 staff. Oh, staff. Are we ready? 30 seconds. Good afternoon. Good afternoon and welcome to the planning commission meeting. Uh, the members of the Durham Planning Commission have been appointed by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners as an advisory board to the elected officials. You should know that the elected officials have the final say on the issue before us tonight. If you wish to speak to an item tonight, please go to the table to my left and sign up to speak. For those of you who wish to speak, please state your name and address clearly when you come to the podium and please speak clearly into the microphone. Please consult the planning department for any details about your project. You should keep in constant contact with the planning department as things may change. Between the time it comes from us to the elected officials. Finally, all motions are stated in affirmative. So if a motion is fails or ties, a recommendation is for the now. Thank you. Can we have a roll call please? Mr. Brian? Mr. Busby? Mr. Freeman? Present. Mr. Gosh? Mr. Gibbs? Mr. Harris? Present. Miss Huff? Ms. Hyman? Present. Mr. Kenshin? Present. Mr. Miller? Present. Mr. Van? Present. Mr. Whitley? Present. Miss Winder's? We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Are they in adjustments to the agenda? Yes. Good evening. Grace Smith with the planning department. We have one adjustment to the agenda that you're already aware of that I emailed out to you previously the cases for North Rucksburg Retail A150002 and Z150006. The neighbors are the not the applicant with actual neighbors of the request requested a deferral. So we'll see that on the agenda next month. Okay. And I can affirm that all notices have been legal requirements have been advertised per the ordinance and state statute for all the cases on the agenda. Thank you. And under new business can we add announcements? Can I get a motion that the agenda be adopted as modified? I like to make a motion that the agenda be adopted as modified. Motion is seconded that the agenda be adopted as modified. All those in favor please raise your right hand. All those in opposition? Motion carries unanimous. Okay. The approval of the April 12th minutes. There was one correction. Mr. Bryant would you like to state that correction? Under the roll call to force name down I think it should be Charles Gibbs rather than George Gibbs. Noted. If there's no other corrections what's your pleasure? Motion to approve agenda with corrections. Second. Okay. It's been motion that we approve the minutes as corrected. Yes, could you please add to your motion and in addition the included the consistency statements that were included. I'm tongue tied. So the consistency statements. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected along with consistency statements. Second. Okay. You heard the motion. Are you ready to vote? All those in favor please raise your right hand. All those in opposition? The motion is unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Next is a public hearing. Plan amendment with concurrent zoning map change and this is Shannon Road retail and I just state before you start at the conclusion of any of our zoning cases. I'm going to give the commissioners a couple of minutes to write down their comments. So we don't have to try to rush to do it while the thing is going on and we don't have to try to take them home to write them down so we can do it while we're here. Staff. Good evening. Obviously the staff report lists Amy Wolf as your contact person. I am filling in for the recently departed Ms. Wolf. I am Laura Woods of the planning department and this is Shannon Road retail a fifteen zero zero zero twenty two. The applicant is Robert T. and feta D. Gannum and the jurisdiction is the city. The request is to change the future land use map from medium density residential to commercial and the site is approximately one point nine acres. The site is located on the west side of Shannon Road just south of the intersection of Shannon Road with University Drive. We will be reviewing this against four criteria. The first criteria criteria a whether the proposed use is consistent with the intent goal object goals objectives policies guiding principles and programs of adopted plans criteria B whether the proposed change would be compatible with the existing land use pattern and or designated future land uses. I feel like I'm a little loud. I hope it's good. Very good criteria C whether the proposed change would create substantial adverse impact in the adjacent area or in the city or county and criteria D whether the subject site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed change. These are the policies that we found to be applicable to this case. We can discuss them in detail if you wish. There are a couple that I'm going to focus on as I proceed through the presentation. As you see most of them have to do with chapter two of the comprehensive plan which is your land use chapter. Now in terms of context to the north is an existing commercial node. It's mostly commercial and to the east northeast it's a mix of commercial office and multifamily uses to the south it's primarily multifamily residential. Okay criteria A was consistency and staff found that the proposed change would not be consistent with the intent goals objectives policies and guiding principles of adopted plans specifically policy two point four point one E of the comprehensive plan and that policy is provided for you indicated in red is perhaps the more significant portion of the text of that policy existing suburban transit areas shall be redesignated to compact neighborhood to the compact neighborhood tier as the locations of transit stations are established. The transit station nearby at south square in south square area has been established ergo. We shall be redesignating the area as compact neighborhood tier. Related to that and working hand in hand with that policy is policy two point two point four B compact neighborhood tier land uses which requires us to utilize design districts for all compact neighborhoods and as you may know there is a proposal that will be heard before city council early in June concerning designation of a compact neighborhood tier and a design district. Now criteria B is compatibility and the proposed change would be compatible with the existing land use pattern but it would not be compatible with the proposed development tier change and designation of a design district as I previously alluded. Criteria C substantial adverse impacts we find that the proposed future land use designation would allow for similar development to the properties already developed in the area as I say is adjacent to an existing commercial node and criteria D is it of adequate shape and size to accommodate the proposed use and yes it it is. Overall however staff's recommendation is denial based on consideration of adopted plans and compatibility and that concludes the staff report for the plan amendment we will now consider the zoning case. Okay as I mentioned the applicant is Robert T and Theta DeGonum the jurisdiction is city and the zoning request is from a residential suburban multifamily to commercial neighborhood with a development plan and as I mentioned the acreage is approximately 1.9 acres the proposed use is a 9500 square foot floor area commercial use and in terms of context we previously mentioned it's near the intersection of Shannon Road and University Drive and it's a mix of the zoning categories and to the north is mostly commercial with a few office designations to the east and south is primarily multifamily residential. Now then zoning standards for compact for neighborhood commercial minimum side areas 5,000 square feet obviously they meet that they meet each of these categories we can discuss them more fully if you wish and the existing conditions are they're two single family homes with associated outbuildings and there's not much to say about it they're mixed hardwoods with some specimen trees on the site those obviously would be removed if this zoning was approved and the proposed conditions there shows the building envelope with a buffer of that meets our our UDO standards with a potential reduction from 30 feet to 22.5 feet if a wall or berm is provided the applicant has proffered the this summary of commitments maximum square foot of 9500 feet for the building one vehicular access point and one pedestrian site access point impervious surface of 70 percent tree coverage of 15 percent and the location of site access points location of tree replacement areas and the building and parking envelope all indicated on the development plan summary of text commitments retail uses shall not exceed 9500 square feet no gasoline cells would be permitted construction of a northbound left turn lane on shannon road at the site access for feet of additional asphalt along shannon road for provision of a bicycle lane a dedication of five feet of additional right away on shannon road and the development plan would be the development would be built in one phase with a dedication of a five feet right away construction of the 9500 foot building and the associated road improvements on shannon road here again is the future land use the site is medium density residential and as i mentioned previously the applicant would like to change that to a commercial designation okay these are plume policies and that are applicable and some of these you saw in the previous report um our concern is um with um consistency with the policies regarding future land use we found that the application not to be consistent therefore staff determines that this request does not meet udo standards for transit supported development something that is associated with compact neighborhoods and design districts and um at build out um would it be consistent with the future land use map and policies of the Durham comprehensive plan and other adopted plans and ordinances that concludes my report thank you thank you could someone bring me the sheet up okay this is public hearing we have one person signed up to speak and he's for it so jared eden evening jared eden's with eden's land um i would like to start i would like to request a 30 day continuance of both these cases uh i've been working with staff recently i've got a couple ideas about how to improve our application to maybe be more in line with what the city has planned for this area so if you wouldn't allow that i would like a 30 day continuance to next month's meeting does the uh staff does it have to be 60 days no you can you have up you can continue up to 90 days but you have a three cycle limit you can do 30 days okay you don't have an objection we do not commissioners mr chairman i move that we continue the matter for 30 days second or till our next meeting second it's been motion is second that uh the shannon road retail a one five zero zero zero twenty two and zoning case one five zero zero zero three six be continued until our next meeting all those in favor let me know i'm not saying i i'm sorry opposes okay so it's unanimous thank you next public hearing is on a map change and open the public hearing for four eight three zero hope valley road z one five triple zero one six good evening kyle taylor with the Durham city county planning department and i will be presenting zoning case z fifteen zero zero zero sixteen uh 48 30 hope valley road the applicant for this application is uh ben burkhart with vkb properties this property is located within the city's jurisdiction the request is go from cn to cg commercial neighborhood to commercial general with a development plan the acreage of the site is 1.34 acres and the proposed use is climate controlled personal storage this property is located in the suburban tier at the intersection of hope valley and garrick road and as you can see there is a assortment of the zonings in this area however most of them are commercial this slide outlines just the general requirements of the cg zoning district if you have any questions feel free to ask existing conditions so the that this site is actually currently developed as a gas station and there are existing a few existing trees those are outlined on here as well proposed conditions gives the general location of tree preservation areas building foot i mean building and parking envelopes and also the building the project boundary buffer and two locations of general axe site access points the request initially was submitted that they would only have 20,000 square feet of building floor area however we have been informed that it was originally meant to mean mean floor area i'm not floria building footprints and the applicant has requested that we know that this project would be going up what they'd actually like to ask for is 100,000 square feet the planning staff has received a revised development plan to that to that aspect um two site access points are also identified on this project impervious surface maximum is indicated as 59 percent or 34,000 square feet tree cover just 14 percent or 8,200 square feet i mean acres square feet well you leave this slide is there the maximum floor area from 20,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet yes sir five times bigger okay they're requesting a multi-story building it's vertical not horizontal construction so it's we had to have five square floors yeah five stories okay that's correct thank you graphically this site gives the general location of site access points tree preservation or replacement areas building and parking envelope and the size and location of project boundary buffers the developer does have one text commitment this commitment is the commitment to use the committee he states that the committed use shall be self-service storage or convenience store with gas gas sales this project is in the commercial uh future land use and therefore is consistent with future land use map these are the adopted policies that we looked at while reviewing this application uh there is one policy on here that this application is not consistent with which is the transportation level of service which requires that the planning staff recommend denial on anything that exceeds 120 percent which we'll get into in a minute so as such the staff determination is that this request is consistent with future land use map and ordinances but it's not consistent with copper hands and policy eight one two age that requires the planning department to recommend denial any zoning case uh which would result in the average daily trip succeeding 120 percent of the adjacent roadway capacity thank you thank you cow can i get this sheet excuse me i have one one thing to add it's actually if it exceeds 110 percent and um if they exceed 120 they're they're exempt from being able to apply mitigation of traffic impacts to get it to 110 so it's actually it's that it's 110 not 120 percent is what we're looking at but Kyle was correct in the it does it see it exceeds 120 actually as well so can i can i get the sheet whereas heyman when you need it okay i have one person signed up to speak being very hard in favor of me good evening good evening folks i'm being Burkhardt i'm actually representing the owner of the property here stallings oil um i have a couple things that i want to address um pursuant to the staff report that you just heard number one just to clarify the so i'm still at the time uh excuse me that was telling us oh okay um i might need a little help getting this to work i thought that it would just come right on uh number one just to clarify the 20 000 square feet versus 100 000 square feet i saw a couple of you sit back in your seat from the very first moment that we walked in to consult with staff on this project we were always proposing a multi-story building we were instructed along the way and we were passed between a couple planners to um to word it at 20 000 square feet as the footprint so just to clarify this is what we walked into the office with this is the building that we proposed on this property this is a this is a rendering of the type of building that we're considering building that we'd like to get uh the rezoning for uh the second thing that i'd like to address is the traffic impact presently this property is what we would consider sort of an antiquated convenience store gas station i mean it's been there for 30 years or so 40 years i think there's eight pumps there and um what bill judge from the planning department has told us is that the existing use generates about 1,300 trips per day and i see in the staff report that the justification for recommending denial is that the adjacent roadways are at 120 capacity and so they have to recommend denial however this new use even per bill judges calculations dramatically decreases the the traffic impact on this site so what you have is a small intersection that's relatively congested and you have a high traffic impact on this small parcel what we're proposing is to build something like this aesthetically pleasing nice curb appeal and it's a quiet use bill judges calculations where that this use as proposed 100,000 square feet will generate a maximum of 250 trips per day the existing use generates about 13 or 1400 trips per day so while your staff report uh states that the justification for recommending denial is that it is based almost strictly on traffic impact this use dramatic that we're proposing dramatically decreases the traffic impact on this site uh the third thing that i would that i'd like to address is that we've had a tenant in this in this property and so during our planning process we did not want to with a rezoning request impact the tenants ability to operate their business we have just this week amended sort of at the last minute our proffer that this would not be climate controlled storage or convenience store with gas station or gas sales but that it would only be climate controlled storage so what you're seeing up on the screen that's what we want to build on this property very high end very aesthetically pleasing we've determined that there's a very high demand for storage in this area we think that this parcel suits we think that it fits well in the neighborhood it decreases the traffic impact and you know it's a nice property so certainly would like to to have your support on it i'd be happy to answer any questions or okay thank you thank you is there anyone else from the audience who'd like to speak to this item yes staff would just like a two clarifications from the developer one is is he actually committing to removing the use of the gas station from that which is that's what the number for the traffic calculations in the staff order based on because at the time it was a commitment so the first one is is he removing that as one of the committed uses and just leaving it self storage and the second one is the proposed graphic that he's showing currently is that actually is going to be considered a commitment as well two questions number one was are we deleting convenience store with gas sales from the proposed use the answer is yes second question is the picture that we have up on the screen offered as a commitment this has been sort of an issue of debate with staff since we first kept walked in the door because this is what we intend to build now the placement of the windows or the placement of the pillars or the exact access not being shown on that particular rendering i don't know that we can't i don't know that we're at the point where we can commit exactly to what you see but what what we do have is this is this is an actual building in raleigh not too far from here about a half hour from here that we just built we just opened up this is the look that we're going for so if we have to make a commitment based on the rendering that that that i showed you here certainly i think that we can in spirit um the particulars the staff has advised us against that because of the particulars that are maybe not clearly defined um i sort of want to lead with my best foot forward here i mean this is a nice attractive building that's what that's what we're going for that's what we that's what we build that's what we want to build so maybe that was a round away wait a minute i need to close the public hearing before i bring it back to us i'm sorry okay and now i was talking to commissioner okay thank you uh it's the anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak to this any public okay i will close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners do i have commissioners with questions and let me just find my notepad as i call you name it okay thanks be miller anybody else on the left okay uh the first speaker is uh commissioner gush uh i've got a question for staff i guess is bill over there i think i see bill there it is um the uh so i realized in our staff report the none the traffic numbers are based off of a uh gas station and convenience store um and that has just been uh removed as a allowable use and i'm not asking you to commit to a number one but i am asking generally speaking i mean i've never seen one of these self storage places like you know packed with cars or anything what do you like do you know what kind of traffic we're talking about at that point yes bill judge with transportation um we did have some conversations with the applicant in advance of the hearing and anticipated that they were going to potentially make that proffer to limit it to self storage so i was able to prepare the numbers in advance 100 000 square foot self storage facility would generate 250 trips per day okay um and as in the staff report the existing use generates 1,302 trips per day so before the you know if we'd had that information in advance the the new would have said 250 which would have been a decrease of 1,052 trips per day and would that get us in the 110 it does not even with the obviously even with the decrease um it would lower just because the existing capacity is so far over um with with the decrease it would lower it to from 135 percent LOSD to 131 so it it's it's a decrease but it doesn't get it down so it's currently operating at 135 with this change in use it would decrease that capacity it would decrease it to operating at 131 percent of capacity so and um uh i'm curious as to how the staff report works on you know when that is the case because i mean it's interesting i don't know that i've seen it before but it's decreasing traffic yet not to a um not to the standard that we are hoping to achieve uh but i mean would would the staff report still recommend denial in that case i mean it seems kind of counterintuitive i think i'll probably have to defer to the planning department but i think the wording on the comprehensive plan is very specific that basically just says anything over 120 percent they automatically have to recommend denial um there was some confusion with 110 percent yes um when when it's operating between 110 and 120 percent if it's more than a three percent increase um planning has to recommend denial as well so originally in the staff report we were looking at the expansion and it was going to be a like a 50 percent increase in trips so that's why um right why they had indicated it was 110 percent now with this additional proffer that threshold moves to 120 since it's a decrease in traffic but it's still over 120 grace smith planning department the staff will not be able to change our recommendation based on how the policy is written okay very strict and straightforward in that regard okay even though we do understand the applicant's position and what they're trying to achieve here but we're not able to change our recommendation sure and if i could ask the applicant then um uh i i guess i i'm curious as to what you i assume you had a neighborhood meeting um that kind of thing i'm i don't know what the property owners are like around there have you heard have you gotten any feedback outside of the planning staff about traffic and and you know the fact that you would be reducing traffic here do you know how that's been received by surrounding property owners that we did not have to have a neighborhood meeting on this okay and um just to clarify the roads are already over sure yeah i mean so so i mean we're sort of nothing that we would propose there would gain a recommendation even if we planted trees there um that with no traffic i mean maybe if you built like a whole new lane there like you know the entire property a new lane i'm joking of course but um uh yeah no i understand i mean the roads are already over capacity in any redevelopment whether it's uh less intense use as is the case here or more intense use uh just wouldn't get the support from staff based off of uh how the comprehensive plan is written which i think is a little bit odd i mean at some rate we should uh if we have a congested intersection and we're lowering the impact of a parcel that sounds good to me i mean yeah that's all i really had to ask but i appreciate the uh the answer thank you and thank you staff commission brad i guess um my concern since we seem to be hearing a proposal which is quite different from which we from what we got in our staff report and which we got in our development plan that was attached i'm going to just come out and say i'm uncomfortable making a decision one way the other until i see this proposal that's been presented tonight you know i heard mention of a new development plan i think we need to see a report that reflects what we've been told tonight that's all commissioner whitney i certainly concurred with my fellow commissioner brad on this i have a problem anytime someone comes to develop anything in a residential neighborhood or close to a residential neighborhood that don't have a neighborhood meeting about it or give the opportunity for the neighborhood to respond um i for one as a commissioner um i want to hear what the neighborhood thinks about anything building being built in their neighborhood and they don't think enough to come out and express that then keep going keep going you got two minutes 14 seconds if they don't come out and express that then um i might give some weight but not given an opportunity i strongly recommend that this be postponed this be postponed for 30 days so we can see the see the original document i mean the development and that um and a strong suggestion that you meet with the neighborhood that finish commissioner buxman thank you mr chair along the same lines as commissioner whitley had just a question for staff if you could explain why there wasn't a requirement for a public hearing and then i'm wondering if if if this was um i'm sorry neighborhood meeting and then if if this had come forward just specifically to go from a convenience store to a self service station would that have changed any requirements okay so the the first question you asked was um why there was a not a neighborhood meeting requirement and that is because there was not a tia required and this is not also in this case is not related to a plan amendment so the applicant was not required to have a neighborhood meeting so as far as um i don't believe it would have there's not a belief there's any use that could be proposed i mean without us doing the research and writing the staff report obviously um that would reduce the numbers enough to make the transportation issue work out at this point so and then just an additional question any remediation issues that that need to be mentioned here if we're going to be if we are guaranteed to be moving from a convenience store that or a gas station that's been in place for 30 40 years when i was reading this before i was wondering about that but thinking well there's a good chance this will just become a gas station with 12 pumps now we're hearing it's guaranteed to move from a gas station with a pumps to a storage unit definitively if this moves forward any any issues that need to be flagged if they commit to that on their revised plan then that would be a use commitment as part of the part of their development plan so they certainly can do that i did want to add though um earlier that we were talking about the graphic depictions and one of the reasons that staff advises applicants not to bring graphics to the hearing is because there's a section in the ordinance that specifically states that graphic depictions other than those listed above shall not be shown at submitted at or otherwise used in connection with any public hearing on a zoning map change with a development plan unless they depict only the area within the scope of the development plan and our development plan commitments in their entirety such graphic depictions shall be shall supersede supersede existing commitments as many and there have been any conflicts exist to the extent they are more stringent so basically anything that's proposed here a graphic is committed at that point um of course we can work with the applicant if they're going to submit a revised development plan or if something happens in the case it's continued we can work with them in that respect as well thank you commission yes i think i agree with thank you i agree with commissioner brine we don't really know what we're looking at but i did have an additional question i'm very familiar with this particular area and it is highly congested so one of the questions that i had would even though you're reducing the number of trips would there be additional access points to get to this facility that would perhaps reduce the the amount of traffic that's going in in any particular at any particular time i believe the answer is no i think we would be using the the the same access points to the property right now there are two access points and we would just be folding into the same access points okay all right thank you commission miller thank you mr chairman so i have a question of staff about what parking would be required for a hundred thousand square foot self-storage facility that's technically a site plan question we would have to look that up and get back with you in a few minutes those those types of site planning or improvements are viewed as site plan so i realize that and i normally wouldn't i normally wouldn't ask but yeah so we've got a i mean i can tell you i'm just gonna have to look it up okay it just will take a minute was there something else you needed in the meantime well the point i was going to make is this is a 1.34 acre site and i've just kind of eyeballed the the development plan and it looks like we're using a big the actual building envelope is probably somewhere maybe generously a little bit more than half of the total square footage and so out of subtract out of that 20 000 square feet for the footprint and now all of a sudden i am down to about 50 000 square feet for traffic circulation and parking and i'm having a little trouble seeing how this can actually be as big as the hundred thousand square feet unless there is a minimal parking requirement right so this parking requirement is based on the number of units so it's one per 100 units it's not based on square footage right unless we unless we knew the number of units i can tell you that and that's something again that may probably come up at site plan approval i'm just having a hard time making all of it fit on the piece of property maybe the developer can help me to understand because you've certainly been playing with the calculus here because i'm getting a about 70 000 square feet of usable space and that's generous uh because this property's got actually a fairly steep slope on one side of it that you're not going to be able to change much without a retaining wall and so we get down to 20 000 square feet for your building footprint and that leaves about 50 000 square feet for everything else uh and that's not a lot of space unless you're not going to park very many cars well do you really think you can get 100 000 square feet on there oh absolutely with a 20 000 square foot footprint five stories tall well i i realized that you couldn't you can build it the question is can you make it all fit when you had all the requirements in that come with that absolutely and we've been through this with planning over several months of of what type of building envelope would would suit what we're trying to build on the parking requirements you know we'd probably probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 units here so we would have a parking requirement of seven spaces um and if you go by any self-storage in the whole area you would rarely see when you say seven spaces you seven parking spaces seven parking spaces so it's one parking space per hundred that's the requirement that's the requirement that's what i wanted and if we didn't have a requirement we would have six parking spaces i mean six would be well that helps that that helps me understand that's what i wanted to know thanks it's stated this wasn't based on square footage it's based on number of units and it's one per 100 but he is not committed to a number of units so we weren't sure right i was just trying to guess it how tiny the parking requirement for one of these had to be that's correct and now i understand thank you commissioner winders well i too am very familiar with this property and um i also agree that uh considering the changes in the in the proposal that that for your sake as well as ours we should defer it for for until you can work through everything and as far as the neighborhood meeting they're not very many if they're hardly any residential families that live around there but right behind it is a church that is that you know might well be impacted by having a five-story building in front of them you know even as far as you know how much what's what it's going to do to the light and everything you know and there's also kind of a strange driveway or access to the church and it's um they have lots of classes there all week long that community people come to and they've got a playground that they that is open to the public um sun up sun up to or whenever anybody gets up to open the gate until sundown i think and um you know it's really a community resource that uh we don't want to and you definitely need to explain to them what is going to happen and or what you your plans are and i would really like to hear from them at the at the public hearing uh and then there's there's um jordan high school right next to that which i guess might wouldn't be impacted by this too much but uh you know it wouldn't be a better i get it check them out too to get there they wouldn't have it okay i'll come as to the chair okay so that was thank you commissioner kitchen yeah i'm a little bit conflicted on this as well i think um first of all the idea of removing a thousand cars excites me my daughter goes to jordan and i've made that trip um i'm more for me with that area than any other spot probably on earth um it's very congested i think primarily those between the hours of 645 and 730 uh 10 30 to 1 and 2 15 to 3 other times it's not that much congestion and it excites me to remove that because it's very dangerous intersection and the kids in and out the gas station all the time cars so that excites me to remove that kind of traffic from that intersection i wouldn't want to hear from the church though i think um commissioners makes a great point they will be impacted so i think uh if you could defer and speak with them and see what kind of impact that i have on them will be helpful for me commissioner gibbs well everything that's been said so far i agree with i disagree with i agree with but it just comes down to and i appreciate all the comments it even if building this maintains status quo of the traffic and i understand it will lower it some it would be a nice addition uh and a good change over having uh the gas station and the the convenience store there but it does impact the neighborhood and i i've never seen a five-story storage space uh if it gets built i will be certain to go by and see what it's like but at this point it's uh and i'm just saying this to agree with everybody it if i had to make a decision tonight i i still don't know which way i would go but it's not i would follow the advice of staff but that that's all my comments thank you are there any other comments we're happy to defer for i don't know how long it will take us i don't know if we can organize the neighborhood meeting and um 30 days or 60 days probably 60 days is what i need so i'll request that this be deferred for 60 days and i'll personally go and talk with uh whoever it is at the church trustees or the deacons or the pastor or everybody because i hear your comments and whatever we build we want it to be in addition to the community not a detractor our operating assumption here which may have been misplaced was that a nice attractive building next to the church that is a very quiet use with limited or no access in the evenings is much is a much better neighbor to the community there than a gas you know an old kind of rundown gas station but certainly we're happy to defer for 60 days whatever we want to do whatever we do we want to do it the right way okay we will continue the 60 days so bride or joe are mr chairman if i may i would move that the planning commission continue reopen the public hearing on this and continue it until our meeting in july second it's been motioned second that zoning case 15 triple zero one six four eight thirty hope valley road be continued for two cycles all those in favor please raise the right hand all those in our position it's unanimous okay now we will open the public hearing on three two three three north carolina 55 highway z one five triple zero one seven good evening again kyle together with the planning department this project is also by ben burkhart with bkb properties this property is also in the city uh the request for this one is to go from commercial neighborhood with a development plan to commercial general with a development plan the site at richford this property is 2.35 acres and the request is for climate controlled personal storage this property is located within the suburban tier at the intersection of north carolina highway 55 and east cornwallis road this slide gives a general overview of the requirements for the cg zoning district if you have any questions about these requirements please let me know this gives a general overview of the existing conditions from this site as you can see this is currently low currently also developed as a gas station and there is a little bit of a slope variation in the back of this property this property uh this is the progress conditions page it gives the general location of the tree preservation areas the building envelope and project boundary buffers as well as the two existing side access points that the developer wishes to maintain with the exception of one being moved a little bit the intensity for this site is 35 000 square feet but again this is the foot us where the building footprint that was indicated it's actually 105 000 square feet for this one there are the two there are the two existing side access points um and that are shown on this as being access points the impervious service for this is 69 percent or 70 000 square feet and tree coverage is 10 percent or 10 point I mean 10 1237 square feet graphically the developer commits to the location of side access points location of tree preservation areas building and parking envelope and size and location of project boundary buffers uh developer does have several textbooks along with this project including widening the section of cornwallis road dedicating an additional four four feet of asphalt to provide for a bike lane and also to shift the existing access point for cornwallis road and to uh and to maintain with the city and state standards as far as his roadway improvements go and he does also commit on this project to the uses of self storage and convenience store with gasoline and gasoline sales this project is also located in the future land use designation of commercial and is consistent with future land use plan these are the sections of the comprehensive plan that we looked at in relation to this project and it does meet these standards staff terms of this request is consistent with comprehensive plan policies and ordinances thank you i'm available for any questions all right thank you cow I had one person sign that to speak and this being very hard this is almost the same thing uh again the the the point of clarity is the advisement from staff was that the thirty five thousand footprint should be worded as such the intention has always been to build something like this and and again i'm not the commit committing to this design does not it doesn't bother me because this is what we want to build this is what we've designed to this point so um if if if there are questions about what we're what we're proposing I would uh I'd be happy to entertain them but again same thing here the commitment would be for self storage not self storage with gasoline sales all right thank you is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this item see and then I'll close the public hearing and bring it back before the commissioners don't have commissioners wishing to speak to this item we'll go this way first I have uh okay uh bugsy thank you mr chair it just a simple question again I just want to be clear for all of us the picture you put up that is that is not a committed element right from I don't know if this is is this one a committed element it is a committed graphic at this point that's text I was reading to you all again out of the elements I just want to be clear okay thank you uh uh commission of brine so um again this is one where the uh calculation of traffic in the uh staff report was based on a gasoline convenience store and that are you removing that commitment so this will be what 70 000 feet of storage 35 000 foot in two stories 105 105 okay um and I have a question for Bill Judge please if I understand correctly you have recommended that the access on the nc 55 they are right in right out uh correct the how will you enforce that movement the uh but I believe there's already an existing median there so the access on 55 is already right in right out on that portion there is okay yeah thank you and commissioner gush sorry bill before you sit down I almost got there uh I had the same question about traffic counts I don't know if you had a chance to update the numbers so we know what they were I mean in this case it was already recommended for approval but I think it's nice to know yeah I uh I did not for this case although I think he just said 105 000 so it's about five percent more than the other so I mean the other one was going to be 250 so you're probably looking at about 275 trips per day sure that's that commitment that works so um do you know roughly how many units there would be I mean roughly I'm not asking for it okay so the same same kind of parking scenario uh there's really all the questions I have thanks commissioner miller mr chairman if it's the appropriate time I move I have two other oh I'm sorry forgive me commissioner uh Gibbs I had just uh if you'll clarify in my mind there there will be two entrances one from 55 and one from cornwallis is that true okay I when the question was about a right in a right out on 55 I thought well that's that's going to be rather restricted but that's that's my question thank you commission about great thank you uh just an editorial comment I I think this is from my perspective I think this is a fine proposal if it meets the recommendations I'm planning to support it I will just say editorially there has to be a better way for us to get information in advance especially for the staff on the fly to have to be figuring out numbers and getting us information so just just wanted to say that I understand things are changing as we move through the process but it's it certainly is difficult for us to make good sound decisions especially when the staff already had to put a lot of work into doing analysis that that does change I know things change but I would hope in the future we would get the information we would need in advance if possible but I do plan to support this. Commissioner Freyman I just want to say thank you Mr. Busby for that comment and we did work with applicant as as much as we could in advance of the meeting and he was advised he would have to proffer these changes at the meeting because the time had passed for us to update the staff reports but thank you for that and we'll be sure if the other one comes back maybe we'll be in a better shape. Commissioner Freyman I just wanted to also echo in Mr. Bugsby I'm Commissioner Bugsby's comments that similarly to the previous case there are residents that do live near here and they're also not going to get this updated information that we're getting tonight. I'm I also think this is a I think it's a great location. I think I'm I'm cautioned on the fact that you didn't hold a neighborhood meeting and there are changes being made and how much does the people or the people or the residents or commercial whoever are the folks that are in this community how much do they know is happening right now so that's one of just the word of caution and moving forward right now with all these changes. You know Commissioner Miller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm a little troubled by this so with this project we have changed the square footage we have changed commitment as to use we've added commitment as to building elevation but or at least some design commitments with regard to building design which are a little fuzzy and amorphous. I heard him say that there would be three stories and we need to change the staff report and for that reason Mr. Chairman and members of the commission I move that we continue this to our July meeting so that we can vote on and send forward a zoning case to the city council that everybody can understand they know what they're voting on. I think that's an important thing to do. I don't even know how I would write my comments on this without being sure especially with regard to the building elevation or the design commitments that that were proffered. I'm a big believer in those by the way and have worked with developers to create them. This is a little fuzzy though and I would like to have a chance to get it just right so that we're not still doing planning when this case comes in front of the city council. I have what's that emotion? That's a motion. I have a motion on the floor. Second. Commissioner yes I guess I have to submit an alternative motion well I don't know. Bill will you come back you would you allow me to call a creed with him? Ben not Bill. Ben. He can hear you. I strongly if if that's not a neighborhood meeting involved in this I'm not going to vote against it. I mean I'm not going to vote for it. I just think anytime we develop him something in a neighborhood or near a neighborhood there needs to be a neighborhood meeting. You know if nobody shows up and one person shows up you know we would have heard from the community where you're built. I just don't vote for things unless I have that community input. 30 days what is it 30 days you reckon two cycles two cycles that's committed that you will have a neighborhood meeting. Yes I'm ready Mr. Chairman. Could it be a motion? A quick question for staff and I know you may not be able to answer it but given that the notification distance for zoning cases is 600 feet do we have any established neighborhoods within that distance? Mr. Brian I don't have the I can't tell you with the exact you know definitive answer there but there's definitely within 600 feet there's some looks like there's some residential units. I can't tell you how many but there are some within 600 feet. Thank you. Okay it's a motion by Commissioner Miller second by Commissioner Freeman that this be continued for two cycles. You have unreadiness? Just noting that there is the partners against crime for district four noted as one of the recipients of the notification I would definitely reach out to them. Okay so all in favor of the two cycle continues please raise your right hand. All those in opposition? The motion carries 12 to 1. Mr. Chair before we open the next public hearing I'd like to ask that I be recused for Murphy USA thank you. That's no problem no problem. Okay can I get a motion that Commissioner Gush be recused? So moved. Second. Motion is second that Commissioner Gush be recused from this public hearing. All those in favor let me know my show on the right hand. All those in opposition? It carries 12 to nothing. Anybody need a minute to complete their comments? I have to see Commissioner Gibbs writing. Okay the chair will now open the public hearing on Murphy USA Z-15 triple zero three five. Evening again Kyle Taylor with the Planning Department. This is owned in case Z-15 00035 Murphy USA. The applicant for this project is Greg Sistrunk with Green Boat Barrow. It is within the city's jurisdiction. The request is go from Commercial General with a Development Plan to Commercial General with a Development Plan. This is a modification of an existing development plan. The site acreage for the site area being modified is 0.82 acres but it's part of a larger development plan as a whole. The proposed use in this case is a gas station with convenience stores located within the existing parking lot of Walmart. This is the context area for this. The parcel is Walmart currently developed as Walmart and the section that they're actually going to be modifying is a small section of their parking lot. These are the requirements for the CG zoning district. If you have any questions about them let me know. This is the existing conditions page for the projects. As you can see in the shaded area they do have existing parking right located on this site that they will need to move. This is the proposed conditions page. The developer does show the proposed building and parking envelope for this project. The developer commits to 7 000 square feet of building floor area. Impervious surface maximum will not exceed 80 percent. This does exceed the district requirement of the FJB zoning district. However, it is a subset of a larger project which is what the calculation is based on and will not exceed the originally approved of larger plan of 60 percent. Their tree coverage and project boundary buffers were met with ceo 5 000 40 for this project and the building and building and parking envelope were shown graphically. There is one text commitment for this which is subject to termination by GO Durham and GO Triangle on the need to for a transit related improvements at the time of site plan submittal construct a concrete pad for a bus shelter and install a bus shelter if provided by the GO Triangle or GO Durham with a dedicated public and transit easements. This project is located within the commercial designation of the future land use map and therefore is consistent with the future land use map. These are the policies that we looked at from the comprehensive plan when evaluating this project and staff does determine that this project that this request is consistent with comprehensive plan and other adopted policies and ordinances if you have any questions I'm available. Thank you. Thank you Cal. We have one person signed up to speak. Vinny, I can't pronounce your last name. Usually I just respond if it starts with an S I just say yes that's me. Good evening members of the commission my name is Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe addresses 150 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh North Carolina. I'd like to start by saying that I will represent the applicant here. Mr. Greg Sestrunk is also in the audience and available to answer any technical questions should the commission have those but I'll be covering what Kyle went over in a staff review and then have a presentation for some of the pictures that that give you a better feel the site. He'll bear with me just one minute. I know this might go without saying but I'm just cautioning again on the use of graphics that they are committed once you present them so I just wanted to make sure. I appreciate that and these are just site photographs. That's fine just just making sure. No thank you. For everyone's edification. And thank you for that clarification. I'd also like to take this time to thank staff for working with us through this project. We went through some some technical discussions and they've been very helpful and we appreciate their patience and working with us on that. We think we've got a project that now meets the requirements and we're grateful for staff's revisions and determination that we meet the code requirements and recommend them for approval. As Kyle mentioned this is 8.2 or .82 acres excuse me within an overall approved development plan so we're changing it from commercial to commercial. It's just this very small portion of the site is going to transfer from a Walmart parking lot to a gas station with a convenience store and the bays for fuel. The land use designation is commercial. We saw earlier that they're going from commercial general with a development plan to another commercial general with a development plan and I'll address the text commitment in a little bit. The history on this site was a development plan that was approved in 2006 in case number 0540. The that approved development plan designated this area just as a parking lot and since that time we've gone forward with our application we did hold a neighborhood meeting that was very well received. We had two persons who appeared and actually spoke in favor and asked us how soon we would open. There was comments made of you know how how they drove it's quite a distance to get gasoline at the price that they believed would be available here and so there was a lot of eagerness and I understand staff received some questions from persons who received notice just a general kind of what the plans were what what the development would look like and the timing but not any opposition to our project and I would like to clarify that the park and ride that's existing there is going to be relocated not removed completely that'll be taken care of as we develop. So this is just a bird's eye view and I appreciate Grace's clarification this is not any type of commitment just an overall aerial the green square in the corner is the area that is existing parking lot and will be become the approved gas station if approved. This is a view of the Walmart parking lot looking south where you see the semis parked is the approximate area those first two semis or the approximate area of where we're talking about here. A view to the east is standing and looking back toward the parcel or the postage stamp in the parking lot and a view to the southwest so this would be standing at that existing access lane into the Walmart parking lot where you'd be looking right toward the building in blue. And we would submit at this point the project meets and satisfies you requirements we've heard that's consistent with the district and environmental traffic and infrastructure requirements as you've seen your staff report it's consistent with the development plan requirements and with the comprehensive plan and adopted policies that are detailed. And I'd like just to highlight some of those we actually meet or exceed the minimum area and lot with we meet the district standards for yards and heights as Kyle mentioned some of the tree coverage and things were covered in the existing overall plan and are not applicable here. A TIA was performed it was determined by NCDOT that no roadway improvements would be required as a result of development. It's significant here that unlike the other projects we've seen tonight because we're in an existing Walmart parking lot with ample infrastructure access lanes and traffic flow that we already have a great deal of infrastructure in place and that's why I think the NCDOT made the determination that the improvements were not required here. We've also addressed in the development plan the intensity the building and parking envelopes the buffers and I think Kyle went into a good amount there and I'm happy to answer questions on those things. Tree coverage again was not applicable because we meet it within the overall existing approved development plan. We have offered design commitments and I'll highlight of those in just a second as well as a text commitment for the transit portal and so this is just a the envelope you can see there on on your screen is just the what we'll call the postage stamp of the overall Walmart parking lot that will be affecting. Some of the design commitments and these are these are summaries the actual commitments are listed in the development plan package but essentially what we're doing is offering design commitments such that the materials we're offering and the roof style and structure that we're offering would match what's already out there. You have an existing commercial node we're trying to blend in with that as best we can so that we can offer this gas station amenity for the people in this area but still blend in and fit within that commercial node. So all of the design commitments and materials were designed with that purpose in mind. Again the the staff report highlighted that we're consistent with a comprehensive plan we're going from commercial to commercial we fit within the future land use patterns because it's in that existing commercial code. The comprehensive plan really focused on the infrastructure the capacity we're not adding new students we're not adding a significant change to the traffic pattern we're working within that existing plan as best that we can and for those reasons we submit that the the plan is consistent with Durham's code it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and again we'd like to thank staff for for shepherding us through the project and believe we have something that meets all of the the town's requirements and I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thank you. Do we have other members in the audience that wish to speak to this item? Seeing none I will close the public hearing and bring it back before the planning commission. Okay. Commissioner Freeman. Thank you. I'm sorry to catch your name. I thank you. Vinnie. Vinnie. Mindy. And anytime I see anything that says 80% impervious surface it's just an automatic question. So how is the water running off right now and how is it? The the existing plan allowed for 60% overall and if you look at just this this area of the plan it's actually at 90% because it's just a flat asphalt lot and so we're actually this addition brings down the impervious count to to closer to 80. Okay. And then I just want to know if there's any flooding in that area right now. I don't believe so but we can hear from Mr. Cistron who does handle the engineering portion. I'm Greg Cistron the applicant Greenberg Farrow we're the civil engineer architect for the project and the site says that the one of the higher points on the bargain lot and it flows to the west back towards existing inlets on the parking lot so there's no no flooding issues associated with this part so and it is the water flowing like under or underneath the park a lot or is it just all run on running off into the right existing conditions the water drain surface flows sheet flows into existing great inlets in the Walmart parking lot we're going to capture that water and put it underground and connect to a structure in the Walmart parking lot so it'll make school water be conveyed more efficiently. Thank you. Commissioner Van. Yeah I was just going to note that I think this project is a good fit for that area I'm in that area all the time live not far from there and I think it's something that's pretty necessary and doesn't see too much major impact I do like the fact that it like I said pretty much is already in confined space there considering the Walmart area is already there so I will certainly put in favor. Commissioner Whitley. Yes listen I doubt if a bus routes can come that way but it is really ridiculous that a structure that has that much income generated have a bus come to it and when it's raining they all get wet you know it's on the other corner you know and it says something about who we are as a city that we can't correct that and most of the people that catches the bus out there they have groceries and other things that they buy from that area and no one cares about how they get home you know a bus shelter on the existing one would be a real improvement. Thank you and you're speaking about the existing Walmart parking lot overall well I think we can we might be able to take care of that concern with the text commitment the way that it's written is that at site plan review if go triangle go Durham determines that transit service comes out that way we've committed to providing the pad for the bus shelter that would be provided provided by go triangle go Durham if they determine the service is extended. Yes that's the reason why I didn't ask for a commitment but but I'm at I am asking you to do something and if there's no more than talk to Walmart and the business is there that's not real that's not Durham you know it's not it gets a lot of traffic and people get on the bus specifically to go to Walmart you know and if it's raining they get wet and coming weather it's not you know I I try whenever I'm in the area and it's raining I try to take as many people as I can to where there's a shelter but there's something that's called compassion and empathy those two words you know and a friendly telephone call to whoever can make the decision is the right thing to do thank you I appreciate those comments Commissioner Huff um bike pad uh suggested that they're that y'all provide a direct pedestrian connection to this development uh from the adjacent site are you going to do that we're going to provide pedestrian access to the sidewalk the nearest sidewalk the site which will lead to the rest of the development so yes we're going to we're going to provide that. Commissioner Bryant I don't I don't have any objection to where you're putting this but I am curious as to why you are looking at the Walmart parking lot as a location for this rather than one of the out parcels great question the uh this site was chosen uh as you know parking requirements 10 15 years ago uh whoever or much more you have to provide a lot more parking spaces and we've come to come to look that the parking is just there one day two days of the year before Thanksgiving after Thanksgiving Christmas so most of the time the parking lot is just a strain on infrastructure and it goes mostly unused so uh with this project um Murphy has chosen to purchase a portion of the parking lot furthest from the building which uh circulation wise works well with the patrons visiting Walmart and it works well with the bus route so I think it's an efficient design it's using placing a new use for a use that doesn't get used much as it stands so thank you. Commissioner Miller on that same theme and while you're at the podium uh how many spaces have you got in the parking lot today? Overall for the the full glenview station uh seems seems to be it was right over 900 I believe. What do you think your average daily demand is actual use if you had to guess? 25% maybe and um in that week before Christmas do you ever actually max this parking lot out? I don't think it's maxed out very often so you know Walmart could probably attest to that but when we're going through these uh filling stations with them were they're obviously willing to give up the parking how many spaces are implicated in this? I think it's around 100 100 spaces I believe so and we are but you're going to put parking spaces back too. We are relocating the parking ride spaces that are there currently to meet the UDO the parking spaces that were built more were built than what was required during the original development plan so we're still going to meet the UDO with minimum parking spaces and and this facility itself will have parking spaces and this is not all going to be under root. No no that's right this one will have its own dedicated parking spaces um to to visit the store and of course the fueling stations where you dispense fuel that is considered a parking space it's some jurisdictions but we'll meet code. Any other comments? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr Chairman if it's the appropriate time I move that we send this case forward to the city council with a favorable recommendation. Motion by commissioner Miller second by commissioner Whitley that we send zoning case one five triple zero three five to the appropriate elect elected official with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor let it be known by showing the right hand. All those in opposition thank you announcements. What's coming up? We're going to have it looks like we're going to have two plan amendment cases next month and one two three four four zoning cases and in addition to the two we'll have to add the two that were deferred from this month to next month so we're going to have a full plate. Okay my both the rocks for cases will have the east end land use analysis will come in the golden belt historic district case will be coming in the east end land use analysis zoning map change the environmental I mean excuse me the evaluation and assessment report we coming in the Farrington Place at South Point which is a zoning case no no plan amendment Burini drive assemblage will be coming in these are tentative this is what we think you'll be seeing and a case from most high rent up in northern part of the county zoning case. Okay the other thing we have four commissioners whose terms is in the next month commissioner Bugsby, commissioner Gibbs, commissioner Huff and commissioner Winder's terms are all in the next month and then we have one vacancy that's being filled do we have any I have not heard of any updates but I do know that the positions have been advertised I received a notice to that effect the city has made a point. Did you get noticed? Okay well they haven't sent the notice to us yet that they've actually been made so we'll get it yeah well sometimes we are How about the county have they did anything? I'll find out about the county but I did not realize the city had taken action I apologize it hadn't been forwarded to me yet so I'll look into that. Mr. Sherwood yes does this mean that we can sit in on the next meeting? Yeah I mean your term is not up until the end of next month just June 30k okay and then you can come to month after that and month after that and month after that that's fine we don't have a problem just be safe. Any other announcements on new business Beckett I'm sorry commissioner Winder could you give us an update on the on the work program what is it how is it progressing so the work program is slated to go to city council I believe June 20th. If nothing else the chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. All those in favor stand up and leave.