerns, the primary concerns we heard from the neighbors. Could it be turning to student housing? Could it actually prevent student housing? In addition, the price point doesn't really allow for the market won't bear dorms when you start at $5 million. Can it be torn down? No, there's also a Covenant that says it can't be torn down. And in addition, we did the local landmark protections. So we are currently 10 years into that. So if somebody did modify the exterior or want to tear it down they would owe the 50% of the back taxes from the day we got the landmark status. So that's a huge number and growing every year. So that's a pretty hefty financial discouragement from affecting the outside of the building. And our parent company is going through a Chapter 11 restructuring that does not affect anything for sale operations. Everything is going as planned. So just happy to take any questions. Thank you very much. We'll see if there's anyone else who wants to speak and close the public hearing, but we may call you if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this item. Seeing no one we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, we'll start to my right. Commissioner Johnson. I'll chop this up to my age. So I wasn't able to find any notes that I had. Was this continuation like done before? Did we have any public debate on this last time? What was the issue with it being continued? Right, and that's a good question. And other commissioners should make sure that we get this correct. So this was originally on the December meeting which was canceled due to the snowstorm. On the January meeting the neighborhood association had asked for additional time given the notice happening right for the holidays for their neighborhood association to be able to actually have time for their committee to meet and the applicant was kind enough to agree to our request to continue it. It sounds like those conversations have been based on this hearing this evening. Any other questions? Commissioner Johnson. I'm good, thanks. Commissioner Miller. I just wanted to make a quick comment that I was at a Trinity Park meeting recently last week or so and everyone seems supportive of doing this. So there's no opposition to this. Great, thank you. Commissioner Miller. And Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up when this came before this last time I mentioned that I believe that an organization of which I serve a leadership role might have had an interest in this property that was incorrect as it turns out the restrictive covenants are in favor of the former owner not in favor of preservation Durham. I knew we had a file on it and I knew it was considered but they actually didn't they went a different direction with those things. I did have a couple of questions for Deanna if that's okay. You may and thank you for the clarification. So, I don't want to get into your business too much but since you mentioned is this property subject to the bankruptcy? Yes. And so to sell it, you'll have to obtain the approval of the court? Yes. Or trustee, I'm not sure with the nature of your bank. No, it's us. Okay, very good. And I believe that it could be seven units. Seven. That seems small. The property in my mind is a large one. It's about two-thirds of an acre, 0.63. No, I'm talking about the building itself. The building is 25,000 square feet. That's why they would be pretty significant size apartments. The attic apartment where I used to live is about 4,000 square feet. And then below the way it would divide easily actually kind of settles out to seven. That 1950s building would be one apartment per floor at 2,500 square feet. And then the original structure could be two per floor for two floors. And it happens to be seven would be allowed by right so it kind of settles out pretty nice. I know that nobody knows that building better than you do. Is it practically feasible to convert it into seven residential? It's actually pretty easy. Yes. The way we built it out with the hotel rooms is there's so much plumbing and so many HVC units. And there's, yes. If this rezoning was not granted, how difficult would it be to find somebody else to run it as an in like you have run it? Well, actually I can tell you of the buyers we have looking for it, the two most likely candidates are actually looking to continue operations as a BNB. They just are also interested in the flexibility for the future. It's a great building as is. It's just, you know, I never know what's going to happen. Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs? Yeah. I just have a comment about the King's Daughters Inn and the service that's been provided over the years to patients and their families at Duke Medical Center and no telling where else. But that is something that means a lot to me because I know how that situation is. But I just wanted to thank you, your staff for providing that service. It's not free but it's a greatly reduced price but it's well, it's very much appreciated by those that have had to use it and I'm sure people have come back for a good time too. Absolutely. Well, thank you. I mean, we really enjoy the community. I've been in Durham for 17 years. We love being an asset and I hope that it continues to be that asset. All my staff are there who want to stay at the King's Daughters. They are loyal to the King's Daughters. We are hopeful that it will continue as a hotel. Thank you, ma'am. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. I also did just want to say thank you for your flexibility and patience. First the act of God in December and then the act of the Planning Commission in January. But it is appreciated. That's not a comparison. No. But it's always nice when we can take the time for the neighbors to have input and you've been really gracious and it has paid off, I think. So we appreciate that. I think it's an appropriate time for a motion for consideration of approval. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. You may. I move that we send case Z18 00024 concerning the King's Daughters in forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller. Seconded by Commissioner Hornbuckle. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Durkin. Yes. Commissioner Alturk. Yes. Vice-Chair Hyman. Yes. Chair Busby. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yes. Commissioner Ketchin. Yes. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Yes. Commissioner Jones case. This is case Z18 00019. We'll start with the staff report. Good evening. Emily Struthers with the Planning Department. I will now be presenting case Z18 00019 Odyssey Towns. The applicant is Gary Wallace. This 26.85 acre site comprises three lots located at 3500 and 3614 555 Highway and 521 Penrith Drive. This site is located within the city limits. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from commercial center and residential multifamily to commercial general with a development plan and residential suburban eight with a development plan. The property is designated commercial, recreation and open space and low medium density residential on the future land use map which is consistent with the zoning request. The proposal consists of a maximum of 10,000 square feet of commercial and a maximum of 190 multifamily units. Please note that the applicant has reduced the number of units from 210 to 190 units. The development plan has been updated to reflect this revision though it is not in your packet. The site is shown in red located off of NC 55 Highway in the suburban development here. The site is vacant and primarily vegetated with hardwood and pines and existing access easement and driveway is located off in the northern portion of the site and the northeast creek along the western side of the site. The site is adjacent to a mix of existing residential, vacant commercial land and existing industrial uses. The site is presently zoned commercial center CC and residential multifamily RSM. There is no existing development plan associated with this site. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from commercial general with the development plan CGD and residential suburban 8 with the development plan RS8D. The property is designated commercial, recreational open space and low-medium density residential on the future land use map which is consistent with the rezoning request. You will note that the portion of RS8 is aligning with the very small portion of low-medium density residential on that future land use map which is a little difficult to see it's in the southwest corner. Proposed conditions, the development plan provides site access points building and parking envelopes, preservation and project boundary buffers. A summary of key commitments includes the proposed development will have a maximum of 10,000 square feet of commercial and a maximum of 190 multifamily units. No units are proposed within the RS8 zoned area. Transportation improvements to be provided include bus pullout and shelter, right turn lane and a traffic signal. A 100 foot greenway easement shall be dedicated and design commitments specify slope roofs, building materials and the use of front-facing gaples as distinctive architectural features. The proposed CGD and RS8D zoning designation complies with the current commercial recreation open space and low-medium density residential designation on the future land use map and applicable policies. It is consistent with policy 222 E231 A232 A814 B111 A. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other policies and ordinances. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. others. We will open the public hearing and as with our previous cases we have one individual signed up to speak for enjoy this while this lasts. Jared Edens. Good evening. Thank you for your time tonight. Jared Edens with Edens Land. I appreciate the summary by staff. I'm just going to touch on a few hot points. I think this project is really a good opportunity for Durham honestly. If you look at the location, you're 10 minutes to downtown, you're 10 minutes to 40 in RTP. It's along a corridor that happens to have great infrastructure capacity. We've got water and sewer here. We've got plenty of roadway capacity here so it can handle the density that we need. It also adds to a mixture of housing uses. If you look up and down 55 predominantly there were single family up until recently but we're starting to see townhomes. We've got some apartment projects coming on 55 so it just adds to the overall mix of housing that we need. Staff mentioned we're also putting a signal in. We didn't have to do a TAA for the project. It wasn't large enough but DOT made us aware of a significant accident history of Odyssey in 55 so my client was willing to install a signal there. We had a neighborhood meeting. I don't have any opposition that I'm aware of and answering questions that you have. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak on this item? We're not seeing anyone so we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? Commissioner Durkin? I had a question for the applicant. We'll have a couple questions but do you know what these will be before sale townhomes? And the price points? I'm guessing here but I'm going to guess 220s, 230s to start and then up. So just townhomes though it's not any apartment buildings? All townhomes with the one little commercial corner that's really being provided for flexibility but I don't really think commercial is going to get developed in that corner but where's that flexibility? In the northeast corner that you don't anticipate that it will. It's there for flexibility but I think that most likely the site will be, and from talking to neighbors they're really not, they don't have a need for commercial there. They let us know that it didn't matter to them so most likely it'll be all townhomes. But as we found with some zoning cases things can change in the future so we just wanted some sort of flexibility. Would this allow for flexibility to do multi-family? Our only options are townhomes and the commercial corner. And the other question I had about the 100 foot greenway easement it says it's to be determined but then on the development plan it has a note of an easement in favor of the city it recorded at a specific book and page. So I was wondering what the recorded document required of you for your client. It's like a yeah I mean the note was requested by Parks and Rec as far as being worded that way. I could not tell you what that deed reference is for city trails. Do you know what the requirement is in the book and page document? I can't speak specifically to the requirement but in general it is the reference for the ability to request that easement and what is included in that easement. I don't know the specifics. Okay. We've allocated for it here but typically as plans get more detailed we work with the city to better locate where the easement will eventually go. Other commissioners? Commissioner Miller. I just wanted to point out that you're not actually committing to town homes and you could switch to some other form of residential development that is allowed in the CG right? Yeah I guess technically it does say multifamily units but the intention is town homes. Thank you so I just want to make sure that there was broader than just the stated town homes. You're right. Commissioner Kenshin. Yes a question for the applicant as well. The intersection of 55 and Odyssey that's a accident spot. You mentioned that earlier. What are you going to do to kind of alleviate that concern? Quite a few accidents at that intersection which I can imagine would only get worse with this addition. We're putting the signal in for one so we're putting the signal at the intersection and that signal will come with it markings for pedestrian crossings as part of the whole signal package so I really think that intersection will improve quite a bit when this goes through. Additional questions? Commissioner Alturk. Thank you chair. This is a question for staff. On the development plan there's a reason it says there's a rezoning case to the south of the parcel. Do you know what that's Yes, that is scheduled I believe for next month. That is Elevate at the park. I cannot remember the specific request off the top of my head. The applicant may be able to help me with the specifics if you have questions on that. Okay. We're handling that zoning to the south as well so the plan for that parcel is apartments. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Brown. The applicant has already alluded to the fact that he didn't think commercial might go on that corner there and I tend to agree with him. If you look from Cornwallis Road all the way down to I-40 the Cornwallis Road and Carpenter Fletcher Road where you have some nodes already have a little bit of commercial there but there's been turnover things have failed there's been some redevelopment going on. So I expect that we may see all residential units on this property. What I would really like to see though is rather than using general commercial zoning to get to that point I would prefer to see the flume amended to put a residential on the flume and then a residential zoning on the property. That's just my personal opinion on the matter. Thank you. Additional comments, questions from commissioners. Can I follow up on with this question to staff? With this development plan drawn as it is reserving 10,000 square feet for commercial and the 190 units even though the property will be zoned by a general commercial with a development plan after rezoning is approved you're pretty much going to have to build those units and you could add up to 10,000 square feet of commercial but you wouldn't be able to go in and build a shopping center. Correct based off the development plan. So the names of the zones we're using are a little counterintuitive to the predominant use but it's still all permitted by the code. Thank you. Commissioner Gibbs. I just have a question that Commissioner Durkin was talking about there was a note on here about parks and rec and I guess the applicant could also have input. I completely missed that. Is parks and rec planning something here or does it have to do with it's not mic, yeah it is on now anyway what is going on with parks and rec is in this the context of this conversation I believe there's a question for you Mr. It's really limited to just the easement dedication that that's it. There'll be no trail construction with the site plan this is just the notice standard legal wording that they like to see but as far as parks and rec involvement once we get the site plan to determine the exact corridor for the hundred feet easement once that's recorded that's basically the extent of it. I was just curious as to what they were planning to do I know I can always call them but while I've got the people that know about it all here anyway that's extent of my inquiry thank you. Commissioner Gibbs Commissioner Bryan? Commissioner Gibbs I think part of the answer is that the greenway easement is a requirement of the city's greenways and open space master plan Thank you sir that does answer my question Seeing no additional questions or discussion Commissioner Johnson I'm going to give you the chance to make the motion I'll take my second best option Chairman I move that we send forth case number Z1800019 to the city council with a favorable recommendation I'm sorry Second. Move by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Al Turk we will have a roll call vote please Commissioner Johnson Yes Commissioner Bryan Commissioner Durkin? Yes Commissioner Al Turk? Yes Vice Chair Hyman? Yes Chair Busby? Yes Commissioner Miller? Yes Commissioner Ketchin? Yes Commissioner Hornbuckle? Yes Commissioner Gibbs? Yes Motion passes 9 to 1 Thank you Thank you very much We will move to our final zoning map change of the evening this is 707 Morehead Avenue it's case Z1800031 and I will recognize Commissioner Durkin I live in the notice area for this matter so I'll recuse myself I'll be back So we'll take an official motion for I'll move we recuse Commissioner Durkin from this case moved by Commissioner Bryan and seconded by Vice Chair Hyman In favor please say aye Any opposed? Thank you So we will start with the staff report Good evening Jamie Sanyak with the planning department I will be presenting case number Z 1800031 which is 707 Morehead Avenue and the applicant is Robert Schunk of Stewart the property is located it's the block of Morehead Avenue, Vickers Avenue Proctor Street and Shepherd Street it is located within the city limits within the Morehead Hills historic district in total the property is 2.88 acres the site was the subject of a legacy zoning case P P 86-35 the applicant seeks a rezoning to allow all uses within the RU-5 to zoning district there is no change to the future land use map designation which is currently medium density residential the aerial map shows the property highlighted in red it's located within the urban tier and within the Cape Fear River Basin these pictures depict the site and some of the area area conditions the Durham City Council approved its zoning map change and development plan for the site on July 28th 1986 that development plan limited the uses to group residences a group facility recreation facility and administrative buildings some of the buildings are shown in the photos also shown our properties abutting which includes schools, professional offices and residential uses the zoning map context map shows the zoning as you can see on the left and the right there is no change however the applicant as I mentioned is looking to expand the permitted uses above and beyond what is specified in the 86 development plan and per section 3512 a 28 of the unified development ordinance any amendment to use is shown on an approved development plan are considered a significant deviation and require the entire plan to be resubmitted for zoning map change in terms of consistencies with the comprehensive plan and policies the text commitment as shown on attachment 5 has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with unified development ordinance requirements staff determines that these requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted ordinances and policies and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have thank you we will open the public hearing we have two individuals signed up to speak in favor of the project and Spalding and George Stanziell thanks for joining us thank you for having us Mr. Chairman members of the Planning Commission my name is Ken Spalding and I do represent the applicant in this matter it was pointed out by staff it's 2.88 acres in Durham's urban tier as was pointed out 1986 this property was rezoned with the development plan which restricted its residential uses to primarily a brain rehab center and its apertures the center has been closed for approximately 3 years it is presently vacant and will need to be tended to our proposal today is only to remove the text restrictions for the vacant brain center and to follow the existing underlying zoning classification the property will remain residential with 17 new town homes and existing structures Mr. Stanziell of Stuart will explain in detail the land planning aspects of it and the uses of some of the current existing structures the developer has met with various neighbors for over a year and we did not have to have a neighborhood meeting but we also felt that we wanted to have a neighborhood meeting with we sent out notices of 600 feet radius on the property involved and had a very good and fruitful meeting we do feel that this is a proper transition when we look at the area some of it is OI and school and other aspects of it and we feel that this proposed development at this particular location is really a tremendous asset for the Durham community and for that location Mr. Stanziell will give us much more detail we were approved unanimously by the Durham Historic Preservation Commission and he will get into some of that to explain the detail that this particular project has before you this evening thank you Mr. Spalding Mr. Stanziell President and Director of Design at Stewart 115 Cofield Circle in Durham I have I have sent you a great deal of specific information on the project in the past several days so I'll try to be brief as Mr. Spalding alluded to the zoning is quite simple we're not changing the zoning district, we're not adding traffic students we're not changing the tier we're making any flume changes we're merely adding by text all residential use is allowed in the RU 5-2 district similar to the Moorhead Hill neighborhood just adjacent across the street our neighboring community to the west beyond the the institutional use that has been in place for quite some time as I pointed out to you and some of my emails we're bringing forward to the city another uniquely designed infill project in the urban tier that is walkable to downtown will create wonderful streetscapes with sidewalks on street parking street trees landscape and lighting and most importantly will preserve and enhance the two historically significant homes I believe Commissioner Miller is pretty familiar with those homes that are there has a wealth of knowledge that said we have been approved unanimously by and received by the historic commission and received our certificate of appropriateness this approval involved an exhaustive application and review process that included very specific illustrative site plans access points building elevations landscaping lighting paving materials open spaces and private courtyards in addition the approval includes existing and proposed building elevations which we which we considered where we considered architectural features from the homes that exist in Moorhead Hill neighborhood also materials and lighting this also includes the renovation and restoration of the two existing historic homes and as I explained to you the main house will remain in place but will become two units and restored back to its original elevations and so forth there are some sort of appendages that were added on at some point in time that will be removed but it will be restored and then there's an existing home that will be relocated to the shepherd street side and the reason we're doing that is we felt like the existing home the resident single family residential home would relate better to the existing neighborhood across the street as opposed to the O&I district on the other side on the east side the development our project will be guided by our approved certificate of appropriateness and any changes would need to be approved by the historic commission so this rezoning while we're not making committed we have no committed elements to those all of those features we're held very strictly to a significant set of very specific plans and elevations for the homes so that said I'll be happy to answer any questions and thank you very much thank you we will close the public hearing commissioners commissioner Johnson thank you hopefully two maybe three quick questions so maybe staff or the applicant answer this question so the applicant mentioned that the current facility the brain rehab facility has been unused for three years so in the case that under the existing zoning permit what happens if that facility never doesn't become active for that original use can the owner of this facility also do anything other than reactivate that facility Jamie Sanyak with the planning department so the current development plan that p86 35 or I might not be mentioning it correctly that's the zoning that basically runs with the land so any of those uses that are shown on the development plan those would be what would be permissible that is why the applicant will use uses to allow for uses above and beyond that so maybe Mr. Stanzel so I'm just trying to confirm what I'm thinking so if you don't open that facility what else can you do with that what happens we're removing that facility this is what the removal of the text will allow that's the purpose of it and as Mr. Stanzel pointed out we will end up two divided into two townhomes so basically what I'm hearing is that if given that this facility is no longer in use for the brain rehab there's nothing else you would do with that and when you say that you're going to split the main facility into two is that considered part of the 17 or is that a multifamily type use of it there's 17 new townhomes and then we will take the main house and it will become two units and then the existing or the existing home that we're going to relocate so it's a total of 20 units and I'm found so I want to find out do you have a sense of the price range on the new units I don't think they've drilled it down quite yet I think they're still doing a little research but um it's most likely going to be somewhere in the mid 7s to mid 8s any additional questions Mr. Johnson oh thank you I'm good Commissioner Alturk this is a question for staff I'm going to follow up on comment from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission in Attachment 8 so the applicant is not required to build a sidewalk on Proctor Street is that correct can you so can you can you tell us what the UDO says they must do when it comes to sidewalks here or Hall Park just one minute please transportation is coming up to answer your question thanks Erling Thomas transportation um so Proctor Street is currently an unimproved street and at the site plan stage no sidewalks would be required unless they were required to make improvements to that street and as they're making no connections to it they would not be required to do do so by the UDO so they have oh are they do they have to are they required to build sidewalks anywhere else if there weren't sidewalks on the you know right everywhere else I believe there is existing sidewalk on Proctor Street okay well let me see what except for shepherd yeah shepherd um we're not required to build a sidewalk on shepherd but we are going to um because there is a sidewalk across the street on the you know on the existing Moorhead Hill neighborhood but we are we are we are going to build so there will be sidewalks but not on Proctor and that sidewalk on shepherd is included in our site plan that was approved by the historic commission so I mean I guess the staff is there any consideration of changing the UDO when it comes to these sidewalk requirements because it seems to me like bad policy to not require them to to build a sidewalk everywhere that's you know on their property right um and it well I'll wait the ordinance does require the sidewalks on both sides in the urban tier the issue is that they're not going to improve that street that's and they're not making street improvements and that's why that's what Miss Thomas was trying to explain that if they're not making an improvement they're not required to build a sidewalk in the actual street if they were improving that street then yes they would be required that's the issue not that we don't require the sidewalk is that they're not doing the work that would kick the sidewalk improvement in I'll wait to hear from other commissioners right I'll maybe come back thank you Commissioner Miller before Commissioner Miller has the floor I did want to just note that Commissioner Morgan has joined us for the minutes welcome Chair Busby transportation wanted to add one more thing to what I just said to actually just clarify the whole situation so I'm going to let them do that real quick please so again since Parker Street is currently a gravel roadway they would to make those improvements they would need to pave and construct curbing gutter and sidewalk and all that so that's why the sidewalk is not required along gravel roadways Commissioner Miller let me follow up on that early and if I may at some future point the city determined to pave that block of Proctor Street it would pay for that improvement at least in part by imposing an assessment on adjacent properties would it not do we still do it that way street assessments and those things bill judge transportation the it depends what they would petition for so if the neighbors or property owners petitioned for sidewalk then there would be an assessment but they could potentially petition just for street improvements which would just be the paving without the sidewalk but the the cost of those improvements would still come through at least in part through an assessment yes of neighboring property owners yes just like you would for sewer water extension in existing city right of way yes and for sidewalks now that are priority sidewalks from our dorm walks plan it's the assessments essentially full cost so they're rather expensive thank you and I have a question for staff customarily townhouses are not an r u5 to use except for in limited circumstances and this is one of those limited circumstances and that's because Vickers Avenue is a minor thoroughfare what is it in the udo that triggers their ability to do build townhouses in an r u5 to zone Jamie Sonjak planning department I don't have this citation although I although do what I do just make it up but this has been vetted and it was it was determined that townhouses would be permissible here okay thank you and I wanted to point out too to everyone that although this is a very brief development plan as Mr. Stanzial told us because this is in a local historic district everything they propose to do must go through very rigid and strict design review from the historic preservation commission and they've done that and they've gone to the neighbors I mean that they couldn't decide to change the plan but then they have to go through that same rigorous process again so although this is going to be a townhouse project in r u5 to at some future point they could decide to build single family homes according to r u5 to or duplexes according to r u5 to or any other residential use or use that's allowed in r u5 to but whatever they decided to do and just have to go through that same rigorous process so when we vote on this we should keep that in mind that it isn't necessarily going to be these townhouses we're dealing with the zoning we're not the historic preservation commission but having said all of that I like this project I like the way these developers have gone about designing it and getting it approved especially their engagement with the neighbors when I saw this coming through I spoke with the leaders of the moorhead hill neighborhood association and they summarized for me the neighbors response to it which was in the main favor and no one was so concerned that they felt it necessary to speak against it I will note that the main house there is the Victor Bryant house Mr. Bryant built that house he was a prominent Durham attorney he was very active in the North Carolina Democratic Party in the early decades of the century in 1920 he announced to run for governor but I believe his appendix burst and he died before his campaign began so he's buried in Maplewood Cemetery I do not think he proposed any change to that part of the Bryant property certainly not for double occupancy the so all of those things are going to happen here and moving that if I'm not mistaken George Watts car designed house facing vickers around to the other corner is brilliant and I don't know very many other developers that would have undertaken to do that would have been much cheaper just to leave it where it is and design around it but the end result in my opinion will be a better thing for your project and for the neighborhood as well and I thank you for it I'm going to vote for this great thank you Commissioner Miller I know we all came for the zoning map changes but we stayed for the history lesson which I always enjoy I will also say I feel the same way about this project I think this is really it's interesting it's exciting you combine this with the king's daughter in hearing the hearing we had last month on Lakewood Avenue we're seeing some of the opportunities for appropriate infill development as well as the outreach that I think is really important to the neighbors when doing these kind of projects so I also appreciate the care that you've taken the creativity I plan to vote for it other questions or comments Commissioner Gibbs I just wanted to add my comments to what you and Commissioner Miller said I totally agree and I have told the developers or the representatives of the developers how much I appreciate the effort that's gone into this particular design where you've got a nice streetscape and the interior provides some access between the privately amongst the units it's a I just like this concept and it has applications in a lot of places but that's all I just wanted to voice my support total support for this and oh the one house that you were talking about one of George Watts Carr's houses the one on the corner the one that they're going to move the Victor Bryant house was built in the first decade of the 20th century I remember that one that's the big one that faces north on Faces Morehead Avenue that always rings a bell to me when I hear George Watts Carr's name and it's anyway I'll say with the history lesson thank you Mr. Chairman thank you the floor is open for a motion for approval Vice-Chair Hyman Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we move item Z18 000031 revisions to text commitments for the 707 Morehead Avenue forward with a favorable recommendation moved by Vice-Chair Hyman seconded by Commissioner Brian this is to go to the city council and we'll have a roll call vote please Commissioner Morgan I need my mic on you good yes Mr. Johnson yes Mr. Brian yes Mr. Al Turk yes Mr. Hyman yes Mr. Busby yes Mr. Miller yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Gibbs yes passes 10 10 10-0 I forgot we had one recused I had to check that right thank you we are now moving to the text amendment to the unified development ordinance this is the landscape and tree revisions and this is case TC 18 quadruple 05 we'll start with the staff report thank you Michael stock with the planning department text amendment TC 18 0-0-0-5 primarily immense provisions of section 8.3 tree protection and tree coverage in article 9 landscaping buffering as follows and I'm just going to quickly list in short summary fashion for tree coverage requirements for residential development in the suburban tier tree coverage requirements are revised to first focus on preservation and then on tree replacement for residential development in the urban tier it increases residential tree coverage from 3% coverage to a 7% preservation up to 10% tree replacement for development not qualifying as infill development and infill development standards would apply otherwise and then also adds a 3% tree coverage for non-residential development where there currently is none. For landscaping project boundary there is an increase in the project buffer requirement along right-of-way for residential suburban tier developments by raising the exemption threshold from 60 feet in width to 80 feet in width adds a minimum project boundary buffer requirement for masqueraded residential developments lower thresholds for required and optional natural buffers thus requiring or incentivizing the use of natural vegetation in more circumstances with the maximum distance of 10 feet where the current requirement is maximum distance of 30 feet from the right-of-way and also requires more street trees when understory trees are utilized and then there's a number of other miscellaneous changes clarifying that the amount of street trees must be met even if using existing trees that's a current standard but we're just adding text to make that more abundantly clear. Clarifying the definition of masquerading in regards to phase developments and then also revises the Tuscaloosa Lakewood MPO to make sure tree coverage changes are applicable and met on a lot-by-lot basis. This text amendment has gone to the JCCPC numerous times as Chair Busby can probably attest to more than I can count on my fingers and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We will open the public hearing. We have one individual signed up to speak in favor. Katie Rose Levin. Hello, my name is Katie Rose Levin. I'm the Executive Director of Trees Durham. Thank you so much for having me. I'm going to speak about the proposed changes and I first would like to state that we have a lot of supporters in the room who would like to see these changes and some that were even more rigorous. So please stand up. We appreciate you coming out. So we started working with the Planning Department I guess in October to look at the tree protection in Durham and also the tree planting requirements in Durham. Currently Durham has the weakest tree planting and sorry tree protection and preservation requirements out of all of our cities in the triangle. So lower than Raleigh, lower than Chapel Hill, lower than Cary, lower than Morrisville in a lot of cases. So we've been working with the Planning Department to change that and they made big steps forward and we're still reaching for the floor of Raleigh which I believe where we should put our standards. The reason why these changes are so important we made now is because the next changes won't be made until the comprehensive plan which we have for four to six years. So this is a big opportunity between now and six years. There's going to be a lot of development. So there are five points that we would like to bring up in regards to the proposed changes. The first is the requirement to have developers plant street trees in the right of way. Currently developers are prohibited from planting street trees in the city right of way. This is a major loss of infrastructure by developers. Other cities do require developers to do so and in fact DERM itself is using taxpayer money to plant street trees in the city right of way at a rate of about 1,500 a year. So by not requiring developers to do the same we are setting ourselves up to go back in the street taxpayer money to replant these trees. If we assume only about a mile of new developments every year that means it's going to take the city of DERM three years to go back and replace those assets that the developers are not installing. So we are losing ground quickly and if we wait for another six years or so for these developers to come in six times three 18 years for us to replace those assets that developers are not doing on the taxpayer dime. So we would urge the Planning Commission to actually propose that developers be required to plant trees in the city right of way except with a written exemption from general services and consultation with urban forestry that's actually a reversal of what the current code says which is developers are prohibited for planting street trees in the city right of way except with written permission. We would like to commend the Planning Department for advocating moving the street trees closer to the streets that is good although we would like street trees to be next to the street. The other thing is we have been in contact with general services and one of the concerns that they had expressed is they would like to see HOAs manage street trees which are in HOA developments and we are supportive of that and in the other ways of helping make sure that our city trees are well taken care of. Okay so that is the first point. The second point is requiring a minimum of 10% tree preservation on sites for all developments two acres or more. This differs from the suggested changes that you have heard in two ways one the changes currently proposed apply to acres four and more which really excludes a lot of some of those smaller infill developments excludes most small shopping centers and such. So Raleigh has two acres a nice thing about a two acre point cut off is that it excludes most single family home developments, small renovations so it doesn't put a large burden on you building a new garage in your backyard or things like that but it does catch some of the more robust developments as Raleigh has noted. The second is to have a minimum of 10% preserved trees on site right now you heard that we are as low as 3% and in some cases there are no preserved trees on sites it's only replanting 3% so Raleigh requires a minimum of 10% that's the floor in many cases some of their properties require much more we think that we can do at least as good as Raleigh and in some case we can do better and in fact part of what the planning department has proposed is a little better than Raleigh insofar as if they don't have the minimum amount of preservation on site they have to then replant it that's better than what Raleigh does but we would like to see at least a 10% on all sites commercial included. We understand from the planning department that most commercial sites choose not to preserve so we really are losing you know when a Walmart comes in that nice buffer that we look forward to. The second is to require a tree survey that's verified by an arborist we require them to preserve trees on site but surveyors are very good at corners and not necessarily as good at identifying trees so I myself am an arborist and have to go out and verify tree surveys and carry they do require arborist to verify surveys and I often find that trees that are called trees are actually dead so I think that by requiring arborists who are professionals in the field we're going to get more information to end up preserving things like living trees. So that's three and the fourth is to provide arborist review and construction oversight this is more of supporting the planning department as they expand in their role so I just do a lot at you that I would love to take any questions or go from there. And what we'll do is we'll close the public hearing and if commissioners have questions they'll call you back up. Perfect thank you very much for the opportunity to talk. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this particular item? I don't see anyone so we will close the public hearing. Bring it to the commissioners, commissioners questions, comments? Commissioner Johnson? I guess this question for our staff in response to the public comment is there or was there any rationale for the four acre minimum versus two acre minimum for the required planting? Four acre minimum is a standard that the UDO uses for infill development so we would need to take a look at policies regarding infill development and the size of infill development if we wanted to move forward with a different acreage. Do you at this point just off the topic do you see any potential liabilities pros cons, particularly cons for going to from four to two? I think it would just require additional study and research to verify whether two acres is appropriate over four acres. And my second question is regarding the tree planting in the right away so was staff position or thoughts on that request and it seems to make sense so why didn't it end up in your reading? I'll give a crack at it and if I misstate something my uppers will correct me or step in. Staff is generally supportive of putting street trees in the right away and we've mentioned that at JCCPC numerous times however there are other departments that are involved and there are other circumstances that involve improvements within the right of way so there is a wish to study that in much more detail to make sure that's a viable option thus we felt that moving it to 10 feet within the right away versus 30 feet in the right away was a good balance to move forward with at this time. We're not taking it off the table but we want to study that and get our other departments, public works, general services on board and in the discussion in more detail. So quick follow up to that comment considering which I tend to agree that one how long would that do you anticipate that study whatever that study? I don't have a time frame at this time. Right and so with so much happening in Durham right now and the issue with the potential loss versus preserving does it is it complicated or too confrontational potentially for the owners to be on the departments who need to study it to get the exemptions for the default being that it's there so we take away something that's there rather than have to lie before putting something there in regards to trees in the right away so whatever department they would come to whoever they need to to get the exemption. As far as I'm aware any time that there's been a request to put street trees in the right away there's been allowances for that. It's not often requested but of the times that it has been requested it's been granted. Right so my point is that it that becomes a default that it's mandated to be a part of the development process so why is there any major friction that would cause that to become the default and the departments that need to do all the studying which can take six months a year two years and development is still be happening to come to whoever they need to to get an exemption for having from having to put the trees in the right away versus going to request trees and to be put in the right away. Commissioner Johnson the concern from our sister departments is that once the trees are in the right away they become the city's maintenance responsibility and so without some sort of additional funding to go with our tree maintenance which is not particularly well funded at the moment we could have a really large fiscal liability for the city. That's a very insightful answer and thank you so it seems to be that there's a fiscal implication to the right away issue and so I won't call for a response to that from the public but that's good to know that that's part of the consideration. Thank you Commissioner Johnson Commissioner Brian. Thank you. You've made some changes to the Tuscaloosa Lakewood MPO does the neighborhood approve? We sent that to them we haven't heard any comments yet. Nothing's come back. Okay. Page 3 the little table at the top of the page there's a 10 at the top of each column and it looks to me based on what you've been doing that that should be have a strike through. No the intent was to focus on residential development in this case there's no changes to the non-resident. You talk about the sub-urban tier and the urban tier to me one of the things that's really missing is compact neighborhoods. We don't seem to have any tree preservation goals or standards for compact neighborhoods and I think that environmentally is not good and I'm wondering if that can be addressed. There's not being addressed in this time. No. I think it should be because we're going to be talking about a compact neighborhood shortly and there's some definite areas in there that tree save I think is very important. I know that there are going to be increased open space requirements for the compact neighborhood that you're going to be hearing tonight. I would prefer to see something into the ordinance for compact neighborhoods. On page four nine three two existing trees you've reduced the root protection zone slightly but I seem to remember we had a lot of discussion when it was 80 percent is this reduction okay with arborist? Yeah we talked to staff involved with that and it actually brings it into consistency with other actual tree preservation protection zone requirements in other parts of the ordinance and the 75 percent does seem like a little bit of reduction or less of protection but it actually allows for more trees to qualify as being protected. My final question if we have trees along the street and I believe we should if those trees get cut down so that the street could be widened or something like that or sidewalks put in will there be any requirement that those trees be replaced? My experience in the past of where the city or other government agency has gone in to remove required vegetation that they've had to replace it. Good because on Old Chapel Hill Road you've got some places where you need to start putting some trees back. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Miller? So I wanted a little help on page one of our materials here of the actual ordinance itself in I guess it's 4, 6, 5, C, 1, B I don't think it reads right. For tree coverage requirements per SEC 8.3 tree protection and tree coverage shall be met on a lot by a lot basis. Something is missing in that sentence. Thank you I'll correct that. And I was also now over on page 4, 9, 4, 2, A, 1 in the Suburban Tier A protect project is not required to join a street or railroad right of way that are greater than 80 feet. I believe it is greater. But one of my problems is it's not clear to me and it may be just because of the way we extract things to present them. What the agency is here, who is responsible for planting these trees that are when we require trees to be planted, who has to plant them? The applicant or developer who is implementing the site plan or subdivision. Or somebody who is just building a house. And so it's got to be done in that process. What if afterwards the tree is removed, cut down, or just dies? Do these impose ongoing requirements to maintain the trees? Yes, and enforcement is an issue. And it's usually complaint driven. So I've got 110 feet of road frontage in front of my house in the urban tier. I have two trees that are within 30 feet of the right of way. What am I going to have to do to comply with this if it passes? Nothing at this time. You're not doing it unless you're building a new house. So it's not triggered unless I build something. This doesn't impose, go back in. It's not retroactive. Make somebody do something if they're not going to do anything. How small does my project have to be to trigger the tree requirement? The infill standards have their own landscaping section. So it refers to that. Otherwise, if you're beyond infill or if you're in the suburban tier you're triggering the tree coverage requirement. Is it necessary building or dwelling? Will that trigger it? No. All right. Thank you. That helps a lot. And then finally, help me understand section 944 natural buffers. It alarms me whenever I see us saying buffers can be narrower or have less opacity. So we're actually triggering these are the instances that trigger the requirement for a natural buffer. So reducing the numbers is actually capturing more instances at a natural buffer or using the existing vegetation would be required. And that's the same thing for the option. We're reducing that number to encourage or incentivize more opportunities and more use of a natural buffer option. So 9.4.4a has to do with rural and suburban tiers. Right. And then we get down to B explain to me how that works with an example if you would because I'm not sure I get it. It's not because it isn't clear. It's just because I don't get it. It's just saying that you can use the natural buffer as an option if those are that particular instance is triggered. You can go down to 20 feet of tree buffer as an option instead of a constructed buffer of replacing and putting in new vegetation. My concern is that in the urban tier 20 feet of trees anywhere is not an effective buffer. To me a buffer is a device that we want to create in order to make incongruous neighbors stable neighbors and when I go out and I look at mature growths of trees that get cut up if you go out and find a half an acre of trees and you cut it up so that 20 foot strip of those trees is left you've got trees nobody wants. You've got trees that are 75 feet tall with the lowest limit 50 feet. It's a bunch of toothbrushes. It just doesn't seem to me that it may save some trees but it no longer functions as a buffer between those incongruous uses. Is that a risk? The thing with natural buffers is still you have to beat opacity standards so you would still have this doesn't do away with the requirement of supplementing. Thank you. Vice Chair Hyman. I'd like to ask this question of staff please it's a situation that I'm familiar with since we were discussing planting trees in the city in the right of way. Are there any circumstances and I'm looking at general standards where in this particular section it shall apply to construction of any primary structure and shall apply to individual lot so I'm talking about an individual lot are there any circumstances that would allow planting of trees in the easement or right of way? Well you can request that if the requirement if you're trying to meet street tree requirements and you request it you can. The design districts do allow for street plantings in the right of way. In easements I wouldn't be able to tell you for certain for easements usually there's usually depending upon the easement there's usually pretty strict restrictions on the types of planting so you can do in easements especially for stormwater and such. And then the second part of that then who would be responsible I know enforcement is always an issue and who would be responsible then for those trees once they're in the right of way. Oh if you put trees in the right of way as Scott had alluded to earlier they're the responsibility of the city. Commissioner Miller so her question raises a question to me. These requirements are minimum requirements of somebody who is engaged in a triggering activity development activity. It ain't got anything good to go back to my 110 feet on Virginia Avenue in the urban tier if I wanted to add a tree to the two trees I've already got I could go to and I wanted to plant it in the right of way so that it would become a city-owned street tree. So I can still apply to the city for that permission and work with the city arborist and they may or may not allow me. This isn't touching that. Commissioner Alturk. Thank you chair. So I want to make sure that I'm clear on tree coverage in so 8.31 so in the suburban tier in the past we had 20% right in the suburban tier now there's a minimum of 20% preserved tree coverage that's required. And in the urban tier that has gone from 3% was the previous requirement and now it's 7%. So can I I guess I'm asking you this question in light of attachment E the recommendations from trees Durham which is in other cities it seems like they just have one number and so in Chapel Hill it's everywhere within Chapel Hill 20% in carry or in Winston-Salem 10% everywhere. So is there a reason why in the suburban tier you're recommending 20% and then the urban tier you're recommending 7% It's just a recognition in the suburban tier to accommodate that set aside of land which is usually 20% is a substantial set aside where in the urban tier you're dealing with much smaller lots usually in field development and either older or already built upon lots much older development so there's different urban and built characteristics in the urban tier generally than in the suburban tier. But the other cities do not make that distinction is that correct? Some cities do not If I may share I'd like to ask Miss Levin is that right to comment on this issue and I just because it seems like you know this issue very well is there a reason for this distinction that makes sense to you and just based on the other cities as well? Right so Michael's point is well taken that there are different opportunities in typically in urban versus suburban tier one of the reasons why for example Raleigh has a 10% minimum across that is when there are those opportunities they want to make sure they capture them so the rezoning project you just did now was 2.8 acres and there would be opportunity there to at least seek in Raleigh's case they would say 10% in our case it would be 20% and if you couldn't find them then you would be required under the current if it was a minimum of 10% you would seek to find that 10% preserve those and then go back up to the max and so I think that that's a good strategy one of the things that's a little bit different with our way with Durham's proposal versus what Raleigh does is Durham is then saying you have to at least submit a minimum coverage which is a combination of planting and preservation where Raleigh says it's just if you don't you have to just meet preservation and that's it and if you don't get it you don't get it so that's a little bit of a differentiation there most others don't differentiate because they see the value in trying to seek at least a minimum in Durham's sustainability and resiliency plans they are looking for a 55% tree canopy coverage across Durham City County and if we're only requiring 3% preservation in some areas that's just mathematically not very possible which is something that Charlotte actually discovered they had a canopy coverage goal and they realized without increasing the amount of trees they preserved all across the city they weren't going to be able to do that Durham has a similar goal similarly we're asking them to increase to at least a floor in all areas of 10% and in some cases 20% where it's applicable like suburban areas where you're developing vast tracts of land if I may since you have you so you heard some of the discussion about the logistical challenges with putting trees right on them right away I think it seems like SAF trying to come up with a compromise you know not originally was 30 feet now it's 10 feet can you say what's your take on that is that a good compromise position for now and then we can study it later one of the so there are three maybe three points to bring up first is that one of the reasons they don't want to put the trees in the city right of way is they're worried about the maintenance costs well the cities are growing city and so increasing the maintenance needs of everything not just trees but sidewalks fire hydrant street lights and things like that and so we're not stopping people from installing street lights because we're going to have to buy more trucks as the city expands so I would say that saying yes we have to maintain silly utilities means we need more people the natural consequence of a growing city so that's one the second is there's a little bit of an environmental justice aspect of it in some under resourced neighborhoods they can't afford to take care of trees and so by putting them in the city right of way we're giving people the opportunity to have access to tree canopy coverage putting trees between the street and the sidewalk from a transportation standpoint gives you more direct protection for pedestrians walking along the roads with physical protection from cars hitting you as well as other types of benefits like cooler air cars naturally slowing down up to 10 miles an hour some research is showing so you're really getting significant benefits by putting the trees physically between the sidewalk and the road as opposed to in a yard because frankly if once you plant if a city right of way is 35 feet off the edge of curb and you're allowed to go 10 feet back from there you're looking at trees that are called street trees that are in essence up to 45 feet off the street which is one of the reasons why in a lot of developments you will drive around and see street trees that are right in front of the house so I would say when you asked me is it a good compromise I think it's a good step one of the things I'm worried about is how long it'll take us to get to actually putting them in the right of way and I think Commissioner Johnson this idea of like why wouldn't you require it unless there's a reason not to especially because the city is currently planting trees in the right of way so they're saying they can take on not only that liability but also that it should be done as a policy thank you that's really helpful thank you thank you chair thank you other questions or comments I had a couple questions as well I also did want to just first of all start by thanking the staff for their work on this as Mr. Stock mentioned this has come before multiple bodies under the joint city county planning committee which I've served on as the planning commission chair just in the last 18 months we've seen this at least three times and it has continued to improve mostly based on the really great comments from trees Durham and other community input the questions that I had which I clearly didn't get a chance to ask at the other three previous meetings this is my last chance so how how do they how do you calculate the tree coverage and is that in here somewhere yes it's within tree coverage calculation root protection zone calculation coverage requirements are within section 8.3 but not in the handout not in the handout we weren't touching that section so great that's great thank you and then do you know how how does the city so the city of Raleigh plants trees in the right of way but you raised the issue then of the cost the maintenance cost for the city do you know how much that cost the city of Raleigh do we have any idea what that means to go that route they when I spoke to them they don't know the actual future impacts when I spoke to their arborist or that department head so I wasn't able to get that kind of information I appreciate that you were looking for it I will say commissioner johnson's questions really struck me as the issues that I've been grappling with I'm planning to vote for this I appreciate the trees Durham is indicating we should they're recommending we should vote for it our decision tonight is to either vote no and to stay exactly where we are or to vote yes to begin to move forward so I am going to vote yes to begin to move forward but I do regret that we are not taking the additional steps of saying you should proactively plant in the right of way and be able to then move forward to ask for an exemption to not do it it's the opt out requirement I think is the better way to go even though we don't necessarily know the cost for maintenance we're just going to miss huge opportunities and I also believe going with two acres or more compared to four acres or more or is a better way to move forward so I hope we will be back here soon to continue to increase these ordinances to meet what our neighbors require we're not asking to do anything outlandish this is we're still in many ways falling short of our neighbors and we're missing opportunities every day but I do appreciate that we're beginning to move forward so I do plan to vote for it Commissioner Johnson this is for I guess the chair so I don't think that this is actual path forward versus you know two steps back so is our option basically if we don't want to kill it like to just provide comments to okay other commissioners may weigh in but that's how I see it is that if we you can vote it down and put in comments for why it's still a step forward and why you voted against it I'm planning to go the opposite route I'd like to signal that we should approve it but I am going to put in my comments the places where I believe we're falling short and should continue to improve Commissioner Gibbs just a couple comments but I think your remarks probably has answered one of them and that is what flexibility is there in not adhering to the so called required minimums of tree plantings locations but I well I'll just ask the question staff there is some flexibility in these these guidelines for seeking relief or whatever for private for private citizens relief and for which aspect are you talking about the required tree is it the buffers along streets oh the street trees for street trees yes the current the current provision there is an allowance to request for them in the right of way where they would otherwise be required to be placed on private property and now that you've mentioned private property they so this is and I haven't gone into this and in depth there is a requirement for private property owners to plant or leave certain percentages of canopy trees usually the tree protection is in more common open space for the subdivisions so it wouldn't unless it's a very small subdivision usually tree coverage or preservation requirements are not on the lot by lot if we're talking about the suburban tier okay and one last question and I ask this because of past experience when there is a requirement on the edge of a property at the street for certain plantings and I'm sure there will be some selections species or whatever for plantings and trees is there is there an allowance for waiting until the better time to plant them say in the spring, the fall or the whatever I was involved in one project in downtown and this was years ago and we had a certain number of days to get these plantings in the ground and it was summertime hot as you know what and dry and we didn't have any rain for weeks and weeks they all died so you had so I'm hoping there will be some there are currently provisions to allow for delayed planting or bonding of landscaping until an appropriate time for that planting I might be picky but it just it's something to think about I have a lot of issues with some of these things but I'm not going to bring them up now because I need to read it a little closer but I'm going to support this too because I like tree canopies and we do not need to follow what Raleigh or Kerry or whatever does Durham has its own situations it's nice to get some ideas from other places but we need to tend to our own designs relative to what we have going on here that's all Mr. Chairman thank you Commissioner Gibbs I would like to entertain a motion at this time Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we send item T C 1-8-0-0-0-5 ordinance text amendment tree copperage and landscape revisions forward with a favorable recommendation properly motioned commissioner al-Turk first we'll have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes thank you we're on to our final item this evening this is a text amendment with rezoning this is the Patterson Place compact suburban design district this is case T C 1-8-0-0-0-0-9 and zoning case Z 1-8-0-0-0-3 0 I will remind you if you have not signed up for public comment period you may do so or just let me know we'll start with the staff report Chair Busby real quick before we get started I wanted to just make sure that the commissioner commissioners are aware of how the particular case the order of cases to the T C case should be voted on first then the zoning case and then the third item you have to vote on is the street network plan so there's there's three items to vote on thank you for the clarification good evening folks I'm Lisa Miller with the planning department I'm here this evening to ask you to consider case T C 18 30 attacks amendment establishing regulations for a new type of design district the compact suburban design district case Z 18 30 a zoning map change request to apply those new regulations and the compact suburban design district to the Patterson Place compact neighborhood tier and finally the future street network plan for this compact neighborhood tier if you recall my presentation at the January 3rd planning commission as an informational item focused on the background of the project from both a planning and policy perspective as well as the public input process for the project that's been going on for about two and a half years as well as the existing design district framework that is in place for the compact design district in the night street area and for downtown design districts today's presentation I'm going to focus on just briefly kind of back up a second and talk big picture about the policy framework for why this project in this location at this time and I'm then going to talk about focus on the differences in the text amendment between the compact suburban design district with the existing design districts knowing that there's commonalities in the framework with all three of them I'll talk about some of the particulars with the zoning map change the details of future street network and then upcoming steps in the project timeline so just to take a step back for a moment what are design districts some of you have heard this before but design districts are our form-based zoning districts that are intended and by policy are directed to be placing within our compact neighborhood tiers in order to create over time as redevelopment occurs high density mixed use and multimodal friendly developments there's obviously a variety of characteristics that come along with this greater heights and intensities a mixture of land uses and kind of unifying the uses that are allowed within the district as a whole really focusing on how the buildings interact with public space along the street and creating greater connectivity of a street network in order to promote greater transportation choices and street designs that also do that so just a few a few additional policy items related to the particular design district being put in place for Patterson Place this area was established in the urban transit area at the time that the 2005 comprehensive plan was put in place those were kind of seen as a compact neighborhood light or to become future compact neighborhoods so the idea of creating an area with mixed use greater intensity development for this area has been in place for 13 years we also in the summer of 2016 both our city and county officials approved the existing compact neighborhood boundary and changed to that designation from the previous urban transit area designation at that time they also approved the change of the future land use within the compact neighborhood to design indicating that the future zoning within that boundary was to be design district as well I just wanted to mention that the joint city county planning commission or committee has directed planning staff to work towards city initiated implementation of design district zoning for our compact neighborhood tiers the proximity of this area to two high volume transportation corridors in US 15501 and interstate 40 and the proposed light rail alignment set this compact neighborhood up for success as a high intensity area both now and in the future regardless of the transportation form that is utilized in addition as mentioned in the staff report there's an ongoing effort to reimagine the 15501 corridor the study has emphasized the need for multimodal connectivity both across 15501 and through 15501 is regional movement the alternative alternatives for this segment of the study that has come out of public input on that project includes significant improvements for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity while the corridor may never be the ideal companion to the compact neighborhood staff from the MPO Durham and Chapel Hill are working together to reduce the negative impact of this major transportation corridor on the vision for future focus development of all four quadrants of where 15501 and I40 meet there's been significant cross-jurisdictional interest and coordination in comprehensive planning of those four quadrants the southwest quadrant is the gateway station location for the proposed light rail the northwest quadrant is the east town area where UNCU is planning and doing a lot of development and the other two quadrants are incorporated by the Patterson Place compact neighborhood and finally our community is seeing considerable growth of people a day comes up a lot so we as a community are looking for ways to accommodate that growth the compact neighborhood tier framework allows us to accommodate that within our city limits where that growth can occur without destroying the existing character of the community and where transportation and utility infrastructure already exist with easier access to existing services and in an overall more sustainable fashion than sprawling development so with that policy framework in mind I will go through quickly the details of the proposed three items that we're asking for your consideration on so the first case is the text amendment again to create a new compact suburban design district the intention is for it to be applied in compact neighborhood tiers where the existing character is more suburban in nature where it's less space constrained than the areas where our downtown and compact design districts are applied so it gives us a little bit more flexibility of what we can do with the requirements this new district will utilize the established frameworks for design districts and that includes the establishment of sub districts as you can kind of see in the graphic here showing the tapering of intensity from the core out to the support to sub district and the surrounding usually residential development so that framework includes parameters for building placement minimum and maximum height and density regulations the utilization of building and frontage types that prescribe how street facing parts of buildings are designed in shape public space includes the design standards that ensure kind of a basic level of good design and establishes requirements for new streets maximum block sizes and provisions for public space along the street that we refer to as streetscape so while the framework for that district is already in place there's modifications that we're proposing in the details of some of those elements pages three through six of your staff report lists extensively of the changes that are proposed I'm going to go through them briefly here starting with article 16 which is the design district article and then going through the changes to other articles so the first section of article 16 establishes minimum and maximum densities by sub district that are allowed by right the it also then removes the density maximum for developments that utilize the affordable housing bonus which I'll talk about again a little bit later this section also includes provisions for single and two family residential and only the support to sub district as long as it falls within the allowable density range of 9 to 15 units per acre this section also includes establishment of what we're calling a transitional use area that is a 200 foot area measured from the two the boundary where the support one sub district is adjacent to that boundary it would require that any development encroaching into that area would require major special use permit approval establishes exemptions for existing development and public right of way and has specific review factors that include environmental protections lighting effects on nearby properties conformance to adopted plans and other factors and deals with site design as I mentioned we have a little bit more room as we're dealing with existing suburban character so we propose a build to zone in this area the place where the building has to be located with respect to the back of curb of 15 to 25 feet as opposed to the 12 to 18 that's in place for other design districts we're also proposing to rename open space to public space just to kind of create a different character from the open space requirements that are in place for our more residential subdivision projects which would apply in all design districts we've lowered the thresholds in the compact suburban design district for when public space is required on the site and increase the percentage required from 2% in the other districts to 5% here next section deals with building design in the compact suburban design district there were no building or frontage types that the community wanted to not see in any particular sub district so all of them are allowed in all sub districts we have included some modifications to the frontage type requirements where the street frontage is along a freeway and that applies to all design districts not just to this one this section establishes minimum and maximum heights which is the initial height that the building can go up before it has to step back and then a maximum overall height and again establishes an increase in height that's allowed using the affordable housing bonus so for this project what we have been encouraged to do is to modestly raise the buy rate densities from what's existing and basically what we're doing is trying to ensure that the buy rate density is the minimum necessary to be considered transit supportive we then only allow higher heights and remove the density restriction only through use of the affordable housing bonus which is adopting the interim strategy that has been used put in place with a previous project there are some potential implications of this that we need to be aware of so monitoring the results of this approach is something that we will definitely be doing in order to figure out its effectiveness and whether we need to make changes to this proposal and we also know that zoning can't solve affordable housing I think there is no one silver bullet and so we all know that we need to be layering approaches to how we provide for affordable housing I went through this summit the last meeting but the Triangle Day Council of Governments report that was included in your packet last time and this time notes that in this area there's a pretty significant number of existing naturally occurring affordable housing units of a total of just under 1200 multifamily and single family units inside the tier 844 of those are affordable to those who make 60 to 80% of area median income and 88 of them are affordable to those earning 60% of area median income or below so one of the strategies that we are talking with and working with community development on is looking at the preservation of those existing naturally occurring affordable units other strategies called out in that report that are appropriate for the Patterson Place area include tax increment financing or special assessment districts as development occurs to be able to use that those funds in order to either create or preserve affordable units as well as looking at trying to make available grant funds for folks who are interested in utilizing the bonus but recognizing that there's an offset of cost needed so the last section of the design district article of the project deals with our rights of way block and lot sizes and the streetscape amenities of the area within that public realm along the street so again we're proposing to establish an 8 foot clear zone in this district as opposed to the 5 foot clear zone that is required in our other design districts we've also included a sidewalk option that has provision for stormwater control measures dealing with some of the stormwater mitigation within the right of way in the sidewalk area we've also included some minor modifications to the street requirements that apply to all design districts and while the general maximum block length and size requirements apply to this district as well we did include an exemption from block standards for situations where you have an existing major transportation corridor or environmental feature that may not allow full conformance as long as greater conformity with those standards is achieved so there's a handful of changes proposed in other articles to the UDO creating a new intense statement for this new district we're proposing to remove the major transportation corridor overlay from applicability in any of the design districts there's a new table column added in the use table for this new district and a number of modifications to limited use standards for this district most of which are in line with those that are in place for the compact design district we've created new steep slip standards which I'll go into on the next slide proposed modification to screening requirements just for very tall buildings where mechanical equipment can be seen from much further away than just the adjacent rights of way some modifications to the minimum and maximum parking requirements and the allowances when you can exceed the maximum parking requirements and some modification to the nonconforming use provisions in order to assist with the transition of an existing suburban context towards this more urban context that we're working towards so the steep slope requirements that we're proposing define steep slopes as 15% greater greater as opposed to 25% it reduces the area by half to 2,500 square feet instead of 5,000 it does not allow disturbance within the defined steep slopes except for for public rights of way and allows 100% of the steep slope area to count towards residential density calculations as opposed to the 15% that's allowed elsewhere as opposed to apply just in the Patterson Place compact neighborhood for now so that is the extent of the text moment changes proposed so the zoning map change is the application of that new compact suburban design district to the Patterson Place compact neighborhood tier including the drawing of the sub districts for core and support to there were some questions at the last meeting about the size of those districts so the districts were established with public input and I just wanted to show this map here hopefully you can see the purple and the green lines are the areas that were proposed for inclusion in the core by the public where they wanted to see the most intense development a lot of that came from based on the discussions had that a long 15501 and 40 were not having to taper intensity because of the adjacent character of development so having the opportunity to create more intensity there the reason that we have retracted the boundaries from that has to do with the affordable housing bonus we wanted to make sure that the core area there's sort of our TOD planning consultants that worked with us on a grant that's mentioned in the staff report said that the 600 foot area around a proposed station is the area where office is most desirable because people are much less likely to walk longer distances to their job than they are to their home so we wanted to make sure that within that core area that we were making sure that we allow and encourage non-residential use we wanted to then significantly incentivize outside of that core use of the affordable housing bonus to get a big bump in height if you're using the bonus but otherwise to not incur the height limitation is 45 feet in that area and then because the support one affordable housing bonus strategy gets you 90 feet in height we wanted to do a larger support to district to create greater area of transition down to the old Chapel Hill road area where people had the most concern about that transition so again this is the proposed sub districts that we have at this time based on that public input and then modifications based on the affordable housing strategy so in addition to the overall map change there are two properties again mentioned in the staff report but they are parcels where there's existing development plan zoning in place that crosses the tier boundary so in order to not create a messy zoning situation with the leftover areas outside of the tier and also because both of those cases the development plans include commitments for preservation of significant acreage on one about 25 acres and on the other about 52 again primarily outside of the compact neighborhood tier so we are working with the property owners to translate those protections and to protect that acreage with the rezoning those proffers will utilize the text only development plan mechanism that was recently adopted we're finalizing the exact ordinance language right now but the draft language related to restricting the use on the property is uses within the property designated as the zoning district shall be limited to parks and open space use category of section 5.1 the use table and further limited to recreational trails and these are close ups of the two sites the dotted line is the tier boundary the hatched area is the parcels you can see the amount of area outside of the tier that is left of the parcel so the final piece of the project that we're asking for your recommendation and action on this is a future street network for the compact neighborhood tier we have worked with transportation and public work staff to draft this and vetted it through the public the intention is for it to tie into the future trail network that the trails shown on this map here are shown in green dotted lines are from the comprehensive transportation plan multi-use path layer and those are conceptual will require as noted previously additional work with parks and rec to identify exact locations and feasibility and what not but the two are intended to work together one of the things that we have noted in the work that we've done with the compact design district and the downtown design district is that getting that base level of connectivity in order to create the walkable urban form is absolutely essential to everything else and in going into an area with much more suburban context this was an important piece of that for this work so finally I know that was a lot thanks for bearing with me so we are scheduled for city council informational item and presentation in march as well as to the county commissioners both of those are at work sessions and the next steps will include public hearing at the city council for the text amendment zoning map change and street network the county commissioners for the text amendment and the future street network because the entire area to be rezoned is within city jurisdiction so with that I would be happy to answer questions great thank you very much we really appreciate it it was worth the time so we will I'm sure we'll have questions for you I think we will open the public hearing I knew I know there was one other individual who was here at the beginning of the meeting who said they were planning to speak so we left the sheet out just in case they showed up but if someone doesn't mind bringing the sheet over thank you I know it was brought over earlier and we have a number of individuals who are signed up to speak and on an issue that's this complicated it's probably not surprising that it's not as clear cut with there's just a certain number who are for it a certain number who are against it there are a few folks that are saying that they are partially for or partially against with caveats and so what we normally do is we usually have 10 minutes for each side 10 minutes for those who are speaking for and 10 minutes who are speaking against I think just to allow us and knowing there may be one additional speaker who may be coming back to this meeting I would recommend that we consider allowing 15 minutes per each side just to give us a little extra time if folks are open to that I would welcome a motion to that so moved how many individuals have requested to speak we have 8 individuals I'm sorry 7 individuals who have signed up to speak and I believe there's an 8th who may be returning to this meeting I would suggest that we give each 3 minutes since they may not want to fall on the floor again so rather than get stuck within a 15 minute cushion just give 3 minutes each 2 I believe a few speakers were hoping for a little more time and I think a few speakers may just have a minute or two Mr. Chairman I like your idea if I can through it as a possible alternative I'd like to give everybody either 4 minutes or 15 minutes a side and nobody gets less than 4 minutes no individual gets less than 4 minutes I see people running the numbers in their head I don't able to go through that is there a second this is a big thing this is a lot of paper and I don't want to have people come up and say I like it, I don't like it I want to hear it if there's a second this will become the motion that we will consider properly moved and seconded and the motion if you may restate it so we know essentially 15 minutes a side but no speaker be cut off before they've had 4 minutes great all those in favor of the motion please say aye thank you you can see the clock has 4 minutes per speaker if you don't need 4 minutes I encourage you to not use the 4 minutes but if you need it to say what you believe is important this is a big issue and we want to allow appropriate time so we always start with those who have signed up to speak for the proposal and so we have 3 individuals who have signed up to say I am speaking in favor without caveats we have 3 individuals let me find them Patrick Biker Jay Hikes and Jim Savara good afternoon I guess I have to say good evening now good evening Chairman Busby Vice Chair Hyman members of the Planning Commission I'm Patrick Biker I live at 2614 Stewart Drive that's in the Rockwood neighborhood but obviously for shopping needs my family spends a lot of time in the Patterson Place area I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the staff recommendation reflected in the staff report that's before you tonight and over the years Morningstar Law Group has represented many property owners within this proposed design district but tonight I'm here on behalf of the ownership group that owns approximately 100 acres it's affectionately referred to as the Oak Ridge 58 assemblage what we'd like to say for the record is if this rezoning Z180030 is approved by the city council no later than in April and in this form reflected in the staff report we will offer a text only development plan we are fine tuning the language with the staff and I do want to say how much we appreciate their hard work on the initiative that's before you this evening this initiative goes back many years I believe I attended all the public outreach meetings and I was there simply as a citizen of Southwest Durham and a former member of the Durham area transit authority to make sure that we had a plan that would work regarding the specifics of the property ownership group that I'm here tonight our text only commitment would first remove the area within the 200 foot transitional use area from a grading only site plan that's currently pending in the planning department that's case D1800258 and then also implement environmental protections for approximately 52 acres out of the 68.3 acres in parcel ID 206066 and that's associated with the existing development rights for that parcel specifically to build 346 residential units that were approved back in 1988 in case P 88-6 we look forward to drafting this specific text amendment with the staff in the near future and again we specifically encourage you to support the staff recommendation that's before you this evening it reflects many years of hard work it is a I think a well done compromise it reflects voluminous community input and we hope you'll support it I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Mr. Biker Mr. Hikes Good evening chair and members of planning commission my name is Jay Hikes and I'm the chair of the NCO Triangle the agency designing the Durham and Orange counties light rail line which will have a station at Patterson place as Lisa alluded to you may ask yourself why does a transit agency care about a rezoning to quote Brent Dadarian the former chief planner of Vancouver the best transportation plan is a good land use plan as a transit agency our mission is to connect people in places and we believe this rezoning will help us do that in three ways new jobs homes shopping and many other new destinations close to transit expanding the number of opportunities for people who live within a quick bus ride a flight rail new destinations near transit give more people the freedom to forego the costs of car ownership without foregoing access to jobs education healthcare and community in this way the rezoning promotes greater social mobility and equity second the sub district boundaries and transportation network will create a contiguous mixed-use neighborhood around the station and on both sides of 15501 it will create pleasant streets public spaces and a variety of connected destinations will encourage people to walk bike or take transit consistent with the comprehensive plan and with our recently completed study third although zoning alone cannot solve housing affordability it is foundational supporting existing new and affordable housing near transit the rezoning will provide new market rate housing to meet the demands of growing population in a walkable neighborhood and taking pressure off of more vulnerable neighborhoods it will result in new property tax revenue that can be used to support affordable housing across the city and it will create a strong density bonus especially in the support one district which makes up a majority of the rezoning they will encourage developers to include affordable housing at Patterson Place to include the rezoning will lay the groundwork for a new Patterson Place expanded resources for affordable housing and shared prosperity we believe it is critical to adopt clear and predictable standards now in order to set expectations for developers to ensure that new development is built in a transit supportive way which will maximize the benefits of our community investment in light rail thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you Mr. Savara I'm a member of the 214 Woodburn Road in Durham and involved in the Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit and let me stress I've just had a chance to look over the material briefly this afternoon but we're very pleased to see the attention that's been given to send incentives for affordable housing as part of this plan we know that as the staff has indicated long ago talking about moving from the temporary density bonus to developing the permanent plans for the station areas it was going to be difficult to find the right number to both have sufficient density to support transit and light rail on the one hand but not so high that the density bonus was not an attractive incentive for them to add 15% affordable affordable units as part of larger housing developments I think that the way it has been done we might hear from the staff later about how they picked the number of 30 is the maximum density in the center district but it looks like this is striking the right balance it encourages higher density which is good for the light rail system as well as providing the opportunity for affordable housing in addition to the density there are also the flexibility for high requirements and less requirement for parking spaces so I think this is a positive step forward we've been waiting for some time to see how this would be incorporated in the permanent zoning for the station areas I think it was also useful to refer to the report of the Triangle J council of government and their recommendation to include measures to promote the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing I would like to see more details I understand that that planning by itself will not be able to develop these policies but I encourage them as they say in the presentation to continue to work with other departments of government to create some positive and effective incentives for maintaining affordability in existing units we need it not only in this station area but throughout Durham so we're pleased to see how the proposal has been put together commend the staff for their effort and look forward to a positive resolution of this issue thank you so we have one final speaker Mr. Waldrop who is speaking in favor we did make a motion that each speaker would have four minutes at a minimum but I don't know how much time we have left of the 15 minutes per side so we did extend the public comment period since we had a number of folks who signed up we said 15 minutes per side up to four minutes I don't know if the staff is you're at like eight and a half minutes that have been used Mr. Waldrop and I know you had handed out some information in advance that's at our spot as well yeah thank you very much my name is Mike Waldrop 3524 Sayward Drive I'm happy to see that you're moving along a little bit faster than you had indicated so I'm glad that I made it back in time I'm a sort of a low tech person I gave you materials that I wanted to use to communicate a few points about Patterson Place I'd like to start you with a big 11 by 17 that's technically exhibit one and it gives an overview of a message that I've been taking to all the transportation and all the land use planning people in that are involved with Patterson Place I mean we've had discussions about Lyrao we've had discussions about 15501 and clearly we've had discussions about compact neighborhoods and specifically Patterson Place and what we have is a very unique situation here where we've got the main drag between Durham and Chapel Hill between the two medical centers the two universities crossing a transcontinental highway and the four quadrants that we have I think have been recognized by the consultants that came in and were generated the TOD guidelines for all the station areas this is really an absolutely unique area in the city and town of Chapel Hill and it is I think unique along the line the light rail line as it's been mapped what I've been proposing is that we need to make four quadrants work we need to have integration of four quadrants and on that larger sheet you'll see images of two autonomous vehicles now you'd have to be living under a rock not to believe that the whole transportation world is going through dramatic transformation maybe we're going to get light rail delivered in the mid 20s and I think in the meantime there are going to be just very dramatic changes in various forms of technology everybody is scrambling to get into what will be probably the largest technological revolution of you know our lifetimes and so I have a vision of a shuttle line served by autonomous vehicles if you see reference to Navia shuttles those things are running between the two station areas through all the four quadrants and they would be supplemented by what I call the taxis or vehicles that are actually in production they're in use the shuttle that is shown in the upper right hand a part of that exhibit is actually something that is running on the Las Vegas strip so this is not a blue sky pie in the sky notion that we could have a swarm of vehicles that could basically negate a lot of the distance issues distility issues for pedestrians and bicyclists that are presented by 15501 by a very tightly integrated mix of different types of mobility that we in many instances can't really even imagine so in any case that's item number one to support that because this is all rubber tired I think we've got to get the streets right and frankly I think getting the streets right is probably more important than getting the zoning ordinance right and so I'm very happy to see that staff has picked up on some of the ideas and with some of their exhibits they've included connections that I'm showing on my big map and if you'll excuse me I don't even have a copy of my set exhibit two that was the base road network that I'm proposing exhibit three is merely the same base road network with numbers so that we could discuss these things exhibit four is an attempt to show that the northern corner of the defined boundaries what I've got indicated as PPCN north corner is really a particularly valuable part of the compact neighborhood because if the road network is built out in the way it should be then they get a straight shot via a new road that would run parallel to the light rail tracks back into the station so service for them could be among the best and access for that part of the compact neighborhood could be among the best in the whole area and it's if you look at the if you look at the big map it's basically two shuttle stops away from the light rail station exhibit five represents one of my big questions about the staff proposal they have mapped the core area and with their with staff's mapping of it they're suggesting that the area that I've indicated with A in a circle is actually a valid location for core densities and yet we have got areas directly across from the new station area from the new light rail platforms and those are indicated with numbers one two through six and they have despite their greater proximity to the station I thought the whole name of the game was proximity accessibility and so on they have been essentially demoted to S1 I have a big problem with that I think that's I'd like to understand what professional logic has generated there are a number of smaller items that I'm going to be discussing with staff and possibly elected officials as we head into the the further extent of the approval process I am obviously thrilled that we've gotten this far I've got exhibit six is a little bit of nitpicky editorializing on their plan I'll let you examine these things at your leisure obviously we are in my opinion cooking the planet we are going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars per station area we need to take the investment that we're making and totally transform the city we need to have a transit-served, transit-rich city within the city of Durham and the town of Chapel Hill and so we can argue about 15% or 25% or this or that but what we really need is to leverage that investment and we need to have diversity we need to have a broad spectrum of uses and we need to have density and hopefully the light rail will then serve as a spine that will serve this area and everybody else thank you for your time so we these are the folks in favor so we used our full 15 minutes we have four individuals who've signed up with either concerns or are listed themselves as against and I'm just going to call them in order as they signed up we'll start with Reynolds Smith and then Beth Trejo and then followed by Ron Healy and John Kent good evening I'm Reynolds Smith I live at 1905 Durham Road, Rougemont I'm on the Durham open space and trails advisory commission and I'm chair of its open space committee and I'm here to talk about these so far huge unmentioned elephant in this room the New Hope Creek wildlife corridor which flows alongside the Patterson Place compact neighborhood especially the northern tier where the Oak Ridge 58 property exists like every other citizen group and like everybody else so far we also support these zoning changes however we prefer the 300 foot set back from the tier boundary that was originally proposed by the planning department rather than the 200 feet it now recommends this corridor the New Hope Wildlife Corridor is a state designated natural heritage area that connects many special habitats it was created in the 1990s by four cooperating jurisdictions in one of the very first multi-jurisdictional open space agreements in this state it has been defended against encroachments for over 25 years now it is being challenged at its most vulnerable point and that is right where the 15 and 501 bridge goes across the corridor right where Oak Ridge 58 is located this is the narrowest point of the corridor the corridor's ecological benefit is the connection it provides between numerous special habitats and it is at this point is most threatened by development in July of last year the developer of the Oak Ridge 58 property submitted a grading plan that would assault the corridor at exactly this point their plan would grade the slopes and remove trees and other vegetation to the north of the bridge this plan conformed to existing legislation and so had to be administratively approved but this plan gives these developers the now vested right to destroy the very features that the planning department has created these new regulations to protect it is a dark time for the environment today in the 1970s of the dawn of the environmental movement it was universally understood that environmental issues were first of all local issues it was in specific localities where environmental problems existed that were found the most effective and efficient solutions to these problems all that changed in 2010 in North Carolina from then on localities as an obstacle and all that mattered for state government was protecting an equal business opportunity to exploit every locality for its wealth if state government is now a chief environmental problem in North Carolina this cannot be allowed to be a secret if our rights to be the municipalities we want to be have been abrogated this must become public knowledge people will want to know that before the bulldozers and skid steers and loggers descend into the New Hope Canyon our leaders first said no way no way thank you Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners my name is Beth Trejo I'm an attorney with Nelson Mullins here tonight on behalf of the group that owns the New Hope Common Shopping Center with the exception of the Dick's Sporting Goods there's a separate lot I sent you a letter so I wouldn't have to take up too much of your time tonight but I do want to kind of hit the highlights for you my client is asking to be excluded from the zoning case the 15501 boundary in our opinion creates an obstacle that is not conducive to the urban form that's mandated by the very prescriptive requirements of this ordinance in the future there may be solutions to cross 15501 safely but today there are none that are planned to move forward so the plan would be to dodge cars as you cross the street to move through the many storage and across the parking lot to the shopping center we think that doesn't fit and we would share with you remind you I guess that the city stands before you today as an applicant just like any other applicant in the zoning case and we would ask you and the city is bound by the laws just like any other applicant and we would ask you to critically and carefully consider the rezoning that puts in place requirements on property owners have expectations and previously approved plans that complied with the ordinance in place at that time I would tell you that your code says you're to consider the suitability with present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood and the suitability of the subject property for uses permitted by the current versus the proposed district and we would suggest to you that this is just premature in the location of the shopping center at the intersection of highway 40 and 15501 so we would ask to be excluded I thank you for your time tonight thank you good evening, I'm Bob Healy I live at D-39, Sushfield Street I have for most of the last 27 years been either chair or co-chair of the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee and what I'm going to say is roughly consistent with positions of the Sierra Club New Hope Audemann and the Durham Open Space and we have been consulting with them a couple weeks ago when the weather was nice, my wife and I took a hike at the Johnson Mill Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve which is about two and a half miles up the New Hope from the 15501 bridge it is 299 acres it is an investment of well over a million dollars in state and private funds South of it is the Duke Forest, a couple thousand contiguous acres South of that is the Hollow Rock Park which is another million dollars of public and private money if you go to the bottom of the New Hope Corridor, above 54 you find Leafarm Park another million dollars of federal, state local money private money if you go north of there you get both big contiguous tracks and you also get the Chapel Hill Road Park going right up to the bridge now the bridge really is as Reynolds said, a pinch point between two enormous contiguous corridors that have over the last 27 years put together at the expenditure of great cost and treasure the bridge itself as a result of a vote of every single one of the four jurisdictions that the voting authorities was raised by the state reluctantly at a cost of a million dollars to improve the connectivity of this corridor now we have consulted with six ecologists these are people who have lots of experience three have PhDs four of them have worked specifically in the New Hope for 25 and 30 years all of them really know the New Hope well and their recommendation to me has been that A, all the slopes need to be protected we think that the staff recommendation goes a long way toward doing that and secondly, they say that at least 300 feet from the boundary toward 15501 they say needs to be protected frankly I'm not asking for that nor the staff is asking for 200 feet, I'm asking for 300 as something where the values of the New Hope corridor will be considered not a new build zone and we have never ever been density bashers and we think in this case especially with regard to transit and affordable housing we shouldn't bash density what is good design we want is a chance to have the project designed so it does not affect the resources of the corridor now we have had two negotiations with the developer about this, we hope to come to an agreement with the developer the developer will not tell us what he intends to build talk to the ecologists they say look it's not just about coverage it's about light it's about massing, it's about windows it's about vegetation and we think that this idea of a 300 foot corridor in which a special use permit would be required with some added protections referring just to the New Hope plan are an appropriate solution to this dilemma, thank you thank you, John Kent John Kent 394 Cup Creek Road, Chapel Hill North Carolina I am, I have several hats in regard to the New Hope Creek corridor and the Patterson Place Compact Neighborhood, I'm on the board of New Hope Audubon I am a technical advisor to the New Hope Creek corridor advisory committee I'm a regular attendee of the open space committee of DOST and I'm 28 years doing stream watch monthly volunteer sampling on New Hope Creek from Stagecoach Road to North of Calvander in Orange County what I want to say is number one I support the steep slopes proposal as staff has proposed and I want three I I strongly support actually the original staff proposal about the 300 foot setback from the edge of the 100 year flood plane I recognize that state law will probably not allow that so I am willing to compromise to go down slope to the compact neighborhood boundary and I want to point out that this is a compromise a couple of times already on how much setback is done and I want a setback not a to a setback the New Hope Creek corridor is one of the best hardwood bottom lands remaining in the North Carolina Piedmont you have to go Charlotte to the Adkin PD to get something similar furthermore this is a pinch point in a regional wildlife setup which has intrinsic value it has even more value because of its position as a link between very large areas of open space that we have the Jordan Lake Game Lands and the Duke Forest connecting on to the Eno to the North and thank you very much for your time thank you Mr. Kent we are going to close the public hearing that was everyone who was signed up and we appreciate you working with our time limits on the public hearing I expect we're going to have a lot of questions from commissioners some of you may get called back up so if a commissioner specifically asks a question and asks you to come back up we ask that you if you're willing to come back up to the microphone and to help just answer that specific question as we have them but we'll start to my right Commissioner Morgan? Yes I had some comments on the transportation plan from the last person that was I'm sorry I forgot your name but the one for no it was on the pro side yes actually I like your vision in transportation certainly I think a lot of the things with autonomous vehicles of taxis and shuttles I think that provides a lot more vision I'd encourage you to be part of that and many thoughts on that because I know that's changing rapidly from that perspective any comments on that primarily because I see this as the antidote to the problems of the 260 foot and sometimes 310 foot right of way for 15501 I mean as far as I'm concerned the vision for 15501 of converting it ultimately to a freeway I think is old 80s think I think what we have here is an opportunity to create an urban node even if it's just on the Durham side but hopefully in conjunction with Chapel Hill and I would hope that we would seek to integrate through every means possible the north and the south sides and then across I-40 back over to the Chapel Hill quadrants and I think that addresses some of the concerns about the New Hope Commons area and being able to provide access between the two areas yes okay thank you Commissioner Johnson alright so I'll just start with two questions one for staff and one for Mrs. Trios so for staff the comment was mentioned that by Mr. Kent that he didn't think that the state would allow for the 300 feet set back from the slope drop off my question is if the initial recommendation from staff was 300 and it went to 200 just can you provide insight of how you got from 300 to 200 and can you provide any comments is it the case that the state won't allow that 300? Certainly so as we were drafting proposals to bring out to the public and get feedback and then continue to refine the project one of the things that was put out for public comment was the idea of a flood plain setback as we were in further conversation about that tool and consulting with our attorney we do not feel that we have the authority to do that based on the restrictions and environmental protection regulation that have been put in place by the state so then we tried to do tried to figure out a mechanism where we could look at the use intensity adjacent to a use outside the tier a setting outside the tier that's very different from what's inside the tier and came up with a transitional use area mechanism at the same time so the 300 foot distance came from there's there's a lot of literature about what the right distance for different kinds of environmental considerations of buffer is appropriate and we've been presented with information from a couple of different sources of stakeholders in the project related to that the review of those materials show depending on what it is that you're considering whether it's wildlife movement or it's stream buffers or things like that the range can be anywhere from 50 to as much as possible but also looking at the measurements the discussion where the 300 foot distance came from was measured from streams as opposed to flood plain we also realized that in trying to administer this regulation that we really needed to be doing so from a legally defined non-changing boundary so we then revised our proposal to the 200 feet from the compact neighborhood boundary because that compact neighborhood is based on existing easements or property lines or rights of way so that was how we ended up there and so my question hopefully my colleagues my peers are asking some other questions but my question for Ms. Treos am I saying that right? Treos is you're asking for our exemption for your client the owners of New Hope Commons shopping complex and so my as I look at what's proposed my thinking is that this will increase the value of the owners of this complex just simply from a highest and best use standpoint so beyond that what do you see this proposal requiring you to do say from a cost at a cost or whatever that you would not have to do with the existing zoning that you have? Yeah so their fear is with the really prescriptive nature all the architectural requirements on the block perimeter if they're coming in they may be required to upfit their project in a way that they would not be required under the existing ordinance so we've talked with staff about what happens when tenants are being changed in and out as happens in the ordinary course of a shopping center and staff has said to us well those things would not require that you make changes to your shopping center but that's not laid out precisely in the ordinance as we understand it so we're concerned about that we're concerned about adapting small projects that are necessary to maintain the viability of the center and being required to build a very urban intense facility in an area that is not doesn't accommodate that kind of use as it exists today and so this is an ordinance this is not the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan can serve as a guide and it can be flexible and folks can come forward with zoning cases and say we know the plan says this but there is no way across 15501 today and so we would like to do X here if you put this ordinance in place our clients our property owners are constrained by it it's the law and it seems to me that if we were coming before you as a land owner making this proposal to you given the circumstances as they exist in this area today that you would laugh at us that this is not a walkable area given the improvements that exist there today and my client feels it's just inappropriate to require that they up their facility for something that doesn't exist so they would like to be exempted and if I may Mr. Chairman I forgot to tell you how much I appreciate Lisa Miller's help I've called her probably 25 times and she's been lovely so you have great staff thank you I know that wasn't the scope of your question but that was a lovely thing to say so we'll accept that Commissioner Johnson and I will reserve my general comments and again I will say we're dealing with an enormous amount of information we have three motions so we're going to give this ample time so if folks have additional questions or comments we will come back to you Commissioner Bryant thank you Mr. Chairman I want to start by thanking Ms. Miller, the planning staff all the people who provided input and the people who came out tonight to speak I really appreciate your effort I also want to apologize to my colleagues because going through this has generated quite a few questions I'm going to try to ask some of them first question I hope is simple but attachment A that came with us there were three different numbers for the acreage of Patterson Place attachment I has a fourth number which is 603.28 acres all I want to know is that latter number the acreage that's before us in the proposal tonight yes thank you the gateway station area which is adjacent will there be any compact neighborhood around the gateway station I cannot answer that question with any certainty but I can tell you in the conversations and the coordination that we have had with Chapel Hill staff in the planning department that part of the work that came out of the TOD planning grant was to start drafting regulations for the gateway station area we have reviewed that draft form and there was a lot of consistency with our design district format I know that the timeline of that grant project my understanding is that they were unable to get to conclusion of that but they're continuing to work on that okay thank you you might as well stay there I would be the letter from Nelson Mullins we heard what Miss Trejo said it seems to me and I'm not going to dwell on this that you're being asked very nicely at this point to exclude the New Hope Commons area I just hope you keep talking about it because I don't want it to get nasty and sometimes when you're doing with letters from lawyers things can get a little further along um one of the things that bothers me is the inclusion of I-40 in the area and the removal of portions of our major transportation car to overlay I'm all in favor of having the compact neighborhood to support transit and everything but I for one don't think we should be sacrificing our major transportation car to overlay zone in order to accomplish it and that's just my opinion I do note that down the road there are several improvements proposed for I-40 project ID 45-2 will add I-40 managed lanes from NC 147 to US 15501 and then somewhere further down the line another project will add I-40 managed lanes from US 15501 to NC 86 both of these are considered regionally significant projects and I don't know if it would impact the design of the I-40 15501 interchange or not but I would I just don't think we ought to be infringing on the interstate now I have some questions about these split parcels that you talked about parcel A and parcel B I heard what you said but it seems to me based on the fact that the greater part of these parcels outside of the proposed compact neighborhood and the portion that's outside does have environmental protection why not just exclude these parcels from the compact neighborhood so that was not an option that we considered the boundary so the when the project that completed in 2016 that looked at the compact neighborhood suburb and transit area to the compact neighborhood boundary there was extensively the area was extensively looked at for where the appropriate locations for this boundary to be there are definitely some difficulties in this area because there are some very large parcels that include land that is right up against roadway that's part like the historical part of the kind of developed area as well as going all the way to the edge of the new Hope Creek and so I will say that part of what was established in the compact neighborhood report and part of the reason for including it in your packet is that again making sure that we're using legally defined boundaries so that we have a clear edge of where different zoning regulations apply there were certain easements there's a trail easement, a sewer easement and property lines and rights of way that are used to draw the edge of that boundary and then there was some discussion about protection and increasing steep slope requirements for areas within that but the interest of consistency along the streetscape along the streets within the compact neighborhood I think that we feel confident that we can translate what is a current condition to maintain that protection without pulling any land out of the developable area under this vision for the compact neighborhood you know I think as far as these areas have already been rezoned you know there's got to be well defined property boundaries in the areas that have been rezoned so I can't see the boundaries will be a problem well because part of the area inside the compact is inside that boundary and part of it is out and the parcels are shaped very weirdly also any place that has so there's a mixed use zoning and there's a PDR and leaving that kind of particularly for the mixed use piece if you pull that parcel out it's just a parcel with a restriction and the mixed use area all of the development has been built out under it throughout Patterson Place it's part of a much larger project so it's kind of a weird piece just kind of that's a messy situation that we want to address okay I've heard several requests read several requests from several people wanting to see a 300 foot transitional use area I'm not going to get into the legalities of it I just want to state as I told you when you gave your questions I prefer to see the 300 foot transitional use area and I hope that we can do that I think it offers a little bit better protection I do have a couple of questions about transitional use areas there are trees in these areas and places will those trees be protected so anything that is proposed within that area would require to go through the major special use permit process so the only way that those trees would be removed is if there's permission granted through that process that has those review factors that are related to that applied okay and the slopes that are internal steep slopes that are internal I noticed in my driving around that those also seem to have trees on them so I'm assuming those trees would also be protected so many of the slopes that are internal some of the things that show up on that map are constructed which are exempt from protection but there are there's a kind of in the southeast portion there's a stream that would have a buffer as well as I think a wetland area with protection so those standards are in place okay another thing I noticed in your table of uses all the residential uses have this L which I think means permitted subject to limitations not quite sure I understand that but if I own the single family home say in district S2 should I be worried that something might happen that's going to affect my home so the reason so and this is a point that I think is important to convey is one that came up in the previous consideration of the text amendment that Michael Stock presented to you all the way that our regulations work is that if you come in to try and make a change then the regulations apply so in the case of an existing use there are you know that use can continue there's the ability for that use to change within the existing structure but once you come in to start making changes then what we look at if it's a non-conforming structure which a single family structure may be then we would look at whether the proposed change makes it more conforming that is the threshold so it's a pretty flexible especially compared to the non-conforming use restrictions which are a little bit more restrictive then that is pretty it should be a relatively easy case to make okay referring to this sheet here it seems to me that the core sub-district somewhat lopsided relative to the proposed location of the station and we already saw the proposal to maybe push it out a little bit what do staff think about that so we did slightly expand it based on public input that we received to push it to the west I think part of the reasoning there is because there's existing development whereas the area particularly to the across southwest Durham Drive south of the Ford dealership there's not existing development on a large portion of that property so pushing the core into that was not necessarily desirable again our reasoning was really trying to keep the core small in order to make sure that there is a large area in the support one where that affordable housing bonus has a really big potential impact a suggestion that was made I think at your previous presentation was maybe shrinking the core area just a little bit and setting up a situation where once we fix the core it's going to be there have a core an area that could either be core or support one and leave it up to see what developers would bring in and I've noticed this hasn't changed any from your presentation so I take it that suggestion didn't go over very well well what we're proposing is what was presented based on the public process that we put together and we did respond to the input that we heard from the stakeholders that were involved in that process that is not to say that there couldn't be a change but from the informational item to the public hearing in front of you all didn't seem like the appropriate time to do something like that thank you Mr. Chairman I have a number of little nitpicky things but I'm going to save them till later great can't wait thank you Commissioner Durkin sorry you can you're going to have to stay there all of my comments and questions are based on the affordable housing component with one related but non-density bonus point or comment just there is a provision that says that payday lenders are limited in one section and permitted outright in the rest and I would just like to voice my complete opposition to any payday lenders especially when you're trying to make something like affordable housing conducive and bringing low income people to this area their predatory and should be not permitted at all as an aside so my questions on the affordable housing bonus I have a few of them but the first is these intended to apply to both rental and ownership housing it's not clarified but it's not clear that it would apply to both yeah okay and then how would they be enforced so that's something that again we're working through with the community development department I don't know if you have any more specific information we don't we're working with our community development department to come up with a manual for the enforcement guidelines for the affordable housing density bonus since it is actually in place already and in the comeback neighborhoods well actually kind of wide there wasn't language in the proposed text amendments that would make it clear that they were tied to some kind of rules and regulations and while those could change I think it should be clear that there's something an enforcement mechanism both an enforcement mechanism and rules to follow so if it's ownership maybe there's a deed restriction or if it's rental there's a lease right or makes the tenants aware of the fact that they're in some kind of regulated state of being in their tenancy and have rights that they can enforce because otherwise people are just operating in a vacuum but you don't have I don't think you have to describe those in this text but it needs to link to something where it's clear that there are rules and regulations and I don't think it does that right now I believe that it's in the the 6.6 6.6 the affordable housing density bonus section there does lay out what the city can do to enforce it which is probably not included it's in the code but not in the handout okay got it that's good to know and then one thing really kind of to both any new development that would occur but also the existing naturally occurring non-regulated affordable housing how is there any how do we know that people who are actually low income or under 60% of AMI going to be the renters because while the rents could be lower that doesn't mean that the tenants are actually low income so it could be higher middle income people benefiting from lower rent which I don't think at all is the intention of any of this right so there's nothing that we can do to regulate that obviously with the naturally occurring affordability however if we were to be able to preserve that affordability then that would come with the income restrictions that are also in place for the anything that would be created under the affordable housing and I guess there was mention of incentives to preserving the naturally occurring affordable housing and is there any movement on what that looks like that has not been fleshed out enough to be able to tell you this is how we do that but it is something that has been discussed quite a bit as an important priority for not just our transit areas but in general looking at the areas where there is naturally occurring affordable housing that that's a great opportunity and a lower cost opportunity and creating the new development providing those units. I think my last question is how long the regulatory restrictions or restrictions in general would apply to housing created under the bonus structure in order to provide a better understanding of the needs of the community. I'd like to echo commissioner Brian's thanks to everyone for coming and for the comments we have a lot of good feedback and we have a very big packet and I especially want to thank Lisa for the staff report. of consequences. So I'm gonna ask you some more about that and kind of follow up on Commissioner Durkin's questions about housing. So I'll start with something that struck me and I you know some of this I mentioned last time. On page seven of the report you say that the current proposal allows right 145 feet of height by right in the core but with the by right densities that you have proposed you say that this approach will likely encourage more non- residential development in this area in close proximity to the station right in the core. So can you say more about that? I want to hear kind of your take on it before I sure I think that it's more so as you're looking at the compact neighborhood as a whole and what the intensity regulations are both in height and density by having a relief from a suppressed height that requires affordable housing to allow greater height then that would allow the non- residential uses in the location that we want them to be at an intensity that is greater than what is allowed by right elsewhere. So it is not necessarily saying you have to put office here or encouraging office there but it is it is creating a situation where you're going to be able to get greater intensity of that use within the core. Okay so let me ask you to stay on this I think Mr. Hikes is that right from go triangle spoken favor of this proposal but you also wrote a letter to us from go triangle that I think the suggestion from go triangle was that the densities be higher so I think in the core they suggested 35 to 45 units per acre and then S1 and S2 all of those are higher than what is in there is what you're proposing and can you so can you say more about that because that's also that applies to S1 and S2 I'd like to hear. So the feedback that we have received related to the bonus has been very interested in keeping those by right densities low and so what we did is we reached out to the TOD planning consultants that were go triangle was managing that grant process asked them to help us it's very hard to define what's the minimum transit supportive density but we asked them to using their national expertise help us answer that question and what they came back with was about 25 units per acre within a quarter mile of the station so that was kind of where how we ended up at lower numbers than what go triangle was looking for okay and again there's a lot of different things that go into what supports transit looking at what your parking policies and parking pricing looks like and a whole host of other things but that was kind of their best boil it down to a number okay so I guess what concerns me is that the core right now as it is currently is relatively you know new commercial and a lot of asphalt and parking so there's and I guess I'll ask the question that Mr. Waldrop had which is why not extend the core you know northeast of Southwest Durham because that I mean you said that there's vacant land there I would think that you would want to have some core there to to promote I guess what I'm worried about generally is that we are and by your own admission that we are potentially encouraging commercial in the core and hoping that residential will go in the s1 and s2 right but but s1 you know parts of it are more than you know half a mile away from me I'm just kind of looking at the you know quarter mile more than close to half a mile away from the station one of the things we got feedback on is that people are more likely to use transit if they're within a quarter of a mile and so it seems to me like we're creating an incentive here for commercial and I'm not even sure if we're creating an incentive for office in the core and having residential be a little bit further out I don't I guess I don't quite understand the logic of that especially if we are trying to get people within a quarter of a mile so my understanding is different from yours okay that the quarter of them not the quarter of a mile the six there's a 600 foot area where office uses places where people are going to jobs using the transit to get two jobs is an important area for office use and then the area within a half mile of the station is the area that is typically used as this is it this is the area within which we create transit oriented development in order to support the transit and that the residential uses are you're going to get more ridership from residential users that are further from the station because again the proximity of your job to the station is more important for choice riders than it is for having your residents that close but that court there that half mile area is the area that's kind of defined as the the walk shed the 10-minute walk for that area okay station thank you so is there no reason to require particular uses I mean if we if we want a good mix of these things read the residential office and commercial there's can we not require that we're not required to mix you know require mix use or something in these zones or we could require mixed use but we are going to so one of the things that we're trying to balance with the design districts we are create so I guess to take a step back certainly form-based districts in general are moving away from dictating use in order to a look to focus on the the way that buildings are interacting with the public space and creating environments that are positive for people to be in we have never done a sort of strict form-based code where we divorce use from those form standards and don't have intentions to do that but one of the one of the potential criticisms which you heard from the representative of one of the current property owners is that regulating the form and the streetscape and design elements is very restrictive so when you take your typical land use your typical zoning of commercial there's not a lot of restrictions on what you can't like what your building has to look like what the public space around the building is that there is public space around the building and we're putting a lot more emphasis on that so in order to in some respects it's offsetting some of that where we're allowing greater flexibility for your interior space and if we start getting into a particular required mix of uses we already know that there is difficulties in getting financing for it's more difficult to get financing for mixed use projects than it is for single use projects in most cases it's more difficult to get developers to want to do those things and so adding those two things together seems like it would be a concern to actually get implementation of this vision that we have for how this place changes thank you so I am concerned about this because I I think that we are potentially creating some unintended or we don't know what the consequences of this will be especially on housing both supply and affordability of housing in this area and I if you look at the two reports that we got attachment a was from a few years ago and it looked like I mean roughly speaking there were 30% of units in this area were affordable to 60% am I or less and if you look at the more recent numbers it's seven and a half percent are affordable to 60% am I unless or less now you know can we do anything to stop that I'm not sure that we can but I am concerned that we're going you know we don't know what the consequences are we may be encouraging more commercial here we may be encouraging people to build nice apartments that are not going to be affordable at all I am really I you know to come Commissioner Durkin's point about how can you how can we preserve the naturally occurring affordable housing units I'm not sure there's anything in here that does that and it's possible that we're going to have the opposite effect you know I looked at some of the you know we got our tax valuations recently and I looked at some of those around there and you know they have gone up considerably I mean I'm not sure how that will factor into rentals and all that but I I'm really concerned and I guess my you know my big point is that you know so from the expanding housing choices report we saw that the biggest shortage is for small units is for you know one unit you know one or two people and I'm not sure that we are creating those kinds of potential incentivizing these kinds of residential units in this area I'm you know my I guess my big or what I would like to say is or what I would like to see is for us to really study the effects of this a little bit more I'd like to point out I know this is it's hard to get exact numbers on what the effects of this will be but I'd like to point out that you know just a couple of months ago we we passed an amendment that said if a neighborhood proposes an NPO the staff will look into how that would affect housing supply and all that I think we should do something like this like that for this you know we should really assess what this is going to do to affordable housing in this area what it would do is supply I know there's a lot of moving pieces but I think if we go through with this we are likely you know we're creating a policy that's at odds with what the city the city stated intent is to create or to have 15% affordable units around transit stops and we are already lower and I you know my gut tells me that this is just based on the fact that people developers have not used the density bonus very much or at all I'm skeptical that that is going to change in this case I'm worried that it's going to promote again more commercial or redevelopment so I you know I'm going to vote no on this I think you know the last case that we had on landscape and trees I had hesitations but I voted in favor of it because it's I thought it was in the right direction I'm worried that we're something this big if we pass it we may the consequences of it may you know be negative in a way that we can't undo so I'm going to vote for against it and urge you to do the same to my commercial thank you vice-chair Hyman yes I have a question for staff a part of a presentation that was made to us indicated that a number of clients within this compact district want to opt out or be exempted you know from participation and I my question to you is under what circumstances could that happen so we have some pretty substantial comprehensive plan policies get as well as direct work program and direction from our elected officials to pursue putting design district zoning in place in the compact neighborhood tier that is not to say obviously when this goes to council for the rezoning for their action they have the ability to modify that but we feel like there is substantial direction to continue on that front as well as substantial justification for why it should not be detrimental for that entity it's one entity to be part of this district so there is the possibility for council to make that call we don't feel that there is a good logical argument for why we should promote that okay and the other part of my question would be allowing an entity to opt out yeah I mean what effect would that have on the greater project so I will say that with the so one of one of the important things is that the street network is kind of looking at this entire area as well as connectivity across interstate 40 that network applies to the compact neighborhood tier not to the zoning district and so it would still be applicable if the property was removed from the zoning it would be a lot harder for us as that property if that property redeveloped we don't have the same street standards like the street designs in place outside of design districts and so there would be some some issues with continuity and kind of creating that more multimodal human friendly street network that's such an important piece of this project thank you Commissioner Miller thank you Mr. Chairman I'm gonna start with some of the technical things on page 16 where we are looking at 3 3 2 e and we're talking about drive-in windows and it says any speaker systems associated with the drive-through facility shall be designed located so as to not adversely affect adjacent uses I don't think that's an enforceable standard that is existing language that's repeated I realize that I don't think it's an enforcement standard work on some modification I think it needs to be a little tougher even if if it needs to say where it could be located or something I don't know but I think that that doesn't quite make it and I had the same criticism when we did it the first time whipping through here so now I'm on page 24 I'm at 1613 D no excuse me C to B and so we're talking about exemptions for buildings with one or two dwelling units and I look at the exemption in a and that's a sentence and in B it's not a sentence I noticed that earlier today and just to be clear those exemptions are related to requiring a non-residential use on the ground floor and that's not clear from the way I'll make sure that it is clear but we still it should be a sentence thanks and then my biggest concern out of the way everything is drafted is not is we're in the transitional use area which I actually as a result of your presentation have a much greater appreciation of than I did when I was just reading this and trying to reconcile what I was hearing from the community about whether this was the way to go I get it now but I still think that we've got problems and it needs work so we have factors not standards they are statements of they're essentially not even sentences they don't express policy in other words preservation of tree cover that to what degree are we in favor of it and then the standard is essentially is adequately addressed well adequately addressed is not a standard against which a legal standard which against which performance can be measured when you go to the board of adjustment it's okay to have leeway but it's got to be a standards guided decision making so that if I go to the board of adjustment and I'm turned down I can go to the court and say you know the standard is this and they clearly didn't follow the standard this doesn't have a standard especially in five it's other review factors that aren't even named are adequately addressed I just think that we need to say more specifically what we want out of these standards what's good that we are looking for or what's bad that we want to avoid in and how we develop inside the TUA and so I can't vote for this until this is fixed I would like to be able to vote for this but if we are just gonna if we're gonna push it through tonight then I have to vote no if we could delay this for a little while while we could tighten these standards up and make them especially standard number one really get at what the advocates for the New Hope Creek corridor are trying to protect to give to send a clear signal to the development community and what they should be proposing for a use permit and then also that the decision-makers and since it's major special use permit I'm assuming we're talking about counsel and I've always had some misgivings about conducting quasi-judicial proceedings at the council level is that still the difference between major and minor I would be much more comfortable with sending to the board if it just only different but so but I leave that to you and to and to my uppers on the city council but I would like to have stricter standards that tell the people who have to follow them what's good what am I supposed to be accomplishing and if there are more of them or if they are written longer well perhaps that doesn't worry me but it's adequately addressed isn't good enough as a as a legal standard in my opinion now I could just we can certainly I'm not saying this to say that we can't modify the language but this language was drawn from the major special use permit section of the ordinance that exists using some of the language from the review factors and beefing it up so I just wanted to put that out but it's still a problem I'm not thinking about this for letting you know where it came from I have lots of concerns and I've expressed these for a long time I was very involved in the development of the Night Street design district which is the only non downtown design district that we've got and we did a lot of things that were right and we did a lot of things that in my opinion were I wish we hadn't done we did some things wrong and we did some things that worked out okay but it wasn't because we we shaped it or planned it and based upon that experience I think we do design district planning incorrectly and I'm not talking about the public outreach and going on that's good I think that for each design district we need to create a design district plan which then gets put into the comprehensive plan and in it we should lay out the goals of the design district in it we should draw the map and say for the initial rezoning for the design district zones will should look like this and then say but then as the design district develops over time identify say possible expansion area for core possible expansion area for support one possible expansion area for the design district and say draw dotted lines outside and then say but for these expansions to occur these are the things that we would want to see happen here we and that way we could start with a small core the development community could look at the comprehensive plan and say well I wish I had the I own the support one property next to the core I wish it were core and so we could look in there and say okay this can be core if if the project he brings in say with a development plan because you're gonna have a development plan with design district zones and we can then shape our design districts grow we the way we do it now is we throw it on the ground and we that it all turns out right let's not do that I I don't see any reason why we have to we have comprehensive planning we can use a comprehensive plan to say this is our these are our expectations for design districts start small give away the core give away some support one but then save to expand it these are the things we want and then we can shape how it grows project by project that's the way we ought to be doing this and I feel strongly about it I wish we actually did it a little bit with night street because we adopted a plan and then we adopted the text ordinance and then we applied the text and we did that in stages over over months I would like to do that as we move forward because we have lots of these to do and they're hard to do you're you've been doing the work and I appreciate it I want to talk about affordability because I attended it's been years ago now but it doesn't seem that long ago because what was said was so true I attended a JCC PC meeting and people from the planning staff with interns had interns one year and you said go out and find places where our affordable housing dense where affordable housing density bonuses are working and find out why there's work on our stuff and they came back and they said two things one is you got to have a three to one or four to one ratio for the bonus and the other thing is is that you can't already have development limits that make that disincentivize and so we are finally doing that here by dropping that height in support one down to 45 that's bold and I think it's great what is the height limit in support one in night street don't know I can see this is licensed to make something up but it's a lot more than 45 feet because that's the height limit in support to and we're building and we know that the real limitation in the way we we build residential dense residential projects isn't the zoning code it's the building code it's the how much wood frame you can put on two floors of concrete podium we know that this drives this says cuts under that and it no longer is what controls what developers build we now have zoning back doing it again and this is a good thing one of my concerns though about this design district and the way we've done all design districts is is that people slip in and do rezoning up underneath them just as we're pulling the plans together so first of all we've got a lot of relatively new commercial old-timey commercial strip shopping centers it's just this district is flooded with them and they're not going to go away there you they have lots of useful life there and the people who are not going to say oh goody we can do more we already have the example of one who says not who would like to be able to continue to develop the old way and I worry that it'll that it'll be so long before we see redevelopment of the existing commercial and this particular design district that a lot of the plans and policies that we are making today and just throwing on the ground are not going to be relevant at the time redevelopment begins to occur that's why I like this planning idea better because we can continue to mold and shape and what have you we don't have to go back and recapture what we've already given away it's easy to relax the code it's hard to make it stricter again so I wish we were doing it that way but I do like the boldness of actually adding that in that other component make your your affordable housing bonus more liberal in that in that you drive the ratio of which is it now three units there's so by removing the density limitation you like you're not then still restricted by a number of units that's then going to drive the size of units but you're actually removing the right right so just it's just a height bonus yes so whatever you can build within building code in the massing allowed with that overall height is what your density can be right you can go up in height but you still have to include a certain number of units in order to build to exploit it the other thing is as we've removed all other incentives we no longer have you know when they when we did the night Street district there were all kinds of density bonuses that was one for public art what I called the concrete sea horse density bones the we've fortunately got rid of that but so I think this is good I think the core is still too big simply for this reason is is that once you give somebody core it's you've given it away we're done so what zoning is over for that piece of property forever because it's our most permissive zone apart from what we have done in the research triangle park which I was against that too so so there's so much about this that I really like and I would love to fix it and vote for it let me ask a question if I understood you correctly in response to the questions that some other people were asking though the city's legal people have had trouble with the idea of a of a setback from the edge some some defined edge or reasonably defined edge inside the Newark Hope Creek Corp. said well that's a problem but so we went to the transitional use if the transitional use was distance was 300 feet instead of 200 feet is there a legal problem with that if we did that based upon because I know that when you pull together all the people who are stakeholders and what have you kind of a compact is formed and when you start messing with it then you're messing with the kind of agreement that people came to the consensus with people would there be a stay an identifiable stakeholder group out there that would howl so I would say that the reason that you heard what you heard from folks who came to speak tonight is because there's not 100% agreement that there's there's that distance is there's still some disagreement by the various parties is it possible to have it be 300 feet near the pinch point that has been identified and maybe 200 feet further away where the where the corridor is much wider potentially in other words but that's essentially a mapping exercise that's not impossible and then finally I have a lot of sympathy for the New Hope Commons developer it's not a form of development that I like very much but I buy the argument that right now there is one vehicular crossing there there is no there is no pedestrian crossing that I would want to do when I have my sign out and I'm collecting coins I don't cross that street it's scary and if we make it a divided limited access highway and we separate the grade at that point which is a currently one of our plans I think it even gets scarier because I do occasionally walk the Lundale Fulton which has ramp all kinds of ramps coming together and there are cars coming from lots of different directions and they are looking to exploit vehicular opportunities and they're not thinking about me as a pedestrian and it's scary I have always had some misgivings about whether or not everything on the other side of 15501 from Patterson Place ought to be involved here right now we have one property owner who's on the northern edge of this district who would like to be opted out I do not see why letting them out it affects the integrity of what we propose for the district and also what we propose for the larger area in terms in terms of connectivity so I would like to really consider that unless there are stakeholders that feel like somehow letting that new Commons shopping center out of there is going to mess up the plan of salvation and I'm not suggesting this because I believe we shouldn't rezone something when when a property owner doesn't like it I'm but I do I am sympathetic and I want to look at the reasons for the when they complain I think that we have to give the reasons for inclusion stricter scrutiny and I am swayed by not all the arguments that Mr. Aho listed in her letter but certainly the first couple of them resonated and so I would like to delay this so that we can have better standards and that we can look at the width of the transitional use area in a way that responds more effectively to the concerns of the New Hope Creek corridor I have Hildegard Riles somewhere back here just have to be able to go home face her and then and then also talk about this situation with Ms. Trejo's client I would love to have 60 days to look at those things and see if we can have better standards better transitional use area and a more effective ultimate boundary for the stakeholder property owners involved so if the appropriate time I'd like to be an opportunity to make that motion and we will come back yes thank you I would like to just hear now before we continue with additional questions and comments from staff on on that that notion of a 60-day or 30-day continuance I'm asking now because sometimes motions get put on the table and seconds happen and things move quickly what does the staffs take are there specific issues we need to understand say that our resources are limited with what we can work on and so if we delay the 60 days we're delaying every other project we need to work on 60 days and we've been at this for three years thank you additional questions and comments let's start here let me I'm gonna start with the commissioners who haven't had a chance to speak yet and then we'll circle back so commissioner Kenshin yeah I want to first come in staff this is actually outstanding work I know how hard you guys worked I'm always impressed by the professional planning staff so another great job I worry though that we're this is very good and I worry that we're letting the perfect be the enemy of the of the good of the very good and I would caution the commission not to do that this time and I'm taking a back by something that commissioner our talk said to about affordability and you know being someone who advocates for affordable housing I would be really upset if we were doing something that was going to be against affordable housing so I'm curious as to what I know I don't know if Dr. Savara is here on behalf of the coalition for affordable housing in transit but I know they worked hard and I respect the work that they do in their opinions I'm just curious as if they've got a position about again I don't know that we that we know we don't have a crystal ball to know exactly what's gonna happen but I'm curious as to whether there's any kind of indication from you all or whether we're on the right path and to have what we anyone I'm not sure I'm just calling on Dr. Savara but anyone well and I would actually say I appreciate your direct question and mr. Savara I actually would rather not have a question of anyone here to answer the question but mr. Savara if you are willing to offer your thoughts to the question okay and so of for those watching at home there's been no group discussion yet from an affordable housing standpoint the floor is yours Commissioner Kenshin if you have additional no no that's that's it I just think that again I think I love the density bonus and I think that it could work I think it's a really good shot we don't know but I think it's the best like Commissioner Miller said it's a really good shot and I like this when I like to see us take so I'm gonna be voting in favor of this I know it's not perfect I don't know that ever will be perfect despite how many hours and how many years I think you said you worked on in three years but I think it's very good and I'm gonna vote in favor of it thank you Commissioner Hornbuckle yes ma'am I do appreciate all the work is going to it I'm still kind of on the fence though as to with with the with the New Hope Commons side maybe you can clarify it or clear me up some but it's just suppose something if we did approve this and and New Hope Commons was was was still was included in this and something happened as such has happened you know in Raleigh 35 years ago in a tornado or fire something and a lot of businesses are really damaged or destroyed over there where where they put them at a ground zero of having to start and go back to comply I just I'm really confused on that matter sure so we have had as Mr. House mentioned had several conversations about this property and her clients concerns one of the things that we have made sure is the case as we put design district zoning in place we understand that it's going to create nonconformities or or in some instances continue nonconformities and make more aspects of the property nonconforming and that's why we make sure that we have nonconformity provisions that can address some of those situations so with this particular site the New Hope Commons site nothing about this proposed rezoning would create a nonconforming use the uses that are there are allowed under the provisions of what we have proposed in addition the current zoning of that site is commercial center where the I forget the exact word but the the primary use has to be commercial right whereas the design district zoning actually allows greater flexibility in what uses you can have within that existing structure without having to make changes to the structure and then if you do want to make changes to the structure then the litmus test is are you becoming more conforming to those new standards than you were before so you just have to demonstrate that you're moving in that direction you don't have to comply you don't have to build under these rules you have to show that you're coming into greater conformance and then in the situation you mentioned where a destruction of the the structure happens with a nonconforming structure you are allowed to reconstruct without a minor special use permit process just a by right process to the existing or the previous footprint okay well I feel better about that in my but my also as mr. Miller said my one of my biggest concerns is I would feel much more comfortable with the 300 foot buffer in the creek area and if it could the borders could be set back but at the area closest to the creek area I really feel that should be a 300 foot buffer and I feel much more comfortable with that thank you commissioner harm buckle we will circle back for additional comments we'll start it just for my sake and keep it easy commissioner Morgan okay I have just a couple comments just listening to this I think there's just certain areas that I think really I you know appreciate what staff's done and putting this together I think we do need to tighten this up a little bit more in in those areas of certainly understanding looking for ways to bridge to say the New Hope Commons being able to do something in considering how we do it I think of like the North Hills area in Raleigh where they have ways to get across that busy street and six forks I mean I think there's some things that could be done better there that we could incorporate into the plan and those are part of that 15501 corridor study that's ongoing right now as improvements to that yeah and so I mean I think there's ways to do that and expanding the core is is one area to and being able to promote more I guess what I'm thinking and we talked about mixed use being able to provide more people close to this to the station as well as have commercial use as well so I do think there's ways to try to prove it I understand the concerns and comments made about it may be more restrictive and getting financing and other things like that but anyway my my impression right now is it does need a little more tightening a little more tweaking to this before we can move forward with this thank you mr. Johnson mr. Brian thank you mr. Chairman I'll try to go through these things fairly quickly page 16 number to be at the top drive-through facilities shall only be permitted for bank or pharmacy uses anything wrong with fast food so we actually don't allow drive-through facilities in any of our other design districts and this provision was a response to specific feedback from the stakeholders in this process for those particular uses are you going to restrict the number of lanes that was a I got your email and I appreciate that comment we have not incorporated changes based on comments from that but that's certainly something that we can look at incorporating into that section okay because as I pointed out a lot of bank drive-throughs you might have three lanes that where you can get service from the bank on the fourth lane for an ATM so you know how many lanes are we talking about on page 17 just in front of outdoor recreation this county only within the SRPC district the following shall apply that's just a num because the renumbering okay included just for that purpose apologies for any confusion with the excerpts on page 18 item number four as you're coming down the page and then further down item number five it's phrase starts in the RR district is that correct that is an existing provision that is in place yes okay I didn't write that one that was a little can play Mike maybe that's that's that's a little maybe older than when he was working on page 28 item number C3 you say open space amenities are you sure you don't mean public space amenities thank you for catching that and other two comments I would make I'm also think that we need a little bit more time to digest this and maybe polish it I agree with the Mr. Miller's comments about having more better enforceable standards for example I think you a yeah I think you know we need to spell some more things out and I'm also I don't know that we can do anything about it unless we have more standards put in place at some future time but I am also concerned about the affordable housing situation I agree that we might be doing something that is not what we really wanted to do with the way it stands now that's all I have thank you Commissioner Brian Commissioner Durkin thanks for being patient one question related to the New Hope Commons development there was mentioned that there were outfits that would have to be made based on this change but I just want to make it clear there is nothing that they would need to do that's their current structures yeah there's until somebody wants to make changes and again changing the uses inside the structure so long as those uses are permitted which again this would expand the allowable uses that can occur but if there are going to be changes that they propose to the building and site that's when the standards start to kick in okay thanks Commissioner Turk thank you chair quick question Lisa you mentioned stakeholders and I know you've been working on this for a while have any affordable housing advocates been part of this process I mean I appreciate Commissioner Kenshin meant you know asking for input have you gotten input both either you know positive or negative on this yes we have had and I don't know all of the members of the coalition affordable housing in transit but I know at least one other of their members has has showed up and been involved in our public meetings and showed support for this as well as other folks in their responses to the proposals at those public workshops and and outside of those responding positively to the proposal but nothing since we've gotten the full draft or or anything that includes with the full draft so the last public meeting that we had was in October of last year before we started preparing the items for the adoption process and that not only had it wasn't just concepts it was the full draft text at that point which hadn't hadn't changed from the concept that was provided at the previous meeting that we had heard support for and again had support for thank you additional comments or questions from commissioners I do want to just reiterate before we have a motion and Mr. Gibbs I will recognize you as well we really even if we were voting tonight for or against or to allow additional time to can tighten this up really appreciate the exemplary work of the staff this is very hard stuff and I understand the challenge of putting it off and some additional commitments that that might entail but but I also think it's important to get it done fast but to get it done right and so I've heard some good comments that I think we want to take under consideration tonight as well commissioner Gibbs just just a few comments every question and statement that's come from this commission tonight indicates and and it's my feeling to we need more time to study and I think staff maybe could benefit from whatever input from from us from other bodies other people when this thing started out I was at a meeting last night and I mentioned I made a comment that this and it was about the light rail the light rail started out as a transportation project but it has evolved to a development project no matter what anybody says that's what it is and it is probably can be considered as both but just to comment for instance about the affordable housing we have had issues with trying to set an affordable housing plan or requirement or whatever it can be called for years just in the city the same process is going to occur along these rail stops and in Paris in place and in other areas so we can expect just because this is on a light rail line or has access to it it's not going to settle the issue we're still going to have the same problems to try to work with to come up with solutions for well that's just my frustrations and I think we've we've all said enough tonight and it's and I do appreciate what the staff has done Lisa she'll appreciate this you've given us another Bible and thank you to you to all of the staff thank you thank you Commissioner Gibbs I don't see any additional comments I do see staff willing to reiterate one more time when I say other projects will be delayed I mean the new comprehensive plan will be delayed by two months if you you all vote because that's that's our trade-off that that's important to note I what I do hear though from the Planning Commission is a general sentiment saying we're not saying to start over we're recommending to hone in on two or three specific areas that we believe would be important and I say that because I don't want the guilt hanging over us for two months of the comprehensive plan being set aside if what we're saying is we want to make sure that we have a little additional time to understand the affordable housing implications even though we've done a lot of work there we want to look at the the pinch point of 200 or 300 feet setbacks and we want to allow additional conversation around the New Hope Commons question so I mean is that is that accurate that if we're saying these are the three things we'd like additional time and energy on that the comprehensive plan just sits in the parking lot for two months it's a lot of work with my my primary resources that would be working on the comprehensive plan I think that's something you could certainly put in your comments as to explaining your vote that stuff will definitely get worked on before it goes to City Council and County Commissioners if we have those comments tonight we can provide that to them when we do our work session presentations in March just be advised that if it's not just two months it also means that two months from now you would put it at the June City Council meeting which is a budget hearing so it would mean they would have to go to August so it's effectively four months delay so just want you to keep all that in mind before you vote thank you Commissioner Bryan I understand exactly what Scott is saying but my only counter argument is is that I believe we need to take the time to get this right Commissioner Miller so Mr. Chairman I move that we continue case TC 18 quadruple zero nine until the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting in April and during that time it is our hope that we can get the staff to look at and revise potentially the following items one would be the width of the transitional use area from 200 to 300 feet the second one would be tighter and more enforceable standards with regard to the issuance of use permits inside the transitional use area the third item would be the advisability of excluding from the proposed design district the property that is the new Hope Commons shopping center and then the fourth item may have to ask for some assistance on his concerns about affordability especially with the is it the size of the core or for those of you who are concerned about affordability what is it that you want staff to look at well I need more time to think about that so and I'm not I'm going to vote no on the continuing so there's if they want to oh did you you mentioned affordability and I actually might recommend that just for ease of this vote that we understand the intent if you're voting for it I believe there are just a few items that folks on this Commission are hoping we might tighten up an address but it may just be so I'll stop at those three items and that's my motion second all right well that is properly moved and seconded before we vote I do want to allow time for any discussion and to be clear if you think we need to vote on this this evening whether you're going to vote up or down you should vote no on this motion but any discussion commissioner out there and then commissioner Brian yeah I mean I will vote no on the continuous because I I think you know it seems like staff doesn't want it they are I know you've got a lot on your plate right now I'll be voting no if we vote for tonight but I want to at least give staff the the option to just go through with it so the good news your vote no either way that's right yes it's an easy mr. Brian I'm feeling yeah I'm I will vote yes for the continuance if I have to vote up or down the night I'm also voting no because I think it needs more work put into it despite all the work that's been done and in addition to you know I know mr. Miller listed a few things I'm going to just go ahead and send some comments to staff anyhow things that I've identified that I hope they can look at if we do continue Commissioner Johnson I just want to be on the record to say that I will vote no for the continuance because and because I'd rather just vote tonight because I want to vote no as well and not doing this because necessarily staff is overwhelmed I'm more of a do it right rather than you do it right you actually do it like you do it wrong you do it long so it may be the case that the City Council has sent the same concerns and voted down and send it back so may still be on a delay and so I don't think that taking the considerations of the time constraints if it's not where we feel that we can get it and I don't think that this is a function of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good here but we've identified where there are opportunities for us to really do better you know you don't have to get it absolutely right to get you don't have to be perfect to be good and so I just I'm gonna vote no because I think there are opportunities to improve it to a point where you can satisfy all almost all of the concerns I don't think the fort of housing thing is gonna be solved with this just given what we're trying to do here but beyond the other concerns and issues that were raised I think that they can be addressed and you know time constraints shouldn't limit us from doing the best that we can to create a product that works for Durham and the people who will directly and directly be impacted by it thank you Commissioner Durkin I'm also voting against the continuance I think we were able to make it a vote and reflect our comments in the comment section and have that pass on to council great and Commissioner Gibbs and my my approach is from the other direction I'm going to vote for this with a whole bunch of notes as cautionary as things to be questioned explored and if it doesn't come from city council or county commissioners and whoever else gets to review it that's tough and Commissioner Miller well the reason I put the motion is I want to vote for this we we need a design district here we need a good design district here it should be reviewed by this body and I would like to have us have an overwhelming majority voting for it when it goes to council so we send a clear signal rather than ten different sets of comments and signals and if it takes 60 days then and I realize resources are limited and those things but I think we need to get it right and we need to pull together and work work together I don't think any other body is going to give this at the decision-making level the degree of review that we have done this is a great planning Commission and we need to take advantage of of what we have to offer and I like it when we send strong signals rather than a whole bunch of mixed signals which authorize the people who get the signals to ignore them that's why I would like to have this be better I would I don't want to vote no on this because we got to have a design district very brief Commissioner Gibbs I just want to comment mr. Chairman I agree with the comment I know I'm supposed to address you but that miss that messes my mind up anyway he's listening to the bodies that this goes forward to we're the planning Commission there should be communication back and forth on something like this on anything that is of importance we can't just operate in a vacuum from each other and just scribble a few notes and say here y'all settle it and I guess what I'm saying is on this and on anything from this point forward there needs to be organization as far as their questioning us conversations with us our conversations with them I find out a lot of information from them to maybe that wouldn't muddy the waters I don't know but I do think there needs to be a more cohesive approach to settling issues like this I don't know if anything else the staff can do except for whatever they're instructed to do if they've got the time and and their bosses are not us it but it is the council and so that's that's just my thinking on it thank you so the question before us is a two-cycle continuance with specific areas we'd like to address and we'll ask for the roll call vote please Commissioner Morgan yes Commissioner Johnson no Commissioner Brian yes Commissioner Durkheim no Commissioner Turk no Commissioner Hyman no Commissioner Busby yes Commissioner Miller yes Commissioner Kenchin yes Commissioner Hornbuckle yes Commissioner Gibbs yes and the motion passes seven to four thank you all very much we have just one question under new business but there may be other items for steps with other items with this item that you probably need to take action on and let's we that took action for all three Mr. Chair mr. Miller's motion for continuance I thought only covered TC 18 oh sorry staff would just was talking that since they have to go together that they'll have to continue together and track together all three motions will need to track together we'll just combine them yeah okay mr. Miller that was my intention yeah okay that's fine I just wanted to make sure that was your intention if that was my intention okay great so so to just say that on the record the motion that was approved by a seven to four vote was a two-cycle continuance for the three items that were paired together right thank you are there any other staff updates so I did not provide and may I ask if if you're may I ask we're still not adjourned so if you're having excuse me excuse me sirs mr. Healy Bob and I'm sorry we're still meeting so if you can go in the hallway that we appreciate it thank you I did not provide your what what to expect next month report because I'm still trying to flesh out one of the cases of whether or not it'll actually happen next month by the end of the week you'll get that via email just wanted to let you know but with the one thing that we've gotten a lot of emails back and forth on is expanded housing choices the staff have any idea when that might come to a shit that was why I didn't provide your update for next month yet I'm waiting to hear back on that so hopefully we'll know something pretty soon as soon as we know we'll let you know well thank you and I will note that while we were meeting I was not checking my email I looked at my email to reference which case you needed to you needed to recuse yourself from but we did get an email from from the planning director Pat young that that did if I understood it correctly someone correct it from wrong that his recommendation is that this will be the the expanding housing choices proposal will be in front of us at our next meeting and that then it is our determination on how this moves forward and the mayor replied to that email and said that that right the mayor I thought I think it's the last I heard it was still with the mayor and he's trying to do have some communications with others there are emails during others when I was recused myself I looked at my email and saw that I apologize I was too busy doing other things you're doing your job yeah okay well I'll send you the list regardless this week how about that that's great any other any other questions or comments we are adjourned thank you all