 to promote people building. No, I think it's probably oversold that. But I think the opponents also, I think, were, I think they were kind of misleading in some of their numbers. I mean, because I looked at it, we're on. You may take, like, most owners would have plenty of space to do that, even with the forestry. And make sure that the box, you know? I mean, the whole thing has been, you know, even them talking about it, it's going to increase or decrease more of it. Like, that's not. Well, you can't control it. That's not going to happen. Because the library, there's so few houses that are empty like this. It'd be interesting to ask them if they've dealt with it. Yeah, we're good. I was surprised that it was unanimous. I was surprised that it was unanimous. I mean, the Planet Commission recommended denial. Right. Of course, that's, you know, we're advisory. But as you know, I've represented many applicants before the city council, some of them coming on the heels of a recommendation for denial. Yeah. General Moon, general Moon. How's it going? All right. All right, how are you? Perfect. I think it's kind of rare to see that. Yeah, that it was like that big a turn. You're a poll worker. All right, the people having trouble getting here. Marathon time, because I came in from the West. I was sitting there. I don't know. I come in Rocksboro, you know, banging the street up that way anymore. But I usually get here about five o'clock. I don't know. Somebody said it was silent. I thought it was murder. Man, look, because if you try to get on top of the book, not do banging in, try to get on top of the book. They can't do it. So I had to keep it around and be. That was the matter. Oh, you really surprised me. I don't know what it is. Somebody had come by it earlier. I was thinking like this. Uh-oh, I knew this was bound to happen. If this was coming. What's that? That's next month. You got eight. Right. Yes. That's for you. Right. Thank you. Did you see the new plan? They're down to 44 units. They're being too many people. Oh, yeah. Now, I'm good. You know, I tried to tell them that. And I'm loaded gun. Bring it forward. Bring it forward. Because when that little bang flag comes out, I damn well will be here and breathe. Oh. Well, you get bread. Just do like me. Just hold it. Or limit it as possible. Or give up the bread and eat sweet potato. I love baked sweet potatoes. Yo, I love baked sweet potatoes. You know that it's here? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. Members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any of the issues before us this evening. As always, if you wish to speak on an agenda item, please come up and sign up on the sheets to my left. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and your address into the microphone. And each side has 10 minutes to speak for or against any of the proposals in front of us this evening. Finally, all motions are stated in the affirmative. So if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Alturk. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Gouche. Present. Commissioner Bryan. Present. Commissioner Harris. Present. Commissioner Elizabeth. Present. Commissioner Miller. Here. Commissioner Kenshin. Here. Commissioner Reformbuckle. Present. Commissioner Vann. Present. Commissioner Williams. Here. I'm in staff notes that Commissioner Siderfield, Hyman, and Gibbs have excused absences. Great. Thank you. We now have the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from the April 10th, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Bryan. I move approval of the minutes and consistency statements as presented. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Do we need to make a motion for the three excused members as well? I so move. Second. You might name them. We have moved and seconded the excused absence for requests for Commissioner Hyman. Commissioner Gibbs and Commissioner Siderfield. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We will move to any adjustments to the agenda. Ms. Smith. Good evening, Grace Smith with the Planning Department. There are no adjustments to the agenda that staff is aware of. And we can affirm that all legal notice requirements have been carried out and executed in compliance with state and local law and affidavits for such our own file in the Planning Department. Thank you very much. Commissioner Bryan. If possible, under new business, I have a brief question I'd like to ask. We can add that. And would you like to move the amended agenda with your new business item? I so move. Second. Properly moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. We have two zoning map change cases in front of us this evening. And we will lead off with the 3736 Garrett Road case that is Case Z1700044. And we'll start with the staff report. And zoning case 170044. And the zoning case, Z1700044. Yes. Good evening. I am Jamie Sonjak with the Planning Department. I will be presenting case number Z1700044. This is 3736 Garrett Road. The applicant is Dan Joule from Coulter Joule Thames. The property is currently within the county jurisdiction portions of it. There is a pending annexation case associated with it. The site is 6.047 acres. The current zoning is residential suburban 20 and the applicant is seeking a change to plan development residential with a density of 3.969. The proposal is single family development up to 24 homes. This is the aerial map and it shows the properties highlighted in the red hatched area. There are two properties associated with this. 3736 Garrett Road which is located with the street frontage and there is a single family house and the property behind it is 3738 Garrett Road which is essentially a land locked piece of property and there appears to be a small barn on it in addition to it being heavily wooded. The properties are located on the west side of Garrett Road just north of the intersection with Cottonwood Drive and south of Pickett Road. This is the existing conditions map that is provided in the development plan. As mentioned the larger property which is about four acres in size has the single family home on it and the second track is heavily wooded with the barn. In the staff report there are a number of photos that have been taken to give the planning commission an idea of the area and the conditions surrounding it. Just to highlight a few of the photos starting from the top left and working right. The first picture is the subject property that shows the existing house and you've got several houses of worship located on Garrett Road and then there are some examples of the single family residential neighborhoods multi-family residential neighborhoods all within close proximity to the site. This is the future land use map. The area is shown as a yellow shade it's a low density residential which is up to 24 dwelling units per acre and that is consistent with what the applicant is requesting. Here is the context map which shows the existing zoning as RS 20 and the applicant is proposing a PDR with a density of 3.969. Staff has reviewed this request and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of the unified development ordinance in terms of the request specifically again the density 3.969 up to 24 single family dwelling units. The development plans shows a minimum street yard of 15 feet a committed tree coverage of 20 percent an open space protection of 16 percent and a maximum building height of 35 feet. This is the development plan which depicts all of these items in addition to the two access points and some of the transportation related commitments. In terms of the commitments I mentioned the number of units and there are two traffic related commitments one dealing with the installation of additional asphalt for a bicycle lane and an additional turn lane on Garrett Road for the site access. We found this request to be consistent with the low density residential as well as consistent with 2.31B contiguous development 232A infrastructure capacity 814D development review and adopted regional bicycle plans and 11.1B which is the adequate school facilities. Staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all applicable policies and ordinances and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you very much. We will open the public hearing and we have one individual signed up to speak and it's Mr. Dan Joule in favor of the proposal. Thank you Jamie. Good evening Chairperson Bryan and fellow commissioners I am Dan Joule with Culture Joule Tims we are working with my clients Rice and Powell Walker Harris who are Durham based developers in fact Walker is a Durham native who has worked here all of his life. We are before you making what we think is a modest request for rezoning this property to allow for a single family residential community with a family four units to the acre and a maximum of 24 units as Jamie said the proposal is in keeping with the comprehensive plan so does not require a future land use map amendment. Because of that a neighborhood meeting was not required but we chose to have several. We reached out to the Garrett Farms folks last fall their homeowners association organized the first neighborhood meeting with many people there it was pretty well attended we listened to the neighbors questions and comments and concerns about buffering setbacks uses access to their neighborhood and stormwater management we went back in front of them about a month ago and had a second meeting where we had almost as many people showed up and what they told us was they appreciated that we had listened to them and taken care of their concerns some of you may know there's actually a 101 unit subdivision which did not need a rezoning has a site plan approval and is in the final stages of getting construction drawings approved directly to the north of this parcel and north of Garrett Farms so it will sort of complete the intersection the corner of Garrett Road and Pickett Road to the north it when it's all built out this parcel before you today the parcels before you today will sort of be a donut hole now surrounded by single family residential including Garrett Farms which we all know was developed years ago there's some townhouses and apartments for other south and then we have the two big churches CrossFit Academy and Church of the Good Shepherd right across the street that new neighborhood to the north is designed with access to Pickett Road and Garrett Road but most importantly they have a stub required by the UDO for connectivity going into this parcel sort of in northeast quadrant and we've shown that as a text commitment on this this plan we've been coordinating with their designer to have the streets meet up at the same point make sure the water and sewer are coordinated and also the stormwater management on our property we will accommodate that in our required stormwater management pond I want to be clear our proposed neighborhood does not have any vehicle connections to Garrett Farms it only connects to Garrett Road on the east side and the new neighborhood will soon be under construction on the north side and our driveway will align with the driveway which the Church of the Good Shepherd so in the spirit of brevity that concludes my comments we hope you'll agree with the staff that our proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan other policies and ordinances and can find to make a positive recommendation to council and thank you for your time and we're all happy to answer any questions that you might have Thank you Mr. Joule would anyone else like to speak during this public hearing seeing none we will close the public hearing any questions or comments from commissioners Commissioner Miller you want me to go ahead Dan I was looking at your in your development plan in the existing conditions you've got your tree save along with southern and western boundaries and it looks like there might be some at the top too I just don't if I'm understanding the drawing that you have here doesn't look like there are very many trees in the tree save area Believe it or not on the western side tree save area there are a lot of trees and a lot of bamboo we've actually been working with the Ms. McCandless next door and she wants to see if we can work together to clean up some of the bamboo so that the trees will grow back evidently that was a pasture a long time ago but the tree save area is actually labeled tree coverage area so that we know we will need to replant rather robustly to meet the ordinance requirements for tree coverage Alright thank you because for the most part the large part of the property is clear and I'm assuming that you plan to demolish the existing house Yes the existing house will go away we are actively looking for somebody who might want the house so if you have anybody in mind send them to us Is that a Pickett family house? It's a Garrett family Alright thank you Commissioner Bryan Thank you I have a few comments concerning the staff report on page 4 Section D I think the second senate needs to be revised because it speaks of industrial land use designation and this isn't industrial Good catch thank you and also I think it's attachment 6 rather than attachment 5 that provides the comprehensive plan policies Thank you and the other point on the reasonable and in public interest I don't disagree with what you're stating but since the current zoning also isn't aligned with the future land use map it seems like a very weak reason to put for this being reasonable I'm having trouble hearing you I'm sorry I don't disagree with your conclusion about reasonable and in the public interest but since the current zoning is also consistent with the future land use map this seems like a pretty weak reason and I also didn't find it listed among the various reasons listed in section 1.2.2 excuse me and that's just my opinion I do have a question for the applicant I don't know if it's possible for you to do this but there were some lovely big trees around that house I'm not asking for any commitment or anything I'm just expressing my hope that maybe you could save one or two of them We will do the best we can Thank you Commissioner Johnson Thank you I'm just curious for your client do you have a sense of the price points for these proposed single family homes? I don't know that we do yet at this point they'll I'm sure they'll be consistent with houses of a similar size in Garrett farms maybe a little more because they'll be newer houses Do you have a sense of what those prices are? I do not Maybe somebody has looked at a house in Garrett farms recently and can answer that question Thank you chair I have a couple of questions for staff one is just a minor clarification in attachment 8 just in the assumptions traffic and impact and stuff you say this is based on 10 single family lots the current designation should that be more than that if it's RS 20 on 6 acres or is that It would be somewhere in the range of 11 or 12 units I just wasn't sure about the math right my second question is for Bill so we've now gotten we get commitments from developers now to add 4 feet of asphalt for a future bike lane this came up last I think in the last meeting in Rowlingwood they hadn't done that initially and they said they talked to you and you suggested a 4 foot widening now my understanding from the more recent comprehensive comprehensive bike plan the recommendation is now 5 feet is that because I think Dale your colleague in transportation has given me that advice so I just want to make sure that we're on the same page yes, Bill judge transportation the new standard for actually marked bike lane is a 5 foot bike lane but that would be NC DOT requires a minimum of 16 feet total so it could either be a 12 foot travel lane a 12 foot travel lane a 4 foot bike lane or an 11 and a 5 we generally just ask for the 4 feet initially because it's mostly just functioning as a paved shoulder but our intent would be ultimately that once we get the bike lane further to the north and to the south where we could strike it as a bike lane we'd probably come back and reduce the travel lane to 11 foot and 5 foot bike lane I guess why not just recommend 5 feet now typically DOT with the turn lane they require a 12 foot travel lane so we just need 16 foot total so if the 12 and 4 provides the 16 feet then it could later be re-striped to 11 and 5 I see so that's not alright I guess it doesn't make sense to me because then it just seems like more work later on but maybe I don't quite understand the well because in the interim for the frontage of the site and until we have enough asphalt to the north and south and on both sides of the road to actually mark it as a bike lane we can't mark it as a bike lane okay thanks sorry just to real clarify your first question about the number of lots we use a 20% reduction to account for the proposed road infrastructure when we're figuring that out so that's why it came down from probably the 10 when we did that okay great that's helpful thanks I want to since I am the BPAC liaison I do want to highlight some of their comments and so this is a question for Dan the BPAC did recommend that you we've done this before where we recommend an offsite sidewalk construction and I guess you were pretty concise in your response saying you're not able to commit to that but I would like you to maybe address that I know it's costly but we do often ask for developers to go above and beyond in some ways and I think given that this is relatively close to 15501 it's within walking distance of some businesses down there it may be nice to have this extension of 150 feet I understand and yes I think this project in the north 100 units is eventually going to have a lot of people who may want to go down that way and we're going to have 24 it's probably a necessary it's probably a warranted connection a needed connection you know again as I've said on other projects of modest scale you know if this was a much larger project it would make sense economically but you know this is my clients over the years have probably put a hundred thousand dollars into the payment in lieu structure for sidewalks where they've been in a position where it wasn't practical to build a sidewalk or NCDOT said we don't want a sidewalk out there and this is exactly what that fund is meant to do it's to fill these gaps that we see all over Durham so so we're we'd still respectively say that this project shouldn't bear the burden of the cost of that sidewalk but the city has funds available from many other clients of mine who have put money into the pool over the years would you be willing to ask to that to provide funding to that fund this project any idea of what kind of money we might be talking about okay alright thank you recommendation council thank you thank you Commissioner Williams I just wanted to actually answer the question for Commissioner Johnson about that price point houses in that area three bedroom about 3100 square feet or about 430,000 dollars and that's on the low end so with today's building cost you're looking at about 500,000 plus but that's four bedrooms two and a half baths thank you for confirming thank you Commissioner Miller I just had a quick question for staff I don't remember in the past having green and red printing the bike ped report and I was not certain what the significance of the green was however cheerful it's a Christmas there is we try to make it aesthetically pleasing for you thank you and I appreciate it but I still don't know who's speaking in the green the green is is Dale McKeel's comments and then the applicants response is in red so the bike ped request is in the black Dale McKeel is green and the applicant is red let me just double check no I'm sorry the black text is Dale's and then the applicants is I believe in both green and in red me I think I can clarify I believe the black text was BPAC's initial comment green text was a second review comment and the red text is the applicant's response that's very helpful thank you and I don't feel quite so silly asking the question any other questions or comments from the commissioners seeing none at this point I think we're ready to entertain a motion if someone's ready to move that motion we send case one seven zero zero zero four four forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second right properly motion to case z one seven zero zero zero four moved by commissioner Miller seconded by commissioner hornbuckle all those in favor please raise your right hand any opposed motion carries eleven to zero thank you very much final zoning case this evening is case number z one eight quadruple zero one this is five one two three chin page road we'll start with the staff report good evening jacob begins with the planning department that and before you is a zoning that change request for property located at five one two three chin page road on the subject site is in the city's jurisdiction this is a request submitted by charlie oakley with macadams this is a request to change on the zoning designation of one parcel approximately one acre in size from residential role to industrial light there's no development plan associated with this so the request if approved would permit any uses in the isle zoning district I'm an aerial map of the subject site I mean see the case highlighted in red I mean see the career development a little further to the west of the site I mean just across the the street is a flex and warehouse space the some area photos these are also in your staff report the top three pictures kind of give a vantage point of the site they're looking around the site from chin page road I'm a lovely view of the forested site in the lower left hand corner and as well as the existing development near the site on chin page road seen as image number five I'm looking at this area from the the zoning context point of view as you can see the property surrounding this site on all sides is already is zoned industrial light the stretch of chin page road makes vacant properties with some industrial flex warehouse spaces you can see in the southeast corner of this image there's some residential that has been planted but not built out yet I'm looking at the future land use map again pretty similar to the zoning map in this area the subject site is zoned or I'm sorry is flummed industrial currently as well as the surrounding properties I'm to go a little further north or south from the site then we run into more residential development some aisles only district standards as I noted this request does not involve a development plan any development would adhere to the current ordnance standards these are some of the dimensional standards in the UDO for aisles owned properties so comprehensive plan policies for this request staff reviewed three key comprehensive plan policies the future land use map as well as continuous development and infrastructure capacity we found that the request is consistent with those three items and overall that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances and I'll be happy to answer any questions the commission may have at this time thank you very much thank you we will open the public hearing for this case and we have one individual signed up Mr. Charlie Oakley to me evening my name is Charlie Oakley 2905 Meridian Parkway in Durham I'm with the McAdams Company we're in our client for this request to rezone 5123 Chinpage Road from RR to IL Industrial Light the requested IL zoning matches the zoning of the all the adjoining properties this is sort of a pocket of residential in an industrial area industrial rezoned area and it matches the future land use map land use for this property there's currently no anticipated use of the property which is why you don't see a development plan and the request is simply to have the zoning match the land owner of this lot owns a larger parcel adjacent to this just to have their two parcels match zoning I stayed in the staff report and by staff here tonight this request is consistent with the UDO future land use plan and comprehensive plan and the other policies of Durham we ask for your support of their finding and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have thank you very much anyone else like to speak during the public hearing seeing no one we will close the public hearing and move to the commissioners any commissioners who have questions or comments Commissioner Bryan Harris Miller Commissioner Bryan question for staff under utility impacts this is an attachment 6 you talk about the fact that the zoning designation would increase the consumption of water but the numbers the way you've given the numbers doesn't show that I think maybe the numbers have been reversed great Commissioner Bryan you are correct the total is correct but the demand is still up there thank you for pointing that out sir am I correct that there's a stream that goes across this property this particular property double check my madness I'm not aware the stream crossing this particular property okay well it's not a if you look on the big importance attachment 1 in your the context map shows the streams and you'll see that there's not a blue line stream showing on this property okay and a question for the applicant I was just curious once this has been resumed is there any possibility that it's going to be combined with another piece of industrial land up in the area there's a 31 acre parcel directly adjacent to this that is owned by the same entity so they can recombine at any time but I don't know I don't think that's like an immediate plan to do okay I would just it would make sense to me that's why I asked thank you Commissioner Harris I just have one comment for staff thank you for attachment 7 the use permits and the industrial lights on this is very helpful thank you sir thank you thank you Mr. Bryan asked my question this is good if you saw next month's agenda you'll know that it's good to be briefed tonight and bank your time tonight because we'll be here a while next month any other questions or comments by commissioners I second seeing none we'll entertain a motion Mr. Chairman I move that we send case C180001 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation second properly moved and seconded all those in favor please raise your right hand any opposed motion passes 11-0 thank you thank you very much before we adjourn we did have one new item for new business Commissioner Bryan it was just a question for staff starting shortly after last month's meeting I've begun to get all sorts of emails from the city of Durham's Human Resources Department especially about the open enrollment and stuff like that and that confuses me because I don't see any reason they should be sending me anything that confuses me as well Mr. Bryan we'll look into that your email address is part of the alias email address for the entire planning commission and I wonder if there's just been a little email groupings so we'll check on that for you and I did have one other thing I failed to mention Mr. Judge would like to introduce a new staff member if you don't mind if you have just a minute this is a good meeting to have a minute Mr. Judge yes I just wanted to introduce Ms. Erlene Thomas she's started with us about six months ago doing development review she's a professional engineer and has over 20 years experience and may have already interacted with her with answering questions but she's going to be taking on more of my role here as I do other things within the department welcome aboard and please you're welcome to make a remark if you'd like thank you and I look forward to working with you all in this new capacity thank you very much any other questions comments for the good of the order seeing none I can't believe I'm saying this this meeting is adjourned thank you can I put my my request