 It was a good choice. That's true. Thank you. Well, you saw him. He was great. Very good. Me. Yes. Always. Every new year at our jobs. Yeah. Everything's going well. Thank you. That's good to know. We're relegated to that. So we'll see. So we'll see. Yeah. Yeah. He's right. It's always something. Right. What are you talking about? More business. More business. Yeah. And people may have stuck with the consistency statement. Yeah. I've got to remember that he's a toddler. You know. Is it tough? I could swim. I only saw three things. This is coming up next month. Oh, he's got you. Hey, good to see you all. Hey. Well, how are you? Welcome to this here. This way here. Same seat. Easy. You think? Good afternoon. Welcome to the Durham Planning Commission. The members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the city and the county as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on any of the issues that are here before us this evening. If you wish to speak on any of the agenda items this evening, I encourage you to please sign up to my left on the table. You'll note that there are specifics on each of the items that will be in front of you and when we get to that case, we'll be invited to come speak in the microphone. When you do come and speak, we ask you to speak clearly into the microphone for your name and your mailing address as part of your testimony. Each side, those speaking in favor and those speaking opposed, will have 10 minutes to present for each side and the time will be divided among all the people wishing to speak. Finally, all the motions this evening will be stated in the affirmative so if a motion fails or ties, the recommendation is for denial. Thank you. May we have the roll call please? Commissioner Alturk. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Gauch. Commissioner Gauch has requested an excused absence. Commissioner Bryan. Commissioner Bryan has also requested an excused absence. Commissioner Satterfield. You can't let them all go. Commissioner Harris. I did not request. Here. Commissioner Hyman. Chair Busby. Commissioner Miller. President. Commissioner Kenshin. Commissioner Hornbuckle. Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Gibbs. Great, thank you very much. If we could have a motion to approve the three excused absences, that would be appreciated. Second. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Harris. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We will next move to the approval of the minutes and the consistency statements from our December 12, 2017 meeting. And I will note that the staff has provided us the updated minutes. There was one motion that we have corrected in the minutes in front of you. Yes, Chair Busby. Grace Smith with the Planning Department. Actually on page four of seven, it was a consistency statement for Lumley Road had to be corrected. We had a couple of words that were left out that should have been in there. So we've done that. That's in the minutes you have before you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes, the updated minutes and the consistency statement. Second. Moved by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Hornbuckle. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, the motion passes. We'll move to adjustments to the agenda. Any adjustments, Ms. Smith? Staff has no adjustments or recommends no adjustments. And we can affirm that all legal notice requirements have been met and are on file in the Planning Department affidavits for such or on file. Great, thank you very much. Oh, accept the motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Alturk. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, the motion passes. We will move to our first public hearing this evening. This is Case A1700012 and a concurrent zoning case Z1700031. This is for 3404 Page Road. And we will start with the staff report. Good evening, Jamie Sanyak with the Planning Department. I will be presenting case number A1700012 Z1700031. This is 3404 Page Road. The applicant is Robert Schunk from Stewart. The property is located within the city's jurisdiction pending annexation. The site acreage is 32.827. The proposal is to rezone the site to allow for 190 townhouse units. The rezoning is from rural residential to plan development residential 5.788. And the flam request is industrial flam to low medium density residential 4 to 8 dwell units per acre. The site is located within the suburban tier and within the Neuse River Basin. Residential is the predominant uses surrounding the area. The Beth Page residential subdivision is located to the south and to the west to the north is the rural residential zone. One of which of the properties includes a cemetery which fronts on Page Road. That property has not been included as part of the rezoning and plan amendment request. But is included as part of the annexation case. To the east is warehouse and commercial uses located within the Wake County jurisdiction. The subject site is just north of the Pulitzer Lane intersection with Page Road. This is the existing conditions map. There are a number of existing structures and driveways which are proposed to be removed in the event that the request is approved. There are isolated wetlands found within the property in existing pond to be drained. A stream of the Neuse River extends into the property from the adjacent lot to the west. And north of the stream buffer is an immature pine forest as well as other areas of cleared understory trees. And south of the stream is mixed hardwood pine forest. This is the existing and proposed Flaum map. The property is highlighted in red. As you can see on the left, the property is currently designated an industrial Flaum. And the applicant is proposing to change the designation to low, medium density residential which would be consistent with the rezoning request. The context map shown here also has the property shown highlighted in red. The existing zoning is rural residential. And the applicant is proposing to change the zoning to plan development residential 5.788. This request has been reviewed by staff and determined to be consistent with the requirements of the unified development code. In terms of the requested district, again the site is, sorry, that's a typo. The site is 32.827 acres. The density is 5.788 dwelling units per acre. Maximum pervious coverage is 60%. Tree coverage 20%. Maximum height is 35 feet. And the open space requirement is 16%. The development plan, and I should say that the property meets the PDR district requirements in terms of density, maximum pervious coverage, tree coverage, building height, and open space requirements. The proposed development plan, which is shown here, shows the access points, the building and parking envelope, the tree preservation areas, the riparian buffers, and the project boundary buffers. In terms of summary of commitments, the dwelling units will be townhomes. There will be a 20 foot planted buffer located along the southern and western property lines. A bicycle lane and sidewalk will be provided along Page Road. There are other associated roadway improvements, design and graphic commitments. In terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan policies, it is currently, the site is currently industrial-flommed and not consistent with the low density residential. We have found that in terms of zoning map changes, it is consistent with policies 2.1 3D, 2.2 2B. It is contiguous with other residential developments incompatible with the surrounding uses. There is sufficient infrastructure in place to support the development. The proposed development is consistent with 8.1 4D, since they are committing to additional asphalt to account for the future bicycle lane. And there is sufficient infrastructure to support the site in terms of the school children generated from the development. That determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will now move to open the public hearing. And at the moment we have one individual signed up to speak, Robert Schunk. And if anyone else would like to speak, you can let us know. Good evening commissioners, commissioner Busby, fellow commissioners, my name is Robert Schunk. I live at 2627 University Drive here in Durham. I'm here representing Shanandoah Homes this evening. Thanks to Jamie for a good opening presentation. I pulled the zoning atlas to give a larger context to our project in relationship to the area. As you can see to the project, our project is identified there and the Bethpage community is to the south and west, to the north, or some smaller parts also, but the Bethpage community. This gives a little more zoomed-in layout as well. I'm going to move to the next slide. He is a little more zoomed-in layout as well. A view of both community side-by-side. We will be connecting, as Jamie said, to the community right here to the south. This community also has feature connections north and south up here for whenever that gets developed as well as to, you know, the north and west as well. This is an enlargement of our development plan. And I'll speak to this a little bit more about what we have. As Jamie said, we were requesting the land use plan change from industrial to low-medium density residential, as Bethpage did. Meetings that had occurred with planning staff that stated that this was not as desirable industrial land so that the request was suitable. We are requesting a 5.78 units per acre for up to 190 townhomes. Just to give some further context, Greek side at Bethpage is owned at PDR 4.77. And when you do the math to the 283 acres, it's roughly 13, a little over 1,300 acres. Or 1,300 units, excuse me. We're 33 acres. Their community is about 283. And when they did the math, we're about 11%, adding about 11% more area to that project. So with the road connectivity, you know, it's almost, you know, this community we're proposing almost acts as an extension of Bethpage. We did have a neighborhood meeting back in August. We had about 50 residents. Neighbors attend that meeting. Some of them are here this evening. There were several issues discussed. Connectivity noted here at the bottom, providing a buffer, price of townhomes, or keeping the pond, removing the pond. But the main focus of the evening boiled down to a buffer between our community and their community. You know, while there's no community, there's, in looking at the site plan of Bethpage, there's no buffers provided within that community. You know, we did, by the end of the evening, we did proffer to give a providing 20 foot project boundary buffer along the southern and western edge, as depicted here in the development plan. As you might know, when a PDR is adjacent to a PDR, buffers are not required by the ordinance. When they develop to their plan, PDR is next to rural residential require a 10 foot buffer. So the aggregated buffer here will be a 30 foot project boundary buffer between their 10 foot and our 20. We will, while Bethpage consists of single family homes and some townhomes, this is our development, will consist of all of townhomes. Actually, I wanted to back up one point I skipped over. When you look at the, our proposed density and the unit count and the acreages of the size, and when you look at the projects together, while we're 5.8 units an acre, and Bethpage is about 4.8 acres, when you combine that together, gets you maybe to about 4.8, 4.9 units per acre, where it balances that out. All road improvements are being provided along the front edge, and basically we're extending the three lane widening section in front of Bethpage further north. We are providing a sidewalk. There's a cemetery in the northeast corner, and a lot of the headstones are almost within about 10 feet of the edge of pavement. We're required to dedicate 25 feet of driveway, so there's no room to put the sidewalk in front of the cemetery, so we'll be moving that around to the rear with a public easement to allow north and south, north-south traffic. We are, we did speak to planning today, and we're looking to add a proffer that a couple of proffers, or one proffer and a revision to one of the design commitments. The text here before you is that the developer commits to a minimum offset of 16 inches with two offsets per every building, four units to avoid repetitious placement. And the other request is the other thing we're providing is that we're going to remove the use of vinyl siding, driving through Bethpage. It's all hardy plank material, so removing the vinyl to speak more of a consistent material with their neighborhood. That completes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who did not get a chance to sign up who would like to speak on this particular case? Seeing none, we will move to close the public comment period, and I will ask any commissioners if they would like to speak or ask any questions. There are two lonely commissioners down on the end. We'll start with Commissioner Alturk. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Robert, for that presentation. I had a couple of minor questions. So I assume you're, or are you going to build any townhomes north of the stream? Yes. You are. Okay. And so there'll be a way to connect those to the ones to the south. That is correct. Okay. And so, and then you have three site access points. And I guess not knowing where the townhomes will be, I mean, do you anticipate which will be the main entrance or will you try to push for that to be on, you know, from Page Road or just so that I assume that's a concern maybe for some of the residents of Beth Page. The main entrance will certainly be from Page Road. Okay. There'll be entry monumentation there. And to announce the neighborhood and by ordinance were required to connect to anthology. And then we're connected to the north. Per the ordinance as well. So if and when the development to the north is developed, there's a connection there. We could not connect to the west because there's not a connection already provided there. Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Chair. Just another quick question in regards to the, to the proffered buffer. So what exactly would that look like in regards to all those shrubberies or is it just the setback essentially? What would that look like? So it'll be a 20% or it'll be a 20 foot 0.4 opaque buffer. Some of it will be preserved and some of it will be planted. If anybody of you have driven through the neighborhood, the Beth Page neighborhood, it doesn't have the most kind Topo, nor does this site. So where we are able to preserve vegetation, we certainly will cost the developer less money. What we want to avoid is, you know, creating also, you know, some mohawks of, you know, narrow buffers as well. Is there a height range or something for this buffer? The height range will meet what the UDU calls for. So the mix of overstory trees, evergreen overstory, evergreen understory, mix of shrubs as well. And one follow up in regards to that, to the question that my peer here regarding the access from the north of the stream to the southern part, how would that look? Have you contemplated how that access point, or those access points will? So while we haven't, you know, certainly finalized any plans, I mean, the idea would be, you know, likely making a connection this way. So somewhere in here, there'll be a connection. And I mean, this is not wide enough. So I mean, not so wide. So you'll probably kind of have a big street network here. You'll likely have one east-west street with two cul-de-sacs. You know, this is too narrow to get through. You know, we have a SOAR connection down here where there's an existing manhole. So we have to get that to that as well. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for staff really quickly. When I look at the future land use map, it's depicted in the staff report, the area to the east of Page Road up to the Wake County line is not colored in. Can I assume from that that that's outside the jurisdiction of Durham City County and it's in Wake County jurisdiction? That is correct. All right, thank you. That helps. And then when I drove out there today, I noticed that what seems to be happening, the trend for development in the areas tends to be towards this low-medium density residential in spite of our future land use maps designation for future industrial. And of course, in other cases, especially on the eastern side of town here, I've been a little concerned about the kind of confused relationship between our industrially designated land and our residential land and the future land use map. And so for because of those concerns and to the extent that this one property tends to move in the direction I think is correct for the area, I'm inclined to support the land amendment and the rezoning. It would be great, quite frankly, if we could go ahead and fill in that whole notch that is created by the existing residential neighborhood and Page Road and get it all re-designated and rezoned all the way up to kind of at least to the top of the notch there so that we have a cohesive residential area. I met with the developers and asked them for the design commitment proffer that they made today and I appreciate very much making that. I think it's a big deal while we have close similarity and density in this property. I think having some design connection, especially with materials will help since there is a form change between single family homes and townhouses. I think that'll make this fit in better with the neighborhood that it's clearly going to exist with. I'm assuming that five years after you guys have sold the last unit and move out, people who drive through there will have a very small sense of whether or not these are two separate developments and I think that's a desirable thing. So I intend to vote in favor of this and I appreciate your cooperation. And I'm sorry, I sound so funny. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. I just have a couple of quick comments. I want to commend the developer for the extra 10 feet of buffer. That was a very generous settlement, I think. And this could be for staff and any other submittal that comes in. I've been trying to read the contours, which is yellow on white. Even with my magnifying glass, it's really hard. So anytime anybody submits a colored map, well, you can't beat good old black on white. And this is a serious request. It does make it a lot easier to follow the lay of the land. Sometimes I can tell you more than a visit to the site. But that's my request. And I intend to support this. Thank you, Commissioner Gibbs. Any other commissioners who wish to speak on this item? And before we move forward with the motion, I just want to check in with staff on the proffers. These have been cleared with the staff. Yes, Jamie Sanyak with the planning department. We have reviewed the two proffers and find them acceptable. I also just wanted to add, if the applicant can provide the approximate stream buffer, I'm sorry, stream crossing location on the development plan map, moving forward, that is a UDO requirement. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this point, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that with regard to case A1700012, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request that we send this forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, including the two proffers that were put forward today with regard to design issues. And also, with the understanding that between now and the time the City Council makes a final decision, I'll strike that that's a zoning matter. I'll hold that. With regard to the plan amendment case, send it forward just like it is with a favorable recommendation. Second. Great. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Hyman. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion carries 10 to 0. Okay. Got to ask for news. We'll move to the approval or motion on the zoning case. Mr. Chairman, because I've already rehearsed my motion on this, inadvertently, I'd like to move that we send case Z1700031 forward to the City Council with a favorable recommendation with the understanding that the request contain the two design proffers that were made tonight and that the development plan also be amended to show the approximate location of the stream buffer crossing that the staff says is required. Second. Great. Practice makes perfect. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Alturk. All those in favor, please raise your right hand. The motion carries 10 to 0. Great. Thank you very much. We'll move to our next case. This is also a future land use map and zoning case concurrent. This is a case A1700014 and Z1700036, the park at South Point 2. And we'll start with the staff report. Good evening, Jacob Wiggins with the planning department. The two items before you are a future land use map amendment and zoning map change request for the park at South Point 2. This is a request submitted by Mr. Robert Schunk with Steward. This is in the city of Durham jurisdiction. The subject site is approximately 41 and a half acres. And the applicant is requesting a maximum of 55,000 square feet for vehicle cells and service areas. Specifically, the rezoning request is to resume office and institutional residential suburban multifamily commercial general all with a development plan to commercial general with a development plan as well as modified the future land use map from the office and medium density residential designations to a commercial designation. The subject site is highlighted in red in front of you. This is the general area is located just a bit north of Interstate I-40. And it is also one will find NC 751 to the west as NC 54 to the north and east of the subject site. As you can see, the area is presently undeveloped. There is, you can see some auto use areas to the south of the subject site. Existing conditions, as I noted, the subject site presently contains three different zoning designations as well as a stream which traverses part of the property. Maybe a little hard to see on the screen, but it is located right there. Adequate buffers are shown for that stream. The future land use map for this area, as I noted, and as you can see on the left hand side, the site is designated as both office and medium density residential. And the applicant is requesting to unify that to a commercial designation. As you can see in this area, the commercial is, I would say, at least in this inset, probably the predominant use, especially along the stretches of I-40. As you go north, you get into some more residential areas with some additional commercial area as you go north along NC 751. The zoning context map, the body colors here, the subject site is still highlighted in red and white. As you can see, this kind of green, blue dotted area to the north, that indicates area that is either owned or maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, and therefore is unlikely to be involved. It's basically wetlands or bottomlands. The requested zoning district on the applicant is requesting the CG district. The ordinance requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet for this use, a maximum of 60% of building coverage, a minimum, please write the tree coverage area and that information isn't correct, but the maximum height of 50 feet is correct. So proposed conditions for the subject site. As I noted, the applicant is requesting to use the site for vehicle sales and services. The key areas here is where this will be located. As I noted, the stream on the subject site is buffered and no development is proposed in that area. Some area of some additional commitments. The applicant is committed to not having any outdoor PA system paging. The permanent closure of Johnson Victory Circle. So my hot back to the development plan. We'll go to the aerial map. You can see there is some pavement here. There is a street. It's not been, it was dedicated as public right away, but it was never accepted for maintenance by the city. So the applicant is proposing to close that street. They can speak more about that. I believe they intend to use it as a private street, but the intent is for that not to be maintained by the city of Durham. Required project boundary buffers are also shown on the development plan as well as the site access points. So some kind of pre-hensive plan policies that staff reviewed as part of this request. And as noted, the, the form category it is not currently consistent, which is why the applicant is requesting to change that to commercial. Otherwise staff found that this request was consistent with the comprehensive plan policies. So in summary, staff determines that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable policies and ordinances. And I'll be happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you. This point will open the public comment period. At the moment we have two speakers signed up, Mr. Ken Spaulding and Mr. George Stanziel, both in favor. So you collectively have 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, good evening. My name is Ken Spaulding, 7913 Leonardo Drive here in Durham. We are seeking a plan amendment and rezoning of our property from a mixture of uses of office and multifamily to commercial. This property is immediately adjacent to our currently existing auto park. In essence, we are seeking to expand our current footprint. This will help provide an additional opportunity for both our auto park and our city to obtain a new dealership, the Volvo dealership. This will enhance our tax base and provide for new jobs. These office and multifamily parcels have remained dormant for over a decade. Our proposal is flanked by our auto park to the south and significant Army Corps of Engineer property to the north, and you've seen from the map there, multifamily to the east. Our proposal lowers traffic and school enrollment. Staff has presented their favorable review. We are consistent with our city's plans and policies as laid out by your staff this evening and as contained in your staff report. We thusly respectfully request your support as well, which will allow this vacant and overgrown property to be put to its best use and consistency, as Apple mentioned. Thank you for your consideration and George Stanziell, our land planner, will be our next presenter. Thank you. I'll try to be very quick. George Stanziell, President and Director of Design at Stewart. What I wanted to do is just give you a little bit of background because this was zoned so many years ago and just kind of tell you how we got here. The original concept for this project was always to be an auto park and was contemplated to be a high-end auto park. The project was zoned in 2002 to include a mix of uses that included hotel, office and residential, as well as auto dealerships at the strong urging of interim planning director of the interim planning director at the time. This was kind of all going on when all of South Point was kind of being rezoned and designed and master plan and so forth and there was a lot of focus on mixed use. This resulted in the parcels that we're discussing tonight being multifamily residential and in the northeast corner in O&I in sort of the central part of the site and the image that is before you is sort of the original master plan for this site so you see the orange buildings kind of in the middle that were O&I and then the residential portion to the upper right-hand corner. If you're familiar with this location you know that there's very limited visibility to any major thoroughfare which has resulted in little to no interest in developing these parcels under the current zoning. So 751 is where the Lexus dealership is today many of you have gone by there that's basically our visual window so these parcels to the back are very hidden essentially for retail particularly for retail or hotel and office uses. In addition, soils and subsurface conditions on these parcels, the parcels that we're rezoning have made development that is on these parcels have made development that requires substantial foundations extraordinarily difficult and expensive so we've had many people look at it and have walked away. This project has been developed with the highest level design including extensive landscape along the right-of-way along the parkway and particularly on the Johnson Lexus site nearly $500,000 was spent on landscape and stone walls along with 751 frontage which set the tone for the rest of the project and then there's a substantial amount of landscape that has been installed all the way along the parkway. While this project somehow weathered the recession the retail and auto landscape in South Durham has changed with the addition of the Hendrick Auto Mall south of South Point Mall. That project was a perfect opportunity to include in this project and allowing us to keep auto dealerships from lining our major streets unfortunately it didn't work out that way for a variety of different reasons. Mr. Johnson now wants to build out his project in the way that was originally intended. It will be done as we started it with quality landscape treatments and state-of-the-art lighting, signage and architecture. This project is adjacent to I-40 to the South Corp of Engineers to the north and very limited residential in northeast corner the closest single-family home which there is one as well as a church parking lot is some 250 feet away and is buffered by a jurisdictional stream buffer. We are adding an additional 50-foot undisturbed buffer and our property adjacent to that so that is a total of about 300 feet. We have also committed after some discussions that between now and City Council that we will at City Council proffer an additional buffer enhancement with evergreen planting for a limited length. We will work with planning on the location and language prior to the City Council hearing. One last note. During the original rezoning of this project which changed the original zoning the very original zoning of this project was 1,250 residential units. When we rezoned the property Mr. Johnson committed to paying the city's portion of the pedestrian bridge going over I-40 in the amount of $250,000 which we all sort of enjoyed today. He's made a major commitment there and we now want to finish this project after many years. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak during the public comment period? Seeing none, I will move to close the public comment period. I will note that we did get an email sent to us earlier today from a resident and I'm trying to look up their name but they had raised concerns. Mr. Wiggins had sent this along to us and I just did want to mention it for the record. Mr. Mark Rodin had some concerns about the lighting issues but could not be here this evening so did send his comments in advance. Let me open it up for the planning commissioners. Anyone on the commission who would like to speak? Commissioner Gibbs, Commissioner Miller. Again, I just have a couple comments and one has to do with... I'm not really... I don't think I understand that the semi-circular drive is that going to stay in? It's called the Johnson Victory Circle? It will... The right of way is to be closed but the pavement and the access will remain right now the auto park is... South Point All-Part Boulevard is a public right-of-way. That was intended to be a public right-of-way but the decision's been made to... a decision's been made to just to turn it into private. So it can be utilized by the dealership at access to our displays and all? Yes, sir. That was really the only thing. Everything else looks really good and the first thing I thought of was just what you said, George, about the dealership down Fayetteville Road. I'm glad to see this come back. This, from its inception, I think was a good idea and this is the first time I've seen a layout of what was intended. I really like the concept and for any other developer and for you and anybody else that may be looking, I think I could find something else better to watch on TV but, in fact, there's a ballgame on that I'd like to be watching but... I do like the use of vegetation throughout wherever the cars are parked. This is something that I would like to see if not added to the UDO that we pay special attention to. It helps reduce the heat islands that can occur with all of the paving and this rule of thumb can be applied to not only car lots but to shopping center lots. It's been used in other places but I'd like to see more of it. It softens everything but anyway, I won't take up any more time. That's just something that jumped out at me and I wanted to put that out in the public realm and the staff realm and our realm. Anyway, thank you so much. Thanks Commissioner Gibbs. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In general, I have to say they've only been along the parkway that runs through this project a couple of times because for the reasons that you said there unless you're buying a car, not much reason to do it unless you're buying a Lexus until they put the Honda dealership in there was no reason at all but it is quite lovely and it's time I suppose to build it out I can understand the developer's frustration over the years to have planned one thing and not been able to realize it. I also like the idea that that we can have automobile dealerships in this sort of setting rather than along the major highway. It's also in my opinion an ideal use for the strip of property that separates a major arterial from the Corps of Engineers land. Now having said all of that and I've expressed this concern to the developers I know that we have two existing residential areas that when the original project went through thought they were going to have residential neighbors and they're now going to have pretty intense commercial neighbors so I have expressed that concern to the developers and I'm grateful that they're willing to work on a proffer to do supplemental screening I think it's exactly right to call it a boundary buffer because it's not what we're talking about but some additional planning where the graded area of these properties come close to the residential property to the north and the residential property to the east to assist with screening the auto dealerships from those residences especially in the winter months if you drove like I did up through Tudor Place and standing that cul-de-sac and look over the house there and across this property you can see way into the property and so a little bit of additional screening I think will be a welcome thing and make the neighbor relationship between the residences and the auto park a happier one so having said that and with gratitude to the developer for listening to my concerns I'm going to vote in favor of this plan amendment and rezoning Thank you Commissioner Miller Commissioner Johnson Thank you Chairman a number of my thoughts have been articulated particularly by Commissioner Miller I'm inclined to support this and I understand that with time comes like we evolved and what our thoughts and visions are and so the idea of a mixed-use development probably made sense or we were trying to start some kind of momentum but when I think about well I'm very familiar with this area and I drove it two or three times in the past couple days but the notion of there's nothing there really as stated but the idea of just like when you go and shop for furniture furniture you have multiple furniture stores so that people can actually have do their comparison shopping and they don't have to be on the road going to different places I think this is an opportunity to do this for automobile so I don't know how many or what the ultimate mix of automobile dealers and suppliers that will be a part of this but I think that that's a way to get more warm bodies up in this area and the concern that Commissioner Miller raised in regards to the lighting was what I was my only major concern when I went and actually drove back to the residential community on the backside it's like well I like at night time I like for my environment to be dark but there will be lighting and so I don't know to what degree that will assuage the concerns of the residents that highlighted this particular issue but you know from an economic development standpoint of this site has been dormant for a decade or more from what I've learned is that I don't think that there's anything that can be compelled upon the developer to make residential come to this particular parcel when I asked Mr. Spauldin when I had a conversation with him why can't we get residential on this site and that was the question of the soil and the rock under the ground I don't know unless the city ponies up money to do the remediation I don't think that's going to be like a viable option to force the compel the developer to do it so I think that this alternative west makes sense for west there and what can be put there and so with that I'll support this. Thank you. Commissioner Arturk. Thank you chair. This is a question for staff if this rezoning does go through will there be a sliver of office between this parcel and the parcel to the south or am I seeing something there's a on-page amendment three Jacob Wiggins of the Plain Department yeah what you're seeing there the future land use map that little slivers in the public right of way so by ordinance that will be updated so if this were approved you would see commercial in that entire area. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners seeing none I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman if I may I move that we send case a 17 triple zero one four to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Second. Moved by commissioner Miller and seconded by commissioner Hornbuckle all those in favor please raise your right hand. Motion passes ten to zero. Thank you and the zoning case with regard to case Mr. excuse me Mr. Chairman I recommend that we send case 17 zero zero zero three six forward to the city council understanding that between now and the time the case gets to the the city council that the developer will work with the staff on a plan to add supplemental vegetative screening in the areas on the property closest to the existing residential neighbors. Second. A move by commissioner Miller seconded by commissioner Hornbuckle for case z one seven triple zero three six all those in favor please raise your right hand. Motion passes ten to zero. Thank you very much and we'll move to our final case this evening. This is a zoning map change only this is case z one seven triple zero two nine for Arrington two and we'll start with the staff report. Good evening Jamie Sonjak with the planning department this is case number z one seven zero zero zero twenty nine the planning commission members have been provided with a short memo regarding this application I have not prepared a formal power point presentation my comments will be brief the the applicant has applied basically because they were seeking revisions to design commitments for the Arrington two site the property is the entire track is about 95 acres of land located on the east side of Page Road in the southeastern portion of Durham just west of Wake County boundary the city council approved a zoning map change and development plan for the area in January 2011 which was legacy case nine triple zero 15 and that essentially changed the zoning for that area to be mixed use with the development plan it allowed for a mixture of office retail commercial along with residential dwelling units a number of site plans have been approved for that area including 200 square foot office building multifamily apartment complex those are noted within the memo the applicant J Davis is currently requesting some minor revisions to the design commitments essentially to better differentiate the type of architectural materials used from the residential and the non-residential buildings and additional clarification has been provided to identify what materials would be used to address the scale of the buildings the main entrances of the buildings and the main entry points there are no other changes to the development plan per the unified development ordinance any revisions to design commitments are considered a significant change and require hearing and recommendation from the planning commission essentially why we're here today and ultimately adoption or approval by the city council staff has reviewed the changes to the design commitments and they are found to be consistent with the UTO requirements the staff report provides the context map the legacy case development plan and the development plan that's proposed as well as the application and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have thank you very much if we could it would be great to see the list of anyone signed up to testify we will open the public comment period and no one is signed up give the opportunity to speak if you'd like to speak please approach the microphone and share your name and address and please speak clearly into the mic and you can sign up when you're finished yes please good evening I'm Jonathan Parsons I'm with J Davis 501 South Bloomington street rally representing the applicant really just here to answer any questions on the development plan as Jamie discussed the whole reason for this tech change is just to provide a little more flexibility in what we're doing for our client which for the office building continuity with the original development plan so materials are staying generally the same we've just expanded a little bit of the portfolio to allow some of the materials are distinct to our client some stones some metal panel but we're still representing and honoring the original plans that's really what we're here tonight so if there's any questions I'm really just here to answer questions great thank you very much you can fill that out and leave that and some commissioners may have questions for you we will close the comment period and move to commissioners if any commissioners would like to speak we'll start with commissioner Miller so thank you mr. chairman I have to say that I read the memo and I heard the report I'm still not sure what we're doing here and I even had to get my magnifying glass out to try to read the the old and new version of the development plan and I'm not sure completely that I get it so I would like to try to understand by asking the applicants representative a question or two that question is what is it about the existing design commitments that prevents you from doing what you want to do or what is it that you need to add to the design commitments that permit you to do what you want to do in the future you're asking for this because you've got something specific in mind so when the original case went forward I will use the word the design guidelines or design commitments that were established were very prescriptive in terms of references to brick banding, types of brick detailing brick color even it was too prescriptive to allow us to add in things like things like bird beaking, flimish bond different types of patterns so our goal was to maintain brick masonry so we still have brick on the building we wanted to add metal panel that was not specifically listed in the design elements but because of the way the architecture has evolved in the area we wanted to add that material we also wanted to maintain our description of how the windows were being used but again it was a very broad term I think in terms of traditional windows so we wanted to provide clarity on what those windows are to allow our building to go forward with the type of windows we're using versus a residential building which is a we used to air post the traditional windows we wanted to help provide clarity so that when we submit our elevations to this case planters we didn't get confusions on our materials versus what we deemed as more residential i.e. that type of brick detailing which is we take the bird beak as we turn the brick 90 degree or 45 degrees so those are things that fit more in that residential character versus a commercial building so again and I got a little confused when I was trying to sort this out all by myself so if we approve this what will be the residential design commitments for the project as opposed to the non-residential design commitments because the report says it's to greater differentiate between the two so what we've done is we're pulling out we're doing a non-commercial project we're doing a commercial project so we've pulled out what original wording was it was all pushed together so what we've done is we've basically outlined the commercial uses and pulled out residential paragraphs and that's part of the text change we're making it clearer so that when our building goes forward we're having these types of uses and any commercial building comes forward will match to our commercial style the residential character is maintained the cementitious siding the traditional windows and repeated it in the second paragraph we're trying to add clarity and conciseness in commercial versus residential so anything that gets built will match the residential anything new commercial will tie into the commercial architecture so as I read it it looked like you were also wanting greater flexibility in commercial form going forward because again with the tiny print that we get like the original plans kind of wanted the non-residential buildings to have a residential character is that right or did I... that was part of the wording issue it was not the intent when we did the original planning for our previous client it's always shown a large format office building at the site we're at an office slash retail component to the left it was a mixed use community now it's part of the challenge tripping up the review was there wasn't clarity so we're trying to help fix that with this section so going forward as pertaining the because you've got what look like two distinct residential projects on the property today and they are not the same but it looks like they are guided by the same standards and those standards going forward will continue with regard to residential construction that's correct but going forward your commercial standards will be more flexible and any confusion that might have existed between the commercial or non-residential standards or residential standards will be eliminated by greater division and that was what the intent is of this change that's a very helpful thank you any other questions or comments by commissioners seeing none I'll entertain a motion we can't send case Z17 00029 forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation actually didn't check it as a city council is that right city council with a favorable recommendation moved by commissioner Miller seconded by commissioner al turk all those in favor please raise your right hand the motion carries unanimously that is it for tonight's agenda do want to give staff an opportunity to give us any additional updates before we adjourn seeing none of good news is we are not meeting on valentine's day this year so our regular meeting is the day before I'll see you then this meeting is adjourned thank you very much thank you